HomeMy WebLinkAboutBristol Bay Regional Power Plan Interim Feasibility Assessment Volume 3 - Appendices 1982BRISTOL 8;A Y
REGIONAL. POW'ER PLAN
DEI AILE[) FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
INTERIM FEASIBILITY
ASSESSMENT
VOLUME 3 -APIJENDICES
J~JL.Y 1982
L~ Stone &: Webst,er EngineE:ldn~1 Corporation
GENERAL OUTLINE
BRISTOL BAY REGIONAL POWER PLAN
DETAILED FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
INTERIM FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT
VOLUME 1 -REPORT
VOLUME 2 -APPENDICES
VOLUME 3 -
VOLUME 4 -
APPENDIX A -ENGINEERING/TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
A.l ENERGY NEEDS
A.2 HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECTS
A.3 DIESEL POWER
A.4 WASTE HEAT RECOVERY
A.5 ENERGY CONSERVATION
A.6 WIND ENERGY
A.7 POWER TRANSMISSION
A.B FOSSIL-FUEL ALTERNATIVES
A.9 ORGANIC RANKINE CYCLE
A.l0 LOAD MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B -ENERGY SUPPLY TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
APPENDIX C -ENERGY DEMAND FORCAST
APPENDICES
APPENDIX D -WIND ENERGY ANALYSIS
APPENDIX E -GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES -TAZIMINA RIVER
APPENDIX F -GEOTECHNICAL STUDY -NEWHALEN RIVER
APPENDICES
APPENDIX G -ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
APPENDIX H -NEWHALEN SMOLT AND FRY STUDIES
APPENDIX I -HYDROLOGIC EVALUATIONS -TAZIMINA RIVER
...
.... ,.
ill,· •
....
...
APPENDIX D
WIND ENERGY ANALYSIS
=======--------.... _---------=-------..
---' -------
--_.' _ .. _ .. _._----_ ... _._._ ... ------
----------
Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan
WIND ENERGY ANALYSIS
FINAL REPORT _ .. ---...... -._._--. _.--.--.--.' 1....-.--._.__ _ _-... -. '-.. -.'
~-----
---'''~IM~~~ ~ ......•... ~
PREPARED BY
WIND 'SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, INC.
Bristol Bay Regional Power Plan
WIND ENERGY ANALYSIS
FINAL REPORT
FEBRUARY, 1982
PREPARED UNDER CONTRACT FOR
STONE & WEBSTER·
ENGINEERING CORPORATION
FOR THE
ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY
BY WIND SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, INC.
1551 EAST TUDOR RD.. ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99507
Mark Newell, .Editor
T ABLE OF OF CONTENTS
Section One: Wind Resource Assessment
1.1 Power in the Wind •
1.2 Battelle Assessment
1.3 The Wind Resource •
1.4 Data Availability •
Section Two: Site Identification
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Coastal Sites
2.3 Naknek to Bruin Bay Corridor
2.4 Inland Areas
2.5 Conclusions .
Section Three: Wind Generation Equipment
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Wind Turbine Size
3.3 Axis of Rotation
3.4 Generator Type
3.5 Wind Generator Controls.
3.6 Conclusions and Recommendations
Section Four: Storage, Monitoring & Systems Integration
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Storage Apparatus .
4.3 Monitoring Equipment .
4.4 Systems Integration
4.5 Conclusions and Recommendations
• 1
• 2
· 7
10
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 1
4
• 18
• 21
• 25
• 27
· 1
· 2
· 7
· 14
• 17
Section Five: Power Production Analysis
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Methodology
5.3 Power Production
5.4 Conclusions & Recommendations.
Section Six: Restraints Identification
6.1 Assessment of Probable Environmental
Inpacts
6.2 Regulatory Restraints
6.3 Regional Restraints
6.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
Section Seven: Facility Schedule
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Commercial Availability
7.3 Facility Schedule.
Section Eight: Economic Analysis
8.1 Installed Cost
8.2 Power Production Cost Comparison
8.3 Conclusions and Recommendations
Appendix A: Wind Data
Appendix B: Bristol Bay Wind Generators
Bibliography
· 1
• 2
• 8
• 15
•
· ·
·
· ·
1
12
12
13
1
2
5
1
2
· 4
~
~
~
~
~
~
•
~
1.
WIND RESOURCE
ASSESSMENT
The Br istol Bay area shows a
very strong wind resource
availability. The available data is
however very sparse and poor in
quality. Maps were developed from
the extrapolated data showing the
wind power density for the region and
a certainty rating was given to each
quarter section. The available data
indicates the resource is strong
enough to justify an indepth
monitoring program to accurately
quantify it for specific locations.
1. 1 Power in the Wind
Traditionally the area of distribution of the wind
resource has been described by isopliths of wind speed.
However, in defining the wind resource for use in estimating
the potential output from wind machines, a more useful measure
is wind power density, or the power per unit of cross-
sectional area of the wind stream.
The power in the wind can be derived from classic
momentum theory where P represents power, m is the mass in the
moving air, and V is the velocity or speed of the wind.
Therefore:
P = 1/2 III v 2
Mass is described by air density (p), the area through which
the wind passes (A), and its speed (V).
III = P AV
Substituting into the equation for Power
P = 1/2 p AV 3
P = 1/2 p V3
X
Where P equals the power density. A
This derivation illustrates the important influence of
wind speed. Power is a cubic function of wind speed. A
doubling of wind speed increases wind power eight times.
Slight changes in wind speed produce a corresponding large
change in power. For example, increasing wind speed one mph
produces a 30% increase in the power available.
1
1.2 Battelle Assessment
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories contracted the
Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDe) at
the University of Alaska to describe the data available on the
Alask a wind r esour ce and to map the state IS wind powe r
potential. The results of the work for the Bristol Bay area
are presented in Figure 1.1 and 1.2 (attached).
Note that the map presents wind power in the form of wind
power classes. Each class represents the range of wind power
likely to be found at well exposed sites. These classes are
approximations of the areal distribution of wind power and the
demarcation between them should not be construed to represent
def ini te boundar ies.
Where the data was available, power density was based on
the mean temperature, mean pressure (p), and elevation at the
station where the wind data was recorded.
Because frictional effects of obstructions at the surface
retard wind flow near the ground, anemometer height during the
period of record was also taken into account. Wind power was
adjusted to the 10 meter and 50 meter heights using the 1/7
power law:
That is, the increase in wind speed with height above the
ground is the ratio of the new height (H) to the original
height (Ho) raised to the 1/7 power. This is a conservative
estimate of the increase in wind speed with height.
2
pi>
o·
5 a:>
WIND
0(1)
CD -
POWER
CLASS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
WIND POWER
DENSITY
WATTS/M2
100
150
200
250
300
400
1000
o
o
CD -
2
g
CD
10 -o
CD
10 -
I
LEKNAGIK
/
I
LLINGHAM
I
o ....
10 -
o
CD
10
4
o
10
10 -
I
( ,_/
ALASKA
IWSEI
•• FIG. 1;1
~ ________________ ~ __________ ~======~~3
o
C')
10 ...
...
10 ... IWSEI
•• FIG. 1.2
600~~~t-----+ _____ -+ ____ ~~~ __ . __ ._~ ______ . __ .L-____ l-____ -b~~---~----+-~~~
• KOLIGANEK
WIND DATA CERTAINTY
DLOW-INTERMEDIATE DEGREE
L ittl e or no data exi sts in or near the cell, but
the small vcriability of the resource and the low
complexity I·f the terrain suggest that the wind
resource ~lll not differ substantially from the
resourCC'ln nearby areas with data.
1iii!!I!!!~ HIGH-INTERMEDIATE DEGREE
There is limited wind data in the vicinity of
tile cell) but the low complexity of terrain and
the small mesoscale variability of the resource
indicate little departure from the wind resource
in nearby areas with data.
4L-________________________ ~~~--~------~~~~------~---------------------------------------J
Where data was not summarized into a wind speed frequency
distribution, AEIDC assumed a Weibull distribution of wind
speeds where:
-
(i) = 1. 07 P v 3
In these cases, the average annual wind speed and monthly
average wind speeds were found by examining only one year of
data. This limited sample coupled with use of the Weibull
distribution could greatly underestimate the power in the
wind.
In mountainous areas the estimates are based on the
correlation between mountaintop wind speeds and free air wind
speeds. AEIDC extrapolated upper air data to lower
elevations, e.g., mountain crests-from the mean scaler wind
and use of a Rayleigh wind speed distribution to produce a
power estimate. To account for frictional effects near the
surface, this extrapolated free-air wind speed was reduced by
two-thirds for power at 10 meters, and one-third for power at
50 meters.
The power classes of Figure 1.1 depend upon the
subjective integration of several factors: quantitative wind
data, qualitative indicators of wind speed or power, the
character of exposed sites in various terrain, and familiarity
with mesoscale as well as microscale meteor logical conditions,
climatology and topography. Therefore, the abundance and
quality of the data, the complexity of terrain; and the
geographical variability of the resource together determine
the degree of certainty that can be placed on the power
classes shown on Figure 1.1.
5
The Certainty Rating ranges from a low of one to a high
of four. Figure 1.2 illustrates the certainty rating ascribed
to the Bristol Bay region. Much of the study area has a low
to intermediate degree of certainty because:
-little or no data exists, but there is little
variability in the wind resource and the terrain
is simple, or
-limited data exists, but the terrain is highly
complex or the mesoscale variability of the wind
resource is large.
There is little data available over much of the study
area; fortunately though, the terrain within the central
portion (Dillingham -Koliganek -Naknek -Newhalen) is not
complex, as it is composed of a large lowland plain.
e
1.3 The Wind Resource
The few recording stations within the study area required
that AEIDC infer much of the wind resource from qualitative
indicators of wind power. The most widely used technique
depends on certain combinations of topographical and
meteorological conditionsi one of which is a gap or pass in
areas of frequent strong pressure gradients. Another
geographic feature suited to a good wind resource is a large
plain or valley with persistent strong downslope winds
associated with strong pressure gradients. Both features are
found in a broad corridor from Naknek to Iliamna Lake to
Kamishak Bay. Based on limited data from King Salmon, Iliamna
and Bruin Bay this corridor varies from a class 4 to 5 in the
west to a class 7 in the east. One year of unsummarized data
from Bruin Bay produced an annual average wind power of over
1300 watts/m 2 •
The western coastal areas around Cape Newenham and
Platinum show a very strong resource which is most likely
indicative of the Nushagak Peninsula. Similarly, the western
coastal sites along the Alaskan Peninsula of Port Heiden and
Pilot Point produced a power class from 5 to 7 which is
supportive of a good resource in Egegik. Eastern coastal
sites along the Kamishak Bay also have good potential with the
Shelikof Strait ranging from 5 to 6.
Inland sites north of Dillingham and Iliamna Lake are
less promising in comparison to coastal sites and those along
the Naknek-Bruin Bay corridor.
7
Data from 9 stations in the Bristol Bay study area is
available as shown below. Data from five stations is in
digitized and summarized form. Three stations have only
summarized data, and there is one station with only
unsummarized data.
WIND DATA AVAILABLE FOR
BRISTOL BAY REGION
1) Bruin Bay-unsummarized data
2) Cape Newenham-digitized & summarized data
3) Dillingham-summarized data
4) Iliamna-digitized & summarized data
5) King Salmon-digitized & summarized data
6) Pilot Point-digitized & summarized data
7) Port Heiden-digitized & summarized data
8) Platinum-summarized data
9) Tanaliam Point-summarized data
8
The following describes the terrain surrounding the recording
station at Cape Newenham at the extreme western end of the
study area, at Iliamna near the center of the study area, and
at King Salmon in the south-central portion of the study area.
FIGURE 1.4 SITE DESCRIPTION
~ Newenham
Cape Newenham is on a rugged point of land at the
northwest end of Bristol Bay. It is sheltered on the
east, south and west by a ridge that extends to more
than 610 m. It is open to the northwest, and there is
a saddleback in the ridge to the southeast. The
terrain slopes steeply upward toward the southeast in
the vicinity of the station. During the nine-year
period of record used in the summary, there was an
average of 22 observations per day.
Iliamna
Iliamna is located near the north shore of Iliamna
Lake along the Newhalen River, which connects Lake
Clark to Iliamna Lake. The area immediately
surrounding the station is relatively level and covered
with muskeg, and slopes gently southward to the lake.
To the northeast and northwest on both sides of the
Newhallen River there are peaks over 600 m within 15 km
of the station. This station is exposed to winds from
Cook Inlet across the lake from the east-southeast and
also from the north from the direction of Lake Clark.
During the 16-year summary used in this analysis there
were 24 observations per day.
Kin.g Salmon
King Salmon is located about half a kilometer
(one-fourth mile) from the Naknek River, 29 km inland
from the shores of Kvichak Bay at the east end of
Bristol Bay. The terrain surrounding the station is
gently rolling, barren tundra for 50 to 100 km in the
north through east to south-southwest. Some 100 km to
the east are the mountains of the Aleutian Range with
peaks to more than 2,260 m. During the summary period
used in this analysis, there were eight observations
per day digitized.
9
1.4 Data Availability
In Appendix A is a listing in tabular form of the wind
speed and power data from eight of the stations within the
project area. Where possible, the average annual wind speed
is given at the anemometer height. For the three stations
used in the AEIDC assessment, the average wind speeds are
extrapolated to a height of 10 meters and 50 meters based on
the anemometer history. AEIDC also calculated the annual
average wind power available at the anemometer's height, at 10
meters, and at 50 meters, using the distribution of wind
speeds recorded at the site.
The annual average wind speed at two additional stations
was found, but was not extrapolated to 10 meters nor 50 meters
because the history of the anemometer is unknown. Similarly,
the wind summaries (frequency distributions) for seven
stations were not used to calculate power density in the
accompanying table.
The certainty of the resources over most of the project
area is low, with a Certainty Rating of 2 as a result of the
lack of data. There are only a few cells over the project
area with a rating of 3. These cells lie over data points such
as Platinum, Dillingham, King Salmon, Pilot Point and Port
Heiden.
10
There is a need to confirm the resource along the Naknek
-Bru in Bay cor r idor. Add i tional data f rom sever al stations
along this corridor would define a resource that could fit
neatly into a power generator scheme for the Dillingham,
Naknek, and Iliamna areas. .The existing one year unsummarized
data for Bruin Bay is insufficient to characterize the
resource. This is particularly important when considering a
resource of this apparent magnitude.
Because of the seasonal variations in the wind resource
and seasonal power needs for this area, a correlation needs to
be drawn between wind power availability and demand for
energy. The type of data needed for this level of analysis
would require a microprocessor-based data collection system.
At this writing, the Alaska Power Administration has let
a contract to collect data in the King Salmon area to
determine prospects for wind farming. This information should
be integrated into a master plan as soon as it is available.
11
2.
SITE
IDENTIFICA TION
The Bristol Bay region in general
shows a very high wind power density.
This conclusion is based, however, on
a limited number of data points that
have a low degree of certainty
associated with them. Site selection
is therefore based considerably on
subjective judgement, and this should
be kept in mind. The King Salmon
area shows the best potential for
current development with Egegik
having an equally strong resource.
The presence of a fair number of
windgenerators in the Bristol Bay
area (see Appendix B) helps
substantiate the wind power
availability.
2. 1 Introduction
Using the wind data found in Appendix A and extrapolating
to the study villages, the parameter wind power density is
used to compare the attractiveness of each site. The wind
power density is expressed in watts of power available in the
wind per square meter of blade area intersecting it. The
following table is a standard classification for wind sites:
TABLE 2.1 CLASSES OF WIND POWER DENSITY
10 m (33 ft)
Wind
Power
Class
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Wind Power
Density
watt/m2
100
150
200
250
300
400
1000
Speed
mph
9 .8
11. 5
12.5
13 .4
14.3
15 .7
21 .1
50 m (164 ft)
Wind Power
Density
watts/m2
200
300
400
500
600
800
2000
Speed
mph
12.5
14.3
15 .7
16.8
17 .9
19 .7
26.6
2.2 Coastal Sites
A very strong resource is indicated along the entire
Bristol Bay coastline with the best sites being Egegik and
King Salmon (Wind Power Class 5). Naknek & South Naknek
(Class 4 ) are good second choices with Ekuk, Clarks Point,
Levelock, Portage Creek and Manokotak (Class 3) also showing a
coastal influence. On the Shelikof Strait side of the
Peninsula, Kamishak Bay (Class 7) exhibits a resource which,
if proven to be persistent, could supply power for a major
part of the region. Dillingham (Class 2) has some coastal
influence but would require more data to be a strong
contender.
King Salmon has some of the best recorded wind data to
work from, with the winter months providing the most
consistent winds. From November to March the diurnal
variation is almost imperceptible, yet during the summer
months the variance is a maximum of only about two miles per
hour from the average. King Salmon, being typical of the
coastal sites, shows a fairly reliable wind resource from year
to yeaI with very directional winds.
2
..
2.3 Naknek to Bruin Bay Corridor
The rei s d a tat 0 sup po r t the ex i s ten ceo f a win d cor rid 0 r
from Kamishak Bay through Lake Iliamna following the Kvichak
River valley out to the Bay. This corridor yields a good
resource at Igiugig (Class 4). The winds through this
corridor are not as consistent as the coastal winds. They
exhibit a seasonal characteristic with the low wind month
being July.
Even though Iliamna and Nondalton show a low wind power
(class 2) this does not mean there isn't much wind there. On
the contrary, the area is known for high wind storms; however,
the gusty storms do not make for optimal wind turbine
performance. The. presence of several windgenerator systems
(see photos-Appendix B) in the corridor testifies more to the
high cost of diesel fuel and the desire for independence than
to a wind resource strong enough for utility consideration.
Additionally, none of the windgenerator owners had documented
with a recording anemometer the winds at their sites, nor was
any data on kilowatt-hours produced during a finite time
period available. working backwards from fuel savings on the
diesel generator set/battery/windgenerator systems does show a
wind resource substantial enough to make the windgenerator
competitive (generally considered to be 12 mph annual
average) •
3
2.4 Inland Areas
Villages which show a doubtful potential are located away
from the corridor and further inland. These villages are:
A Ie k nag i k , E k wok, New Sku yah 0 k , and K 0 I i g a n"e k ( C I ass 2).
There is however very little data to support this assumption.
Dillingham is located in a class 2 zone, yet the winds on
the waterfront are typically higher than the winds at the
airport (where the anemometer is ). Windmill Hill in
Dillingham got its' name from the water-pumper windmills which
operated there in the pre-Nushagak Electric Association days.
There have been several wind chargers in the city and
outskirts (see photo in Appendix B ) as well as a battery
charging unit on top of Juant Mountain for the television
repeater station (see correspondence in Appendix B). Again,
there is not any monitoring of winds or power output from
these machines, but there is reason to believe that the
resource is present and dependent on localized climatology and
terrain.
It is also important to consider the channeling effect of
mountain passes which could considerably enhance the power
available in the inland areas. Such site specific wind
information does not exist in this region, and as such leaves
open the possibility that as transmission line routes are
chosen, very windy terrain could be crossed. This is
especially true when the consideration of routes excludes the
lowlands and the lines are confined to the high exposed
ground.
4
ft
...
2.5 Conclusion
Before an area can be further screened for wind power
potential, the local terrain must be considered.
Additionally, land use, ownership, proximity to end use, and
soil conditions would need investigtion. Using the available
data as a basis for ranking of candidate sites for development
of a utility scale program, the following table is presented:
TABLE 2.2 WIND POWER POTENTIAL RANKING
Sit e
1) Bruin Bay
2 ) King Salmon
3 ) Egegik
4) Naknek + South Naknek
5 ) Igiugig
6 ) Levelock
Newhallen
Portage Creek
Clark's Point
7 ) Manokotak
8 ) Dillingham
9 ) Iliamna
10) Nondalton
11 ) Aleknagik
Ekwok
12 ) Koliganek
5
Wind Power Class
7
5
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.5.1 Best Sites for Current Development
From the preceeding table, Bruin Bay can be
eliminated because of its distance from population
centers and lack of long term data to confirm the
resource. King Salmon and Egegik thus appear to be the
best sites for a wind turbine array based on the
available information.
2.5.2 Best Sites for Future Development
The Naknek/South Naknek area as well as Igiugig
would be logical choices for future wind-farming
possibilities. Of the two, the Naknek resource is more
conducive to wind machine survival, being under a
steadier and more consistent coastal influence.
6
...
..
..
3.
WIND
GENERATION
EQUIPMENT
For purposes of this study,
windgenerators have been classified
in three different ways: turbine
diameter (size), axis of rotation and
type of gene rat 0 r • The fir st
grouping by size defines small,
medium, and large turbines, with the
smaller machines being the most
commercially available and test~d.
Vertical versus horizontal axis
turbines are discussed with key
advantages and drawbacks being
pointed out. Four different types of
generation are presented: induction-
type units being most common,
synchronous generators being found on
larger units, and synchronous and
asynchronous inverters associated
with direct-current generators.
Typical controls found on most
turbines are treated generically;
with the conclusions and
recommendations on generator types
and configurations for Bristol Bay
completing the section.
3. 1 Introduction
There are approximately 50 manufacturers of
windgenerators in the United States today and an equal number
overseas·. These machines range from experimental first
generation units to well-proven production models with several
years of operating experience.
Considering the wide variability in size, configuration
and output characteristics, there is a need to use a
methodology that reduces these variables to a single parameter
that reflects potential output capability. This parameter is
rotor swept area.
The amount of energy intercepted by a wind turbine and
converted to useable energy is primarily dependent upon swept
area; that is, the area of the windstream intercepted by the
wind turbine. Once the swept area is defined, potential
output can be calculated by assuming an overall operating
efficiency representative of today's high speed wind turbines.
In equation form:
i x A x % efficiency = Mean Power Output
where the power density (i) is found from AEIDC's resource
assessment, and (A) is the swept area. Mean Power Output (MPO)
is a measure of the average power output of the turbine
independent of the generator size. The Mean Power Output can
be used to produce an average energy output over any time
period. The most often used is Annual Energy Output, which
describes the average amount of energy a wind turbine will
annually produce.
Example: A conventional wind turbine uses a rotor 10
meters in diameter and is to be sited near
King Salmon where the power density is 200
W/m2 at a 10 meter height.
Solution: The swept area of a conventional wind turbine
is found from the area of the circle swept by
the rotor.
200 W/m2 x 80 m2 x 25' = Mean Power Output
4.000 W =
4kW =
If we wanted the Annual Energy Output we only
need to include the number of hours we expect
the turbine to operate annually.
MPO x 7,000 hrs/yr = AEO
4 kW x 7.000 hrs/yr = 28.000 kWh/yr.
As mentioned previously, wind speed and, hence, power
increases with height above the ground. (The wind power map
shown in Figure 1.1) is based on the wind power at 10 meters
above the ground. Wind turbines will normally be erected on
towers greater that 10 meters in height. Most small machines
will use 60 foot towers at a minumum. Consequently, it will
be necessary to increase the MPO or Annual Energy Output
estimates to incorporate the increased power available at 60
or more feet above the ground.
2
...
This formula will be used to extrapolate the available
wind power to various tower heights. (as shown in the
following table).
TABLE 3.1 WIND POWER AT NOMINAL TOWER HEIGHTS
Power Class Power 60 ft. 80 ft. 200 ft.
W/m2
1 100 130 150 220
2 150 195 220 330
3 200 260 300 440
4 250 325 370 545
5 300 390 440 655
6 450 580 660 980
7 1.000 1.300 1.500 2.180
3
3.2 Wind Turbine Size
Reflecting conventional power plant design, wind
generators have commonly been referred to by the size of their
generators. Because wind speed varies widely, it is
necessary to also define a wind speed at which the wind
turbine's generator reaches its rated capacity. There is no
standard rated wind speed and, as a result, generator size is
a poor indicator of either the Mean Power Output or the Annual
Energy Output.
The methodology chosen for this analysis uses rotor
diameter to define machine size. The following table
illustrates some comparison between rotor diameter, kW
capacity, and machine size.
TABLE 3.2 NOMINAL kW CAPACITIES FOR ROTOR DIAMETERS
KW Capacity· Rotor Diameter
Small 0-50 0-15 meters
Medium 50-1000 25-75 meters
Large 1000-5000 75+ meters
.Rated at 30 mph
4
II'
...
••
"',
3.2.1 Small Machines
All wind turbines installed in Alaska to date have been
from the small machine class. They can be broken down further
into categories based on use.
TABLE 3.3 SMALL TURBINE kW CAPACITIES
KW Capacity. Rotor Diameter
Cabin Size 0-1 2 - 3 meter
Homestead Size 1 -10 3 -10 meter
Village Size 10 -SO 10 -15 meter
.Rated at 30 mph
Wind generators in these sizes are the most readily
available and are the most commercially developed.
5
2000 r-----r---~-lIIIIII"'I ... :__...,
~
=1500~--r--~~~--~"
aI
~ .....
~ 1000 I-----+---.+-----i------t
o
Il:
W
~ 500r---r~-+_-~--~ o
Q.
10 20 30 40
WIND SPEEO(mph)
e
4 Meter Turbine
GENERATOR TYPE &
INTERFACE MODE
This unit uses a 115 VAC
brushless induction gener-
ator for direct utility
intertie. .
CONTROLS
The unit requires a utility
derived reference to:
1. Operate.
2. Develop a 60 hz output.
A tower mounted anemometer
is used to monitor wind
vel oc i ty and con t rol the
operating modes. Cut-in is
at 10 mph, cut-out at 40
mph.
OPERATION/SAFETY
The unit will not operate
unless a ut il i ty reference
is present. If utility
power is lost, the unit
disconnects from the
utility line and an
electro-hydraulic brake is
applied, stopping the
rotor.
Emergency stop due to a
power train failure is
performed by the automatic
deployment of spring loaded
centrifugally actuated ro-
tor tip-flaps.
, ..
6 Meter Turbine
GENERATOR TYPE &
INTERFACE MODE
A 230 VAC, 60 hz induction
motor/generator is used to
provide a direct utility
intertie.
CONTROLS
The unit requires a utility
derived reference to:
1. Operate.
2. Develop a 60 hz output.
A tower-mounted anemometer
is used to monitor wind
velocity and control the
operating modes (cut-in at
8.5, cut-out at 45 mph).
OPERATION/SAFETY
The unit will not operate:
1. Unless the utility
reference is present
or,
2. When windspeed is less
than 8.5 mph or
greater than 45 mph.
If utility power is lost,
the unit disconnects from
the grid and an electro-
hydraulic brake is
engaged.
Emergency stop due to over
speed (or brake engage-
ment) is performed by the
automatic deployment of
rotor tip brakes (aerody-
namic). The deployment of
the tip brakes is also
enabled by a power-train
failure.
f------------------------"
POWER PROFILE 5,...--_--...,...--..,....---,,----,
ut ~ 3 ~-~-I-#-__ I-----+~-=i
7
5 o
ffi 2~--~---.~----~--~r----;
~ o
0..
1~-----i-#----+----+---1------I
O~~~--~---~-~~-~ o 10 20 30 40
WIND SPEED (mph)
50
7 Meter Turbine
GENERATOR TYPE &
INTERFACE MODE
Power is developed by a 3-
phase alternator whose
output is rectified and
processed by a synchronous
inverter. The output is
in the form of "pulses n of
energy timed to occur
I within the sine wave enve-
lope. A "leading" power
factor is claimed for the
. synchronous unit.
CONTROLS
The centrifugally operated
governor at the propeller
hub maintains rpm rates
under normal conditions.
The alternator output is
controlled through its
field windings whose exci-
tation is monitored and
adjusted by the synchro-
nous inverter circuitry.
High winds are overcome
through the use of an
offset tail-vane that
turns the rotor out of the
wind.
OPERATION/SAFETY
The synchronous inverter
will disengage itself from
the utility should:
1. The windgenerator's
output drop below pre-
set limits or,
2. The utility line
fails.
The unit also has a manu-
ally engaged friction
brake for routine service
or emergency shutdown.
8
... '
...
~, ,
POWER PROFILE
10r---~----'---~~--~--~~
8 r----+~--+---~----~~--~
• 10 15 20 25
WIND SPEED (mph)
10 Meter Turbine
GENERATOR TYPE &
INTERFACE MODE
This unit utilizes an
induction motor/generator
to provide 440/220VAC 1-3
phase power directly to the
utility.
CONTROLS
Rotor rpm is maintained by
the aerodynamic/mechanical
properties of the rotor
design. The blades automa-
tically stall in high winds
to prevent overloading of
the generator.
OPERATION/SAFETY
The un i t has wi thst ood
winds in excess of 85 mph
and specifications claim
that it will operate at
windspeeds of 100 mph.
A unique tower design
allows the entire unit to
be "tilted" providing
ground level maintenance on
the windgenerator.
......
~ ~ ....
I-
:J
Q.
I-
:J
0
a: w
~
0
Q.
40
30
20
10
0
POWER PROFILE
Cut-In Rated Cut-Out
Q-
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
WIND SPEED (mph)
9
3.2.2 Medium Machines
No units in this size range have been installed in
Alaska. Several units have been installed in the lower 48 and
in Canada. There are only a handful of manufactures presently
building machines of this size and none are in mass
production. However, a considerable number of hours have been
logged on these machines and data on reliability and
performance is available through the Department of Energy's
MOD-OA program and tests done by WTG systems.
TABLE 3.4 MEDIUM TURBINE CAPACITIES
Manufacturer KW Capacity* Rotor Diameter
WTG Systems 200 25 meter
DAF 230 37 x 24 meter
Alcoa 300-500 38 x 27 meter
Westinghouse 200 38 meter
Voland 250 28 meter
*Rated at 30 mph
10
...
.""
,,;!
16.5 Meter Turbine
GENERATOR TYPE &
INTERFACE MODE
Induction 240/480 3-phase
60 hz.
CONTROLS
N/A
OPERATION/SAFETY
N/A
11
24.4 Meter Turbine
GENERATOR TYPE &
INTERFACE MODE
This model uses an induc-
tiongenerator of 55 KW
capacity delivering 3-
phase power at 480 VA</60
hz.
The interface is direct
utili ty inter tie.
CONTROLS
An anemometer monitoring
average w indspeed deter-
mines the cut-in and cut-
out conditions.
OPERATION/SAFETY
The system is operated
hydraulically and requires
utility power to begin
operation. A centrifugally
operated switch on the
rotor shaft will cause a
loss of hydraulic pressure,
shutting down the system
and applying the brake.
50
.... 40
~
~
I-30
~
Q.
l-S 20
a: w
~ 10
Q.
o
12
...
...
POWER PROFILE
~ ~
~ It'
~ " I
~ V
~ V
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
WIND . SPEED (mph)
.. "
24.5 Meter Turbine
GENERATOR TYPE &
INTERFACE MODE
This unit has a 200 KW
(continuous rated) syn-
chronous generator pro-
viding power at 240/480
VAC 60 hz. The system is
designed to operate either
as a utility intertie or
as a stand alone source of
utility grade power.
CONTROLS
The unit utilizes a micro-
processor based system for
control and also provides
data collection and acqui-
sition as well as remote
control and status display
functions.
OPERATION/SAFETY
.....
POWER PROFILE
300~----~--~----~----~--~~~~
260
The microprocessor will
allow the windgenerator to
come up to synchronous
speed and compares its
output with the utility
reference. When they are
within 1% the main
contactor is enabled. The
relationship between wind-
generator output and
utility power is cantin-
uously monitored and
synchronization is main-
tained by adj usting the
rotor tip flaps and/or
phasing in auxiliary
"dummy" loads.
~ 200
.IC -!;
a.
§ 150
a: w
~ 100
0 a.
50
0
0 10 15 20 25 30 35
WIND SPEED (mph)
13
28 Meter Turbine
GENERATOR TYPE &
INTERFACE MODE
This unit has two asyn-
chronous generato~s rated
at 265 and 58 KW that pro-
duce power at 480 VAe ,
SO/60hz. The unit is
designed for direct util-
i ty intertie.
CONTROLS
N/A
OPERATION/SAFETY
The blade pitch is used to
maintain synchronous speed
as well as for emergency
overspeed shutdown.
The smaller capacity gen-
erator operates at low
wind speeds while the
larger unit comes on-line
during periods of higher
winds.
14
300
~ 250
~
.II!
--200
~
::l
Go S 150
o
ffi 100
~ o
Go
50
o
...
POWER PROFILE
Rate<b
~ c
I Cut-Ou
I
J
,
/
Cut-'21 ,
o 10 20 30 40
WIND SPEED (mph)
.. '
----------------I --------
500
.....
~
~ 400
~ i § 300
a: w 200
~ o
C1. 100
o
---------~.
--------
/
-"""1----I
POWER PROFILE
~ ~ cg Out Rated
I
I
j
,
~~t-In
o 10 20 30 40 50 60
WIND SPEED (mph)
15
38 Meter Turbine
GENERATOR TYPE &
INTERFACE MODE
This unit uses either
induction or synchronous
generators rated at 560
and 625 KVA respectively.
The output is at a voltage
of 4160 VAC, 3-phase 60hz.
This unit is designed for
direct utility interface.
CONTROLS
System operation is con-
trolled via a micropro-
cessor that constantly
monitors all operating
parameters and maintains
rotor rpm, synchroniza-
tion, yaw, safety shut-
down, and also allows
remote control and remote
system status reporting.
OPERATION SAFETY
Normal operation is
initialized when wind
speed reaches 14.3 mph.
The unit is "motored" to
synchronous speed and when
synchronization is esta-
blished the unit is placed
"on-line". Normal shut-
down includes reducing the
unit's power output to
nearly zero; followed by
the feathering of the
rotor as brakes are
applied.
Emergency shutdown circui-
try separate from the main
controller disables the
unit immediately upon re-
ceipt of an abnormal
condition; Le., over-
speed, or microprocessor
failure.
3~2.3 Large Machines
Several manufacturing and aerospace firms have entered
the large wind turbine market. Most of these firms efforts
were tailored to the U.S. Department of Energy's development
program. Because of Washington's budget cutting fever the
large machine program has been sharply curtailed. Several
machines are in operation but no more are planned in the
public sector. Private wind farm developers have contracted
with two of the manufacturers for megawatt (MW) size machines.
However, delivery on these orders is speculative at present.
The majority of wind farm developers in the lower 48 will
be using machines in the small to medium size range because
they feel the technology is more well developed and the
technical problems remaining are not insoluable. Large wind
machines, on the other hand, should still be considered
experimental. Economies of scale are gained by the large
machines when multiple units are produced. These machines
should not necessarily be disregarded, but should be
considered at the time they are proven reliable and
production costs are pinned down.
TABLE 3.5 LARGE TURBINE CAPACITIES
Manufacturer MW Capacity * Rotor Diameter
Hamilton Standard 4 110 meters
Boeing Engineering + Construction 2.5 91 meters
General Electric 1 61 meters
*Rated at 30 mph
16
...
94.7 Meter Turbine
GENERATOR TYPE &
INTERFACE MODES
This unit utilizes a 2.5
megawatt synchronous type
generator producing power
at 12.5 KV, 60 hz.
CONTROLS
A microprocessor maintains
operation of the unit.
Remote status, alarm, and
control functions are also
utilized.
OPERATION/SAFETY
The unit will produce
power at windspeeds be-
tween 14 and 45 mph.
The microprocessor will
immediately shut down the
unit should the windgener-
ator suffer damage or
begin to malfunction.
i as
~
3.2
& 2.4
j
5 a.. 1.6
5 o
ffi 0.8
== o a..
o
17
POWER PROFILE
Cut-In Rated Cut-Out
Q Q Q
•
I
,
/ ,
o 8 16 24 32 40 48
WIND SPEED (mph)
3.3 Axis of Rotation
wind turbine rotors spin about either a horizontal or
vertical axis. Conventional wind turbines such as the Dutch
windmill are known as Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines (HAWT).
Darrieus turbines, on the other hand, rotate about a vertical
axis and are known as Vertical Axis Wind Turbines (VAWT).
FIGURE 3. AXIS OF ROTATION
I( 0 " I
H
1
VERTICAL AXIS TURBINE
Oarrleu8 Rotor
I( 0 .,,--" f
\
"-
HORIZONT AL AXIS ROTOR
Conventional wind turbines employ one, two, or three-
blade rotors transverse to the wind and normally house the
generator and transmission aloft atop the tower supporting the
rotor. Conventional wind turbines must turn (yaw) about the
tower axis in response to changes in wind direction.
18
.'"
...
..
...
III'
1If"
...
Vertical axis wind turbines (of which the Darrieus
Eggbeater turbine is the most familiar), have two inherent
advantages over those of thei r hor izontal axis counterparts.
First, the vertical axis of rotation allo~s the generator and
gear train to be mounted at ground level, which aides
servicing. Second, VAWT's are omnidirectional -they can
accept the wind from any direction without swinging the entire
rotation assembly about the tower axis.
These advantages are offset somewhat by the limited tower
heights used in Darrieus turbines; most phi configuration
(Eggbeater) Darrieus are mounted atop a short (relative to the
turbine's height) pedestal. Other vertical axis
configurations are being developed.
Phi configuration Darrieus tubines use curved blades that
take on a modified troposkien slope when running. Straight
blades can also be used in an H configuration, and in Delta,
Diamond, and Y configurations.
Two manufacturers in this country are developing small
and medium size machines that use articulating straight
blades. These blades rock or change pitch as they move along
the carousel path. None of these giromills, as they are
called, have been installed in Alaska.
The British are designing a megawatt size straight-bladed
VAWT for use in thier coastal waters. Though these other
configurations are available, most of the effort to
commercialize VAWT's has centered around the Darrieus turbine.
19
Darrieus wind turbines, contrary to popular belief, can
perform just as effeciently at extracting the energy in the
wind as the more conventional wind turbines, according to
tests conducted by Sandia National Laboratories.
These machines have not been as commercially successful
as HAWT's primarily due to the limited engineering experience
with these designs. They do hold the promise of being
competitive with horizontal axis configurations because of
their simplicity and ease of manufacture. Currently, Alcoa is
proceeding with development of medium size Darrieus turbines
in this country, and Dominious Aluminum Fabricating (DAF) of
Ontario is doing likewise in Canada.
20
...
3.4 Generator Type
3.4. 1 Introduction
A further refinement in classifying and describing
windgenerators is to distinguish them by the type of generator
they employ. Each of the four types discussed present a
different set of output characteristics and as such must be
treated differently by the utility. Additionally, the safety
requirements for a windgenerator in protecting utility
maintenance personnel on grid-interconnected machines are
different for each classification.
Four basic wind-turbine designs were considered:
synchronous and induction generators, and line and self-
commutated inverter systems. The induction generator system
was judged to be of principal interest, because many
manufacturers have selected it over other possible designs in
the small to medium machine sizes.
Both inverter systems were studied based on
characteristics available in published literature, with
special focus on the line-commutated inverter. There are,
however, many possible inverter circuit designs. This study
relied on the basic inverter principles assuming specific DC
source characteristics, where appropriate, rather than
specific wind-turbine systems offered by manufacturers.
General electrical characteristics of machines and inverters
were used rather than specific characteristics of state-of-
the-art small wind turbines. This is because the small
turbine manufacturers do not presently provide sufficiently
detailed electrical diagrams and test data to identify
electrical characteristics due to proprietary concerns.
21
3.4.2 Direct Current Generators
DC power can be developed by two methods in WEC5.
simplest is the use of a brush-type DC generator in which
voltage produced varies as a function of the rotor rpm.
second method is slightly more complex and uses an alternator.
The alternator produces a variable frequency output as a
function of wind velocity. The output is then rectified to
produce the DC voltage. The magnitude of the output voltage
can be controlled in many cases by changing the field current-
e.g., inserting different resistance values into the field
windings. During normal operation the units are usually self-
exciting. Most modern DC windgenerators use alternators
becau~e of their lighter weight, availability, reliability and
reduced maintenance.
The
the
The
Most utility applications require AC power as the DC must
be inverted to AC before use. There are two types of
inverters which will do this; synchronous and asynchronous.
a) Synchronous Inverters (51) are less expensive and
are available in sizes from 2 kw to 1.5 megawatts.
The 51 is designed to synchronize with a source
such as a diesel generator to save fuel. These
line-commutated inverters are voltage dependent
sources that cannot feedback into the utility's
system without a source of voltage.
b) Asynchronous Inverters (AI) provide their own
reference for producing sine-wave power and are
available in sizes from 100 watts to several
megawatts. AI's are used as stand-alone power
sources and are capable of being synchronized with
each other or with a utility grid. These self-
22
M.'f-!
' ..
...
commutated inverters can feed back into a utility
grid (even when de-energized) because they are
vol tage sources.
3.4.3 Induction Generators
The inductive type type generators are commonly found on
small utility intertie wind turbines. With minor control
modifications a commercially available, relatively inexpensive
induction motor is utilized. At a pre-set cut-in wind speed
the motor is brought on line causing a momentary surge of
reactive current to be drawn. As the windspeed increases, the
power factor increases to within utility tolerances and power
is fed into the grid. Power output will increase with
windspeed until the hysteresis point of the generator is
reached at which point output starts to drop off. Because
induction generators are voltage dependent they will not back
feed a de-energized section unless very specific and non-
normal distr ibution system conditions are present, such as a
capacitor bank or some other voltage source.
Due to the reactive power requirements of the induction
generator, there is a limit to the capacity that can be
supported in a distribution and generation system at one time.
Careful consideration must be given to the best mix of
generation types from both an efficiency and safety
standpoint.
23
3.4.4 Synchronous Generators
Most of the medium sized turbines and all of the large
machine s employ a constant speed synchronous gener a tor.
Typically these turbines operate in a narrow band of wind
speeds at peak efficiency and are designed to "spoil" the wind
to maintain a regulated RPM. Additionall~ these machines are
microprocessor controlled so that their output is constantly
monitored to maintain utility tolerances. Since these
turbines are capable of being a vol tage source they can
provide a leading power factor. They are also capable of
energizing a downed line and must be programmed to shut down
when a fault is sensed.
24
••
3.5 Wind Generator Controls
The control components of wind electric systems are
nearly always sold as a package with the windgenerator itself.
The complexity of the controls will vary between models of
windgenerators, and are usually greater for larger and more
expensive machines. The following controls are germane to the
windgenerator only and are required regardless of size of
turbine or number of machines on line in a utility grid.
One control common to all windgenerators is a manually
operated shut down system. This allows the windgenerator to
be shut down for maintenance, emergency situations, or if the
power quality falls below a preset limit. Nearly all machines
also have a control device to automatically brake the machine
(or turn it out of the wind) when wind speed reaches a
dangerous level (the cut-out speed). This can be accomplished
by connecting the controller to an anemometer mounted on the
tower which senses wind velocity. Its signals are sent to the
controller which shuts the machine down at some pre-set wind
velocity or by sensing rotor rpm or generator output.
There are many other control functions which mayor may
not be included with a windgenerator (or may be optional
equipment). A useful control is one which restarts a
windgenerator that has been shut down due to high winds after
the winds subside.
In most larger windgenerators, overspeed control is
accomplished by hydraulic or electric drives which feather the
blades, deploy tip brakes, or turn the machine out of the
wind. These controls can be actuated by an anemometer, by a
tachometer on the rotor shaft, by a high voltage or high
current sensor, or by some combination of these. In many
25
smaller machines, in contrast, overspeed is prevented by
mechanical means centrifugally activated.
Large wind machines do not use a tail vane to point them
into the wind. Instead, yaw control is performed by a wind
direction sensor (electronic wind vane) which actuates a drive
mechanism to rotate the windgenerator. Other windgenerator
control functions can include automatic braking of the machine
when excessive vibrations are sensed.
On most utility intertie machines, controls are built
into the design so that when the utility power is off the
windgenerator is not producing power. This is to prevent
back feeding power into the utility's lines whenever a
repairman may be working on them. Also, some machines have
controls which sense the frequency of the sine wave output and
other power quality characteristics to prevent the
windgenerator from providing power of poor quality to the
utility. Such controls also prevent the utility from harming
the windgenerator with low-voltage conditions.
26
!"<
3.6 Conclusions and Recommendations
Despite the proven nature of the residential sized
windgenerators, they represent a poor investment from a
utility perspective in meeting capacity needs. The difficulty
of maintenance procedures and less assurance of plant
availability, particularly under user ownership, would reduce
both energy and capacity value. Problems associated with the
distribution system such as possible modifications to the
present relaying, fusing, and voltage control systems to
assure prompt fault clearing, personnel safety, and the
prevention of damage to utilization equipment will need
resolution. Special metering and control equipment at each
residential site would involve additional costs and
difficulties which in combination could outweigh any
advantages for utility application of small turbines.
However, individual load center applications of a
commercial, institutional or industrial nature where siting is
more flexible and technical considerations more controllable
may be more attractive, especially for the turbines with a
greater than 10 kw output.
The medium sized turbines are the most attractive from a
utility standpoint. Over 10,000 hours have been logged on
machines in the 200 kw size supplying power to remote diesel
grids. The extensive DOE/NASA testing of the MOD-OA turbines
have proven their ability to provide firm reliable power in
Clayton, New Mexico; Culebra, Puerto Rico; Block Island, Rhode
Island; and Oahu, Hawaii. WTG Energy System, Inc. has had
operational their privately developed 200 kw unit on Cuttyhunk
Island, Mass. since June 1977. Having installed a unit in
Nova Scotia and the coast of Oregon, WTG has shown this size
to be commercial and practical. These turbines utilize the
27
synchronous generator, and as such are programmed to operate
efficiently while either intertied to a diesel generator set
or in a stand alone capacity with the diesel's on standby.
At this time, the large megawatt scale turbines are best
not considered practical for Bristol Bay until they are better
proven in the lower 48. Additionally, their benefit to the
small grid's stability is questionable when compared to
multiple medium sized units. The vertical-axis turbines are
also not yet well developed enough for use in rural Alaska.
28
•
4.
STORAGE,
MONITORING &
SYSTEM INTEGRATION
EQUIPMENT
titorage devices have utility ap-
plications, but are very site specific
or expensive and in some cases unprov-
en. Optimism is expressed for the
future, particularly if used in con-
junction with load management in an
integrated system. Considerable data
needs to be collected and four levels
of monitor ing are descr ibed. Genera-
tion equipment compatability and load
management are presented with
reference to utility grid integration
with multiple remote voltage sources.
4. 1 Introduction
This section discusses three different but related
topics. Storage apparatus information is presented to list
the various options, but with the understanding that any
scenario (including storage mediums) must be very specific.
This is because of the system dependent nature of storage
requirements. Both the load characteristics and supply
alternatives must be integrated to determine the level and
type of storage required. Thus, a detailed monitoring program
is necessary to determine these needs. Once the appropriate
level of data has been collected the entire load/supply situa-
tion can be effectively managed. Therefore, the last topic
discussed is system integration parameters.
1
4.2 Storage Apparatus
4.2.1 Batteries
Lead-acid batteries are by far the most common type of.
energy storage device for wind electr ic systems. "Deep cycle"
batteries are preferred. These batteries are designed to
sustain repeated deep discharge without damage, and are
commonly used in forklifts and golf carts.
Batteries for wind electric systems are costly, so it is
desirable to use them under conditions which will result in
their most efficient operation and longest life.
Consequently, batteries as a storage medium are best suited
for individual cabin or homestead use where the owner can
provide the proper care. Batteries require the periodic
addition of water and must be protected from freezing. The
owner must see to it that the batteries are never charged or
discharged at too high a rate. Battery sets must also be
fully charged periodically to equalize the charge on the
individual cells. Keeping batteries from overheating can be a
problem, though this will rarely be of concern in the Bristol
Bay Area.
For loads larger than a single homestead, the number of
cells involved becomes overwhelming. The maintenance costs
alone for lead-acid batteries would be prohibitive in a
utility sized battery bank used for anything other than very
short term storage.
Significant advances are being made in battery technology
but it may be as long as ten years before they become
commercially available and inexpensive enough to use for a
village-scale storage scheme.
2
...
IW' ,
If the maintenance requirements, cost, and efficiency can
be improved in the future, a battery system could be very
worthy of consideration.
4.2.2 Compression Air Stor age
Compressed air storage involves using all windgenerator
power not immediately needed for other uses to operate an air
compressor that pumps air into either a metal tank or an
underground storage vault. To retrieve the power, the process
is reversed, and the compressed air drives a motor-generator
combination. For some uses the reconversion to electricity
would be unnecessary. The compressed air could be used to
drive tools and machinery directly. Air tools, for example,
are commercially available. The principle drawbacks to
compressed air are the low conversion efficiency and the large
volume of storage required. No known naturally occuring
storage exists in the study area, which is considered a prime
requirement to using compressed air storage on a village scale
economically.
4.2.3 Pumped-Hydroelectric
Pumped-hydroelectr ic storage is accomplished by pumping
water uphill to a reservoir and later using this stored water
to dr ive a turbine-generator. In most pumped-hydro systems,
the "pump" and the "turbine" are one and the same machine;
their operation is reversible. There are a number of pumped-
hydro stations operated primarily as peaking facilities by
electric utilities using off-peak power to pump the water back
up to the forebay. Finding a favorable hydro storage site is
3
difficult; find.ing one in proximity to a favorable
windgenerator site is even more so. In addition, the capital
cost for these systems is high and their conversion efficiency
is low.
..
4.2.4 Hydrogen Storage
Hydrogen storage involves electrolyzing water into hydro-
gen and oxygen gas and storing the hydrogen. The flammable
hydrogen can then be used as a fuel in a more or less conven-
tional motor-generator system or in a fuel cell system. The
fuel cell is a device which converts the chemical energy of
the hydrogen-oxygen reaction directly into DC electricity with
higher efficiency than conventional methods of power genera-
tion. In operation it is similar to an electrolyzer working
in reverse.
Hydrogen storage appears to be a reasonably good storage
method in theory, although it wouldn't match the efficiency of
a conventional battery. At the present time few, if any, of
the major components (electrolyzers, hydrogen storage systems,
fuel cells, or hydrogen-fueled motors) are readily available.
Even if these components could be specially made they would be
very expensive.
4.2.5 Flywheel Storage
Flywheel storage is accomplished by using excess power in
an electric motor to spin a flywheel; the energy is thus
stored as kinetic energy. Later, the spinning flywheel can be
reconnected to the motor, which will then generate electricity
4
..
•
by withdrawing the stored kinetic energy. Like hydrogen
syst~ms, flywheel storage is in the developmental stage.
Research is being done for applications in many fields, but no
practical systems are commercially available.
In order to store significant amounts of energy in a
flywheel, large masses must be spun at very high speeds. This
creates two major problems. One of these is that a heavy
flywheel must be perfectly balanced so that the bearings will
not be destroyed, the other that special materials must be
used that can withstand the tremendous stress.
4.2.6 Thermal Storage
Thermal storage uses electr ical resistance heaters or a
heat pump to warm up a material in a heavily insulated
container. This hot material can then be used later to boil a
fluid (water or ammonia, for example) and produce an expanding
vapor which can then be used to drive a conventional turbine-
generator. A thermal storage system would have a low
efficiency for electrical power production.
Thermal storage is more practical when heating is the
end use, because less energy is lost during transfer from
storage. Wind systems have been designed and built based on
the principle that surplus power be used to heat water, which
can later be used for domestic hot water uses or for a hot
water space heating system. This, of course, is just indirect
electric heating, which is almost always more expensive than
any other means of heating. As a result, this is not usually
a cost-effective idea unless the windgenerator is generating
power which otherwise would be wasted.
5
Another form of thermal energy stor~ge which is being
demonstrated on a commercial basis and is useful in some cases
is to store cold, not heat, and use it for cooling purposes.
Surplus electricity could be used to run a freezer. This
could be advantageous for a community freezer in a village
during the summer when fish and game need to be frozen for
winter use.
6
4.3 Monitoring Equipment
4.3~ 1 Introduction
A classification for levels of monitoring has been
defined by Ramsdell and Wetzel in "Wind Measurement Systems
and Wind Tunnel Evaluation of Selected Instruments." The four
classes of monitoring systems based on storage capabilities
are:
CLASS
I
II
III
DATA STORAGE CAPABILITY
None
Limited to a single storage register
Processed information stored in data
logger with more than one storage regis-
ter, but sequential information lost.
IV Processed or unprocessed information
with sequential information retained.
7
4.3.2 Class I Systems
Class I systems-have no storage capabilities and require
a human observer to record data. This system is used by the
National Weather Service (at their manned sites). For the
purpose of site evaluation care should be exercised that the
operator maintain a somewhat regular schedule when recording
data so as not to "bias" the data; i.e., record velocities
only when the wind is blowing. The same methodology applies
to monitoring a WECS's performance.
Typical parameters monitored would be:
1). Wind Speed
2). Wind Direction
3). Temperature
4). Humidity/Barometric pressure
5). KW output (Power)
6). KWH (Wo r k ) (a c 1 ass I I sen s 0 r )
7). Other WECS parameter s i.e., Vol ts, Amps, Running
Time (class II)
The advantage of Class I systems is low initial cost.
However, the expense involved in reading and tabulation of the
data may be somewhat prohibitive. This is especially true if
a reasonable degree of accuracy is desired. Operator training
is minimal and the primary goals in training would be to
stress consistency and vigilance.
8 1It).:-
Class I disadvantages would be a loss of accuracy due to
meter reading errors of extraplation rounding, etc. Another
disadvantage is that the processing of the data obtained to
develop wind power spectrums and windgenerator performance
must all be done by hand. This is true even if a computer is
used, as the data must still be entered manually, and the
possibility of human error is increased.
9
4.3.3 Class II Systems
Class II systems do have storage capability, though
limited to a single parameter. This type of storage applies
to two particular parameters: wind speed and kilowatt hours.
The device for wind speed is called a wind odometer and
records a value related to "miles of wind" that pass the
anemometer. This value can then be processed (by hand) to
produce an average wind speed over whatever observation period
is used i.e.: hourly, daily, weekly, or monthly.
The kilowatt hour meter is analagous to the windspeed
odometer in that it records total energy produced by the
windgenerator.
Class II advantages are that the summing of parameters
takes place continuously and thus more data is being
collected. In the case of wind monitoring, the readings can
be made less frequently than a Class I device and provide
better average velocity indications.
For power measurements the KWH meter represents the only
method of accurately depicting total power flow.
Class II disadvantages are as follows: I) The
applications are limited i.e., a cumulative wind direction
sensor reading is somewhat meaningless; 2) They tell nothing
of the diurnal characteristics of the parameter being
measured. They could be compared to the odometer of an
automobile in that it tells only the number of miles driven
and not whether they were all highway driving, city stop-and-
go or running bootleg whiskey in the hills of Tennessee.
10
,.-
..
...
.-
..
p.
4.3.4 Class III Systems
Class III devices pertain mostly to wind power potential
development. They process the wind data and display several
combinations of accumulated results. Processing usually
involves raising the discrete data values (windspeed) to
various powers (2nd, 3rd and possibly 4th) and summing the
results in a cumulative display register. These values are
then used to develop the power in the wind and further aid in
obtaining an idea of the wind spectrum using statistical
analysis. A better picture of the wind's potential is
obtained with this device when compared against a class II
system.
Class III advantages are that the data obtained is
already summed and preprocessed for analysis purposes and
provides an indication of the diurnal characteristics of the
wind at the site in question. Remote operation is possible
for unmanned sites.
Class III disadvantages are that individual observations
on wind speed are lost and the devices may require additional
equipment to retrieve the stored data.
11
4.3.5 Class IV Devices
Class IV devices have the capability of recording
discrete data pOints such as wind speed as individual
observations and have the capability to process and present
summarized forms of the data as well. The parameters
monitored are limited only to the availability of sensors
capable of providing an output comparible with the device in
question. In most cases any sensor that provides an
electrical output is useable with proper signal conditioning.
The information obtained can be stored in the form of strip
charts that maintain a running record of the parameters
monitored. However, removing data from the strip charts can
become a tedious undertaking and lends itself to errors in
reading and recording data for further processing. A solution
to the problems is found in the new generation of magnetic
storage devices that employ microprocessors to govern their
operation. The data is stored on magnetic digital cassettes.
There is currently a commercial system available that allows
on-site analysis and is in itself a relatively sophisticated
computer.
These systems are extremely flexible and can be used for
windgenerator performance monitoring as well as analysis (in
the case of the computer controlled systems).
Class IV advantages are: 1) The storage of real-time
data maintaining individual occurrences in sequence; 2)
Extreme flexibility as far as parameters to be monitored; 3)
Mul ti-channel (parameter) capability; 4) On si te analysis of
data is available; and 5) Data collection may be initiated
prior to the development of a particular analysis methodology
and different approaches used on the same data as it is stored
in its original form.
12
.-
..
,..
II'
",,'
Class IV disadvantages are: 1) The high cost in setting
up the system as well as its purchase price; 2) Although some
do lend themselves to remote applications, they generally are
not able to function in extreme environmental conditions; and
3) Devices that employ strip chart recorders are generally
difficult to use when retrieving data.
13
4.4 Systems Integration
It is possible to gain the economics offered by storage
(increased consum~tion of power when wind is available, the
reduction of power use when it's not) through region wide
system integration¥ With a mix of different machine sizes and
capacities spread"'across a diverse region there is a certain
probability that a'level of capacity will be available at all
times. Studies doAe by the Electric Power Research Institute
conclude that a capacity credit can be given to wind genera-
tion capacity on a grid system, depending on the grid charac-
teristics and the wind regime. Substantial operating
experience on intertied systems has demonstrated the ability
of a wind generator to run a remote grid unassisted if a load
dump is employed to maintain a reserve margin. The key to a
sustained high penetration of wind energy on a grid is enough
knowledge of the wind resource~so that utility personnel can
plan operations around its availability. The study area
offers diverse terrain, from its· coastal environments to its
mountain passes, and is large enough in area to make for a
good likelihood of this occurring if all the villages, all the
wind turbines, and all the other generating sets were
interconnected.
14
""
4.4.1 Generation Equipment Compatibility
As already discussed, the type of generators on line and
their location on the distribution system are critical to
system stability. More experience needs to be gained before
anything conclusive can be stated about voltage-dependent wind
systems and their value to a grid. It is clear, however, that
there are limits to the penetration level these type of units
can efficiently make. The best currently available
information indicates 30% penetration is a reasonable limit,
and for purposes of this study is deemed a maximum.
4.4.2 Load Management
Most utility systems in the country today can benefit
from end use load management. Because of the diurnal
varitions in demand, small grid systems such as found in
Bristol Bay will typically have peaking requirements many
times greater than average demand. The major contributors to
the problem are the large users such as the schools, water
plant and commercial users. Distributed microprocessor
controllers in these key facilities can save a consumer as
much as 30% through use of the following techniques:
Demand Limit Control reduces the peak rate of electrical
energy usage. Demand Control measures the rate of energy
consumption in the building and when the rate exceeds a limit
selected by the owner, the Demand Limit Control will
temporarily turn off energy-consuming loads on a preprogrammed
basis. When the energy usage rate drops below the limit,
equipment is automatically restored to normal operation. The
type of equipment this would apply to would be: freezers,
pressure pumps, fans and possibly some lighting and resistive
heaters.
15
Duty Cycling is defined as repetitively turning energy-
consuming loads OFF and ON during a preprogrammed cycle. The
purpose of the Duty Cycler is to reduce unnecessary equipment
operation and also to increase equipment efficiency. A
sophisticated Duty Cycler will match the amount of duty
cycling with actual load conditions. For example, as outside
air temperature drops, the load on a heating system increases,
and the load management system reduces duty cycling.
Time-of-Day Prograaming allows the owner to individually
program precise OFF and ON times for energy consuming devices
with different programs for each day of the week. The Time-
of-Day Programmer is also a labor-saving device by automating
those tasks that are frequently overlooked in manual
operations.
These distributed load management systems can easily be
programmed to respond to a signal from a central controller
operated by the utility which requests loads be dropped or
added to maintain maximum generation efficiencies. Fail Safe
operation is thus made possible by programming the remote
units to be independent of the central controller in the event
of loss of a signal.
With additional software, the utilities' central load
manager can perform billing functions and provide operation
and maintenance information, as well as minimize record
keeping requirements.
16
..
... '
4.5 Conclusions and Recommendations
According to computer modeling done by General Electr ic
for the Electric Power Research Institute, dedicated storage
to wind generation equipment is not beneficial, either from
the viewpoint of wind power viability or minimum generating
system cost.
Non-dedicated, general system storage, however, has many
times been shown to be economic when operated and dispatched
as part of the total generation system, and there are many
successful pumped storage hydro plants in operation on utility
systems today. There is considerable research and development
work underway to produce new storage systems which can be used
in areas where pumped storage hydro is impractical.
Monitoring to determine utility load characteristics and
wind power availability is best done with a microprocessor
based data collection system (class IV). This must be
tempered however with preliminary screening, to determine the
appropriate level of collection warranted due to the increased
cost associated with more sophisticated levels of data
gathering.
Load management technologies should be considered
regardless of the generation mode. The benefits in peak
shaving and the ability to optomize generation efficiency are
significant. With higher degrees of penetration of wind
equipment, load management becomes more necessary to maintain
system stability.
17
5.
POWER PRODUCTION ANALYSIS
This section analyzes
the potential contribution
of wind power to the
Bristol Bay electrical
demand forecast for the
year 2000. The penetration
levels are based around a
matrix system consisting of
two distinct categories of
parameters. Several
combinations of these two
categories are presented.
The first set of
parameters assumes three
levels of penetration in
the region: 1) 10%
penetration without utility
involvement; 2) 30%
penetration with utility
involvement, and 3) 70%
penetration with load
management and concerted
utility involvement. The
second set of parameters
assumes three different
utilization scenarios: 1) a
disaggregated base case; 2)
all villages intercon-
nected; .and 3) a two
network grid in the region.
Several tables are
presented illustrating the
potential number of genera-
tors required for each
case; they are broken down
into size classifications
that are representative of
commercially available
machines at each given
penetration and intertie
scenario.
Throughout the method-
ology presented herein, the
assumption is made that
several small and medium
size windgenerators are
desired over single large
units. Though several
arguments for this course
of action are presented,
the major benefits revolve
around availability of both
machines and replacement
hardware, as well as the
reliability of the grid to
provide power in case of
windgenerator failure or
down-time.
5. 1 Introduction
In Section Three, the size and type of wind turbines
available today or expected to be available in the near term
were described. A methodology was outlined for determining
the potential performance of machines in the various wind
regimes of the project area.
Because village utilities are concerned about the
dependability of power from wind generators, and considering
the variability of the resource, it is necessary to look at
the maximum number of machines possible within a village
generating system at selected levels of grid penetration. Once
the maximum number of machines has been found, the technique
described in Section Three can be used to calculate the energy
contribution from the selected mix of machines within each
village or zone of the study area.
1
5.2 Methodology
Wind machines can be added to a generating system through
either private action-such as when homeowners install a wind
turbine for their own use-or through institutional action,
when the village utility installs a large wind turbine(s) for
community use. In the present economic climate (low-interest
State Alternative Energy loans, high electric rates)
homeowners and small businesses will continue to install small
wind machines irregardless of action by village utilities.
Consequently, this study has assumed that 10% of the Year 2000
electrical load will be met by small wind systems.
Utilities have access to greater financing than
homeowners, and can take advantage of the expected economies
of scale offered by larger but more expensive wind turbines.
Moreover, the utilities are able to manage and maintain larger
units. As a result, two levels of penetration have been
chosen for integration into a small utility by wind systems:
30% and 70%. These levels of penetration incorporate the 10%
to be contributed by small private machines.
Utilities are capable of handling 10% penetration without
any alteration of their generating system or its management.
At 30% penetration some load management may be advantageous.
At 70% penetration, load management and complete integration
of the wind systems with the utility's other generators is
necessary.
Data to date indicates that load growth in the study area
is approximately 6% per year or roughly an average of the high
and low growth forecasted by R.W. Retherford Associates in a
February, 1981 report for the Alaska Power Authority. The
following projections assume an average of Retherford's high
and low forecasts.
2
....
.'
LOAD FORECAST YEAR 2000
Village kW MWh/yr
Dillingham 6155 30.744
Naknek/King Slamon 7220 37.128
Clarks Point/Ekuk 1159 3.205
Egegik 1085 2.688
Ekwok 207 902
Iguigig 87 380
Koliganek 217 946
Levelock 198 863
Manokotak 340 1,481
New Stuyahok 250 1,101
Portage Creek 79 346
Iliamna/Newhallen 1105 5,210
TOTAL 17.852 84.994
3
From the load forecasts, the maximum capacity (kW)
contributions at each pentration level from the wind turbines
were estimated. Once the maximum capacity contr ibution was
determined the next step was to project a machine mix and the
number of machines of each type that would be needed.
The concern here is with potential maximum output of the
wind systems. Consequently, neither MPO or rated capacity of
the wind turbines being considered could be used. This study
used each machine's potential kW output at an instantaneous
wind speed of 30. mph (assumed to be peak output on the
machines investigated), with the smaller machines performing
at an efficiency of 20% and the bigger units operated at a 30%
efficiency. This approach resulted in estimates roughly
approximating the maximum rated output of several commercially
available wind turbines.
SMALL & MEDIUM SIZED TURBINE OUTPUT 30mph/25% Efficiency
Rotor Diameter Maximum Output
4 meter 3 kW
7 meter 10 kW
10 meter 25 kW
17 meter 69 kW
4
,,"
II'
... 1
..
..
....
LARGE TURBINE MAXIMUM OUTPUT 30mph/30% Efficiency
Rotor Diameter Maximum Output
25 meter 200 kW
91 meter 2,500 kW
The 30% penetration level is made up of the 10%
contributed by small machines and 20% of maximum capacity by
medium size machines ( in this case the 17m and 25m turbines).
Similarly, the 70% penetration level is comprised of 10% from
small machines and 20% from medium size machines, with the
remaining 40% from the large turbines.
As mentioned, the 30% and 70% levels assume utility
invol vement. utili ties generally prefer the biggest machine
possible to gain economies of scale. However, there are also
advantages to a multiple number of medium sized machines,
particularly in the remote villages within the project area.
With multiple smaller units there is less loss of capacity
when anyone turbine is down for repairs or cycled-off as load
declines. Also, it is easier to stock spare parts when more
than one machine is in the same vicinity. The value in
multiple units is assumed in our scenario by limiting the
medium and large machine mix. Whenever there was insufficient
load to use the maximum combined output from at least three to
four units, the load was met by a larger number of smaller
machines.
5
Below is an elaboration of the argument for multiple
units of small to medium size wind turbines:
1) Smaller machines are easier to maintain since the moving
parts are smaller and lighter.
2) Smaller units are manufactured in greater numbers,
thus making parts more readily available.
3) The mor e dispersed the machines a re around a grid or
terrain, the higher plant factor will be achieved
because of the microclimate effects.
4) Reliability is increased because if one unit fails a
smaller percentage of capacity on line is lost.
5) The controls are typically more complicated as a
windgenerator gets larger.
6) Small and medium size wind machines can be added
incrementally to the system as load increases because
of their short lead time for construction. This
allows for flexibility in forecasting the load growth.
The number of new units planned can be altered to
reflect change in demand.
After the maximum number of machines that can be absorbed in
the system at each penetration level is found, the potential
energy output (using the rotor diameter and the wind power in
the area where the machines will be sited) is calculated.
6
...
•
~i
.'
..
An important consideration in both the 30% and 70% levels
of penetration is power quality and reactive Vars needed to
support thegr id network. Thus, an important requirement in
operating a grid when the wind generators are providing a
significant portion of the load requirements is use of a
synchronous generator. Both the 25m and 9lm turbines use the
more expensive controls and circuitry required to maintain a
leading power factor. Because of this, the smaller villages
in the non-intertied scenario may have potential problems with
high penetration levels using smaller line-commutated
machines.
7
5.3 Power Production
The following figures tabulate the machine mix at each of
the three penetration levels for the Base Case; i.e., each
village remaining independent of the others (except for Clarks
Point and Ekwok where their close proximity would make an
intertie probable). The same estimates for a series of
interconnection possibilities where then tabulated.
The first case assumes that all villages within the study
area are interconnected. The second case assumes that zones
(as shown in Figure 5.5) C, D, and E are interconnected and
zones A and B form a second network. It was assumed that the
wind turbines would be sited within the windiest areas of each
network rather than equally dispersed throughout.
Consequently, in Figure 5.4, when all the villages are
interconnected the machines are sited in an area of Wind Class
5. In similar fashion, Figure 5.6 uses a Wind Class of 5 for
the interconnection of Zones C, D, and E. A Wind Class 3 was
used for the interconnection of Zones A and B.
.. -
...
.'
""
..
FIGURE 5.1 OISAGGREGRATEO BASE CASE
POTENTIAL NUMBER OF UNITSI ANNUAL ENERGY CONTRIBUTION (MWh)
10c)(' PENETRATION LEVEL
Power Demand 4. 7. 10. Total
Village Class (kW) #u nit s ( M W h / y r ) #u nit s ( M W h / Y r ) #u nit s ( M W h / y r ) M W h/ y r
------
Dillingham 2 6155 104/577 18/292
/ 5/171 1040
Naknek/King Salmon 5 7220 120/1,330 22/715 6/410 2460
II)
Clarks Point/Ekuk 3 1159 19/141 6/130 271
Egegik 5 1085 18/200 3/98 1/68 366
Ekwok 2 207 7/39 39
Iguigig 4 87 3/37 37
Koliganek 2 217 4/22 1/16 38
Levelock 3 198 3/22 22
Manokotak 3 340 8/59 1/22 81
New Stuyahok 2 250 5/28 1/16 44
Portage Creek 3 79 3/22 22
Iliamna/Newhalen 3 1105 19/140 3/65 1/46 251
FIGURE 5.2 DISAGGREGATED BASE CASE
POTENTIAL NUMBER OF UNITSI ANNUAL ENERGY CONTRIBUT.ION (MWh)
30" PENETRATION LEVEL
Power Demand Total
Village Class (kW) 4. 7. 10. 17. 2S. MWh/yr
Dillingham 2 6155 104/577 18/292 5/171 9/872 3/870 2782
Naknek/King Salmon 5 7220 120/1330 22/715 6/410 14/2720 3/1740 6920
~ Clarks Point/Ekuk 3 1159 19/141 6/130 9/410 681 0
Egegik 5 1085 18/200 3/98 1/68 3/582 984
Ekwok 2 207 7/39 4/65 104
Iguigig 4 87 3/37 2/54 91
Koliganek 2 217 4/22 5/81 103
Levelock 3 198 3/122 4/86 208
Monokotak 3 340 8/59 8/172 231
New Stuyahok 2 250 5/28 6/97 125
Portage Creek 3 79 3/22 3/65 87
Iliamna/Newhalen 3 1105 19/140 3/65 9/410 615
, , ,
FIGURE 5.3 OISAGGREGATEO BASE CASE
POTENTIAL NUMBER OF UNITSI ANNUAL ENERGY CONTRIBUTION (MWh/yr)
70 .. PENETRATION LEVEL
Power Demand Total
Village Class (kW) 4. 7. 10. 17. 25. MWh/yr
Dillingham 2 6155 104/577 18/292 21/2030 21/2030 6/1740 4,810
Naknek/King Salmon 5 7220 120/1330 22/715 6/410 25/4850 7/4050 11,400
Clarks Point/Ekuk 3 1159 19/141 6/130 9/410 8/1030 1,711
~
~
Egegik 5 1085 18/200 3/98 1/68 7/1360 1,730
Ekwok 2 207 7/39 8/130 3/68 237
Iguigig 4 87 3/37 5/136 173
Koliganek 2 217 4/22 6/97 3/103 222
Levilock 3 198 3/122 4/86 3/137 345
Manokotak 3 340 8/59 9/194 5/228 481
New Stuyahok 2 250 5/28 6/97 4/137 262
Portage Creek 3 79 3/22 6/130 152
Iliamna/Newhalen 3 1105 19/140 5/108 9/410 7/903 1,560
FIGURE 5.4 ALL VILLAGES INTERCONNECTED
POTENTIAL NUMBER OF UNITSI ANNUAL ENERGY CONTRIBUTION (MWh)
Power Demand
Class (kW)
5 18,099
5 18,099
5 18,099
10% PENETRATION LEVEL
4.
#units 301
MWh/yr 3,340
30% PENETRATION LEVEL
#units
MWh/yr
4.
301
3,340
PI;NETRATION LEVEL
#units
MWh/yr
I
4.
310
3,340
,
7.
55
1,790
7.
55
1,790
7.
55
1,790
, ,
10.
14
956
10.
14
556
10.
14
956
1
17.
13
2520
17.
13
2520
25.
14
8,100
25.
14
8100
Total
6,100
16,700
91.
3
33,900 50,600
1 ,
FIGURE 5.5 TRANSMISSION LINE INTERCONNECTION
I
I
I ,
I
I
:~~~L:\ '-;'~P'tlBRISTOL BA Y ,'p~,
STUDY AREA "
~
~... ')
t-"' ) ( -J' ... ---~ L :{' (.o, I~ONDALTON '. '
~ ... ----... " Zone E ILIAM1!A~~~?)
--~ /. \ NEWHALE ~ /KOLIGANEK .. ··~ '~F!!!f/If1f;jiO
~Zone B)
~\ NEW STUYHOK~r. __
~ ~_~~~OK~/ Z ... o)le~'" IGUIGlcY ~ "f........'" / -----Z nEr ~ ALEKNAGIK (~L~VELOC ~ ..,r···~ ~$) I INGHAM-.... C--, ~ / . \ ~ I MANOKOT ~K . :PORT AG ' '-"\
, CR. ,,-'
'--CLARKS PT. ~ ...... ~"....,..
KUK ." ~ ".
_/ ". ~G ~---""'III ~~~ " N KNEK SALMON
f .. '
I
Zone 0,' .. /' .. ~.
I / '-
Bristol Bay 'EGEGI~~ ~.'"
-'"
BRISTOL BA V REGION L.JL...SL..:1North
o 10 20 30 40 50
13
FIGURE 5.8 TWO NETWORK GRID SYSTEM
POTENTIAL NUMBER OF UNITSI ANNUAL ENERGY CONTRIBUTION (MWh)
10% PENETRATION LEVEL
Zone Power Total
Class 4. 7. 10.
C, D, E 5 #units 161 79 8
MWh/yr 1,790 940 550 3,280
A, B 3 #units 140 26 6
MWh/yr 1,040 562 274 1,876
30% PENETRATION LEVEL
4. 7. 10. 17. 2S.
C, D, E 5 #units 161 29 9 14 5
MWh/yr 1,790 940 614 2,720 2,900 8,964
A, B 3 #units 140 26 7 14 4
MWh/yr 1,040 562 274 1,800 1,544 5,220
70% PENETRATION LEVEL'
4. 7. 10. 17. 2S.
C, D, E 5 #units 161 29 10 17 19
MWh/yr 1,790 940 683 3,300 11,000 17,700
A, B 3 #units 140 26 9 14 17
MWh/yr 1,040 562 274 1,810 6,560 10,200
, , J r J "
, ,
5.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
The proceeding tables are not a recommended or predicted
mix of wind turbines; rather they are representative of a
reasonably diverse grid system. It would be to a utilities
advantage to standardize the turbines for maintenance
purposes. However, the size and type machine selected is very
system dependent and site specific, and may belie
standardization.
Based on the diverse mix chosen in our methodology, the
following table represents the annual energy contribution to
the total electric consumption in the region for each
scenario:
FIG 5.7 PERCENT ANNUAL ENERGY CONTRIBUTION FOR EACH SCENARIO (total of all villages)
Penetration level Contribution To Total Energy Demand
Base Case Two Ne tw ork All Interconnected
10% 5% 6% 7%
30% 15% I 17% 20%
70% 27% 33% 60%
The advanta;c of interconnecting the village is seen
clearly in terms of energy contribution. Further benefits in
load leveling, increased reliability and economies of scale
are possible with the larger grid networks.
The 70% penetration level does not appear to be practical
in the base case plan because of the fairly small increase in
demand contribution over the 30% level. It is only when all
villages are interconnected that this higher penetration level
becomes justified.
15
6.
RESTRAINTS
IDENTIFICA TION
This section attempts to
identify any constraints which might
impede a plan to develop wind energy
in the Bristol Bay Region.
Environmental factors are discussed
in detail with potential impacts
broken into the construction and
operational phases. Safety concerns
are discussed with a risk analysis
describing possible failure modes and
their consequences. Regulatory and
regional restraints were identified
to provide a guide to a planner
unf amiliar with Alaska. In general,
the probable impacts and restraints
are site specific and can be
mitigated through careful planning
and analysis of the problems.
6. 1 Assessment of Probable
Environmental Impacts
6.1.1 Introduction
Possible enviro~mental consequences associated with wind
energy systems include primary impacts; i.e., those directly
related to the construction, operation and decommissioning of
the windgenerators. In some cases, site location can
exacerbate or minimize the machine's impact on the
environment.
Secondary impacts such as those environmental effects
associated with the manufacturing of the basic materials
(steel, aluminium, etc.) used in constructing wind turbine
machines are considered inconsequential compared to U.S
industrial production and are not discussed in this report.
The primary impacts are broken into those caused by
construction activities and those caused by operation of the
turbines. When no distinction is made herein about the size
of a windgenerator, it is assumed that the smaller turbine
would have less of an impact.
6.1.2 Construction Impacts
(a) Site Preparation: The area immediately surrounding
the proposed location will require clearing for an
adequate staging area. This clear zone need only be
large enough for the wind turbine and erection
equipment. This area should be fenced off for
safety reasons.
(b) Access Roads: In most cases access roads will need
to be constructed. These roads could be seasonal as
in a winter ice road or a summer haul road. These
would be used exclusively by four wheel drive
vehicles and would have the same requirements and
1
impacts as transmission line haul roads. Year round
access to the site by road after construction is not
necessary.
(c) Construction Equipment: Most windgenerators do not
need a large mobile crane because the turbine and
tower design include provisions for erection of the
system using a simple gin pole. The gin pole would
be erected on site and could be retained at the site
to facilitate possible future repairs.
The foundations used in Alaska typically involve
pilings or some type of deadman anchor system, and
not necessarily expensive concrete pads. A pile-
driving rig or backhoe is thus required for
installation of anything but the smaller turbines.
(d) Technical and Construction Personnel: Preparation
of the site will require a limited number of workers
to operate grading equipment, place the foundation,
and install transmission cables. On a larger
megawatt scale turbine a small number of outside
construction, technical and supervisory personnel,
generally on the order of less than 40 or 50, will
be required during site preparation and
windgenerator construction activities. No housing
or commercial development is expected to result from
the construction project.
(e) Restoration of the Site: After construction or upon
decommissioning the site can be restored or allowed
to revert back to its natural state. Such
2
..
...
...
III
...
""
...
restoration may include refilling of excavations
with earth, planting of grass or other vegetation,
or other actions needed to satisfy local government
requirements and/or sound environmental practices.
6. 1.3 Operational Impacts
(a) Biophysical: The biophysical environment will
require that site specific parameters be studied.
These would include: Geology, Topography,
Seismology, Hydrology, Climate, Vegetation, Mammals,
Insects and Birdlife. No significant impact is
anticipated on any of these parameters even with the
largest turbines. This is based on environmental
impact assessments performed for the DOE-MOD program
for specific wind turbine sites.
Birds: DOE analysis has shown that
there are potential bird kills by
rotating blades at a wind turbine. The
primary hazards relate to nocturnal
migrants when considerably below their
normal flying altitude due to storm or
overcast conditions or when landing
near the site to feed or rest. In
addition, there may be some hazard to
low-flying diurnal migrants that cannot
see the turbine due to fog or low-lying
clouds. However, no significant bird
kills have been recorded to date at any
of the wind turbine sites.
3
Animals: Animal life near the sites may
be disrupted due to activity associated
with construction, operation and
maintenance. Development sites are
relatively small in area and it is
expected that disturbance of animals
would only be in terms of a minor
relocation rather than as a threat to
their existence.
Vegetation: A slight decrease in wind
speed and and increase in soil moisture
and plant vigor near the turbine may
result from machine operations.
Protective measures may be required to
halt possible erosion resulting from
the loss of ground cover or degredation
of the tundra near the base of the
tower due to the movement of vehicles
and personnel.
(b) Socio-Economic: The follow ing socio-economic
parameters should be considered: demography, land
use, local economy, historical and cultural factors,
communications, noise, and visual quality. The most
sensitive areas are:
Communications: Large horizontal-axis
wind turbine rotors can cause
interference with high frequency radio
propagation in some locations. The
signals which may be affected are in
4
..
II'
."
the FM radio, television and microwave
frequencies at reception points where
geometries favorable for interference
occur among the wind turbine,
transmitter, and receiver. The
incidence and severity of this
interference will depend mainly on the
distances between the transmitter,
windgenerator, and receiver; strength
and frequency of the signal; character
of the antenna; and blade speed and
scattering area. Careful siting of the
turbine can mit.igate most of the
problems that may occur. Proper
selection of blade materials and rotor
design can also lessen the degree of
reflection.
Noise: Noise levels associated with
the operation of large horizontal axis
wind turbines are insignificant. Noise
monitoring studies of the lOOkW MOD-O
at the NASA Plum Brook site indicate
that a slight gear noise and the sound
of wind passing over the blades are not
audible above the natural wind at
distances greater than 400 feet from
the turbine tower. However, experience
with the MOD-l turbine at Boone, North
Carolina (which has 6lm blades) has
shown that the wrong blade design sited
without forethought to sound
5
6. 1.4 Safety
transmission, can cause some problems.
The slowly oscillating blades at Boone
produce low frequency (1 to 20 Hertz)
inaudible sound waves, called infra-
sound which magnify in an eardrum
effect through the valley. The blades
are being redesigned and a new site
looked for to mitigate the infrasound
problem.
Visual Quality: Visual impact can be
influenced by the public's attitude
toward the concept of obtaining energy
from the wind. DOE experience with
their MOD-OA and MOD-l units has been
favorable. At most of the proposed
sites, the wind energy project has been
enthusiastically supported by the
public as well as local and state
officials. These earlier machines are
considered aesthetically acceptable to
most viewers and in some cases are
considered a tourist attraction. On
the other hand, some viewers will find
any wind turbine unattractive.
Although wind turbine components have been designed to
withstand severe wind conditions (in excess of 150 mph), there
exists a slight danger that a wind turbine blade might fail or
that the wind turbine tower might collapse due to severe wintl
load ing or other ex tr erne env i ronmental condi tions. To
8
..
...
..
..
....
"".
minimize risks posed by blade or tower failure, reliable
safety features have been engineered into wind turbines and
are being accomplished by the institution of strict safety
precautions and procedures.
Previous studies by DOE with the MOD-OA and MOD-I systems
and the MOD-2 program have analyzed safety concerns for
structural failure of the tower or blades and other hazards
associated with tall rotating structures and electrical
equipment. As a result, reliable .safety features have been
engineered into the MOD-2 wind turbine. For example, an early
crack detection system has been incorporated into the MOD-2
blades so that if a crack begins to develop, the machine will
automatically shut-down hundreds of hours before serious
damage occurs. In addition, strict safety precautions and
procedures are to be instituted by the responsible utility.
(a) General Safety Precautions and Procedures: The
tower structure and blades should be inspected at
regular intervals by the utility or it's
contractors to identify and repair potential
structural defects. The turbine should also be
inspected immediately following severe wind or
other conditions, such as earthquakes.
A limited radius of about 175 feet (53.3 meters)
has been maintained around the MOD-OA turbine.
Visitor access to the restricted use area would be
controlled according to procedures detailed in a
visitor control plan developed by the utility.
7
Technical personnel should be thoroughly trained to
follow safe operating procedures and should be
fully informed of risks associated with the wind
turbine's electrical equipment, rotating machinery,
and any cable hoist. Wind turbines should be
designed to fully incorporate OSHA safety
regulations and specifications.
(b) Categories of Risk: Four categories of risk have
been identified for a large, horizontal-axis wind
turbine: (1) tower collapse or component blow-off;
(2) blade failure; (3) injury due to unauthorized
access; and (4) collision by low-flying aircraft.
These are defined below, together with factors which
would precipitate or limit the risk mode.
(1) Tower Collapse or Component Blow-off: In the event
of tower collapse or component blow-off, the wind turbine or
component may fall in any direction. Maximum horizontal
extension of the turbine, if a 91 meter rotor retained its
integrity, would be 165 feet. Since the rotor would be
feathered and braked far in advance of the occurrence of wind
speeds exceeding tower design limits (in excess of 150 mph),
blade throw is not expected to accompany tower collapse.
However, the rotor may break due to striking the tower or the
ground and may therefore increase the area of impact,
depending upon the orientation of the rotor and the attitude
of tower collapse.
Degree of risk -Tower collapse is considered highly
unlikely, even during periods of extreme wind. The only
8
II>
conditions which are viewed as potentially hazardous are
tornadoes or freak gusts which exceed design limits.
Other possible causes of tower collapse include
foundation undermining due to ground settling or a sudden
geologic calamity such as an earthquake. Foundation
undermining would be a relatively gradual process and would be
noted and corrected during regular maintenance and inspection
activities. Ground acceleration forces associated with a
nearby earthquake of up to 7 on the Richter scale are less
than those associated with high wind loading and are not a
significant danger with structures of this type, although some
risk cannot be discounted.
The risk to technical personnel or visitors near the
wind turbine is not expected to be high in the event of tower
collapse or component blow-off due to the severity of
conditions which would precipitate the failure. It is
unlikely that people would be in exposed areas near the
turbine during periods when winds approach or exceed 120 mph.
During an earthquake, the turbine would pose less risk than
many other structures due to its high structural integrity,
relatively low mass, and the absence of loosely attached
overhangs or facades.
(2) Blade Failure: computations performed by NASA
Lewis Research Center indicate that an unrestrained MOD-OA
wind turbine blade could be propelled up to 550 feet from the
tower base if it broke away from the hub at 40 rpm and at
optimum blade throw angle. Blade throw distance would be
significantly reduced if shedding occurred at less than
optimum blade angle.
9
Safety features and precautions have been instituted
to identify structural problems and decrease the risk of blade
failure due to the uncertainties regarding blade loading
experienced by the early machines. A wind turbine system
could be equipped with automatically monitored sensors that
would shut down the turbines for an unusual load as signalled
by excessive vibrations or dynamic imbalance. Remote or
automatic restart would not be possible, and the turbine would
only be restarted by resetting the system at the site.
Degree of risk -Given the safety and design
features incorporated into modern wind turbines, blade failure
is highly unlikely. Two additional factors limit the
potential for injury of people within the limited-use area:
(a) Most turbines will not be rotating when wind speeds exceed
40 mph. (b) It is not probable that people (particularly
visitors) will be in exposed areas within or near the
exclusion radius during high wind or storm conditions.
(3) Inj ury due to Unauthor ized Access: Safety risks
associated with unauthorized access to the wind turbine
include falls from the tower and injury caused by coming into
contact with power equipment near the turbine. To discourage
climbing of the tower, care should be taken to eliminate
provisions for footholds which would allow its to be scaled
easily. All hoist controls should be securely sealed to
prevent tamper ing. In addition, all ground level electr ical
equipment should be shielded and/or caged in compliance with
OSHA specifications and regulations.
10
..
(4) Low-Flying Aircraft: If sited out of the clear zone
of a runway and outside the regular traffic lanes, a
windgenerator will poise a limited hazard to aircraft. FAA
requires a installation of an obstruction light on any tower
approaching 200 feet. These measures should serve to reduce
the risk of aircraft/turbine collisions to safe levels.
11
6.2 Regulatpry Restraints
Legal and statuatory constraints for a wind system are
extremely site and machine specific. Zoning ordinances are
practically non-existent in the study areas. However, native
allotments, parks and reserves will require extensive research
into land use parameters. Limitations on height are expected
to be c en t ere dar 0 un d FAA air po r t reg u I a t ion s. The Nat ion a I
Environmental Policy Act reporting requirements for large
windgenerators have been limited to a brief environmental
report and a statement of no signif icant impact. Histor ical
or Archeological sites should not be impacted by law. The
endangered species list should be consulted to avoid any
possible impacts in the siting of the turbines. The coastal
zone management plan should be consulted if the machines are
sited within the coastal bounds.
6.3 Regional Restraints
An extremely important regional restraint is the short
construction season which is complicated by the fishing season
that overlaps it. The socio-political make-up of the region
is unique and should be factored into any major development
program. The land ownership constraints need to be put into a
regional context.
12
...
...
...
6.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
Pew of the restraints identified in this section are
likely to be troublesome with respect to feasibility. Careful
siting and good planning will mitigate most anticipated
impacts. By power company standards windgenerators are
relatively benign. Most of the impacts discussed are not even
relevant to wind turbines smaller than 25 meters. We
anticipate the majority of installation in the Bristol Bay
area to be in the under 25 meter category. Utilities should
of course be sensitive towards the issues raised in this
analysis -especially the publics attitude towards
windgenerators.
13
7.
FACILITY SCHEDULE
This section defines "commer-
cial readiness" of windgenerators for
Bristol Bay with a chart showing the
number of units built and the year
that a particular turbine size is
ready for utility use. Based on this
chart, a
selected
schedule.
medium-sized turbine is
to develop a facility
The phases for the program
outlined are: Design Development,
Assembly and Testing, Site Prepara-
..,tion/Construction, and Training/Data
Collection/Transition.
7.1 Introduction
In developing a facility schedule for a typical wind
power generation site, a large number of assumptions and
generalizations need to be made. In our example, we have
assumed that an easily accessible site is available. King
Salmon, Naknek, or Dillingham would be typical locations that
would meet the above assumption. We have also assumed that a
17 meter to 25 meter turbine is to be installed.
1
7.2 Commercial Availability
The DOE has defined "commercial availability" in their
wind program development very loosely. If a manufacturer had
built three windgenerators, sold one, and had one
operational, it was a "commercially available" turbine under
DOE guidelines. For purposes of this study we are defining
"commercial readiness" for the Alaskan Market differently.
The remoteness and extreme environmental conditions require a
substantially more developed machine than in most other
locations. It is our opinion that until a large number of
windgenerators in a size range are built and installed they
should not be considered for a utility application.
Unfortunately for both the consumer and manufacturers,
there is not presently a strong well established trade
organization in the wind industry. In other industries
figures on number of units manufactured, installed, and number
of hours of operation are readily available through a trade
organization. Because of the lack of maturity of the wind
industry as a whole, production information is considered
proprietary and not released.
We estimate that there are at least 1,000 of the 4 meter
size turbines manufactured to date and that as a class it has
achieved commercial readiness for Bristol Bay. Based on the
approximately 400 machines in the 7 meter category, another
year is needed to work the bugs out before introduction can be
made into this state on anything but a demonstration basis.
The following chart was prepared to establish our best
guess on commercial availability based on the number of units
manufactured for the size categories studied. The exact date
of maturity for the turbines is dependent on successful
2
.. '
III '
..
.'
"",
demonstration and manufacturing production. Both the
demonstration projects and the production capabilities are
'variables the state can alter through a comprehensive wind
program. The economy and energy prices will effect this graph
dramatically as well1 they are totally out of the state's
control.
3
FIGURE 7.1: ANTICIPATED DATE OF WIND GENERATOR COMMERCIAL READINESS FOR BRISTOL
BAY U8E
1250----------------------------------------
c
~ 1000 ______ ~4~M~e~te~r-T~ur~b~in~e~-------------------------
::J fllml
t-m~m~l~
5::a l~l~lll~l~ ~ .. :.:.:.:.
U. :~:~:~lm ~ 750------~~~t~i~--------------------------------------< tm;l~
~ t~~~~~i
en Imm
. ~ 500------~::'~·,.: .. :':] ... ::~lj:;.:~:' ... i::~~7~M-e-te-r--T-u-rb-'-·n-e--------------------------.... ,... J;lt~
10 Meter Turbine
25 Meter Turbine
ftlf! 91 Meter
:.;.;.;.;.; ::::'.':'.':::: Turb',ne
:: .. : ...•• : .. :.: .. :.: .. :.: .• : ... -. . :::::::::::
1980 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 1990
YEAR
4
,.'
II'
..
..
7.3 Facility Schedule
7.3.1 Design Development
The first phase starts with a detailed assessment and
site selection process. This comprehensive planning step
should identify all the participants in the project and elicit
their involvement. The equipment manufacturer would be
identified in the schematic design phase and long lead items
identified. Community meetings would be held before final
design is initiated. Working drawings and design development
completion would then follow through to final design.
7.3.2 Long Lead T,me
The second phase begins as soon as the long lead items
can be identified during the design process. Material take-
off and procurement would start when final design is initiated
and any items that require barging would be expedited.
Logistic problems would be worked out in this phase as well as
preliminary site preparation and equipment mobilization.
7.3.3 Assembly & Test
The windgenerator components would be tested separately
at the point of manufacture and then shipped to a test bed in
the lower 48 fo r as sembly and chec k-out. This step is
intended to solve most of the hardware problems before the
machines reach Bristol Bay.
7.3.4 Site Preparation/Construction
Beginning early in the construction season, the site
staging area would be prepared. Having the proper tools,
equipment, and materials on-site is crucial to completing the
project in a single season. The construction should proceed
with as much local involvement and cooperation as possible.
Upon completion of the installation the turbine will go
through testing and start-up shakedown.
5
7.3.5 Training/Data Collection /Transltlon
This final phase would begin with a concerted training
program to teach the local operators how the system works and
how to maintain it. The training program could be coordinated
with the local community Voc-Tech center so that an ongoing
program can be established which is in-line with the needs of
the community.
gradually over
local utility.
This phase is also a transition period which
a period of·months turns the system over to the
The data collection could be phased into a
statewide information network so other utilities could benefit
from the experience.
e
...
II'
FIGURE 7.2
T ot~1 Progr Time
DECIJANIFEB MAR APRIMAY JUN JUL AUG SEP oCTINOV
1. Design
Development
Long Lead Time
Mat'ls Take-off,
Procurement, etc.
Assembly & Test
Installation Start-up
7
8.
ECONOMIC ANAL VSIS
8. 1 Installed Costs
The cost information developed for this section was based on
installed costs in the lower 48. The information was from actual
installations and represents in most cases an average value using
1981 dollars. Prices are turnkey costs with construction being
performed within a single year time frame. Cost of engineering,
turbine, controls, tower, foundation and wiring are included.
To estimate Bristol Bay costs an Alaskan construction cost
index was used. A large village scenario was chosen and an
index of 1.69* selected as roughly representative.
FIGURE 8.1 COST COMPARISON BY SWEPT AREA
Turbine Lower 48
diameter Cost
4m $10,000
7m $22,000
10m $34,000
17m $100,000
28m $380,000
9lm $6,000,000
.Bristol Bay
Cost
$16,900
$37,200
$57,500
$169,000
$642,200
$10,140,000
*Source: HSM, INC. -Anchorage, Alaska
1
Swept Area $/Swept
Area
13m 2 $1300
38m 2 $1000
80m 2 $700
227m2 $700
490m 2 $1300
6500m 2 $1500
These costs represent a broad spectrum of possible
installations. The 10-17 meter size range is the most cost
effective turbine based on this analysis.
There are a number of factors which contribute to the
variability in installed cost estimates. The first is the price
of the hardware itself. The lack of mass production and a true
price competitive market make the cost for the turbines high.
The larger the turbine, the more handmade they become, so that
any economies of size that should hold true are not found.
Addi tionally, when the jump is made f rom the 17 meter to the 28
meter size the type of generator goes from simple induction to a
synch ronous generator. The power from a synchronous type
generator, as discussed earlier in this report, has more value to
a utility than an inductive machine.
8.2 Power Production Cost Comparison
Using some gross parameters for purposes of estimating
relative power production costs the machines can be compared.
The following assumptions are made to allow a straightforward
analysis of the different turbines. A typical good wind site for
Bristol Bay would have a high wind power density (King Salmon
area is class 5).
Assumptions: Wind Power Class - 5
Economic Life -15 years
o & M Costs -not considered
Rate of Return -0% (for comparison only)
Amortization method -straight line
2
..
...
II'"
..
••
...
..
.,.
FIGURE 6.2 POWER PRODUCTION COST COMPARISON
Turbine Annual Energy Output Installed $/MWH*
diameter Power Class 5 Cost
4m 10 MWH/yr $16,900 113
7m 37 MWH/yr $37,200 67
10m 60 MWH/yr $57,500 64
17m 220 MWH/yr $169,000 51
28m 580 MWH/yr $642,200 74
91m 9,000 MWH/yr $10,140,000 75
*These costs are for comparison only -actual utility costs would
be much higher.
This analysis does not include costs of operating a utility
such as insurance, taxes, billing, management, land, debt
service, operation and maintenance. Operation and maintenance
costs are usually estimated at 1% to 5% of installed costs for a
w indgenerator. Much more operating exper ience is needed before
these numbers can be accurately estimated for Bristol Bay.
3
8.3 Conclusions and Recommendations
Before a utility could begin to estimate the cost of a wind
power program, very site specific information would need to be lilt
developed. Once a program has been established, economics can
be developed from multiple turbine installations using the same
crew. Labor and transportation are the biggest unknowns for bush
windgenerator construction estimating.
A phased introduction of windgenerators is the most prudent
approach to successful utilization of wind energy. As the larger
machines mature and are proven through demonstration projects in
Alaska they can then be added incrementally to a grid. This
would allow a utility to learn operation and maintenance costs
before fully committing large capital expenditures.
4
...
'"
lilt
..
APPENDIX A
Wind Data
FIGURE A.1 MONTHLY DIURNAL VARIATION-KING SALMON
Wind speed/diurnal variation
···~·······r~"''''~---/ : .~ .... ;,,'-"' :-,,\
1. I I. ~ -+ . ~ 'x
j
~'" I'
·/"1 I·
I / I ! ·· ... .,.r············r:.···· .
N"",b., of ob •• rvotion,
Meon wind .peed (.nol.1 by ho~r (GMT and
Local Ti",e, and lor all ho~,.
----In.. _ witttl.,...,.". "'" '-
21 GMT 116 locaIl _ 20 ._1
Map· Scalar mean wind
BL ... CK LINE· Scalar ",eon wind (lno,.' /1 o~~~~~--~~--~--~~--~~ -r;, or.OI of high "e,.i,'eM. 0' direction. ,h. mOGnitud. of ,h. vedor "'.an wincl.
.ho~ld clo.ely approach ,ho' of 'he .color "'eon w;nd. .... In"" of 'he ",orine
obi. notion, or. recorcl.d at Ii. hour intenol., disregard ,h. plotl for other thon
00, 06, 12, 18, GMT ho~,. on the Inor;ne oreo graph.
~~~Al ~ f ;;
SIt OIS.
Ot
0'
King Silmon
01
07 fl.,
It ., ... 'lI
..
~n ,
aIG
~
!" .
"D I
8.:, DO D'
LOCAt. Ie 11
... ,. 011-
January
D. ,.
King S.lmon
Dt
"
" '0
-0''''-
12 •• "II(
II
" " ..
01'"""
,5
D •
It ..
GO AU
"
II
"
" iUNO '''UD-a~~ ,!lUI .'ID.
I I I ;
;
I i ! i '"
I i ( i , I
I ! ,
I I , !
.
DO 01.,
"
I,.
I
-k i , i 1-!
l "----i.. I
I T • I I I
0 !
O. 12 1$ eft, 00 01 QI
Lao ... & 11 10 U 02 os
Inl DIS. " ..
April
"./
II ..
I
I
" 1\
DO ... ,
"
1
King Salmon
•
•
:!n
!
a'" ~ r' , ..
I -
.,. ""'"
.. ..
February
King Salmon
Dt
U
-OIU .... 'I" .'If*
,I o.
""
'5 .. It .. II
"
-
DO ....
"
.~----+-----~-----+----~r---~
:!n~----~----~------+------+----~
I
=-r------+------+-----~-------r----~
i
1'·r------+------+------4------~----~ ;1I1---t~.:::.....-===F====~::::;:::>...::.J.--t! -I ,
• I
"" lID DJ .. at .. " ,. " DO ... ,
,OC ... " "
, .. " .. .. D. " " • UI -. " ..
March
Kint Salmon
• ., ... _,
•
I
\ !
I,.
I!
~ t
1
t '-l.
• I
• I
·01 ............. 'I11M
i
1
! V !
1/
;
I I ,
CIt' oa OJ (II M 12 I' II 2' OD",L
Lit... HI 11 lI' uno. 01 II ,.
I.n ... 'I"
May
King Salmon
" ..
i'
i
I, r
•
,
•
•
i 1 1
I
I
i
i
I
.... 'H' ·GllHI .... , .... T IaN
I
I
, I
I !
\ 1
-----+ !----r
I i ~ i
.
• GIlT GO n 01 at ., IS I' 21 .. "'L Lie... 14 J'J '0 n 012 os 0. II ..
1 .. 5 OIl. 'I"
July
King Salmon
,,1110 ,. .. ,no.nlu_MaI. ,Att'ATIM
I j
i
I ! ! i
,.
..
,
j I I 1 i
I I \ -\ I L--• "'-. ./ I
. ,
I i ,
I I , I • Al GIl' DO OJ OIl Ot 11 15 l' 21 DO
LIKAl I' II 10 n 02 os 01 II 14
un 0". fI"
September
2
Kint Salmon
"LIiIIL"f"([D·al~ ,All IIflOM
I \ I
I I
I J !
I I 1
• ..
:!n
! ....
~
i"
i
I,
I! • -+----t
i j---
1 ______
, i T
I I
• I
I
i
!
I
I
!
-----.
GIlT 00 OJ 01 0' 12 IS I' ,. .. AlL
LOCIIL II Il lQ n 02 01 01 II U un GA. TIM'
June
King Salmon
• If'. SHU·OllMlllllliL 1M "fllIII
•
~" !
.. II
5
I" • .,.
I
I
•
-'--
-----
I
-.
.
OR' 01 01 O' " II IS ,. II .. IO.L
lOCM. lot 17 II" II at ~ .. II II .U, ••. fI_
ugust
King Salmon
"1_~fJl.:JUU~ ,liM '''10lIl
I I I I
I I ! r
" ..
I ! ! I 1 i ,
I , ; i i i ;
i i \ 1-~ i ! j , I /1 .
I ! ,
• 1 I I
GIlT 00 DJ 01 Ot U IS I' 'I 00 AlL
UX:'" 14 17 701 1J 012 as 01 II It
lUI GU. riM
October
...
""
...
..
lit.
..
-
.. ,"
...
."
",.
King S.lmon
_~ __ -r~·UI~~~'~ff.~'.~IUI.~"~'"~.~II~~~--__ ~ .. ~ I
~~-----+------+!------+------1------~
:ft~--~-----+-----+-----r--~ !
om~----~------+-----~------f_----~
~ ,,,1-----+-----+---+----+-----1
i
~" r--"'-1====t===:\=====r--"----1
g..r aa QJ 01
\.ot ... It I' lG
tI"O on.
November
a II 'I II
lIdOS.
II ..
DO ... ,
to
3
King Salmon
,.r-~---r-.~"~~~ .. '.~[[.~ ..• ~IU·~-~T'·~·~·~"~···~----~
! 1
I.r-----~------+------+------f_----~
\
:,.r------+------f_-----+------f_----~ ! I
ilO r:r----==t====t====;::====t===-~I
~, 00 OJ 01
LOC.... ,& t7 20 .... , alt.
December
! i
I)f II 15
l] 02 05
TI"(
II .1 aD l-.... ,
to
I
FIGURE A.2 INTERANNUAL WIND POWER AND SPEED
----.+ WIND POWER LEFi ORDINATE -WA'ITS/M z
.---.... WIND SPEED RIGHT ORDINATE -MIS
..... ·m.wIII ... 'O ABSCISSA -YEAR
V AND P ADJUSTED FROM Z TO 10 M BY 1/7 POWER LAW
KING SALMON AK IlJAWNA AK
2!5C503 25608
:IIIHffff :
o 3
:T11fIfJI :
o 3
40 44 48 S2 58 eo M ea 12 18 80 40444852588OM88121880
FIGURE A.3 MONTHLY AVERAGE WIND POWER AND SPEED
CAPE NEWENHAM AK
25623
600 ........... -.....•..... -......... -.....•..... -..... ,..... 7
~J!·~t1iEt ~
o 1
404448S2588OMea121880
--WIND POWER LEFi ORDINATE -WATIS/M z
-------WIND SPEED RIGHT ORDINATE -MIS
PN.·m.WIII ... ,O ABSCISSA -MONTH
V A!':lD P ADJUSTED FROM Z TO 10 M BY 1/7 POWER LAW
KING SALMON AK 02/62-12/78 IlJAWNA AK 07.48-09/64
21500II Z-U R. v-4.8. p.. 152 ~ Z-8.1 G. v-~ p-2bl
IlOO .. · .. ~ .... ~ .... r .. ·r .. ·~ .... ·' .. ···: .... ·;· .. T .. ·T· .. · 8
: :~trrrrtrrtr: :
200 : ..... L .. L...:. ... : 2 ~t81±JiIW~
~ ~ j o 0 o 0
J , W A W J J A SON D J F .. A .. J J A SON D
FIGURE A.4 DRJRNAL WIND SPEED BY SEASON
--.+WINTER ·----4SPRING
ar--41 SUMMER III---AUTUMN
PNl-l1H wt:1II""10
KING SALWON AK 02/62-12178
25503 z-8.1 C. v-4.8. P-183
1: :.:::::l::::::I:::.:I:::::t:::::::r:::T:::::C:J
4~~~~~~~~
2 · .. ···;· .. · .. ·; .... · .. ; ...... ·i·· .... ·;-...... t-.. · .. :---.. ;
O+-~-+~--~T-~~~
o 3 e g ~ ~ ~ a u
ORDINATE
ABSCISSA
IlJAWNA AK 07A8-{)9/64
25608 Z-U R. v-4.8. P-151
10 .. · .. ··;· .. · .. ·l······T ...... '·· .. ··']'· .... T .. · .. r .... '
: ::::::I:::::J~:::::t::::T::::r:::I:::::r:::::]
: .:~==="C~::::l.::::I:::I=0
0+-~-+~--r-+-4--r~ o 3 e g n ~ ~ a u
4
CAPE NEWENHAW AK 04/61-12/70
2S823 Z-4.0 G. v-~.8. P-~£
IlOO 8
IlOO
400
200
o 0
MIS
HOUR
J , W A W J J A SON D
CAPE NEWENHAM AK ().4/61-12/70
25623 Z-4.0 C. Vz 5.1. P2 242£
10
8
61=~~~_~. ~.~.~~.~
4~··fi .. ~ .. i=J
2 .... , ............... , ............... ; ....... ;-...... .
0+--r-+-;--~~4--r~ o 3 8 g ~ ~ ~ a u
""
...
...
l'"
..
....
"'"
..
FIGURE A.5 DIRECTIONAL FREQUENCY AND AVERAGE WIND SPEED
PERCENT FR~QUENCY LEFT ORDINATE -PERCENT
WIND SPEED RIGHT ORDINATE -MIS
'''l·3'KW(AA-'O ABSCISSA -WI NO 01 RECTI ON
KI NG SALMON AK 02/62-12/78
25503 Z-6.1 G. v_ 4.8. p-183
40 ···,···~···,···,····c··"· .. ,···,····:"···,··,···;···,···.... 12
30 ···i···~··~···~···;··)···~·)····~·)···~···;···~·.)··· 9
o 0
H HE E SE S SW W HW
IlJAMNA AK 07,48-09/84
211608 Z-I.e R. V-4.8. P. 151
~ f.ft)tti~Jilft ~
o
NNEESESSW"N"
o
FIGURE A.8 ANNUAL AVERAGE WIND SPEED FREQUENCY
--ACTUAL 0 I STR I BUTI ON ORO I NATE PERCENT
._--._-RAYLEIGH DISTRIBUTION ABSCISSA -MIS
''''L·3''' _1".·10
KING SALMON AK 02/62-12/78
25503 Z-6.1 G. V-4.8. P. 18:J
40 ······r····'·······,······r·····'······-:-····"]""·····;
30 ....... 1.. ..... ; .......•....... 1.. ..... 4 ••.•••• .;. •••••• L ..... l
: ····"Llr:q=1
O~~~~~~~~-'~
o 2 4 e a w ~ u ~
IlJAMNA AK 07.48-09/&4
211608 Z-t.a R. V -4.8. P. 151
40 ·······,······-;-· .. ···j·······r·····'·····T·····' .. ·····,
30
20
10
o~~~~~~~~~~
024 a a w ~ u ~
FIGURE A.7 ANNUAL AVERAGE WIND SPEED DURATION
ORDINATE PERCENT
ABSCISSA -MIS
PNL·Jl" WfR .... 'O
KING SALMON AK 02/62-12/78
25503 Z= 6.1 G. V= 4.8. p. 163
100
80
eo
40
20
o+-~~~~~~~~~
024 e a w ~ u ~
IlJAUNA AK 07A8-09/84
211608 Z-9.8 R. V-44 P. 151
~Hfi+f#tInlnl
20
o~~~~~~~=.~~
o 2 4 e a w ~ u ~
5
CAPE NEWENHAN AK 04/61-12/70
25623 Z .. 4.0 G. V.. 5.1. po.. 242E
40
30 . ,
r "
. ~. ,. : :: .~: : .. ::. : .. : . . ,.: 1:2
20 •• ~ ,-~~',;:: '-";-~"~~ .. :.:_:_: .. ~~ 6
10
..... , .. , _..... .....•. ... '-' .... -.. ... 3
. ~ ..
o 0
HHEESESSWWHW
CAPE N£WENHAM AK 04/81-12/70
2!5e23 Z-4.0 G. v. 5.1. P. 242E
40 ·······,·······,·······:·······,·······,······T·····'· ...... ,
30 ··~···· .. ·f······T······t····-··~······t·· -f·······i
20 ............. , ....... , ....... ; ....... , ....... j ....... , ....... ;
10
O~~-+~r-T-~~~~
o 2 4 e e w ~ u ~
CAPE NEWENHAM AK 04/61-12/70
~ z-4.0 G. V= 5.1. p. 242£
100 ...... , ... , ....... , ....... , ....... , ................ , .......... .
80 Ll!
: lihfIH!THHr:
0+-~~~~~4-~~~ o ~ 4 e awn u ~
FIGURE A.S ANNUAL AVERAGE WIND POWER DURATION
ORDINATE -PERCENT
ABSCISSA -WATTS/M z
"'l·ll" _R •. 10
IlJAWNA AK 07-48-09/84 ~ Z-11.8 R. y. 4.8. P. 151
tOO -~ .... -.--.. --.-....... -.-..... , ..... -..... ,.-..• : ~r:t±~LJ ttt:tJ
40 ou ~ ..... ~ ••••• ~J.-.~ .... ~ .... ~ ..... ~ ..... ~-.. ~
3) ... + ..•... L·i·····!···+····!·····t··+··!
o
o 200 400 eoo eoo 1000
6
CAPE NEWENHAW AK 0./61-12/70
523 Z-4.0 G. Y-5.1. P. 242£
100 .. ,. ···"····T····"·····,·····"·····!·····~·····'·····'
8O.''-..... i ..... ~ ..... ; ..... ~ ..... ,..... • ; . -~ ..... i
60 ··f·-····~·····~··-··~-···-~·····+····+····~·····~·····~
40
20
O+-~-L~~~~~
o 200 400 eoo aoo 1000
_.
.. '
., .
"' .
...
... ..
... . '
....
...
...
fE.ta.C.E.NT I\~E FIZ-E.e:.U£NC.Y of WIN 0
DI~EC.TION ANO SPE.ED
(FR.OI'\ HOUR.LY O£'~ER.VATIONS)
. 1...,11.""1" I!./I/
(It .. d. -r!. _ -; E P I
;u.,...r,rEl7.
-'---' ~F~CO r1EAN ~~' 1-3 4--(' 1-10 II -\6 11-2\ 2.l-n 2.1 -33 34--40 4f-55" ~ fib % w,"o
Ol~, 'iI-41 $ I't;f. 0
N I" 1) <t>
'iT (j)--ij--W---' W , OJ -----.-
NNr:
NE II' ''}) I/II@ I (I) , cP
I'''' (5) '"'''''169 nr~v ~'J5 iiilTW-jilllHrr--iJll11 110-II I~j-rr-w---w"'G)--
E.l-lc 69
~ ,,~ ~'t0 n----'-"'----iifTlTr J) --Ullin il!) 1"11 QY I @
E. 1111' ® II1IUff<@ iI1l1IIl(@
m~ I"' m Q) III (~) IQ) mlll'l (!) A~ rnr (9 liff (]) III
~-1l11---"ID .---------------~!£._----:.-
SE "J) Q) ---------r'--lD"--r----u)"·-r--6)-------.-.. ----.-. -_ ... _--.---._------_.-. ._-----
5:)1;. ----I" III (0 III (~ 1 5 (~) --ssw Ii' (]) ~ "!)
Ii) r"16.) "I' ~) II ----------------
SW " )
W5',\1 ,II (~ )JV lII1 nl/-v 1lIf1iII1lff---iIl\~ !IIf~---I/V"W!rs-lire,) <! -' ---I -) (Ii;) ,~ l¥jft~Il' , Ii) ~\lIn(I~}) J"JII~/l1I i'iIi1i!'Ilhr--III1l"Vj) --,,1" (~)-----I w (9 1"11 \)~) ~ ()Dl
1 ro " W I"' ) iIIl'1l!)) ;i.fii(iuiiili' Idrlllnll;:~~ H/I'~~~~R'II! '''-11 1''':'1'1 "'/~I loJ ;;,jill\ "'""Ii 11""'
IJI,J II 6> pili W I ,y (;) II (~ __ I ...... ~'I.", V' (£;S) -----'!L £, s -. c.-~ \11('5)---.---NH\o.J t,) -
I JIll I" II
VI\!I.~L ---._---------------
c.1\1.-11 ·1") LJ J./i,.
yt, '1'.1. I/,g .-, r;t; '10 11-1'1 -"---ztt-----<)'_--;;';' Zr-------
I~,,..", Cj I'l,) d/f H:Ji: ')J.? /' ~f(
)'7 r.7t. I. d t-n,D • --
TOTAL NO. OF 06~E.It.III\TIOJ.l~ --'/.(...:...'L,I.c..:i ____ _
"TI
S
C
lJ m
)0
Co
m ..,
c: --:l
cnm
c:~
3'<
3~ (I) __
"':l a.
o
Q)
P+
Q)
I~ tNti'i
DIIe. 1-3 lj.-"
N 1111 oJ 1'" 0>
NtH, II @ 1IIfQ7-
NE I'll l!:!) 1\lff1Y
ENa III/ L'Y I"II~II\'_~)
Eo -!Iff (~) Jiofl~
E.~E ~II. '" "/1'y----SE ~--~iI~--'-SSE
, ::, 1Itf1(!) 1II1111®
r---"'1 ev \ffl(T.) Ssw
SW JltJ JUfI 11'6) iJlIllI@
Ws'.v I." \HI I UP -~
\".j 11 1111 '0 1If\ll1I1\X~
't1ll1A! ~ 11\1 C>
~~ 11,1 & 1111)/ tl)
N~l\.J flIT ('!) ITII-CV
VI\P_~L
c.A.L.t1 III/ U11~~e~ 'II ) ,')
'2%, ' 6lc, II Rho;-' .
PE.'lC.E.NTf\<ZE FI~EQ.UENC.'1 OF WIIIIO
DI~EC.TION ANO SPEED
(FR.Ot1 HOIJR-L.Y OBifR.VATIONS)
1--10 11-16 11-2.1 U-2.r 2.., -33 31f-40
1111 (!j) 0
~-n (f) fll (})
»1I11I1I1'l:~) l~nlfl1 '(jJ) (J) 1l1li11 CP 11111'& IJttrIl 6)
IIIrn~_ 1~~"~Ift~ ifffJIf$ lIfirr1{1;'" ~..,~-~;
jJHJI/I(~9 \iIIUIIJ I'@ JIll "111Wl;";y ~;f.I'~~1 /I.~~n'r ~~
1fII1I1@ III'''''''liD ~~:-.. ~-Tf~!..-i{1I'I~ I~_~_J@
Jrff(9--iilI'-@-----(j}----
0
~If~-" II '-'(p' .... _. _ .. --.---.. -~ ..
II" ~T--,-_. ,------.---.~--
III f.9 I (,J
'"fill (9) III (t) , (jl-~~~--'----
r.~![q~' ~;Jtm,~ fIll~fljr ~:-.~ ~II' (oj)
~WUAI r~ ;\' iiilo"YI q 1i"~'UtiiiJ(l~ , nil ~~ff(%1fiT .':iIfil~ir,R ItI1 (J S
'II, (tV 111\1'1\ "'If''-) '""(,s) ""III}!Il-l-.""II'/ :} j IUIlI/fIIl(IV
(j) " OJ ~ I I 1(9
IiIN'-r------cv i'f.? .L
--CElL
I fll.;7, d;.kl. I Ie, .J,,), Ii ;P"/';'~~ ;;Zr;i IOr-e---::-; (",' .1/,"1
I
41-111'
~@-
'1()
IJ1\ 19 ----
_._--
~-GJ
/I (~
---
:;~7'2
' ~ .. '
6'" it ltv
_, '-J;-' t./::'
""~c.-ri~L/J
Qf-55' >.-5'6
~ ~ ((;)
II" @
n'm@ ~(I~ c---
%
'--------'---
---
----'(JT--inl
'(j)
I
~%.~--:;" j-~
If)#; 0
,,£ ... '"
""",,''''0
SPI!f.O
') D, ,
TOTAL NO. OF 06SIiIlV"TIOt.l~
'r: ' lIf
? ( ...... ~(,.(/ /Z-'u;-~ ,
•... ""1''' L 1
I ,
f "
--
'I
I~' c,..cr:.
CUt. 1-3 , (j) N
NNt;
NE '/I '}>
I'.tl E (,)
E
£.::..:: II SE ,I) --
5!>E
, ::. f----.
\ ,) SSW
. S\J
t-------
,"",S'N I I (!) w
'N H 'oJ
IJ"-J (I) --r-';)-f.Hio"J
VI\!!.~L ---'''''¥!;71~ CAL-1'1 /I ~'h.s
/I
1.'1'/0 .
PE.Il.C.E.NTfI~E F~E.QUE.NC.Y OF WINO
D IREC. TION ANO $PE.E 0
(FR-Ol-\ HOUR-LY OC.~f.R.VATIONS)
--r--------
l~ -" 1-10 II -Iu 11-2.1 2.l-H 2.., -33 3 1• -Ito 41-41 4 S-55" ~ 5"6
CD r~ " Q)
'11(;'; 11 ~ ~€>
" l!) ~Hr t9 1111 (~ III 0> tv IN (3)
Ii) ~i9 \If'" '0) ill" UII (TIQ'T ~~~ r/Tf;wJ"~ ~'1IlfI ~~ ~\'N"~ ~ ", , 'I~ &il\I~
'In(g:r-illfjlJIr II <it) lim (1/) ~C9 ~c01 III V OIl {'I> ~
V (!) ( .) ~) 1iD~ ,II .'J)
, rv ilf(3j-fI7.J7------_._---._----,---_. __ ..
(~) r--11---. ·-,T ...• '·-.l)
.-. -----_ .•... -. _.-"._-------,-------
--_. .J 1\1 ;)
-V----_.
0)
til 8) III( I. !)I'IjI\J(IV ""'(~ ------.----.----I-~ --I--
i(iJ--JITil[';'i-;r--:£i~ tllTlilIIIljjjftm ~IWIlWll!l'" .) ~?}L ~~rl--l\11:q~~, II"'IIIU~J' I""'Cv I"""UCY zy-
II (y ~--" IIltY-~lfooqn tunr lIIij. II1r ~~ 1""11'1 (:.'tQ.RI ~~:!~r;~ ' fV II) (~ ,,,) " /) d! nu.l 1 "l ~')
' '1') ,7 (y • (i) ,"I ~{J m (,) r ().) I (f) r-(V ( -C) ., tV
---------~.--.. -.-r-G)------_._----.. ---------.. -----_._----------
---------'---'---'-----.--
-------._--_.-_ ... __ .. _--.----_.-.. ----.... .. _-_ ... __ . .. _._-----------... __ ._.-
,
~'~oln .,1, (1) ?1 Ii 71 '/,; r~J -~-:;,: wr--;;-n-"---"--;,';-) oz-~----rI~ it/' 'I. r V
,) I () ') (J C/? V -/1} i ,",) ~ ft! J{j ) i I.{)'f.~
--
TOTAL No. 01' Oe1~R.Vf.TIO~:;
%
..2::.~-;L ---
--_._-
----
17.2
------L_ ..
---
r1£J\N
wlUO
SP&E.O
---
---
~~O
OJ ..,
c: --
--::s .a.
o
Q) ,....
Q)
~~: DIs... 1-3
N I"
NNI! II
NE ,I
-~
~--
E
E.::.e:
Sf. ~II
S~E yr----
~-fI
SSW II
5\J I""
WS'I,j
W 'II
'tmw
~w
NN\..}
\It\~i!;L.
-''P' c. 1\ 1-1'1
.
lj.-", 1--10
I 1"11
II.
III [lI\'Ilr-
PEa.C.E.NTI\G-E fitEG.lJENC.'1 Of WINO
OlItEc.TIOr-\ ANO SPf.ED
(FItOI'\ HOIJR-LY OIUfIl.VATIONS)
11-16 1"1-2.1 2.2-2.r 2. S -33 31f-40
11I1Mfl1ll11111 , ........... , ~-iMli MIl )mIl
------
'iI-If:}
11ItI1lllt<1IMI
III I"" I*"'pr--111\ ,--II"
I" '" 1111 IH
~-r----ir----.----.~ --------------------
-~------~ --_. __ ... -.. -~ --.. -.. ,--.~" .. --.' .. ~. ---------
"'---1-------'---.. _--
rrr---n----
1lH1~ 11*" "' 1'\ 1"1\-------Ir-----
liJIIltIlliI\Ufi iffl~ iiIIllIfIIIIiTJr-~run1lll1ll1l\1 I ~N''''' 11"l1li11\ '111\
Illfl I~III. I"'1IlflIllr il'IIUfIlmI ~lR1l11n ~ 1IIf~11I11I~_'1 ,
PII 1\1,(\'
ill I" " f'" 1111\ I'
I lIT ----
---------'.----_._-------"---
-~ .... -"_._-----.. -~---------
..
1 t , 1
% I1£.A'"
~r-55" ?"Sb w,"o
SP/Ii/!.."
1""'"'1111 I"" --........ -
.. _---~-------
II{!
~A. ,.,.."" m-
I
-----~--.--!---
------------
1
CAPE NEWENHAM ALASKA AFS 53-10 ALL
STATION NAill '''' .. 110 NTH
ALL WEATHER ALL •
HOUII (L.S.T.I CLASS " (') G5
CONDITION
c: Dl :D m "C ~ .... CD 0
SPEED MEAN Z
(KNTS) 1 • 3 "'·6 7 • 10 11 -16 17 • 21 22 -27 28 -33 3'" -"'0 "'1 -"'7 "'8 -55 ~56 % WIND
DIR. SPEED
N • e .2.2 2.8 3.1 1.4 .5 .1 .0 11.0 11.0
CD
~
NNE .4 .8 .9 .6 • 1 .0 .0 .0 2.8 8.2 CD
NE • 3 .8 .6 .3 • 1 .0 .0 .0 Z.Z 7.7
ENE .2 .S .6 .6 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 x,.Z 10.8
E .4 .9 1.4 1.4 .6 .4-.1 .1 .~ .0 .0 !'J.Z 12.0
ESE .2 .6 1.2 1.9 1.2 .1 .3 • 1 .0 .0 .0 0.3 15.0
SE .3 .9 1 • 7 2.5 1.5 1.0 .5 .2 .0 .0 8.6 14.9
SSE .It 1 .2-1.8 2.4 1.1 .6 .1 ,1 .0 .0 7,7 12.6
~ :::r
Dl
3
S .5 1.' 2.1 3.3 1.3 .It • I .0 '.8 11.6
ssw • 1 .6 1.3 i.i .It • 1 .0 .0 3,8 10.8
sw • 1 .6 1.1 .6 • 1 .0 .0 .0 ~.8 '1. it ~ -.
wsw .1 .It .8 ., .1 .0 .0 1.9 9.5 ~
W .2-.7 1.3 .9 .1 .1 .0 3.3 9.4
WNW .2 .5 1.1 1.0 .3 .1 .0 .0 3 .. 2 )0.6 a.
NW .4 1.1 1.7 1.8 .6 .2-.0 .0 ~.'1 10,8
NNW .4 1.1 1.7 2.2 1.1 .It .1 .0 7.1 11.'1
VARBL
0
Dl
CALM >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< 1b.3 ..-+
Dl
, .1 14.4 2!.6 2.4 .7 10.2 4.7 1.It .5 .1 .0 .0 100.0 9.8
TOTAL NUMBER OF OBSERVA liONS 130834
fI';OJJrll
~fi-tJ
FE-fl
Mf}(l.
APfl.
"" tty
JutJ
IUL-
fJUlr
S!;"
~C,T
lJ~v
f}E~
II/JNlJJll
I
A ti!I'U j£) I" \!JI./ j) .s t-l ~'j~:'~l/l fl Y
Y~r.:...3,,''':.! Z/)£I.I(f ~ IEP/.l)l...Ci-. /VW'1lIiE/~': ___ _ --------... --.--.--------.---~-···--~-----l -CA1..1'· 1--3 l/-6 7-/0/' "/G 17-ill ;.). ... ~? ~ r-31 :s &.j-f', ~ Y'l '1~f J'.r,-N~M6 p7L~v. tlfJll'-
0/0 % ~" '7~ _" % % ozc, 0'/,,, () ~ ~ .013> DiP. s IiF~
$", ~ 0.3 J~.'1 3'1.'-/ '3" B' '1,'1 /.6 114r lJ,Je
5.1 £'.3 ILJ·'1 -;. 'J..!-[ 3~.o I 'to L( 2& D.} O.~
, '118 ,J
'1/1 d.~ .. 1£.0 '3;;1, ~ 1t. "'-~ ?" c. t./ I11I ,J ---
~.'7 /, 'A IL/.~ 7/)·g 30.' S-·7 (). t..J . JI YLI EfJE
'S.D ~.(:, 13.(, 3?,~ 3), ~ 1,9 ",7 tJ./ IJ()?~EtJc
S'? 0.3 IS:S-'3j~~ '3t, r '1. I I, 'b' /0 '1'/. S
q./ l. () ?3,o '1/S-r?.¥ ~.Y (),S-tt>&S-S
2.'8 II~ ~l.~ ~'t1. /9. .'t. . "". '1 ~-lOS' V ~
I"), L{ t!>.9 ?-;l.~ Y/19 ~:3." ~1'7 ". 'I a. / IO~t/ }J
r, J..._.-.2£. l.lt.~J .~1~.1 ?:/.·,.i .~',~-.mL.'£: 10'31 ~
• -:p·.....,.--.-.".. .... _r.··_ -...... .,.. .~."'''' .. ~ ...... -..... ~ ........ -...
IS·s /1 I L'2:t_ } .. gD ~r.,-1}.9 tP. ? .~ 1I~l) 11
9.:.!:L. I. ~ ,'1, , J_fu ~L,~ E.a I, / o. / 1()91 V
N 1.0 fJ·1_. 1'2·fo .~J": ? .?:9·o ?,l) ..I. (, ". ! J ~'iO~
.---.--,~
----" .-
c ------:::J
CO
:::T
~
3
~ --
\I , I , ' , l ,
E
" 10
1\
I:
'(""
,0
1\ I:
€ ~"
~TRT'O'" ILIAMNA • 2S~Ob'
9 a "[T[t;
"()rt .an'OI '0 .. '0";0
'H['[~[ .ovr Ii.
I3v(PQ(j( \.f NO ~P((O 'M~S(( I 8' H('o .... Af<l "f').",h4
Nurs(. 0' Uf'llIO O'~('A"ON:' ,,,':":.Q
HvU'
It 8" ~"e ~It 8 It Q It' It q It' It J It q It' ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 It Q,,'1t 91t Q It q It Q
Itb .. ~It~ ~ltbItSIt"It~1t ".,ltt, eIt6 .. ,.ltb .. IltIt .... w .. ItIt~ .. ~ ..
ItJIt .. Itt, .. ~ .. ~lttjlt .. ~ .... t, i'lte .. QlteIt81t~1t .. 1t 10IjI1 ..
~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ i ~ 1 ! i ~ ~ : • : : ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ i ; ,
~~~1~~6i~i1l:~a ~:9~;~~~;~~~n n~~~e ~,~
1 It Q .. Q It ~
I!. It ~ ... ID .. a
10IjI :.
S •
, I bl']']blbJ b]"2.~.7 9~0~2~ ~ ~o ,01"]8
1:~:~:~1t : :~:~~r~i~!~~~!~:~:~~::1t ~ itS: :
~ ~] ~ ~' ~ ~ I ~ I ~ 2 ~ , ~ ~ S S S , S ~ ~ ] ~ I ~ I ~ IS' S 2 ~ • ~
'.' ,~. 'b' 8'''~0~0~OSOSISO~0'9'8'E' '8'9, .. ,
It'lt ItZ"'''11t 1 ~ltbIt8~O~'~.:~:~ ~f)ItQ .... b ...... ]1t
.-.( IGHT
.. S
10 0
~O 0
R\I~PR(j(
~.u'[P
, 8
, 8
b 0
UIHO $P((O 1"/<:(('8)'
$PP I Nli ~tJnn( P
It ; 14 1
4 It It ..
S ~ S 1
S[ AS:"
~U"JMN . .. , ~
10 :
IJ"('RG( \.fIHO POU£P IUR'TS/MII;:. 8Y HOIJP AH(' "(",rt4
HUMB(P or vAllO v8S(IF:Q';'If)tf$ 11t'::'bO
"OUP
00010: OJ 0' 'JS 010 O~ OS 0910 \I I: .] I_ I~ '10 I~ 18 I" :0 :1
18~ ",
1:-J I ~ 1
IS~ 1,'0
1~' nl4
S' SI
:-S "",
SI Itq
8: 8e
1\' 1\'
It'b 1:"1
191.0 IQ£
lit .. tltb
,;r"I:1
19Z IS:
Iblt tb9
lS: I';
I" I:
:"0 bit
148 .. .-
S£ 89
1\8 tI~
IbS I ~~ :0: :C.
.I!,': " .. ":1
I: I I ?IJ
:00 I"~ ,Q .. 'S:-
tb q
,"" ";: 1:0
8: 9~
'"It :"9
,~ ~,
810 8~
I'''' ll q
lIDS 10: :0: 18:
Iltb 1 SJ
! ,-I ~ :
toI[ 1(jJ-tT
, <
10 G
~IJ 0
A'I[PRI"J(
I-oIH.T(P
'''9
I ~ 1
:10'
19: ,,:
I ~I
:: 1 b .. 11
110] 1108
'~S '80
I:S ,~:
91t 9b
I;:S 118
I b; I ~b
'8' ,QS
:0' :0'
I '0 I ~7
I.: I ~I
'9~
'101
'::19
Ilb
'Sb
I ~I
10:
117
, 'b
:00
:O~
1b~ , "
~IU(' P(I-oI(P
SPJ lUG
1<'
I ~,
:010
:1!.
I~' ::9
IE'
181
181
113
"~ lEO
1~9
:t9
1"
I S I
j I-oIRTT5 -nl.:'
SUMME P , ,0:
'03
':fJS
::1;' ::IQ
1:" I 'fa
18~ 171t
13" 130
lit':: I:!
t"~ 13b II: 910
1:0 101
t!<:1 , ... :
It-b 1"'3
19, '~b It,:: 1 b ...
,~~ ,~~
8 I :[A:.t)~1
r,hJTIjMH , , , '. :~,
QtullJQl
I t:~ ,
~ ~ ~ :c.
IS:
I ~]
1 €';.
lib
2'; E,
L'
Qb ,.,
'80
'" I r,
I .. v
~ ..
, S
• b
"ll
~o:
I',
IE;: , ..
I':'.,
II'
-----
--::l a.
KING SALMON AFS AK 07-70,73-79 ALL
ITAlIOIi IIAII' TU •• 110"'11
"T1 " is
ALL WEATHER ALL
CLAII IIOU" 11 .... '.1
c: --:u ~ m
?* CO ~
CONDITION
(0)
CJJ
S» -
SPfED MEAN 3
(KNTS) 1 • 3 .c·6 7 • 10 11 • 16 17 • 21 22 • 27 28·33 3.c • .cO .c 1 • .c7 .ca·55 . ~j6 " WIND
DIR. SPEED 0
N .8 !.6 4.8 3.1 ·4 • 1 13.0 8.7 ~
NNE .6 2.8 1.8 1 .0 .2 .0 .0 5 •• 7.8
NE .(, 1.1t 1.0 .6 .2 • 1 .0 .0 3.9 a.1
ENE .5 l .4 1 .2 .9 .3 .1 .0 It.it 8.5 ~ --E • 7 2.9 2.9 1.6 1 .1 1 • I .3 • 1 .0 12.4 12.5
ESE .Ii 1.2 1.2 .7 .2 .1 .• 0 .0 "3.9 8.4
SE .4 1 .4 1.2 .7 .3 .2 · ] .0 .1) 'i." 9.6
~ a.
SSE • S 2.0 1.8 I ., .9 .If • 1 .0 7.5 10.7
5 .5 1 .8 2.6 2.2 .7 .2 .0 .0 8.8 9.9 0
ssw • 3 1.1f 2.6 1.i1 .2 .0 .0 .0 8.1 8.9 S»
sw · 3 1.0 1.4 1 .2 .2 .0 .0 £fool 9.3 r+
wsw .If .9 1.2 1 • 1 .3 • 1 .0 3.9 9.5 S»
W .6 1 .3 1 .6 1 .3 .'1 • 1 .0 5.1 9.0
WNW .3 • 9 .8 .11 .1 .0 .0 2.5 7.5
NW .3 1.0 .9 .4 .0 .0 .0 2.7 7.1
NNW .7 2.5 2.7 loti • 1 .0 .0 7.S S.O
VARBL .[1 .0 9.0
CALM >< ~ >< >:s: ~ ~ >< >< >< >< >< 5.1 . ; ! .
B.O 25.9 29.6 22.2 6.1 2 •• • 5 • 1 .0
,
100.0 6.9
, TOTAL NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS 8159'2 .
. I
1 II 1 , , I
11390 3 Oba. Daily.
PERIOD SUMMARY BY COMBINED VELOCITY GROUPS
DEC. 19:38 -
STATION PILOT ponrr, AI.A:SEA 'imUaIi( AlnmAL PERIOD APn. 1941
'TI -0 is c: --::a -m 0 .,.. ..... .... .,.
-0
0 ~ TOT. N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW sw I~ w ~ NW NNW °/0
MP . 08S.
--:J ..... 4-15 I.?S .., It) ) 13) ..)8 _'7.r8 .rr 1 If)) I J J..{J. I '0 ~ lIS /0
....
01 16.31 .3.f J )/. .., If) ) 1.tI-'I j.2 S ..3/ 'IJ ::.? I..tt.") ;).x ~ --:J !Z-47 / ~ "I 7 tt / .:l~ / ..
OVER a.
47
C
Dl CALM
'11 I.J... .....
Dl TOT.
Des, I'll i ~o,(J' I¢. ).'Ii I I)j I Jl ~ l."I-, f:, I:'JJ .) 1../1 I.J Jt'l-o
°/0 CALM
/I I..J IJ'" 71 ~ ~1/.r 71· ) I I~. 100 .ft-I 11-" 'til 10 1 I
, :-" \ -~ :' . . -'.' .~, ~ . -. ~', .. ~'
• .' , • ~ ~ • • _. • .! ..r..
.I1IJ1II-II1I11
•••••• IIIIIIr-:;:=
--
PORT HEIDEN ALASKA APT ALL
"AtIOM N'IIE YlAi. 1I01lt"
ALL WEATHER ALL
CUSI 10011 .. (L.'.Y.) "T1 -U C5
COIODIYIO.
c 0 :a m ..,
?-r+ ...
."
:J:
SPEED MEAN
(KNTS) 1·3 "·6 7· 10 II • 16 17·21 22.27 28·33 3 ..... 0 .. I ... 7 .... 55 ~56 '" WIND
CD -. DIR. SPEED a.
N • S_ .B 2& .9 .5 .3 • 1 ,0 S. \ lO./t
NNE ~ 5 ~~ _Z~ -L-%-1.0 .6 ',1 ,0 1.9 1 1 , e
NE .6-1 .0 2.6 1,9 .1 .3 • 1 ,0 7. 1 100
CD
:l
ENE ,) .7 c----!~~ 1 _ 1 .£i .) .1 .0 ,0 .0 4.6 11 .1
E ,5 ,7 1 • 1 ---:7 .6 .6 • l .1 .0 .0 It,i 12,5
,4
-. 1. S' 1.6 1,7 l.l .6 .2 , 1 8,7 17. 1 ESE .s .0 .n r-----.5 -
l.! 9 -1.9 1.4 1.4 .5 1,6 ----rs~ SE ,8 .2 .0 ,0 .u r-
SSE .4 .7 1.6 1·'1 1.2 1.0 .5 ,2 .0 ,0 7.0 15.2
S ~4 --•. !-__ 11!t .. .5 .2 • 1 .0 .0 .0 3.4 8.8
~ _.
:l a.
ssw .4 ,1 1.7 1. 1 .6 .4 • 1 .0 .0 '.0 11.7
sw .4-,6 -~~ 1.5 .6 .5 .1 .0 .0 .0 6.0 lZ.4
wsw ,. .!.!-_hl _~.2 1.4 1. 1 ,t .0 .0 .0 8,2 la.9 ---1.Z .3 .0 ----"-.--14,-3 W .3 ,6 1!9 1.7 .9 .1 .0 ,0 '. 1 _._-
~6 L4 1 .2. 5.9 WNW ,3 .9 1.0 .3 .1 .0 l~ • 7
0
Q)
r+
Q)
NW .3 .5 1..l .9 .6 ,5 • 1 .0 ".4 19.0
NNW
~.
,4-.6 1, (\ .5 ,5 .3 • 1 .0 If,O 11.7
VAR8L
CALM .~ ~ e~ l~ ~ >< >< >< >< 2< >< 2.9
.. . -
6.1, lL4 2.8.0. 21.3 131.6 11.6 3.3 1.1 .2. • 1 .0 100.0 12.9
TOTAL NUMBER Of OBSERVATIONS 58055
\1390 3 Observatlona lJally.
PERIOD SUMMARY BY COMBINED VELOCITY GROUPS
If.lY 1939 -
PERIOD
"TI ~ C5 Ql c
:JJ m ::l
?-Ql .... ...... ---Ql
::l
STATION TJ'tNAIIAN ro TIlT. iU..A.SKA. AltYC"AL !:lli TL 1)41
~ TOT. N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S s:m SW ~ W ~ NW NNW °/0
MP. . OBS.
-C
4-1!5 ? 60 ~/O 7 I; 19f 7:J ~ ..... d77 1-1
0 --::l
....
CD 1&-31 / i &1.. ;J i' I / 11 &
~ 32-47 / ~ " J j!:.
~ OVER
47 --
CALM 6~1 "..i ::l a.
I
0
Ql
~
Ql
I TOT. r ~ 7t/-ItZ 17 ZCJtJ l76 6 'J'If lOBS. 7tJ
CALM
I 0/0 / 'J-~l I I If ~-I ,£/-) IOC
FIGURE A.18 ALASKA POWER ADMINISTRATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Department Of Energy
Alaska Power Administration
P.O. Box 50
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Mr. Eric Yould
Executive Director
Alaska Paoler Authority
333 West 4th Ave., Suite 31
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Dear Mr. Yould:
REC~IVt=D
" OJ :' 1981
• 1.... ~
August 25, 1981
We wanted to bring you up to date on our wind power investigations for
the Bristol Bay area.
We have contracted with AeroVironment, Inc. of Pasadena, California, to
perfonn wind energy noni toring and appraisal analysis for potential
wind fanns in the Naknek-King Sa.1.roon and Dillingham areas of Bristol Bay.
In this appraisal analysis, the contractor will (1) review miscellaneous
available wind data and obtain, reduce, and evaluate existing reoorded
data to detennine sites to be nonitored; (2) funrish, install, operate
and rraintain rronitoring equiprent, and utilize the assistance of two
local utilities to operate and maintain the equiprrent; (3) evaluate data
obtained fran the nonitoring and prepare an appraisal estim3.te of the
wind pc::1.Ver generation potential to supplerrent the present utility
systen5, including preparation of conceptual wind farm layouts, cost
estimates, and operation characteristics; (4) recommend a scope of work
for subsequent rronitoring and analysis to result in a feasibility level
evaluation of a utility operated wind farm system; and (5) recommend a
location and criteria for possible installation of single SWECS
generator.
The two utilities, Naknek Electric Association and Nushagak. Electric
Cooperative, will assist with site selection, instrumentation
installation, data retrieval, and instrument checking.
APA will perfonn economic and cost analyses.
19
The schedule is:
Monitoring site selection and instrumentation 8/30/81--9/05/81 (approx.)
Monitoring equipment fully operational and
beginning of data
Status Rerort (draft not to be final)
End data collection for analysis, but
continue data oollection
AV draft rerort to Jl:PA
End data oollection, restore sites,
public meetings in Bristol Bay
Jl:PA ccmnents to AV
AV final report to Jl:PA
Sincerely,
10/01/81
4/15/82
9/30/82
11/15/82
11/30/82 (approx.)
12/13/82
1/15/83
Administrator
20
...
..
p, -
..
...
...
APPENDIX B
Bristol Bay Wind Generators
FIGURE B.1 WIND GENERATORS IN THE BRISTOL BAY AREA
6. Installed & Operating (year Installed)
&. InstaHed-Not Operational (year Installed)
A Presently Not In Use (year Installed)
D· System Planned and/or Purchased (year to be Installed)
(1) 6. Afognak Island, 2kw Aeropower, Battery Charger (1981)
(2) ~ Chignik, 2kw Aeropower, Battery Charger (1981)
(3) 0 Dillingham, 10kw Jacobs, Utility Intertie (1981)
(4) A Dillingham, 300 watt Aerowatt, Battery Charger (1974)
(5) A Dillingham, 200 watt Wincharger, Battery Charger (1960 I s)
(6) 0 Egegik, 4kw Enertech, Utility Intertie (1982)
(7) ~ False Pass, 2kw Dun1ite, Battery Charger (1977)
(8) 6. Fox Bay, 1.8kw Jacobs, Battery Charger (1978)
(9) 6. Illiamna, 2kw Jacobs/Dakota, Battery Charger (1979)
(10) 6. Illiamna, 2kw Jacobs, Battery Charger (1979)
(11) 0 King Salmon, 4kw Enertech, Utility Intertie (1982)
(12) 6. King Salmon, 300 watt Aerowatt, Battery Charger (1975)
(13) 6. King Salmon, 2.2kw Enertech, Utility Intertie (1979)
(14) A King Salmon, 2.2kw Enertech, Utility Intertie (1981)
(15) ~ Kodiak, 1.5kw Aeropower, Battery Charger (1981)
(16) 6. Kodiak, 10kw Jacobs, Utility Intertie (1981)
(17) 6. Lake Clark, 3kw Jacobs, Battery Charger (1977)
(18 )
(19 )
(20)
(21)
(22)
&
6.
6.
6.
A
Nikolski, 2kw Aeropower, DC motor, lights & heat (1980)
Naknek, 2.2kw Enertech, Utility Intertie (1980)
Naknek, 10kw Jacobs, Utility Intertie (1981)
Nelson Lagoon, 20kw Grumman, Utility Intertie (1977)
Nelson Lagoon, 15kw Grumman, Utility Intertie (1981)
(23) A Newhallen, 8kw Stormmaster, Battery Charger (1980)
(24) 6. Port Alsworth, 2kw Jacobs, Battery Charger (1978)
(25) A Port Heiden, 2kw Aeropower, Battery Charger (1981)
" " ,I
!," •
.'
Bob Costello •
224 26th N.W.
Olympia, . Wa 98502 .
Dear Mr. Costello:
\ .. I
.. fIGURE B.2 DILLINGHAM WIND INFORMATION' :, ... . CITY OF' 01 LLI NGHAM .. :~", .. :.,~
II '. "4
. .'. .'. :.,' .. : .•. '. '.III!!'
. P.O. BOX 191 DILLINGHAM, ALASKA 99576'.:· '.'i .. ';'"
.! .. ' • " • r '. __ ..,.:" _.' ." f .• r
• I
.. ' :""
, .
" .
J ". j'
:.' .. ' . . . . , ,-
. TELEPHONE (907) 842·5211 or'842.S212· ,,~.;~: <:).~.:: .,,< .. .' ..... "c .
", . ..' :'., . /' :.' .. ~'. ~_'::i./.:, .: .. /;:.~,::~:':::-':; ':?~:~;' ""~:~··f~. ". (' :2?~
~:'.~ l,'.::~.:;.::";' : "':':.:<":.'.: .. ·~:/~ .. ,l.;r,:L,:':> .. '~"~.'. ~)~~:
r r r .... l~.~ . ~..;. ~ .. '.February3 ;1978'·"'" ...... ,-'
,., "', .. .:. ~
• • I
~ ,. ~ • '. ~ '''",::, J' :. ,.
'~ ...
~ .: .
'j:
• ;. .• . •• j.
I _ -.. ~ ,'. , _" •. ,.' • ,I:' '" I',
. ...
, ' . ,;:'':'. . -. '. ",. . , . . " .
Your letter was forwarded' to me at
and answer most of your questions,
the City of DillinghSJI" o·so·1 will' try".;. ::. ,(
one at a time.. ........ 1 :~ •••• ,. ..... I, .. :,. \.
. ; f. ". . ~" ....... '. \ •• :', .. .:." ..
. . • I. . .' (", .. '~ <. I", •. ~' :'~'~'. ~ .... I .' ~.: ;,: "::;'" ~
1. . type of Wind Turbine?' All '1 can give you is the make which.: is an . ,.: .. , ... ,' :.
· Automatic Power Inc. Turbine •. ' They.are a division of Pennwalt.Corporation;,·~ ..
located at 213 Hutchesen. St. , Houston, Texas ~ . I, think if :.You'-:would· write .:--.• , .. ' /.:",
~o them theY,could give you more .. exa~t.·~peC;ifi~'~~oi~ris. ";~;/\-,;-}.:~: .... ~~:.< ... ~.~~~~~:: :;:-," :<~ .. ,~.~
._ .... • I • .', ~ :' ',' :.~ • • ~ •• ~ ~"i ... , ,', . ~~ ~7'-":).~" ~'.; .. -:~ .... ' .'-. : ~., . -. --
2. Our Wind Generator is mounted :6n a 'section . of 6Itst~el' ~pipe ,abo1:l t ' .;;,o,;'.:'.;.t
15' long, 5' .in the ground. With two 3'. blades, you have .. io·becareful~;':· \:;:.'
walking up to it. . . . )!'>~;;\<.~: ... :',:,.';":~".:.{(~\' :.~., .....
. \ .. ! . .':~,' . " ,-III-
3~ The Generator's capacity is 24 volts -6 amp, with.:a separat.e;.voltage '.'
regulator that can be adjusted manually.·. . '. :: .. ~.:. :.~. ~i; "~:.:''-\:<':'':':' · .. i •. ~
~ .~:-.~
4 .. ' Wind ·speeds. average between a minimum of 12· kts to· a maximum {)f'60 kts. ' ..
The area around where the generator is 10cated is' relatively 'flat •. ·and. the·' ...
Wind sometimes ,gets over 75 kts but' not too often.: "The' 'generator requl~es a ,_.
· ininimum of 6 kts to a maximum of 16 kts. to -operate ·:efficiently; :::'Anything over ' .•
·16 kts has no effect on increasing the voltage as it is regulated as such. . \ '.
• '. . . : : ..... ,: _,~'" t. ',.' Ii " .', ~ '. ~ ." . "
s. Our. system has been operating since 1974~ .and have'n~~';incu~red any· .. ··.· ,," ...
· storm damage or .vandali~m~ due to its. rem9te location, I imagine/:' > .'.:'~ ":::', . !·.c.\:· .': ;'
. ~.' . >;J_'" .,,::~~-;,::,~,-:>,,.,<~,\~~,:.,,,,, .. 1..<" ~< . '."
6. Operational problems. So far we have experienced ve-ty', fe~:' real ~probiems '., ;
with our generator. The Dynamic breaking failed after some:·maintenance.,personel·'"
tried to stop the rotation of the blades during high· winds ·.and . corresponding .
R.P~M.t· so I can't really blame the equipment for that •. However,·a·more·efficient
.·way of stopping the blade rotation should be devised. WeexPerieri.ced, blad~.:pitch"" . , . ". ... . ,.... .. .:' \" '. ,
.. failure once due to not greasing the mechanism ·that operate8.~the .pitch ... ~·.-S~nce ., ..
. >. thEm and '"after contacting the factory, ·we installed a sealed )earing lin'.'that area.'.'
• • J • .' • • ",'., • , ' •••• ,-~ ••• ~'.\ ',':' ':: "~'. : .' :"" •• ;~ .', .' • ~ .... ~.:
. The only other problem we have had is .the overchar~1ng 'of :t:he"storag'e batteries:,~
Originally 'we used regular automotive 'batteries, and the generator was 'set :too . ~.
high and boiled the water out. Thereafter we replace~ them. with Caten>illar~ a .... ·
big truck battery, and have had no further problems •. Our·T. V." repeater will -."
continue to operate for at least two weeks without the generator op~rating. "
The T.V. ;repeater_'pulls about 4 amps when transmitting, and:'abouti~am~,"'hen idle.
'I-'".' • ',. -...• ..
. ;', .
2 , .
.. ~.
. .' ." :
. : ,-~. :' : ~~ .. ~:~. ~~.: ~
-'~'--~------------~-,. .
:"
..... ,
FIG. B.2 CONT.
February 3,
Page two
-All in all 'our system
even during some real
Don Caswell
Public Works Director
DC/lh'
..
,1'
, "
".! "
' .. ' -, .. ' ".'.
:".
'.
.~ ..
;' .. -
" ',-
"
" r
';.
. ' ,
• I: • , ,
,.: .. , •• \ • ': T'
?' (',,' J .... ,. ',-,-," "
I.' .!
" .,
l.
.. , ~ -
',: .
3
.,' . ;,.
'. ~ .
I. I"
"'.':,' .
. ..: '., ..•.. ',:,.,1, .
" . '.' ; -
~ . '. , :" ..'
': ,\
" '
'" .
',-.........
.. ', . '.~ . \~:" .. > ~''' ... '::: ~~ .. -., :'1' .:,>:'.' .... " '·t·> ,~"~.~'~.,-" :.~ .~ .. :';' .. < -. '
" ~'
" .. ,
' .. \.
' ..
10 ~ ~ . '
" .'-' ,.'
',' ... .'.\
:: ... J
; ;-. '''. ,~ '.
~,-....
. -.
.•...
"
. '
.: ~
. ,! :
'-.
-'.
'.' . ,
,. '" '!"', . I
. '
\', :~,'
, . , ......
,,'
'; ';~·i;!}:~:~t(1i';' .. ;,.,'
, .. , . . ..', .' ,
, : .
" .
-'. ~
;."
. -
~--
\ :.
"i _,' '''''' . ....... -. , .... ,
------------------:--
, FIG. B.2 CONT.
-'C,tT'Y OF DILLINGHAM
P.O. BOX 191 DILLINGHAM, ALASKA 99576
TELEPHONE (907) 842·5211 or 842·5212
November 26, 1979
Mr. Mark Newell
Project Manager, Gambell Project
Public Health Service
P.O. Box 7-74l
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Dear Sir:
Perhaps with some of my wind and your knowledge we can set up a
feasible sounding wind-energy project for Dillingham.
I am going to attempt a grant through the U.S. Department of Energy
Small Grants Programs next funding cycle and I need technical assistance.
As you may be aware, the city does have a wind powered generator at
Juant Mountain near Portage Creek. This has been in service several
years and has minimal maintenance required. Our televison translator
is powered by this source.
.
Let me know what,you "think of windmill supplying power .for the heat on
new water line to storage tank. , ~_"
Sincerely •. ,'_
, .'
~4(~~
Laura M. Schroeder
City Manager
LMS/jen
..... ' •. r
.' __ ._-" • _ ~ ___ .-;-_ .. , __ • _ . ____ ~ _ '-_ '... ••• .. ,, __ ..1 ___ .. _ ......... ~~&.f& ... ~_ -.: :-..&.... __ -. .._ __ _
...
...
...
..
..
..
..
-
----"'10' •• -_--.--- ----. ~_ .-•• ~, -~--' -~ - -., ...... --. -_ • -~".-. ------.~ -... "'":' ,,;.=--r--'-------_. ---.-_. -
, 01 4 . -", ,,:
.. . ..... ~ ....... ':; : -".: .
4 " .!..r!, . .., ..
. '.
I " "
I FIG. B.2 CONT.
:-CITY OF DILLINGHAM
P.O. BOX 191 01 LliNGHAM. ALASKA 99576
TELEPHONE (907) 842-5211 or 842-5212
December 5, 1979
Mr. Mark A. Newell
Assistant Sanitary Engineer
Dept. of Health, Education & Welfare
AANHS
P.O. Box 7-741
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Dear Mark:
The city just hosted an Energy Workshop sponsored by Bristol Bay Native
Association. Alaska Dept. of Energy, Naknek Electric and Nushagak Elec-
tric, as well as a representative from Grumman Wind Mills of New York
were present.
It was stated that wind data from this area and any documentation on
windmills was about non-existent.
Our Juant windmill has been in operation since about '72 or '73. It
costs the city under $1,000 yearly for maintenance. The State of Alaska
provides repairman and I do not know actual costs accrued by them. I
believe under $2,000.
We have probably two periods a year when we must charge batteries by
gas generator due to windmill problems. 'Then a resident of Portage
Creek must travel to site by snow machine .to fuel it. Currently its
been down .about 1 month. Parts are in Italy.."Thi s has happened past
2 or 3 years, always under $600;n .parts. ' .. " .
I am enclosing the particulars on windmill. As far as I am concerned
its relatively maintenance free in comparison to $150/month lights for
each of two other translator sites. The last set of batteries I talked
State Alcoholism into funding some 2 years ago. They are large heavy
duty ones.
Carl Larson of local State Div. of Transportation is our local maintenance
man. However, Harlan Adkison of State Div. of Transportation Communication
-Branch -;n' Anchorage 1<iiows-iriore' about wi ndmi ii than most. -. '"
Sincerely,
~LA_
Laura M. Schroeder •
FIG. B.2 CONT.
'~EN\JWU.T
. .
" , .
. ,
.; "'~ --: I .
...
., " .
~AUTIJMATlt PllWER" . . :~[ .: ..
" ","'!t', -
~; .', 't, ,,1. ,>
:0 .-.' ~
Manufacturers and Designers
of
SIGNAL AND POWER SYSTEMS
NAVIGATIONAL AIDS
AEROWATT MODEL 300 FP 7
WIND-GENERATOR
.. ,
. ,'-
. . ..
P. O. BOX 18738. HOUSTON, TEXAS
77023 • (713) 228-5208
e
.'
, , ; ''-....
,.'
.' 'fII' .' ':' .. ":'"
, ,
:. " . . -.~ ~ .
'.:. .
. ,
, .,' f··
• ". ~ • • • • .I' t . ." . ~ ',' .-.; .
" 1
•
l1li,
'.
,.r1iI ..
....
.".
....
THRUST
200 Kg.
(440LBS) -FOR WIND OF
120 MIH
e e
o~ o· N CD
"., ~
'8-
484mm
(19.36")
(92111 ) 32
BHCl..ES ~ 13""" ON ~ 2501N11 B.C.
(I/2M
) 3260
(130.4M)
WIND GENERATOR
TYPE 300 FP7
T-AW 2704 73
FIG. B.2 CONT.
IVI TECHNICAL DATA
-Hominal wind speed (wind speed over which the rated data
are obtained) : 7 mls (13.6 kts -15.7 mph).!
~ average starting wind speed: 1.5 mls
-rated regulation wind speed: 7 mls
-rated propeller rotation speed: 420 rpm
-propeller maximum rotation speed (wind speed over 7 mIs,
mach i ne off load) : 450 rpm
-maximum wind speed : 60 mls
speed regulation operation: wind speed over 7 mls
-maximum aerodynamical thrust 200 daN
-rated voltage : (24 V) ~
.(12V)A
-rated intensity:(24 V)
(12 V)
-rated frequency
-winding resistance
IV.3 -DIHENSIONS ----------
-propeller diameter : 3.200
-chord of an arc . 125 mill t .
-weight of a blade : 2.4 kg
-O. D. length : 4.315 mm :t 10
-weight : 165 kg or 364 lbs -attachment : flange 280 mm
circle of 250
18.2 V
~. 1 V
12 ,5 A
25 A
7 Hz
0.61 n
mm ~ 5
1
dia with 8
mm .
. . . / ...
holes 13 mm dia on a
a The wind generator begins rotating when the average wind
speed exceeds 1.5 m/s. But it delivers power only when
the voltage is such that the rectified voltage of the battery
bank, i.e. when the rotation speed is about 300 rpm, which
corresponds to a 3 mls or 4.8 kts or 6.7 mph wind speed
approx.
8
II
..
..
....
FIG. B.2CONT.
N
3600
WIND ROSE -DILLINGHAM AIRPORT
SOURCE: DIVISION OF AVIATION, STATE OF ALASKA,
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA
JAN.'72 TO DEC.'75
9
FIGURE B.3 VARIOUS EXISTING SYSTEMS IN THE BRISTOL BAY REGION
-
...
LAKE CLARK, 1.8 JACOBS BATTERY CHARGER
DILLINGHAM, 200WATT WINCO BATTERY CHARGEA
...
FISH a GAME BATTERY CHARGER ROUND ISLAND, BRI'STOL BAY
10
FIG. B.3 CONT.
LAKE ILLIAMNA, 32 VOLT BATTERY SYSTEM
I ~
LAKE ILLIAMNA. 1.8 KW JACOBS IDAKOTA BATTERY CHARGER
LAKE ILLIAMNA,1.8 KW JACOBS BATTERY CHARGER
11
FIG. B.3 CONT.
...
NEWHALLEN,8 KW STORMASTER-UNDER REPAIR
..
.,..
NEWHALLEN, 120 VOLT 320 AMP-HOUR BATTERY SYSTEM
."
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brower, William A. Jr., et ale ~matic Atlas QL ~ Qute,
Continental Shelf Haters .arui Coastal Regions QL Alaska, YQL.
IlL Be,ing ~ Alaska: Arctic Environmental Information and
Data Center, 1977.
Cromac k, D.E. Invest igation .QL ~ Feasibil ity .QL Us ing H.irui
£Qli~ ~ Space Heating in Colde, ~mates. University of
Massachusetts Energy Alternatives Program. Amhurst, October
1979.
Curtice, David, and James Patton. Ope,ation QL Sm~ H.irui
Turbines .Qll.a Utility Distribution System. Wind Publishing
Corporation, August 1981.
Eldridge, Frank R. H~n~ H.a~h~n~£, Second Edition. San
Francisco: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1980.
Electric Power Research Institute. Proceedings.2:f. ~
Workshop ~ Economic .and Ope,ational Regui,ements and Status
2! La,ge Scale Hind Systems. Monterey, California, March 28-
30, 1979.
Electric Power Research Institue. Regui,ements Assessment 2!
H.irui £Qli~ Plants in Elect,ic Utility System~ Volum~ ~li~.
Palo Alto, California. January 1979.
Electric Power Research Institute. ReQuirements Assessment ~
H.irui £Qli~ Plants in Electric Utility System~ yolum~ ~
Appendixes. Palo Alto, California. January 1979.
Energy Task Force. Windmill ~~ ~ ~ People. Community
Services Administration (C.S.A.) Damphlet 6145-8. Washington.
D.C.: US. G.R.O. 1977.
Gipe, Paul. Fundamentals ~ Hind Ene,gy. Harrisburg, PA. 1979
Going liith ~~. EPRI Journal, March 1980, pp 9-17.
Hiester, T.R., Pennel, W.T. ~ Siting Handbook ~ Large
Nina Ene,gy Systems. Pacific Northwest Laboratory. Richland,
Washington. January 1981.
Hunt, V. Daniel. H~n~~~li~~ A R.an~~~~K ~n H~n~ ~n~Lgy
Conve r s ion System£a. San Fr anc isco: Van Nostrand Reinhold
Company, 1981.
Inglis, David R.
Arbor, Michigan:
H.irui £Qli~ .and Othe, Energy Options.
The University of Michigan Press, 1978.
Ann
Koeppl, Gerald W. Putna~ £Qli~ .f..t...Q.m ~ H.irui, Second
Edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1982.
1
Lindsay, T.J. ~li~ Inverter Technology: Technical Report.
Manteno, Ill.: Lindsay Publications, 1978.
Marier,Don. Nind Power. Pennsylvania: Rodale Press, 1981.
M c G u i g an, De r mot. H a r n e s sin g ~ li.i.ru1 .f.Q..t. li.Qm~ Ene r g y •
Charlotte, VT.: Garden Way Publishing, 1978.
National Electrical ~ un. Boston, Mass.: National Fire
Protection Association, 1981.
Pacific Northwest Laboratory. Preliminary Evaluation ~ Hind
~n~~s~ ~~~~n~i4~ = ~~~k ~n~~~ A~~~ A~4~k4. Richland,
Washington. June 1980
Park Gerald L., et ale Planning Manuel .f.Q..t. ~ utility
Application ~ Hind Energy Conversion Systems. Michigan State
University, Division of Engineering Research. East Lansing,
Michigan. June 1979.
Par k, J a c k. .l:..h.e. li.i.ru1 ~li~ Boo k, Cal i for n i a: C h e s h ire Boo k s ,
1981.
Ramsdell, J.V., and Wetzel, J.S. liind Measurement Systems And
H~ Tunnel Evaluation ~ Selected Instruments. Pacific
Northwest Laboratory. Richland, Washington. May 1981.
Reckard, Matt and Newell, Mark. Alaskan Hind Energy Handbook.
Fairbanks, AK: State of Alaska, Departement of Transportation
and Public Facilities, July 1981.
Reed, Jack. Hind ~li~ ~matology in ~ United States.
Document # SAMD 74-0348. Springfield, VA: N.T.I.S. 1975.
Schlueter, Robert., et ale ~m~4~~ ~~ S~~~m ~~~n~~ ~n
Utilities li.i.ll H~ Arrays. Michigan State University,
Division of Engineering Research. Lansing, Michigan. October
1979.
U.S. Department of Energy. Bonneville Power Administration.
Environmental Report -Goodnoe Hills Hind Turbine Generation.
December 1979.
U.S. Department of Energy.
Prospective MOD-2 li~
Hashington Installation
County, Washington.
Environmental Assessment-Eighteen
Turbine Sites-The Goodnoe Hills
Site. December 1979. Klickitat
U.S. Department of Energy. ~nyi~~nm~n~4~ A~~~~~m~n~=
.. ,"
...
-...
..
-
Installation .arui Field Testing ~ 4 Large Experimental H~ III>
Turbine Generator System Near Kahyku Point ~ ~ Island ~
Oahu. Hawaii. December 1979.
2
u.s. Department of Energy. .£..i.L:il S~miann.l.!.a~ Repo~ .RQ~~
f..l.ail Sm.il.l N.in..d Sy~m.s T..e..s.t C.e..n.t...e...t. A&tiY i tie s. R F P #
2920/3533/78/6-1. Springfield. VA.: N.T.I.S., 1978
~veg1ey, Har ry L., et al. A .sJ..tingHandbook ~ Sm.ali 1l'.in.d.
ful~.I.g~ CQuyers,iQn Syst~.m.s. Pacific Northwest Laboratories.
Richland, washington. 1980.
~ N in d c ytl~.d.i.,g. G e n e sse De pot, Wi s : The Power Com pan y
Midwest, Inc. 1980.
W is e, Jam e s L., eta 1 . N.i.n..Q £..n~g~ ~.s.Q.J.U.~ At 1 as...;,. Y.Q~.l.lm~
ln~A~.,g.sk.,g. Pacific Northwest Laboratories. Richland,
Washington. December 1980. .
3
.. APPENDIX E
..
GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES
T AZIMINA RIVER
Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Feasibility Study
Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation
Stone and Webster Engineering Corp.
January 1982
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical Consultants
5111
2055 Hill Road
P.O. Box 843
Fai rbanks, Alaska 99707
(907) 452-6183
I \
Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
Geotechnical Studies
Stone and Webster Engineering Corp.
Denver Operations Center
P. O. Box 5406
Denver, Colorado 80217
February 1982
:-o:;Ht\NNON & WILSON, INC. K-0469-01
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose and Scope
1.2 Organization of Report 2
1.3 Limitations 2
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4
2. 1 Site Description 4
2.2 Project Description 5
2.3 Literature Review 5
3. FIELD EXPLORATIONS 7
3. 1 Genera 1 7
3.2 Geologic Mapping 8
3.3 Exploratory Borings 9
3.4 Test Pits 10
3.5 Seismic Refraction Survey 11
3.6 Topographic Survey 13
4. GEOLOGY 15
4. 1 Regional Geology and Tectonics 15
4.2 Sei smi city 17
4.3 Site Geology 20
4.3. 1 General 20
4.3.2 Summary of Geologic History 21
4.3.3 Glacial History 22
4.3.4 Stratigraphy 23
4.3.4.1 Bedrock Units 24
4~3.4.2 Surficial Units 27
4.3.5 Structure 28
5. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 32
5. 1 General 32
5.2 Lower Tazimina Lake Site 32
5.3 River Mile 12.9 Site 33
5.4 Roadhouse Site 34
5.5 Forebay Site 35
5.6 Lower Site
5.7 Powerhouse Alternatives
5.7.1 Base of the Falls
5.7.2 Powerhouse Sites Below the Canyon
5.8 Penstock Locations
6. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Geologic Hazards
6.1.1 Faulting Hazards
6.1.2 Design Earthquake
6.1.3 Volcanic Hazards
6.2 Dam Design Considerations
6.2.1 General
6.2.2 Storage Dam Sites
6.2.3 Forebay Sites
6.3 Dam Safety
6.4 Construction Considerations
6.4.1 Materials
6.4.2 Tunneling
6.4.3 Penstocks and Flumes
6.4.4 Slope Stability
6.4.5 Spillways
~
6.4.6 Cofferdamming, Dewatering and Excavating
6.4.7 Work Areas and Access Roads
K-0469-01
Page
35
36
37
38
38
39
39
39
39
41
43
43
43
45
45
46
46
46
47
47
47
48
48
Figure No.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Plate (in pocket)
Plate 2 (in pocket)
LIST OF FIGURES
Location Map
Summary of Boring Logs
Seismic Refraction Profiles, Lower Tazimina
Lake Site
Seismic Refraction Profiles~ Roadhouse Site
& Forebay Site
Seismic Refraction Profiles, Lower Site,
Powerhouse Site & Lower Tazimina Lake Site
Seismic Refraction Profile, 12.9 Mile Site -
Left Abutment
Seismic Refraction Profile, 12.9 Mile Site -
Right Abutment
Seismic Refraction Profiles, Penstock Site
Generalized Tectonic Map of South-Central
Alaska
Large Earthquakes in Alaska, 1899-1964
Regional Tectonic and Earthquake Epicenter
Map (Focal Depths 75 km)
Regional Tectonic and Earthquake Epicenter
Map (Focal Depths 75 km)
River Profile
Geologic Map of the Canyon
Location of Suggested Powerhouse & Penstock
Sites -Above Ground
Cumulative Frequencies of Earthquakes in the
Tazimina Project Region
Site Plan
Geologic Map
List of Figures (cont.) K-0469-01
Table Summa ry of Permeabi 1 ity Tests
Table 2 Earthquakes Equal To Or La rger Than Magnitude
4.0 Or Intensity V
Photos 1-8 Site Photos
Photos 9-10 Geologic Photos
Photos 11-12 Core Photos
K-0469-01
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Scope
The Alaska Power Authority retained Stone and Webster Engineering
Corporat i on to perform a feas i bi 1 ity ana lys i sand prepare a Federa 1
Energy Regulatory Commission license application for the Bristol Bay
Regional Power Plan development. One of the alternative regional power
plans considered in the Bristol Bay region is the Tazimina River
Hydroelectric project. Geologic and geotechnical investigations of the
Tazimina River project area were performed by Shannon and Wilson, Inc.
to assist Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation with the feasibil ity
analysis and conceptual design of the Tazimina River Hydroelectric
project.
The scope of our geotechnical studies was in basic agreement with the
"S cope of Services for Geotechnical Consulting Services, Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project" dated July 30, 1981, revised October 30, 1981.
This proposal was developed jointly by Stone and Webster Engineering
Corporation and Shannon and Wilson, Inc. and submitted to the Alaska
Power Authority. Our studies included a data search and review,
prel imi nary assessment of alternate dam and powerhouse si tes on the
Tazimina River, geologic mapping, seismic refraction surveys, subsurface
explorations, and laboratory testing. Based on these data a
geotechnical engineering evaluation of the project was conducted
including evaluation of geological hazards, seismic and tectonic
history, geotechnical engineering, and construction considerations of
the design of dams, penstocks, tunnels, spillway, and powerhouse which
will comprise hydroelectric development on the Taz;mina River.
During the 1981 field season, which began in mid-August and was
concluded in early November, the proposed dam sites were mapped by teams
1
K-0469-01
of Shannon and Wilson geologists; 15,450 lineal feet of seismic
refraction survey was performed and 4 borings totaling 308 lineal feet
were drilled and sampled. In addition, 9 shallow test pits were
excavated to assist in mapping the overburden soils and to obtain
samples of potential dam construction materials.
This work was performed under Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation
professional services contract number 14007-0005 14007, which was agreed
to on July 27, 1981 and reaffirmed on October 30,1981.
1.2 Organization of Report
The geotechnical studies for the Tazimina Hydroelectric Project is
presented in one volume with three appendices. Large plates are
included in a pocket at the back of the report. Smaller figures and
photographs are included in the report.
The text of the report consists of six chapters; an introduction,
project description, field explorations, geology, and description of
subsurface conditions followed by our geotechnical engineering
eval uations of various aspects of the proposed project. References
sited, a detailed description of the exploratory borings together with
descriptive boring and test pit logs, and the results of the laboratory
testing program are presented as appendices. Large plates showing the
location of our borings and geophysical lines and the geologic map
developed for the project are contained in the pocket at the back of the
report. Smaller figures and photographs are at the end of the text.
1.3 Limitations
The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report
are based on site conditions as they presently exist and further assume
that the exploratory borings, test pits, and seismic refraction data are
representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site (i.e.,
the subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly different
from those disclosed by the exploration).
2
K-0469-0l
The geotechnical studies for this project are preliminary in nature and
were designed to assist Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation and
the Alaska Power Authority in assessing the feasibility of hydroelectric
development on the Tazimina River. In our opinion, additional site
specific field investigations will be required before definitive
geotechnical recommendations can be developed for the project.
3
K-0469-01
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Site Description
The Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project is located north of Lake
Iliamna, Alaska. A location map is presented in Figure 1. The genera1~
topography and the vegetative cover at potential dam sites on the
project can be seen in Photos 1 through 8.
The Tazimina River system has its headwater in the Aleutian Range and
flows to the west and into the upper Tazimina Lake at an elevation of
715 feet. The outlet of the upper Tazimina Lake is controlled by a rock
outcrop. The river then flows as a braided stream of very low gradient
(7.6 feet/mile) through an area covered with dense forest and enters the
lower Tazimina Lake which is at an elevation of 655 feet. From Lower
Tazimina Lake, the river flows through a series of small lakes at an
average gradient of about 2.8 feet/mile. At this point (river mile
11.8) the river channel becomes better defined, and the average gradient
increases to 18.8 feet/mile. The river passes over a small rapid and
then a larger (5 foot) rapid and then over a 100 foot falls.
Downstream from the falls, the river runs at an average gradient of 83.2
feet/mile through a series of rapids and falls and eventually slows down
after emerging from the canyon at river mile 8. From here until it
enters Six ~1ile Lake, at the approximate elevation of 260 feet, the
Tazimina is a braided, meandering river, especially along the lower
reaches.
Because of the 100 foot waterfall, Tazimina River seems to be a natural
candidate for consideration for hydroelectric development. The river
system was i dentifi ed as fa vorab 1 e for hydroe 1 ectri c development by
Robert W. Retherford Associates in a December 1979 report to the U.S.
Department of Energy, Alaska Power Administration.
4
K-0469-0l
2.2 Project Description
The various scenarios for development of hydroelectric power on the
Tazimina River all take advantage of the head manifested by the falls of
the Tazimina River.
Four possible storage dam sites have been suggested by others. A USGS
map of the Tazimina Lakes (Dam Reservior Sites, Alaska 1966) shows
potential storage dam sites at the Roadhouse site (river mile 11.8), the
river mile 12.9 site, the outlet of Lower Tazimina Lake, and also at the
outlet of Upper Tazimina Lake. Stone and Webster Engineering
Corporation identified two possible forebay dam sites, one at each of
the rapids above the falls of the Tazimina River.
For this study two concepts are being considered; a two dam concept
consisting of a forebay dam just above the falls to fill the penstocks
and a regulating or storage dam located further upstream, and a
run-of-the-river type project which would consist of a low forebay dam
to~ divert river flow to the penstocks. Numerous factors, including
geotechnical, environmental, socio-economic, load forecasts, and others
go into the selection of, if, and how hydroelectric power will be
developed on the Tazimina River.
For our geotechnical studies, we have assumed development scenarios in
which the storage dams would raise the level of Lower Tazimina Lake 20
to 30 feet and the forebay dam woul d have a hei ght of about 30 to 40
feet. Forebay dams for a run-of-the-river project would be lower.
2.3 Literature Review
In reviewing the available literature concerning the Iliamna area, two
major publications were found to be the most helpful. The surficial
deposits of the Iliamna area are discussed in Surficial Deposits of the
Iliamna Quadrangle, Alaska, by Robert L. Detterman and Bruce L. Reed,
1973, U.S. Geol. Survey Bulletin l368-A. The bedrock geology of the
Iliamna area is discussed in Stratigraphy, Structure and Economic
5
K-0469-01
Geology of Iliamna Quadrangle, Alaska, by Robert L. Detterman and Bruce
L. Reed, 1980, U.S. Geol. Survey Bulletin 1368-B.
In additi on, severa 1 standa rd USGS topographi c maps were used,
especially the Iliamna Quadrangle map (1:250000 for regional aspects)
and the Iliamna (0-5) Quadrangle (1:63,360, 1954, revised 1973) as the
base map for our f.ield work.
We also utilized available air photo coverage of the area especially for
detailed information on the complex sequence of glacial events shaping
the Tazimina drainage.
The hydroelectric potential of the Tazimina River has been recognized
for a long time. Two USGS maps entitled Tazimina" Lakes Dam and
Reservoir Sites, Alaska, 1966, show the suggested dam sites, bathymetry
of the Tazimina Lakes, and a profile of the Tazimina River.
A scheme to develop the potential was presented in the Retherford
report, Bristol Bay Energy and Electric Power Potential, (phase 1) by
Robert W. Retherford Associates, Arctic District of International
Engineering Co., Inc., Anchorage, Alaska for the U.S. Department of
Energy, Alaska Power Administration.
Data on seismic events in the project area were obtained in part from
the Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, and from the
Environmental Data Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administrations.
A list of references used in the development of this report are
presented in Appendix A.
6
K-0469-01
3. FIELD EXPLORATIONS
3.1 General
Field studies began with a three day site reconnaissance trip on August
13 through 15, 1981 by Robert Deacon, Vice President-Geology; and Robert
Pope, P.E., Staff Consultant-Dams from our Portland office; and Rohn
Abbott, Vice President and Manager and John Cronin, Sr. Associate
Geologist with the Fairbanks office. During this trip the field
investigations were planned and outlined for presentation to Stone and
Webster Engineering Corporation. Locations were selected for bor-ings
and seismic refraction lines and marked in the field during this trip.
Following the initial reconnaissance, detailed field investigations
began on August 26, 1981 and consisted of geologic mapping, seismic
refraction studies, test drilling, digging test pits, and topographic
surveying. Field work was coordinated by Nils I. Johansen and the
geology of the area was mapped by geologists with our firm. Sixteen
seismic refraction lines, totalling approximately 3 miles, were run in
the area to del ineate depth to bedrock on both abutments at each dam
site. A total of nine hand dug test pits were completed to obtain
samples of the surficial materials for laboratory analyses. Survey
profiles and cross sections were run at each dam site to provide
topographic control for the seismic and test drilling data as well as
tying the various dam sites and elevations together. The initial
mapping, surveying, and seismic refraction surveys were completed by
September 9, 1981.
The test drilling program consisted of drilling one boring at each of
the four dam sites. Although multiple borings had been planned at some
sites, these plans were changed when the initial borings at the two
storage dam sites encountered deep depos its of permeable overburden
substantially increasing the estimated time for completion of each hole.
The last boring was completed just as the winter weather set in, and the
drilling drew was out of the field by October 19, 1981.
7
K-0469-01
At the request of Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, additional
field work was carried out from October 26 through November 3, 1981.
This field work was concentrated at the potential dam site at River Mile
12.9.
The helicopter supported field party consisted of a geologist, a seismic
crew and a survey crew. Seismic lines were run along the proposed dam
axis, the abutment geology was mapped, and the site was surveyed and
tied in with the previous survey. In addition, further seismic
exp 1 orat i on was performed in the proposed penstock/powerhouse area in
the vicinity of the falls. The seismic lines are shown on the Site
Plan, Plate 1.
3.2 Geologic Mapping
The geology of the Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project site was mapped
by geologists David Sussman and Kathy Goetz from our firm, during the
peri ods of August 25 through September 9, and October 26 through 29,
1981. The area was mapped on 1 inch = 1000 foot scale maps enlarged
from the USGS Iliamna (0-5) Quadrangle (1 :63,360 series topographic maps
dated 1954, revised 1973). High altitude color infrared photography
aided preparation of the geologic map. Background information was
obtained from the two USGS publications on the Iliamna Quadrangle
referenced in Section 2.3 of this report.
During field mapping, the proposed sites were traversed to observe rock
outcroppings, nature of the overburden sons, and stability of the
slopes around the proposed reservoirs. At each outcrop such
characteristics were noted as weathering, lithology, structure, and
jointing. From this information, contacts between the geologic units
were located on the map. Air photo interpretations were verified during
the field mapping before being plotted on the map.
The results of the field mapping and photo interpretations are discussed
in Section 4.3 and are shown on the geologic map, Plate 2.
8
K-0469-01
3.3 Exploratory Borings
Four proposed dam sites were explored by borings in the Fall of 1981.
Each site was explored with one borehole, advanced by rotary and diamond
drilling techniques with a J.K. Schmidt 300 skid-mounted rig. This
particular rig was light enough to be broken down into pieces that could
be moved using a Bell 206 B-III Jetranger helicopter. The dam sites
explored were: Lower Tazimina Lake for a storage dam site, Roadhouse
Site for a storage dam site, Forebay Site for a forebay dam site, and
Lower Site for a forebay dam site. The storage dam site at River Mile
12.9 was not explored by drilling because of the late time of year.
The locations of the borings are shown on Plate 1, and a summary of the
borings is shown on Figure 2. Detailed information about the drilling
operation and detailed field logs are found in Appendix B. Typical core
obtained from the borings is shown in Photos 11 and 12.
The boring program had several purposes. The primary objective was to
gain information about the material types at the dam sites, and such
information was obtained by sampling and testing. In addition to the
standard penetration tests performed during sampling, information was
a1 so obtained from the drill ing action itse1 f. In-situ testing was
performed to as ses s the permeab i1 ity cha racteri st i cs of the so i 1 sand
rocks encountered. Falling head permeability tests were performed in
the overburden at about 10 foot intervals, and in rock, single packer
tests were performed at 10 foot intervals. The results of the
permeability tests are summarized on Table 1.
The boring program was terminated after 4 borings, one at each proposed
dam site; Lower Tazimina Lake (left abutment), Roadhouse (right
abutment), Forebay (right abutment), and Lower site (right abutment).
The termination of the program was due to the onset of winter weather.
Near the end of the program, a substantial amount of time was spent on
thawing the equipment each morning and also in keeping it thawed during
drilling and testing. The light, helicopter-transported rig used during
this phase of the exploration had difficulty in penetrating the glacial
9
K-0469-01
overburden .soils encountered at the dam sites. In general, faster
drilling progress was experienced once rock was encountered.
Soil samples and rock core from the borings, together with bag samples
obtained from the hand-dug test pits were returned to our laboratory for
detailed visual examination and testing. For this project, the
laboratory testing program consisted of running a number of tests
including water content, dry unit weight, grain size analysis, Atterberg
1 imits, and standard compaction. The results of the laboratory tests
together with a detai 1 ed expl anati on of the test procedures and the
methods used to describe the soils and rock encountered are presented in
Appendix C.
3.4 Test Pits
A total of nine hand dug test pits were excavated in the project area.
The purpose of these test pi ts was to determi ne the nature of the
surficial deposits at depths ranging from 3 to 5 feet. Most of these
test pits were located at or near several of the proposed dam abutments,
as shown on Plate 1. Representative disturbed bulk samples were
obtained and sent to our laboratory in Fairbanks for testing. The
materials encountered are shown on the test pit logs found in
Appendix B.
In a few of the test pits, shear strengths and unconfined strengths were
measured us i ng pocket penetrometers and torvanes in order to determi ne
the relative consistency of the materials. The results of these
measurements are reflected in the classifications of the soils as shown
on the test pit logs and Summaries of Test Results (Appendix C).
Test Pit 3 was excavated at a cut bank on the Tazimina River, referred
to as Big Bend on Plate 1, downstream from the Roadhouse site. The cut
bank, approximately 65 feet high, consisted of 16 feet (at the highest
point on the bank) of clean sands and gravels overlying dense glacial
till that was found to be silty, gravelly sand. This was the only
10
· K-0469-01
observed occurrence of any extensive amounts of silty material in some
place other than the valley bottom.
3.5 Seismic Refraction Survey
A seismic refraction survey was undertaken at five potential dam sites
on the Tazimi na Ri ver. The survey was conducted in two phases. The
fi rst phase, from August 26 to September 7, 1981, covered the Lower
Tazimina Lake site, the Roadhouse site, the Forebay site, the Lower
site, and the proposed Powerhouse. The second phase, from October 26 to
November 3, 1981, covered the River ~lile 12.9 site plus four lines
through the proposed penstock route. The locations of the lines are
shown on the Site Plan, Plate 1. The results are presented in the form
of Seismic Refraction Profiles in Figures 3 through 8. The total length
of seismic refraction survey accomplished in the 1981 field program was
15,450 feet.
Equipment and Field Method
The geophysical equipment used during this' investigation included a
GeoMetri cs Nimbus ES-2400, 24-channe 1 sei smi c system, se; smi c cables,
and Mark Products M-15, 14Hz geophones.
Geophone spacings of 10 and 20 meters were used in this survey.
Spacings were shortened to 5 meters at the ends and middle of spreads to
increase surface-layer definition.
Seismic energy was generated by detonation of Atlas Kinepak
two-component explosive charges. The charges were shot in shallow
hand-dug holes or on the ground surface after the moss ground cover had
been removed. Quantity of explosives per shot varied from 1/3 to 12
pounds, depending upon the position of the shot relative to the seismic
spread and upon soil propagation characteristics. The density of shots
along individual seismic lines varied from four to seven shots. It was
often necessa ry to repeat shots at a shot poi nt to enhance the di gita 1
record qua 1 ity.
11
K-0469-01
Horizontal and vertical control for this survey was established by
surveys from Ellerbe Alaska of Fairbanks.
Interpretive Methods
The technique used for determining seismic velocities and the
configuration of refracting boundaries consisted of a computer analysis
and manual methods. The computer program employed is a modification of
the program, FS1Pl, developed by the U.S. Bureau of Mines. Manual
methods utilized are modifications of those described by Hawkins (1961)
and Redpath (1973).
Limitations of the Seismic Refraction Method
Seismic data interpretations on the Seismic Refraction Profiles (Figures
3 through 8) show the refraction boundaries, the average seismic
velocity of each layer, and available drill hole information. The
seismic refraction method has limitations resulting from the geometry of
elastic wave propagation. The main limitation applicable in the survey
area is the "hidden layerll. A hidden layer results when a relatively
thin intermediate layer is not detected because the wave front
propagating through a deeper, higher velocity layer arrives at the
surface first, such as the 15,000 feet per second layer underlying the
5,000 feet per second layer on SL-6 (Figure 4). The intermediate layer
must be thick enough to be detected as a first arrival, otherwise,
refracti ons from the hi gh-ve loci ty deeper 1 ayer wi 11 be erroneous ly
identified as the next layer. On SL-6, a hidden layer was identified by
comparing the seismic data with the drill hole information. This
condition is possible on lines where the high-velocity layer is very
near the surface and no intermediate velocity layers are seen, such as
SL-5 and SL-7. If present, the upper bounda ry of the hi gh vel oci ty
1 ayer may occur at a depth up to twi ce that shown on the profil es.
Drill hole information should show the existence or absence of the
potential hidden layers identified above on lines SL-5 and SL-7.
12
K-0469-0l
Other factors governing the reliability of a refraction survey include:
1) record picking accuracy, 2)true layer velocities, and 3)velocity
inversions or IIBloind Zones ll
• The seismic records were mostly of fair to
excellent quality; thus, arrival times were usually determined to within
1 millisecond. An average arrival time accuracy of 1 millisecond would
produce a calculated delay time accuracy of 0.5 millisecond, using
manual depth calculations. In areas where the principal overburden
velocity is 5,000 feet per second, a 1 millisecond error would produce a
depth calculation error of about +3 feet.
Layer velocities were computed manually and confirmed by computer
analysis. Velocities have generally been averaged throughout a given
area as this is inherent in the analysis. This averaging generally
results in a depth calculation with a resolution equal to! 10% of the
actual depth. The velocity variations shown on SL-12 (Figure 7) were
determined manually by plotting differences in arrival time (Redpath,
1973, p. 20).
Velocity inversions are masking effects resulting from a higher-velocity
layer overlying a lower-velocity layer. An example of. a velocity
inversion would be a compact till overlying a gravel layer with no
appreciable water. Velocity inversions could be confirmed by drilling.
No velocity inversions were found on the si te where drill ing information
was available.
In some seismic literature the term IIBlind Zone" can be confusing as it
has referred to the hidden layer and/or the velocity inversion. In our
study, only a velocity inversion is referred to as a IIBlind Zone ll
•
3.6 Topographic Survey
The topographic survey control for the borings and seismic refraction
1 ines was provided by Ellerbe Alaska under subcontract to Shannon and
Wilson, Inc. The surveying work consisted primarily of furnishing
boring and seismic survey end point locations and providing profiles
along the seismic refraction lines to assist in interpretation of the
13
K-0469-0l
geophysical data. Cross sections were al so performed at selected dam
sites to assist in the geotechnical engineering evaluations of the
sites.
Horizontal control was provided by existing BLM/USGS section corners in
the field. Vertical control was obtained by establishing the elevation
at an intersection of a BLM surveyed section corner and a major contour
line on the 1:63,630 scale USGS map. All elevations were then adjusted
to this datum.
14
K-0469-01
4. GEOLOGY
4.1 Regional Geology and Tectonics
The Tazimina Lake Hydro Project is situated on the Tazimina River north
of Lake Iliamna near the northern end of the Alaska Peninsula, 125 miles
southwest of Anchorage. The Tazimina River, which has its headwaters on
the eastern flank of the southern part of the Alaska Range, lies in the
Alaska-Aleutian Range physiographic province (Wahrhaftig, 1965). Here,
broad glaciated valleys lie between rugged, snow-capped glaciated
ridges. Many lakes, such as the Tazimina Lakes, occupy parts of these
glaciated valleys. The site region is arbitrarily defined as the area
encompassed within approximately 100 miles (160 km) of the proposed
project.
The regional geology and tectonics of this part of Alaska are summarized
in the reports and maps compiled by Beikman (1974,1975); Burk (1965);
Capps (1932,1935); Detterman and Reed (1973,1980); Magoon and others
(1976); and Martin and Katz (1909,1912). Most of the Alaska Range in
the site region is underlain by large granitic batholiths that were
intruded during late Early Jurassic time into moderately metamorphosed
and highly deformed Paleozoic and Mesozoic volcanic and sedimentary
rocks. The site region is part of a mobile, orogenic belt that borders
the Pacific Ocean (Detterman and Reed, 1980). This belt has been
tectonically active throughout much of the recorded geologic history.
The region was part of an early Mesozoic magmatic arc that was nearly
coincident with the modern Aleutian volcanic arc. Large volumes of
breccia, agglomerate and tuff were produced during that episode.
Subsequently, these rocks were intruded by the batholiths and uplifted.
Later, northward underthrusting produced the modern Aleutian Arc-Trench
system subparallel to, and south of, the old system. As a consequence,
volcanism, which began again in early Tertiary time, has continued
intermittently throughout Tertiary and Quarternary times.
15
K-0469-01
The present landforms are largely the product of erosion and deposition
that occurred during Pleistocene and Holocene glaciations. Deposits of
two Wisconsin glaciations, the Mak Hill and Brooks Lake Glaciations, and
the Alaskan Glaciation of Holocene age have been recognized in the site
region (Detterman and Reed, 1973).
Tectonically, the principal structural elements of the region are
related to the Aleutian Arc-Trench system, one of the major arcuate
structures that ring the Pacific Basin. This structural element is
characterized by: 1) an arcuate deep oceanic trench which lies about
200 miles offshore and which is convex toward the ocean basin; 2) a
subparallel volcanic chain, the Aleutian volcanic arc, on the concave
side of the trench; and 3) a belt of concentrated seismicity between the
trench and the volcanic chain. All of these features are attributed to
the differential movement and interactions between the Pacific and North
American lithospheric plates.
Thus, the present orogenic cycle, which probably began in Pliocene time
(Plafker, 1969), has resulted in regional compressive deformation 'in a
general northeast-southwest direction in the site region. Major linear
thrust faults, or zones of faulting, have accompanied this compressive
deformation. Within the site region these include the Bruin Bay and
Lake Clark faults. Figure 9 shows a generalized tectonic map and an
idealized cross-section of south-central Alaska, which includes the
project site (Plafker, 1967).
The Bruin Bay fault (Figures 11 and 12) extends along the west side of
Cook Inlet for a distance of about 320 miles from Becharof Lake on the
southwest to near Mount Susitna on the northeast, where it is believed
to intersect the Lake Clark and Castle Mountain faults (Detterman and
others, 1976a). Within the site region, a later Tertiary, or possibly
Quaternary, intrusive plug shows no evidence of offset along the fault,
and Quaternary lava flows from Iliamna Volcano are not displaced where
they cross the fault (Detterman and Hartsock, 1966). These
relationships, plus the lack of any evidence of displacement of the
Holocene or Pleistocene deposits that mantle many parts of the fault in
16
K-0469-01
the site regi on, 1 ed Detterman and Reed (1980) to cons i der that the
Bruin Bay fault ha~ been inactive in the site region since late Tertiary
time. A few miles outside of the site region, however, a lineament
believed to be a trace of the Bruin Bay fault is projected through
glacial deposits on Kustatan Ridge, which have been dated as older than
42,000 radiocarbon years in age (Detterman and others, 1975, 1976a).
The Lake Clark fault (Figures 11 and 12) is a major structural and
topographic feature that is on strike with the Castle Mountain fault and
is probably a pa rt of that system (Detterman and others, 1976a). The
Lake Clark fault extends from Lake Clark, a few miles northwest of the
site, northeasterly to its probable junction with the Bruin Bay and
Castle Mountain fault system in the Susitna Lowlands southeast of Mount
Susitna, about 50 miles outside of the site region. Again, no evidence
was found by U.S. Geological Survey geologists along the fault trace in
the site region for displacement of either Holocene or Quaternary
depos i ts (Pl afker and others, 1975; Detterman and others, 1976a) that
overlie many parts of the fault tract.
Thus, although both the Bruin Bay and the Lake Clark faults are major
structural features in the site region, no clear evidence has been found
of movement occurring on either fault system during Holocene or late
Quaternary time; i.e., for more than 42,000 years. Both fault systems,
however, are likely extensions of the Castle Mountain fault system,
parts of which have been active during Holocene (Detterman and others,
1974) and other parts of which appear to have been active during latest
Quaternary time (Detterman and others, 1976b). However, no compelling
evidence exists to suggest that any part of the system has been
seismically active during historic time (Detterman and others, 1976b).
4.2 Sei smi city
Southern Alaska and the adjoining Aleutian Island arc are part of the
nearly continuous circum-Pacific seismic belt and, as such, they
comprise a region of high seismotectonic activity. Despite the high
level of seismicity in this part of Alaska, the historical record is
17
K-0469-01
imperfectly known. Prior to the 20th century the sparse population that
existed throughout much of Alaska precluded obtaining more than a very
fragmentary record of the activity in the region. Although instrumental
data became available in the early part of the century, it is only in
the last two decades that networks of seismograph stations have
increased suffi ci ently enough to provi de more complete and accurate
seismic data in the area. It is likely, however, that the historic
record of the larger events in the region can be considered to be
relatively complete (see Figure 10).
The significant earthquakes that have occurred during historic time
within approximately 100 miles or so of the project site are listed on
Table l and their approximate epicentral locations are shown in Figures
11 and 12. Owing to the large numbers of events within the site region
(nearly 9,000, according to Steve Estes, Geophysical Institute,
University of Alaska, written communication, 1981), only those with
magnitudes equal to or greater than 4.0, or with intensities equal to or
greater than M.M. V, based on the Modified Mercalli scale of Wood and
Neumann {1931J, are listed on Table 2. These data were supplied by the
Environmental Data Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA, 1981). Figure 11 shows all events from Table 2
with a magnitude equal to or greater than 4.5 that have occurred at
hypocentral depths in excess of 75 km (45 miles); while Figure 12 shows
all events from the table with magnitudes equal to or greater than 4.0,
or of V, that have occurred at depths of 75 km (45 miles) or less.
Where focal depths are unknown, to be conservative they have been
assumed to be less than 75 km (45 miles) in depth. Dates and times of
these events are given in Universal (Greenwich) time. In order to avoid
excessive clutter on the epicenter maps, only the larger events are
identified by their corresponding numbers on Table 2, and only those
events equal to or larger than magnitude of 4.5 are shown on Figure 11.
Several different magnitudes are shown on Table 2. These include body
wave magnitude (m b ), local magnitude (M L), and the surface wave
magnitude (M S)' Other magnitudes refer to values obtained from various
sources, principally those from Pasadena and Berkeley, California,
18
K-0469-0l
stations. Local magnitudes (M L) are principally those reported by the
Alaska Geological Survey and the Geophysical Institute of Alaska, based
on the magnitude stale defined by Richter (1935). Dillinger and
Algermissen (1969) present some comparisons between these magnitudes for
south-central Alaskan and Aleutian Island earthquakes. As the
Environmental Data Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration primarily reports body wave magnitudes (m b ), first
preference was given to these magnitudes' on the epicentral maps of
Fi gures 11 and 12.
A total of 395 earthquakes have been reported to occur within the site
region during the period of 1786 through February 11, 1981, that are
equa 1 to or greater than M = 4. a or MM = V (Table 2). Because the
accuracy of the location of these epicenters is estimated to range-from
± 50 km (31 miles) to probably no better than ± 10 km (6 miles), the
list also includes several events outside of the lOa-mile radius of the
project site.
It is apparent from Table 2 and from the epicenter maps of Figures 11
-and 12 that the deeper events comprise: 1 )the majority of events in the
site region; 2)they tend to be concentrated in a broad area underlying
Il iamna' Volcano, with only a few scattered events occurring northeast
and southwest of the volcano; 3) none of the epicenters of these events
occur in the immediate vicinity of the project site; and 4)none of the
epicenters of the deeper events occur west of an imaginary line trending
north-northeast that lies apprOXimately 15 miles east of the site.
The shallower events shown in Figure 12, on the other hand, tend to be
concentrated east of the Bruin Bay fault and underlying Cook Inlet.
These shallower events, however, also tend to have more scatter than the
deeper events, as they occur sparsely throughout the entire site region,
including in the immediate vicinity of the project site.
Of the 395 earthquakes reported during historic time that are equal to
or larger than M = 4.0, or MM = V, only seven have been large shocks,
i.e., with magnitudes of 6.0 or larger, and most have been less than
19
K-0469-01
magnitude 5.0. The largest shallow earthquake, with a magnitude of 7.0
(event No.5), occurred -in June 1912 at an epicentral distance of
approximately 90 miles from the project site. The largest deep
earthquakes reported both had magnitudes of 6.75 (events Nos. 9 and 15)
and occurred in June 1934 and October 1954 at approximate epicentral
distances of 130 miles from the site.
Only one of the reported events (No. 26, mb = 4.4) is reported to have
occurred within 10 miles of the project site, and only three events
larger than magnitude 5.0 have occurred within approximately 40 miles of
the proj ect site. These inc 1 ude event No. 40 (April 1964), with a
magnitude (m b ) of 5.6 at a depth of 10 km (6 miles); and event Nos. 62
(January 1965) and 341 (August 1978), both with magnitudes (m b ) of 5.4
and at depths of 122-123 km (76 miles).
Based on these data, it is estimated that vibratory ground motion at the
projected site probably has not exceeded that of a strong intensity VII
during historic time.
4.3 Site Geology
4.3.1 General
The project area generally consists of extensive glacio-fluvial deposits
overlying a glacially scoured bedrock surface; the extent of glacial
scouring evidenced by depth to bedrock is shown on Figure 13, Tazimina
River Profile. The local bedrock is mainly composed of a complex
sequence of volcanic rocks, consisting of pyroclastics and lava flows.
According to the USGS, the bedrock in this area ranges from· lower
Jurassic to Tertiary in age. Locally the bedrock has been faulted and
folded and intruded by small (1 to 10 feet thick) basaltic dikes. These
features are best exposed in the canyon below the falls on the Tazimina
River (Figure 14). All of the exposures reveal very closely to
moderately closely jointed rock with joint spacings ranging from less
than 2 inches to 3 feet. Local shear zones are present in association
with minor faults, folds, and dikes. There is evidence of minor
20
K-0469-01
hydrotherma 1 a 1 terati on throughout the study a rea. No evi dence was
observed to indicate that there has been recent (post-glacial) movement
along any of the mapped faults in this area. The bedrock surface
appeared to be relatively flat on either side of the faults underneath
the overburden, and the terrace and morainal deposits showed no
displacement attributable to the faults on the ground or in the air
photos.
The results of the field mapping and photo interpretations are shown on
the geologic map, Plate 2, delineating both surficial and bedrock units.
These units have been simplified for the purposes of this report.
Because of the limited number of bedrock exposures, the complex volcanic
sequence, and limited mapping time in the field, a detailed geologic
sequence could not be constructed. The mapped units extended well
outside the small field area, and no attempt was made to interpret the
few exposures observed on a regional scale.
4.3.2 Summary of Geologic History
The geologic history of the Tazimina River area, summarized from
Detterman and Reed (1980) and evidenced by present exposures, involves a
sequence of igneous and volcanic activity with episodes of faulting and
folding. According to the USGS, during Late Triassic time this part of
Alaska was a volcanic arc, providing for later deposition of interbedded
volcanic and sedimentary units as seen in the northwestern corner of the
map area. In Early Jurassic time numerous flows were extruded and by
Middle Jurassic the emplacement of the Alaska-Aleutian Range batholith
began.
Magmatic activity was renewed during Late Cretaceous and Early Tertiary
time and continued throughout the Tertiary, resulting in the emplacement
of numerous small plutons and extrusions of volcanic material. Plate
tectonic activity, primarily subduction occurring along the coast of the
Gulf of Alaska to the east, may be partially responsible for some of the
structures observed in the map area including faults, folds, and dikes.
21
K-0469-01
The present topography of the Tazimina River area is predominantly the
result of glacial scouring followed by backfilling with extensive
glacial deposits and subsequent modification by fluvial processes.
4.3.3 Glacial History
This summary of the glacial history of the project area is based on an
internal report to Shannon & Wilson, Inc. by Geological Consultant
Robert M. Thorson, Ph.D., air photo interpretations, published work by
Detterman and Reed (1973), and field work by Shannon & Wilson
geologists. The field work, however, was designed to study the
suitabil ity of the area for hydroelectric development, rather than to
verify the glacial history.
During the culmination of the Brooks Lake Glaciation of Late Pleistocene
age, the Lower Tazimina Valley was extensively scoured by glacial ice
from coalesced small alpine valley glaciers. The scouring appears to
have had an appreciable west-east asymmetry, as the area between Lower
Tazimina Lake and the Roadhouse site was overdeepened and subsequently
backfilled with glacial outwash; this profile is shown on Figure 13.
This overdeepening is related to the confluence of two glaciers, one in
the Tazimina Valley and one in the Pickerel Lake Valley to the west
(refer to Figure 1 for map of area). The Pickerel Lake glacier scoured
its valley to lower levels than the Tazimina River glacier. Near the
i nterl obate area, just downstream from the Roadhouse site, a thi ck
gravel fill was deposited during the time of confluence.
Alternating periods of deglaciation and readvances occurred. The course
of the Tazimina River downstream from the Roadhouse site was diverted to
the southeast, from a more westerly course, to a position superimposed
over bedrock. Recession of the Pickerel Lake lobe resulted in a lowered
local base level and initiated incision of the Tazimina River. The
absence of significant sediment load, once the glaciers had sufficiently
retreated, probably is responsible for the stability of the present
waterfalls. The falls have certainly been modified in Holocene time,
22
K-0469-01
but there probably has not been appreciable headward migration of the
fa 11 s.
During glacial time, many ice marginal channels were incised; these are
readily apparent on the air photos as linear and arcuate depressions
north and south of the lower Tazimina River. This area, downstream from
the mouth of the canyon, also received extensive fan and outwash
deposits.
The low gradient from the Roadhouse site to the outlet of Lower Tazimina
Lake may have resulted in slow partly subaqueous retreat. Drift was
probably deposited largely by ice stagnation with the sediment reworked
by meltwater streams.
The presence of streamlined bedrock knobs and the regularity of the lake
shore 1 i ne together wi th the absence of extens i ve moraines and dri ft
patches indicates that retreat above the Lower Lake outlet must have
been rapid.
4.3.4 Stratigraphy
The lithologic units on the geologic map (Plate 2) have been simplified
with the intention of addressing the engineering properties of the rock
rather than the detailed geology. Within each map unit many and varied
rock types occur, which complicates classification. A wide variety of
extensive volcanic rocks were mapped, ranging from andesitic lavas to
airfa11 tuffs and pyroclastic deposits. In the project area, a wide
range exists of tuff of different compositions and fragment sizes,
rangi ng from crysta 11 i ne and 1 api 11 i tuffs to volcani c brecci a. The
same is true for the lava flows; they range in composition from latite
to dacite and from andesite to basalt, and, in texture, from aphanitic
to porphyritic. Rock identification was further compl icated' by rocks
such as local andesites containing lithic fragments. Also, difficulties
were encountered in determining field relationships between the flows
and pyroclastics because of the lack of exposures.
23
K-0469-0 1 .
The strengths and joint patterns of the rocks are important factors in
engineering designs. For this reason, the tuff unit has been subdivided
delineating highly fractur~d zones which may be the result of shearing,
weaker composition, a lesser degree of welding or some combination
thereof.
The surficial units were divided primarily o~ the basis of morphology
rather than materi a 1 types, as these units were pa rtly mapped from the
air photos. Test pits were dug to determine the nature of the surficial
deposits. The moraines, terra-ces, and areas of outwash were found to
consist predominantly of clean sands and gravels with cobbles and
boulders. As with the lithologic units, the surficial units have been
oversimplified, addressing their engineering properties rather than
their complex origins.
The following is a description of the basic mapped geologic units. The
lithologic descriptions are supported in part by petrographic
microscopic thin section identifications. Their-listed order does not
imply relative ages. The geologic map is more detailed than that
produced by the USGS, and our geologists· field observations did not
always agree with lithologic identifications by the USGS. The USGS maps
are based primarily on air photo interpretation with ground checking,
and fairly broad lithologic units were applied to the rocks mapped in
this portion of the quadrangle. However, at our scale of mapping, it is
fairly easy to show major lithologic changes as opposed to using broad
a 11-i nc1 us i ve uni ts. For these reasons, the more general i zed
formational names and ages used by the USGS were not used; but their
lithologic symbols have been used, as it is reasonable to assume that
the basic ages and rock types are the same.
4.3.4.1 Bedrock Units
ANDESITE: This unit contains interbedded lava flows of various
lithologies of which the most common is a true andesite. The other flow
rocks include dacite and latite porphyries, andesite and basalt. The
co 1 ors range from gray to da rk green to pi n k, and the textures range
24
K-0469-01
from aphanitic to porphyritic. Occasional lithic fragments were
observed in some of the andesite samples. Locally, green volcanic
breccia was observed associ~ted with the andesites.
Joints in the lavas ranged from very closely to moderately closely
spaced, and the rocks were hard to very hard, according to the ASCE
classification of joint spacing and rock hardness, Table B~l. In
outcrop the andesite commonly exh-ibited columnar jointing. Minor flow
structures were observed, but bedding could not be determined.
A small exposure of basalt mapped in the andesite unit crops out in a
stream valley on the south side of the lower 1 ake, as shown on the
geologic map, Plate 2. This basalt is significantly different from
minor basalts observed in other areas in that they contain what appear
to be pillow structures. A few other mi nor flow-type rocks also were
observed in this gully.
METASEDIMENTARY ROCKS: The rocks mapped in this unit consist of
slightly metamorphosed conglomerates and quartzites which contain
rounded to subrounded pebbles of igneous and metamorph i crock. These
metasedimentary rocks crop out on several elongate ridges north of Lower
Tazimina Lake (Plate 2). Attitudes measured on bedding surfaces were"
generally N500E, with both northerly and southerly dips ranging from 44
to 81°.
These rocks are very hard, and they range from very closely to widely
jointed. Bedding is usually indistinguishable as it is masked by
extensive jointing, however, features that resemble cross-bedding were
observed. The metasedimenta ry rocks are interbedded wi th andes i te and
basalt.
INTRUSIVES UNDIVIDED: The only outcrops of intrusive rocks in the
project area of any great areal distribution occur on the north side of
the Tazimina River, on the mountain at the River Mile 12.9 site. The
intrusives include granite, granodiorite, quartz diorite, gabbro, and
associated rocks. Igneous intrusives also were noted on Roadhouse
25
K-0469-0l
Mountain, just south of the project area. Small andesite dikes were
observed in the outcrops of intrusive rocks.
These rocks are hard to very hard, and joint spacing ranges from very
close to wide, producing a columnar effect. Frequent epidote alteration
was observed in phenocrysts and veins. Infrequent minor slickensided
surfaces were noted.
TUFF: Although many types of tuff were observed in the project area,
for the most pa rt they can be descri bed as a gray to green, welded,
lithic or lapilli tuff. Exposures of both volcanic breccia and
fine-grained tuff was observed in the canyon below the falls. The tuff
was generally gray, green, white or blue in color. A wide range of
lithologies was-observed as lithic clasts in the tuff, including angular
fragments of basalt as large as 8 inches in diameter.
For the most part the tuff is very closely to closely jo-inted and is
medium hard to very hard. Joint spacing and the amount of staining
generally decreased with depth below ground surface, as observed in
borings B-2 and B-3 at the Forebay Site and Lower Site, respectively ..
Most of the tuff observed outcropped along the Tazimina River, from the
Forebay site downstream. The source of the tuff, according to the USGS,
was volcanic events of Roadhouse Mountain.
All of the tuff observed in the project area was at least sl ightly
welded. Welding tends to strengthen the rock, as this process indurates
the pyroclastic material by the combined action of heat from the
particles, weight from overly-ing material, and hot gases. Welded tuff
does not weather as rapidly as on-welded tuff, nor do the fragments in
the welded tuffs differenti ally erode. The degree of we 1 di ng affects
the strength of the rock, and the varying degrees of strength within the
tuff are well displayed in the falls and on the walls of the canyon,
where loose spires of rock and scree slopes are common.
Highly fractured zones within the tuff were delineated on the geologic
map. These zones may be the result of shearing or the reaction of
26
K-0469-01
weaker tuffs to the same stresses that affected all of the rocks in this
a rea. All of these hi gh 1y fractured zones occurred in fi ne-gra i ned,
light colored tuff, and, in one outcrop, associated sulphide
mineralization was observed. These fractured zones develop deep scree
slopes of platy angular chips.
DIKES: Small basaltic dikes, ranging from 1 to 10 "feet in width, were
found throughout the map area. Some of the features mapped as dikes may
actually be sills, but since bedding could not be determined, the
features were all classified as dikes. In some outcrops, small chill
zones were observed along the dikes in the host rock. Dikes were
observed cutting the tuff and the intrusive units, suggesting a younger
age for these dikes. Photo 10 shows a typical dike in the tuff unit.
4.3.4.2 Surficial Units
TERRACE DEPOSITS: These terraces were formed by fluvial and/or
glaciofluvial processes. They have level or gently sloping upper
surfaces and can sometimes be correlated across the river. Clean sands
and gravels with cobbles and boulders were observed in test pits in
terraces. The terraces were also found to contain scattered small
lenses of f"iner-grained and sil ty material.
Several terrace levels were observed along the Tazimina River Valley
whose relative ages were not distinguished on the map. The terraces
found along the Tazimina River are probably the result of lowered local
base levels or local uplift associated with the retreat of the glaciers
in both the Tazimina Valley and the Pickerel Lake area.
OUTWASH DEPOSITS: Glaciofluvial deposits, in the form of outwash plains
in the Tazimina River Valley, are characterized by pitted textures and
braided channel scars. The pitted texture is a result of melting out of
buried ice following deglaciation. These deposits primarily consist of
clean sands and gravels with cobbles and boulders.
27
K-0469-0l
MORAINAL DEPOSITS: This unit includes all types of moraines as
identified in the map area; ground moraine, end moraine, recessional
moraine, etc. Moraines are readily identified by their characteristic
knob-and-kettle topography with irregularly shaped, non-directional
mounds. The drift observed in the moraines is generally water-washed
clean sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders, with occasional lenses
of sil ty materia 1. True dense cl ayey ti 11 of any extent was only
observed in one location, Big Bend, marked by Test Pit 3. Minor amounts
of clayey till were observed in some of the borings in the form of
stringers and lenses.
COLLUVIAL DEPOSITS: This unit includes colluvium as well as talus and
rubb 1 e along the re 1 at i ve ly steep sides of the knobs and mounta ins in
the area. Both talus and rubble are formed primarily by frost action on
bedrock, the main difference being that talus is moved downslope and
rubble remains in place. Most of the colluvial deposits were covered by
vegetation.
UNDIVIDED ALLUVIAL AND GLACIAL DEPOSITS: This unit includes both
alluvial and glacial deposits that are not readily identifiable and/or
covered by veget~tion. These deposits may be in such forms as modified
terraces, abandoned channel deposits, reworked gravels, and recent
a 11 uvi urn.
4.3.5 Structure
The geologic structures found in the Tazimina River Hydroelectric
Project area are shown on the geologic map, Plate 2, and, more clearly,
on the map of the canyon, Figure 14. More structures were mapped in the
canyon because of better and more extensive exposures. A brief
description of some of the prominent structures encountered follows:
FAULTS: Nine small scale faults were mapped in the bedrock of the
canyon walls at and below the falls of the Tazimina River. Most of
these faults were identified by shear zones or gouge zones that ranged
from a few inches to a few feet thick. It is very likely that other
28
K-0469-01
faults occur in the canyon, or in the rest of the project area, but are
buried by glaciofluvial sediments. Several other 1 inear features were
observed in the canyon walls, but, because of their inaccessibility,
their exact nature could not be determi.ned.
All of the faults appear to be relatively high angle, but the relative
movement could not be determined, partly owing to the degree of
weathering and shearing along the faults, and partly due to the fact
that lithologic correlations across the faults sometimes yielded the
same rock types. Across-fault correlation also was complicated by the
fact that abrupt lithologic changes are common in volcanic terrain.
Slickensided surfaces were observed in scattered outcrops, in the
intrusives undivided terrane, and above the left abutment of the
Roadhouse site. The location of the fault evidenced by slickensides
above the Roadhouse site is shown on the geologic map, Plate 2.
No evidence of post-glacial movement was observed along any of the
mapped faults. The terrace and mora ina 1 depos its overlyi ng bedrock
above the faults show no evidence of displacement, and the bedrock
surface appears to be relatively flat above the faults. One possible
way to determine more accurately the recency of movement on these faults
would be to strip the organic cover and unconsolidated deposits to
reveal the bedrock surface. Glacial scour marks, elevation differences,
slickensides, or fresh fault gouge could then be examined for evidence
of movement along the faults.
The largest fault observed in the project area occurs on the left side
of the river at the falls. Again, the bedrock surface appears to be
relatively flat across this fault. The gouge zone, 1.6 to 3.0 feet
wide, contains blue-gray clay with rock fragments and boulders of the
andesite which bounds the fault on both sides. This fault, which trends
N800W and dips 75°5, could not be traced across the river.
Most features could not be traced across the river, suggesting the
possibility that this section of the Tazimina River valley is, at least
29
K-0469-01
in pay·t, a fault line valley. One feature, a near vertical contact
between a white lithic tuff and a green volcanic breccia, was observed
on both sides of the river, offset by approximately 1300 feet. Although
the two exposures are not on strike with each other, their similarity
suggests a relationship that has been significantly offset by fault
movement.
Another possible explanation for the lack of correlation evidence across
the river is that some of the geologic features may trend nearly
parallel to the river, making them almost impossible to trace. It is
conceivable that a fault or several small faults lie in the river
valley, but no concluding evidence was observed during the fall 1981
mapping program.
Several small faults and shear zones were observed on the right side of
the Tazimina River at the falls. This exposure showed a structurally
complex arrangement of folded, faulted, and sheared tuff and breccia.
Covered areas prohibit tracing of any of these features in any direction
for more than 50 feet.
FOLDING: Both syncl ines and anticl ines were observed within exposed
bedrock in the canyon of the Tazimina River. Their locations are best
shown on the geologic map of the canyon, Figure 14. Two steep-sided,
plunging synclines are visible on the right side of the falls. Many
arcuate patterns of undetermined nature were observed in the rocks of
the canyon walls; these could be folds, faults, shears, or joints. The
structure of the canyon is more complex than the geologic map shows;
unidentified structures were purposely left off the map.
JOINTING: Joints are very prominent features observed in all of the
outcrops at all of the locations visited. Because jointing essentially
obliterated bedding, in most cases it was imposs"ible to distinguish
between the two. The spacing on the joints ranged from very close to
wide (less than 2 inches to 10 feet), and the joints were usually closed
and slightly iron stained. All of the rock types exhibited vertical
and/or poorly developed columnar jointing in the larger exposures,
30
K-0469-0l
especially the tuff exposed at the river at the Lower site, and the
granodiorite at the lowest outcrop on the right abutment of the River
Mile 12.9 site. The columns were generally 2 to 2.5 feet wide, as
measured in the andesite around Lower Tazimina Lake.
The rocks in most of the exposures also have undergone extensive
freeze-thaw fracturi ng wh i ch has extended into the rock severa 1 inches.
The staining along the joints generally extends 1 to 2 feet into the
outcrop. In general, the less welded, finer-grained tuffs are more
highly jointed and fractured. An average of several measurements taken
along the Tazimina River of 43 joints per cubic meter was noted in some
of the lithic tuff. Photo 9 shows a typical exposure of lithic tuff
with joints and fractures.
The trends of the primary joint patterns allover the site were found to
be N85°W and N35°W. These joint patterns could be interpreted as shear
fractures due to compressive forces. Such compression could be the
result of tectonic stresses associated with the subduction of the
Pacific Plate. Both of ~hese joint trends have steep dips on the order
of 7-0 to 90°. A secondary joint trend was observed as N75°E, with dips
ranging from 40 to 60°.
31
K-0469-01
5. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
5. 1 Genera 1
The potential dam sites on the Tazimina River are influenced by the
glacial geology. In general, the surfifia1 soils consisted primarily of
glaciofluvial outwash type materials with very little clayey till
present. The bedrock encountered in the abutments and in the bori ngs
consisted of volcanic tuff, often highly jointed or fractured near the
surface. The borings indicate that these materials become tighter with
depth.
The location of each dam site is shown on the Site Plan, Plate 1, and on
the Geologic Map, Plate 2. Seismic profiles of each of the sites,
showing layers of different velocity, are shown on Figures 3 through 8.
Summary logs of the borings are shown on Figure 2.
The subsurface conditions, including the site specific geology of the
potential dam sites, powerhouse sites, and penstock routes are discussed
below.
5.2 Lower Tazimina Lake Site
The Lower Tazimina Lake site appears to be a very promising location for
a storage dam from a topographical viewpoint. A narrow point almost
closes the lake off at the outlet (this feature is shown on Photo 1).
An abandoned overflow channel is present on the right abutment, probably
dating from the time of glacial retreat and a higher water level in
Lower Tazimina Lake. The present day outlet was measured to be about 30
feet deep. At the time of our field work we observed essentially no
current through the outlet, indicating very slow movement of water, and
again emphasizing the great depth of the outlet.
32
K-0469-01
In our opinion, the topographical feature at the outlet of Lower
Tazimina Lake is a recessional moraine. Boring B-1, located some 36
feet above the lake level at Station 12+00 on the left abutment survey
line, encountered granular materials (sands, sandy gravels and gravelly
sands) wi th mi nor zones of fi ne-gra i ned soi 1 s to a depth of 89 feet
where the boring was discontinued. Falling head permeability tests were
attempted at several locations in the boring, however, in most instances
the soils were so permeable that the drill rods could not be filled.
Test Pit TP-5 was excavated in the southwest side of the recessional
moraine and encountered washed gravels similar to what was encountered
in Boring 8-1.
The seismic refraction survey lines indicate that the surface of bedrock
is 200 to 300 feet below the level of Lower Tazimina Lake at its outlet.
The bedrock level is assumed to be the 13,500 to 16,000 ft/sec reflector
on Figure 3,
5.3 River Mile 12.9 Site
The next potential storage dam site below the outlet of Lower Tazimina
Lake is in the vicinity of river mile 12.9. The Tazimina River at this
point flows through a wide U-shaped valley, shown in Photo 2. Rock
outcrops in both abutments are separated by a distance of about a mile,
measured along the centerline of the proposed dam. The bedrock on the
left side of the valley is a dark gray andesite while the rock in the
right side of the valley consists of undivided intrusive rocks,
predomi nant1y granodi orite. The contact 1 i es somewhere in the valley,
buried by glacial drift or glaciofluvial outwash.
On the left side of the river, the 1300 feet of the valley floor nearest
the river is low and marshy. Geophysical data indicates that the
bedrock is relatively flat-lying and about 170 feet below the valley.
The bedrock begins to rise into the left side of the valley some 1700
feet from the river(the seismic refraction profiles of the left abutment
are shown on Figure 6).
33
K-0469-01
Geophysical data suggests that bedrock is about 15 feet below river
level at the right bank and slopes upward, mantled by possible terrace,
morainal, till, and outwash deposits on the right side of the valley
(the seismic refraction profile of the right abutment is shown on
Fi gure 7).
Because of the length of dam required at this location, it was not
scheduled for explorations during the initial site reconnaissance. No
exploratory borings were drilled at this location during the 1981 field
season.
5.4 Roadhouse Site
The proposed Roadhouse dam site is located at the downstream end of a
string of lakes which the Tazimina River traverses prior to confining
itself to a single, well-defined channel of somewhat steeper gradient.
Small exposures of andesite and volcanic breccia were observed on the
slope of the left abutment, approximately 50 to 60 feet above river
level. The surface deposits on both sides of the river, however,
consist of a series of terraces of coarse fluvial gravel (these features
are shown in Photo 3).
The bedrock surface is overlain by 30 to 40 feet of glaciofluvial
deposits on the left abutment and by 170 to 180 feet on the right
abutment. The geophysical data indicate that the bedrock surface does
not ri se on the ri ght side of the vall ey but instead slopes to the
northwest. The seismic refraction profile for this site is presented on
the upper portion of Figure 4.
Boring B-4 was drilled at Station 8+05 on the right side of the river,
about 6 feet above river level. Some near-surface, relatively
impervious soils were encountered in this boring (possibly glacial till)
as well as in Test Pits TP-l and TP-2, which were excavated on the right
side of the river. These soils were underlain by very permeable sandy
gravels and gravelly sands. Only sporadic or intermittent return of
drilling water was encountered between depths of 12 and 47.5 feet in
34
K-0469-0l
this boring. Falling head permeability tests and total loss of drilling
water returns indicate that the soil s on the right abutment of the
Roadhouse site are very permeable.
5.5 Forebay Site
The site known as the Forebay site is located at the first small rapids
encountered downstream from the Big Bend a rea (see Pl ate 1). Bedrock
crops out at river level at this location, creating a small rapids
(shown in Photo 4). The river flows relatively straight in this area,
suggesting possible bedrock fault control of the valley at this point.
The bedrock, predominantly gray, welded, lithic tuff, forms a fairly
continuous outcrop from the rapids downstream to the canyon along the
left side of the river. The river from this point downstream becomes
incised into the bedrock. Boring B-2, drilled on the right abutment 120
feet from the ri ver, encountered bedrock at about 21 feet below ri ver
level. The bedrock is highly fractured and closely to very closely
jointed. According to the geophysical profile for this site (lower
portion of Figure 4) bedrock is 10 to 20 feet deep on the left abutment.
Bedrock crops out ina knob above the 1 eft abutment and occurs as
scattered outcrops at higher elevations. This, together with other
seismic data and the topography, suggests that the bedrock surface
slopes gently to the west.
The material overlying bedrock was found to be permeable outwash sand
and gravel. Apparent massive end moraine deposits occur at higher
elevations above the terraced outwash deposits along the right side.
Test Pit TP-7, on the left abutment in the outwash terraces, yielded
clean sandy gravel with occasional lenses of fine-grained material.
5.6 Lower Site
Continuing downstream, the alternate forebay or Lower Site is located at
a prominent rapids where the river falls 4 to 5 feet just upstream of
the major falls of the Tazimina River. At this point, the river is
entrenched approximately 15 feet into bedrock (see Photo 5).
35
K-0469-01
The bedrock exposed at the river is predominantly gray, welded lithic
tuff, with numerous, very closely to moderately closely spaced joints.
The dam site was explored with Boring B-3 which was located on the right
abutment about 26 feet above river level. This boring encountered 4.9
feet of silt, sand, and gravel overlying the welded tuff. Several
fractured zones were observed in the rock core from this boring.
At the lower elevations in the valley, the bedrock is overlain by
relatively shallow, permeable drift in the form of terraced outwash and
end moraines. Relatively clean sandy gravel with cobbles was
encountered in Test Pit TP-4, which was excavated in the high level
morainal deposits on the right side of the river, suggesting that this
entire high knob consists of permeable materials.
Geophysical data (seismic line SL-8 on Figure 5) indicates that the
bedrock in the right abutment is overlain by about 50 feet of overburden
at a di stance of about 100 feet from the ri ght bank of the ri ver.
Evidence from the geological mapping effort, geophysical data obtained
during the study at this site and the forebay site upstream, in addition
to geophysical data obtained by others, suggests that the bedrock
surface beneath the right abutment is relatively flat. Bedrock outcrops
observed some distance from the river on the left side indicate that the
bedrock surface rises towards Roadhouse Mountain.
5.7 Powerhouse Alternatives
While the potential dam sites discussed above had been previously
defined by others, specific locations for a powerhouse were not
identified prior to the start of the field program. Several locations
were suggested as poss i b 1 e powerhouse sites in the fi e 1 d by Shannon &
Wil son and Stone and Webster Eng"j neeri ng Corporati on personnel. These
sites are:
1. At or near the base of the falls of the Tazimina, above ground
on the left side of the river.
36
K-0469-01
2. At or near the base of the fall s on the left side of the
river, underground.
3. Outside the canyon on a bar on the left side of the river.
4. Outside the canyon on a bar on the right side of the river.
These sites are shown on Figure 15 .. The anticipated subsurface
conditions at these sites, based on geoiogical mapping and seismic
refraction profiles are discussed below.
5.7.1 Base of the Falls
One possible location for a powerhouse is the rocky talus bench at the
base of the fa 11 s, shown in Photos 6 and 7. . The bedrock formi ng the
canyon walls above the bench consists of andesite, volcanic breccia and
tuff. Two faults were mapped just upstream from this bench.
As can be seen in the photos, the canyon walls consist of rock spires
and numerous scree slopes. Bent tree trunks were observed on the more
vegetated portions on the right side of the canyon and are evidence of
creep. Problems anticipated in constructing a powerhouse at this site
include difficult access, potential rock falls, and stability of
penstock foundations on a creeping slope.
For the above reasons, an underground powerhouse may be more des i rab 1 e
than a structure on the surface. Potential problems with tunneling and
underground powerhouse construction below the falls are related to the
numerous joints observed in the bedrock and the faults in the vicinity
of the falls. Plastic gouge in an inactive fault indicates that there
may be a problem with swelling ground resulting in localized tunneling
costs.
The limited explorations indicate that underground rock excavations will
have to be supported. Shotcrete and rock bolts are probably the most
desirable method of reinforcing. Geophysical data indicate that the
bench above the canyon on the left side of the river has 30 to 50 feet
37
K-0469-01
of unconsolidated glacial deposits overlying bedrock. Much of a
penstock tunnel excavation in this area would be in granular soils.
5.7.2 Powerhouse Sites Below the Canyon
The powerhouse sites located below the canyon are on bar deposits in the
river. No evidence of frequent major flooding of these bars was
observed. All three are covered by trees. The site which received the
most attention during the 1981 field program was site "B" on Figure 15.
This site was explored with Test Pit TP-6 and Seismic Line SL-9 (Figure
5). The soils in the area appear to be glacial deposits. Rock outcrops
were not observed in the valley walls in the immediate vicinity of this
1 oca t i on a lthough the 9650 ftl sec refl ector on SL-9 may be bedrock.
However, outcrops were observed just downstream from the bench.
5.8 Penstock Locations
Tentative routes from a dam located above the falls to the various
powerhouse sites are shown on Figure 15. When the 1981 field program
was in progress, the powerhouse locations, "A", at the base of the falls
and "B", on the left side of the river below the mouth of the canyon
were considered to be the most likely locations. Seismic Lines SL-9,
13,14 , 15 and 16 were performed on the proposed penstock route along
the left side of the river to assist in determining subsurface
conditions along this route.
Geophysical data indicate that bedrock is 20 to 50 feet below ground
surface along the proposed penstock route on the left side of the river.
Granular soils, i.e., sandy gravel and gravelly sand, are anticipated
beneath a thin mantle of tundra and topsoi 1 development. Subsurface
conditions are expected to be favorable for founding the penstock above
ground or for shallow burial. Similar subsurface conditions, i.e.,
relatively deep deposits of granular glaciofluvial or granular fluvial
soils, are anticipated along the penstock route on the right side of the
Tazimina River to powerhouse locations "e" and "0".
38
K-0469-01
6. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Geologic Constraints
6.1.1 Faulting
Despite the fact that the Tazimina hydro project borders on, and is a
part of, a very tectonically complex region -the Aleutian Arc-Trench
system -active faulting does not appear to constitute a potential
hazard to the site area based on existing data available. The tectonic
relationships of the site region were briefly discussed in Section 4.1
(see Figure 9), as well as the two major fault systems in the area -the
Bruin Bay and Lake Clark faults (Figures 11 and 12). None of the faults
mapped or inferred in the-site region or site area, including the Bruin
Bay and Lake Clark faults, are known to have been active in Holocene
time or during the past 10,000 years. Although both of these two major
fault systems may be extensions of the Castle ~10untain fault system
farther to the northeast, parts of which have been active during
Holocene and other parts of which have been active during latest
Quaternary time, there is no evidence in the site region that either of
the two faults have been active during late Quaternary or Holocene time
(see Section 4.1). Furthermore, as can be seen from Figures 11 and 12
and from other sei smi city maps of southwestern Alaska, there is no
compelling evidence to suggest that any of the faults in the site region
have been seismically active during historic time.
6.1.2 Design Earthquake
The seismicity of the site area and surrounding region are discussed in
Section 4.2. The regional tectonics and faulting are discussed in
Section 4.2 and 6.1.1. The significant earthquakes that have occurred
during historic time in the site region are listed in Table 2 and their
approximate epicentra1 locations are shown in Figures 11 and 12. It is
apparent from these data that the historic record is not only brief but
a 1 so imperfectly known. Although the record extends back nearly 200
years, it is probably only essentially complete for events with
39
K-G469-01
magnitudes of 6.0, or larger. Data on earthquakes with magnitudes of
5.5 or less are probably incomplete prior to the early 1960 1 s. It is
also apparent from Table 2 that the majority (more than 70~;) of the
significant events listed have occurred at depths of 75 km or more.
However, because attenuation of energy is largely a function of distance
from the source, most of these deeper events tend to be less hazardous
to the site than the shallower events.
Unfortunately, very little is known about attenuation rates in Alaska,
as very few isoseismal curves have been drawn for Alaskan earthquakes.
The low population densities throughout much of Alaska account for this
paucity of intensity distribution data. The most detailed study of
intensity distribution in Alaska was made by Cloud and Scott (1972)
after the Prince William Sound earthquake of 1964. Their isoseismal map
indicates intensities as large as VI were felt in the site area from
this very large earthquake, which occurred -about 250 miles northeast of
the site, with a Richter magnitude estimated at 8.3 to 8.6.
Figure 16 shows a plot of the frequency of occurrence versus magnitudes
for the events 1 isted in Table 2. Based on this recurrence curve, a
magnitude 6.0 event might be expected to occur in the site region on the
average of about once in every 15 years; a magnitude 6.5 about once
every 40 years; and a magnitude 7.0 about once every 200 years or so.
During historic times, however, only one of these larger events has
occurred within an epicentral distance of approximately 65-70 miles of
the project site; the remainder of the larger events have all occurred
at epicentral distances of 90 miles or more. If one also considers
hypocentral distances for these larger events, all have occurred at
distances in excess of 100 miles. The largest event to occur near the
site (No. 26) had a magnitude (m b ) of about 4.4 and an estimated depth
of 33 km.
The lack of any known active faults in the site area or region precludes
assigning the design earthquake to any specific structure, and the
historic record is too brief to conduct any reasonable probability
analysis for the design earthquake. As a consequence, three
40
K-0469-01
hypothetical earthquakes were considered in developing the design
earthquake for the proposed project. Although classified as
hypothetical earthquakes, the occurrence of any of these events is
believed to be entirely possible. The three events include: 1) a
nearby, shallow event, (such as event No. 26 on Figure 12), 2) a larger,
more distant, shallow event (such as event No. 40 on Figures 12), and 3)
a very large, but distant and deep, earthquake (such as events Nos. 9
and 15 on Figure 11). These three different events are tabulated below,
along with the estimated peak accelerations that might be generated at
the site from each event:
Estimated Peak
Potential Estimated Acceleration
Earthquake Magnitude (g)
Moderate -Nearby -Shallow 4.5 -5.0 0.20 -0.30
Larger -Distant -Shallow 5.5 -6.0 O. 15 -0.20
Very Large -Distant -Deep 6.5 -7.0 0.10 -O. 15
The estimated accelerations are largely derived from attenuation
relationships that were developed by Woodward-Clyde Consultants for the
Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS, 1974), based on data from
both shallow and deep earthquakes. Based on the estimates in the above
tabulation, a near field, shallow event appears to be the most hazardous
to the proposed site, as it might produce peak accelerations at the site
in the range of 0.20 to 0.30 g. Response spectra prepared for design
purposes, however, should include earthquake parameters that might be
expected both from near field, shallow events and from far field, deep
events.
6.1.3 Volcanic Activity
Although the proposed Tazimina hydro project is situated on the inner,
or concave, part of an active, major magmatic arc -the Aleutian
Volcanic Arc -the potential effects of volcanism on the project appear
to be minimal. The geologic record indicates that volcanism has
occurred along this major arc intermittently throughout Tertiary and
41
K-0469-01
Quaternary t"imes (Detterman and Reed, 1980), and that all of the large
stratovolcanoes in the site· region have been active at least several
times since 1700 (Coats, 1950; Henning and others, 1976). The larger
stratovolcanoes include 11 iamna and Redoubt Volcanoes, about 55 miles
and 80 miles, respectively, northeast of the site in the Alaska-Aleutian
Range, and Augustine Volcano, which occurs on an island in Cook Inlet
about 60 miles east-southeast of the site (Figures 11 and 12). Other
volcanoes also are known to be active outside of the site region, both
to the northeast, south, and southeast of the site.
The recent eruptive evidence from Augustine and Iliamna Volcanoes
suggests that they are dissimilar in their styles of eruption and,
hence, they are in differing phases of their eruptive cycles. According
to Detterman and Reed (1973, 1980), Augustine Volcano has produced
extensive deposits of pumice, but only minor amounts of lava; whereas,
Iliamna Volcano has produced mainly lava flows but only very little
pumice. Because a ~opographic divide separates the headwaters of the
Tazimina River from the slopes of Iliamna Volcano, the closest major
volcano to the site, any significant amounts of eruptive products from
this volcano, such as lava flows, mudflows, ashflows, etc., are
essentially precluded from entering the valley and affecting either the
damsite, its reservoir, or the Tazimina Lakes.
Airborne ash, on the other hand, probably has been deposited in the site
area several times during Pleistocene and Holocene times. However, even
the cataclysmic 1912 eruption of Novrarupta Volcana and Mount Katmai,
south of the region, left only a thin layer of ash in the site area; and
the most recent ash eruption from Augustine Volcano (1963) did not
extend to the vicinity of the site area (Detterman and Reed, 1973).
Thus, potential volcanic hazards at the proposed Tazimina River hydro
project appear to be restricted to occasional light falls of airborne
ash; other types of eruptive products do not appear to constitute any
potential hazard to the site. It should be understood that this is a
qualified prediction, because the current state-of-the-art does not
permit very precise predictions of the time, kind, or specific locale of
42
K-0469-01
a future volcanic event. The size of the eruption, along with the
direction and velocity of the prevailing upper winds at the time, will
largely determine the rate and thickness of air-laid ash deposited at
any specific site.
6.2 Dam Design Considerations
6.2.1 General
Our initial understanding of the proposed development on the Tazimina
River to supply power to the Bristol Bay Region was a storage dam that
would raise the level of Lower Tazimina Lake by about 20 feet and a much
higher dam, possibly 100 feet, located above the falls. In our opinion,
the deep deposits of permeable glacially deposited soils in the river
valley and on the hill forming the right side of the valley will make
this type of hydroelectric development difficult. The primary
geotechnical constraints associated with dam design on the Tazimina
River are the loss of water due to underseepage and abutment seepage.
The potential for underseepage at the storage dam sites are best
illustrated by the Tazimina River Profile shown on Figure 13. The depth
of the glacial deposts overlying bedrock at both the Lower Tazimina Lake
site and the River Mile 12.9 site are over 150 feet. The Roadhouse site
is underlain by at least 60 feet of permeable sand and gravel.
Geologic mapping, air photo interpretation, and geophysical data all
suggest that much of the right wall of the Tazimina River valley within
the study area consists of permeable glacial deposits. Seepage in the
right abutment of most of the dam sites is believed to be a significant
source of leakage as is the right side of the reservoirs behind the
higher dams. The importance of reservoir leakage will depend on whether
the losses are important for power generation. Treatment can be
designed to provide for the stability of the embankment structure.
43
K-0469-01
6.2.2 Storage Dam Sites
All three of the storage dam sites on the Tazimina River explored in the
fall of 1981 are underlain by permeable soils. The Lower Tazimina Lake
site is underlain by deep deposits of permeable glacial soils. Several
attempts were made to run falling head permeability tests in Boring B-1.
The soils were so permeable that the drill casing could not be filled,
i.e., the water ran out of the hole as fast as it was pumped in.
Drilling fl.uid returns were often sporadic or not present. Geophysical
data indicate that bedrock is 300 to 400 feet below ground surface on
the 1 eft abutment and 150 to over 200 feet below the ri ght abutment.
Seismic Line SL-10, which was run across line in the natural spillway on
the right side of the Lower Tazimina Lake site, indicates that bedrock
is in excess of 100 feet below the ground surface in this area.
The Roadhouse site appears to be more favorable since the left abutment
of the dam could be carried to rock. The right abutment is underlain by
deep deposits of permeable granular soils, and the topography on the
right side of the river is relativ~ly flat, requiring a long axis for a
low storage dam. The right abutment consists of granular glacial
materials. Underseepage and abutment seepage on the right abutment are
considered to be a major leakage path at this site. The provision of a
cutoff in this area is impractical.
The storage dam at River Mile 12.9 has the advantage of having bedrock
in both abutments. Geophysical data indicate that the depth to bedrock
along the left side of the river is 150 to 180 feet, and on the right
side of the river some 40 to 50 feet. This was the only site explored
in which the bedrock surface rose with the topography on the right side
of the valley. Zones of 9000 ft/sec material 50 to 100 feet wide were
encountered in the 13,000 ft/sec (bedrock) zone on the right abutment at
River ~lile 12.9. These zones may indicate the presence of jointed or
fractured rock which could permit leakage at the right abutment if not
grouted. Such leakage would be expected to be of lesser magnitude than
that anticipated in the granular soil materials.
44
K-0469-01
The River Mile 12.9 site would require a long axis of about 4000 feet.
However, this is one site where a complete cutoff could be installed to
limit reservoir leakage if economically justifiable.
6.2.3 Forebay Sites
On the right side of the river at the Forebay sit~, bedrock is about 30
feet below the ground surface, or at about elevation 575. Approiimately
700 feet from the right bank of the river, geophysical data suggests
that the bedrock surface slopes up to about eleva~ion 600. There is no
indication that bedrock in the right abutment rises significantly above
elevation 600, and the regional trend is for the bedrock surface to
remain flat or dip to the west.
A major dam could be constructed at this location, as the depth to rock
on the right side of the river is easily within reach by a variety of
constructi on approaches. The bedrock surface on the 1 eft bank is even
closer to the ground surface. However, seepage in the right abutment is
considered to be a major source of potential water loss for dams over 20
to 25 feet in height.· In our opinion, a relatively high dam (100 feet)
at this location would be subject to major reservoir leakage along the
right side of the valley.
6.3 Dam Safety
The geologic analyses did not reveal major threats to the safety of the
project from faulting or volcanic activity. The three design
earthquakes might produce peak acceleration at the site in the range of
0.2 to 0.3g. In our opinion, in addition to the earthquake
accelerations, the major factor influencing the safety of dams on the
Tazimina River is the potential for a piping type failure from
underseepage or abutment seepage. Proper treatment can precl ude such
potential.
The slopes within the potential reservoirs are generally comprised of
granular glacial deposits. From our observations of the aerial
45
K-0469-01
photographs, geological reconnaissance and aerial reconnaissance of the
site, the potential for slope failure around the reservoir is limited to
small, near-surface sloughing during development of a new shorel~ne.
6.4 Construction Considerations
6.4.1 Materials
There is an abundance of relatively clean, granular material in the
project area in the large areas of glaciofluvial drift. These granular
materials should produce materials suitable for construction of
earthfill dams and the production of concrete aggregate. Granular
materials, such as those sampled from Test Pits TP-2, 4, 6 and 7, should
produce concrete aggregates with very little processing (see grain size
curves C-12, 14, 16, 18 & 19 in Appendix C). These materials should
also be suitable for the production of graded filters.
Impervious core or blanket materials may be difficult to obtain in the
necessary quantities. Glacial t"ill is exposed in the cutbank in the Big
Bend area downstream from the ~oadhouse damsite. The cutbank, which is
approximately 65 feet high, has till exposed in the lower portion of the
cutbank. It is overl a in by more than 10 feet of outwash sands and
gravels in most places, and the aerial extent of the till deposit is not
known. A grain size analysis and moisture density relationship was
performed on samples from the till cutbank. The results of these tests
are presented in Figures C-13 and C-22 of Appendix C.
Rock for erosion protection on the upstream portion of earth dams may be
difficuli to produce. Most of the rock mapped had closely spaced joint
paiterns and durable, massive riprap, if required, may be difficult to
obta in. Our bori ngs whi ch di d encounter rock found that the rock
generally became more competent with depth.
46
K-0469-01
6.4.2 Tunneling
If an underground powerhouse scheme is utilized, rock from this
excavation could be utilized in the outer zone of an earthfill dam. As
previously discussed, we anticipate that reinforcing of the underground
penstock and powerhouse wi 11 be requi red because of the jointed nature
of the rock.
6.4.3 Penstocks and Flumes
The granular soils should provlde adequate foundation materials for
penstock support. Because of the permeable nature of these materials,
open flumes would have to be lined. The granular soils overlying the
bedrock shou 1 d permi t ready buri a 1 of penstocks 1 eadi ng to the
powerhouse.
6.4.4 Slope Stability
The primary area of potential slope instability is the canyon below the
falls of the Tazimina River. The slopes on the left side of the canyon
show evidence of creep. There are areas where the talus on the slope
and the granular soils overlying the rock appear to be at or near the
angle of repose. Jointed rock in spires and loose frost-shattered rock
are present on the lower portions of the slope. Unless corrective
measures are initiated, there is a potential for rock falls and talus
slides activated by construction activities in the canyon if the
powerhouse is sited in the canyon.
The slope above Powerhouse Site IIBII appears to be more stable than the
steeper slopes in the canyon upstream. The geophysical data indicates
that the glaciofluvial soils mantle bedrock in this area. Above ground
support of a penstock, or a buried penstock, both appear to be feasible
at this site.
47
K-0469-01
6.4.5 Spillways
Erosion of the downstream tailrace is always a concern in the design of
dams. The preferred location of spillway structures is on rock in order
to minimize the volume of concrete tailrace.
A bedrock based spillway appears to be feasible on the left abutment of
the Roadhouse, Forebay and Lower sites, and possibly the River Mile 12.9
site. At the Forebay and Lower sites, it may be desirable to utilize
the existing channel of the Tazimina River, which is running on rock at
these locations.
6.4.6 Cofferdamming, Dewatering and Excavating
Dewatering excavations in the permeable glaciofluvial soils in the
Tazimina River Valley is expected to be a major construction
consideration. The slurry trench method of constructing impervious
cutoff walls is expected to be the most feasible construction method.
Cutoff walls of soil-bentonite are not recommended in the very permeable
soils. Cement-bentonite for cutoff walls 50 feet or less in depth and
lean concrete for cutoff walls over 50 feet deep are recommended.
Dewatering excavations in the glaciofluvial soils can be accomplished by
large diameter deep wells, or by pumping from sumps in the excavations
with numerous large pumps. Pumping from screened wells is the preferred
method of dewatering adjacent to structures to minimize the loss of
ground through the dewatering system.
We anticipate that embankment fill cofferdams incorporating dewatering
systems will be installed. Cobbles were observed in the coarse gravels
in some test pits, and there is the potential for encountering large ice
rafted glacial erratics in the glaciofluvial materials. Embankment fill
cofferdams will avoid the difficulties inherent in attempting to drive
sheet piling in materials containing cobbles and boulders.
48
K-0469-0l
6.4.7 Work Areas and Access Roads
In our opinion, the topography and surficial soil conditions favor
development of the left side of the Tazimina River. The surficial
topsoil and tundra development is relatively shallow and is underlain by
granular soils. The lower slopes of Roadhouse Mountain are well drained
and an access road from 11 i amna, or from the end of the
Iliamna-Nondalton Road, to the site could be built and a permanent
bridge over the Tazimina River would not be required.
The shallow tundra soils and the presence of granular soils within a few
feet of the surface should permit ready development of construction
camps, staging areas and material sites adjacent to the potential
damsites within the study area.
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
BY~n~
Rohn D. Abbott, P.E.
Vice President & Manager
RDA/mhh
49
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF PERMEABILITY TESTS
Lower Tazimina Lake Site Forebay Site Lower Site Roadhouse Site
Depth Permeability Depth Permeability Depth Permeability Depth Permeability
(ft) (cm/sec) (ft) (cm/sec) (ft) (cm/sec) (ft) (cm/sec)
SOIL SOIL ROCK SOIL
9.1 .192 11 .1 0.01 7.0 1 .3 to 1. 5x 10 -3 5.0 tight hole
14.2 20.7 0.01 14.0 2.5xlO-4 11 .6 0.01
soil was too
19.4 porous to fi 11 30.7 0.02 21.0 practically 20.1 .0.01-
dri 11 rod impermeable
30.2 ROCK -4 29.2 too porous to
7.1x10-5 33.0 1.3x10 to fill drill rod
49.5 33.0 practically
1.5 to 1.8xlO-5 impermeable 39.1 0.18
42.9 -4
<10-6 45.0 2.6 to 4.1xlO 49.9 too porous to
53.0
<10-6 fi 11 dri 11 rod
<10-6 57.0
63.0
73.0 <10-6
83.0 practically
impermeable
93.0 practically
impermeable
TABLE 2
EARTHQUAKES EQUAL TO OR LARGER THAN
MAGNITUDE 4.0 OR INTENSITY V
(within approximately 100 + miles of damsite)
Time lV1 agni tude
No. Year Date (UT) Lat. N Long. W mb ML MS
1 1786 59.0 154.0'
2 1883 10-06 18:00 59.0 154.0
3 1901 12-30 60.5 151.0
4 1912 06-07 09:56 59.0 153.0
5 1912 06-10 16:06 59.0 153.0
6 1931 12-24 03:41 60.0 152.0
7 1932 10-06 17:05 59.5 151.5
8 1933 04-27 03:03 59.5 151.5
9 1934 06-18 09:13 60.5 151.0
10 1936 05-18 17:22 61.0 153.0
11 1938 12-30 12:11 59.0 153.0
12 1940 10-11 07-53 59.5 152.0
13 1942 12-05 14:29 59.5 152.0
14 1944 08-14 11:07 59.0 155.0
15 1954 10-03 11:19 60.5 151.0
16 1958 01-24 23:17 60.0 152.0
17 1959 06-04 12:32 59.5 153.0
18 1959 12-26 18:19 59.74 151. 38
Intensity
Other (M1\1)
V
V
V
6.40
7.00
6.25 IV
V
V
6.75 V
5.75
5.50
6.00
6.50
6.25
6.75 VIlI
6.50 IV
5.50
6.25
K-0469-01
Page 1 of 22
Approx. Epicentral
Distance from
Uepth Site
(km) (mi)
7U
70
130
90
25 90
100 92
115
115
80 130
170 92
100 90
25 97
97
100 68
100 130
60 92
100 65
115
TABLE 2 (cont)
EARTHQUAKES EQUAL TO OR LARGER THAN
MAGNITUDE 4.0 OR INTENSITY V
(within approximately 100+ miles of damsite)
Time JVIagni tude
No. Year Date (UT) Lat. N Long. W mb ML MS
19 1960 01-03 11:38 61.0 152.00
20 1961 09-25 02:27 60.50 153.00
21 1963 06-11 04:16 59.90 152.90 4.7
22 1963 06-24 04:27 59.50 151. 70 5.7
23 1963 06-24 05:44 59.40 151. 50 4.8
24 1963 06-24 06:19 58.80 154.30 4.0
25 1963 07-09 17:23 60.00 154.50 4.4
26 1963 07-30 17:38 59.30 151.70 4.4
27 1963 09-10 11:30 59.30 151. 60 4.2
28 1963 09-28 14:04 59.60 156.20 4.4
I)
c 29 1964 01-06 18:31 59.50 151. 50
~ 30 1964 02-27 23:57 60.40 153.20 4.5 ~
) 31 1964 03-08 04:55 60.40 153.40 4.2 ~
~ 32 1964 03-29 10:39 59.20 155.10 4.1
~ 33 1964 03-29 12:33 59.20 153.80 4.8 --
I) 34 1964 03-29 20:59 59.20 153.00 4.6 )
~ 35 1964 03-29 21:10 59.50 152.50 4.0 -~ 36 1964 03-29 23:26 59.20 152.60 4. 1 1
Intensity
Other (MM)
V
5.88
6.75 VII
V
l{-0469-01
Page 2 of 22
Approx. Epicentral
Distance from
Uepth Site
(km) (mi)
115
125 70
78
52 110
56 117
33
60
33
30
33
130
165
118
10
20 60
20
20
33
Time
No. Year Date (UT)
37 1964 04-05 12:30
38 1964 04-09 22:13
39 1964 04-10 12:06
40 1964 04-10 21:44
41 1964 04-18 21:55
42 1964 04-26 23:19
43 1964 05-05 14:47
44 1964 05-08 05:56
45 1964 05-08 11:15
46 1964 05-12 12:58
47 1964 05-16 16:49
48 1964 05-19 13:19
49 1964 05-21 15:36
50 1964 05-29 21:11
51 1964 06-10 23:25
52 1964 06-28 19:56
53 1964 06-30 05:47
54 1964 07-23 05:48
TABLE 2 (cont)
EARTHQUAKES EQUAL TO OR LARGER THAN
MAGNITUDE 4.0 OR INTENSITY V
(within approximately 100+ miles of damsite)
IVI agni tude
Lat. N Long. W mb ML MS
58.90 154.30 4.1
59.80 155.70 4.4
59.60 152.20 4.3
60.10 153.70 5.6
59.00 153.81 4.0
60.23 151. 68 4.6
58.87 154.56 4.2
59.20 153.90 4.4
59.93 153.05 4.3
60.04 153.38 4.2
58.94 153.12 4.0
59.70 152.30 4.2
59.00 153.50 5.3
58.93 152.61 4.1
59.10 153.80 5.1
59.10 153.10 4.4
59.10 154.00 4.6
60.79 154.01 4.8
Intensity
Other (MM)
1(-0469-01
Page 3 of 22
Approx. Epicentral
Distance from
Depth Site
(km) (mi)
10
33
25
10 34
20
76
20
25
20
10
20
33
15 77
21
14 56
33
17
15 55
Time
No. Year Date (UT)
55 1964 08-08 01:08
56 1964 08-10 01:08
57 1964 09-09 03:37
58 1964 09-13 19:41
59 1964 10-03 15:05
60 1964 10-18 21:45
61 1964 10-30 20:05
62 1965 01-04 03:41
63 1965 01-06 18:28
64 1965 01-10 13:18
" c 65 1965 02-02 16:37
I>
~ 66 ~
1965 03-18 16:50
) 67 1965 04-24 10:21 ~
p 68 1965 05-19 05-25
E 69 1965 05-20 22:52 --
" 70 1965 06-24 05:51 )
~ 71 1965 07-21 09:08 -~ 72 1965 07-28 14:26 ")
TABLE 2 (cont)
EARTHQUAKES EQUAL TO OR LARGER THAN
MAGNITUDE 4.0 OR INTENSITY V
(within approximately 100+ miles of damsite)
Magnitude
Lat. N Long. W mb ML MS
59.80 151. 80 4.2
59.80 151.80 4.2
58.90 152.80 4.6
58.80 154.90 4.7
59.10 153.20 4.1
60.30 152.30 4.1
59.20 152.60 4.1
59.90 153.60 5.4 5.1
60.00 151.80 5.2
58.70 157.10 4.6
60.70 154.30 4.5
59.70 155.90 4.8
58.60 153.20 4.7
60.90 155.70 4.1
59.80 152.60 4.3
59.60 157.10 4.7
59.10 153.90 4.5
59.00 153.80 4.5
Intensity
Other (1\1 lVl)
K-0469-01
Page 4 of 22
Approx. Epicentl'al
Distance from
Depth· Site
(km) (mi)
33
33
33
83
60
96
33
122 35
53 98
33
10
33 48
58
33
96
33
53
34
Time
No. Year Date (UT)
73 1965 11-25 06:31
74 1965 12-02 15:58
75 1966 02-06 23:28
76 1966 02-20 02:09
77 1966 06-07 06:46
78 1966 06-13 12:03
79 1966 08-15 19:37
80 1966 09-13 05:30
81 1966 11-05 21:37
82 1966 11-05 21:37
83 1966 12-24 22:29
84 1967 01-18 10:43
85 1967 02-06 03:27
86 1967 02-21 00:25
87 1967 02-24 18:18
88 1967 04-04 20:16
89 1967 04-30 11:12
90 1967 05-09 14:48
TABLE 2 (cont)
EARTHQUAKES EQUAL TO OR LARGER THAN
MAGNITUDE 4.0 OR INTENSITY V
(within approximately 100+ miles of damsite)
Magnitude
Lat. N Long. W mb ML MS
.,
59.50 154.70 4.0
59.60 153.30 4.2
60.40 152.30 5.3
60.75 152.20 4.4
59.50 153.40 4.3
59.20 152.00 4.5
61.00 152.00 4.3
58.80 154.30 4.3
59.50 152.20 4.5
58.90 154.00 4.3
59.80 153.40 5.0
60:48 152.44 4.5
60:15 152.77 4.9
60.07 152.43 4.6
60.29 153.74 4.0
59.82 151. 67 4.1
59.88 153.94 4.4
59.68 154.24 4.1
Intensity
Other (MM)
1\-0469-01
Page 5 of 22
Approx. Epicentral
Distance from
Uepth Site
(km) (mi)
14
68
91 86
99
83
11
10
33
102
112 43
96
108
114
166
49
149
152
Time
No. Year Date (UT)
91 1967 05-12 22:17
92 1967 07-02 12:20
93 1967 08-07 11:15
94 1967 09-03 11:31
95 1967 12-01 20:31
96 1968 01-29 18:54
97 1968 02-23 12:14
98 1968 03-28 15:04
99 1968 03-31 17:34
100 1968 08-13 11:59
101 1968 08-14 12:10
102 1968 09-05 10:45
103 1968 09-18 23:08
104 1968 10-03 09:09
105 1968 10-23 15:38
106 1968 11-01 20:49
107 1968 11-03 12:36
108 1968 11-06 01:59
TABLE 2 (cont)
EARTHQUAKES EQUAL TO OR LARGER THAN
MAGNITUDE 4.0 OR INTENSITY V
(within approximat~ly 100+ miles of damsite)
!VI agni tude
Lat. N Long. W mb ML MS
.~,
60.15 154.49 4.7
59.80 153.30 4.0
58.70 154.60 5.1
60.50 151. 60 4.7
60.10 151. 90 4.0
59.70 153.20 5.2
59.10 153.60 4.3
59.80 153.70 4.3
59.60 153.30 4.5
60.32 153.71 4.3
60.20 153.00 4.6
60.30 152.20 4.2
60.15 153.13 4.4
59.92 151. 80 4.7
59.07 152.82 4.8
59.06 152.69 4.3
59.52 152.01 4.1
59.88 152.66 4.3
Intensity
Other (MM)
K-0469-01
Page 6 of 22
Approx. Epicentral
Distance from
lJepth Site
(kill) (rni)
95
108
37 86
79
68
131 52
67
126
79
127
103
80
11
78
n
53
88
107
Time
No. Year Date (UT)
109 1968 11-20 22:22
110 1968 11-23 05:56
111 1968 12-17 07:04
112 1968 12-17 12:02
113 1968 12-17 19:53
114 1968 12-18 03:00
115 1968 12-19 08:27
116 1968 12-21 20:23
117 1968 12-22 16:07
118 1968 12-22 23:14
119 1968 12-23 01:22
120 1968 12-25 23:46
121 1969 01-21 17:00
122 1969 01-25 15:53
123 1969 01-28 13:30
124 1969 02-03 06:38
125 1969 03-12 09:25
126 1969 03-21 09:46
TABLE 2 (cont)
EARTHQUAKES EQUAL TO OR LARGER THAN
MAGNITUDE 4.0 OR INTENSITY V
(within approximately 100+ miles of damsite)
Magnitude
Lat. N Long. W mb ML MS
58.96 153.92 4.3
58.94 154.00 4.0
59.32 151. 65 4.6
60.20 152.80 5.9
60.07 152.57 4.9
59.79 153.90 4.2
60.05 152.68 4.1
60.04 152.54 4.3
60.01 152.73 4.2
59.97 152.69 4.4
59.99 152.69 4.7
58.71 153.83 4.1
60.06 152.55 4.0
60.08 151. 88 4.4
59.67 152.02 4.4
58.99 152.47 4.1
59.63 152.78 4.5'
59.90 152.70 4.5
Intensity
Other (MM)
6.5 VI
1\.-0469-01
Page 7 of 22
Approx. Epicentral
Distance from
Uepth Site
(km) (mi)
46
33
11
86 65
115
237
110
80
114
105
116
81
83
68
46
60
33
105
Time
No. Year Date (UT)
127 1969 05-05 03:37
128 1969 06-19 11:24
129 1969 07-16 14:48
130 1969 07-20 01:04
131 1969 08-03 10:57
132 1969 08-13 00:48
133 1969 08-13 14:30
134 1969 08-13 17:33
135 1969 08-27 04:53
136 1969 08-27 06:55
~
c 137 1969 09-08 04:04
~ 138 1969 09-16 22:44 ~
) 139 1969 09-26 11:25
140 1970 01-14 20:28
141 1970 01-16 08:06
~ 142 1970 02-08 01:24 )
~ 143 1970 03-17 16:42
144 1970 04-18 08:51
TABLE 2 (cont)
EARTHQUAKES EQUAL TO OR LARGER THAN
MAGNITUDE 4.0 OR INTENSITY V
(within approximately 100+ miles of damsite)
Magnitude
Lat. N Long. W mb ML MS
60.04 153.25 4.0
58.93 154.00 4.1
59.18 152.04 4.3
59.29 152.44 4.4
59.98 153.53 4.4
59.07 153.47 4.0
60.07 151. 80 4.5
61.01 152.65 4.0
60.10 153.00 4.5
60.41 153.61 4.5
59.83 152.51 4.2
60.31 153.01 4.7
60.10 153.00 4.0
59.62 153.78 4.3
60.30 152.70 5.6 6.0
59.59 153.64 4.3'
58.64 153.63 3.8 4.1
59.90 152.80 5.7
Intensity
Other (M1VJ)
III
V
V
K-0469-01
Page 8 of 22
Approx. Epicentral
Distance from
lJepth Site
(km) (mi)
132
95
71
89
135
92
69
130
107
161
64
110
97
104
91 72
95
33
94 65
Time
No. Year Date (UT)
145 1970 07-13 16:01
146 1970 10-04 06:55
147 1970 11-01 17:12
148 1971 02-18 15:57
149 1971 02-24 18:39
150 1971 04-01 17:16
151 1971 04-08 05:26
152 1971 04-12 12:07
153 1971 04-17 19:46
154 1971 04-22 19:40
155 1971 05-31 08:48
156 1971 07-14 15:41
157 1971 07-15 05:36
158 1971 10-05 19:15
159 1971 10-29 13:17
1 160 1971 11-01 06:25 )
~ 161 1971 11-12 16:23 -~ 162 1971 11-24 08:04 )
TABLE 2 (cont)
EARTHQUAKES EQUAL TO OR LARGER THAN
MAGNITUDE 4.0 OR INTENSITY V
(within approximately 100+ miles of damsite)
Magnitude
Lat. N Long. W mb ML MS
60.40 152.00 4.8
60.04 152.82 4.0
60.30 154.20 4.4
60.46 153.33 4.4
58.97 152.38 4.1
60.29 153.04 4.4
58.76 153.82 4.1
60.05 152.81 4.0
59.67 152.65 4.0
60.10 152.96 5.1
60.06 152.54 4.0
59.98 152.70 4.0
60.06 153.32 4.4
60.12 153.68 4.1
60.22 153.46 4.7
59.70 152.11 4.2
60.11 153.46 4.4
60.21 151. 75 4.0
Intensity
Other (MM)
l\-0469-01
Page 9 of 22
Approx. Epicentral
Distance from
Depth Site
(km) (mi)
104
90
182
145
49
111
26
89
75
110 59
78
82
150
162
141
57
134
60
Time
No. Year Date (UT)
163 1971 12-09 00:22
164 1971 12-26 09:38
165 1972 01-01 20:03
166 1972 01-02 18:16
167 1972 01-20 09:24
168 1972 02-05 03:08
169 1972 02-13 22:40
170 1972 02-27 13:49
171 1972 03-01 20:38
172 1972 03-28 19:39
173 1972 03-29 21:01
174 1972 04-02 13:08
175 1972 04-07 03:16
176 1972 04-20 15:15
177 1972 04-20 17:27
178 1972 05-04 06:32
179 1972 06-10 22:51
180 1972 06-14 00:53
TABLE 2 (cont)
EARTHQUAKES EQUAL TO OR LARGER THAN
MAGNITUDE 4.0 OR INTENSITY V
(within approximately 100+ miles of damsite)
lVlagni tude
Lat. N Long. W mb ML MS
60.13 153.11 4.1
59.81 152.98 4.7
58.67 153.52 4.1
59.34 153.75 4.5
60.70 153.24 4.6
60.30 153.62 4.6
59.94 154.20 4.9
59.16 151. 62 4.0
59.64 152.77 4.6
59.76 153.36 4.3
59.86 153.10 5.1
60.11 153.57 4.9
60.13 152.75 5.1
60.19 152.14 4.7
59.89 153.58 4.5
60.14 152.75 4.6
59.93 152.64 4.5
60.50 153.41 5.2
Intensity
Other (lVllVt )
I
V
V
K-0469-01
Page 10 of 22
Approx. Epicentral
Distance from
Uepth Site
(km) (mi)
104
95
60
96
138
142
153
50
101
34
126 53
123
98 66
85 88
138
84
114
152 57
Time
No. Year Date (UT)
181 1972 06-20 04:16
182 1972 08-19 06:28
183 1972 08-22 06:10
184 1972 11-28 01:33
185 1972 12-18 02:54
186 1973 01-18 21:35
187 1973 05-20 18:18
188 1973 05-26 23:05
189 1973 07-15 02:15
"190 1973 07-19 15:05
191 1973 09-05 18:59
192 1973 09-28 14:02
193 1973 10-13 23:44
194 1973 10-27 20:43
195 1973 11-11 16:45
196 1973 11-17 22:41
197 1973 11-23 04:18
198 1973 12-19 01:19
TABLE 2 (cont)
EARTHQUAKES EQUAL TO OR LARGER THAN
MAGNITUDE 4.0 OR INTENSITY V
(within appl'Oximately 100+ miles of damsite)
Magnitude
Lat. N Long. W mb ML MS
59.56 153.56 5.1
59.08 153.35 4.2
59.87 152.18 4.4
59.72 153.45 4.8
60.84 153.34 5.0
60.14 153.42 4.0
60.97 152.44 4.9
60.16 153.96 4.4
59.37 152.44 4.1
60.23 151.76 4.7
59.90 152.84 4.3
60.73 153.31 4.4
60.12 152.89 4.0
59.84 152.78 4.4
60.00 153.51 . 4.4
59.82 153.26 4.5
60.02 153.25 4.0
59.65 153.17 4.0
Intensity
Other (MIVJ)
II
II
K-0469-01
Page 11 of 22
Approx. Epicentral
Distance from
Depth Site
(km) (ml)
98 46
76
71
127
165 76
144
118
171
79
95
124
167
147
118
141
128
119
140
Time
No. Year Date (UT)
199 1974 01-07 08:27
200 1974 01-22 10:43
201 1974 01-23 22:39
202 1974 02-10 22:06
203 1974 03-04 18:56
204 1974 04-13 13:35
205 1974 07-02 12:03
206 1974 07-08 13:15
207 1974 07-29 11:38
208 1974 08-06 02:38
209 1974 09-08 19:13
210 1974 09-10 05:26
211 1974 09-15 10:03
212 1974 09-15 10:14
213 1974 09-24 15:39
214 1974 10-04 08:57
215 1974 10-06 01:41
216 1974 10-06 13:38
TABLE 2 (cont)
EARTHQUAKES EQUAL TO OR LARGER THAN
MAGNITUDE 4.0 OR INTENSITY V
(within approximately 100+ miles of damsite)
Magnitude
Lat. N Long. W mb ML MS
59.81 153.72 4.9
60.13 153.34 4.6
58.66 153.28 4.0
59.13 152.50 4.6
59.51 152.78 5.0
58.81 153.70 4.3
59.52 152.61 4.0
59.54 154.28 4.0
59.71 152.73 4.5
60.25 153.32 5.0
60.89 152.48 4.0
59.90 151.71 3.7 3.7
59.83 152.84 4.1
59.89 152.89 4.5
59.71 153.36 4.0
60.11 153.08 4.1
60:02 153.26 4.1
60.26 152.66 4.0
Intensity
Other (1VllV1 )
V
IV
V
K-0469-01
Page 12 of 22
Approx. Epicentral
Distance from
Depth Site
(km) (mi)
128
152
62
61
122 70
19
76
152
84 68
136 50
127
86 101
93
95
131
123
126
98
TABLE 2 (cont)
EARTHQUAKES EQUAL TO OR LARGER THAN
MAGNITUDE 4.0 OR INTENSITY V
(within approximately 100+ miles of damsite)
Time Magnitude
No. Year Date (UT) Lat. N Long. W mb ML lVl S
217 1974 11-06 09:23 60.19 153.85 4.4
218 1974 11-14 04:49 58.80 154.62 5.5 5.4 5.6
219 1974 11-14 06:04 58.65 153.60 4.4
220 1974 11-14 07:35 59.37 153.42 4.1
221 1974 11-15 03:02 58.74 154.64 4.8 4.1
222 1974 11-15 05:44 58.84 154.45 3.8
223 1974 11-22 18:04 60.27 153.30 4.6
224 1974 12-13 15:34 60.03 152.88 4.2
225 1974 12-19 22:15 60.86 152.56 4.1
226 1975 01-25 03:59 59.93 152.64 4.5 4.2
227 1975 02-05 01:14 60.06 152.73 4.2
228 1975 02-10 ·14:04 60.10 153.46 4.8
229 1975 02-18 19:02 59.89 153.92 4.0 4.8
230 1975 02-22 20:21 60.01 152.95 4.1
231 1975 03-06 09:02 58.76 154.94 4.0
232 1975 03-09 18:49 60.07 153.25 4.0
233 1975 03-20 01:21 59.70 153.00 4.0 4.4
234 1975 03-25 12:17 59.64 153.65 4.0
Intensity
Other (MM)
5.3 IV
V
1\-0469-01
Page 13 of 22
Approx. Epicentrnl
Distance from
Depth Site
(km) (mi)
194
37 80
33
97
42 84
60 78
158
105
129
114
128
162
97
109
153
128
118
95
Time
No. Year Date (UT)
235 1975 04-19 00:26
236 1975 04-30 04:29
237 1975 05-04 07:56
238 1975 05-21 22:57
239 1975 06-01 13:11
240 1975 06-06 11:26
241 1975 06-17 14:48
242 1975 06-24 07:15
243 1975 06-29 10:45
244 1975 07-15 02:57
245 1975 07-29 22:02
246 1975 08-22 15:50
247 1975 08-23 06:40
248 1975 08-24 04:40
249 1975 09-12 23:40
250 1975 09-19 21:46
251 1975 09-24 08:40
252 1975 10-05 11:58
TABLE 2 (cont)
EARTHQUAKES EQUAL TO OR LARGER THAN
lVIAGNITUDE 4.0 OR INTENSITY V
(within approximately 100+ miles of damsite)
Magnitude
Lat. N Long. W mb ML MS
58.71 154.15 4.6
60.08 153.24 4.9
60.13 153.35 4.5
59.56 154.11 4.6
59.79 153.75 4.2
59.12 151. 75 4.4
59.94 152.24 4.3
60.10 153.37 5.0
59.73 153.11 5.5
60.13 153.42 4.3
60.20 153.40 4.4
60.12 153.44 4.7 4.6
59.01 154.26 4.5
59.73 153.44 4.4
59.79 152.63 4.0
59.81 153.52 4.2
59.87 152.91 4.1
60.28 153.24 4.3
Intensity
Other (iVllV1 )
1\.-0469-01
Page 14 of 22
Approx. Epicentral
Distance from
lJepth Site
(km) (mi)
93
152
151
100
141
44
80
163 45
110
160
154
160
167
134
78
130
106
161
Time
No. Year Date (UT)
253 1975 10-08 15:33
254 1975 10-16 13:12
255 1975 10-22 19:36
256 1975 11-02 14:32
257 1975 11-04 04:11
258 1975 11-07 17:07
259 1975 11-22 12:14
260 1975 11-25 18:51
261 1975 12-14 03:49
n 262 1975 12-27 22:38
r 263 1976 01-04 23:29 ~
~ 264 1976 01-06 02:07 ~
) 265 1976 01-23 19:14 ~
" 266 1976 01-26 01:42
~
~ 1976 02-05 22:42 -267 -
J'I
) 268 1976 02-13 19:58
~ 269 1976 02-19 09:04 -~ 270 1976 02-28 18:28 )
TABLE 2 (cont)
EARTHQUAKES EQUAL TO OR LARGER THAN
MAGNITUDE 4.0 OR INTENSITY V
(within approximately 100+ miles of damsite)
Magnitude
Lat. N Long. W mb ML lViS
60.06 152.86 4.1
60.20 153.18 5.3
59.81 153.28 4.0
59.36 153.54 4.8 4.9
61.00 152.77 4.1
59.01 154.16 4.1
59.41 153.17 4.3
60.10 153.34 4.3
59.77 153.43 4.3
59.93 153.63 4.3
58.98 153.63 4.8 4.4
58.95 153.80 4.0
60.01 152.88 4.1
60.13 153.17 4.6 4.8
60.15 153.29 4.3
59.89 153.06 4.1
59.80 153.49 4.5
59.66 152.92 4.2
Intensity
Other (MM)
K-0469-01
Page 15 of 22
Approx. Epicentral
Distance from
uepth Site
(km) (mi)
lUI
99 53
125
112
157
102
102
155
136
155
29 76
33
·125
148
146
119
138
88
Time
No. Year Date (UT)
271 1976 03-14 03:32
272 1976 04-09 06:18
273 1976 04-10 19:37
274 1976 04-18 07:22
275 1976 04-18 10:33
276 1976 05-03 17:47
277 1976 05-09 00:10
278 1976 06-09 08:57
279 1976 07-27 18:27
280 1976 07-27 20:23
281 1976 08-22 02:02
282 1976 08-30 08:18
283 1976 08-30 19:03
284 1976 10-25 12:27
285 1976 10-31 23:14
286 1976 11-06 00:08
287 1976 11-30 06:23
288 1976 12-17 18:33
TABLE 2 (cont)
EARTHQUAKES EQUAL TO OR LARGER THAN
MAGNITUDE 4.0 OR INTENSITY V
(within approximately 100+ miles of damsite)
Magnitude
Lat. N Long. W mb lVIL lVl S
60.10 153.35 4.1 5.1
60.88 152.49 4.1
59.61 152.54 4.2
60.09 152.74 4.3 4.1
59.80 153.34 4.9
58.91 154.40 4.7
59.86 153.07 4.7 3.9
59.32 153.35 4.4
59.21 152.30 4.2
59.37 152.67 4.1
60.22 153.30 5.5 5.8
59.87 153.24 4.9
59.70 153.27 4.0
59.77 154.03 4.2
59.83 153.17 4.6
60.05 153.52 4.9
59.92 153.36 4.7
60.16 152.61 4.0
Intensity
Other (iVl M)
IV
V
IV
K-0469-01
Page 16 of 22
Approx. Epicentral
Distance from
Depth Site
(km) (mi)
146
128
79
100
139
142
38
103
85
72
144 50
.117
105
163
131
119
127
118
Time
No. Year .Date (UT)
289 1976 12-24 14:39
290 1977 01-04 14:57
291 1977 01-09 03:53
292 1977 03-06 22:41
293 1977 03-24 16:13
294 1977 06-01 07:13
295 1977 06-10 04:45
296 1977 06-16 01:25
297 1977 06-25 20:36
298 1977 07-18 20:17
299 1977 07-20 18:06
300 1977 07-21 18:08
301 1977 08-05 20:30
302 1977 08-08 07:37
303 1977 09-17 18:26
304 1977 09-19 08:08
305 1977 09-19 22:18
306 1977 09-26 18:22
TABLE 2 (cont)
EARTHQUAKES EQUAL TO OR LARGER THAN
MAGNITUDE 4.0 OR INTENSITY V
(within approximately 100+ miles of damsite)
Magnitude
Lat. N Long. W mb ML MS
60.37 151.78 4.3
59.53 152.99 4.2
59.93 153.36 4.2
59.71 152.66 4.1
59.96 153.38 4.4
60.13 153.30 4.0
59.75 153.46 4.5
60.02 153.59 4.7
59.96 153.18 4.4
59.90 152.96 4.0
60.13 152.47 4.1 4.4
60.00 153.32 4.3
59.91 152.12 4.0
60.25 153.07 4.3
61.03 152.92 4.8 4.5
59.91 152.84 4.8 4.2
60.19 152.53 4.5
60.38 152.92 4.4
Intensity
Other (MM)
IV
1\.-0469-01
Page 17 of 22
Approx. Epicentral
Distance from
Depth Site
(km) (mi)
89
119
132
106
149
152
131
176
132
123
107
141
52
134
150
116
104
137
TABLE 2 (cont)
EARTHQUAKES EQUAL TO OR LARGER THAN
MAGNITUDE 4.0 OR INTENSITY V
(within approximately 100+ miles of damsite)
Time Magnitude
No. Year Date (UT) Lat. N Long. W mb ML lVl S
307 1977 10-12 12:56 59.97 152.30 4.1 3.4
308 1977 10-16 04:26 59.88 152.55 4.6
309 1977 10-16 16:29 59:05 153.06 4.7
310 1977 11-21 13:35 59.26 152.55 " 4.4
311 1977 12-16 21:49 59.77 153.45 4.9 4.5
312 1977 12-27 15:10 60.39 153.70 5.2 6.0
313 1977 12-28 07:02 59.52 152.39 4.2
314 1978 01-22 02:03 60.22 152.24 4.7
315 1978 01-27 18:53 60.37 151.12 4.7 4.4
316 1978 02-12 08:57 59.45 152.62 5.4 4.8
317 1978 02-13 01:17 59.86 153.76 4.9 4.6
318 1978 02-26 10:53 60.07 152.85 4.4
319 1978 03-05 00:34 59.96 153.60 4.5 4.4
320 1978 03-05 13:53 60.03 153.38 4.2
321 1978 03-06 20:47 58.95 154.30 4.89
322 1978 03-10 02:34 60.23 154.81 4.3
323 1978 03-20 03:59 60.18 153.61 4.9 4.9
324 1978 03-20 08:16 59.80 153.24 4.3
Intensity
Other (M l'v1)
V
I
IV
III
V
II
1\-0469-01
Page 18 of 22
Approx. Epicenh'al .
Distance from
Uepth Site
(km) (mi)
115
83 72
87
!H
118
175 45
77
120
70
72 80
131
125
46
163
129
44
153
145
Time
No. Year Date (UT)
325 1978 03-31 00:19
326 1978 04-09 17:13
327 1978 04-16 08:49
328 1978 04-19 01:49
329 1978 04-21 10:01
330 1978 04-25 07:36
331 1978 05-29 06:25
332 1978 06-21 22:59
333 1978 07-11 15:44
~ 334 1978 07-15 12:21
--335 1978 07-20 05:45
~ 336 1978 08-01 05:21 ~
) 337 1978 08-04 00:01 ~
338 1978 08-06 14:22
339 1978 08-09 07:46
340 1978 08-14 01:59
341 1978 08-18 18:52
342 1978 08-19 21:28
TABLE 2 (cont)
EARTHQUAKES EQUAL TO OR LARGER THAN
MAGNITUDE 4.0 on INTENSITY V
(within approximately 100+ miles of damsite)
Magnitude
Lat. N Long. W mb ML MS
60.33 152.52 4.5 4.1
60.69 151. 84 4.5 4.5
59.48 152.73 4.2
.'~ 60.14 153.54 4.6 4.8
60.00 151. 83 4.1
60.05 153.46 4.5 4.3
60.08 153.42 4.1
59.42 153.03 4.0
60.93 151.78 4.4
59.59 152.67 4.1 4.4
60.69 152.76 4.10
59.63 152.56 4.3
59.93 153.47 4.5
59.79 151.?? 4.6
59.57 152.87 4.1
60.23 153.47 4.4
59.88 153.53 5.4 5.9
59.97 153.26 4.3
Intensity
Other (M lV1)
III
11
5.7
1\ -0469-01
Page 19 of 22
Approx. Epicentral
Distance from
Uepth Site
(km) (mi)
128
101
78
158
92
171
152
20
103
156
86
171
97
112
184
123 38
136
Time
No. Year Date (UT)
343 1978 08-22 19:45
344 1978 08-23 12:49
345 1978 08-29 23:07
346 1978 09-01 17:39
347 1978 09-02 07:33
348 1978 09-08 09:26
349 1978 09-13 05:24
350 1978 09-13 15:07
351 1978 09-15 18:09
352 1978 09-22 18:14
353 1978 09-24 19:41
354 1978 10-14 18:09
355 1978 12-06 11:06
356 1978 12-09 00:51
357 1979 01-25 19:30
358 1979 02-01 12:29
359 1979 02-09 18:49
360 1979 03-07 12:11
TABLE 2 (cont)
EARTHQUAKES EQUAL TO OR LARGER THAN
MAGNITUDE 4.0 OR INTENSITY V
(within approximately 100+ miles of damsite)
Magnitude
Lat. N Long. W· mb iVl L MS
60.27 152.86 4.2
59.96 152.76 4.55
60.24 153.64 4.5
59.76 153.41 4.2 4.4
59.55 152.16 4.0
60.06 153.54 4.2
59.93 152.39 4.0
60.35 152.03 4.35
59.96 153.11 4.7 4.0
60.43 153.26 4.3
59.28 153.28 4.13
59.85 153.38 4.3
60.14 153.26 4.5
60.36 152.29 4.4
60.13 153.12 5".5 5.5
60.24 152.84 4.8 4.7
60.06 152.59 4.8 5.0
59.72 153.11 4.3 4.3
Intensity
Other (IVlM)
IV
K-0469-01
Page 20 of 22
Approx. Epicentral
Distance from
Depth Site
(kill) (mi)
135
118
209
139
69
185
117
39
128
191
98
154
137
117
105 54
109
88
121
Time
No. Year Date (UT)
361 1979 03-31 14:25
362 1979 04-04 02:34
363 1979 04-04 08:16
364 1979 04-16 11:11
365 1979 04-20 08:43
366 1979 06-04 05:07
367 1979 06-26 04:27
368 1979 07-04 08:16
369 1979 07-09 02:54
370 1979 07-13 04:06
371 1979 07-16 23:46
372 1979 10-27 22:17
373 1979 11-25 14:21
374 1979 12-22 10:26
375 1980 01-01 07:53
376. 1980 01-08 19:18
377 1980 02-10 02:32
378 1980 03-06 17:00
TABLE 2 (cont)
EARTHQUAKES EQUAL TO OR LARGER THAN
MAGNITUDE 4.0 Ok INTENSITY V
(within approximately 100+ miles of damsite)
Magnitude
Lat. N Long. W mb ML MS
58.82 152.94 4.4
60.38 153.36 4.3
60.32 153.60 4.5
59.18 154.07 4.1
59.32 152.36 4.4
59.85 153.21 4.2 4.0
59.84 153.30 4.0
59.83 153.65 4.4 4.73
58.84 154.43 4.22
58.96 152.58 4.36
60.86 153.02 4.6
59.38 152.90 4.1
60.23 153.03 4.1 4.2
59.15 153.98 4.3
60.20 152.33 4.2 4.0
59.94 153.41 4.2
61. 27 152.17 4.0
59.76 153.23 4.1
Intensity
Other (1Vl,vJ)
1\-0469-01
Page 21 of 22
Approx. Epicentral
Distance from
Uepth Site
(km) (mi)
93
166
174
156
85
121
132
153
124
88
141
77
152
139
93
146
140
127
Time
No. Year Date (UT)
379 1980 03-17 07:38
380 1980 06-15 19:02
381 1980 06-17 09:16
382 1980 08-12 14:44
383 1980 08-13 03:53
384 1980 08-25 13:38
385 1980 08-30 00:18
386 1980 09-01 19:47
387 1980 09-05 05:46
388 1980 09-13 07:24
389 1980 09-21 21:00
390 1980 11-22 16:27
391 1980 11-25 00:05
392 1980 11-28 17:44
393 1980 11-30 "21:32
394 1981 01-31 23:59
395 1981 02-11 16:02
TABLE 2 (cont)
EARTHQUAKES EQUAL TO OR LARGER THAN
MAGNITUDE 4.0 OR INTENSITY V
(within approximately 100+ miles of damsite)
Magnitude
Lat. N Long. W mb ML MS
59.98 153.14 4.9 4.3
60.04 153.30 4.4
60.28 153.46 4.4
59.98 152.84 5.0
59.25 151.78 4.0
59.95 152.53 4.8 3.1
59.52 152.84 4.5
59.37 154.81 4.3 3.6
60.16 153.21 4.0
59.84 152.25 4.3
60.10 152.93 4.2
59.33 154.57 4.6
60.46 152.26 4.3
60.24 152.24 4.6
59.43 153.28 4.9
58.99 152.10 4.8
59.32 153.12 4.1
Intensity
Other (lVlM)
III
III
K-0469-01
Page 22 of 22
Approx. Epicentral
Uistance from
Uepth Site
(km) (mi)
132
120
171
110 61
53
33 75
81
33
153
100
130
137
112
111
87
62 115
109
C
1&1
(I)
" Z
a:
1&1
ID
IIAP OF ALASKA
SCALE IN IIILES
o 200 400 -----
SIX MILE LAKE ___
NEWHALEN RIVER --..
KUKAKLEK LAKE
~
NONVIANVK LAKE
TAZIIiINA RIVER
STUDY AREA
TAZIMINA LAKE
LAKE
AUGUSTINE ISLAND
G
COOK INLET
~ SCALE IN IIILES
o 25 50
-~-
75
LOCATION IIAP
T.zlmln. River
Hydroele c Irlc ProJ e c I
Slo.e a Webeler Engr. Corp.
December 1881
SHANNON' IILSON. INC.
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
K-04e8-01
FIG. 1
" j')
I I I I • I
Depth
ln Feet
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
I I I • • I I I
B-1
Lower Lake Site
Left Abutment
Surface Elev. '""676 I
1. 0 r:~:.,..,~...,.~~.~:.~ .... SILT
• I I I I I
B-4
Roadhouse Site
Right Abutment
Surface Elev. """632'
1.0 0."\1: ~SILT
'.'p.
I I
0. ... . P.· .. sandy GRAVEL
·QO /'(i:
::.:':; gravelly SAND 00"
15. 0 ;~~: ...sL..15. 7
19.4
30.0
~ ~ ... ~:: ...... :. :: . ': ..
:. ",
" ':
-: .. '
:·t, ," . . . . . . ' . '.
sandy GRAVEL
..5L34.8
·E·· SAND ...
": .. '0.
", ' ..
".,: .
, ... " .. .... :
" i~::
. ·.·.'.1
1: ,:.
68.0 /
// clayey SILT
74.3
89.0'
31.0
"0 ...... .
?:~'$. gravelly SAND ... " .: " ..
;'6<
59.9'
GRAVEL
I I I I • I I I I I I I I I I I
B-2
Forebay Site
Right Abutment.
B-3
Lower Site
Right Abutment
Sur'f~ce Elev. ~608' Surface Elev. ~621'
0.5....,.,,= ....
30.7 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • · . • • · . • • • • • • · . • • • • • • • • • • · . . • • • • • • • · . . • • · . . • • · . . • • · . . • • • • • • • · . .
silty SAND
sandy GRAVEL.
welded
LITHIC TUFF
(closely to
very closely
jointed)
~f6~ gravelly SAND
4.9 •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • · . . • •
welded
LITHIC TUFF
••••• ..5L 25.8 · . . • • · . . • • • • • • • · . . • • · . . • • · . . ••••• (closely to • • • • • • • · . . • • · . . • • · . . • • • • • • • • • • • • · . . • • • • • • • · . . • • • • • • • • • • • •
69.0'
very closely
jointed)
SUMMARY OF
BORING LOGS
100.1'
Tazimind River
Hydroelectric Project
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
December 1981
SHANNON & WILSON. INC.
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
K-0469-01
FIG. 2
r--,
i
I
, j
,
, ,
, j
r--,
, I
,
, J
I ,
, , ,
,.....,
! j
, ;
750 r-EAST'
700 I-
""--650
-------600 ----'"" w
W 550
II.
Z -w 500 0
:::l
l--I-450 ...I «
400
350 r--------300
250 I I I I
a 100 200 300
750 r-SO UTH EAST
700 -LOWER TAZIMINA
/LAKE ______
650 ---'
I-w w
II. 600 -Z -
W
0
:::l 550 l-I--I-
...I' « 500 I-
450 -V--
400 I I I
0 100' 200 300
Prepared By I,D rafted By Reviewed By Approved By: 1~5o'n' %r ~ "lgl M1"c.,/ L·.4' /~kl h1.:b.!/1!d/iJr 1.1/$ r
LOWER TAZIMINA LAKE SITE
SL·' ---LEFT ABUTMENT
1500 FT/SEC ,-~
~ 4450 FT/SEC -./
,../ /'" -
5350 FT/SEC
~ ~ --~ 3,500 FT /SEC
I I I I I I
400 500 600 700 ,800 900 1000
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE INl='EET
LOWER TAZIMINA LAKE SITE
SL·2
R GHT ABUTMENT
1500 FT/SEC
-
5300 FT/SEC
.
~ ---...-
6,000 FT/SEC
.
I I I I I I I
400 500 600 700 800 900
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET
WEST -750
700 B-1 -
LOWER TAZIMINA LAKE~
1500 FT/SEC LEGEND
:-650
4450 FT/SEC c \/ .... ~ NUMBERS ON PROFILES
~ 1500 FT/SEC ARE AVERAGE P.WAVE
.-600 VELOCITIES THROUGH
SAND and ~ V , THE GROUN,D
GRAVEL I-w ----INTERPRETED CON,TACT ,-550 w BETWEEN VELOCITY UNITS,
II.
z B·1 -1 500 w ,LOCATION OF TEST ,-
0 BORING iM 5350 FT/SEC I
:::l
I-
450 I-SL·10 INTERSECTI()N OF SEISMIC ,-...I I PROFILES « -~
-400
~ r------,
13,500 FT/SEC -350
NOTES
-300 PROFILES ARE VIEWED DOWNRIVER .
'LOCATIOflj OF PROFILES ARE SHOWN ON,
I I I I I I I I 250 SIT'E'PLAN (PLATE 1)
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 J
GEOPHYSICAL INFORMATION IS BASED
\ UPON GEOPHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS
MADE BY GENERALLY ACCEPTED
NORTHWEST -750 METHODS AND FIELD PROCEDURES AND
OUR INTERPRETATION OF THESE DATA.
GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION IS BASED
UPON OUR BEST ESTIMATE OF SUBSUR· -700 FACE CONDITIONS CONSIDERING THE
1500 FT/SEC , SL~10 . GEOPHYSICAL RESULTS AND ALL OTHER -I INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO US. THESE
-650 RESULTS ARE INTERPRETIVE IN NATURE
1-" AND ARE CONSIDERED TO BE A REASON-w ABLY ACCURATE PRESENTATION OF w
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS WITHIN THE
, . -600 Z LIMITATIONS OF METHOD OR METHODS 5300 FT/SEC -EMPLOYED. w
0
-550 :::l
l-----j..----' l-
6,000 FT /SEC ...I « -500
SEISMIC REFRACTION PROFILES
-450 LOWER TAZIMINA LAKE SITE
Tazimina River
I I I I I I I 400 Hydroelectric Project
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700
Stone &. Webster Engr. Corp.
DECEMBER 1981. K-0469-01
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 3 Gootochnical Consultants
l ;
I ;
l ;
r:
!
, j
.-,
I
I
: ;
r
r
, I
, !
800 r-SOUTHEAST SL·3
LEFT ABUTMENT
750 -
____ rt'300 FT /S E C ~ 700 ~~~ -r-....... 6000 FT/SEC
~O,500 FT/SEC 650 TAZIMINA RIVER I-............ w ~~-A • w.
II. 6000 FT/SEC
2 600 --w
C
::::I 550 .
I-PROBABLE UNDEFINED LAYER 7 -I-(13,000 FT/SEC7) ..I
<C
500
--450
400
350 , I I I 1 L ,
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
750,-SOUTHEAST' SL·5
LEFT ABUTMENT
70'0' f-
...:::::--1300' FT /SEC
1-. w ~ --..~ 650 w :::---... II. 5,00'0' FT/SEC
2 -w 60'0'
C
::::I
l-
I-550
..I
<C
500
450 I j L I I
0 10'0 20'0' 300 40'0' 500
Prepared By Drafted By Reviewed By Approved By
"/v ;r, ~ If/B/ ~;~ I /V!,J':" II ed7J, a/B! '7!hr
ROADHOUSE SITE
B·4
~
<-SAND and
GRAVEL
, I I I
700 800 900 1000
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET
FOREBAY SITE
6 -6
I I
TAZIMINA RIVER -~ /
I I , l'
60'0 70'0' 800
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET
.
SL·4 NORTHWEST-800
RIGHT ABUTMENT LEGEND
-750
" NUMBERS ON PROFILES
" 1300 FT/SEC ARE AVERAGE P-WAVE
-700 VELOCITIES THROUGH
THE GROUND
INTERPRETED CONTACT 1300 FT/SEC --BETWEEN VELOCITY 650 UNITS 1-'
W 5000 FT/SEC w INTERPItETED PROBABLE
I· II. ---CONTACT BETWEEN
600 2' VELOCITY UNITS -
w ~ TAZIMINA RIVER
C
550 ::::I. 6 ANGLE POINT BETWEEN 9750 FT/SEC I-SEISMIC LINES -I-
..I B-4 -~ <C 1 LOCATION OF TEST -----500 .; BORING -~ 3,000 FT/SEC STATIC WATER LEVEL
2.. MEASURED DURING
450 DRILLING
400 NOTES
PROFILES ARE VIEWED DOWNRIVER
I I I I I I , 350
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 180'0' LOCATION OF PROFILES ARE SHOWN ON
SITE ,PLAN (PLATE 11
GEOPHYSICAL INFORMATION IS BASED
UPON GEOPHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS
MADE BY GENERALLY ACCEPTED
METHODS AND FIELD PROCEDURES AND
OUR INTERPRETATION OF THESE DATA.
GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION IS BASED
SL-6 NORTHWEST-750' UPON OUR BEST ESTIMATE OF SUBSUR'
RIGHT ABUTME'NT FACE CONDITIONS CONSIDERING THE
GEOPHYSICAL R ESUL TS AND ALL OTHER
-700-INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO US. THESE
RESULTS ARE INTERPRETIVE IN NATURE 13DOFT/S~ AND ARE CONSIDERED TO BE A REASON'
. ~ I-ABLY ACCURATE PRESENTATION OF w
___ /~5~D FT/SEC
-650 w EXISTING CONDITIONS WITHIN THE
130'0' FT/SEC"\ I II. LIMITATIONS OF METHOD OR METHODS B-2
1----2 , . EMPLOYED. --.1Sl-"r----~OOO FT/SEC --r----600' w
" ----1---' --~-c
1\ '--GRi VEL
---::::I 5,000' FT/SEC I---550' I-
,;"J '-TUFF <C SEISMIC REFRACTION PROFILES
-ROADHOUSE SITE & FOREBAY SITE
-50'0
Tazimina River
I L J I I I 450' Hydroelectric Project
900 10'0'0' 1100 120'0' 1300' 140'0 1500 Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
DECEMBER 1981 K-0469-01
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical Consultants FIG. 4
.
, I
1 •
n
: i
,-,
,
I , I
I :
, ,
: i
I ;
i1 ,
Prepared By
I /{,'j;~ ~lyS[
I-w w u..
z
w c
::::>
l-
I-
...I
<t
I-w w u..
z -w c
::::>
I--I-
...I
<t
800 -EAST
LEFT ABUTMENT
750 -
700 -
650 t-
LOWER SITE WEST -800
RIGHT ABUTMENT
-750
1300 FT/SEC~ -700
3000 FT/SEC~~ L
1 ____ -650
""
600
£1300 FT/SEC ,/
~========~~~~~~t=====~~~~~~~~T~A~Z~I:M~I:N~A~R~IV~E:RvvvvVV~Y/~~B~·~~~~~~-'~1~0~,0~0~0~F~T~/~S~E~C~ . -600 3,500 FT/SEC ' t--F\ SAND
TUFF
550 r----------r---------t----------t----------r---------t----------t-----t----r---------t~----~-550
500r----------r---------t----------t----------r---------t----------t----------r---------t----------500
450 I I, I I I I I I 450
o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET
I-w
w u..
z
w c
::::>
I-
I-
...I
<t
550,NORTH POWERHOUSE SITE SOUTH-550
SLog
800, SOUTHWEST LOWER TAZIMINA LAKE ~ITE
SL-10
NORTHEAST -800
500 f-
450 f-
400t-
1300 FT/SECpr::----
3200 FT/:C y
350 r==~~===::::::::~--t--9650 FT/SEC
300r----------r---------+------
250r---------~---------+------
200r----------+----------+-------
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
150~---~1--~----1~--~--~~--~150 o 100 200 300
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET
I-w
w u..
z
w c
::::>
l-
I-
...I
<t
I-w w u..
z
w c
::::>
l-
I-
...I,
<t
750 t--750
700 t--700
-650
600r---------4----------+----------~--------~---------+--------600
5300 FT/SEC ----550
6,000 FT/SEC
500r---------4----------+----------r---------~---------+--------500
450~--------4----------+----------~--------~---------+--------450
400L-__ ~I ____ ~ ___ L-L __ _L __ _J~ ____ ~ ___ ~I __ ~--~I--~~---~I~~400
o 100 200 300 400 500 600
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET
41i:fJted By Reviewed By Approved By
~/B/ /?n#I,/!_'L ,yP/ h1J?i/k:trA pil/
.
I-w w u..
Z -w
C
::::>
I--I-
...I
<t
1300 FT/SEC
LEGEND
NUMBERS ON PROFILES
ARE AVERAGE P·WAVE
VELOCITIES THROUGH
THE GROUND
~ _______ INTERPRETED CONTACT
BETWEEN VELOCITY UNITS
INTEI'IPRETED PROBABLE
-- -CONTACT BETWEEN
VELOCITY UNITS.
~ TAZIII'IINA RIvER'
SL·2 INTERSECTION OF SEISMIC
I PROFILES
Bl-3 LOCATION OF TEST
BORING
STATIC WATER LEVEL
5L MEASURED DURING
DRILLING'
NOTES
PROFILES 7, 8, AND 9 ARE VIEWED DOWN
RIVER, PROFILE 10 IS PERPENDICULAR TO
PROFILE 2
LOCATION OF PROFILES ARE SHOWN ON
SITE PLAN'(PLATE 1)
GEOPHYSICAL INFORMATION IS BASED'
UPON GEOPHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS'
MADE BY GENERALLY ACCEPTED
METHODS AND FIELD PROCEDURES AND
OUR INTERPRETATION OF THESE DATA.
GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION IS BASED
UPON OUR BEST ESTIMATE OF SUBSUR-
FACE CONDITIONS CONSIDER ING THE
GEOPHYSICAL RESULTS AND ALL OTHER
INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO US. THESE
RESULTS ARE INTER'PRETIVE IN NATURE
AND ARE CONSIDERED TO BE A REASON-
ABLY ACCURATE PRESENTATION OF
EXISTING CONDITIONS WITHIN THE
LIMITATIONS OF METHOD OR METHODS
EMPLOYED.
SEISMIC REFRACTION PROFILES
LOWER SITE, POWERHOUSE SITE, &
LOWER TAZIMINA LAKE SITE
Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
DECEMBER 1981 K .. 0469-01
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
G eotech nical Consu ltants FIG. 5
, ,
n , '
i ! I ,
rj
I : , , ,
" ,
, I
,1
I. ,
i , ,
: J
r;
,
, ;
, i
,
, ;
I-w w u.
2
w
0
:::)
l-
I-
..J
~
I-w w u.
2
w
0
:::)
l-
I-
..J
~
1000 -SOUTH
:::.:::--950 ~
900
.850
800
750
700
650
600
550
500
o
700 -
650 -
,600 -
550 f-
500 f-
450 -
400
.......
L
100
.
I
1800
----= r----
.
I I
200
I
1900 2000
·12.9 MILE SiTE
SL-11
LEFT ABUTMENT (0-1800 FT,)
~ :--r-_ ~ ~
~ ~~1000 FT/S·EC
,
~ :OOOFTI~~
~ --'::::::::::::r--~OFT/SEC~ ~
13,500 FT/SEC ------t:::::::::==r--~ ? -1500 FT/SEC
~ 5000 FT/SEC -
.3,500 FT/SEC
.
I 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET
12.9 MILE SITE
SLg11 (Cont.)
(1500 FT/SEC --:500 FT/SEC \
LEFT ABUTMENT (1800·3500 FTol
-to -
5000 FT/SEC 5000 FT/SEC
'-~3,500 FT/SEC p,500 FT /S.EC
1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I
2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100, .
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE INFEET
-I-
1 1
1500
I
3200 3300
~ ---
1600
----r--
.1 I
1700
-1000
-950
-900
-850
-800
-750
-700
650
600
550
500
1800
NORTH -700
A
TAZIMINA RIVER~ _
.~
650
-600
-550
-500
........ 1
-450
1 I 400
3400 3500
,I-w w
u.
2
w
Q
:::)
I-
I-
..J
~.
I-w
w u.
2
w
0
:::)
I-
I-
..J
~
1500 FT}SEC
---
LEGEND
NUMBERS ON PROFILE
ARE AVERAGE P-WAVE
VELOCITIES THROUGH
THE GROUND
ZONE OF LATERAL
VELOCITY CHANGE
INTERPRETED CONTACT
BETWEE~ VELOCITy'UN-ITS
INTERPRETED PROBABLE
CONTACT BETWEEN
VELOCITY UNITS'
TAZIMINA RIVER
ANGLE POINT BI!TWEEN
SEISMIC LINES
NOTES
PROFILE IS VII'WED DOWNRIVER
LOCATION OF PROFILE IS SHOWN ON SITE
PLAN (PLATE 11
GEOPHYSICAL INFORMATION IS BASED
UPON GEOPHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS
MADE BY GENERALLY ACCEPTED
METHO.DS AND FIELD PROCEDURES AND
OUR INTERPRETATION OF THESE DATA.
GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION IS BASED
UPON OUR BEST ESTIMATE OF SUBSUR-
FACE CONDITIONS CONSIDERING THE
GEOPHYSICAL RESULTS AND ALL OTHER
INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO US. THESE
RESULTS ARE INTERPRETIVE IN NATURE
AND ARE CONSIDERED TO BE A REASON-
ABLY ACCURATE PRESENTATION OF
EXISTING CONDITIONS WITHIN THE
LIMITATIONS OF METHOD OR METHODS
EMPLOYED.
SEISMIC REFRACTION PROFILE
12.9 MILE SITE -LEFT ABUTMENT
Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
DECEMBER 1981 K.0469"()2
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical Consultanu FIG. 6
!I
I
, I
I!
I , , , , ,
n
I :
I I
, J
n
: I
~
! I
n , I
, I
n
I '
, I
n , . ,
[l
! !
I, ,
r
: I
i1 I •
i )
I-w
w
II.
2 -w
c
::I
I-
I-
...I «
1000."" SOUTH
950 -
900 -
850 -
800 -
750 -
700 -
8
~SL'11 I
650 TAZIM INA RIVER
8
I
12.9 MIL,E SITE
SL-12
RIGHT ABUTMENT
5000 FT/SEC
NORTH -1000
5000 FT/SEC......, ~ .. ~ 950
L -1500FT/SEC ~~~---
_ -~ -r-__ -=---~ 900
~ -----=-=----~ ~ \ ,.. . 13,000 FT/SEC
1500 FT/SEC ~~~~--r-----~~_r----------+---------~----r-----~----------r_--------_r----------+_--~850 __ ....... -::;' ;...rf--::::,-~,OOOIFT/SEC 7000' FT/SEC
~~~ ~~~~~ ~~"---~--~(r----------+----~----r_---------+----------~--------~r_--------_r----------+_---------+----~800 . ~ k:-:::
5000 FT/SEC~f.-~ 9000 FT/SEC
.
'\~
. /""';./' ~ 13,000 FT/SEC
,~~~./~~'~'../'--+--------+--------r--------r--------r-------~------~--------~-------+--------r--------r--------~~700 ::;.-~ ..... ~
_~r'"'"---~ ~ . .....--1"\ -
750
~9r.I~--.~-~----r~----~~-4r---+-.-----+----------~--------~-----------r----------r----------r----------+---------~----------~--------~r----------r----------+---~650
r-9000 FT/SEC ~-r----t
600
r-1/ 3,000 FT/SEC
r_--------r_--------+---------~--------_r--------_+--------~--------~r_--------r_--------+_------~~--------_r--------_r--------~--------~r_--------r_--------+_--------~--------~--~600
550r_--------~--------_+----------r_--------~--------_+----------r_--------~--------_+----------+_--------_r--------~----------+_~------_r~------~r_--------+_--------_+--------~~--------4_--~550
500r---------r_--------+-------~~--------_r--------_+--------~--------~--~------r_--~----+_--------~--------~--------~--------_+--------~r_--------r_--------+_--------4_--------~--~500
r--1
450r---------r_--------+---------~--------_r--------_+--------_+--------~----------r_--------+_--------4_--------~--------~--------_+--------~r_--------r_--------+_--------4_--------~--~450
400 L I J I I I I I I I I I I I I I 400
3500 3600 3700 3800 3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400 450.0 4600 4700 4800 4900 5000 5100 5200 5300
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET
Prepared By Drafted By R~viewed By Approved By
I~~ //8/ ~11/81 /nu'L '~N/!/ m,RUBJjj, 11/8/
I-w
W
II.
2
w
C
::I
l-
I-
...I «
1500 FT/SEC
---
LEGEND
NUMBERS ON PROFILE
AREAVERAGEP.WAVE
VELOCITIES THROUGH
THE GROUND
ZONE OF LATERAL
VELOCITY CHANGE
INTERPR EtED CONTACT
BETWEEN VELOCITY UNLTS
INTERPRETED PROBABLE
CONTACT BETWEEN
VELOCITY UNITS
TAZIMINA RIVER
ANGLE POINT BETWEEN
SEISMIC LINES
NOTES
PROFILE IS VIEWED DOWNRIVIiR
LdCATION OF PROFILE IS SHOWN ON SITE
PLAN (PLATE 11
GEOPHYSICAL INFORMATION IS BASED
UPON GEOPHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS
MADE BY GENERALLY ACCEPTED
METHODS AND FIELD PROCEDURES AND
OUR INTERPRETATION OF THESE DATA.
GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION IS BASED
UPON OUR BEST ESTIMATE OF SUBSUR'
FACE CONDITIONS CONSIDERING THE
GEOPHYSICAL RESULTS AND ALL OTHER
INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO US. THESE
RESULTS ARE INTERPRETIVE IN NATURE
AND ARE CONSIDERED TO BE A REASON-
ABLY ACCURATE PRESENTATION OF
EXISTING CONDITIONS WITHIN THE
LIMITATIONS OF METHOD OR METHODS
EMPLOYED.
SEISMIC REFRACTION PROFILE
12.9 MILE SITE· RIGHT ABUTMENT
Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp,
DECEMBER 1981' K·0469·02
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical Consultants FIG, 7
750 -SOUTHEAST PENSTOCK SITE NORTHWEST-750
SL-13
-, -700 :::::::~ -700
/1350 FT/SEC
....... ,. 650 ~AZIMINA RIVER ~ -650 l-
i
I----3200 FT/SEC w w i , W W
u.. 4,000 FT /SEC u..
2 60.0 -600 2 " --w w
Q Q
::J ::J 550 -550 I-
'I l-
I-I-
oJ oJ
'<I: <I:
500 -500
r->
, , -450 450
r
400 I I I I I I 400
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
.-, HORIZONTAL DisTANCE IN FEET
r "
,
'I 700, SOUTHEAST PENSTOCK SITE NORTHWEST -700
SL·15
650 r--650 r-,
/1350 FT/SEC -TAZIMINA RIVER~
600 r--600 ,I---........ -,-,
W -' 4500 FTiSEC w ---r---u..
550 I--550 2 3,500 FT/SEC -r-: W
Q
I ; ::J 500 I-500 l-
n l-
oJ
<I: 450 450 -
,I!
, ' , I 400 -400 I :
350 I I I I I I 350
0 100 200, 300 400 500 600
r-> HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET
-
I: Prepared By tffiJ!lted By Reviewed By Approved By ,I I ;p)J~ %1 ~/z/P i ,: ~/'/8f trJ.£>. [/~ /;/9;1
I-w
w u..
2 -
W
Q
::J
I--I-
oJ
<I:
I-w w u..
2
w
Q
::J
I-
I-
oJ
<I:
I-w
w u..
2
w
Q
::J
l-
I-
oJ
<I:
800 r-SO UTH EAST PENSTOCK SITE
SL a 14
NORTHWEST-800
750 --750
'-...",
700~~=---~~~~~ ~~500F~~
I ............... ~ SL-16 TAZIMINA RIVER'~ 65or---------r;,;~~~~~==::::~::::::==::~~I;' ~~~~~~~~ -650 3,500 FT/S;C------......... 1-
~ --.
600 r---i---+---+----=~'=::::===*---.-;;:::r
1350 FT/SEC
-700
-600
550~--------+---------~--------~~--------~--------_r--------~---550
500~--------~--------+_--------~--------_r--------_r--------_+---500
450~ __ ~1 ____ ~ ___ ~1 __ ~ __ ~1 ____ ~ ___ L_1 __ ~ __ ~1 ____ ~---1~~~--~450
o 100 200 300 400 500 600
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET
I-w
w u..
2
w
Q
::J
l-
I-
oJ
<I:
700 -NORTHEAST PENSTOCK SITE
SL·16
SOUTHWEST -700
-UPSTREAM SL-14 /13,50 FT/SE~
650 -I -650 t _____ ::::::::~::::::::l=::::::::l=::::::::t4=5=0=0=FtT=/~S=E=Cr=========f=~~===9
600L---==~~~~~~~=t~==~====r===~~~~~::::~;r==--~===1F_~==~~600 I -_
3,500 FT /SEC
550~--------~--------+_--------~---------r---------r--------_+--------~550
500~--------~---------+----------r---------;----------r--------~r-------~500
450~--------~---------+----------r---------;----------r--------~r-------~450
400~--------~--------+---------~---------r---------r---------+--------~400
350L-__ JI ____ ~ ___ L_I __ _L __ _JI ____ ~~· __ L_I __ _L __ ~I ____ ~ ___ L_I~~--~I--~350
o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
HOR IZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET
.
I-
W
W u..
2
w
Q
::J
I-
I-
oJ
<I:
LEGEND
NUMBERS ON PROFILES
1350 FT/ ARE AVERAGE P·WAVE
SEC VELOCITIES THROUGH
THE GROUND
INTERPRETED CONTACT
--BETWEEN VELOCITY UNITS ' .,'
SL·14 INTERSECTION OF SEISM,IC
I PROFILES
NOTES
PROFILES 13. 14. AND 15 ARE VIEWED
DOWNRIVER. PROFILE 16 IS PARALLEL
TO RIVER -
LOCATION OF PROFILES AR.E SHOWN ON
SITE PLAN (PLATE 1)
GEOPHYSICAL INFORMATION IS BASED
UPON GEOPHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS
MADE BY GENERALLY ACCEPTED
METHODS AND FIELD PROCEDURES AND
OUR INTERPRETATION OF THESE DATA.
GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION IS BASED
UPON OUR BEST ESTIMATE OF SUBSUR-
FACE CONDITIONS CONSIDERING THE
GEOPHYSICAL R ESUL TS AND ALL OTHER
INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO US. THESE
RESULTSARE INTERPRETIVE IN NATURE
AND ARE CONSIDERED TO BE A'REASON-
ABLY ACCURATE PRESENTATION OF
EXISTING CONDITIONS WITHIN THE
LIMITATIONS OF METHOD OR METHODS
EMPLOYED.
SEISMIC REFRACTION PROFILES
PENSTOCK SITE
Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
DECEMBER 1981 K-Il469·02,
SHANNON 8< WILSON. INC.
Geotechnical Consultants FIGo 8
]
62'
J
"""~ ...... -
A
a
o
)
100
I
100
I
200
I
-J
200
I
SUBMARINE CONTOURS IN METERS
J --]
300 MILES
300 KILOMETERS
I
Late Mesozoic Late Cenozoic
1
outcrop belt outcrop belt
~~----------+Io;-------+<---------'''l AlBulian TrBnch Axis 'A'
]
136'
MILE~ -1.~:::::~~~~g~~~~&~~8:8::~@~~~~~XMiz~~~1J)~~fb:;x~~w-~~~;;:Z~?-J:lf..,==~I==;:;::;:-i.:t~c;;z;;u~.;n;d~M~zU~lr-.~ILOMETERS
10
20
Czu, Cenozoic rocks. undlflerentlated
Miu, Mesozoic rocks, undifferentiated
20
L-____ L-__________________________________________ ~ ________ ~~ ______ ~ __________ ~40
o
Itl!1il
Andesltlc extrusive rocka of active or dor-
mant volcanoes
Late Cenozoic bedded rocks
Lighter paUern where projected offshore
1:1gHhl
Early Cenozoic bedded rocks
Lighter pattern when projected f!/fshore
lM,Z:-1
Late Mesozoic bedded rocks
Light~r paUern where projec~ed offshore
Paleo~oic and early Mesozoic bedded
rocks
Liuhter pattern where proiultd offshore
[5/~\~~
Granitic plutonic rocks
D
Undilfer~ntiated rocks
100
I
100 200 KILOMETERS
I
200 MILES
I
EXPLANATION
App.roximate contact
Inc[udel possible JouU contact!!, Dashed where
in/erred or concealed
t •• ,..&.-"OOA..A.-
Thruat or reverae Cault
Dashed where in/erred. Sawltelh on upper platt.
Optn tedh indicate maior lault
--~--'l'"j----
Steeply dipping Cault
Da8hed where infured. Arrows indicate relative
laleral displacemlmt,' bar and ball on feiaHt/till
downthrown sid(! .
....::::::::.. ~
Trend lines showing strike of bedding,
schistosity and Colds ,
Major Caults and Caults with known Holocene movement
Asterisk indicates known Holocene movementj double asterisk indicates historic movement
No Fault I Data Source
1·· Fairweather Tocher (1960);'1'arr and Martin (1912);Plafker (1967)
2. Chugach-St Elias (probable Miller and others (1959, p. 42); PlaCker (1967)
Holocene movement)
3" Denali St. Amand (1957); Hamilton and Myers(1966);Grantz (1966)
,4· Castle Mtn-Lake Clark Martin and Katz (1912, p. 72-75);JCelly (1963, p. 289);
Grantz (1965, sheet 3)
5. Bruin Bay Burk (1905, p. 139); R. L. netterm",n, (oral commun .•
1967)
s •• Patton Bny nnd Hnnning Bay Plnll,.r (1968)
7" Ragged Mtn Miller (1961)
S" Holitna-Togink Honre (1961, p. 608-610)
9. Kenai lineament This paper
I(possible f964 movement)
Generollzed tectonic !lDD.p and Idealized vertical sedlon showing selected rock units and structural features of south-centrnl Alaska. Indicated dlBplace-
ment dlredlon on faults Is the net late Cenozoic movement only. Geology modified from a manuscript tectonlc mnp of Alaslm by ~. BJ:{Ing and !rom unpublished
U.S. GeologiCIII Survey data; the thlclrnesB of crustn:l layers and the structure shown 1n the section are largelyhypothetlCIII(fr<;im Plafker, 1969).
GENERAi.lZ~jj TECTONIC MAP OF
soUt~".~ENTRALALASKA
. 'u. I .....
~Taz;'m ina River
'H yd roeiectric Project
Stone~ ,!JYepster Engr. Corp.
Decem ber',19Jiii K-0469-0 1
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geo,technlcal COnsultants FIG. 9
175·
I
40·
100 a 100 200 lOO .00 sao
AHA '
KrLOMUUS
170· 40·
Earthquakes with magnitude ~ 6.0 during the period 1899-1964, Alaska (USC & GS, 1966)
LARGE EARTHQUAKES IN
ALASKA, 1899·1964
Tazimina River
H vdroelectric Project
Stone & Webster E ngr. Corp.
December 1981 K·0469·01
SHANNON a. WILSON. INC
Geotechnical Consultants FIG. 10
158"
cb'i 6", 0
:17 o i (~ ST. AUPUSTiNE
o
158"
: : : :
! _. __ ._-----------~
15€F
....... ~ •........ ~~.~ ....... _ ...... ....--i
1530
1520 r-
i
i
150)
-----1 61.5"
,
,
0
I
0
R
_-----' 58.5 c
15F
H
E3
MAGNITUDE
4.5 -4.9
5.0 -5.4
5.5 -5.9
6.0 -6.4
~ 6.5
INTENSITY
LEGEND
> 75 km IN DEPTH
o
o
o
o
o
NOTE 1: NUMBERS REFER TO EARTHQUAKES LISTED
IN TABLE
NOTE 2: EVENTS WITH MAGNITUDES LESS THAN 4.5
NOT SHOWN.
20 40 60
Ed I I REGIONAL TECTONIC AND
EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER MAP
(FOCAL DEPTHS "> 75 KM)
SCALE IN MILES
25 50 75
~ I I
SCALE IN KILOMETERS
Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Projec t
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp
December 1981
SHANNON & WILSON. INC.
Geotechnical Consultants
K-0469-01
FIG. 11
58'-'
KVICHAK
BAY
15€F-
156')
155" 154" ~i 53"
155 "1
KENAt_.~j 60" --6~E·!\iiNS U L A,:' ;
MAGNITUDE
4.0 -4.3
4.4 -4.7
4.8 -5.1
5.2 -5.5
5.6 -5.9
2' 6.0
INTENSITY
LEGEND
<75 km IN DEPTH
o
o
o
o
o o
EARTHQUAKES LISTED NOTE: NUMBERS REFER TO
IN TABLE
o 20 40
H Fd I
SCALE IN MILES
50 o 25 I HHH
.-~ 58:5"
i 51 (}
SCALE IN KILOMETERS
75
I
60
I REGIONAL TECTONIC AND
EARTHQUAKE EPICEN7~E~M~AP
(FOCAL DEPTHS <
Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp
December 1981
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical Consultants
K-0469-01
FIG. 12
650
.
600
550
~ w
W
I.J... 500
z
.........
w
§ 450
~ ......
~
-'
c:( 400
350
300
7
-
TAZIMINA RIVER PROFILE
and
CROSS SECTIO~l
Roadhouse
F orebay S it ~~e __ --.:::--L_a_ke_---r-___ ~-----:----'--I-----I------.::-:-:::--L_a_k_e---=?"r----...;;:::::--------l L~~~; :ite _ _ ? _ 0 "l--/ I I ~'r---------\
Rivermi1e
12.9 Site
Lower take
Site
Lower
Tazim1na Lake Tazimina River
Fa11s~/ X/ " \ ~ -~ * ,,! -{} ------ut-----------------r --I )~
I / ' "/ '\.! /" i 0 lOG 1 a cia 1 r \ 1 \-!--+ --r-x--\ I i ?~ ~-J ------r --------r------Dep~~~-~1----------------
Pow~~~~use ,, _____ i -----------+ ------'-------t-----x--~ ~----=-C!... ---~4 ? -=0 --~---_9 ____ 1 0 __ ~rJboL__+----_?")--+_-'-------~ ~------___ ~_~d_~O~~ __ -tl ~ -1 t: ! '-/ 'i L Surface '1 B;!-Ck? -Q ~/ -" ? ~_ 0 : . C: ~ ~ ..
Alternate ')l... i '>< I I -----------------------i--:/\ I -------, _H ____ -l-----------:::--=------......... _-::l*d--__ ----liiL---<-~l-----i
~~i~ / ;-: j i : ---t--.. m--L-------~--~ ---1---~ ~-1------.A y ___ \-___ ;'+I-_~ __ -_X_? _ _____4-
" /" 8 -~9---------1(1-------~11-------~1---L __ J__ .. I J 12 13 14 -----15------------'6 --------------17-----------1.--±:8:----------"Jl>:.1
*Deoth to bedrock determined
by seismic data
PROFILE
Vertical Scale 1 inch = 160 feet
Horizontal Scale 1 inch = 6600 feet
RIVER PROFILE
Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
December 1981 K-0469-01
T 3 S ------------F')~-t_
26
BASE MAP FROM U.S.G.S.
POWERHOUSE
SITE (
.I
?rP
ILIAMNA (D-5), ALASKA
1:83380 (1954/REV. 1973)
24
MINOR
ZONES
(
SCALE
1 INCH:: 1000 FEET
o
P\h-
500 1000
CONTOUR INTERVAL
50 FEET
2000
FORE BAY SITE
R31 W
19
LEGEND
~ TUFF/HIGHLY FRACTURED TUFF
0"" -DIKES
CONTACT
CONTACT, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY
ss· :L FAULT, SHOWING DIP OF FAULTPLANE
--?
~
-+-
..Jib'
150•
--!!"
FAULT, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY
FAULT, EXISTENCE UNCERTAIN
AXIAL TREND & PLUNGE
OF SMALL ANTICLINE
AXIAL TREND & PLUNGE
OF SMALL SYNCLINE
STRIKE & DIP OF BEDDING
STRIKE & DIP OF POSSIBLE BEDDING
STRIKE & DIP OF JOINTS
GEOLOGICAL MAP OF THE CANYON
Tazlmlna River
Hydroelectric Project
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
December 1981
SHANNDN & WILSDN. INC.
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
K-0489-0 1
FIG. 14
II II 11.1 11" I I I I I I I II II II" II I. II II
LEGEND
SEISMIC LINE ---SUGGESTED PENSTOCK ROUTE
POWERHOUSE SITES
~ FALLS SITE
® ALTERNATE SITE
(Susse.ted by SWEC In the field)
@ NIJ LOCATION
® RETHERFORD AND SWEC REPORT
LOCATION
LOCATION OF SUGGESTED
POWERHOUSE a PENSTOCK
SITES -ABOVE GROUND
Tazlmlna River
Hydroelectric ProJect
Stone and Web.ter Ensr. Corp.
DGcember 1S81
SHANNON, IILSON, INC.
'EOTEC.NlcaL CON'uLTaNT.
K-0488-01
FIG. 15
-••
--
---------
-
-
-
-
-
-
-------
-
-
3r-----------r-----------r-----------r-----------~----------~--------~
1.0
9
8
7
2 !--------t--------t0--\-, +--------------------+-------1
,
\
\
6
6
4
a:
c( 3
w
>
a: 2 w
\
A-
U)
W
~
c(
j o 0.1
l: 9
I-8
a: 7 c(
6 w
U-6 0
a: 4 w
!XI
:::!: 3
j
Z
2
\
\
\
'\ 0.01r---------~--------_+----------r_--------~--------~--------~ 9~----------~----------~----------~----------~---------~\----------~ 8~--------_r----------+_--------_+----------+_---------~~--------_4
7~------~--------_+--------~--------4_--------~1l------~
6 r-----------r-----------r-----------r-----------r---------~I~~--------~ 6~------_+--------~--------~------_+--------~U~.~----~
4 r-----------r-----------r-----------r-----------~--------~~--------_4
3 r-----------r-----------r-----------r-----------r---------~~--------_4
0.002 L-__________ ~ __________ ~ __________ ~ __________ ~ __________ ~ ________ ~
3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
MAGNITUDE
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCIES
OF EARTHQUAKES IN THE
TAZIMINA PROJECT REGION
Tuimin. River
Hydroelectric Project
Stone III Web,ter Engr. Corp.
December 1981
I SHANNON' II LSON, INC,
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
K.Q469.Q1
FIG. 16
Appendix A
List of References
---'. ---
-,. -
-• -• ----
----..
..
-
..
REFERENCES
Aerial Photography, high altitude color infrared p~otography acquired by
NASA for the Federal-State High Altitude Photography Program:
August 1978, 1 to 65,000, acquisition no. 02667, frames 7723-7725
and 7762-7764.
Aerial Photography, U.S. Geological Survey aerial mapping photography:
Project HM065 , August 1955, approx. 1 to 43:'000, roll 116, frames
14830-14833 and 14848-14850; Project BM4H29, August 1954, approx. 1
to 43,000, roll 1, frames 60-61.
Beikman, H.M., 1974, Preliminary geologic map of the southwest quadrant
of Alaska: U.S. Geo1. Survey Misc. Field Studies Map MF-372.
Beikman, H.M., 1975, Preliminary geologic map of Alaska Peninsula and
Aleutian Islands: U.S. Geo1. Survey Misc. Field Studies Map
MF-674.
Burk, C.A., 1965, Geology of the Alaska Peninsu1a--Is1and arc and
co·ntinenta1 margin: Geol. Soc. America Memoir 99,250 p.
Bush, B.O. and Schwa.rz, S.D., 1965, Seismic refraction and electrical
resistivity measurements over frozen ground, Nat. Research Council
of Canada, Tech. Mem. No. 86, Ottawa.
Capps, S.R., 1932, The Lake C1ark-Mu1chatna region: U.S. Geo1. Survey
Bull. 824, p. 125-154.
Capps, S.R., 1935, The Southern Alaska Range: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull.
862, 101 p.
Coats, R.R., 1950, Volcanic activity in the Aleutian arc: U.S. Geo1 .
Survey Bull. 974-B, 49 p.
Detterman, R.L., and Hartsock,
Iniskin-Tuxedni region, Alaska:
. 78 p.
J.K., ,1966, Geology of the
U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 512,
Dettennan, R.L., Hudson, T., and Hoare, J.M., 1975, Bruin Bay fault
inactive during the Holocene, in Yount, M.E., ed., United States
Geological Survey Alaska Program, 1975: U.S. Geol. Survey
C i rc. 77 2, p. 45.
Detterman, R.L., Hudson, T., P1afker, G., Tysdal, R.G., and Hoare, J.M.,
1976a, Reconnaissance geologic map along Bruin Bay and Lake Clark
faults in Kenai and Tyonek quadrangles, Alaska: U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Rept. 76-477.
-------• -• ---• ----
-
-
.....
-
-
----
.-
-. II
Detterman, R.L., Flafker, G., Hudson, T., Tysdal, R.G., and Pavoni, N.,
1974, Surface geology and Holocene breaks along the Susitna segment
of the Castle Mountain fault, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey ~1isc.
Field Studies Map MF-6l8.
Detterman, R.L., Plafker, G., Tysdal, R.G., and Hudson, T., 1976b,
Geology and surface features along part of the Talkeetna segment of
the Castle Mountain-Caribou fault system, Alaska: U.S. Geol.
Survey Misc. Field Studies Map MF-738.
Detterman, R.L., and Reed, B.L., 1973, Surficial deposits of the Iliamna
quadrangle, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. l368-A, 64 p.
Detterman, R.L., and Reed, B.L., 1980, Stratigraphy, structure and
economi c geo logy of the Il i amna quadrangl e, Alas ka : U. S. Geo 1 .
Survey Bull. l368-B, 86 p ...
Dillinger, W.H., Jr., and Algermissen, S.T., 1969, Magnitude studies of
Alaska earthquakes; in Leipold, L.E., ed., The Prince William
Sound, Alaska earthquake of 1964 and aftershocks: U.S. Coast and
Geodetic Survey Pub. 10-3, v. 2, pt. B, p. 5-48.
Hawkins, L.V., 1968, The reciprocal method of routine shallow seismic
refraction investigations, Geophysics 26, 808-819.
Henning, R.A., and others, 1976, Alaska's volcanoes, northern link in
the ring of fire: The Alaska Geog. Soc., v. 4, n. 1.
Magoon, L.B., Adkison, W.L., ~:and Egbert, R.M., 1976, Map showing
geology, wildcat wells, Tertiary plant fossil localities, K-Ar age
dates, and petroleum operations, Cook Inlet area, Alaska: U.S.
Geol. Survey Misc. Inv. Series Map 1-1019.
Martin, G.C., and Katz, F.J., 1909, Outline of the geology and mineral
resources of the Iliamna and Lake Clark region: U.S. Geol. Survey
Bull. 442, p. 179-200 .
Martin, G.C., Katz, F.J., 1912, A geologic reconnaissance of the Iliamna
region, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 485, 183 p.
Palmer, D., 1980, The general reciprocal method of seismic refraction
. interpretation, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa.
Plafker, G., 1969, Tectonics of the March 22, 1964 Alaska earthquake:
U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 543-1, 74 p.
P1afker, G., Dettennan, R.L., and Hudson, T., 1975, New data on the
displacement history of the Lake Clark fault, in Yount, r~.E., ed.,
United States Geological Survey Alaska Progra~ 1975: U.S. Geo1.
Survey Circ. 772, p. 44-45.
Redpath, B.B., 1973, Seismic refraction exploration for engineering site
investigations, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Exp. Sta., Explosives
Exc. Res. Lab., Livermore, Tech. Report AD-768 710.
--
-
-
WIIIItl
,-
. -
' ....
-
..
...
R I
Retherford. Robert vL, and Associ ates, 1979, Bri stol Bay Energy and
Electric Power Potential, Phase 1, report for the U.S. Department
of Energy, Alaska Power Administration.
Richter, C.F., 1935, An instrumental earthquake scale: Seismol. Soc.
Am. B u 11., v. 25 , no. 1, p . 1 -3 2 .
Ringstad, C.A., and Schwarz, S.D., 1978, Computer techniques in
engineering geophysics, Presented 48th Annual International Meeting
Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
Scott, J.B., et al., 1972, Computer analysis of seismic refraction data,
St.
U.S.
U.S .
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S. Dept. Interior, Bur. Mines, Report of Investigations 7595.
Amand, P., 1957, Geological and geophysical synthesis of the
tectonics of portions of British Columbia, the Yukon Territory, and
Alaska: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 68, no. 10, p. 1343-1370.
Geological Survey, 1954, Iliamna (0-4) Quadrangle, Alaska, 1 :63360
series topographic map.
Geological Survey, 1954, (minor revisions 1973), Iliamna (0-5)
Quadrangle, Alaska, 1:63360 series topographic map.
Geological Survey, 1954, Lake Clark (A-4) Quadrangle, Alaska,
1:63360 series topographic map.
Geological Survey, 1954, Lake Clark (A-5) Quadrangle, Alaska,
1:63360 series topographic map.
Geological Survey, 1957 , Iliamna, Alaska, 1 :250000 series
topographic map.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1966, Plan and Profile, Tazim;na Lakes Dam and
Reservoir Sites, Alaska, 2 sheets.
U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1981, Computer
printout, 1786-1981, Tazimina project earthquake data file:
Environmental Data Service, 12 p.
WPPSS, 1974, Nuclear Project No. 3, Pre~iminary safety analysis report:
Washington Public Power Supply System, Packet No. STN-50-518, v,.3,
Fig. 2.5.58j.
Wahrhaftig, Clyde, 1965, Physiographic divisions of Alaska: U.S. Geol.
Survey Prof. Paper 482, 52 p.
Wood, H.O., and Neumann, F., 1931 ,Modified Mercal i intensity scale of
1931: Seismol. Soc. Am. Bull., v. 21, no. 4, p. 277-283 .
---
ill,
•• ...
.iII1 ....
•• ...
•• ...
••
••
•• ...
...
•• ...
....
...
....
...
...
....
• 11
",.
' ..
••
•• ...
•• ...
••
,.
Appendix B
Subsurface Explorations
....
••
,... -
-
---
-
....
....
'!!III
-
'. ,-
it.·
,--------
-
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix B
Subsurface Explorations
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURES
DESCRIPTION OF ROCK PROPERTIES
LOG OF BORING B-1
LOG OF BORING B-2
LOG OF BORING B-3
LOG OF BORING B-4
LOG OF TEST PIT TP-1
LOG OF TEST PIT TP-2
LOG OF TEST PIT TP-3
LOG OF TEST PIT TP-4
LOG OF TEST PIT TP-5
LOG OF TEST PIT TP-6
LOG OF TEST PIT TP-7
LOG OF TEST PIT TP-8
LOG OF TEST PIT TP-9
Page
B-1 thru
B-6
Table B-1
Fig. B-1
Fig. B-2
Fig. B-3
Fig. B-4
Fig. B-5
Fig. B-6
Fig. B-7
Fig. B-8
Fig. B-9
Fig. B-10
Fig. B-11
Fig. B-12
Fig. B-13
------
-
-
..
--
-
---
-
-
-------
-
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
DRILLING AND SAMPLING METHODS
Borings B-1 through B-4 were completed between September 9,1981 and
October 12,1981. The actual drilling was subcontracted to Alaska
Drilling, Inc. of Anchorage, Alaska. Drilling was accomplished with a
skid-mounted JKS 300 wireline drilling rig, which was able to be
dismantled and transported from site to site with a Bell Jet-Ranger III
helicopter.
Drilling methods used to advance the borings for this study consisted of
various modes of rotary wash drill ing and diamond coring with fresh
water. Rotary wash methods including the use of both BW bicone and NW
tricone wire line casing advancers were employed in the unconsolidated
materials overlying bedrock. In bedrock, fresh water diamond coring was
employed using an NQ single tube wireline core system (1-13/l6" core
diameter). A BQ single tube wireline core system (1-3/8" core diameter)
was also used when downhole conditions necessitated stepping down.
Sizes of casing and dr"ill rod employed included 4-1/2" x 4" HW casing,
3-1/2" x 3-1/16" HQ, 2-3/4" x 2-3/8" NQ and 2-3/16" x 1-13/16" SQ size
drill rods.
Sampling and field testing of ·the zone of unconsolidated materials in
the fo~r borings consisted of split spoon drive samples taken at
approximately 5 foot intervals as well as falling head permeability
tests performed at approximately 10 foot intervals throughout the zone.
In bedrock, single packer pressure tests were performed at approximately
10 foot intervals. Both NQ and BQ size packers were employed as down
hole conditions permitted. Field permeability test results are
summarized in Table 1.
B-1
-----
-..
--
---..
--
-
-
-----
-
-
..
-
Appcnoix 3
Split spoon drive samples were obtained using 1-1/211, 211 and 3 11 . 1.0.
samplers with either a 340 lb: or 140 lb. drop hammer with a 30 11 drop.
Spl it spoon sampler sizes used were controlled by the rod or casing
diameter present in the zone being sampled. HW size casing permitted
the use of a 311 1.0. sampler. HQ drill rod permitted the use of a 211
I.O. sampler and NQ drill rod a 1.5 11 I.O. sampler. The small inside
diameter of BQ drill rod prevented the use of split spoon samplers.
INSTRUMENTATION
Closed-end, l-inch diameter PVC pipe was installed in Borings B-2 and
B-3 to serve as casing for thermistor strings to measure ground
temperatures. The holes were backfilled with pea gravel in five foot
lifts as the casing or drill rod was pulled (or '.'/ith caved native
materials in holes which did not stand open as the casing or rod was
pulled) .
The PVC pipe was filled with a solution of glycol and water to serve as
a heat transfer medium. The thermistor string was allowed to stabilize
in the hole for 24 to 48 hours, and was then read with a digital
ohmmeter. Temperatures were then calculated using ice point resistances
for the individual thennistors which made up the strings. The below
ground temperatures calculated for several readings, in Borings B-2 and
B-3, were found to be above freezing.
Observation wells consisting of l-inch diameter, closed-end slotted PVC
pipe were installed in all four borings. This allowed measurement of
water tables following the completio~ of the borings.
Boring B-1
Boring B-1, locfrted on the left abutment of the proposed Lower Tazimina
Lake dam site, encountered unconsolidated materials including silts,
sands and gravels to a depth of 89.0 feet. The drilling method employed
telescoping sizes of both casing and drill rod through each other to
advance the boring. The boring was begun by advancing HW size casing to
B-2
---.. -"--"---~--~,------------------
-----
-
-
-
-
-
--
-----
--
------
-
Appenaix B
a depth of 13.3 feet. At 13.3 feet, difficult conditions in the
overburden required stepping down to HO size drill rod whlch was then
advanced to 35.0 feet. At 35.0 feet, down hole conditions required
further stepping down to NO size rod which was advanced to 83.0 feet.
At 83.0 feet in depth, due to continuing high torque conditions, a final
reduction to BO size rod was made and the boring was then advanced to a
total depth of 89.0 feet.
Total fluid circulation loss was encountered at 8.0 feet and continued
to 34.8 feet in depth where a static water table was encountered. From
34.8 feet to 50.0 feet, only sporadic fluid returns were observed. From
50.0 feet to 89.0 feet, total fluid returns were again present. A zone
of heaving sand was encountered between 77.4 feet and 89.0 feet. Due to
the presence of heaving sands below 79.3 feet, and the reduction to BO
size drill rod preventing further drive sampling, the boring was probed
for material changes to a total depth of 89.0 feet. The boring was
terminated at 89.0 feet due to continuing high torque conditions and
constriction of drill rods by the surrounding unconsolidated materials
preventing any further advanceMent.
In this boring a total of seventeen split spoon drive samples were
attempted from the surface to 79.3 feet in depth. Four 2-inch I.D.
samples and seven 1-1/2 inch 1.0. samples were recovered using a 140 lb.
drop hammer with a 30 inch drop. A total of five falling head
permeability tests were performed in this boring. The tests were
performed at 9.1, 14.2,19.4, 30.2 and 49.5 feet. The instrumentation
installed in this boring consisted of an observation well set to a depth
of 38.7 feet.
Boring B-2
Bori ng B-2, located an ri ght abutment of the proposed upper forebay
damsite consisted of 30.7 feet of unconsolidated materials including
silts, sands and gravels and 69.4 feet of bedrock, composed of hard,
gray, lithic tuff. The drilling method employed both NW tricone and BW
bicone casing advancers and BO wirel ine diamond coring to advance the
B-3
-------
-..
-
---
-
---
--------• ----
-
boring. The boring was begun by advancing HW size casing to a depth of
5.4 feet. At 5.4 feet, high torque conditions in the overburden
required stepping down to HQ size drill rod which was then advanced to
23.5 feet. At 23.5 feet, down hole conditions required further
reduction to NQ size drill rod which was then advanced to a depth of
30.7 feet. At 30.7 feet bedrock was encounte~ed and BQ wireline coring
was initiated. BQ coring continued from 30.7 ·feet to a tot~l depth of
100.1 feet. Total fluid circulation loss was encountered at 9.4 feet
and continued to 10.7 feet where a static water table was encountered .
From 10.7 feet to 100.1 feet, total fluid returns were again present.
The boring was terminated at the target depth of 100.1 feet.
In this boring a total of six split spoon drive samples were taken from
the surface to 30.7 feet in depth. Two 3-inch 1.0., three 2-inch 1.0.
and one 1-1/2-inch I.D. samples were taken using a 140 lb. drop hammer
with a 30-inch drop. A single 3-inch 1.0. sample was taken using a 340
lb. hammer with a 30-inch drop. Three falling head permeability tests
were performed in the overburden at 11.1,20.7 and 30.7 feet in depth.
~•.
A total of seven single packer pressure permeability tests were
performed in this boring. The tests performed at 33.0, 42.9, 53.0,
63.0, 73.0, 83.0 and 93.0 feet. The instrumentation in this boring
consisted of an observation well set to a depth of 18.6 feet and a
thermistor casing set to a depth of 100.1 feet.
Boring B-3
Boring B-3, located on the right abutment of the proposed Lower forebay
damsite, consisted of 4.9 feet of unconsolidated materials including
silts, sands and gravels and 64.1 feet of bedrock composed of hard,
gray, welded lithic tuff. The drilling method employed utilized a N~J
size tricone casing advancer in the overburden materials and NQ size
wireline coring in bedrock. The boring was begun by the advancement of
HQ size drill rod using a NW size tricone casing advancer to a depth of
4.9 feet. At 4.9 feet in depth bedrock was encountered an i~Q size
B-4
--------..
---
------
--------
.W --
-
Appenolx S
wireline coring was initiated. NO size wireline coring continued to a
total depth of 89.0 feet.
Substantial fluid circulation return was present from 4.9 feet to 45.8
feet in depth. A static water table was encountered at 25.8 feet.
Between 45.8 feet and 46.0 feet in depth a small zone was encountered in
which total fluid circulation loss was experienced'. In this zone the
drill rod string appeared to drop freely for approximately 0.2 feet,
indicating the possibility of a void in the zone. At 46.0 feet in
depth, fluid circulation returns were again prese~t and continued to a
total depth of 69.0 feet where the boring was terminated due to loss of
drilling equipment down hole.
In this boring a total of three samples were taken in the zone of
unconsolidated materials. The samples consisted of a surface grab
sample and two 3-inch 1.0. split spoon drive samples taken with a 140
pound drop hammer with a 3D-inch drop. In this boring a single falling
head permeability test was performed at 4.9 feet.
A total of six single packer pressure permeability tests were performed
in the zone of bedrock. The tests were performed at 7.0, 14.0, 21.0,
33.0, 45.0 and 57.0 feet. The instrumentation installed in this boring
consisted of an observation well and thermistor casing, both of which
were set to a depth of 61.0 feet.
Boring B-4
Bori ng B-4, located on the ri ght abutment of the proposed Roadhouse
damsite, encountered unconsolidated materials, including silts, sands
and gravels to the bottom of the boring at a depth of 59.9 feet. The
drilling method employed the use of both NW tricone and BW bicone casing
advancers to advance the boring. The boring was begun by advancing HW
size casing to 9.9 feet. At 9.9 feet, high torque conditions "in the
unconsolidated materials required stepping down to HQ size drill rod,
which was then advanced to a depth of 20.4 feet. At 20.4 feet down hole
conditions required further reduction to NO size drill rod, which was
B-5
" .........•.•... " .. _--.. _._--------------------
---
--------'.
--
-
'-
-
.,
-
------
i--Ipperc~x S
advanced to 37.8 feet. At 37.8 feet in depth, due to continuing high
torque conditi ons and constri cti on of dri 11 rods by the surroundi ng
unconsolidated materials preventing any further advancement, a final
reduction to BQ size drill rod was made. The small inside diameter of
the BQ drill rod prevented further split spoon drive sampling below 37.8
feet and the boring was probed for materials changes to a total depth of
59.9 feet.
Substantial fluid circulation was present from surface to 12.0 feet.
From 12.0 feet to 47.5 feet, only sporadic, partial returns were
observed with zones of total fluid circulation loss encountered at 26.0
to 27.0,32.0 to 33.2,35.0 to 37.6, and 39.1 to 42.2 feet. A static
water table was encountered at 15.7 feet. Total fluid circulation loss
was encountered aga i n at 47.5 feet and continued to the bottom of the
boring at 59.9 feet. The boring was terminated at 59.9 feet due to loss
of drilling equipment down hole.
In this boring a total of ten split spoon drive samples were attempted
from the surface to 37.8 feet in depth. Two 3-inch 1.0., three 2-inch
I.O., and three 1-1/2-inch I.O. samples were recovered using a 140 lb.
drop hammer with a 30-inch drop. A total of six falling head
permeability tests were performed in this boring. The tests were
performed at 5.0, 11.6,20.1,29.2,39.1 and 49.9 feet. An observation
well was set at a depth of 39.0 feet in this boring.
B-6
I I • I I I I I I J I I , t I I • I I • • I I I I j f i I • I I I j
TABLE 8-1
DESCRIPTION OF ROCK AND
SOil PROPERTIES
Fresh -Rock fresh, crystals bright, few joints may show slight staining. Rock rings
under hallIHer if crystalline.
Very Slight -Rock generally fresh, joints stained, some joints may show clay if open,
crystals in broken face show bright. Rock rings under hanmer if crystalline.
Slight -Rock generally fresh -joints stained and discoloration extends into rock up
to I in. Open joints contain clay. In granitoid rocks some occasional feldspar
crystals are dull and discolored. Crystalline rocks ring under hammer.
Moderate -Significant portions of rock show discoloration and weathering effects. In
granitoid rocks most feldspars are dull, discolored; some show clayey. Rock has
dull sound under hanIHer and shows significant loss of strength as compared with
fresh rock.
Moderately Severe -All rock except quartz discolored or stained. In granitoid rocks
all feldspars dull and discolored and majority show kaolinization. Rock shows
severe loss of strength and can be excavated with geologist's pick. Rock goes
"clunk" when struck. (Saprolite)
Severe -All rock except quartz discolored or stained. Rock "fabric" clear and evident
but reduced in strength to strong soil. In granitoid rocks all feldspars kaolinized
to some extent. Some fragments of strong rock usually left. (Saprolite)
Very Severe -All rock except quartz discolored or stained. Rock "fabric" discernible
but mass effect i vel y reduced to "soi 1" with on ly fragments of strong rock rema i ni ng.
Complete -Rock reduced to "soil."
in small scattered locations.
Rock "fabric" not discernible or discernible only
Quartz may be present as dikes or stringers.
Very Hard -Cannot be scratched with knife or sharp pick. Breaking of hand specimens
requires several hard blows of geologist's pick.
Hard -Can be scratched with knife or pick only with difficulty. Hard blow of hammer
reqUIred to detach hand specimen. '
Moderately Hard -Can be scratched with knife or pick. Gouges or grooves to 1/4 in.
deep can be excavated by hard blow of point of geologist's pick. Hand specimens
can be detached by moderate blow.
Medium -Can be grooved or gouged 1/16 in. deep by firm pressure on knife or pick point.
Can be excavated in small chips to pieces about 1 in. maximum size by hard blows
of the point of a geologist's pIck.
Soft -Cdn be gouged or grooved readily with knife or pick point. Can be excavated
in chips to pieces several inches in size by moderate blowS of a pick point.
SIIMlI thin pieces can be broken by fwger pressure.
Very Soft -Can be carved with knife. Can be excavated readily with point of pick.
Pieces an inch or more in thickness can be broken by finger pressure. Can be
scratched readily by finger nail.
• For EngineerIng Description of Hock not to be confused with Moh's scale for minerals.
Less than 2 in.
2 into 1 ft.
ft. to 3 ft.
3 ft. to 10 ft.
More than 10 f t.
Joints
Very close
Close
Moderately close
Wide
Very wide
Very thin
Thin
Ml'dium
ThIck
Very thick
Aller Oeere, 1963a
iiOTE: Joint spacing refers to the distance normal to the plane of the joints
of a single systen or "set" of jOints which are parallel to each other
or nearly so.
RQO .in 1 100 x L~n9thof Core in Pieces 4 in .. and !()(lger --"Length of Run'
RQ[) Di agnoSl ic De,cript ion
Exceeding 90::; E XCI'II ent
90-75 Good
75-50 Fair
50-25 Poor
Less than 25% Very Poor
After Oeere,I967 b
NOTE: Oiagnostic Oescription is intended primarily for evaluatinlJ problem,
with tunnels or excavations in rock.
aOeere, D. U. "Technical Descriptlon of Rock Cores for fn'llfll'erinq Purposes"
Felsmechanik und Inqenierqeologie. Vol. 1. No. I, 1963, pp. 17-2;'.
bOeere. D. U. et al.. "Design of Surface and Near Surfd[C C()J"truction in ko(~"
Proceedings, 8th Symposium on Rock MechanICS, The Amencan Institute of
Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineer, Inc., New York 1967,
pp. 237-302.
FROM: American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Soi I Mechanics and
foundations DiviSion, Vol. 98, No. SM6, pp. 56!l-569, June 1972.
-.. ----.• _._----------------------------------,----------..
--
--...
-j-.-
, ... ,-
' .
. -'. .-J. .-:-,-
• -...
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Surface Elevation: .... 676 '
Stiff, brown, sli. sandy, peaty SILT
~w/roots and occ. small wood frag.
Very dense, gray to gray-brown, fine
to coarse gravelly, fine to coarse
SAND w/occasiona1 zones of sandy
gravel, and frequent cobbles and
boulders
-----------------
Dense to very dense, gray, silty,
fine to coarse sandy, fine to coarse
GRAVEL, w/occasiona1 zones of silty,
gravelly sand, w/frequent cobbles
and boulders
(cont.)
LEGEND
.~.:.:: n .0
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
(140 lb ••• i Iht, 30· drop)
... Blows per foot
20 40
:6::::1:::::::::
.!: ....
. . . . . . . . .. ~ . . . . -r II 5 ......... i .... n 2/0 .. 6
~ •••••• :,: : : : • : .-:--
1 0
::::::::: 1 : : : : :: 82 •
. -i ~
i . .
15
: : : : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~6· ••
............. : : : : : : : : : i : : : : : : : : :
p~?~19.4 S-5U-±-20
~::p( ................. .
. ..... ~.
~~ '::::::::l:::::::::
~4~ ••••••••• ~ •••••••••
~i)~ *S-6~ 25 ::::::::: I :: :3:6!3~~: ·?·:b:( ; .... ~ ~.~::: .. ' ...... : .. . ... .
~t~ 5-7 .. .r:
_ ..... _ ... __ .. __ .:}: :
20 40
08oo~ °0 °0.
j &~~ J..-Falling Head Permeability Grave I _ Test
• ~ Water content
Note: The stratllicatlon Ilnls repres.nt
the IpprOllmlte boundlrles blt ••• n loi I
types Ind the trlnlltlon mlY DI Iradual. Frozen >'.:):.:'~.:
Ground l
:. : .. ,.
", , "', , ''l' , ~ i Ii1!.!i.
Sand
S i It
Clay
Pea t
Organic
Content
.I-
U
I
II
]]I
*
Water level
Bottom of Obnervntion Well
1.5" ID 5plit spoon sample
2.0" ID nplit spoon sample
3.0" ID split spoon sample
Sample not recovered
Tazimi na River
Hydroelectric Project
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
LOG OF BORING NO. B-1
December 1981 K-0469-01
SHANNDN , 'ILSON, INC.
SHEET 1 of 3 FIG. B-1
••
... -
•• -.-
•• ...
... ,-
.a
•• ,----
,-
,-
---
-
• -
.... c:a -= PENETRlT I ON RES I STANCE ~ ~~ = (140 lb •• eight, 30· drop)
SOIL DESCRIPTION
; ~= ~ A 810 .. per fODt 1~~~~~ __ ~7~~1 __________ ~~~~~ ! .. _~~~O ______ ~20~----440 ~urface Elevation: ~ ~
S-81 30: : : -: : I : : : : : : ~ :
Medium dense to dense, gray, silty,
fine to coarse SAND, wloccasional
zone$ of silty, gravelly sand, wi
occasional cobbles and boulders
Frozen
Ground
*S-9II
____ --IF:i:i~,2 60. oy
(cont.)
LEGEND
Gravel
Sand
S i It
Clay
Peat
{Jrganlc
Content
I Falling Head Permeability
-1-Test
.1
U
I
IT
m
*
Water level
Bottom of Observation Well
1.5" IO split spoon sample
2.0" IO split spoon sample
3.0" IO split spoon sample
Sample not recovered
:~~~~~~~~I~~~~~~~~~ . : ........ . :
35
:::::: :i5>~;1 :",: : : : .. .
......... ~~ ..... .
u
20 • ~ Water content 40
Note; The stratlflcatlDn lines represent
the apprOlimate boundaries bet.een soi I
types end the transition may be aradual.
Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
LOG OF BORING NO. B-1 (cONT.)
December 1981 K-0469-01
SHANNON'IILSON,INC.
ClOflCN.ICAl CO.SUlfA.fS
SHEET 2 of 3 FIG. B 1
...
•• ..•
••
....
...
••
•• .. ,. -
••
•• ,--.--.-
.-.-
.-
••
..
-
-..
-
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Surface Elevation: .... 676'
Medium dense to dense, gray; silty,
fine to coarse SAND, as above
----------------
Very stiff, gray, clayey to slightly
clayey SILT, trace of fine to medium
sand
--------------------
Medium dense, gray, silty, fine to
medium SAND, w/occasional thin
zones of silty, sandy, gravel
Bottom of Boring @ 89.0'
Completed 9/12/81
NOTE: Descriptions from 79.3-89.0'
based on drill action and cuttings
only.
Observation well installed w/bottom
@ 38.7' w/2.7' stickup
LEGEND
o8oo~ Gravel ~ Falling Head
~ ~~~~o Test
Frozen .. : ...... : ~'. Sand .1 Water level Ground :. : .. ,. .......
////
////
////
////
////
////
////
////
////
////
S-l~
68.0 J
S-151
//// S-16 //// 1
////
Permeabi li ty
l ", " U ""/,, / S i It Bottom of Observation Well
/// / /
'///// I 1.5" split sample ~ 10 spoon
Clay
II
il,JJil
2.0" 10 split spoon sample
Peat ill 3.0" 10 split spoon sample
" I Organic
;"1'/ Content * Sample not recoverp.n I!L!..i..!.J.
. -
60
65
70
80
85
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
(1'0 lb. uiaht, 3D" drop)
A Blo .. per loot
20 40
I :::::::: :.: :.::: :::
· ...... .
· ...... .
· ...... .
:::::::::!:::::::::
:::::::::!~.:::::
· . . . .. .. ~ . . . . . . . . .
..................
..................
· ................. .
· ................. .
· ............. .
::::::::: ~: .. :::::
· ................. .
· ................. .
· ................. .
· ................. .
:::1:::::
· .... : ........ .
· . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . .
· . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . .
· ........ : .. . .... .
&d'
90 .--.. -.---i-.-----~ ......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. ...... .
......... ·-···· .. ·· .. ·-·-·-·~··:-:t-~·:: .. ·-----
20 40 • ~ Water content
Note: The stratif,cat,on I,nll raprasent
thl apprOllmlt. boundarlls bet •• ln soi I
types and the transition may bl Irldull.
Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
LOG OF BORING NO. B-1 (CGt-JT,)
December 1981 K-0469-01
SHANNON' IILSON, INC.
;(OUCM.ICAl CONSUlTA.TS
SHEET 3 of 3 FIG. 3-1
.-
,-
lW
.-
-
••
_.
.-
,-
-
,-
<--.. ,---'. --
.
SOIL DESCRIPTION -u -.... ~---J :.: .... :z: r.=o -=~ _I:' :z:
C-J ~ =-I:'c
C --en ~. r.=o ....
~ Surface Elevation: '" 621 '
h'lery' .. dense, dark brown, Sllty tlne
I \ SAI~D. VJ/orqanlC': materlal
S-4IT u
. --PENETRATION RESISTANCE .: (140 1 b. .. i ah I. 30" d r Q p )
~ A810" pef foal -~O 20 40
30/9" .:
I '
5 1-----+--.-;:"'24=-=0:-;'/ :;";7,:-1, A
•
20i6'l
1 5 ................. -----r------i
. . . 128 .a. .•. ...:..:.:;;:.~
[. -L
S-5
20
.. ~A
, O~~QO
l ~o
Frozen "0: '::':~ ~'.
Ground l . . .. ..
/~~/~
/~//
........ ////
~
WJ~ ./
IJJ..:../..!..t
(cont. )
LEGEND
Gravel
Sand
S i It
Clay
Pea t
Organic
Content
I Falling Head Permeability
J-Test
.1
U
I
II
ill
*
Water level
Bottom of Observation Well
1.5" ID split spoon sample
2.0" ID split spoon sample
3.0" ID split spoon sample
Sample not recovered
25
..........
. . . . . . .
_··· .. _··--·--T
o 20 40 • ~ Water content
Note: The stratIfIcatIon lInes rlpr"lnt
thl apprOllmatl boundarlls bet ••• n loi I
lyPes and the transition may be af.dUal.
Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp .
LOG OF BORING NO. B-2
December 1981 K-0469-01
SHANNON' IILSON. INC.
HOUCH.lelL eo.sULll.TS
SHEET 1 of 3 FIG. B-2
...
...
••
IIiiii'
. -
.....
--
,-
,-
,-
------
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. . SUMMAaY LOG OF lORING: B-2
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS JOB NO: 1 DATE: r-------------------------------------------~ K-0469-01 9/13-9/23/81 PROJKT: Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project ~----------..L.--...;..;.,..--;.......;.----....ol
DEPTH
IN
FEET
--------
=--35 --------~40
f-
I--
~ ------1--45
f0-r-
~ -----
=-50
~
I--,.. ---,...-
l-
f--
::-55
l-
I------,...-
i-
,...-
~O ---------
=--65 -----------70 ------l-
f-
I-
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp. STATION: 9+40 I UEV: .... 621'
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ....... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .......... .. .. .. .. .. ..
........ ~.a
....... 6 ...... -. . :.:.:. ..... ~. .. .. .. ..
.. 4 .... -.. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ~ . • • • .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. ..
DESCRIPTION Of MATERIALS
(cont. )
Very hard to hard, gray to
greenish-gray, welded LITHIC
TUFF; highly silicic, fresh
to slightly weathered, highly
fractured. Fractures and
joints weakly cemented w/
calcium carbonate.
Occasional zones well bonded
w/silica, pyrite, and epidote
Frequent pyrite replacement
and occasional alteration of
lithic fragments to epidote.
-very closely jointed @ 0-90°
to 42.7'
",\1
2
3
4
66
Or
80
18
100
17
100
14
GROUND TEMP. (Ocl
10/28/81
2 3 4
••
••
.. ................................ _ .................... .
••
REMARKS
Began BQ diamond
coring @ 30.7'
-closely to very closely 1---...... --+ .................................... _ .................... .
jointed, @ 30°& 60° commonly
to 58.5' .
-closely to very closely
jointed, @ 30° to 45 0 and o 90 commonly to 100.1'
-58.5-65.0' frequent gouge
zones w/secondary pyrite,
pyrrhotite, & galena
-65.0-74.0' frequent small
gouge zones
(cont. )
5
6
7
8
100
64
100
16
100
a
100
46
•
••
f----+---l ..................................... _ .................... .
9
10
100
---;:]
100
a
•
I--l-l---lr-.l'r-:08~0~···· .. ·· .. ···· .. ··•··· .. ·········-··· .. ·· ............. .
12
100
a ••
f----+---I ..................................... -.................... .
13
14
f-" 15
100
a
100
a
lOO:\...
r-=tr"
••
••
SHEET 2 OF 3 ;-IG. B-2
••
..
••
.....
.-
' ...
-'.
,-'.
---..
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. SUMMARY LOG OF lORING: B-2
GEOTECHNICAl. CONSULTANTS I I--____________________ ~Joa NO:K-0469-0 1 DATE:9 /13 -9/23/81
PROJECT: Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project l----,;......;..,;...----..L.--....;,.,..-.....;.-....;.------t
DEPTH
IN
FEET
Stone & l'lebster Engr. Corp. STATION: 9+40 I UEV: '" 621 '
DESCRIPTION Of MATERIALS
LITHIC TUFF, as above
74.0-100.1'-fresh to very
slightly weathered, joints
poorly to moderately well
bonded w/calciurn carbonate,
occasional joints well bonded
w/silica, pyrite, and epidote
Bottom of Boring @ 100.1'
Completed 9/23/81
Falling head permeability
tests performed @ 11.1',
20.7', and 30.7'
Packer tests performed @
approximately 10' intervals
from 30.7'-100.1'
~ i ~!s~
16
17
°4IEC
'¥o"'iQD
100
0
100
o
I---+---,,,..,....-t 1\ 18 if2r
1\ 19 ~
100
GROUND TEMP. (0 c: )
10/28/81
2 3 4
'.
........................................................
20 0 .............. . 1----+-.......:;:.,-+ ..................................................... ..
21
22
100
31
100
31
.......................................................
t---+---t ...................................................... .
23 100
33
BQ
ing
.--.,
REMARKS
diamond cor-
~bservation Well
installed w/bot-
torn @ 18.6' w/
2.4' stickup
~hermistor casing
installed w/bot-
torn @ 100.1' w/
2.4' stickup
SHEET 3 OF 3 FIG, B-2
""
~ ...
••
••
....
.-
,-
, ....
,-
,-'.
..-
,-
•• -
•
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. SUMMARY LOG OF lORING: B-3
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS JOI NO: 1 DATE' ~----------------------------------------~ K-0469-01 '9/25 -10/1/81 PRCUKT: Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project
DEPTH
IN
FEET
f-
f--
l-
I--
f-
I--
l-
i-'-
~5
l-
I--
f-
I--
f-
I--
f-
I-
~10
r-
I-
~
l-
I-
~
f-
t-
~15
l-
t-
~
~
l-
I--
l-
I--
:::-20 .....
f--
~
~
l-
I--
~
I--
I-.-25
I--~
I--
~
I--
~
~
~30
~
l-
I-
I--
'-
I--
I--
10-
~35 .....
I--.....
10-.....
I--
l-
I--
~40
f-
~
l-
I---
l-
I--.....
I--
~
Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. STATION: 6+60, 3'L IEUV: ~608'
II
I!' •.•• · . . · . . · . . · . . · .. · . . · . . · .. · . . · . . · .. · . . · . . · .. · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . • • • · . . · . . • • • · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · .. • • • · .. · . . · . . · . . · .. · . . · ..
• &.~ .& · . . · .. · . . · . . • • • • • • • • • · . . · . . · . . • • • • • • · . . • • • • • • • • • .:.:.:4 · . . · . . • • • .. ·.·.~6 ........ ....... · . . · .. ~. .......... ~.
.......... &. · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · .. · . . • • • · . . • • • · .. · . . · . . · . . • • • · . . · . . · . . · . . • • • · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . ~' · . . · . . · . . · . . • • • · .. · . . · .. · . . · . . · . . · . . · .. · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . . ...... · . . · . . · . . · . .
DUCRIPTION OF MATERIALS
Loose to medium dense, brown
to red-brown, silty, fine to
coarse SAND, w/occ. zones of
silty, fine to coarse, sandy
gravel, w/trace of clay
Very hard to hard, greenish-
gray to gray, welded LITHIC
TUFF; highly silicic, fresh
to very slightly weathered,
closely to very closely
jointed @30-60o common; w/
occasional joint sets @80-90o
Joints moderately to poorly
cemented w/calcium carbonate.
Occasional joints well
bonded w/silica and epidote
Frequent pyritic replacement
and epidotic alteration of
clasts
Very slight iron and manga-
nese staining on joint sur-
faces to 54.0'
..,SL10/14/81
25.8'
37.0 to 69.0', closely to
moderaaely close16 jointed
@ 0-20 and 30-60 common.
Joints poorly cemented wi
calcium carbonate
(cont. )
i-; GROUND TEMP. ( ·cl
~ 10/28/81
YoRQO 2 3 4
S-2
S-3
1 ••
. ...............................................................
1 100 --0
' ..
................. _ ................... _ ......................
100 2 24 ••
1....-3 --+_l..::::~-,~r .~ .. ~ ... ~ ... ~ ... ~ ... ~.~ ... ~ ... ~ ... ; .. ~ ... ~ ... ~ ... ~ ... ~ ..
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
100
33
••
43 ................. ; ..................................... .
71
100
25
100
38
100
20
100
•
••
°r.: ... : ... : ... : ... : ... : ... : ... : ... : ... ~ .. : ... : ... : ... : ... : ..
100
51
100
67
lo~l
40
•••
.......................................................
'-'
SHEET
REMARKS
"N"=8/5/8
"N"=10/10/50
S-2, S-3 taken
w/3.0" sDlit
spoon and 140 lb.
hanuner
Began NQ diamon~,
coring ~ 4.9'
1 OF 2 FI~, B-3
"ow
-
••
...
.-
. -
---
-
.-'.
-
-
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. SUMMARY LOG OF lORING: B-3
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 1 JOB NO: K-0469-0l DATE: ~~ ____ ~~~ __ ~ __ ~~ __ ~~~~ __ ~~~ 9/25 -10/1/81
PRCUKT: Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project
DEPTH
IN
FEET
I-
~
l-
i-
I-
~
l-
i-
=--50 -------~
1=-55
I-
~
~ --------60 ----l-
i-
~
i-
h5
f-
I--
f-
I-------70 --l-
I--
l-
i-,--l-
I--
l-
i-
I-
~ .... ----I---
f0o-
l--
I----I--
l-
I--
l-
I---
l-
i--
'-
r----I-
~
I-
Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
• • • · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · .. · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . &.& & · . . · . . · . . · .. · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · .. · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · . . · .. · . . · . . · . . & & & 4 · . . & & & .4i · . . & & & .4i · . . & & & .c · . . & & & 4 · . . & & & .. · . . & & • .c
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS
(cont. )
Very hard to hard, greenish-
gray to gray, welded, LITHIC
TUFF, as above
Bottom of Boring @ 69.0'
r:ompleted 10/1/81
Palling head permeability
test performed @ 4.9'
Packer tests performed @
approximately 10' intervals
from 4.9' to 69.0'
1.3
STATION:
98
66
6+60, 3'L
GROUND TEMP. (Oc)
10/28/81
2 4
............... l-----+-_---+ .....................•........... H .................••••
14
15
16
17
18
98
20
100
72
100
44
100
68
100
45
I ELEV: "608'
REMARKS
NQ diamond corin~
Observation well
installed w/bot-
tom @ 61. 0' w/
2.4' stickup
~hermistor casing
installed w/bot-
tom @ 61.0' wi
2.4' stickup
SHEET 2 OF 2 FIG, B-3
••
.... -
••
....
....
' .....
.----
,------
. -~ ...., SOil DESCRIPTION
-' ::~ . --= ::
c -' 10--c a --~ ....,
CI Surfaci Elevation: ""632 '
Very stiff, brown SILT w/organics
\. and trace of f'j ne sand
//// ill ///1.0 Sl ~~.~ -
~.~.~:
Dense to very dense, tan to gray, ::~::.{:
trace of silt to silty, fine to coarsE§·:c?:.~
GRAVEL, w/frequent co~b 1 es and 'r:~6:
boulders, and 'I,/occaslonal clayey ·.~:o·.:.fQ··
zones ~q~': ;'.'.0 ••.
~r:::S9.:·
~~d:o
~~.:·2 .
~·O····o ::o~.A;
~"'~'~: ;~·o: ~~J ...... " Q"., ~~:~
____ ---- - - - - - - - - -.'.'::':';:::::::: 15.0
Very dense, gray, slightly silty to :t(.~.\%~~: S-4II
silty, fine to coarse gravelly, fine ;{).}:}i{(
Cia z....,
=10-=c ~-
. -
= .... a.. ::;;:0
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
(140 lb. .. i Ih t. 3D-d r 0 p )
... Blou per foot
20 40
::::::1::::::.::
·I::T 5 -:::::::::i::::::~A
:1:::;;:
• ~ •••••• , •••••• 98, •
::::~~~~~l~~~~~~~~~
15 -:-.~-:-.. : ..... ~ .... 50/2" •
I. ::. . to coarse SAND, w/occasional slightly:jifiiHEU
clayey zones, w/frequent cobbles and ~:{3!(;~';';!'
*S-5u -L. 201-:-:-:-:-: -: -: -: : .... !-: : : : :~O~~';~ ..
::: ~:::: ~::::::ii( A
25~------'~------~
: : : : : : : : : 1 : : : : 1 00/5'~ ..
· : : : : : : : : ~ : : : : : : : ~ ~
· ................. .
· ................. .
: : : : : : : : : 1: : : : : : i6i A
3 0 -::-:":~:::-: r: : : : : : ~ f----------------Very dense, gray, slightly silty to t<Sb .
silty, fine to coarse sandy, fine to :'.0 ...
coarse GRAVEL ~b~~~~ : : : : : : : . : :.' : : : : : : : : :
:$:j"~5
_____ ....p.;.;CJ.tye: 35.OV -+---3 5 .. : ... : ... : .. ~.~.~~ .. ~-~.~ .. ~.~ ~.: : : :
o~~~ ~oo
~ Frozln . ':' .. :.': ~'.
Ground l
:. :.:t.,
", " ///" /
I ",,~ I ""1"/ ~
(cont.)
LEGEND
Grave I J-. Falling Head Permeabi li ty
Test
Sand 1 Water level
Si It U. Bottom of Observation Well
Clay I 1.5" ID split spoon sample
II 2.0" ID split spoon sample
Pea t ill 3.0" ID split spoon sample Organic
Content * sample not recovered
· .... : ,: : : I : : : : : : : : :
J 20 40 • ~ Water content
Note: The stratificatIon lInes represent
the apprOllmaU ooundar In oet .. en SOil
types Ind the transition may oe Irldual.
Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
Stone & Webster Enqr. Corp.
LOG OF BORING NO. B-4
December 1981 K-0469-01
SHANNON' "LSON, INC.
;(OT(CN.ICAl CONSUlrA.rs
SHEET 1 of 2 FIG. B-4
" ..
III.
.... -
' .... -
fl.
,-
.....
.....
I.
,1IiI ,-'.
'----,-'. -..
"",",-"-----~--------------------------
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Surface Elevation: "'632 '
(cont.)
GRAVEL, as above
Very dense, gray, slightly silty to
silty, fine to coarse sandy, fine to
coarse GRAVEL w/occasional cobbles
and boulders, and w/occasional zones
of gravelly sand and silty sand
Bottom of Boring @ 59.9 '
Completed 10/12/81
NOTE: Descriptions from 37.8-59.9 '
based on drill action and cuttings
only
Observation well installed w/bottom
@ 39.0 ' w/3.1 I stickup
~ -=~
A.. = c ...... ,.
~
. --.
::I: -A.. ..... =
.....
....J
A.. -c ....
*5-9 f
5-101
LEGEND I Falling Head Permeability
Grave I -1-Test ~ °0 °0"
Water level
Bottom of Observation Well
1.5" ID split spoon sample
Sand .1
S i It U
Clay I
II
Pea t J[
Organic
Content *
~ t;o
Frozen : '~:'.:' :.:'~.:
Ground I
:. : .. ,. .. ' ....
/~//~
/// / /
tm
IIII I
,,~ I
'oj ,·l
1;-1."1
2.0" ID split spoon sample
3.0" ID split spoon sample
Sample not recovered
=,. z ..... =-Ct c ~.
. --
35
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
(I~O lb. nishI, 3D-drop)
A Bini per 1001
20 40
bUlo
:l~.
J..U
40
45 .-.--.--+----~
-L 50 _._ ... _._ .. _---+-------1
551r-------~------__4
· ........... .
· ......... .
· ........... .
· ........... .
65 --.--+--.-----1
...... . . . . . . . .
7 0 .~ ... ~-: ... ~..:..-... :...:..+.-_-----1 ..
20 40 • ~ Water content
Nate: The slralllicalion lines represenl
Ihe approllmate boundar liS be Iween 10 II
Iypes and Ihe Iransilion may De iradual.
Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
LOG OF BORING NO. B-4 (cONT ,)
December 1981 K-0469-01
SHANNON' IIlS0N, INC.
'EGTECH.,cal Co.sulTa.TS
SHEET 2 of 2 FIG. B-4
II II II I j II I
SHA •••• I IlLS.. INC.
I(tUCII.ICAl CO •• fUAlfI
FIELD Lex; (F TEST PIT TP-l
SOIL DESCRIPTION l REIARIS
Brown, silty, fine to medium SAND,
w/roots and organic material
Brown, silty, fine SAND
Soft, organge and gray. laminated.
organic SILT, w/scattered organiC
material (MH-OH)
i
Medium stiff to stiff, tan, slightly
clayey, silty, gravelly SAND (ML-SM)
~ ________________________ ~SL
Bottom of Test Pit @ 5.0 feet
0:::1
I
Vl
*Test Pit on Right Abutment,
Roadhouse Site
See Site Plan, Plate 1, for
location
S-l
S-2
f 1 f i f I I II iii iii I.
.. I 10. K-0469-01 •• 1£ ~-6-81 LICI". Roadhouse Slte*
PROJfCT Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project
INSPECTOR K.A. Goetz
S KETCH OF Wes t PIT SIDE SURfACE ELEVATION AI 631 feet
HORllONTAL DISTANCE IN FEEl
2 6 8 '0 12
I I I I • I I I I I I
SHAMMDM I ilLS. IIC. .
IUUCIllICAL ct .. IILTnn
FIELD L~ (F TEST PIT TP-2
SOil DESCRIPTION & REIARKS
ORGANIC ~1AT
Brown, sandy, gravelly SILT, w/roots
Reddish brown, silty, sandy GRAVEL
Gray, medium to coarse sandy, GRAVEL,
trace of fine sand, w/scattered cobbles
and boulders (GP)
Bottom of Test Pit @ 4.0 feet
*Test Pit on Right Abutment,
Roadhouse Site
See Site Plan, Plate 1, for
location
-0
QJ
t S-l
QJ
III ..c o
QJ
t: o z:
I I I I i i i i i ; I i
JOI 10. K-0469-0l DATE ~-81 LOCallOI Roadhouse 5ite*
. PROJECT TaZimina River Hydroelectric Project
INSPECTOR K.A. Goetz
SKETCH OF West PIT SIDE SURFACE ElEVATION rV661 feet
HDRllONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET
2 4 6 B 10 12
\ . . . . .. ORGANIC l'1AT . If ........ : .
\ : :: :: : : i : : SILT
'
> :: 1 : : : : : : : I: > . I : . : :: :: : : I. : . ; . ; ; :
.. \ ..... i .. l ... j .... i········:·······
: . : . : : : : : ~ . GRAVEL : 1 : : : : . . . :: :::: : : : : . : : : : . : : : : : : : . . . . . . . . ...... : ....... .
8
12
. . . ~ ~ ~ . ; . . . . . .. .. i ........ .
II II II II I j I
INAMMDM , IILIIN. INC.
OUUCII.leAl C"SlIl"'"
FIELD L(x; (F TEST PIT TP-3
SOIL DESCRIPTION' REMARKS
i""""\Orangish brown, silty fine SAND /
Orangish brown, slightly silty, sandy
GRAVEL, w/cobbles and boulders
Gray, slightly silty, sandy GRAVEL,
w/cobbles and boulders, w/occasional
sand 1 enses
Dense, gray, gravelly, silty SAND,
trace of clay (SM)
Below 25 1 covered by slope wash
*Test Pit on Big Bend, see Site Plan,
Plate 1, for location
"0
OJ > ~
OJ
VI
.0 o
OJ c o z:
ell ....
~ =~ ......... . ... c c:az:
ell
i I I i iii i II Ii
JOI 10. K-U4oY-UI DATE ~81 LOCATIOI Big Bend*
PROJECT Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project
INSPECTOR K.A.Goetz
S KETCH OF North
5
PIT SIDE SURfACE ELEVATION tV 670 feet
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET
1 a 15 28 25
~AN
. . . . . . .. :. ·······1··· : : : : : : : . : : : : : :
• • • • • • • • .1. • • • • • • • . ! • GRAVEL .• •••••••••••••••••
~ .. : ... : ... : ... : ... : ... : ... :---: ... : .. -1--.: ... : ... : ... : ... :.··:···:···:···:···1···:···:···:···:···:···:···:···:···:"'1"':"':"':"':"':"':"':":"':"-\--':"':"':'··:···:···:···:···:······l··:··:·······:·······:···:··.: ...
S-l
SAND::: I:::···· :~:::::: I:::::· :.':: I::::::::: I::::::::
: . : : ~ : : ~ ~ i . : : : : . : : :! GRAVEL'.!:::::·::::!::::":·: I : : : : : : : .
II II II I I I
t;O
I
OJ
SHANNON' IILSON INC.
""UIIIIUl " •• ULTlln
FIELD Lex; (F TEST PIT TP-4
SOl L OESCRI PYlON & REIARKS
Brown, sandy SILT-ORGANIC MAT
Redd, sn Drown, sandy -S-IL T, w/roots
and trace of gravel
Brownish gray, sandy GRAVEL, trace
of silt, w/cobbles (GW)
Bottom of Test Pit @ 5.0 feet
*Te~t Pit on right side of river,
Lower Site
See Site Plan, Plate 1, for
location
"0
Q)
> s-
Q)
II)
..c o
Q)
c: o :z:
I
S-l
• I , I i I Iii iii i Ii ii
JOI 10. K-0469-0l DATE ~81 LOCATIO. lower s, te*
PROJECT Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project
INSPECTOR K.A. Goetz
SKETCH OF West PIT SIDE SURfaCE ELEVATION AI 700 feet
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET
2 6 8 10 12
~: : : : : . : ~ SILT : ~ : : : : . : : .. : ... .I .. . .. : : : : : : : : 1 : ...... .
1::::.:::.1>:-:'" .. \ ..... 1 ... 1: ....... \ .. / .. : :: :: :: : :: I SILT : ; : . :: : : ... I· . -:
. .......: . ~ . . . . .. .. '" ..' .:.........:........
2 ··.···.···.···.···.···.·I~~~~~~I.l: 1.···· .•...•...•...•...•...• ·.···.··\··.···.···.···.···.···.···.···.·····1.···.··· •...•...•...•...•...•.
. . . . . . '.: . . . . .. ... ~: :
: : : : : : : : : I : : : ..... " : . : : : : : : : ! : : : : : : : : : I : : . : .... : I : : : : : : : :
8
.......
12 .. . ....
II II I t I j 11'1 I
11
C>
tJ:1
I
La
SHANNON & IILIIN. INC.
.. IUCIIIICAl CO.IIILTUJI
FIELD L~ (F TEST PIT TP-5
SOil DESCRIPTION & REMARKS
Dark brown, fine sandy, organic SILT -
ORGANIC MAT
Reddish brown, silty, sandy GRAVEL,
w/occasional cobbles
\
raY1sh blue, Sllghtly clayey, r
silty, gravelly SAND
'--------'
Grayish brown, slightly silty, sandy
GRAVEL, w/occasional cobbles (GW-GM)
~ ____________________________ ~SL
Bottom of Test Pit @ 4.0 feet
*Test Pit on Lower Lake Site moraine,
on west side of moraine, on· left side
of river
See Site Plan, Plate 1, for
location
I 11 'I f t I i Ii II IIII li.1 Ii
JOI 10. K-0469-01 lATE 9-6-81 Loca"o. l ower Lake Sl te""
PROJECT Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project
INSPECTOR K.A. Goetz
.,. :z::;:; SKETCH OF North PIT S IDE SURFACE ElEVATION N 650 feet ~ .... '" ~ ~~ HORIZONTAL OISTANCE IN FEET
:: caz 2 4 6 8 10 12
5-1
2 N\; ::~:EL 1/ ......! T I
..•...•...•...•••••• I.G::::L ••• :·.···.·1\1 ·
• . •..•• f • • . . • . ~ . . . . . .. . ~ . . . . : . •. .....: ..'
4 .. : ... : ... : ... : ... : ... : ... : ... : ... : .. + .. : .. ' .. : ....... : ... : ... : ... : ... : ... ! ... : ... : ....... : ... : ....... : ... : ... : ... ! ....... : ... : ... : ... : ... : ... : ... : ... : ... ! ... : ... : .. ·: .. ·:· .. :· .. : .. ·: .. ·:···:· .. 1 .. ·: .. ·: .. ·:· .. :· .. :···:···:···:··· ... .
: : :-: :: :: I : : :: : : :: : 1 :: : : : :: :: 1 ... : . : : : ! : :: : :: : : : I :: :: : : : : : : : : : : .
BI::i!I.;I.~.
: : : : : . , ....... : ......... :. . ...... :. . ...... : ......... : ........ ,
: : : : : :::::::::\:::<::::!':.! ':::.1:::::::::1:::::::::
:: ::
8 ..•...•. ..........I ...•... ·.........................J ..•...•...•...•...•..•.•...•...•... : ...•...•...•...•...•...•...•...•...•. 1 ••..• 1 ..•...•...•.•...•..
12
Ii" I J II I j II I J Iii i I 'j II II I ••• Ii Ii I. I.
INAMMIN I WllllN INC. 11"IC •• leal c'.'~lra.,.
FIELD Lex; IF TEST PIT TP-6
SOil DESCRIPTION' REIARKS
Dark brown organic SILT -ORGANIC MAT
Brown, sandy GRAVEL, trace of silt,
w/cobbles (GP)
Bottom of Test Pit @ 4.0 feet
*Test Pit on left side of river, on
slope just above the Alternate Power-
house Site
See Site Plan, Plate 1, for
location
""0
Q.)
> ~
Q.)
VI ..a o
Q.) s::: o z:
S-l
·2
JO. 10. K-0469-0l lATE 9-7-81 lICII •• Alt Powprhouse Site*
PROJECT Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project
INSPECTOR K.A. Goetz
PIT SIDE SURFACE ElEVATION -v 417 feet
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET
6 8 10 12
SIlT . • .• i •• / • . ••.• i ••• • • • ........•.••.
: . ~ ., . . ...... 1 GRAVEL :: I : . . .. :.: . .. . ..... ; ,
.&.1 I. j I • • I
SHANNON I IllSIN, INe.
II.UU.IClL C' •• UlU ...
FIELD L~ (F TEST PIT TP-7
SOIL DESCRIPTION & REIARKS
Dark brown, fine sandy, peaty, organic
SILT -ORGANIC MAT
Lt. brown,grave11y,sandy,peaty SILT,ML
Light brown, sandy GRAVEL, trace of
silt, w/cobbles and boulders (GP)
Gray after 4.0 feet
Bottom of Test Pit @ 4.5 feet
*Test Pit on Left Abutment, Forebay
Site
See Site Plan, Plate 1, for
location
Iii
S-3
"'0 S-l Q)
> ~ S-2 Q)
III
..0
0
Q)
t:
0
Z
I I j I i II Ii Ii Ii If II II
JOI 10t~ K-0469-0l DATE 9-7-81 LOCATIOI Forebay S1 te*
PROJECT Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project
INSPECTOR K.A. Goetz
SKETCH OF East PIT SIDE SURFACE ELEVATION tV 647 feet
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET
2 4 6 8 10 12
K~~:. ::1···:···17·······:.·: ...... .
I :: ~ : ~ : SILT I:'·:: : Y' I < :: :: :: i :: .... .
2 .. : ... : ... :, .. : ... :, .. : ... : ... :\:~ _........;;.S..;;...I L_T~ __ '~' Z,:.,l".:, .. : .. ,: ... :, .... ":.,,.,',: ... : .. 1,., .... : ... : ... : ... : ....... : ... : ... : ... 1 ... : ... : ... :, .. : ... :".:".: .. ,""
•••• • • • • • , • • . GRAVEL I •• • • · •••• : • • • • • • . .. • •••••••• : ••••••••
: . : . : : : : : ~ : : ~ : : . . : : ~ : : : . . .. .:.... ..
.......
8
......
. . . . . .
• . . • • • • • ·1. • • • • • • • .1. • • • • • • · • ! • • • • • • • • .1· • • • • · • · .1. • • • • • • • •
: : : : : : : : : ! : : : : : : : : : ! : : : : : : : : : I : : : : : : : : : ! : : : : : : :': : I : : : : : ..
10 .. · .. ·:··~···~····· .. ~···: .... · .. , .. ·l···:· .. : .... · .. : .. ·:··: .. ·: .. · ....... '1' .... :··· .. :...:· .. : .. ·: .. ·: .. ·· .. '1"·: .. · .... :···· .. ·: .. ·: .. ·· .. ' ... ·: .. ·1 ...... ·: .. ·: .. ·:··: .. ·: .. ·:· .. : .. ·:· .. 1 .... < .. ·: .. ·: ..... ·: .. ·: .. · ...
12 •••••••• ·1 •. · · · · • •• 1. • • · · .... ! • • • • . • • • .1 •••••• • •• 1 •• • • • • • • •
L-________________________________ ~ __ ~ __ ~~I~ ________ ~_
II II I'll I. II I J I j I
CJ
SHANNIN I IILSIN IMe •
• "HClllleAl cal.duAln
FIELD La; (F TEST PIT TP-8
SOil DESCRIPTION' REMARKS
East Half-
very hard, gray VOLCANIC BRECCIA
-in-place bedrock
t~est Half-
Grayish brown, silty, sandy GRAVEL
Bottom of Test Pit @ 4.0 feet
*Test Pit on Left Abutment, Roadhouse
Site
See Site Plan, Plate 1, for
location
-0
QJ
> s-
QJ
III
.D o
QJ
C
o :z:
... ....
~ ~~
It. eL .... . ... c az ...
4
8
I I I I I I J I I I I I I I I I iii
JOI 10. K-0469-0l DUE ~7 -81 LOCaTiOI Roadhollse sjte*
PROJECT Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project
INSPECTOR K.A. Goetz
SKETCH OF South PIT SIDE SURFACE ElEVATION /\J 678 feet
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET
2 4 6 8 JJI. 12
! I . . . . . .
• •.• • • • • • • i • . • • .. .• ••••• . . ... • ! • • • • • • • • • ' • • • • . . . .
......... i . . . . . .. GRAVEL : : : : . : . : : : : i .
I ....... . ~L-________________ ~ ________ ~-J~-L~12L-______ ~ ______ ~ ______ ~ _______ ·~·_·· ______ ~_"_·_._._.~.
I j. i I j. II II I t II I
'~
I
SMANNON 'IILSON INC.
, .. T(CMlICAL CO .. UUlI"
FIELD L~ (F TEST PIT TP-9
SOIL DESCRIPTION' REMARKS
Gray, slightly silty, fine to medium
SAND, trace of coarse sand and fine to
coarse gravel
Bottom of Test Pit @ 3.0 feet
*Test Pit on a moraine, south of
the fa 11 s
See Site Plan, Plate 1, for
location
-0
QJ
> ~
QJ
Vl
S-l
g 6
QJ
C o z:
I II II II II II II II 11 Ii
JOI 10. K-0469-01 DATE 9-8-81 LOCATIO. Mora j ne SOllth of Fall s*
PROJECT Tazimina River Hydroelectric Project
INSPECTOR K.A. Goetz
S KETCH OF ~Jes t
2
SAND: : : : ...... .
PIT S IDE SURFACE ELEVATION tV 855 feet
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET
4 6 8 10
.. : : : : : : : I· : : : : : : : : I : : . l . ~ .
12
G:i 12 . : ! . . . i ........ .
-..
-..
-.. -
-..
-.. -..
-...
-
-
".
-...
---
-
-
-... -
-
Appendix C.
Laboratory Test Methods
and Results
,---------...
-
---
---
..
-----
------
General
Classifications
Water Content
Dry Unit Weight
Grain Size Analysis
Atterberg Limits
Standard Compaction
From Borings:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix C
Laboratory Test ~'ethods
and Results
LABORATORY TEST METHODS
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Summaries of Test Results
Grain Size Analyses
From Test Pits:
Summaries of Test Results
Grain Size Analyses
Compaction Test
Page
C-l
C-l
C-3
C-3
C-4
C-4
C-4
4 sheets
Figs. C-l
thru C-10
2 sheets
Figs. C-ll
thru C-2l
Fig. C-22
~.
-----..
--
-
-
-
-
---
-
-------
..
LABORATORY TEST METHODS
General
Laboratory tests were conducted on representative test pit sampl es,
penetration test samples from the borings, and a sample of fault gouge.
The results of the laboratory tests are shown on the Summaries of Test
Results included in this appendix. The laboratory testing program
consisted of running a number of tests including water content, dry unit
weight, grain size analysis, Atterberg limits, and standard compaction.
The fault gouge sample was taken from the major fault on the left side
of the fa 11 s .
Classifications
All samples tested were classified; the results of which are shown on
the Summaries of Test Results. These classifications are combinations
of the laboratory test results and visual classifications done in both
the lab and field. The methods used for classifying and describing soil
samples are discussed below.
Soil Classification -Shannon & Wilson uses a soil classification system
that draws certain features from the Unified Soil Classification System
(USC), ASTM Methods 0-2487 (Classification of Soil 5 for Engineering
Purposes) and 0-2488 (Description of Soils, Visual-Manual Procedure).
Soils were classified according to the following characteristics:
a) density or consistency
b) color
c) minor constituents
d) major constituents
e) trace constituents
f) geologic characteristics
C-l
---
-----
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-------
Relative density or consistency is approximately determined by the
results of the Standard penetration test as follows:
Blows1Ft.
0-4
4-10
10-30
30-50
Over 50
Granular Soils
Density
Very Loose
Loose
Medium
Dense
Very Dense
Blows/Ft.
Below 2
2-4
4-8
8-15
15-30
Over 30
Silts & Clays
Consistency
Very Soft
Soft
Medium Stiff
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
Relative consistency can also be determined by torvane and pocket
penetrometer measurements as follows:
Pocket
Torvane Penetrometer
Relative SPT Shear (Unconfined
Consistency N-Value Strength Strength}
Term {blows/ft} {tst} {tsf)
Very soft <2 < 0.13 < 0.25
Soft ·2-4 0.13-0.25 0.25-0.50
Medium Stiff 4-8 0.25-0.50 0.50-1.0
Stiff 8-15 0.5-1.0 1.0-2.0
Very Stiff 15-30 1.0-2.0 2.0-4.0
Hard > 30 > 2.0 > 4.0
Color descriptions are generally kept as simple as practical, using such
basic soil colors as brown, gray, and tan. Color is generally used to
distinguish different layers or to indicate weathered or other special
zones within a single soil type layer.
Major, minor and trace constituents of a soil are determined by
visual-manual procedures or by measurement. Major constituents are
those comprising more than 50% of the soil and may be either gravel,
sand, silt, or clay, or occasionally some' combination of those types.
Organic silts and clays and peat may also appear as major constituents.
Minor constituents are those comprising 12% to 50% of the soil mass and
are written as modifiers to the major constituent(s).
Trace constituents are those comprising less than 12% of the soil mass.
When describing trace constituents whose particle size is smaller than
C-2
---..
------
-
-
..
-
-
-
----
-
---------
the particle size of the major constituent(s) the following terminology
is used:
% of Soil Mass
Less than 5%
5 to 12%
Modifier
"trace of"
"slightly"
When describing trace constituents whose particle size is larger than
the particle size of the major constituent(s) the following terms apply:
Water Content
% of Soil Mass
Less than 12%
Modifier
"trace of"
This value is determined by drying the sample in an oven. The water
content is calculated by dividing the weight of the water contained in
the sample by the oven dry weight of the sample. The test follows .the
standard procedures of ASTM 0-2216-71 (Laboratory Determination of
Moisture Content of Soil).
Dry Unit Weight'
Dry density values were determined on penetration test samples obtained
in brass liners, hollow ~ylindrical brass tubes that fit
inside the samplers. The calculation uses the volume of the sample
obtained by measuring the liner and the weight of the sample contained
in the liner. Wet density values were'obtained by dividing the sample
wet wei ght by the volume. After the water content of t,he sample had
been determined, the dry density was calculated.
Density values obtained from split-spoon liner samples should be
considered lower than the actual' in situ density due to disturbance by
driving.
C-3
--
---
---
-
-
-
-
..... ---
--------
-
----
Grain Size Analysis
Grain size determinations combined washed sieve analyses on the coarse
material and hydrometer analyses on the materi'al passing the no. 10
sieve. If a sample was predominantly coarse grained it received only
the washed sieve analysis. Both tests were run in accordance with the
standard method for particle size analysis ASTM 0 422-72 (Particle-Size
Analysis of Soils). An average value of 2.67 was used for specific
gravity in hydrometer calculations.
Atterberg Limits
Atterberg 1 imi ts were determi ned in genera 1 acco.rdance wi th ASTM
o 423-72 (Liquid Limit of Soils)' and 0 424-71 (Plastic Limit and
Plasticity Index of Soils). The limits obtained were used for
classification of samples, in accordance with the Standard Plasticity
Chart modified from ASTM 0 2487-75 (Classification of Soil s for
Engineering Purposes). Atterberg1imit determinations were conducted
on samples at their natural moisture content.
Standard Compaction
One compaction test was conducted on a till sample consisting of
gravelly, silty sand. The method used foll ows the standard procedures
as outlined in ASTM Method D 698-78 (Moisture-Density Relations of Soils
and Soil Aggregate Mixtures .•. ). This method uses a 5.5 pound hammer,
dropping 12 inches for 25 blows for each of 3 layers in a standard 4 inch
mold. Maximum dry density and optimum water content can be calculated
from this test.
C-4
II II.i iii j I I I t I I
~
~
Z
C)
Z
P
OJ
I
I----'
I----'
o
11
N
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
BORING NO B-1 .
~i~~ ~~ ~~ li{, :Jt~ ~ ~ I .;'$ "'~ ZOot ~~ './,! 1$ ,t.! ,,~ ~ if $'¢ ., ,. ~ ~~~.t ~ .,
" t1 ~ ~~J' I~ ~ I Ii $j~ ,f~~Ij-/ ~ a~ $ tt u ~ 0 'f .tP «II
B-1
3 9.1-GH
10.6 Fia.
C-1
7 ?C; 1 GP
26.6 FiQ.
C-1
8b 31. 2-15 113 SP-SM
31.7 Fig.
C-2
13b 57.0-13 80 S~1
57.5 FiQ.
C-2
14a 61 0-20 106 SM
63.5 Fig.
C-3
14b 63.5-20 95 SM
64.0 Fia.
C-3
15a 68.0-27 92
685 -
I I II I, II II I
SHANNON & WILSON
JO. NO K-0469-0l . DATE Dec. 81
CLASSifiCATION
Verv dense orav sandv GRAVEl
Medium dense orilv snnrlv ~RA~EI • trace of 5j 11
Dense, gray, sl ight1y silty, gravelly SAND
Medium dense, Qray, silty, fine SAND. trace of
medium sand
r~edium dense ora v. siltv. fine SAND
-
Medium dense, gray, silty, fine SAND, trace of
medium sand
Very stiff, gray, clayey SILT, trace of fine
Sil nrl
..
• i
U) :r
m
~
N
o
'TI
N
I I • i I i I j . I • I J I I I • I i I ! I
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
BORING NO. B-]
ftJ%l~ ~i~ ~ Ii:; ~ -l' ~ ~ J q.$ A I t>.I I!~ I" il l/ ,-"J ~I;/ll'/ II/1M , I ct <I '.I v ~J' ¥ c1... .;:j"'" ,,~ ,)P v, 0"
B-1
15b 68.5-ML
69.0 .... iq.
C-4
16a 72.8-25
73.3
16b 73.3-t·1L NV-NP
73.8 Fiq.
C-5
---
-~ -
f------r----~
f-~--
f---
1 I I f I I I • I • I I I I j
SHANNON & WILSON
~ JOI NO. K-0469-0l DATE Dec. 81
CLASSlflCAnON
Very stiff~ gray. slightly clayey, fine sandy
SILT, trace of medium to coarse SAND
Very stiff, gray, slightly clayey SILT, trace
of flne sand
Very stiff. gray, slightly clayey SILT, trace
of fine to medium sand
.
--.
I i·1 I I I I I I I I Ii 't II I I
m o
~
Z
C)
z p
\----'
o
11
1'0
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
· I BORING NO 8-2 3&4
0i~~~~1i 11/. :: ~ f-. f ~~,,~ N ~f-. II; ~I ~.t .. "I ~/.fl /1.:" h~ /Il .! ~ .t ~ 'l-~C; ~ ~~ ~ " CJ ~.::J"" ~ ~ ~ C; 0 ~
B-2
2 5.4-GW
6.5 Fia.
C-6
4a 16.8-6 129 GW-GM
17.3 Fig. .~
C-6
6 25.6-G~J-GM
26.4 Fig.
C-6
B-3
2 0-(;,.,
1.5 Fig.
C-7
B-4
2 5.0-GP
6.5 Fia.
C-8
3b 12.1-5 129 GW-G~1
12.6 Fig.
C-8
~-~. ___ -__ "-a-_~
I I II II It II 't
SHANNON & WILSON
JO& NO K-0469-0l DATE.D..e.C 81 I
CLASSifiCATION
Very dense. arav. sandy GRAVEL trace of silt
Verv dense arav sl iahtl v s i 1 tv sanrlv f,RAVFI
Very dense. arav. sliahtlv siltv sandv (;RAVFI
Medium dense. brown. silty. sandy GRAVEL. trac
of c1av
Dense. graIl. slightly sandy GRAVEL. trace of
sil t
Ver~ dense, gray, s] i 9 b t] ~ s i 1ty • saudy GIHHlEL
--
I I I I I j i I Ii Ii I I I • j I I
z p
N
o -n
N
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
. a BORING NO B-23&4
~ ~ ~ !o.. f ~ ~.... N ~!o.. ~i1;j;q~ ~ / l~ /~I Ill/.t711:/III/ //j /Il
B-4
4 15 5-sr~
16. 1 Fig~
C-9
6b 21. 9-9 130 S~I-S~1
22.4 Fig.
C-9
8b 30.2-10. 126 SW-S~1
30.7 FiQ.
C-lO
10 36.3-GW-G~1
37.8 Fig.
C-10
--
t----
I I II II Ii II II
SHANNON & WILSON
JOa NQ K-0469-0l . DATE Dec 81
~~ CLASSifiCATION ~~ o A.;:
Very dense. arav. silty. aravellv SAND
Very dense, gray, slightly silty, gravelly
SAND, trace of clay
Ver.v dense, gra.v, slight1.v silt.v,gravell.v
SAND
~ .. o.
Ver.v dense, gray, slight1.v silt~, sand~ GRAVEL
I J I I I j I i I I I I I I • • I I I I I I r t I I I I I I • I I I
SIEVE ANALYSI S HYDROIETEI nAUSI S
L S liE Df O.lIIllIG III IltHES I IIUUU If lUll .£1 IIiCII U .1. "UUII I lUll un I" .11 I ... • • ... ~ .... ... .. .. a "' . ... ... a '" "" "-"-" D D a co a :~ .. ... ... a a a a a a -• .. ... ... --.. on_ ... -.. -.. ... • -D~CI D a a a a a a
1110 '0 --;.------,----_.--~--
" --. r---. r-------\. 1\ --._---
\ .. -'""" ----
10 II a f.-1 .--. -_. -,-r---f------.. ,-,'-~ ... --------
f---.. ----. ----.-------.--.--.----to U .-... _, --~---. . -... _---._-_ .. . --.. -.. . _._-
---. -. ,-. '-.... -_.--'--... ----. -----
lD -JO .... 1 .-. ----. ,,"-_ .. __ . t-
:.:: _\ :.l. --~ .. ----_. . _---.~--
_ . .. --. ---:.:
UI .1 &0 -----.. -. -_. 1----" -... -----. -------L;j -1------_. ~ -----. -------------_ .. ---. .--. &U • 10 h. to • " . --_._._-.. _ .. -.. ,------.~ Jo-Jo-!-.-----" ~ --. -'--I -.. --------------.~. -..... -...... -. .-.----"' "' I-t'\. I ...... ,~" .... --. -.-----.. ------.-. ----------.-----
a; r---------f------I-i--i---'-1------------a;
LaJ lID " II LaJ -= -" " ----'---'----.. -1--"----------'" -..... a;
I&-...... . -I' '-' ---"" --.-. ----Q .... .-. " " -.-.. -----U -= 40 " , II LaJ !--1--' -.. ....
U ~ -i5
a; I' ,
U
LaJ .... ,
IL JG .. '-, II a;
LaJ
.'\. -1-r-1---IL , .... .-r--._---....
20 "'-.... II .... .... r--"-1----....... "-...... ..... .. -S .. 10 ...... ........ ...... ........ ...... .. r--.. ....."" -I 1--' '1-"-----0 ' I I I I I I IT ... a CI ell ell ell D ell D a • • ... .. ... ... --... .. .. ... • ... ... ... • • ... PO ... 0 a a a_ -... .. ... -. . . . • a ell a a ell 00 .,. .,. a a
PO .. .. lilA IN IUE IN MILLIMEUIS . . .. a .,. a a a .
CainES I coun I 'II' I nun I III lUI I '11' I
I .... n I .... I fiNES
.. MIll DE'III·,.-u.l.e. eLASSlf leu ION UI,
10. i.C_ s LL fl .. Tazimina River
I
B-1 Hydroelectric Project
3 9.1-10.6 G~J • Very dense, gray, sandy GRAVEL GUill Sill CUSSlfICAJ' ..
7 25.1-26.6 GP • t'1edium dense, gray, sandy GRAVEL, trace of Boring B-1
silt Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
December 1981 K-0469-0l
SHANNON' IILSON
'U"'IIIIC1L UIlIULU ...
I I I I I • I r I I I I I f I I I I I I I I I I
SI EVE AMALYSI S HYDROMETER ANALYSI S I , S liE Of OPENING III IlieNE S , IIUIIIU OF IUIN PEl IIICIi. U .•. IUIIUIO I IUIII IllE III 1111 ,
N
D D .. .. .. ... N a ~ .... N .. .. • .. ... ... a D D D D D ... "-"-"-"-"-D D D D D D D .. D D D D D D D D -... .. ... ... --...... -.. -.. -.. .. • -...
'0 100
--~---------------.. -i-. . r-' .. -. -"-i----. -----... .. -----.": -i----. . -. ---.------. -f------r--f---\; . 10 10 ,
1----------,---1-----------'''' ----
1---f-----f--"-------_. -... --_.----"------.----------_._-----------f-.. ---------
--------------.. ------1---.----------ID ao , ,., .-----._--'--------. --_.-._--e-. ,., -_ .. --.-------. -.-----f----I------,\ .--------........:.------------. -.-----lD ,\ -30 u ----I------------l-I---f--~--------.--:a:: I-
\\ ---------:c ----_.-1--------I-1---_.-.. --. ---It!I C!I I--I--i------------------.. 1---1---1------------------------_. ---------r----_ .. ----. ---. W w I--.. -----------
40 • -= 10
1\=---'--._. --_._------------' ~ ---------_. --"-----.-------------------.--.--_ .. -.. ---_ .. ---".--------a:a a:a f----... --.. ------.. ---.. -- -
-.... ---1------I-.-.n._ -.. _." _. --.... . ----.--. ---.--\t--ffi ------1------------------.----_ .. _ .. . ---.---_ .. .. -. ------.. -.------ar: so w itO \, ---III Z 1---u -------"-----iIII:: -----.--. -------LL. ~ --.-----C ---
U ---. -I------.. -. --. --.---I------f-------~ II z 40
I-W .. --. ---.. I-I-~ U -I--1----I--r---1---------
ar: -1---U
1--i-f-._--l-t--w
JI ar: A-U w f----l-I---A---l-f------------ao II ----' . -----. ------------------I-i--._-
II 10 -------r-'--.1-----l-I----rt,--,-,---"1 I I I 110 0
D D D D D D D D D .. • .. .. ... -• ~ .. .. .. -.. • .. ... ... a .. .. .. .. ... a D D D. • .. .. .. -. .. .. .. .. D .. • D D D ... ... -GIlAiN IIZE IN IIILLIIiElUI . • D D .. D D
COBBLES
, COUll I 'IU I COUll, IUDIUM , 'IU 1" FINES , I"VEl I UID I
UMPll U.I.C. CUIIiF ICU ION IU. LL 'L 'I 110. IlP"-f' -i.c. , Tazimina River
B-1 Hydroelectric Project
14a p3.0-63.5 SM • f4edium dense, gray, silty, fine SAND 20 GRAIII SUE CUSSIF I CAli 011
Boring B-1 14b p3.5-64.0 S~1 .. Medium dense, gray, s i 1 ty, fine SAND, trace 20 Stone & Webster [ngr. Corp of medium sand
December 1981 K-0469-01
IHANNON & II LION
IUIICUIUL UIliULUI ..
n
I
L:"
II I I I j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • I i
SI EVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSI S r S I IE 0' 0'(111 N& III IIiCHE S I IIUIliEi 0' IIlIN '11 IIiCII. U.,. 'UIIOUD I UAIII I IlE IN 1111 I ... • -. PO .. ~ •• N • • .. .. ;;; N "-,,-"-"-"-.. co .. .. CI .. • . PO N ; .. .. .. .. .. -... • .. N --.. .... -PO -. -.. • • -.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
100 '0
--------1-~ f.-I-~ ----.. -.-....... ~ --_. -----
0-
,. ...... -1---1-----110 " 10
I-.----I--.--1------~ r--' . .---... "-..
---.. _-_. ---t-----_. -'.--· . .. .-..• -----
.--f-------1\ 1·-._-----. -.-. -._--'-'-"-10 iii ---I------
. --.--. ---.
f-r -----._--.. -.---------
"--.------.--.-------lD ---30
I--I-~-. ----.--" '---.-_. I-
% .---t---t----------.---.•.. -. -._----:s:
CD CD -.. I--f------.----". -------, -,...---.... --_ .. --.-----UJ ---. -.. -1----I----_.----.-. -'-.. ---,.--. -----UJ • DO 40 -.:
-f-f--------.---.-.. .. ._----
~ ~ -.-------~---------------._----... ----a:a .. -_ .. ------.----f\ a:a -1---1-1-1·-"-'. ---.'---. -------f-r---.-.-.. ------.---... ..:------I----1------._--.-.-1--------I-"" -. --. ---' -----.----L&..I lID III UJ z .------I-.---. --· . -. -_. ----.-.--"" .-------~ >.--.--k--------.. .. . -. ------.: l&.. -----_.------.-------. -' '-'-a
t--_. --._---.------.-.. -. .-----u _ ..
\ Z 40 ,. DO t-L&..I .-f-~_o_ --I-.. '-I--,-_ ..
0 l' m -------_. , --------' -.--1---I-~-f~ i-I-----u
UJ I-I---I---'-1-------A-U JI L&..I
j r--' -" 1-·· .-A-
I--.~ I-"" -1---.------"" --.. . -...... I-I--.
10 .. ------.. --_. --i._ --.. --------------I-r--.--f-f-I-10 10 -._--....... ---I---1---.. l-f-._--"-----.......
I TI rl'] "-T--I I I I 1 0 1 1.---1-----a 110 co .. .... a .. .. .. .. • -• .. ... --• • .. .. ---• PO .. ; • -. PO .. ; .. .. .. • • • .. .. -.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... -GRAIN SIZE IN IILLlIlElEIS . .. .. 0 .. a ..
COIBLES COUll I fiNE I COUll I MUIUM I flU I .f ••
I UAVEl I IAIID I FINES
UII'lE IIPlII-I1. U.S.C. CLASSIFiCAtiON UI.
10. '.C. II II 'l PI Tazimina River
B-1 Hydroelectric Project
15b 68.5-69.( r~L • Very stiff, gray, slightly clayey, fine GRAIM SIZE CUSSlflCATIOIl
sandy SILT, trace of medium to coarse sand Boring B-1
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp_
December 1981 K-0469-0l
SHANNON , IILSON
.. IUClllICAl cauUluUI
.-
n
I
V1
I I I I I j I j I i t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANAlUI S
I Ill( OF 0' Ell I KG IN INCHES I NUll IE • O' IIESH 'EI IIICH. U. I. IUNDAlO I IUIN IIZE III 1111 I .... .. .. .. ... ... ~ ..... ... -.. co co ~ ... ........ "-, .... co co co a 0 co .. .. ... ... ~ 0 0 0 a a
0 • co 0 0 0 0 co 0 co -... .. ... ... --"'111 -... -.. -... .. .. -... 100 '0
-------
~-f-----r---1--------e-------------
~---~ -I-------I---------_.-
10 .:t" 10
--f--f------------1----1---------
'-c-I-i--.~---I----f---f---------------------
----------f--1----f---f-------------'--
,------------1----------_.-
10 2Il --------------------.. . --_.
-------.. ---------.--.-----
----. -------------
JD IT U
~ ---r-.-----_ .. _. ~ "T-::.: :c --.----1----r---.------1 --------.--------CD CD --~ ------_._------... '-'------I---"'--- ------------L&J 1--1---1---_ ... ------.---------1-------------... --.. ----------. -----. -----L&J • 10 40 • -------.--------------~ ~ f-------------.------------_.-.. --------1--f-------. . ---.-------ID ID I-f---.. -------.. ---. -'--'----1----•. -. --..... --1---.--. -----
l1:li::: ------------..• ---1--------I-I---f-1---------.--. ----l1:li:::
L&J U II L&J z: ----------1--f-------II)
III: --~-----~----I-------.: ..... ---------------a
~ ,---f------~ --t-f---~--------~ z: 40 00 L&J --e-\ --~ g \ i5 ---\ -
l1:li::: \ ~
L&J 1---f--"T -A-U JO L&J 1---A-.. -~ ------
" -..
""" U , .. --"" ---.--------t------10 II ---I'
I--"'" ........
0 II Itl--ITI I I I I I -.... .. I e> 0 a a 0 co 0 0 co .. .. .. .. ... -.. ~ .. .. ... -.. .. .. ... ... ~ .. .. .. ... .. ~ 0 0 co .. .. .. ... ... -'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co D ... ... -aRUN SIZE IN IIILlllinUS . 0 co 0 0 0 co
callus I CDUIE I • lIE I CDAlIE I IUIUI I 'IU I flNU I nAVEl I ... 0 I
IAM'LE
Dl"I1"'-U.S.C. ClAS$lf ICU ION Ul. LL 'L 'I Tazimina 110_ •. c. I River
I
B-1 Hydroelectric Project
16b 173.3-73.8 f·1L • Very stiff, gray, slightly
,
clayey SILT, NV NP GUlli SIZE CUSSIFI CAT 1011
trace of fine to medium sand Boring B-1
Stone & \~ebster Engr. Corp.
December 1981 K-0469-0l
SHANNON & IIUON
.. IIItUIUL COUULU", --
I I I i I I I j I j f I I I , I I I I I I I _ i I
SI EVE ANALYSI S HYDROMETER AII'USI S
I S liE 0' O.EIIIII& III IIiCHU I NUIlIE • Of IIESH • Ell INCII U.' . IUIIOUO I iliA III IlZE III 1111 I ... .. .. ~ ... N ::, ~ .. N .. ~ D D .. ~ PI N D D D D D ; N "" " " " D D D D 0 =~ ; -... ~ ... N --"'''' -PI -~ -... • .. -.. D D D D D D D D
100 '0 --c-------------
---------1-------
I--i-,------------------
----I----DD 1\ 1'-I D "-I---f----.... -------.--
\-1-1 -----------------
f--'-l\.--~ --------------------------
I-'l-,-------------_ ... -- -------._----
II II \ \ --------1----------\. 1----------_.-----
---_\.. \. -. ----------------------.---------1----l' -1\ ---.--------. --. --' ----JD \. -30
t--1 1----,--.-".-.-.--' t---~~ :.: :a:: ~ ~ :x= --------f-------.. -------------UI CD ~ ---------------. i----.--_._------------.. -----1---------t---.. ------I-. -I-----------. ----"" "" .. -.
DD tD • ~ '-, .. ------1---------._._--
~ ..----~ -~ ------~---------I-i----------_._---.-. ---CD CD 1-1-~ -----.. ---_. .. -------O' ----._----.. -1-------.. ------._---------. __ ._-r-------I---I-------...... .-.-----"" U U "" I~'--~ &II Z f--t---. ---_.--._-.. ---.-.. -._-_._-l1li:: -f--f------I-1---1--.-.--_._---_.---._-. ---C LA------.), ~-%=-------_. ----C) -
t---_. --._---~ ----.. --.. ,---._--U
Z to _.J DO t-"" i----I--I--.-f-,-. _. 1-----e5 u 1--~----I-f--. --I-._-----------.-.-~~ -1----------I--.------f-----'-f--1-_.------U
"" 1----I-------------
A-U " " ..... JD l1li::
"" '-" -I-I-I---f-----A-" 1-----l-i------" "---I--I-.-------.--
-------~ " --------f----I---'---
I---e---" "-_. ~---I-I--.--.-
II " ~ II ----. -----~ ....... ..... 1----------------
-l-t-."--.-.. _. ...... ....... ...... -.-----_. -------....;;; --t--....... ...... I-1----f------1-.. -I---1-1·-t-----._---............ r--,. ~ t.:...----I-I-I-I-----------I D ........ DD ..... -------I---.--I--t--.----... ---I--I--t--.---I-~ -----1--
f-----J -_. -.------
I tt--1.---.. ----'-1------D I I I I IOD
D D 00 D D D D D .. ... • PI ... -.. .. • .. ... -.. .. ~ ... ... ;;; .. .. ~ PI ... ; D D D .. .. • PI ... -D 0 .. D D D D D D D
PI ... -GRAIN SIZE IN IIILLIIIUEIS . D D D D D D
COBBLES COUIE I fllIE I COUIEI lEI lUll I , I lIE I fiNES I luwn I UIID ~
SAII.LE
DE"N·" -U.S.C. CLAlSlf ICU ION Uf. H 'L " 110_ I.C. • Tazimina River
B-2 Hydroelectric Project
2 5.4-6.5 G~J • Very dense, gray, sandy GRAVEL, trace of GRAil SIZE CUSSI FI CATIOII
silt Boring B-2
4a 16.8-17.3 G\~-GM • Very dense, gray, slightly s i 1 ty, sandy 6 Stone & l4ebster Engr. Corp.
GRAVEL December 1981 K-0469-0l 6 25.6-26.4 G\~-Gr1 • Very dense, gray, slightly s 11 ty, sandy
GRAVEL SHANNON & IIUON
UDUCUIUl CDUUlUUI
.----~--.---
I I I I
" t-i
G"")
(J
~
t-:z:
c:I
u...e. • ...-
~ -u...e :z
~
t-:z u...e u -u...e
A-
"1I'1i 110
B-3
2
I i • i I ; I I I I I I t I I I I I It It··. I I I • • I I
SI EVE ANALYSI S HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
, III Of DPIIIIII5 ;;-.. IIiCHIS """IiIiIUEi !!LIIUII ". '"~II.U.'. HU!!'n ....L 5U .. 1111 'II 1111 I
... ~ .. _ .... _ .. CI D . -. ....,.... ...
" ,,'"'' 0 D • D D 0 -........ -0 0 0 0 II tI
I III lA-Mil ilA-1 i l i I Hilil .. r~:, -• .. ... 100
10
, -1-1---
r ... ..
~ -f-f--.
I I-I-----f-f--f-
I
I I I"' '.1-.-
1 I 1 I 1 I I I . -I-f-:" II
I I I --~ - --. - -.---__ ._ . 1_ r\ ---. ~ . -. --b.. _. ------1----. ... -- -... --,
"
"'"" __ _ •• 1-_ --:s~ --. . -I . . --... -.. ~ -. -.-. . -. --" . ::::s.-.. _. f-.' . -' -.--1 ""'. I_I-_ _ -1_ I-l----,-1--._-
, ~,-"
L I I ---L---
L 1 I 1-. l-.......; . ----" , -r .--
H-II
II
JO
II
II
..
..
U I I I I 1 I 1 II I I I I. I· 1 '1 I 1 I N: I I I Hili I I I J :j ,.
~
t-:a::
CD
au .. ....
IIa
a: au
III c.: ..
D
La
t-
e5
La
a:
~
IL
II I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I Ii l-txl I Itttt:H I I . I ..
DUIII-ll.
0-1.5
-~ I IIJd till tt Iltl 69 ..
~
III ~ I I Irl:rH H=-1Irn tnl, I I III! , 1 I I! 1 I 1 I .. " I I I rH...1
U.I.C.
Gt1
. -----... -........
IIAIN IIIE IN MILLIME'EII
I'I'UI , 'III'
lUI
CUUIfICAIION
• Medium dense, brown, silty, sandy GRAVEL,
trace of clay
-.. .. fit .. ••• • •• . .
=t
1Ii"f:"""" I II .1 .l 1 .. I.C .•
•• • fit ..
• D. • D • D • • • D •• •
fiNES
Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
'lAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION
Boring B-3
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp
December 1981 K-0469-01
SHANNON' IILSON
'1IIICIIIIIC'l C ••• UlI'.I.
I I
n
I
00
I I
.-:z::
ell
w -= -ID
iii:
W z -....
t-z w
U
iii:
W
A..
'UUll ••
8-4
2
3b
I I I I I
I sur II
N -• .. ...
• DO
OD
U
n
to
to
..
II
II
II
D 'I
CI • o •
co • • • .. ... ..
tOlIUS I
I
lI'lI·fl. U.S.C.
5.0-6.5 GP
l2.l-12.f Gl4-Gr1
I I I I I I r I
51 EVE ANALYSIS '."
OPINING I • IICKES I MUIIUO 01 IIElIl '" un u .•. IUIIDUD I ...
~ ~_N -.. ell "' . .......... .... ..... ..... ell • • ... co -co .. --..... -... -.. -.. .. • -... .
!'""II "'" ..... -\
~
\ -
,
\
~. ,
\
\ , " -I'\. ----'--~ ~-<------. ..
I'\. .-----or\----'~ -------,---... ~--"--~.
I'\. .... -------
" .... -'" -'\. '" . -
'"
\ "-
\ .....
"-
..... -" \ -...... --" :......
'\. ........
'" "'" ~ '. --....... --
I '1', I I I I I I I I • • • co • • • .. .. ... -. • .. .. .. .. . -• .. ... ... -. . . ,. • GIAIN SUI IN In,Ulln .. , .
nuu I ... , I CUUI I .UDUI I ... , I
'UUi I .... I
tUllifatAlION I".
I.C . ..
• Dense, gray, slightly sandy GRAVEL, trace
silt
• Very dense, gray, slightly s 11 ty, sandy, 5
GRAVEL
IIII 11.1 It Ii
HYDROMETER ANALYSI S
'U III 1111 1M lUI I
• • · .. ... ;. .. ... ... _ . • • ell ell • • D • • • • • • ... '. ---
,-
II -·
-f-l'-.-
II
--. . -.-----' -. ---'-~ --II -----...... -· . I-.-. :r:
CD -----, . . .---'--w .. • --_ .. ------.-.. .. ---.----._---'-._.-DC
II w
"" .-DC --"'" --... -C)
· r--.--u .. --t-
a'j
U
U iii:
W '-A..
II
'-
II
.... .. ... ... --• .. ... ... ;. • • • • • • • .,. • . . . . • • -• • . .
fiNES
LL tL tl Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
GlliM SIZE CUSSlflClllOIl
Borinf) B-4
Stone & 14ebster Engr. Cor
December 1981 K-0469-0
SHANNON , IllSON
'1.,IC •• ICAl C •• 'Ul'A."
I I I • I j
(I
I
LD
..... x:
UI -u.I • -ID -w
Z -"-..... z w u -u.I
A..
UII'li ..
B-4
4
6b
I
... -I DO
ID
DO
)D
ID
to
.,
U
II
II
0
a a ..
I
01"11'" -
15.5-16.1
21.9-22.~
I I I I I I I I • I J ,
SI EVE lIIALYSIS
III E If DUIlIIIIi III INCHU I IIUIIIU Of IIUII .EI nCII, U.I. I"IIDAID I ...
~ . -... • • a
a _
• " , , , • • a a Q aa • -• .. ... --.. ... -... -• -.. • --.. ,
~ -
Ll "-. ,
"
1-" ~
"
,
\.
I'... ~
" ,
" ,
~ .'l. ,-.-----
I-I-i-
__ .'l.
-1-----.-, ------I-.-.-----I' ----" ------~ -------.---,-------~------_._------.-----\:---r----r-----I---------._--,-----I-f-~-, .,
-" , , --, --.---r--, ,
i--~ ~
.'l.. ~ , , , ,
-~ ~
" ~ -r-~ ~ ---_ ..... I'. ,-'I ~
~ ..... ~
~ ~
Do. ......
~ --
,Ir" I I I I I I I I
CO 00 0 a a D Q • • • .. .. -. • • .. .. -. • • a o. • • '" .. -. . . . •• • • N -GIA IN IIZE IN IIIUllinUl .
COnLU I CUI .. I flU I CDun I In I UI I flU I
.1 UAVEL I lUI 1
U.S.C. CLASSifiCAtiON u" II .'c . ,.
S~1 • Very dense, gray, s i1 ty, gravelly SAND
SW-SM • Very dense, gray, slightly silty, gravelly 9
SAND, trace of clay
I I I I I I j I I , J
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
U&III IIIE III 1111 I
• • . .. ... .. ... a a a a a ;
a a • a a a a a a
'0 -_.-
-.
I---II
--~ r-----" 1---------
II
I-I----
l-I--1------. -----
-t------
U
-l-t---t-:.= -----------~ -- ----------------u.I .. • -------------- ---.. ---II)
f---------.-.. ------------------g:
II w
&.'l --I-I---III: ----...: ---Q ---U
II ..... -r-es -
U -II u.I --A.. ..
------
f-r----,----..
r--
.. I ... .. --• • ... .. ; • • • a a ID a 0
• II ID ID 0 0 II
flNU
PL PI Tazimina River
Hydroe 1 ectric Project
GRAIN SIZE CLASSifiCATION
Boring B-4
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp,
December 1981 K-0469-0l
SHANNON' IILION
U"lnIlIUL ct .. ULUII,.
--.. --.
I I I I I i I I j I I f I I r I I I II I J II II ,.
.~
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
I SUE 01 1'(1111111 IN INCIIIS I IIUMIE. II ME'N PII IIiCIi U.' .• "tlDUD I IiUIN SIll III Mil I
N
N ::. •• N _ .. D ... • • .. ... .. D ........ " .... .... D D D D D .. .. ... _ D D ... D D -• .. ... ... --ftll't_ .. -.. -... • -::~ • • D D • D D D D ..
, DO .. -••
"" 1----
-eo ,. --
1-,-
. --f-,.---
II \ --It
, ---------------
\ \ -_.--. ---
10 \ -. ~ ----.... " U
:c --c------.-
~ ·1--.... ~. r---. --------.-:.:
UJ I-f-----.-------1-----r---
L&.I eo ---~ ------------------L&.I • " .. .. ------------.-~ CD '------------f-1------------.....
lID 1---.-------------I------
go:
II --f-------I--I-I--------------.,.:
L&.I " II ~
:II: '\ --I-c---."
" QI:
&&.. " " --oC
" " -------c .... -------u :.: .. " " L&.I 1--I--
II ....
u " I-I--. l:5 " " go: " U
L&.I
A-U "-"-II -L&.I
....... "' --A---I'-
....... i-
It ''''' II
~ r-.... -............... ..... ='" ---'---, I .......: .. -
rr-' -.
I I I I I I I
a .. ..... ... D ... ... ..... .. .. N -.. ! .. I .. .. ... -.. ... a a. • .. .. ... -. . .. .. ... -.. .. .. D .. ... .. . . . • a • . .. a • ... a • D
IIAIN 111E IN IILLIIEIEII . . • • a • • • ..
'.
CUILEI I tlUI( I flU I C .... E I IU'U T flU I r IiUI(" I UtID I flNEI
... "U "PlII-" . U.S.C. CUSSlflCAtION .", .. I.e. " L\ "-" Tazimina River
B-4 Hydroelectric Project
8b 30.2-30.7 SW-SM • Very dense, gray, slightly silty, gravelly 10 GRAIM SIZE CLASSIFICATION
" SAND Boring B-4
....-. 10 Stone & Webster Engr. Cor
G") 36.3·-37.8 GW-GM • Very dense, gray, sl ight1y silty, sandy . GRAVEL December 1981 K-0469-0
(I , SHANNON' IILSON
I-'
0 1'1"'11""" , •• IU"".'I
11 II It Ii I. I i I I , I I I I I I II II I. I. II i
-I m
~
-u --I
U>
I----'
o -n
N
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
TEST PITS
it ~ ,..,. #: ~$ ... ,... 1ti1l~ ~~ / ~ 'If /~l Illl~~t I~/? $~l!/ /(,1 Ill/I
TP-l
5-1 3 0 64-NP
MH-OH
5-2 4.5 ML-5M 37-31
Fig. C-ll Ml
TP-2
$-1 3.0 GP
Fio C-12
TP-3
15-1 16 0 10 SI\1 NV-NP Max)' d=131
Fio C-13 pef
Opt w/c=9.9%
Fio c-
TP-4
S-l 3.5 GW
FiQ. C-14
TP-!1
S-l 3 !1 GW-GN
f----------'----.._ ... IFio C-J5
TP-6
5-1 3.5 GP
,(:;0 C-16 ..,
ITP-7
5-3 2.0 ~1l NV-NP
~ ...
'Fig· C-J7
SHANNON & WILSON
. . Joa NO K-0469-0l DATI Ope: H
CLA551FICATION
~ ~ ..
" .. --~---... --
~o~ or-ange and gr:a~ laminated m:gaoic SI! I
w/scattered organic material
~1edium stiff to stiff, tan. sl ightty clayey.
siltv. qravellv SAND
Grav. medium to coarse sandv. GRAVEL~ trace 01
fine sand
Dens~t gray, gravelly, silty SAtlD, trace of C!
... --~-... -
-"_ .. __ .. ~
.. __ ..
Bro\\lnish~),,~1.L~andyGRAVEL, trace of silt
Gravisb brown, s]igbtl~ si]t~. saod~ GR8~EL
Brown, sandy GRAVEL, trace of silt ... ~ .. -
...
Light brown, gravelly. sandy, peaty SILT
II II II II II I t I I I I I I
-I rn
(f)
-I
-0 .-.
-I
(f)
In
X
~
Z
P
o -n
tv
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
TEST PITS
:t~ ~ ~ t::-~if .a. ~ "'~ . ~ t1;f;'lj;~ ~l:; /~I Ill/~~~$ll.l? ll/ I..~'l/~ II
TP-7
5-1 4.0 GP
IFia C-18
5-2 4.5 GP
FiQ.C-19
TP-9
S-l 2.0 sp-sr"
!Fia. C-20
FG --22 SM 40-29
Fin C-21 ~1L ,~'
1-----
~-
I I II II II I •• i
SHANNON & WILSON
--. JOB NO K-0469-0l DAll oee: B I
CLASSIFICATION
light brown, sandy GRAVEL~ trace of silt ,
Gray, sandy GRAVEL, trace of silt
Gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND,
trace of coarse sand and fine to coarse gravel
Grayish blue, clayey, si1ty~ gravelly SAND
sized fragments of predominantly tuff and
calcite: FAULT GOUGE
... -~
.. --
I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I • I I I I I
SIEVE ANAlYSIS HYDROIIETER ANALYSI S
I SIZE OF OPENING IN IIICHES I NUIiBER OF IIESH'EI INCH. U.S. SUIIDUD I GUill SIZE III 1111 I
~ ~ ~,~ D 0 0 0 ~ D IQ ... M N -:,~ ~:;;:;: Q
I 0 0 ,---~"'r----.-"'----,"'r----r---.----a-~"'-"'r-'-.--"'.,..---.--________ ,.-----, ... ..---... r----. .. --T---':::"'-'O, . .-o~T°,--.C>,--__ ~C>...:.-.C>r'.,....C>~--.:C>'---,C>.:..... •. -~_. ___ ~ 0
-:::-::--=: ::.~ _-=-r--~ -::-:.,-_-. \ ---.-,-_. - -,----._------.---.-.... _-_ ... __ . -_._ .. -. .. . ... -._._------------... -----.. -..... _ ... _'_.'
-_. _._.. -----.-.. --.----.---... -..... ----. - -.. ------.. ---r-" ----' ... .. __ .. _-_. ..--.----.-.-.-.--.----------.---.. ---1----.. -. -.. -.-------f-
.-----···---~+_H-_I_4-"--->-------I 0
--~-:: :\,:-:::
.-fIo.. ~.-I-. -+----'--:-~:-::.~.' ----_.. _. _______ f----__ . __ 80
.. -" .. __ ._-_._ .. __ .•.. -.-I~, 1---. --
80 ~.'-::-~. --.. ~ --------~~lK:~·~ ... --'-.-~ -==---=-~~~~--.-
.:~:~ ___ ::_~:~~= -=_-:.-____________ --.---:ts -~~~~--_~ ... =-~=~---~:.-= ~.:.:.~--~.~._--~ -. _. __ t:::_ ------
----.--. -. -~ . --1-"~:~ ~:_= ;:_:'-:-= _ .• ::: __ ~ ... . .C_·I __ ~-_.-.~.' __ -~_ -.::-~=~_~~_-~_~_.~_~_~_~~_~.~-~-~:.~ ~ --,~ -----
80 ------1-.-I .-~~~ .-
_. __ . _ . __ .. ----I-f.-I--.-------.-.---~ --1-::' .-----~--r__--
50 ~~=~~~ .. ~ :'1--'~. ----_____ ~_--~::-.~ ~~~'§h~~~::-,·
-H-+--I----I---+--1----
'·1·
----.-.---40
-.--.... ----3 0
-----50
~--~.~_ .-.=~ :~-= .'~ ___ ::-.:::~. -~+ _ .. ______ .:._ --.-_=f-------. -.--------.------r-s ---
1-.------------::-= -.-= I~ ____ ~_ ~~-=--~.--.f__--.~::-_:~ -~~~-~~ ::-~.~
40 t-I--._-. -_+_-_--+_-_--1~-+__--I_-._-__ -_ +--+-1f-.--1_ -._+_-._-._+.-._I----t-----I----I---I----l----.... --t-t·-~-. -------+If+I-+-+-+-+-+---I 80
30 ::--------.~ ~~=~~'~=~ .~~ ~-----==I~ ~~.= ==1=-~~--=.---:.-.-. '.; ~~; I; j :-.I~~r\:~----~:~= .. ---
1-______ 1--_ 1---1--___ 1---___ ~_ ._ .. _____ ._.. _-..-:.... ___ . _ _____ __ _ _ _ __ . ~-.----~.-_-. _H-II+-&-_-'-__ +--. _4:~.----f-.::--= J 0
--.-----.-t--.-....:.,.. 1--1----.-.----. -- . --.---. -. ------
--.--------f---.----------~-.--.-... ---------1----.-------..--
20 -.. ----'.--.------.------.----'---------1----.----. ----+------1r-----1i--r---+---I--+-JHf--I--·------+1~f_I_-+--~-I---.T_-~ 10 ----,------------_. _.----". --~ ---.,---'_._--._-_. ------... ----1---.. ----------.. f--1-. _____ -___ ._. ___ ._. __ . _._ -_ ._. _. ._ .. ____ .. _______ .. _ . __ . __ . _____ ._._ . r"~-... -..
----.-1--------.-----.---I-~-.-.-1--.-..... ---.--=------------.-------··----_-+-+-..,1---.. I~"·~ .--.:-----to -.. ------.... --------.-----f---I·--.. -.. ---.--- . - ----.-. . ~ .-
____ 1-__ 1-_1-_ __ __ _ --~ .~-: ________ 1-_____ . ___ -::-::-: _-.. -___ -_ f---+-_+_-_+.-__ -~-+-.-.-.--.. -.--.-f-++-f-J-+-_. _ b~ -----10
----. -----.--.-'--."----.. --·1-.---. . -..... -.--.--.. --------.. ---.-.. - -.... ------.
------1-------.----.. ---. . ....... -----1---.--... -.-.-----_. -.. _ .. -... --'-' -.. --_.--_._--
.. --o --·-1----. 1.--,-',' -. I'~IT 1"1 III 1 -,-.------·-ntrrrrt.---.--r----n )1.-.. .---Q~~C>~L-~C>~C>~C>~-C>~~C>~,C>~~~C>~_~"'~~ ... ~ ... !-~N~--~_~.~.~~~-L-L-l--U~LlJLJL~~l ___ ._~LL~.L-_I_~ ___ L_ __ ~IOO
a 0 0""''''''' N ... .., N -.. II) ...., --'" ... ... ... ...
C>
C>
,., N • • • 000 Q 0 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS . C> C> C> C>
• C> ° ° C> <>
COBBLES I I
1 I IUD
I COUSE IIEDIUII I FIIIE COUSE FINE
I nAVEl FINES
o
<>
SAII'LE
NO. OEPIN-FI. U.S.C. CLASSIFICATION UI. ,_c. s II 'l PI Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION TP-l
S-2
4.5 ML-SM • Medium stiff to stiff, tan, slig~tly
clayey, silty, gravelly SAND
37 31 6
TP-l
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp_
December 1981 K-0469-01
(I I SHANNON' IILSON
~L-------J----------L--------~--------------------------------__________________ _1 ______ L_ __ JL __ _1 __ ~L_ ______ ~.~I~.~I~I'~II~.~.I~'~A~L~'~.~.~I~UL~I~A~.~I~I ____ __
I I
"'T1
H
G") .
I I
ac:
k-I
a..
S .. ,.U
110
TP-2
5-1
I j I I I I I I I I I I I I I f I I I I I I I I
SI EVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
I SIl( Of Or£NING IN IIICHES I IIUMBU Of IlESH PU IIICH. U. S. STANDARD I II U INS I Zf IN 1111 I
-~ ~ ~ S ~ 0 :! : :;: ~ E ~ ;!:; ~ ;; :: ~ E: ::
I 00 r---.---__y__..--~.-,~__y___. . .,.._,_-r--""T.-_ .. _' __ .----.-r---r---y--·-y-----.--,-.-T-..,.:..-',.:....--....,..:.~T_r_~_r__r_· -,:..-.. --'0
1-,-l-' -. . ----.--. --. -. ,-.. --. - --~-== ,~-, -= ~-~-'::-...: :...~-~-:-~'-- --, ---.... --------f------------.---
---.-... --.... 1-... , - --.. -..
80 . ---~,--, f----...: -=-- --~=--...: --~ ~--~ ,::-,-:..~ ,-=----...: ...:-~' '-~-~~' -'_', .. ----'---f-I----.----.... -+--:::.=-+--_'_ .... '_ .... +._-_. -'---'1---1-'-+--.+-'----1---.=. ~:.:_.
~-~-~::= ~-~:-:.-"': :~\ = ~...:~ .. :-:-~ ---,-~: .. ~:-~:,: ~:: -, ,,------.--1----.... --,-"---....
' ... ---I-----c----
----------------"
, .. 1---, -.-....
---.-10
--.. ----.. --.. -----.... --.. ,--. '---r--'---....... -.. ---... . .. " .... ,
80 I---_I--+-I_-+~.__I-_+_+_+__+__+--+-_I.-_._--1-,,-----.-.-.. '.-~~-' .. ' ~~~ ~~ '.~:~.J::t ~:-I~ ~-,~~~ ~ '=~.:~-~:~~ :~: ~~_~~~:~~ ~-= =~_~.~ .. ~: .. ~~'~ I~~"': :.':;:
JO ----f-'-I-. -.-. .. ---. ~---I-I-~ . , ------------------, .... --.----.. --
80 ~~ ~-=-" ~.;~ ~.~ t ~~::-l~ ... _ c-.-f-____ ._~-~~:-~~~~~~~=+-__ ._-.-1-. __
1---_ .. -: .. :"': -::-==!~-.==-~-=~ ------ . . I\. '" _ .... ,__ __ "'._.. ___ ._ ..... ______ .. :,~:':~. ~'.. ::r~ .... ________ , .
-r---I---------"-"-2 °
... -"-"------4 0
.. -.-.. ----30
50 f----. --f--.-.---------i---i----r---+---il-.-f-<I--i-..,I----
,.---.-.. --,-,,---. --........ _ .... -) ... -...... _ .. ---.------------_ .. --.----......... _--_ ... --"-"---I-+·j...4·-4-4f--.--.---50
~--== :::--: =~="f~~~~' =.-...: = .~ .. ~-~' ~~ :-=~--:-:-....:" .... _. ____ r--.. --.... r--.~~._~ : . .-~ .. =:= :-: ~: ..... __ _
40 I"~ '1----1-----+li-+-j~-4--~ 1--"---80 ~::-~= 1--= :::~ .-::::-~-:. == -:. 1-: ~=::= J~ : .:-.-.... = -----1----.~...:: :..:.. .. :~-:.: .. =. _ -... --- ---.....
1-------11-----.... -.. -1--.--1,-.. -----...... -----..
30 1-----, .-----. -.---.-------f..s.x· .. -.. ,--,----.
._--.. ---.. -------f---f-'--I---....... ~-.. -. ---.-......... -. ,-...... -".
..._-
1------... ---Iff-.f4-I--4-j.-J------J 0 -,'" .. -
=~~:,. ~:~~~,~~~-= _~f~~f= ~~.-= -== ~.~~~.~ _______ ....:~:.. .. :--:::=:-:='. .. . ....... --,....... -I,:':': ~=-~ .:,,-.. .
" ~:::::~=;~-=-::~ :-~= ••• ~~~ ~~ ~.~::==.~~= =~:~~ •.. ~:_=~"=r7-~ .. --:-----~·-_~-:..u--I--I-.... --.~ 10
10 . --.. ---I-+-I--I--+--I----H-I-I-+-~HI___l ----'-10
=~.=t-:::::.. ~~~.= .=-~ :.= :: .. : -.-..... -_.'_'."_'._-.. _--,---_-----.~:: : .. _-'-'~ .-_'-.. ,::~ .. '.' ... _-.... -,.-1 .. -'.... ----.----.. --. .. _ ..... --"-___ .. _ .. _
.. _--,----~-_._ ... _-.. ---..... ,_ .. -......... --..~. -,-._-----_ .... ,-.. _ ....... -.--.,--
O---T-f---I..-Ir-I, .... ., -llrnrJ)"·· .. · ----TItr:r:I-, __ :.a---'''11 .. ---...... --
a
a ... a
a
N
COBBLES I
I
a,a
~ ...
CDUSE
a
N
I
GUUl
a .. '" ~ ... .. -.... ~ ... ...
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
fiNE I COUSE I NEOfUI I fiNE
I I'ND
-.. .. ~ . a a a
I
"I ..
... N a a -.... a a a . a a
fiNES
~ ...
a a a a
...
a a
a
a
100
I
OEPlH-fl .. U.S.C.
3.0 GP
CLASSifiCATION
• Gray, medium to coarse sandy, fine to
coarse GRAVEL, trace of fine sand
I.C. I II 'l PI Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
GRAIM SLlE CLASSIFICATIOM
TP-2
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
December 1981 K-0469-01 ~ SHANNON' IILSON
~ IEIlECNNlcaL CONIULlaNl. N~ __ ~ ____ J-__ ~~ __________________________ ~ __ ~ __ L_~_L ________________ __
I • I I
saMPLE
110.
TP-3
5-1
I
r
I I t I I I f I I I
SI EVE ANAllSI S
Silf OF OPEIIING III IIICHES I NUMBER Of IIESH 'Ell IIICH. U.S. SUIIOARO T
• CI c.....:11 •
'" '" '" Q Q Q '" --.., D
II>
D
D
I
--.., co D
I I
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
GUill SIZE III 1111
.... co
.. ... _ co co
co co co
--.., co co
co co
I I
N
CI
co
I I
I
-D
D
D ...
o D
N -Man_PI -. N" I DO .-----.---.---r--~......,-_r_..,....,~~,____r.--___ . __ :--___ y--__ ,..-_y--_ ~--~__._~-r-_r_-,.-'----r,.--rT-r-.....-r--,.:·'---,..:.-------'0
:: ~--~,-~-~2 ~~s~~~ :'~~ ~~: .•• ~ ~~~ :~=~ ~i1·~.~: l::-~ -.. .J-++__+_+_~~ ~'-~~--=~~ ::
" ~~:~~S~}~~:-:= = .:.': =~~ ~:i_:-.--.. ~.~_:.._--_~_~--~_-~_~,,_~-----_·----:_l_--_-~_~-:_:~_E_~_'~_--. ·.·-+--~~"4_4-~--~. __ .
f--.--.-----.------.--.. - ----. -. --.--__ .1
60:---~:::-= :=~ -: :..--:..---:..~-__ 1-_-: -: == ==-: f\:--------____ _
_._-_.----_. --. ----_. _.--_. ---_._-------_.'\ ----~. - ---
------3D
_.---40 1----
--.. --------... ---.~ . --.. ~= =-=---.~ ~ .-~ ... -.. -~-=.
----I--4-------l-~1_-_I-++-+---..
f----------.-.. -
----.-1------
-----------f--------
!i0 .1---1+ ........ ~4 --4.----f-.----!i 0
-.-----------.. -.---.-f..--.-----.--. ------.. -----. .--.. --.•.. ---_ .. -.-
f----------1----. -.---.--.. -.-.--.----_-_--_-_-_--_.-.-_ --._ .. :_ -_.-----.--
----------.-------------.-. ----.. ---------f------------------. ~-------. --.-
~----.---. . . -----.-- -'-r--.--f-----.-
40 --~--~~~~~-~--I---4_----~80
f------f------.--------.-.-----------I--.------.------!I\ ... ---
1-----------1------.----I--. -~-f--------------------.--__ ... _ -_-_-___ ---_. !..;,,-.-_-----+---1--f-----------.-----.-·-·---~--+--4 .-1'" --.... --.-.-.---.. -.. --.-
3D f---.----.---._.-- ---... --.---.--.-----------I\: -.--. -.. --··--·----41-+4~-I-.. -·-+-------+·--·-----·----__ll0
f-------_.f---------1---.-------.-----f------.------1\--
1------. --------------.------------.-------.------. ----------
.------------.-1-------~-I-----.---------f----------------
-----.----.----
20 ---------------------1------.--1------------. --.-----1----------. -.---I\. __ -_._-_. -_-~ HH+-,-+f--1-~_-_+ __ +-_--{ 10
::~>== =~~:~ :~ .~~ ~~=,;:-~;::C:=;=-.• ~ __ ~~~ == -':::-:~= ,~ --:-~-=~~: _ . --
---.--------.-
10 _ __+--~-~-I-~~-~-~~~+__+_+_~_+-------80 -----_.-
--.------._.-----.--_. ~-._--
-----------f·---------.--.
-------1---_._--.---------------'" - ------
-------.--.-----. -----1-.--------. -----"" I-----1---.. ------
I --I-·----+--------·-=~IJ,;:,-;:::,-;-I-T--I~r_;--~~:-~-~ 1.-=1--.•. ::-~-~.-~:~-~~:.:: : _b~~~ :~-:-~-= 100 o ---.--f----1rT tT r 1"-'1.--1---1--, IT 1"1 tt
co CO
co co
... N
00 0 0 0 0
0_ ID ~.., ,...
co.. ID --... ... -.. ..... N -.. II> • CO CO
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES 11~~C~O~A.~S~(~~~I~~f~I.~(~--~C~O~A~.~S~(~ 1 __ ~M~(~O~IU~II~~L-I--~f~I~II~(----~
IUVEl I Sl.O "l
--.., co co N co -..... co 0 0
• 0 CI
FINES
--... co co
co co
N
co co
co
co
i
OEPlH-F' . Ul.
I.C. " U.S.C. CLASS IF ICATlON II 'l PI
16.0 SM eVery stiff to hard, gray, gravelly, silty
SAND, trace of clay
10 NV NP
Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
GRAil SIZE CllSSlflCATIOI
TP-3
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp_
December 1981 K-0469-01
CI SHANNON , IlLSON
I Illllc ••• caL C •• IUl,a.'1 ~L---~----~----~------------------__ --------~--J-~--L-~--~------~-------
I j • I I • • I I t f I I I t I I I • I I I I I I I
SIEVE ANALYSI S HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
I SIl( Of OPENIIIG IN INCKES I IIUII8£1 Of IIESH "U IIICH. U.S. SUNOUO I GRAil SIZE IN 1111 I
... .,r..._... 0 0", .:llea"'M r...
... M _ ;:;:;:,:::;:; " ... 0 0 : : 0 :=0 ~ ~ ~ ;; ~: :: ~ :
I 0 0 r----r----r-..... ---y----,.----r--.---.-.-r--r---~.--r----.-.---: --.-~.---~-~--,---..--.,---,,,--,--r -·--.-:.--rr·r.-......-',.:-· -r'-. -r" . --. 0 ,,~~~:~~~= ~~~~::~ ~ ~--. :.:.~: .. ~ e--"--'-"-~~~-~ 0~~-~ -::.-.-~~-
t--_-.-.. -_-I_I-.. -.. -.. +--+--l--.-__ ......... ~~r--+-... +. '+-'_+_'_+_.-~f--=--=-:~.-::-_':-.. _ .. _ ~. _____ . _ -_'.-i I--.. -._-.-.---._+---f-+--ll·--I--.--. .. _--:. ------10
1-•... -•• 1--.----.-.. ---------------1-... r---.. . ... j .. .---... ----.-.-.
101--·----1· I-f--_'--+-_'--j' _+_.-+-._ .... -+I\~-.+. +"-1' ~I-_ .. -+-.. --... -I-.= __ " ___ ... _. .-._-.-.. ----.-. ...: f-___ ._.~ .. -.. _._ 20
"-""-"-'-'--'" ---1-\· ...... -.-.... -... -. --......... --.. -... -.--... ----
::.~=-... ~. -::~ = ~ . --.---. ~j' .. ......._ .. ~::.:~ -:-:-~~.=::.::. :=--=-~:= .. .. " ~:~= =~ :---j= --~~'--:--~= -C-~--:--:~ ~~::::.~~: :+. --..... -
60 .-_.f-.. -.--".'_-,.: .. __ .~. ...-----.---...... -". . ____ ._
-,.-._ ... _----_ .. -.. --.. ------.... -_... . ---_. -. -_. _ ... -_ .. -.-
--.. ---.-'-
f----
... -30
--.. -40
---... ---. ---.. -.. -----.-.. -. '-'-'-'
50 ::.-:..~=-:.....~-:~~ -::':~~.~.::.' .\-.. ---.-.. --.-~:: ~=-----:-:--.~-=-.. -..
~:=:: : ::: ::: ~-=. ~ ~-:----:-~ ~ .~: .. :~= -~=:=:===~ =-=:::.:-;:.:~, --+-,
4 0 .--. -----lr+-i-H-. ,... ..
" § ~~ ;:;::~ ~~,= -:: ~=; ~-~'-'~ .... -.-====.tl---=~--=~--~~I--=~'=-=~:"-'~'-~~~~::"~~" .~ -.
---...... --'-C-'-'" -1----.-50
---+i-HH-4-r-r--' ---70
.. -
-4-·+-·---80
--.
~~~~~~ ~::~:= ~::.~ ~~ ~:' ~-.= ~--.~~~~ ~'~ .. _. -_.-~~ ~== ~--:--~:.
2 0 t---tr--t--t---t--t--t--+-t-+--t---+--t-·---·+-~--t---t---I-'--f----I-·H-t--I-----I ----,f-HI+·-!--.-r------10 ..... _ .. _-.--._. -.. ---.. , ._---~:~==-~-~--:--= ~~ =~= ~~~ ~~::--~.~ ~~ =-'.=--"---~~' .~.~~~~=---==~~~ =-:-=.~: ~ •. ~~ == ~ .~ ~~ .:-'~~--.. -
10b------i~-+_;--~_;---+·-1·_II__+_-l----4--~ ~----_++rf-+4·~4-_+·--
--... _ ...... --
o o ... <:>
o ...
COBBLES
00 0
o ....
I
I
o 0 ......
COUSE
o ...
I
nAVll
-_-_~ __ :=.~=== _____ -==-~.--.~~~ =-~~:: __ ~ _-.' :_=: r-~ ~.~~ :=-.:~~:.=:. _.
--'iTl"I!1 ).) -.. '---HITT ',_.! ----TTl \_ ...
--10
..-..... _--
.. _.-._-
o ...... ... .. ..... -ID ID . . • 0 0
ORAIN SIZE IN MILLIMEtERS
f UE I COUSE I liED lUll I fill(
I SAID 1
... ... ...
0 0' 0
__ . __ -LLLL4-L_~_~ __ -L ____ ~IOO -.....
00 0
• 0 0
FINES
... ... o a o a
...
a a o a
I
SA.'ll
110. OEPTH-f' . U.S.C. CLASSIFICAtiON 1IA1 . LL 'l PI •. c.
TP-4
5-1
3.5 G\~
I
• Brown-gray, sandy GRAVEL, trace of silt
Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
GRAIM SIZE CLASSIFICATION
TP-4
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
December 1981 K-0469-01
~ SHANNON' IILSON
~~------~--------~--------~--------------------------------__________________ ~ ______ L-__ ~ __ ~ ____ L-______ ~I~I~.~'~IC~II~.~I~C~.~L_C~.~.~.~U~L'~.~.~'~. ____ ___
I • I J I j I » I B I I I I I I I I I I • I I •
,..
t-I
G") .
SAIIPLE
NO.
TP-5
S-l
SIEVE ANALYSIS .
I SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES I NUIIIU OF IIESH PEl INCH. U.S. STANOUO I
... ... ... .. ... a a
"-"-"-"-"-g a a a a a -.., on -.., -... ... ... .. ... '" ... ..,
a a a
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
GRAIN SIZE IN 1111
_ 10 ..,., N ... _OCt 00 Ct
a aDo 00 Ct
I
a
a
~-~----------,.----,.---'....-.,..--.. ----.-T""1r-1,-;---T'----n-rT--r-...--r--r--· -r-'---. 0 " }--;~; ~ ~_:: ~_~ .•. -:.:---~~ _~~:~:~_~~ ;_.~_~~ ~_:-~_:~.~ -:~ ~ ~_ ~--< __ .-t11-f-'-t-t_·t-·-f· :-t-'--t~' .~:'-~:..~-10
.. -.---'.. . I·-·'\. .. '" ----.. . .... . .--....... ---. ---
80 ._. ______ . • __ .-. -++++4-4--+-. r--' ----.--20
10 t----+
.... _.-.-... ----. -_. ----'-_. -----. _ ..... -._-_._---.---..
. -_.-.. -. -----.-------.-.--.....
.. -.. ---------.-.. -.......... -.-. . t--". - . _ ..... _-----. . "... . ....... -------'-_ .. .
. -..... -.. _.: .... r-.-.. "' ... ------.--
80 .... " .. -..... -. f-. .. '. -.--.-----.... ..... __ '_'_ ,'_ _ f-.• f-. _ .
----------... . ....... .
. ---.---._.---.'--.
-.. ----------
~ 0 -------..... --. ..:..... ~--,-=-.----. --. , ..... -.. r' r--i--'
---.. -'----.-J 0
..
. .. -.--.--.. -40
---~O
...
E=--~~~ 1= '~~~ ~~ 2~ t---. --.. ~~ ~~~k=~ =~=~ -=-~ ,~~.~ :~~.~~:~~ -+
40 .~ ,-.--·~t~~_+ ---H-I-t-l---. '----1---10
1--"--.-.... , .. -... --.-~._. --... -...... -
r-----··--.-.-.. . .. -------., . -.,,--.. " .'-r--'----
J 0 ~-,-... -.-: =-~ .~= ::~-=--~ " 1-::::..: ~ ~-=:: r:.---. ~. ---.-::.:.=..'~='
-I--
1---. --... ---'-.. -r--, .----. .-. , .. '-' ... -. " '--'----.----.
----r---.---.-.-.,. r-f--_. ---.--.. ---"'--. " .. -.. -.. ,.--....
-----.-------c---.-. ----·-f--=-~ .=--=-~:"." --:.::: '=-:"--=:_I--~~ --..::=-r=.=~' ~==-20 --------.. ---... ---. . __ . __ _
. .. I···
--+j-HH--f-+-+-· -11-----1 10
.-...... -.. -.... _ ..
f-.-
+--+---+---+---.--10
_ ... -r~~:=~~~~=~~===·~ --·:~r~r~: ... ·~-. ' __ '.;~~'~~ · __ ~~=F· .. ~~t=g~=~ ~~.'~ =.
'0 ----.-,,-... '----.... --.,,-... ~ .-, ---+----1-+-++-+-+---1---1---
-'-80 -... -. r---. -.-. ---_.
--' .. ' .. _.-" "'-""
._-.. -----.-.. ---.. .-_.-..
0" '1'-r"-~n rT r Ir-, .'1
a a ..,
O£""-fT .
a a ...
COBBLES
a a a a .....
I
I
U.S.C.
a a ......
CDUSf
a ...
I
navEl
---. t------r---.----.... -. ---.. -. -.._ .......
... __ .-------_._. -.""-.--.---_. -"-"'-.-
--+-----1--.-.-t---.---... -"-'---"-1-'"'' ............ -.. --... -
Tl·----·-n Irrr·rir--.-i-'l-' . --, T I Ir ...
a ..... ... ... -.... ... ... -.. .. ... .., ... . a a a 'a a
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
I
I FINES I CDUSf I liED lUll I FlU flU
I .uo
MAl. LL PL PI '.C. I CUSS IF ICU ION
3.5 GW-Gf1 • Gray-brown, slightly sitly, sandy GRAVEL
-.. "---... --.... _.-
. __ ............. --
... ..,
a a a a
... a a
. --
a
a
100
Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
GRAI. SIZE CLASSIFICATIO.
TP-5
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
\) December 1981 K-0469-0l
I 'NANHON , IILSON
~ 11.'IC •• IClL C •• SUL' •• 'S ~--~------~----~--------------------__________ ~~ __ L--L __ L--L ____ ~ ______________ __
"T'1
H
tn .
I I I I
-~
a:
U.I z
u...
;-
Z
&1.1 o
I , II I I I I I I I I i I I • I I I I I I
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROIIETER ANALYSI S
I slzr OF O,rIlIIlG III IIICHrS I IIUIIIU OF IIUH 'U IIICH. U.S. SUIIOARO I 8UIII SIZE III 1111 1
-co
.. ... • M
co co "CDN _ .. a DII) .. .., N
co ;; : : co co
... co
co "'-'-"" 0 a CI a CI a a a a a
I 00 r-_--,,-_.-r-......... __ ... r--.-__ -r-,,M_ .... ......,-,-"'..-.--._.-____ ._ • ... .. ... ,---T ... -r-.-+...,..:--r-·----,~~.....,r_.,.-..:--.:... -r'----.--. 0
'-:-.'==~'= -=-~ .= :::==~ ~. 1 .. -' _.: _:. ' ... _~:-"."--'--.-=-_ .. _.-_. =~..:'-=" ..... ..: ... ~ .' .. :::' ..:' ·f-"': ....... .
' .. ~ .. . : .. :---=..:: ~.::. --~ .:'~: ::. ::: .-..: .... :.= . : -. --~~:--.. -== -" --'--:.=.' :..===-:"::::: ~ ~~~ . =' .... _. -
80 f--. f-'-r-f--.-.--.-I---.. .J+._I_l-.J.......J--I------4.--;------: 10
:: '''::'1--:''-: --~: =:-~=It\-·· .... -..... 1-._-1----_ .. ' -.. ------. --. -"-' . . . '--' ---.-f--.. -...... ---.---.. '-._-.-
f-.-'-"" .'-..... . . __ . ----._--.... .. . ..... -
80
' .. _ .. --. '" --.---... --
J---J--t-lI--4--lI-...... -I-++-t--+.-f--.-. . ..... 1-.-... -~.:~~-:=~. ==~~..:--.. = ==~~. :-..... :. .::: -:.-'.~'--" :~.~~.:.~=~..:~~==-~~.:=::.:::: .... --.-1= -.~ .. -. -
JO I--".=~ ~.':'~ ."-.--·1\ .. -. ---. .-.. ---------.f---. ;..:_.~ -----1-__. ___ _
-'-.-.. _-.... _ .. _-..... ---
~.~-+-+--+--.-... -.. --ZO
...
.... -.--.-J 0 .---I-'
~.~==..:::~..: ': .. ~:-=_:: .. :::..::..: \.. .. ==-f----.'~~""r=::
f-. .. ..' .... -.f--_. -.-..... :: i_~~~_,li~~~'~~~&~ ~ -;~ __ ~~~~~~ -__ ~~ _~_-_ --: e-
._-.. --
....
--~o .-
t=.::.===-... --.1--':-::' ~ --=== .. ~ ..: , ___ ~ . ..:...: ~ '.-.'" ... ..:-___ . __ 1--__ 1--._ -:.:. . ..: ... : :-:'''::::::::'. ::---
40 -_ ---_+l--I-~--+-+-
..... -.. ..... -
--80
f,------. '-1--.... -.. ---.-.. f-------. . -. --1------I·
f----------1----1----1-----. ---'--1--' --.. _-. -
1--._-... -" .. -._.-. ---" . .-.......
f---.-----1-------.. -... ---. . ~ -....... --.. ----... --..
J 0 .-.. -.. ---I~~--I--I-l~--<I--.. ----J 0
f-.--.. '='::::~::: ~:::~ -:-~.:: _--:-.:' ..::~=_~~:::= ....... -::.::: -=.:~::...:::~ -..... -...... ~:~:::.-"'. ~ .. -_ :=_ ....... -
20 ..:-:..:::::~..: ..:~.'.:::~ .=~~= ,-=-"':'.~=~ ":':~-~f~-----.-.. -;-.::-.:..::~= ..... ' -... -.. ------~ .. ....j.+_I~-._I_---+-... -... -._I_-~ 10
~~~~=~=~ =~ == == ~.~. == ~.~:== ~~.~ -" ;~ .• ~~_-~ ~_ .. ~ .... ~ ~-~-=~ :.-:= .~~~.~~ ~:.":~~ L~I~'~ ~.~.~~~:~~:~ .1-.. ----..
. .... --.... -. -_.-.-----
--.. -.. -.----. ..-------.---'I~---. -. ..-... f-. f-
10~---_I_~~f___+~f__-+~~-_b_+--~~-----~------_b--~dr--_+---~----_I·~-f-+_~---~---~Hr~~f--t--~:':'-=-~-::-. ..:-:::.. .=== :.~ ..:-..:" .~~~ ':''' ... :_= ..... _.-~.-~-. ~ ___ .-==-:-.~.~~~.-t:..::'-=.~.= ~_~~.~~.~=-~:.-.--10
.. -" .--..... '-''''---
... -... ---'-"'''---
... _-_.-----------.. -.. --. 1--,. ,---. •• --.... -. .-.. _ ... --.-_ .... -
o -',' "'--IrTITT ',1-1' 1-,"--ITl'! II I ''1--'---1 I -.-'111'''-...
co
CO ... o COD co co co co ..... -__ ~Pl N -.. o o. tel ~... ... • co
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMEtERS
COBBLES 1,~~C~O~'~.~s~r~~I~--~F~III~r~--~I~cO~'~I~S~r~IL-~II~r~O~I~U~II~~IL_ __ ~F~I~II~r ____ ~
'I'vrl I SAIIO
J
I
...
CO
. M
CO co ... co -..... co co CO
• co co
FINES
. .-_ ... -"-"'-....
co co
co co
... co
co
co
co
100
, I
-ID
SAII'LE
liD. OUIII·FI. U.S.C. UT.
•. C. CLASSIFiCAtiON II Pl PI Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION TP-6
S-l
3.5 GP • Brown, sandy GRAVEL, trace of s i 1t
"
TP-6
Stone & Webster
December 1981
Engr. corp_
K-0469-0l
c-> SHANNON & IILSON ,~ IIOTICIIIICAL CO.'ULTA.T' . cnL------L--------L-------L-------------------________________________ -L ____ ~ __ ~ __ ~ __ ~ ____________________________ __
i i • i ; i i i
I Sll( OF OP(NING IN INCH(S
if
11
SIEVE lNALYSI S
II • • • II •
I IIUMI(R OF M(SH PER INCH. U.S. STANDARD I
II
"'
I ,. I I I I I I I I I •
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
GRAIN Ill( IN MM I
...... ~ _ ~ S S ~ ~ <> ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ .;:;: S ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
, :: r~-_'---~=-.~-~~"'e--.. ~-~--Y-O-~-:_~-Y. _.~--.:=-~r-----~--'.-r-~~-_:-~_·.~r-~-'1t....--:T._-;T~--_=-'. -=~-~-_---_~T ___ ---""'; r{~_~_; -~;i ~~ ~ ~--~~-'=~-L-~-~~' _"'-'~f-~---.1----.-'--.--. -''--'--~~~_~~:~::._-'.:'''~ ~~~~: •
-. - ---.--. -'-.... ---.. --f------... ---.-... ---.. ---.. --
~ .-----~=::= ~.-~= :::::~::'--:::: .. -----.-_.-. '-' --
--.. _-------
10~.--+-~~+_~~4--+-4-~~-+-~~-~~~~----l--'-'-..I--jI---J.--+--J.----'---'---? 0 ._----_.---.-.. ------_. -_.-------
-'--.--f-----. ..--.-.-.
---' --. f-----.. - .
-• _____ . ___ • ____ • _. _ •• _._ .o-
lD ------1-----1--+-...... -1-----.. _1----+---,.::::_"""'=-_1-__ .... _
t------.. -----.-- -.-.-------
------1------.. .-----.-.--
. ..
--.-f-----
~_~:-= :::::--I-. --__________ ___ __ . _ ... ,_ ....
.. c=:=~= ::-~~-~--•• --,--------~ _~-________ ~~~--'-I~ _~-= _-~--
--------.-... --------1\
:I 0 ~--__ -_ -_-_-+.-_-_-_-+-.. -_+.-_..=-:~: _--.. _-_.-1-_-__ -1----1-1--.. + __ --_+-._+ __ -_-_ '::'-'--= ~-.-_--._-_-J-_-._-_-__ -_-_.I-_-_-.-._-_+-_-_-__ -_.+_--_-_-_-.. -1--1-1--\--1--__ _
t---------.----.-... ----f--.. ---. ------.. -------+---1--. --------1" -
30
---40
-H--H-.f--I--I -.-. -----:iO
f-..:.'::::==--::::_--~--::::_ --:--~ -~-_= I--=-_. ____ I--.--1------1-----------c,-.-.
40 ~====i==JC=±::::=Jr=JC==1[-~~t=1=~i~~~::.~~i=~====t=====t::::===t===+---~-+-~---------.~~~-+-4-_·~_-_-_+---~10 ,---. ---. --1---. --- --. -----------------.-.
f--------------f--:::':"--_= -=---= _ ~_ ~ f= ~_I -= :.:. -_. ____ . ----I'=--=--=--=--=-~t::.-=--=--=-t-~=:= ':::.:-::-_._-..... _-
30 1--.---po --------------------_._---+-----1-----1---1------.---
1-----.---'---~-----------1----1---~--~-.. -:-=j_=-===±====::t=:j==-=. -t-=---::::-=-.::::. -~tjI=Nt --_. ----"'--.-----.-f----,.. f--f-----.-.-.---------------+----+--1---.------.-. -1----
-------------f---.--I------1---'---.------ -.-------------l·· . -"-----.. --- -
------"------.-.-------1--.---------. __ --.-_-_.-~. f..----I----.--------J-----+-I-----------. ~_Hh-I_··+I\_\___f----.-I+-I-+--I---I--.f-.---f---t-----I 10
~~=--=-~..:. =~ ~-~::-: ~:.::~~= '-~~.~ :-~ .~~.:--~~~~ 20
-_. _._-, ---------'" --.-~-
-----_.---.------------'-_. -_. ---_ .. -----._---I---------------.--.----I--e--'------... -------
-..... ------. -----.------1--1--
10 f--.--~--~~--~~~~~,_+_+~~--i-. --..-- . -------. 1".:----.--
--------f---------------.
.----.-.---------·----·1-
------f--.--------------.--f------.. -----
0--"1"-1---1m [T r 1,-I---:J -1 ---. IT 1-' tI
C>
C> ... <> <> ...
COBBLES
co co C>
<> .. ..
I
I
co C> ... ...
tOUS(
<> ...
I
ClUH
<> .....
FIN(
---.. ---------1--. __ . _._ .... -1-..... _-
------._-----. --1-
-----.1I--------J------1-----------... --'-
1 . -,----T ----11 I 1.--...... N -.... ... PI ...
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
tDAII( I M£DIUII I FIN(
I "NO
-..... • co co
1
=-~ :~ -.~ ~-~ .
.. -.. -_.,_. ---- -".'---rw,..._--.
......
<> <> ...
<>
-..... -
D : :
co <>
fiNES
--
--~IO
---_ .. -------._-
... ...
<> <>
<> <>
...
<> <>
--
<>
<>
100
I
UMPLf
110. O(PTH-FT. U.S.C. CLASSifiCATION UT. LL Pl PI Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION
I)
H
G"l .
TP-7
S-3
2.0 r1L eLight brown, gravelly, sandy, peaty SILT
I.C. "
NV NP
TP-7
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
December 1981 K-0469-01
~ SHANNON I IILSON
I IIOTICNMIC'l COM'UlT'MT' ~L---~----~----~------------------__ ------~~~--L-~~ __ ------------------
i
SA .. 'LE
liD
TP-7
5-1
= ; i
I
.. • ; i
SIl( OF OPfNlNS IN INCHES
SI EYE ANALYSI S
• • : • I: •
I NUIlIER OF IIESH PEl INCH. U.S. SUNDUD I
:
"
II • ! ! !
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
··GIA IN S Il£ IN· 11111
... 410,....,... Q 0110 .. ea ~ ..,
C> C>
C> C>
! !
...
C>
a
1
-C>
C> _ ;;;~:::;;;" a ~ ~ ~ 0 ~o ~ ~:;: ;; ~:
I 0 0 ~--~~'---<"'-~'-""'--~""'-T-"--'T---r--.--.--:.--.-y----.-""T""'~_r_..,..:.-"T:....--. :'..-,.:""",,--r---.'--'-_ ... --. 0 -_._--~.-. .-.---_ .. _.-_. '-".--_ .. -_._.-... _--_. __ ... --.-'.~ .. ~~-.~; ~~:-~~.~ ~=> --~ ---_ .. -.,. ----.. ---~:.-:---~-~: -~ -~= --=--~= ::. ... =~=~-=:.---+-
90 .-f-,-----f------.-
~----_.-=\t -~ .. -
--r\--. .. ". -c--
... ------------.--.-..
-------------"
. -.--f--.-----.-------.-' .-...
. ---._-t-.----------. --.-. -----
80 1--__ -1---1_-1---1,_ ..... -" ......... -1-+--1-1-_ __1-_ --"'--
---.. -----1·--.. -••.. ~---.--.--.--.. -. _. -----.-.-----f---;-.-.-.-----.
------.-f------' ----"-'----. ...----. -. .--------.-------.-....
___ •• -___ 9 •• -_ • _ .",_... .... • ••• ____ •• __ .... __ • _,_ • _____ •• ____ _
----.. -,,-----... ----_. . ---' ----' .-. ----.. -_ .. _._---... _--
-1---. ----.U.-I-'-+-'+---.. ---_ 10
1 .
'-"--.-20
JO --f----------.~~.-+-+--+-t---+--. 1----------1-----1---. ~---... -f..-.---.. --'--'--' ~~.~~; ~':-~'-~'-~ --:~ ~~=-\i\ ~-.. -.--30
---. ----.----1-----
. ---.-.--..
60 ----f------1-------------------f----+---t-.--. --.:-~ -~-
----.-.-------_.
50 I------ll---+-ll---+-
• --. --.-t\ .
?\--f---.. -.--.~. ". ___ 1-. ______ .
~-----. -------1--.-'-----'---'
f--.--.. ----.---.-. -.-f-----..
. ----,,-.-----' ------.--.--+----f --. -----.. -..
.. ----
I-~-f--f-.----"----40
-.-. --.J.4.~-I.---4---f ----50
--
40 -1---· ------~~-.30,--.L__---_I_.-.-. _-----II--I--.-==-_-_-I-r-__ -+-_~-.---I+I-J-.f-~-._-f----80
1------------.-. --.--.-1--f---- --. .. - -1----+_---+.-. -------....
--.-
1---------I------. -. '-' .. -. 1 K ------t--.-b----..... ---= 1-.:1---1--.--
----------------- --I-----1--' ------.-------1--------·-··-----r· --
f..---------.----·--·-f--I--f--------------.--+---1----1-.-.----.. -. -. - ----.
3 0 I---+-~I--+--~--+--+--I-+-+-+--+--+---~,__l_-.-__Ii_-_II_-+_-_+--_I__++___t-f----.. ----+J~r_I-4-4--.-------J 0 ;~~ ~;:~ ~ ~-~~-~ '-~ ~~~ ~== =; ~~ -~~:~ ~~ -.-. r-"~~ ~= C~~= ------... -:. . ... -
20 __ " _____ . ___________ . __________ "_". ___ . ._~ ________ . _________ . ____ . __ . ..----_'-'-'--l-l~-_'.~-.-+_--....I.O
---_._-. __ . --._. ---.. ----. ----_.. ..----~~ ---_ .. --. --.----.
f-----I----------.-----------~-'-'-1---.--.... ------, ---~--. '-'--'" ----------
I 0 = .... -.~~ -=_ ---~=;; ~; ~-=I-: ~= :~~ .~~ I'~ ....... _ .. _-_._-._.-_ ~~_ .. =i== ?~_-~ ~~._.~.~ ~~~-.~ ,~-. :-~ ~ ---I----+H-H-+-+__If-------80
--_ .. -
------._---.. -
-----.--.---.-~---_ .. -----.-----.f---"-.-. ,-, , -.--'w--,-
o ~--_+I--.....L.--·-~Ir~nh...l_:!--l ,JJ-L--:!ll----,!-I-...l--;-1~·-1-_"-.Lf--'~ITl~-~rtl..JL.L-I.J..··1 _'--:' L_-_"-_-n~trn...L...1-L.1ll-...LL·_-T.L·-_.L_·-_·luiT1....lALr.-..L·-1· .........L---L--....J. __ ---.JLL.L.L.L._.L...._1 _____ ...L...._--J 100 a Q Ooa 00 Q 0-., __ ,.,,... __ _
00 0_ CD ~ M ....
..... .., ... GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES COARSE I FINE I COUU I liED lUll I flU
I UAVEL I SA.D
-., ID
• c> c>
1
1
~ ..,
C> C>
...
C> c; :: :
C> C>
FINES
~ ..,
a c>
c> c>
... a
c>
c>
c>
!
DUYM·n. U.S.C. CUSS IF ICU ION .Al.
i.c. " LL Pl PI Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION 4.0 GP • Light brown, sandy GRAVEL, trace of silt
TP-7
Stone & Webster
December 1981
Engr. Corp.
K-0469-01
~ SHANNON I IILSON
~ IIO,IC •• ICAl CO.IUl,A.'1 OOL------L-------..L-------L----------------__________________________ J-____ L-__ L-__ L--JL-__________________________ _
I I I i
>-
al
cr:::
lLI z:
u...
I-z:
lLI o
I •
L
I t I 1
SIEVE ANALYSI S I
SIl( Of OPENING IN INCHES I NUMBEI Of .. ESH PER INCH. U.S. SUNDAlO I ...........
........ "''' "'-
... ..... <> <> ... <>
rD
<>
<> <> ...
<> <> ...
I
......
<> <>
I I I I
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
GRAIN SIZE IN ....
...
<>
.. ...
<> <>
<> <> <>
... ... <> C>
C> <>
I !
...
<> <>
1
-<>
<> <> • 100 r-____ ... r-~ ... -~M~-~._.~_.-_.M.-~._-._M.r__.
.. .~~:.:_-~~ L ~= ~..... ... +:=f~~~=~: --... -__ .. ---_=--_~-._~-::-~-::--=--~----------=-.--:~~.~~~~:~~:---.~---=-:-~:-.-.,~--.~-.-.~-.---~~-_----~.TI_-.. ~-:---...,:::..-.~r-=-~-:---:-~'I--'-.. _~~ .
'..-,':"-'---":'---y'--.-'--... --. 0
~. 41\~ :'~-~ ...... .
···1 ~~-----+-80r---~~_+_4--~_4~-_+_+~~~--+-_I-----._, __ .. _0-____ _ .. _ ~ __
_. -_._--... ---.. _--.. _ .. --.-•.. ---.----_...-....... _. _ ... __ .. __ .
" ==--== == ~ i ~-G \; ... _ ... ----:----
--... ----_."
6 0 ... _ .. _ _ .. _ ._._. f.-__ I--~ _ . ~ _.---.-------
. ..... --.. _._--1-----... --'----_._-.. _--. ---_._-._--.---_ ... _. __ .
. -·-·--I-----i---f---+----.. --I--I~·---'---------
-... --.... -.--. --f--.--.---
---+----4----f-.. ·---+-----II-
.-.-----r--.. -f-.-..
.. --'---.--... -.---_._-
----.. --.. -. f-....
. --------_.-"-'-'
---,-
_._._-.--_. .. -.. -.
---
..-...
1--.-
I----~ =.: -:. = .:__ ..' J\: .... ------.---\-... I \.,.
50 f~=~~ _~:.:: ~= ~=~=:; ~~ .. :~,~ _~. ~~~ts ~~=.~=-= ~~-=------~-.--= ~_::.~ ~~~~.~~ ----
_______ 10
++-+-.. --+---+_.----... -----.-20
._ .. -.-----30
'--.-.-----40
---50
40 ..... -..... , ,.. r-...;. -.--.. ------1---------"--.-. ______ -++-++-1-......
" §~ ~~ ~:-~;~~ ~ _ r-~ ,~ :~ ::.~------f---.:~~ ~~~=~ 1;.-____ . _ _ ...._
---f-H+-I14-f----+------1 10
--I-----80 .
~=~ ~~.;;~~~ ~;~ ~ ~~ ~~-~= -; .. -.~_:~-~ _____ -=;~~~ ~L~~~ ---.. --.... --:.::--:..= -~:_:: .~~~._._
20r---~~_+_4--"'-_4--_+_+~~-~--~~------~---~~+-----+--_4---~--~~~_+_4~-~---~~HH-~·-+~---+·----~'O
.-.. -.--.------.----.-.-'--'-'----•.. -.• -.---.. -.... --.-~ .----.------... ----.. 1__.--
---. -.-----c---.--.. -----.. -. '. -. -.. --. ----' .. -... --'--'---. -.-._ .... _-.. --.. --f.----------.--.... -.--.-.--.. --. -.-.-.. --.-----+-'~ ....... ,-:..---.. -'_-'.-.-' .-.. -.-_-_-. --_ -r ...... __ . -_.----.-.... _ ... -_ ..
10 -.------... -------->---. -_. r' .-~ .--------
--.~------t---~~~+----t-----~~-~~~--~-----H-~~~--+-'-. ------10 ..-.-.--.. _________ ---.~ p--....b...-_ ... ~ .•. -~_~::::. .. -_~-== I,~ ' .• -----.~ .-:.-~-..::~-: _ .. -. --_ ~~::== --.4---~I---I----------. . -...... -.
-..... -.------.. -.-.--.---1--'._-.-.. --
-"-.. ------f·--.-.----.---.--... '-.--
0--"1-----TnT r 11---T··~ ---lIn 1
o
<>
<>
<> ...
COBBLES
<> <> <> <> .. ...
I
I
<> <>
• COl
COUSE
<> ...
I
UAVEl
<>"" ...
fiNE
...... -.. ---f-.-----~ . .--... --.---.. -----.. -
I "1 ---TT .. ~·~ .. --~--I--T---.) 1 1,--'
• COl ... -.... . ... ... -..... • <> <>
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
I COUIE .. EDIU.. I flME I
I IUD I
... ...
<> <>
...
<>
FINES
'--
__ .. _--OL-__ .....J I 00 ... ...
<> C>
<> C>
...
<> <>
<>
<>
sa .. PLE
NO. OEPJH-fl . u_S.C. CLASSIFICATION MA' .
I.C. 1l LL Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
TP-7
5-2
4.5 GP • Gray, sandy GRAVEL, trace of silt GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION
TP-7
lLI •
cr:::
lLI
CI')
cr::: -o
U
I-z:
lLI
U
cr:::
lLI
A..
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
CI December 1981 K-0469-01
I SHANNON , II UON
~L-------~---------L--------~--~-----------------------------------------------l~----1---JL---1----1---____ ~.:E~.~':EC:M:.~I~C:A:L~C:.:.:.:U:L:'A:.~'~.~ __ ___
•
n
I
I I
~
CD
a::
l&J z .....
I-
Z
l&J o
I I I = I t I j I I I f I I I I I I I I I
SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
I SIZE or OPENING IN IIICHES I NUIIBER or IIESN PER INCH. U.S. STANOUD I SU INS I ZE IN 1111 I
N m m ~ M N _
co.. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 0 Q 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:;:: ;; ~: ~ ~ ~ ~
I 00 ~.-... _--:-:-._.-~"'~-.' .-_~"'-_~_"'~=_.~. -T=r~l-r"'fr-T""~':-f;."'~~~~'-=l~·~···~'~]-.~_.-.. -... N_~.-"'~~~.::~:" .. _~~-:-.---...--.-.-.--r-' .. ==~'--'-' :"~~~T-:-... ---'0
80 ~'.---' -... -_-_~ .. -~~-:~-. ~-:·--~+--+--I--+-+-.'~ '.~.~ ~ .. :=' .~~;~.~~~ ~~-~".~. :::~.-.:. --I' --.... ----.---.-. f-r·II-_· f-.r---.' -_.--·.··-·---2 1.0
0
..-... . -... -.~~ =---.~~ ='.=-~= . -' .: ....
o ._'_ .... -.
B ~-~-+-+--+-+_ .. -._-_=_+-.::::-+.-~.Hr-I---._t.-.-t .. I_--.'.-... ,-_-.~ ... :-:=~::-::~) _.::':', ~.'_'-.'~' '. _
=~_: -:== .. :,~: .==-~~-=:: ;"'~_~~+ __ ---jl_ . ... _ .. f-.. -._ .. I
. '.. .:= -=-=:.:..: ~:: .. ~-:-:'.
_ ... -... -.
... -.... -.-.. --. . .... _.---
10 -----.--·----1-------t--I-i---r-------. ..-.--l °
t-..... ----.. --. .. -....... .
. --... -. --. ~. . . .... -------~~\.-. -.
60 I-1_,_ ._._ -'~ .---------.. -'--"'--.-:: -----. - ------=: -=::::-w:
50 ------.----=-. ~ :.. .-.... f-,--.-.... -.-. __ ".' ___ ._ .. _ .... _\
... -.. -.. ---.. -----
40
...
. .. ' ..
.-----50 i-~-~-. -·~-+·i-_+----.-..
_. --.. -._------.-.-. -f------.--
.-."-'-'-. . . 1--... --... -----f----
4 ° --1----. t------1-·-.. --
t-.. --. -" .. --_. . . -._._=:.-=.~--1--1\ -:... _ .. _--: .
... ---........ -..... ... ..-'-"'-1--' . --l\--
.-----. --.----. . .. --... -1--._-~~ ,.of-=-_~_.~--: .:.. ..
"--~~ •.•• ~ .• ~ -.--~~~~~;;~.~ -~~ ~: ~ •• ~--~~~'=---~~~~\~~: .. ,--
20 I----+--+-+--I-I---+-+++-t--.-.-----
--f--. f-----B °
--tt-+-t-t-t-· f-------10 -
1-. -1---· .---10 .. -._----
. ----.-------... -.. _. . .... __ ... -..... -.. _-----_.-.------' ~--.-.. -.. .
..... -.-:::-~-=--:-=-.-:==--==-'~.'-:. '-:.-.. ,=.--: ::: .--·---i+H-t---~~=-~--'--:'IO
--~-.:---~r::::--=---f_-.. -.--.~-. ~ --.
I-~ ... -.... --. --"--. ___ .. -f-.-....
1 ° ~.--'--+--+--I---l---1I---,H·-+-+--
. _ .. -.. _--.,-_._---_. --_. _.-... :-::':" ._-' ,.:': ... -._--
.. -
... . --.. -1--" -. f-'-'-"-f-.-. -..... .-... --. ° --T-----In T r 11-1'1' 1-1 -111'111 L' l··---·--Tllrrrrlr-,-r· -)1 -" ..
co ... .. .. ... co a ..
co .. .. .. .. ... ... co
N
co ..... ... ... -.... ... ... . .
GRAIN SIZE IN 11LLIIETERS
-.... .....
I COUSE , IN( I cOAin J IIEOIUIi I , IN( COBBLES 1~~~~~'~.~A!V(~l~~~--~I~~~-~~~S~I~K~O-L--~~---;l
... ...
co co
...
co
_ .... -..
-.... co co co
• co co
FINES
-....... _-....... _.-
.-.
.~.--'-------' 1 00 ... ...
co co
co co
...
co
co
co
co
I
SAIIPLE
NO. DEPTN-'l. U.S.C. CLASSIFICAT ION III ..
'.C ... II Pl PI Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
GRAil SIZE CUSSIFICATlOIL
TP-7
TP-9
5-1
2.0 SP-S~1 • Gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND,
trace of coarse sand and fine to coarse
grave 1 Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
December 1981 K-0469-0l
SHANNON' IILSON
1.llICKKIC.l COK.Ull.Kl. ~L-~ __ L-____ ~ ______ L-____________________________________ J-__ -L __ JL __ L--L ________________________ _
I I
SAMPLE
110
I I I I I I I I I I j I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I I
81 EVE AMALYSI S HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
I SIZE Of OPENING IN INCHES I NUMBER Of MESH PER INCH. U.S. S'ANOARO I G U IN $1 ZE IN MM I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q 0 a Q ~ ~:......, N .-:;g ~ ci ~ -C>
C> .... f") .-...,.,., _ M C"oI ... co _ C"oI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C)
I 00 -=-=-__ -.. --,_r-.• ~-.--._~----~-----.T.---.--~ ...... -~"'". ~'-~.-~·~~i~~~~~~~~~:~'_ . ~ -~ ~------~T ----.
901--__ -_-+_-.-.-+_ -_--' .. -+--. +1--' -.+-.. -+-=---'-. i"\ -:-:~---.:-.-.-~~:.-::..-=f-~---~ ..... -.. -.. ---.--------r .---10
80 I-~-_ .. -._-._-._+-_-._+--+---I~-..j.. . ~ ~ ____ ~ _~~. -~.-~-'.~ --.. ~:~-:~~~I~~·~ -~ . __ . ___ I~~_:I-·I:.-------.-... --20
.-... -... --. -.. ' --.-.--.. -f----------
-_._.-_. ----.. _ .. _----- -........ _ .. .
:: ~~~~: -.~.= .--.:~_ ~ --=~_ :._ --~:ISlli~·=~:-c i __ ..•.... ~ :-r --..
:-~ ~ -'~~.~--~ -.
~--&--.-.. -.--····----4----ILo---+---4-----' .-------. ~ ..._-_._-.
! •
- -__ 1_--__ ._ . .
50 f_----1---1--f--. I--
40 f----.:-.-.. -_.'.I-_--.-.. t-._-+. -__ -.--1. -+--+.--+-+---+-.-------.-----~~:.:~~_= ~=-~~ .~~~ ~ .•..
.. -.'-- - -,
._.-_._-...... 1_ =~~ -=:~ ----.--.--------== ~.~:~~ . -:.~-:= :=.' f'\ -
JOI-----I~_t__-_._+-.-._--I-_._-_+----I---I-_~ .. ~_I--_.t-_-__ 4-_-~----~---___,~-__+-._-_-__ -_4-_-.-__ 4------1-.-~~ ... ----. ..j..~+~4~-
--:.=:----~-.-:-'=------~=t=~=~ -~.-.. __ . _ ._. . ~. __ ~:_._~ --.-.. -.--..... 1--... -.'
---... ------.-.-----'1---'
_.-1-._---.. -.. -----
10---.. _.-
1__-·4-+_-l----l----r-~-+--I-
-___ .. _. '_' __ ' _._ .. _ .. ____ ._._ I ~
-.. -f---. ---
. '--' ... __ .. _-.. _. -------... --_ ..
------.-----_._------.--.-.
... --. -.---------f-----.-.. .---. .----- --.------
.. -. -----.. --------_ ..
. ----. ---f-------1---"'-+-4---I~----+4-+4-~",,",--l--
---.. ----f--.. -.. --.. ---.. --- - .
.-
--'--... _------.----_. ._--._.-_ .. ----_ ... -_.-
-.---.-- - -. ---.-... 1-.----.-.. ---.---.----I' -
o ~__:-I!:__···....,J-·f-L..-· --!!lrT~...Ll·_::r~II~·-!!----~l=_ .. ..J.·I~-,-....L.-L-~·· LLITl!:-·.L.IliI~L~I:l:_I·....,.·-L·----··-·-....J·llWLllT..L...1.1-..J.T....IIL-r,L·-.L---TL-_·.J _-.'.1..I .L.J IILAJlr....,J-L-..--L.......L-..L __ .L_. ___ I...L...L.1J-L-... ____ .L......_-I 100 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • CD -... ...., C"oI _ _ _ .. M N __ CD ...,
::: ~ c>. CD ..... ... GRAIN SIZE IN IIIlllllIIEJEiS . C> C> C> C> C> ~ :::: ~:: ...
C>
C>
COUSE I L fillE COBBLES I CUVEl
I COUSE I MEDIUM I fiNE I
I SAIIO I FINES
C>
C>
I J
OlPTH-fT U.S.C. CLASS IF ICAIION II AI . •. C. I Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
GRAIN SIIE CLASSIFICATION
Fault Gouge NA SM • Fault Gouge: Grayish-blue, clayey,
silty, gravelly SAND sized fragments of
tuff and calcite
22 40 29 11
Stone & Webster Engr_ Corp_
December 1981 K-0469-01
SHANNON' IILSON :.
I ~ L-______ L-________ L-______ -L ________________________________________________ ~L_ ____ 1_ __ JL __ _1 __ _1~--~1:E~.~':EC:N:.~I:C:IL~C~O:.S:U~L~':I:.'~S~ ___ __
..... ..
..... 140 -
-135
--130 ---125
· I--""" · ~
~
a:: 120
"'" -a..
· U) .. = ....
115
110
• -105
• --100 -• -95 ---90
-
85 ..
-~~---~\--r----\
Y ,
: , , , , , , , , ,
: , \ ,
, , _1 , , ,
-. \ ,
1 ,
\
\
I 1. \ , , , ,.
, , , \ , , , , \
~ \ ,
! , , ." " , , ,
, '
.. .\1 \ , I ,. 1. , .
I ,. , ,
! , ... , .. ,
'" \; "-, , .,
~ \ , . , ~ , .. , , \
l., \
1. ,! I
'-' \_,j':r M'-' 1 ... 1..111 Ii:...) I
SHANNON,& WILSON, INC •
II] STANDARD AASHO ( AASHO T~9-57. AS
D MODI FI ED AASHO (AASHO T180-57.AS
1M 0698-58 T)
1M 0 1557 -58 T
D OTHER
P ROJ ECT Tazimina R. H~dro Project
JOB NUMBER K-0469-01 DATE
SAMPLE NUMBER TP-3, S-l
DEPTH 16.0 feet wi1 TESTED BY CALCULA TED B w,l Y----
CHECK.ED BY Wil
UX. DRY DENSI TY 131 .0 LBS/CU. FT.
OPTI MUM W. C. 01
.0 9·~5
N ATUR AL W. C. 10.0 01 ..
HAMMER WT •• LBS 5.5
12 DROP. IN.
NO. LAYERS 3
NO. BLOWS/UYER 25
01 A. MOLD IN. 4
\ " I' HEI GHT MOLD IN. .-l.' l.'
" \f
1. \
" \
,l. ,
: " , ,
. . . ,
I • , .
, I
, j •
I· •
, ,
I . ,
0 5 1 0 15
'II
\ 0.033j "' YO L •• MOLD CO. FT. ,
1. COMPACrl YE ,
EFFORT-FT. L BS/CU. FT. I.
'\. ,
\. \. ~ . \:: "' fC" '" \~ SAMPLE CLASSIFI CATION Gra~z
\ '\~ silty SAND, trace'of c1
~
'\. '\. '\.~ ..
: ."
" ,~
, ." ~ '\.1'1. Was not ab.le to plot '\. T f"l.' a
'\. '\.I :'~ point as material ·was
\. I \.~ past wet point.
'\.! --.;-\. '($1
1. Y. '(?
Va ,~
" \.' .. , , . .... ,~ -:\.
\. :,
"\ .~ "\ , , ,
'\.! '\.. \.
"" "" "\ , \.
" " . '" ..... , "\
.. '\.. --\ ~ y' •.
'\.. ,
'\. '\.. '\.. -.... "" "\
f---.. " ,
-.... "\
'\.. '\. ,
-...... "" ;'\., , , '\.. , '\.. ,
-.... -....
" , , , '" .... \f " --, , , "-, l"\ " ..... """ "' '\. , , '\. , , ,
-. , , ., ---=+=----, , '\.
" "-"-.---t-------, " ---+ '\. " "-"-
gravelly,
ay
12%
way
, ~
'\. -.. ,-~-"-
20 25 30 3 5
ENT -PERCENT
NOTE: In the photographic descriptions and through-
out the report, right and left abutments are
determined by looking downstream.
PHOTO 1
LOWER TAZIMINA LAKE SITE, VIEW DOWNSTREAM
This photo of the Lower Lake Site shows the narrow
outlet created by moraines in the right center of
the photogra~h. The natural spillway of the lake,
to be used as the potential dam spillway, is located
at the right edge of the photo, just to the right of
the spit pointing upstream. Boring B-1 was drilled
on the moraine forming the left abutment, which rises
68 feet above the lake level. No bedrock outcrops
can be see n in this view of the valley.
PHOTO 2
RIVER MILE 12.9 SITE
VIEW ACROSS VALLEY TO THE NORTHWEST
The direction of flow is to the left in this photo
taken from the lowest bedrock outcrops on the left
side of the Tazimina River along the centerline.
Although the right side of the river along center-
line is just out of view (to the right), the exten-
sive muskeg lowlands, over which the dam centerline
traverses, are well depicted. The bedrock surface
slopes down into the valley to a depth of 80 feet
e10w the river at the base of this hill, and bed-
ock is at depth of 170 feet at :the river.
· ,~ ...•• __ .J ....
PHOTO 3
ROADHOUSE SITE, VIEW UPSTREAM
The prominent terraces of the right abutment (upper
left side of photo) can be seen in this photo taken
from just downstream of the centerline on the left
abutment. The left abutment consists of a core of
bedrock capped by glacio-fluvial deposits. Boring
B-4 was drilled on the right abutment 130 feet from
the river.
PHOTO 4
FOREBAY SITE
VIEW ALONG CENTERLINE FROM LEFT ABUTMENT
The topography of the right abutment can be clearly
seen in this photo taken from the left abutment.
Bedrock can be seen outcropping at river level.
Moraines of clean sand and gravel constitute the
highest hills above the river. Boring B-2 was
located on the first bench above the river near
the center of the photograph.
(
I
-I
PHOTO 5
LOWER SITE
VIEW ALONG CENTERLINE FROM RIGHT ABUTMENT
Bedrock outcrops to 15 feet in height along the
Tazimina River can be seen in this photo. Seismic
data indicate that overburden in the form of sand
and gravel overlies the bedrock to thicknesses of
up to 10 feet, for a distance of 300 feet from the
river on the left abutment, and 30 feet of over-
burden was noted on the right abutment 120 feet
from the river. This photo was taken from a prom-
inent high level moraine above the right abutment.
PHOTO 6
FALLS, AERIAL VIEW UPSTREAM
This view of the falls shows the talus beach at the
base of the falls, on the right in the photo a
potential location for a powerhouse. The rapids of
the Lower Site can be seen in the upper right corner
of the photo. Loose rock spires and blocks are
common along the walls of the canyon.
(
PHOTO 7
FALLS POWERHOUSE SITE, VIEW DOWNSTREAM
This is a close up view of the rocky beach.shown in
the previous photograph, one of the potent1al power-
house sites. The characteris~ic stee~ rock walls
of the canyon and whitewater 1n the r1ver can be
seen in this photo.
PHOTO 8
ALTERNI\T.f POWERHOUSE SITE, MOUTH OF CANYON
;
Another potential powerhouse site, a bench support-
ing a substantial growth of trees, is shown in this
. photo. The terrace above the bench rises 100 feet,
and a narrow slough, parallel to the river, runs
through the middle of the bench. Spawning salmon
were observed at this location in the Tazimina
River, which, from this point downstream, has a
very gentle gradient and low banks, as opposed to
the steep canyon walls and rapids common upstream.
(
PHOTO 9
JOINTED LITHIC TUFF
This photo, taken at the Lower Site, shows a blue-
gray welded lithic tuff, typical of the lithic tuff
mapped in the project area. Jointing is closely to
very closely spaced (less. than 2 inches to 1 foot).
This outcrop also shows the degree of fracturing
common in all of the exposures.
PHOTO 10
DIKE IN FRACTURED TUFF
The basalt dike, shown in the center of this photo-
graph, intrudes a highly fractured crystalline tuff
at this location. Dikes of this size, about 10 feet
wide, are common throughout the project area. Just
downstream, to the right of the photo, several more
dikes and two small faults were observed. This cut-
bank is 50 to 60 feet high.
PHOTO 11
HIGHLY FRACTURED BEDROCK CORE
The core shown i~ this photo is from Boring B-2,
6~ to 73 .9 feet ~ln depth. ~ This zone was 10qged as
hlgh1y fractured, containing frequent small gouqe
zones. Bedrock below 73.9 feet is less fractured
and, in general, of better quality.
PHOTO 12
GOOD QUALITY BED RO CK CORE
This photo shows good quali ty bedrock core from a
zone with joint spacing ran ging from close to
moderately close (2 inches to 3 feet) in Boring B-3,
60 to 69 feet deep. The li thic nature of the tuff
is readily apparent. A hea led joint can be seen in
the bottom tray of core; th e ce menting agent in this
case is silica. Calcite an d ep idote were observed
along poorly healed joints.
0"'-_' . ./_<. "c.
, I
".:.. _ ..
LEGEND
SL-2 SEISMIC LINE
BORING LOCATION
,EST PIT LOCATION
.....
" ".~
"~ ,,/
?,
/,.,
/
'i.,
'~'.
\,
./
!
."
SCALE 1 INCH ~20-00 FEET
CONTOUR INTERVAL 50 FEET
....
DOTTED LINES REPRESENT 25 FOOT CONTOURS
BASE MAP FROM USGS
ILIAMNA (0-5), ALASKA
1:63,360 (1954/REV. 1973)
\
.. ~ /
' ___ . ___ i
",
Lake
/
/
. -. ' ..
SITE pLAN
Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
December 1981
Shannon & ·Wifsonlnc.
K~ 0 469::· O.:t.
1
, ..
MAP UNITS
'.~ UNDIVIDED ALLUVIAL & GLACIAL DEPOSITS TUFF/HIGHLY FRACTURED TUFF
TALUS, RUBBLE & COLLUVIAL DEPOSITS INTRUSIVES UNDIVIDED
MORAINAL DEPOSITS METASEDIMENTARY ROCKS
OUTWASH DEPOSITS ANDESITE
TERRACE DEPOSITS DIKES
--.-
\
""\. , ...........
\ ""-au "
MAP SYMBOLS
CONTACT
CONTACT, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY
FAULT, SHOWING DIP OF FAULTPLANE
--FAULT, LOCATED AFPROXIMATELY
FAULT, EXISTENCE UNCERTAIN
'-t.;: . ,: '-: ;,' r" '-__ J
-< \
50'
-L
56' _1-
I
AXIAL TREND & PLUNGE OF SMALL ANTIJINE
AXIAL TREND & PLUNGE OF SMALL SYNOLINE
STRIKE & DIP OF BEDDING
STRIKE & DIP OF POSSIBLE BEDDING
STRIKE & DIP OF JOINTS
STRIKE & DIP OF VERTICAL JOINTS
I
I
/
y
!
./
SCALE: 1 INCH = 2000 FEET
CONTOUR INTERVAL 50 FEET
DOTTED LINES REPRESENT 25 FOOT CONTOURS
BASE MAP FROM USGS
ILIAMNA (0-51, ALASKA
1:63,,360 (1954/REV. 19731
/
/
GEOLOGIC MAP
Tazimina River
Hydroelectric Project
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
December 1981
Shannon & Wilson Inc ..
K-0469-01
PI~te 2
-..
-..
-
-.. -
-
-..
-.. -
-.. -
-.. -
---
-.... -....
-..
APPENDIX F
GEOTECHNICAL STUDY
NEWHALEN RIVER
Preliminary Geotechnical
Feasibility Study
Newhalen River
Canal Diversion Project
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
April 1982
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geatech n ical Cansu Itants
5111
2055 Hill Road, Box 843
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
(907) 452-6183
...
-.-,.
.--,-..
. -
••
•• ,-
,*
-
.iIM
....
Preliminary Geotechnical
Feasibility Study
Newhalen River
Canal Diversion Project
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
Denver Operations Center
P. O. Box 5406
Denver, Colorado 80217
April 1982
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. K-0517-01
____________________ ._·_H __ X8_,_' ________ ~-----
--
••
••
------------
-
-
-
-
----
----
...
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Scope
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Site Description
2.2 Project Description
2.3 Site Regional Geology
3. FIELD EXPLORATIONS
3.1 General
3.2 Exploratory Borings
3.3 Resistivity Survey
3.4 Topographic S'urvey
3.5 Geologic Reconnaissance
3.6 Laboratory Test"j ng
4. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
4.1 General
4.2 Soils
4.3 Bedrock
4.4 Groundwater
4.5 Frozen Ground
5. DISCUSSION
5.1 General
5.2 Be.drock Depth
5.3 Groundwater Conditions
5.4 Excavations
5.4.1 Soil Excavations
5.4.2 Rock Excavations
5.5 Slope Stability
6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL STUDIES
6.1 General
K-0517-01
Page
1
3
3
4
5
7
7
8
9
10
12
12
13
13
13
15
17
19
20
20
20
22
22
22
24
24
26
26
-..
. ---..
----
--
--
....
-
------.----
------______ . __ , __ . ______ .l_. __________ P ___ . ___ ,_, __ ...... _________ t·t __ "' ______ ~------____ --_
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) K-0517-01
6.2 Geophysical Studies
6.2.1 Seismic Refraction Survey
6.2.2 Vertical Electric Soundings
6.3 Exploratory Borings
6.4 Field Reconnaissance
6.5 Topographic Surveys
7. LIMITATIONS
Table
Table 2
Table 3
Fi gure 1
Figures 2 thru 9
Figures 10 thru 15
Photo Plates
1 thru 4
Photo Plates
5 thru 14
Plate 1
Plate 2
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Summary of Subsurface Explorations
Summary of Vertical Electric Soundings
Description of Rock Properties
Map of Portion of the Newhalen River
Boring Logs of Borings B-1 thru B-8
Grain Size Classifications t.
Aerial Oblique Photographs
Core Photographs
Location of Borings and Resistivity Surveys
Subsurface Profile Along Canal Alignment
26
26
27
28
28
29
30
--'. -----------
-
, ....
-..
------
-
K-OS17-01
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Scope
Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation has been retained ~ by the ,
Alaska Power Authority to perform feas i bil ity ana lyses and prepare a
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license application for the Bristol
Bay Regional Power Plan. One of the alternative regional power plans
considered in the Bristol Bay Region is the Newhalen River Cana~ Diver-
sion project. Prel iminary geologic and geotechnical investigations of
the Newhalen project area were performed by Shannon and Wilson, Inc. to
assist Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation with the feasibil ity
analysis and conceptual design for the Newhalen River Canal Diversion.
The original scope of our geotechnical studies consisted of the drilling
of three exploratory borings, as discussed in our proposal dated
March 17, 1982, and authorized by Stone and Webster in a letter dated
March 23, 1982. Consideration had' previously been given to performing
seismic refraction surveys to provide information on depth to bedrock at
the site. However, it was felt that if bedrock was relatively shallow
that the seasonally frozen ground would made interpretation of the
seismic refraction data difficult. This led to the decision to mobilize
a drill rig to the site.
Based on the conditions encountered in the original three borings, the
scope of our exploratory work was expanded to include additional borings
and several vertical electric soundings (resistivity profiles). A total
of eight exploratory borings and seven vertical electric soundings were
completed at the site. Limited geologic reconnaissance of the project
area was performed by our geologist concurrent with the drilling
1
.... --------------. -
-----
------
-----
-
______ " __________________________ M~ __ I_". ____ I __ ____
K-OS17-0l
operations. A more detailed reconnaissance, planned following the
completion of the drilling program, was curtailed by a heavy snowfall.
The scope of Shannon and Wilson1s involvement in this feasibility
assessment of the Newhalen River Canal Diversion project was limited to
the gathering of geologic and geotechnical data in the field. Limited
discussion of the engineering implications of this data is contained in
this report, with recommendations for further studies if the project is
pursued beyond the feasibility stage. The discussions and
recommendations should not, however, be considered exhaustive.
2
...
•• ...
•• -...
-----------------
,.
----,.
------
r ...
K-0517-01
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Site Description
The proposed site of the Newhalen River Canal Diversion is well suited
to hydroelectric development from a topographic standpoint. From river
mil e 7, where the ri ver begi ns a seri es of rapids, it flows south and
then turns east (see Figure 1). By river mile 2, the water surface has
dropped about 110 feet.
The proposed canal alignment (see Plate 1) traverses a highland to the
east and north of the river where the topography has been shaped by
local glacial and fluvial influences. Stream erosion is evident
throughout the study area in the form of terraces, and is boldly
reflected in the sharp risers and broad treads of a series of prominent
terraces found at the southern area of the alignment. Here the
tundra-covered banks describe the meandering mouth of the Newhalen River
as it drains into Lake Iliamna. A relatively abrupt drop in elevation
coincides with this terraced area at the proposed outlet structure
location, as the topographic profile drops about 120 feet to the river
within about 1500 feet along the alignment. From this drop
northwesterly to the intake structure area, the land surface is
relatively gentle, with occasional southwest facing shallow terraces.
This broad highland area above the river achieves its peak elevation of
about 200 feet in the area to the east and south of the intake
structure. Aerial oblique views of the project area are shown in Photo
Plates 1 through 4.
Except for occasional grasslands found just above the river, the entire
area is covered with a mat of tundra. This organic layer varies in
3
-
-------------
-
--,.
---
-
-
'-
------------------------------------,----
K-0517-01
thickness from six inches to three feet throughout the area. Thick
willow and alder stands grow at the banks of the river, and willow is
found randomly throughout the area. Some spruce trees grow along the
river and in thin forests at the perimeters of the project area.
2.2 Project Description
As currently envisioned, the Newhalen River Canal Diversion project
consists of 14,000 feet of canal, with adjunct intake, spillway, pen-
stock, and powerhouse structures. The intake structure would be located
near river mile 7, and the spillway near river mile 2 (see Figure 1 and
Plate 1).
The canal invert will drop 1 foot in every 1000 feet, and its elevation
can be seen on the cross section drawn along the canal alignment
(Plate 2). We understand that the invert elevation is controlled by the
need to pass an adequate flow at low river levels and with a potential
for a thick ice cover on the water in the canal. This results in a
depth below existing ground surface to the bottom of the canal of about
45 to 55 feet along much of the cana 1 ali gnment. Although the cana 1
side slopes were originally planned to be quite steep, the depth of
overburden now known to exist will require flatter slopes (at least down
to the bedrock surface) and we understand that consideration is being
given to using roller compacted concrete to line the portions of the
canal which are not in rock.
We further understand that the intake structure and portions of the
spillway system will consist of concrete gravity structures and that it
is very desirable that these structures be founded on bedrock.
4
-..
-.. ..
--
----
---..
----
-..
----
K-05l7-0l
The hydroelectric development presently being considered is not related
to previously proposed development on the Newhalen River which was
described on the two sheet map "Plan and Profile, Newhalen River,
Alaska, Damsite" published by the U.S.G.S. in 1967. That project
involved consideration of a damsite at about river mile lH, some 4!
miles upstream from the proposed intake structure of the diversion
canal.
2.3 Site Regional Geology
Both the surficial and bedrock geology of the area of the proposed
Newhalen River Canal Diversion have been mapped by Detterman in his
studies of the Iliamna Quadrangle 1 ,2. The volcanic bedrock at the site
is generally mantled by glacial and glaciofluvial deposits.
The project area was probably covered by glacier ice most recently
during the two oldest stades of Brooks Lake Glaciation of late Wisconsin
age. It may also have been glaciated during early ~Jisconsin time.
Surficial deposits at higher elevations in the project area have been
mapped by Detterman as "hanging delta and outwash fan deposits". These
may be the result of later stades of Brooks Lake Glaciation, whereas the
subsurface deposits of apparent till and outwash encountered in our
borings may relate to the earlier stades. Deposits at lower elevations
along the Newhalen River in the project area have been identified by
Detterman as IIstream terrace depositsll. In addition, Detterman has
mapped a high strandline of glacial Lake Iliamna, about 150 feet above
present lake level, as crossing the upper end of the project area .
At this feas'ibil ity study stage of the project, no rigorous attempt has
been made to reconstruct the glaciai history of the area as related to
conditions observed in our borings.
5
---
---------------..
-..
-
--..
-..
-
-..
..
• .,. lith
K-0517-01
The volcanic rocks exposed along the banks of the Newhalen River through
the project area are mapped by Detterman as Tertiary "basalt and
andesite", with minor rocks of other composition. Tuffaceous volcanic
rocks are mapped to the east of the project area. Regarding recon-
struction of the volcanic stratigraphy of the area, Detterman comments
that "l ava flows, tuffs, and rubble flows are intimately mixed and
change rapidly within a short distance."
IDetterman, R.L., and Reed, B.L., 1973, Surficial Deposits of the
Iliamna Quadrangle, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1368-A, 64 p.
2Detterman, R.L., and Reed, B.L., 1980, Stratigraphy, Structure and
Economic Geology of the Iliamna quadrangle, Alaska: U.S. Geol.
Survey Bull. 1368-B, 86 p.
6
---
----------.,
-
----.,
-
--
-
---
-
!;~
, '*IiU Ii fl I III A !iii
K-0517-01
3. FIELD EXPLORATIONS
3.1 General
A drill crew from our Arctic Alaska Testing Laboratories division was
mobilized to the site on March 28, 1982 by a chartered Hercules C-130
aircraft. Field work was supervised at the site by Geologist Roger
Troost. Project coordination in Fairbanks was provided by Rohn D.
Abbott, Vice President and Manager of the Fairbanks office, and by John
Cronin, Associate Geologist.
Borings were drilled at a total of eight locations during the period of
March 29 through April 10, 1982. Only one of the originally planned
three borings encountered bedrock within the 50 foot target depth, and
additional drill tools were mobilized to the site to allow drilling to a
greater depth. Four of the additional five borings encountered bedrock.
To supplement the information obtained from the exploratory borings,
vertical electric soundings (resistivity profiles) were performed at
seven locations at the site. Geophysicist Clyde Ringstad, president of
Geo-Recon International, Ltd., of Seattle, performed the resistivity
work between April 3 and April 5, 1982.
Surveyors from the Fairbanks office of Ellerbe-Alaska, Inc. were on site
twice during the field work. The initial survey work consisted of
locating the three original borings and two alternate boring locations.
The later work involved locating the additional borings and resistivity
profile locations.
7
--
' .. . .,
.------------
---
---..
-
------
..... -
K-05l7-0l
A limited geologic reconnaissance was performed by our geologist concur-
rent with the drilling program. A more detailed reconnaissance, planned
fo 11 OW"j ng the comp 1 et i on of the dr-i 11 i ng , was cu rta i 1 ed by a heavy
snowfall on ~pril 10, 1982.
3.2 Exploratory Borings
The project ~rea was explored with a total of eight exploratory borings.
Seven of these were dri 11 ed on or near the proposed canal ali gnment;
boring B-8 was offset about 1250 feet from the alignment. Boring
locations are shown in plan view on Plate 1, and logs of the borings are
contained on Figures 2 through 9.
The borings were drilled to depths ranging from 20.3 feet to 69.5 feet
using a track-mounted eME-55 drilling rig equipped with continuous
flight, hollow stem auger. Drilling operations were supervised and
logged by Roger Troost, a geologist with our firm. As the borings
progressed, soil samples were generally obtained at 2.5-foot intervals
to a depth of 20 feet, and at 5-foot intervals below 20 feet .. Sampling
was accomplished by driving a 3-inch 0.0. split-spoon sampler 18 inches
into the soi 1 at the base of the auger with a 340-pound drop hammer
falling 30 inches onto the drill rods. For each sample, the number of
blows required to advance the sampler the final twelve inches is the
penetrati on res i stance and measures the rel ati ve dens ity of granul ar
soils and the relative consistency of fine-grained soils. Soil samples
obtained using this technique were visually classified in the field,
sealed in airtight containers, and returned to our laboratory for
testing of selected samples. Penetration resistance is presented
graphically on the borings logs.
8
------..
-----------------
-
----
---
1M
K-0517-01
When rock was encountered, the bori ng was advanced by diamond cori ng
with an NXD4 double-tube core barrel to determine if the rock was a
boulder or bedrock. If the rock was a boulder, further attempts were
made to advance the auger, and if unsuccessful the boring was abandoned
and relocated. Because of the difficulty in advancing casing through
the overburden materials, coring was often limited to a single 5-foot
run. Photographs of the rock core obtained during our explorations are
included as Photo Plates 5 through 14.
The drilling program consisted of a total of 363 feet of soil drilling
and 45 feet of rock coring.
In borings B-5 through B-8, observation wells were installed to allow
more accurate measurement of depth to the water table. These "instal-
lations consisted of a short length of slotted PVC pipe connected to a
solid PVC riser pipe. In the other borings, groundwater information was
obtained during drilling by measuring water depth on the drill rods when
they were extracted from the hole after a sampling attempt.
Pertinent information for each boring, such as location and elevation,
and depth and elevation of bedrock and water table, are shown in
Table 1.
3.3 Resistivity Survey
Vertical electric soundings (resistivity profiles) were performed at
seven locations along the canal alignment to supplement the information
obtained from the borings. The soundings were made with an ABEM SAS-300
earth resistivity meter, using a conventional Wenner electrode array.
The resultant resistivity values were reduced with the aid of a computer
program to simplify interpretation of the results of the soundings.
9
-....
-....
-
---.---
",.
,.
••
,.,.
'. '. i.
-
. '"
K-05l7-0l
Resistivity profiles developed by the soundings were correlated to
subsurface conditi ons observed in the exploratory bori ngs to ass i st in
the interpretation.
The interpreted depth to bedrock and water table in each of the sound-
ings is listed in Table 2. Locations of the soundings are shown on
Pl ate 1.
High ice content in the seasonally frozen surficial soils interfered
with the res i sti vity soundi ngs at three 1 ocati ons, VES-2, VES-3 and
VES-9. The low conductivity of the icy soils at these locations limited
maximum penetration of the soundings to 57, 49 and 30 feet,
respectively. Problems with ice-rich surficial soils at other locations
may also have affected the resistivity data, but this was not readily
apparent .
Interpretation of the resistivity data was limited to the picking of
apparent depth to bedrock and water table as depicted in Table 2. The
complex stratigraphy of the site, with interbedded outwash sands and
gravels, till, and silts precluded a more detailed analysis of the data
at this time.
3.4 Topographic Survey
Topographic survey work for the project consisted primarily of estab-
lishing locations and elevations for the borings and vertical electric
soundings. With the exception of boring B-7, which was relocated
following the demobilization of the survey crew from the field, all
borings and soundings were located by the surveyors. Boring B-7 was
located by hand level, Brunton compass, and string chain from surveyed
boring B-6 .
10
....
...
....
'.
'.
•• ,-
••
-...
••
, ...
,-
--..
-
-..
K-05l7-0l
In addition to location of borings and electrical soundings, various
features such as river elevations, rock outcrops, springs, and ground
elevations were located horizontally and vertically, and are shown on
Pl ate 1.
Due to the lack of BLM section corner monumentation in the field,
horizontal control for the surveying was established by using the scaled
location of the FAA Flight Service Station from the original drawing of
Plate 1 and the bearing of the centerline of the east-west runway at the
Iliamna airport. This results in the horizontal locations being some-
what approximate, both as located in the field and as shown on Plate 1.
The survey has been ti ed into airport monumentati on, photo panels of
unknown origin, and a BLM section line river crossing monument discover-
ed at the completion of the surveying program. If the project proceeds
beyond the feasibility stage, further research should allow refinement
of the surveyed locations.
Vertical control for the survey was established by referencing all
elevations to the ice surface of the small lake shown as elevation 177
to the southwest of Pike Lake on the U.S.G.S. 1 :63,360 map.
It is our understanding that the topographic base for Plate 1 was
prepared by Stone and Webster by enlarging portions of the Iliamna 0-6
and C-6 1:63,360 U.S.G.S. maps. The locations of surveyed features from
our field explorations depicted on Plate 1 were plotted referenced to
the corner of sections 8, 9, 16 and 17 near the Iliamna airport. The
inherent lack of detail in the original U.S.G.S. maps, complicated by
the enlargement process, results in some features being shown as
apparently mislocated with respect to physiographic features on Plate 1.
For instance, resistivity sounding VES-10 was actually located below the
bluff in section 17, rather than above the bluff as shown on the Plate.
11
., ..
. .,
....
,--
••
-'.
..
.-
...
-
II1II
.-
--
-
-..
I r
K-0517-01
Likewise, the rock outcrops in section 20 were actually adjacent to the
Newhalen River; the river elevation at the intake structure was measured
in the river, not on land as shown on the Plate; and the spring south-
west of station 67+50 was actually at the base of the bluff, rather than
at the top of the bluff as shown .
3.5 Geologic Reconnaissance
A limited geologic reconnaissance was performed by our field geologist,
Roger Troost, during the course of our field explorations. The findings
of this work are incorporated "into the discussions of the subsurface
conditions in Section 4 of this report .
3.6 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory testing was performed· on a representative selection of
samples from the eight borings drilled for this investigation. The
tests were performed as a supplement to the field observations of the
samples to verify classifications and to provide a general indication of
the soil properties.
Water contents were determined on selected samples obtained from above
water table, and grain size analyses, including hydrometer and specific
gravity analysis, were performed on representative samples of the soil
~ypes encountered. Atterberg Limits were determined on samples from the
silt beds found in borings B-3 and B-8.
Resul ts of the water content and Atterberg Limits determi nati ons are
shown on the boring logs, Figures 2 through 9. Grain size gradations
are plotted on Figures 10 through 15.
12
,,,",
.-
. .,.
-M
'.
'.
. -
, ..
-
. ...,
-
-.... ..
..
"..
,..,
.-..
-
•
, iU •
K-OS17-01
4. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
4.1 General
Two basic geologic influences are represented in the subsurface
materials encountered in this investigation. Glacial drift deposits,
which Detterman states can locally be more than 100 feet thick in the
Newhalen area, overlie bedrock of volcanic origin. The variable
depositional environments suggested in the profiles observed in the
borings from this exploration program depict a complex sequence of
glacial events, reflecting the recent geologic history of this area.
However, limited available information about the underlying bedrock
types encountered precludes anything but a very general regional view of
volcanic history and bedrock configuration .
4.2 SO'ils
Except for the mat of tundra that blankets the landscape, all of the
soils found above bedrock appear to be of glacial or proglacial origin .
Considering the complex nature of events in a once glacially active
region, with the advance, retreat, or stagnation of ice masses influenc-
ing many agents of transportation and deposition, it is not surprising
to find different sequences or magnitudes of deposition represented at
each of the locations explored.
Clean to slightly silty sands and gravels, products of glacial outwash,
are the predominant representatives of a glacial environment, and were
randomly encountered in various amounts at each location explored .
These medium dense to very dense stratified deposits range from
we ll-sorted to poorly-sorted in compos i ti on and the constituents are
13
,.
, .
.... -
...
-
.-
-
' ....
'.
....
--
1M ,-
-
••
--
HI
K-05l7-0l
generally subrounded to rounded. These deposits occasionally contain
silty interbeds.
In a few instances, specific clues to the regional glacial history are
presented in the properties of the outwash samples. In boring B-5, a
clean sand sampled from about 19 feet was found to be very dense,
relatively uncharacteristic for the outwash sands sampled elsewhere in
this exploration program. This suggests a glacial readvance over the
previously deposited outwash sands. In boring B-2, samples from about
10 feet to 20 feet were predom"inantly subangular and were generally
greenish in color, implying a relatively short transport of these
gravels from a common local source area.
Glacial till was found in various thicknesses in all of the borings
except B-2 and B-4. This poorly sorted material is generally very dense
and commonly contains cobbles and boulders. The coarse-grained constit-
uents are subrounded to rounded and the fines segment is non-plastic .
Two distinct zones of till were encountered in all of the borings
southeast of about station 95+00, and from about station 104+00
southeast to the outlet structure area, a surficial deposit of till was
found at each of the four locations explored. While the complexity of
subsurface conditi ons and the di stances between the bori ngs precl udes
any correlation of buried till beds, the surficial deposits could be
related. Another correlation might be speculated from the fact that in
four of the five borings in which bedrock was confirmed at depth, it is
directly overlain by glacial till. In one of the borings, B-8, a sample
of till taken from 54 feet, just above the soil/bedrock contact at 58.0
feet, contained fragments of weathered bedrock, suggesting plucking
during glacial advance over bedrock.
14
-
'. ..
,-..
.-
.-
-
...
-'.
..... ..
-..
--.... ..
-
K-0517-01
Silt beds were encountered in two of the borings, B-3 and 8-8, in
thicknesses of 17 feet and 8t feet, respectively. These non-plastic
deposits contain traces of sand and fine gravel. While the silts found
in 8-8 were laminated (1/16" to 1/811 thick), those from 8-3 showed only
a trace of lamination structure. Although correlation of these beds is
improbable, considering the 8500 foot distance between the two borings,
in both cases the alluvium directly overlies glacial till that has been
deposited on bedrock.
4.3 Bedrock
'The bedrock units encountered in the exploratory program are of volcanic
origin. Andesitic rocks of varying composition, apparently extrusive
flows, were cored in borings B-3, B-4, and B-7, north of about station
98+00. In the southern area of the a1 ignment, south of about station
130+00, pyroclastic rock, volcanic breccia, was found in borings B-5 and
B-8. Bedrock was not encountered in bori ngs with i n the 3200 foot
distance between stations 98+00 and 130+00, therefore a contact between
the bedrock units identified cannot be verified. The relationship of
bedrock units can be seen in Plate 2, Subsurface Profile Along Canal
Alignment. The rock classification system used by Shannon and Wilson is
presented in Table 3.
Bedrock was found to be as shallow as 10 feet "in bor-ing B-4, at the
intake structure area near the river, and as deep as 59 feet in boring
8-7, at approximately station 98+00. Aside from the apparent thinning
of the overburden layer near the north end of the alignment, and again,
slightly, in the vicinity of the outlet structure area, depth to bedrock
along the alignment is apparently fairly consistent, at about 50 to 60
feet .
15
,-
,,'"'
'. --
till.
-
_.
...
' ...
••
--
1M
"'.
-
-.... -
K-0517-01
The limited data available from this investigation suggests that the
bedrock surface dips in a general southerly direction on the order of
one-half degree. Although depth to bedrock at any given location along
the alignment might be estimated from this trend, actual rock integrity
cannot be assumed when factors such as weathering and jointing are
considered. Both rock types encountered in our borings show evidence of
lessened competence within the depths explored because of jointing and
weathering characteristics.
In general, the bedrock was very closely to closely jointed within the
depths explored. Joint spacing varied throughout each core run, and
only in borings B-5 and B-7, in volcanic breccia and basaltic andesite,
respectively, did joint spacing spread to moderately close in deeper
runs, suggesting increased competence of bedrock within immediate depth.
Joint inclination ranges from 15° to 90° in the basaltic rocks, and from
15° to 45° in the breccia. Numerous healed joint sets are apparent in
the andesitic rocks and are commonly filled with quartz; healed joints
were not apparent in the volcanic breccia .
Weathering of the bedrock examined, in most cases, becomes less signifi-
cant with depth. The extrusive rocks from borings B-3, B-4, and B-7
tend to show a marked decrease in clay filling of joints and weathering
stains on joint surfaces with depth.
A significant difference exists between the pyroclastic breccia samples
taken from bori ngs B-5 and B-8. In bori ng B-5 the rock becomes re-
latively competent after about three feet of depth. However, the core
from B-8, which appears to be the same rock type as that from B-5, is
generally very severely to completely weathered, and, in fact, appears
substantially more weathered at depth within the depth explored. Yet
the elevation of top of bedrock at boring B-8 is about 16 feet lower
16
-
-
'*.
-
-.... -
....
-
....
....
.-...
.-...
• __ ,_,_~ _____ >_.",,_",,~. _________________________ illg_f 11 ____ • _. _,_II(lJ ___ • ------
K-0517-01
than at boring B-5. This grea~er depth could be the result of
overdeepening in the area around B-8 by glacial processes or an
abandoned channel of the Newhalen River at this location.
Bedrock crops out at many 1 ocati ons along the Newha 1 en Ri ver between
both ends of the proposed alignment. Undulations in the top of bedrock
surface were observed along the river near the upper rapids which should
be considered in a regional concept of bedrock configuration. A single
estimation of this undulation noted a drop of 15 to 20 feet from the top
of bedrock outcrop to river level over a distance of about 400 feet.
4.4 Groundwater
The complex arrangement of subsurface conditions encountered throughout
this exploration program is reflected in variations of the depths at
which water tables were encountered. Groundwater was observed in all of
the borings except B-4, at the north end of the alignment where bedrock
was found at 9.7 feet; however, the distances between the borings and
the observed elevation differences of the water tables make correlation
between them diffi cul t. Water tables observed in borings and
interpreted from electric soundings are shown in cross section on Plate
2 .
Because all of the water tables were observed at elevations well above
river level at their respective locations, it must be concluded that the
origin of groundwater in this area is from other distant sources. The
relatively clean nature of the predominant gravel and sand soil types
encountered would not only provide a relatively large groundwater
reservoir, but their high permeability could allow high rates of flow
into an excavation. Indeed, heaving conditions were usually encountered
17
,_. __ . __ . _~. _____ ._,_._, ___ ._. ______________ ._-_w 1_' _._. _lOll ........... ' ........ 15_. ________ _
' .. -
-..
' ...
.c
)-
.. .-
" ..
.. ,.
....
. -
o •
...
,.
, ..
K-05l7-0l
during drilling wherever clean gravels and sands were sampled below a
water table, confirming the permeability of these materials.
The existence of relatively impervious strata in this region allows the
possibility of more than one water table to exist at any given location.
Perched water tables are not uncommon in glacial soils, where till
layers and silt zones can provide a seal which will hold water. Because
of groundwater conditions observed during the drilling of boring B-1, it
was originally thought that two water tables might exist at this
location. However, subsequent interpretation of the subsurface
materials and drilling conditions de-emphasized this speculation, and we
now believe that only one water table exists there at about 25 feet.
During drilling of boring B-5, the groundwater level was interpreted as
being at about 14.3 feet, however later measurement showed water at
about 20 feet. In boring B-6, sand samples from about 17 feet to 29
feet were saturated when extracted from the ground, yet subsequent
monitoring of groundwater level in B-6 showed the water table to be at
29 feet. In both of these cases, the possibility of a perched water
table exists.
Frozen spri ng flows were observed atop rock outcrops at the ri ver at
both ends of the alignment, suggesting the possibility of groundwater
flowing directly on top of bedrock. Frozen conditions prevented any
measurement of this flow, but it was observed as minimal. Another
spring was observed in the field area at the base of a bluff southwest
of the alignment at about station 67+50. The existence of this minor
flow suggests groundwater flowing above some impermeable strata at this
location .
18
.j'"
. ,. .
.. -
" ...
d •
. ,,. ..
,' ..
ua
"' ..
iU'
• b .. , dr' ,-1\ -~ r Wi
K-0517-01
4.5 Frozen Ground
The possibility of sporadic permafrost exists in this region, however,
none was encountered in our exploration. The surficial mat of tundra
was, in most cases, frozen, and the observed visible ice content was as
high as 40%. In borings B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-8, surficial soil deposits
were frozen, and the deepest penetrati on of frost was 4 feet in B-1;
however, no visible ice was observed in these frozen strata. The
shallow frost penetration observed in our exploration suggests that it
is seasonal frost .
19
-
-
, .....
....
,,,.
till
tilt
1111
....
~I'
-o.f.
K-05l7-0l
5. DISCUSSION
5.1 General
The geotechnical implications of conditions encountered at the site for
the Newhalen River Canal Diversion project are discussed in this
section. Sections are presented on depth to bedrock, groundwater
conditions, excavations, and slope stability. These discussions should
not be considered a complete analysis of geotechnical conditions in the
project area, as the scope of Shannon and Wilson's studies was primarily
exploration and not engineering.
5.2 Bedrock Depth
The elevation of the bedrock surface with respect to invert elevation
along the canal alignment can be seen in the cross section on Plate 2.
This bednpck surface has been interpreted from a combination of informa-
tion obtained from borings and electric soundings .
As can be seen, only the fi rst approx'imately 6000 feet of the canal
invert as presently planned is interpreted as being on or in bedrock.
Only about the first 3000 feet of the canal would require more than 10
feet of excavation into rock, as interpreted.
The cross section depicts a relatively uniform dip of the bedrock
surface from station 0+00 to near station 100+00. Southeast of this
point, two interpretations are possible, depending on whether or not
Boring B-8 is projected into the section from 1250 feet to the north-
east, and whether the depth to rock interpreted from electric sounding
VES-10 is believed. Without this projection, the bedrock surface
appears almost flat from station 100+00 to the river, although control
20
....
--.... ----
-
tI·_.
-..... -
,..
....
-----
ttl U!
K-0517-01
from either borings or electric soundings is absent for about 4600 feet
along the section. Acceptance of the projection of 8-8 and the inter-
pretation of VES-10 implies an overdeepening of the bedrock surface of
about 20 feet near statipn 140+00. In our opinion, such overdeepening
is possible in this area; either as a r.esult of glacial processes or as
a result of burial of an old channel of the Newhalen River. We under-
stand that depth to bedrock may be critical in this area because of the
need to found gravity CORcrete structures for the spillway on bedrock.
In most of the bori ngs where encountered, the upper few feet of rock
were sl ightly to moderately weathered. In boring 8-8, however, all 10
feet of rock cored was very severely weathered, with the rock almost
completely weathered to soil. This boring was located in the creek
about 1250 feet northeast of the alignment near station 130+00. It is
not known whether the rock under the alignment is similarly weathered.
It is not likely that water flow in the creek caused this weathering,
because the measured water table is about 21 feet below ground surface
at this location. Most of the rest of the area has a water table at a
similar depth, yet the rock does not show similar weathering. Though no
faults have been mapped in the area, it is possible that a fault or
shear zone at the location of boring 8-8 could be responsible for the
weathering observed in the rock. Alternately, if the location is part
of an old buried channel there maybe increased groundwater flow which
could be responsible for the increased weathering .
Anomalous resistivity values in electrical sounding VES-7 below a depth
of 62 feet may represent another zone of severely \'Jeathered rock, or
possibly a very old till deposit which was buried by a volcanic flow .
21
..
-..
.a
• 111
......
....
....
-
...
-
..
-
..
rill Ur,
K-05l7-0l
5.3 Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater table was measured in borings or interpreted from resis-
tivity profiles significantly above canal invert elevation at almost all
locations. As many of the overburden soils at the site consist of clean
sands and gravels which are assumed to have a high permeability, the
possibility exists of significant rates of flow of water into an
excavation. No pumping or permeability tests were performed as part of
our field explorations, and it would be difficult to quantify rates of
flow at the present time .
Additionally, observed perched water tables present the possibility of
encountering water in an excavation at elevations above the main water
table .
Problems were experienced in many of the borings with heav·ing sands
below the water table. If an excavation encountered deposits of sands
below the water table which are confined by till or other impervious
materials, these sands could be expected to "run" into the excavation.
5.4 Excavations
5.4.1 Soil Excavations
The overburden soils at the site are not expected to be difficult to
excavate, although groundwater flow may present problems as outlined in
the previous section. The volume of material which wilT require
excavation to cut the side slopes at a stable configuration will be
1 a rge .
22
... ,
'Ii.
-
" ..
-..
-
,--
,,. -
---..
..
. ,.
-
----
i lil 1$ j a, UN @ T I
K-OS17-01
The granular soils encountered in our borings were generally medium
dense to dense. Where encountered, cobbles comprised about 10 to 20% of
the material, and boulders up to about two feet in diameter were
encountered. Given the glacial origin of the overburden, larger
boulders or glacial erratics might be encountered in the overburden.
Only seasonally frozen surficial soil s were encountered in our ex-
plorations. In our opinion, the chance of encountering permanently
frozen soil (permafrost) in the excavation is fairly slight.
Although the till and till-like silty soils encountered in our ex-
plorations might be stable at a steeper cut slope than the granular
soils, in our opinion the canal excavation should be planned for a
uniform stable slope. Determi nati on of what constitutes a stable slope
will require detailed slope stability analyses, taking into account the
groundwater table. Pore pressure will be particularly critical
following installation of the canal 1 ining but prior to fill ing of the
cana 1.
Preliminary plans called for use of the material excavated from the
canal to construct a road embankment adjacent to the canal. Any major
embankment close to the edge of the canal can be expected to influence
the stability of the adjacent slope .
Construction safety for personnel and equipment working on excavation of
the canal should al so be considered during planning of the canal side
slopes .
23
-
....
·'W
...
...
... -.•
--
-
..
.-..
..
-
--... -
K-0517-01
5.4.2 Rock Excavation
Based on limited observations of the bedrock at the site, both in
outcrops and in the cored portions of the borings, it is anticipated
that stable excavations in the rock can be made with relatively steep
side slopes. More detailed geologic mapping of the area, including
comprehensive studies of the spacing and orientation of joints and other
discontinuities, would be required as input to rock slope stability
analyses .
The upper portion of the bedrock which was cored in our borings was
generally very closely to closely jointed. It may be possible to
excavate this jointed rock by heavy ripping, but in our opinion,
drilling and blasting may be necessary to facilitate a significant
amount of the rock excavation at the site. Seismic refraction studies,
if performed to further define subsurface conditions at the site, would
help in determining rippability of the rock.
Another possibility which should be anticipated is encountering unfore-
seen zones of severely weathered rock, such as that observed in boring
B-8. Such zones might require overexcavation or other special treatment
beyond the planned scope of excavating work.
5.5 Slope Stability
Stability problems associated with the excavation of the canal have been
discussed in the previous section. This section deals with the
stability of natural slopes at the site .
From discussions with Stone and Webster, we understand that two areas of
concern exist. The first is the prominent bluff near station 140+00
24
'--
...
--
-
• -
-
' ..
....
...
-
' ...
-
...
.... --
K-05l7-0l
which the spillway structure traverses. The second is the bluff south
of the proposed alignment in the vicinity of station 80+00.
While these slopes may be stable in their present natural state, changes
in the groundwater regime because of seepage from the canal could
adversely affect their stability. Spring flow caused by increased
groundwater could result in erosional failure, or an increase in pore
pressure could cause more massive failures. In our opinion, the bluffs
to the west of the canal alignment at the PI near station 30+00 may also
be subject to the same types of potential instability as the two areas
of concern described above.
Field reconnaissance in the area just above the Newhalen River at the
proposed site of the spi 11 way structure revealed what appeared to be
rotated slump blocks of material. It is possible that this area has
been subject to slope failures in the past, and'it should be studied in
more detail if the project proceeds beyond the feasibility level.
25
-
-...
-
-...
-
-..
-..
.... -
--
-
--..
...
-... -..
-
K-05l7-0l
6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL STUDIES
6. 1 General
The geotechnical studies discussed in this report were performed to
assist Stone and Webster in a preliminary analysis of the feasibility of
hydroelectric development by a diversion of the Newhalen River. Addi-
tional studies will be required to assess the feasibility of the project
in greater detail. The studies which in our opinion would be useful in
further feasibility assessment or design engineering are outlined in
this section of the report.
6.2 Geophysical Studies
6.2. 1 Seismic Refraction Survey
In our opinion, a seismic refraction survey performed along the entire t
length of the canal alignment would provide a more detailed profile of
depth to bedrock along the proposed alignment. In addition, it should
be possible to interpret the varying stratigraphy of the overburden
soils, and differentiate between some of the till and outwash deposits.
In addition to developing a seismic profile along the canal alignment,
seismic surveys performed perpendicular to the alignment at selected
locations would assist in developing three dimensional information on
the bedrock surface.
There are several problems inherent with the use of seismic refraction
methods at this site. The first involves the presence of seasonal
frost; a refraction survey would preferably be performed after the
surficial soils were entirely thawed. The other problems with the
26
-
----
..
• -• -• -..
-
-• --
--------------
•
'x'" t T
K-OS17-01
method involve hidden layers and blind zones resulting from velocity
inversions. A hidden layer results when a relatively thin intermediate
1 ayer is not detected because the wave front propagating through a
deeper, higher velocity layer arrives at the surface first. Velocity
inversions are masking effects resulting from a higher-velocity layer
overlying a lower-velocity layer. An example of a velocity inversion
would be a compact till overlying a gravel layer with no appreciable
water.
The "interpretation of the seismic records can be performed with less
uncertainty when subsurface information from another source is avail-
able. Either direct information from exploratory borings, or substanti-
ating information from another geophysical method such as resistivity,
would be helpful.
Seismic refraction work at the site would also be useful in estimating
the rippability of the bedrock.
6.2.2 Vertical Electric Soundings
Difficulties were encountered in performing and interpreting the results
of vertical electric soundings (resistivity profiles) at the site during
this field program due to the high ice content of the seasonally frozen
soils. Resistivity work performed after the seasonally frozen surficial
soils had thawed would be very helpful when correlated to seismic
refraction work or additional exploratory borings.
27
----------....
...
••
•• -
-
-
....
....
.I.
.-
. ""
-.-
•• .. -
1 r •
K-OS17-0l
6.3 Exploratory Borings
In our opinion, detailed design work for the proposed river diversion
should be preceded by the drilling and sampling of additional explora-
tory borings. These borings should be used both for correlation with
geophysical explorations and for site-specific foundation studies of
soil and rock conditions at locations of major structures. In addition,
pumping tests or in-hole permeability tests should be performed to
assess the magnitude of groundwater flow which can be expected into
excavations at the site .
Information 'gained during our preliminary studies regarding subsurface
conditions at the site and depth of exploration required should allow
mobilization of the necessary drilling equipment to obtain the informa-
tion required during any future studies.
6.4 Field Reconnaissance
Geologic reconnaissance of the project area during this preliminary
study was limited by time constraints associated with the drilling
program, and later by a heavy snowfall .
Additional geologic mapping, primarily in the area along the banks of
the Newhalen River where bedrock is exposed, would further our under-
standing of the nature and distribution of bedrock at the site. De-
tailed studies of the frequency and orientation of joints and other
discontinuities would be essential to determining the angle at which
rock slopes would be stable in the canal excavation .
Additionally, a general reconnaissance of the site after the ground was
thawed might reveal the location of other springs in the area. This
28
.--...
.• ------------..
-
-
---... ..
-------
J i
K-OS17-0l
information would be useful in developing an understanding of the
groundwater regime.
6.5 Topographic Surveys
Detailed topographic survey information on the area proposed for the
diversion canal is presently lacking. Such information will be vital
for further geotechnical studies, including slope stability analyses,
interpretation of seismic refraction data, and correlation of boring and
resistivity data.
Although the information obtained from a series of profiles and cross
sections could be utilized, in our opinion, a photogrammetric survey in
conjunction with these traverses would be quite useful.
29
-
--
-
------
--
-
..... -
--..
-
----
K-OS17-01
7. LIMITATIONS
The scope of Shannon and Wilson's involvement in this feasibility
assessment of the Newhalen River Canal Diversion project was limited to
the gathering of geologic and geotechnical data in the field. Limited
discussion of the engineering implications of this data is contained in
this report, with recommendations for further studies if the project is
pursued beyond the feasibil ity stage. The discussions and recommenda-
tions should not, however, be considered exhaustive.
The analyses, discussions, and recommendations contained in this report
are based on site conditions as they presently exist and further assume
that the exploratory borings, and soil resistivity data are representa-
tive of the subsurface conditions throughout the site (i.e., the subsur-
face conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those
disclosed by the exploration).
The geotechnical studies for this project are preliminary in nature and
were designed to assist Stone and ~~ebster Engineering Corporation and
the Alaska Power Authority in assessing the feasibility of hydroelectric
development by diverting the Newhalen River. In our opinion, additional
site specific field investigations will be required before definitive
geotechnical recommendations can be developed for the project .
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
BY-R~~
Rohn D. Abbott, P.E .
Vice President & Manager
'; I . ,."
30
I I . , • i I • I J I I I I • I t I • I I I I I j I i I j
TA!lLE 1
SU~IARY OF SUBSUQFACE EXPLORATIO'lS
';PPROXIMATE
STATION AND GROUND SURFACE TOTAL BEDROCK WPTER TABLE PROPOSED CANAL INVERT
[lORING NO. OFFSET ELEVATION DEflTH DEPTH ELEVATION DEPTH ELEVATIO~ DEPTH ELEVATION REMARKS:
3-1 129+35 175.0' 50.0' 26.0' 149.0' 43.0' 132.0'
-lO'l
B-2 90+20 182.0' 53.0' 25.0 157.0' 46.0' 136.0'
20'l
B-3 46+00 194.0' 53.0' 48.0' 146.0' 16.0' 178.0' 54.0' 140.0'
50'l
B-4 250' N of 0+00 188.0' 20.0' 10.0' 178.0' 43.0' 145.0' *B-5 -Bedrock is' moderately
200'l severely to very severely
B-5 144+50 143.0' 43.0' *33.0' 110.0' **14.0/20.0' 129.0/lZ3.0' 12.0' 131.0' weathered from 32.5' to 35.
290'R **B-5 -Possible perched water tab 1,
B-6 103+30 184.0' 52.0' 29.0' 155.0' 49.0' 135.0' at this location
155'l 8B_8 -Bedrock is moderately
B-7 97+90 174.0' 68.0' 59.0' 115.0' 6.0' 168.0' 39.0' 135.0' severely to completely
45'l weathered within depth
g-8 130+00 152.0' 70.0' 858 .0 , 94.0' 21.0' 131.0' 132.0' explored
12'JO'L
TABLE 2
SUIlMARY OF VERTICAL ELECTRIC SOU~DINGS
VERTICAL APPROX HIA TE
ELECTRIC STATION AND GROUND SURFACE INTERPRETED BEDROCK INTERPPETE~ WATER TABLE PROPOSED CANAL INVERT
SQlJ~lDING NO. OFFSET ELEVATION DEPTH ELEVATION DEPTH ELEVATION DEPTH ELEVATION RE~·IARKS :
'/ES-l 46+00 194.0' 46.0' 148.0' 21.0' 173.0' 54.0' 140.0'
50'L
'/ES-2 90+20 182.0' >57.0' <125.0' 21.0' 161.0' 46.0' 136.0' Penetration limited to 57 ft. b.v
20'L seasonal frost
'/ES -3 129+35 175.0' >49.0' <126.0' 26.0' 149.0' 43.0' 132.0' Penetration limited to 49 ft. by
40'L seasonal frost
'/ES-7 26+00 199.0' 44.0' 155.0' 28.0' 171. 0' 57.0' 142.0' Possible weathered rock or till
CL below 62 ft. depth
'/ES -8 66+80 180.0' 44.0' 136.0' *39.0' 141.0' 42.0' 138.0' *Water table may be as high as
190'R 29 ft. depth
'/ES -9 109+80 185.0' >30.0' <155.0' 18.0' 167.0' 51.0' 134.0' Penetration limited to 30 ft. by
20'L seasonal frost
VES-10 140+90 150.0' 61.0' 89.0' 13.0' 137.0' 19.0' 131.0'
40'R
:WTE: All depths and elevations have been rounded off to the nearest foot.
I I , I I I • j • f I I I I i I I , I j I I I I I I I j I I
TABLE 3
DESCRIPTIDN OF ROCK PROPERTIES
WEATHERING
Fresh -Rock fresh, crystals bright, few joints may show slight staining. Rock rings
under hammer if crystalline.
Very Slight -Rock generally fresh, joints stained, some joints may show clay if open,
crystals in broken face show bright. Rock rings under hammer if crystalline.
Slight -Rock generally fresh -joints stained and discoloration extends into rock up
to 1 in. Open joints contain clay. In granitoid rocks some occasionally feldspar
crystals are dull and discolored. Crystalline rocks ring under hammer.
Moderate -Significant portions of rock show discoloration and weathering effects. In
granitoid rocks most feldspars are dull, discolored; some show clayey. Rock has
dull sound under hammer and shows significant loss of strength as compared with
fresh rock.
Moderately Severe -All rock except quartz discolored or stained. In granitoid rocks
all feldspars dull and discolored and majority show kaolinization. Rock shows
severe loss of strength and can be excavated with geologist's pick. Rock goes
"clunk" when struck. (Saprolite)
Severe -All rock except quartz discolored or stained. Rock "fabric" clear and evident
but reduced in strength to strong soil. In granitoid rocks all feldspars kaolinized
to some extent. Some fragments of strong rock usually left. (Saprolite)
Very Severe -All rock except quartz discoiored or stained. Rock "fabric" discernible
but mass effectively reduced to "soil" with only fragments of strong rock remaining.
Complete -Rock reduced to "soil."
in small scattered locations.
Rock "fabric" not discernible or discernible only
Quartz may be present as dikes or stringers.
Very Hard -Cannot be scratched with knife or sharp pick. Breaking of hand specimens
requires several hard blows of geologist's pick.
Hard -Can be scratched with knife or pick only with difficulty. Hard blow of hammer
required to detach hand specimen.
Moderately Hard -Can be scratched with knife or pick. Gouges or grooves to 1/4 in.
deep can be excavated by hard blow of point of geologist's pick. Hand specimens
can be detached by moderate blow.
·Medium -Can be grooved or gouged 1/16 in. deep by firm pressure on knife or pick point.
Can be excavated in small chips to pieces about 1 in. maximum size by hard blows
of the point of a geologist's pick.
Soft -Can be gouged or grooved readily with knife or pick point. Can be excavated
in chips to pieces several inches in size by moderate blows of a pick point.
Small thin pieces can be broken by finger pressure.
Very Soft -Can be carved with knife. Can be excavated readily with point of pick.
Pieces an inch or more in thickness can be broken by finger pressure. Can be
scratched readily by finger nail.
• For Engineering Description of Rock -not to be confused with Moh's scale for minerals.
JOINT BEDDING AND FDLIATION SPACING IN ROCK
Spacing
Less than 2 in.
2 in to 1 ft.
ft. to 3 ft.
3 ft. to 10 ft.
More than 10 ft.
Joints
Very close
Close
Moderately close
Wide
Very wide
Bedding and Foliation
Very thin
Thin
Medium
Thick
Very thick
After Deere, 1963 a
NOTE: Joint spacing refers to the distance normal to the plane of the joints
of a single system or "set" of joints which are parallel to each other
or nearly so.
RQD in % = 100
!!!lQ.
Exceeding
90-75
75-50
50-25
Less than
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATOR (RQDl
Length of Core in Pieces 4 in. and Longer
Length of Run
Diagnostic Description
90% Exce 11 ent
Good
Fair
Poor
25% Very Poor
After Deere 1967 b
NOTE: Diagnostic Description is intended primarily for evaluating problems
with tunnels or excavations in rock.
aDeere, D. U. "Technical Description of Rock Cores for Engineering Purposes"
Felsmechanik und Ingeniergeologie, Vol. I, No. I, 1963, pp. 17-22.
bDeere, D. U. et al .• "Design of Surface and Near Surface Construction in Rock"
Proceedings. 8th Symposium on Rock Mechanics, The American Institute of
Mining, Metallurgical and PetrOleum Engineer, Inc., New York 1967,
pp. 237-302.
FROM: American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, Vol. 98, No. SM6. pp. 568-569, June 1972.
J
I
...
-
---
• -• -• ----------
-----..
-------
: l
I
• I
---------------~-~---------
I
7
13
24
From Sheet 1, "Plan and Profile.
Newha1en River, Alaska. Damsite"
USGS. 1967
Scale: 1 Inch = 2000 Feet
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
MAP OF PORTION OF THE NEWHALEN RIVER
April 1982 K-05l7-01
SHANNON' 'ILSDN. INC. FIG
UOHCUICIL COISULUI" • 1
-----.. -..
-..
-----...
--
...
-----...
..
------
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Station: Approx. 129+35, 40 'L
Surface Elevation: 175'
u
Z~ A. Q ... ~ -~
. -.....
~ . A. :I: .... • Q. ... ..... ""
_
Brown sandy SILT to silty SAND wi ;:;;;."~ 1.0 ~~~!n1~~si~u~~ri~4~r/Vx -40%. wi / ~ .. ~~ ... ~. s-ll
Very dense, gray-brown to gray, sl. 7~-~~
silty to silty, sandy, fine to p';~.
r.c,-o_a--,r_S_e_G_R_AJ~§i~ . .l~ all!' c;':~l.§~L.!~_~L'~L' ~U~_~(1)_fr_o_z_e_n_---,r-r.~.::"t?~~~:.?~,:~. 5.6 S-21
Very dense, gray, clean, sandy, ./ ~
-. 311 ..... = .... Q ...
~ .
. -
Z ....
A.
~O
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
(340 lb. .. I lIh t. 30" drop)
A Slows per foot
?O 40
::::::l.Q.. A ...... 5!'·
5 .................................... -r ........ _._ ........ __ .-.....•... ······66· A ............... ~
. •....... vine to coarse GRAVEL .. :; ...... :.~:.; 7.0 ~~d ~~~ ; ~~n ~~N D : r~~;~~o~~ · c~! ~:~. :~ ~~ II11
10
. 0 s-J ~
""\\::a:.:..n:..:::d:......:...f...:..i!.!.ne=-Cl~r:....:a~v:..!e:...:l _________ --" '9;;:( S -'[ :3
. . . . . . .. . ....... .
1 0 .. : ... : .. ·:· .. : .. ·: .. ·: .. ·:· .. : .. -:-.. r .. : .. ·:· .. ~ .. : .. ·~ .. :-'SJL-A
Dense to very dense, gray-brown, ~:P:·.I ~
clean, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL ~:~~" S-5I: §5
: : : : : : : : : l : : : : : : ? ~' :
. : : : : : ~ : : : : : : '-; 5.: A
: : : : : : : : : 1 : : : : : : 5 ~' :
Medium dense zone ~15' -19'
~~o9~
':~:b'
~,~.:~~ ~'~'.::.,\, ~~q
0"",'/'1 . ·0 ..... " J~~ '€5f~' ~~:~ ql'cl .~.,
";;".~:~ ~XC
s-81
..............
1 5 .. : ... : ... : ....... ~ .. : .. ~ ... : .. .:...~ .. : ... : ... :...-.. ':"-' '-'
••• ••• ·.1 •• • •••• · :::::::::I:~::::::
20 .. : ... :· .. :· .. : .. ·~ .. : .. ·: ... : .. ~ .. r·~ .. ·~ .. : .. ·~·~ii .. A
IT ':~ .... Y
ti· .. ··• "::~' ~r:o: J SZ ~---------------~~~;~~~~~~~25.9 S-91
25 -:-:.-:.~~~--
Medium dense, gray to qray-brown,
clean to slightly silty, fine to
medium SAND
I~~I 0 00
j 0
Frozen
... ' . . ':'.:.,: ~'.
Ground l
: ....... ... ', ..
I/~~/~
/// //
~////
~
I I I
oIoIi I
'" ." Ij I. II
A
(cont. )
LEGEND
Gravel
Sand
S i It
Clay
Peat
Organic
Content
r Imper~ious seal
.eter le~el
§ Piezometer tip
181 Thermocouple
I 3-0.0. split spoon sample n 3'" O. O. t h i n-W8 I I samp I e * Samp Ie not recovered
At terber II I imi t s:
I • ,_ Liquid limit
'~.ater contlnt
Plastic limit
· ................. .
· . . . . . . . . .. . ..... .
· ......... . 30 ..................... -.............. ~ ................. -.............. -
:i:A::::
. . . . . . . .
~_-I--PvE .. : ... : ....... : ... : ....... : ....... : ... ~ .. : ... : ... : ... : ... : ... : ... : ... : ... : ..
J 20 40
• ~ Water content
Note: The stratification lines represent
the approximate boundar lIS bet ... n so i I
types and the transition may be lIradual.
Stone & l~ebster
Newhalen River Canal Diversion
Newhalen, Alaska
LOG OF BORING NO. B-1
Arri 1 1982
SHANNON' II LSoN, INC.
;EOTECHIIICAL COIISULIlIIIS
K-0517-01
FIG. 2
--------
• -• .----------
-
--..
--..
--
-...
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Station: Approx. 129+35, 40'L
Surface Elevation: 175 '
u
Zc:::J
A. c=I
-~ lii:
c:::J
. -.
Z
~
A. .u -=a
.u -=a • ~ -.u A. ~~ • -=a_ -~-M
. -PENETRATION RESISTANCE
(HO Ib, .'illht, 30" drop)
& Blows per loot
20 40
Very dense, brown, silty sandy
GRAVEL
(Glacial Till?)
Dense, gray, slightly silty fine
SAND, trace of medium to coarse SAND
~"9'0'-11-35150/5" A
NOTE: Subsurface conditions from
41.5 to 50.0' interpreted from
drilling action
.':;:.!t.{:'.::::: .lt8 0
P:~·· .
S-12 I 40 .................... _ ...... __ .. 1..-... _._ .. _--
: ~ : : : : A: :
....... . . . . . . . .
Bottom of Exploration
Completed 3/30/82
45 --'---.-::. -:.!:::::::.:. -:.:.: .... --......... __ ... -
~.~ . cO.O-----r------r---------r-------~
Frozen
Ground
~
1
LEGEND
I~~m Gravel
:-~:...::.:>: ; ...... . Sand .. ' '.,.
S i It
Clay
Pea t
"" '.; ~J 0 r ga n i C ~j'/.J, Content
r-Im,Pllv I ous seal
later level
~ Piezometer tip
~ Thermocouple
I 3-O. D. sp lit spoon samp Ie
II 3" O. D. t h I n-WI I I samp I e
* Samp Ie nat recovIIed
At terber II I imi t s:
I • ,_ Liquid limit
'~I.ter content
PlastiC limit
--·----1 • ----
-·-·-·~T---····-···
..................... _ .............. f'.: ................... _ ........ _.
................................... n.;..u ••••••• u ••••••• un ............. ..
. . : i : .
20 40 • ~ Water content
Nate: .The stratificatIon lInes represent
tne apprOllmate boundar liS bet ... n so i I
types and tne transItIon may De IIradual.
Stone & Webster
Newhalen River Canal Diversion
Newhalen, Alaska
LOG OF BORING NO. B-1 (CONT ,)
April 1982
SHANNON' WILSON, INC.
ilOTICHMICAl COMSUlTA"TS
K-0517-01
FIG. 2
-
-------------
--
-----
, ',.. --------
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Station: Approx. 90+20, 20 l L
Surface Elevation: 182 1
////
jjjj 1. S Brown, sandy SILT, w/organics(Tundra
Soft, red-brown, fine sandy SILT, ~~~~
tr. of roots, scattered.fine gravel ~~~~~ T 5-11 r--BJ!£~~~2i!!lE.i~!::!litlLd~Q..tlL ____ ~ ~i. 4.0
~1ed. dense, red-brown to gray-brown, rj/rt!·~ I
silty fine S~ND, w/occasio~al thin ~f~11 5-2
J~n~~s_oi.2l:J 9.h,!lj' _slJiY_u 1]S!3~nQ. - -f~: 7.0
Dense, gray-brown, cl ean, sandy ,~~~. S-3T fi ne GRAVEL ;:.~'.:---:: 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~~ 9. S
Dense to very dense, gray-brown to ~~ S_4T
gray-green, clean to slightly silty, ~.~:.~:: .. <S':: :J...
sandy, fine-coarse GRAVEL. subangul ar ~::.b3 <l' ...... ()~". I ~ ,o. .. d:.~~.: 5 -S -.J "'o·.~~~ ;:: ~\j~}~ T ~ ~~~~ 5-61 ~ :o·§::~ 18 0 ;r §5 ~----------------+.:~;OC-Q·.~:: ... 5-71 0
Medium dense to dense, gray-brown to ~~~ ~
brown, slightly silty sandy GRAVEL ~)i:!~ _ I ~
~~'J; 5 8 V1 R9~:; ~ ~.<>: ~:.5?'.1I'. :o·.··T~ ~~: ... r.-"~~ :.~j;~~ ; f9i·.~~. :.~.~~ ~-;;:::::.;~:: 30.0 T
~if{;V{ S-J 01
6~
..........
.i
5 -:---------H,--• -~
142 ••
1 0 ":"':"':"':"':"':''':''':''~''~'';'''~'''~'~-~~7'r~ •
..... ~
.......
::.:::: :': i::::::41.;.. •
. . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . .
1 S .. ~ ... : .. ·: ... : .. ·: .. ·: .. ~· .. ; ... ~ .. l·~ .. ; .. ~·~~~B·~ •
:£:
2
0 ":"·:"·:.":"·:"·:"':":r~";·~"·~: : ~'2::' •
: I: : : : .....
25 -----~--h--• • ---
30 .................................................................... -
Interbedded, medium dense to dense,
clean to slightly silty gravelly SAND
and sandy GRAVEL dS?:5.:;;
Ilt.~,~ ..... r:;;:';;~~I-----'1 . __ -+-_-'\ .,. , , l------y -------f="1.-A ,-r ":"':"':"':"':''':''':''':''':''r:''':''':''':''':''':''':''':'''~'
FrOZln . j
Ground l
(cont. )
LEGEND
08~~ ~~0atf Grave I
... ' .
'::' .. :.:; :'. Sand
: . : ': ..
Peat
I
" "'J I J 0 r ga n i c
~j-'/", Content
r Imp"erv i ous leal
later level
~ Piezometer tip
~ Thermocouple
I 3-0.0. split spoon sample
II 3" 0.0. thin-wall sample
* Samp Ie not recovered
Atterbera I imitl:
I • I-L.iquid limit
'~llter content
plastic limit
20 40 • ~ Water content
Note: The stratification lines represent
the apprOllmate boundaries betwun soi I
types and the transition may be aradual,
Stone & Webster
Newhalen River Canal Diversion
Newhalen, Alaska
LOG OF BORING NO. B-2
April 1982
SHANNON'"L.SON,INC.
i(OT(CNNICAL CONSULTANTS
K-OS17-01
FIG. 3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
•
•
•
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Station: Approx. 90+20, 20 l L
Surface Elevation: 182 1
u
::z: ~
Q. c:I
c~ • c.:I
. -. = ...
Q. ...,
c:I
..., c:I • ~. Z...,
Q. = ... • c:l c C ::--
. -PENETRATION RESISTANCE
(340 I b, WI i /lh t, JO H d rap)
ASloWi per foot
20 40
Interbedded SANDS and GRAVELS, as
above ~~1 S-111 35 ... ' .' .' .' .•.• ::':.1 .•......... ~.;.::l.'or.:.l.r].~.~~.~l.~.~.l ~. 5-12 I 40 -.-----:-: ;::::! -: ..•. ': ..• : -~.--:-
~.~.!.,~ ;..v..~ ... q S-13 I 4 5 .... · .......... ······ ...... ·· .... _·T': .. ·: .. ·i:·:· .. ·-
1'-••••• ".0'. . ............. . '"O.~ .............. . ;;i~~:::-.·::·:· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
,~~~ .............. .
1---------------~:~:.·.:.,~:;t~·:!i:50.0 I 50 ........................................... -...... -----
I-;_~_: ~_:_e...:.~_~_~~_:_<_~_~_~_~_:_n 0_' f_s_~_~_~_~_~_~ Y_s!_~_· ~_t_~_n_d_-fr_tir;.;.:.&k""'~r'""'lt3 0 5_-_1_4_+-__ ---1
Bottom of Exploration
Completed 3/31/82
NOTE: *Subsurface conditions from
51.5 1 to 53.0' interpreted from
drill action.
LEGEND
I~il Gravel r I mp II v i au s sa a I
j 'I t II live I
Frozen : '~: ... :.::'~-: Sand Piezomltll tip Ground I
;. :·'0· ... ', ..
"~/I'~ S i It 181 Thllmocoup II
I' '/ / / I 3-O. D. ~//// spl it spoon sampll
~ Clay II 3'" o. D. thin-WIll sample
* Salllple not rlcovlrld
It I I Attlrbll/l limits: Peat I ~LiQUid limit
iij I.; Organic ~ 'It II contlnt " , Content Plastic limit ./;'/,,"
·--·~~~I-__ ~
.. ........ _ ........ -.-..... _ .. r-:--..... _._ ....... -
..................................... .;...: ................................. .
· .... · .... · .... · .. · ............ · .. : .. r·:·· .. ··· ............ ·· .. · .. · .. · .. ..
i:::U 4U
• ~ Water content
Note: The stratification lints represent
the approximate boundar lIS bet .. en so i I
types and the transition may Oe /Iradual.
Stone & Webster
Newhalen River Canal Diversion
Newhalen, Alaska
LOG OF BORING NO. B-2 (CONT,)
April 1982 K-0517-01
SHANNON & IILSON,INC.
;EOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
FIG. 3
....
-. -....
••
------
---
-
-
-
-
--
---
.---
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. SUMMARY'LOG OF lORING: B-3 (cont.)
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS JOB NO: I DATE·
I-'-R-QJ-EC-T-•• ---------------....... K-05l7 -01 . 3/31/82 Stone & Webster
Newhalen River Canal Diversion STATION: ........ 46+00, 50 l L luEV: 194 1
DEPTH
IN
FEET i III i GROUND TEMP. (0 F) 9 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS 5 ~Z. 04 RIC Thermi stor cas i ng 3 ~ "0 RQO not i nsta 11 ed
~ ~~ Glacial till, as above
f-~,;j'-
:-~~ 48.0 --~~~---------------------------+~~+---~ .............. .
-++++ Moderyitely hard, gray,
':-+ + PORPHYRITIC ANDESITE. Very
:--50 +++ closely jointed from 15°_90°.
:-++++ 48.5 1 -51.5 1 joint spacing
100 o --++ + commonly 111 at all angles, =-+ cl ay to 1/8 11 in joints. r+""5=2 ...... ~9+-_-t : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
-50.5 1 -51.0 1 very severely'to --=--55 om!) 1 ete 1 y weathered zone.
_ 51.0-52.9 1 joints spaced
--111 to 2 11 , stained, trace ---of clay on joint
~ ~~~illL~fa~lc~:'e~~:s ____________ ~
~ Bottom of Exploration
~ 60 Completed 3/31/82
l-
i---------~65 r-
I-----------=--70
~
~
l-
i--
l-
I------=--75 ------------=-80 ------------=-85 ---------
-:: 90
REMARKS
Began NX diamond
coring @ 48.0 1
'-
---
, .. ..
--
..
'--
-
--
---
--------
III
-..
----",,----._----------------------------------UI j
--SOl L OESeR I prl ON -Station: Approx. 250' N. of Z~ • Q" _ Z
Sta. 0+00, 200'L =~ ~
Surface Elevation: 188' CoD ~
~rown, sanoy ::'lLI, wlth orgamcs J ////h ~r~T~:~::: brown, slightly silty ~".O
to silty, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL ~~~~·c ~~j '~d
Very dense, gray-brown,clean to
slightly silt~ sandy, fine to coarse
GRAVEL
(cont. )
..
LEGEND
o~i~ Gravel r Imperv I ous seal
j
1~~oQo
later level
Frozen : '~:":-.::':.~ Sand Piezometer tip Ground
1
:-' .. :., ' ...
v~//'/ S i It (gI Thermocouple
///// I 3'" O. D. '///// split spoon sample
~ n 3'" O. D. thin-wall samp Ie Clay * Sample not recovered
III I
Atterbera limits:
Peat I ~LiqUid limit
""'.; I, Organic ~ later content
~j./.;'''I Content Plastic limit
.....
.-J
~ -c -
S-lI
S-2I
S-3::t
-. a ..... ~-°c ~.
(!j z -.....J
.....J -c:::
Cl
(!j
Z -c::: => Cl
Cl
lLJ ::::-c:::
lLJ
V'l co
0
lLJ
Z
0
Z
--PENETRATION RESISTANCE . z (340 lb •• "aht. 30 N drop) -AlloWi per loot Q"
~O 20 4C
ZL~
: 4'~
5 .. ~ .. : ... : ...• ' .. ~ ... ~.~ .. .:. .. ~.~ .. ~ . ..: ... :-~-.: . .6 d':" ~
: -
15
......... ~ ...... 5" .
j: :!?L..
l : 3'~
: .
...................................... ;. .......... _ ......... __ ... _-
Began NXl diamond: ..
coring @! 9.9 ' .•••••
-~·~~·:·~-r-~
------r---
.... ······-· .... ·· .................. ·r-··-.... ---.. -.. ·-.. ··
.................................... -••• !" •••••••••••••• _ ...... _ ••••••••• _.
.. ·· .. ·· .. , .. ·· ................ · .... ·l .............. · .............. · .. ·_·
.::::u £tl
• ~ Water content
Note: The stratlf,cat,on I,nes represent
the apprOXimate boundar liS bet ... n so i I
types and the translt,on may be aradual.
Stone & Webster
Newhalen River Canal Diversion
Newhalen, Alaska
LOG OF BORING NO. B-4
Apri 1 1982
SHANNON & IIlSDN,INC.
;(OT(CHNICAL CONSULTANTS
K-0517-01
FIG. 5
-..
------. -
--
.....
-
, ...
....
...
.""
•• .. -.• -.-I.
.,.
••
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. SUMMARY LOG OF lORING: B-4 (cant.)
GEOTKHNICAL CONSULTANTS Joa NO: lOATE: 4/3/82 ~~------------------------------~~ ____ K~-~0~5~17_-~0~1~ ____ ~~~ ______ ~
STATION:-250 ' N of 0+00 I ELEV: 188 '
PROJKT: Stone & Webster
Newha1en River Canal Diversion
DEPTH i~ IN DUCRIPTION OF MATERIALS
FEET
~ !.~. GRAVEL, as above
t ~~
GROUND TEMP. (a f)
a4REC Thermistor casing
'Ya RQD not i nsta 11 ed
;:.. ~~~
_ ~J',..:.l-'4\I 9 . 9 ~ 1 0 ~+~+~+1MMo~d;r;e:;:r::-;;a:+t~e'l y;-;-1h~a:::r::id-, ....,l;-:i;:g~h~t"""'i:'"b r::o::-w:::n~t-..::':"":"'...J---I,········· ...... · ...... · .... · .. ·· .... ·-.. · .. ·· .... · .. ··· .. ··
:-+ + + to gray DACITE/RHYOLITE, very
_ t '+ closely jointed @ 30°-45°
~ + ++ 9.9'-11.9' joints spaced 1" to
--+++ 2", joint faces irregular @
~ + + ",,45 0 w/c1ay coating
:-15 + ++ 11.9'-15.1' joints snaced 2"
- + + to 6" (4" to 6" common)
:.. + + + + 15. l' -16.7' joi nts spaced 1"
~ + ++ to 3", stained
~ +++ 16.7'-20.3' joints spaced 2"
__ + + + to 8" (5"-8" common)
100
3T
1-1.:..:5~. ~1 1----1 ................ _ .................. _ ................... ..
2 100
3T
REMARKS
auger refusal
@ 9.7'
Began NX diamond
coring @ 9.9'
t:-20 T 19.1' -20.0' near vertical ..t--"'2;.;;;0..:.,.,;;;.3+--_-I .......... -... -................. -.................... . ~ . joint, stained I t-----------I
~ Numerous healed joint sets
~ throughout --~~~~~------~
~ Bottom of Exploration
~ 25 Camp 1 eted 4/3/82
I-
-----------30 -------------35 -----I--
~
---I-~40
~
---.... -----f-~ 45
I-
~ -------
FIG. C;
.,,,"
-
-..
., .. -------_ .
....
--
-
...
-
-
...
----.-.-~.--.--,--_. ---
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sta ti on: Approx. 144+50, 290 'R
Surface Elevation: 143 '
Very dense, brown, silty, sand~ fine
to coarse GRAVEL, with cobbles
(Glacial Till)
cobbly zone 3'-5 '
NOTE: auger refusal @..., 3 I. Tri -cone
and coring through materials
allowed further auger penetration
(NX core run 1,4.7 '-9.9 ' , L=5.2,
Rec=3.0)
Medium dense to dense, gray-brown
clean to slightly silty, fine
gravelly, fine-coarse SAND
u -Z C:I
~Q ... -' -= UI
~~:lj)~ ~~9'O':~
~-i
:0.'(;6<5 &~~~ ?f'ii't ~t!'~:
. --
Z ....
~ ....,
Q
I~~ ~10.0
~ _________________________________ ~~16.3
Medium dense, gray-brown, slightly
:~ ~_ ~i~~~~~~,_ ~~i~~t.:~,_ :r:. ,:f_ c.; ~y 18.5
Very dense, clean to slightly silty,
fine SAND, with local silty lenses and
occasional thin laminae of sandy
clayey silt
....,
-' ~ • ...
""
___ 0<._
Q •
31:...., =» ....
Q ... =-
Cl
L.J..J > c:::
L.J..J
Vl
S-ll ~
,~-; .
• It_
--. z ....
~
~O
--~-.---.-----'"
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
(340 lb. Wlillht, 3D" drop)
.& 810n ~~r f 00 t 40
................
.................
TiT
5 -------1----• __
1 0 .. ~ ... : ... : ... ~ ... : ... ~ ... : .. ~ ... :-t .. ~ .. ~ ... ~.:.-~~~.~.:
••• ~ -•.• i·· •• -• _ • .'~
1 5 .. : ... : ... : ... : ... ~ .. : .. ~ ... : .. ~.~.: ... ~-.~~~~-~
. ... J+
20 ---~~--~r~~~-...
Very dense, brown, silty. sandy GRAVEL,~23.5 S-i: i~~ ~th cobbles (GlaCA;al Till) V 24.8-----1;-25 ··········-·B·;·g·~·~···N·X .d-i.~-~ond .. -.-A
08!~ I~~~~o ~ F r Olen .:: '::':; ~ ..
Ground I
.. ... ', ..
", " v. " "" " ,,"" "" ""///,,
~
III I
"./~·I
'" i-' I; I" "I
(cont.) coring ~ 25.4'
LEGEND
Gravel r Imperv i ous seal
later level
Sand Pi ez ome tift i p
~ Thermocouple S i It I 3"" O. D. split spoon sample
Clay n 3'" O. D. th in-wall samp I e
* Sample not recovered
Atterberll limits:
Peat I • I .. Liquid limit
,~ Iller content Organic
Content Plastic limit
3 0 .. : ... : ... ~ .. : ... : .. ~-.: ... : ... : ... ~ .. : ... : ... : ... : ... ~.~ ... : .. ~...: ..
20 40 • ~ Water content
Nate: The stratification lines represent
the approximate boundartes bet .. en soil
types and the transition may be IIradual.
Stone & rJebster
Newhalen River Canal Diversion
Newhalen, Alaska
LOG OF BORING NO. B-5
April 1982
SHANNON' "LSON, INC.
;[OT[CHNICAL CONSuLTANTS
K-0517 -01
FIG. 5
-
-
---..... ---
-
-
...
....
..
' ...
.-
----
.... .-.... -----------~ .......... ---------.--.--.-... -----------~-~-----.. .
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. SUMMARY LOG OF lORING: B - 5 (C 0 n t. )
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
JOB NO: 1 DATE: 4/5/82 ~PR-~-EC~T-:--S-t-o-n-e--&-W-e-b-s-t-e-r------------------_L-----K---0_5_1~7_-0~1~~ ____ ~~~ ____ ----~
Newha 1 en Ri ver Canal Oi vers i on STATION: ""144+50, 290 I R I ELEV: 143 I
DEPTH
IN
FEET
f-
f--
l-
t--
~
I-
~
I-
~5 --------~30
l-
f--
f-
l-
I-
I-
~
~
~35 -
~
l-
I-
f-
I-
~
t--
~O
f-
I-------
~5
~
l-
I-
f--
l-
t--
f-
fo.-
HO
f-
l-
I-
l-
f----~5
l-
I--
f-
fo.-
l-
t--
f-
~
~O ----l-
I-
f-
~ 65
DUCRIPTION OF MATERIALS
)h~.~ ~; Glacial Till, as above
f-J:i ~;i6.~ ~~-r~
~~5 :S"6"~ ~~. ?a
GROUND TEMP. (OF)
04REC Thermistor casing
Yo IQD not i nsta 11 ed
~2=.::5~ . ..,;;:4~ _ _I···························· .. ·······-······ .............. .
2 89
NA ~-~ I~~~ ~:~"( :i~ Is rown, modera te 1 y seve re 1 y 1-3"'-lw.~0~ _ _I· .. ··-........ •• .. ••••• .. • ...... • .. ·-.... • ...... • .... • ....
~~A) weathered VOLCANIC BRECCIA, 3 100 ~" •• ' 'w/local very severely '-11 n Nlf
:.:.:.: weathered zones. Joints @
••••••• 15°-60° spaced 1 "to 2", thi ck • • • .:.:::~~ <:'~a..Y _ <:.<:.a!~ ~g.: _ ~n_ ~<:s_t _ -!.o~ ~!:._ 4
:.:.:.: Gray, very slightly to
.:.:.:. sl ightly weathered VOLCANIC
••••••• BRECCIA, closely to moderate~~1J-::::3~8.:...l!.4-_-I
:':.:.' closely jointed @ 15°-45° (15°
.:.:.:' common, .5 ' and l' -2' spaci ng ... , ) •••••• , common
.:':':.38.7'-39.3',40.3'-40.7' zones
:.:.:.: of very closely spaced joints
Bottom of Exploration
Completed 4/5/82
5
42.7
100
fJf
REMARKS
Began NX diamond
coring @ 24.5'
FTr,. r,
-
-,.
-..
.-
...
---
-
-
-
----
-...
-
•
...
-
...
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Station: Approx. 103+30, 155 1L
Surface Elevation: 184 1
u = CoD A.a
c -'
l1li:
CoD
. -. = ...
A.
w.J c:a
Brown, sandy SILT, with organics
(Tundra)
Very dense, brown to gray-brown,
silty sandy GRAVEL, with cobbles
(Glacial Till)
////
//// , / / / /
'//// ~ ... 2.4
. :~.~ .... o~.
rr·:~~:··· .0'0·<) ~~:~~ ~q.;L\. ~<;>;6\o
~t()· '.~
. NOTE: Auger refusal at 11.41 required ~;~1
Nx coring to advance borehole. ~\:7.~:;.(
Auger was. ab 1 e to penetrate j:~J>'~~
after COrl ng run 1, 11.41 to :6t:~
12.21 (L=.8, Rec=.5) tte:r
D:-'~~/ 14.0
Medium dense to dense, gray to
gray-bro\'Jn, clean to slightly silty
fine SAND, laminated .
~1edium dense, gray-brown, clean to },\Yi%
slightly silty, fine to coarse SAND, ~ri1fii
wi th occas i ona 1 1 enses of s i 1 ty fj ne ~!1:~~/~k
sand to fine sandy silt {{;:%j;~~\\::
A
~
(cont.)
LEGEND
o~~~ Gravel r Impervious seal ~~coo
j ... ' . liter level
Frozen . ':,.:.,: ~'. Sand Pinometer tip Ground l :', :'::.:.
r;,~/ .... '/ S i It ~ Thermocouple
/~ // I 3-D. D. '///// split spoon sample
~ Clay II 3" D. D. th in-Will samp I e
* Sampl. nat r.covered
IIII I
Atterbera limits:
Pea t. I • , .. Liquid limit
oIoI'J I" Organic '~'Iter content
'Jjl./II Content Plastic limit
w.J c:a. -' Zw.J A. ~ ... • Q c c ~. c.'J
S-l l
S-2-
S-4-
*
S-5-
*
S-91
~
S-lol
N c:c .......
en .......
"<T
--:-
PENETRATION RESISTANCE . = ... (340 lb. wei aht. 30 H drop)
A.
~O 4 Blon 20r foot 40
: : : : ~ ~ ~ ~ : I : : : : : : ~~: ~
·········l······~ .. • ••••.••• 1 ••••••
5 ---H-4--•.• W •
:.:::::::1::::::~6
: : : : : : : : : 1 : : : : :3-J I~ I
1 0 .. ; ... ; ... : ... : ... ; ... : ... ; ... ; ... ~ .. ~ .. : .. ~ ... ;_.; ... ~ .. ; ~ ~~ 6
:::::::::i::::::~6
• •••••••• ! •••••• 1 (2'
15 .~.:-.--~--r----. ~
2o .. __ L __ nLt • _._
::::::::1:::::::::
: : : : : : : : : ~ : : : : : : : : :
25 "-2 .. --LL..-___ ---
.......
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.......
· ................. .
30 ·····~···················· .. ··· .. ·r····················· ........... _.
· ....... : ; : . : : : : : : :
.......
· '. . . . .
A -....L.....t-L _1V..33L .. : ... : ... : ... : ........... : ... : ... : ... f .. ~ .. : ... : ... : ... : ... : ....... : ... : ..
J 20 40 • ~ Water content
Note: The stratification lines represent
the apprOllmate boundaries between soi I
types and the transition may oe aradual.
Stone & Webster
Newhalen River Canal Diversion
Newhalen, Alaska
LOG OF BORING NO. B-6
Apri 1 1982 K-0517-01
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
;(OT(CHMICAl COMSUlTAMTS
FIG. 7
-
-----------
-
..
-
--..
...
,.
'--
..
1 SOIL DESCRIPTION
1;1' Station: Approx. 103+30,
184 ' Surface Elevation:
Bottom of Exploration
Completed 4/6/82
c.,) -
155 I L :I: UI
A. = C -'
CI:
UI
F r OlBn
Ground
LEGEND
Gravel
Sand r Impervious seal
later level
~ Piezometer tip
ThermoCDUp I e
. --.
:I:
~
A.
w.I =
S i It
Clay
l'gI
I
II
3· D.O. split spoon sample
3"" D.O. thin-wall sample
Pea t
"'J 1/ Organic
~j 1./11 Con t en t
... Sample not recovered
Atterbera I imi ts:
I • ,_ Liquid limit
~~ later content
Plastic limit
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
(3~0 lb •• ei aht. 30" drop)
A Blo .. per fODt
20 40
································· .. ·r·················· ................. .
. . . . . . . .
·····,,·· .. ,·,························r················ .................... .
20 40
• \ Water content
Note: The stratification lines represent
the apprOllmate boundaries bet •• en soi I
types and the transition may be aradual.
Stone & Webster
Newhalen River Canal Diversion
Newhalen, Alaska
LOG OF BORING NO. B-6 (CONT,)
A~ri 1 1932
SHANNON & IILSON, INC.
&EOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
K-05l7-0l
FIG. 7
----------..
-..
---..
--..
..
--....
-..
SOIL DESCRIPTION . --= UI •
Station: Approx. 97+90, 45'L =~ e
Surface Elevation: IV174' UI ~
Brown, sandy SILT with organics ] /:;':;':;'
(Tundra)(Top 0.5' is ice) 1 8 I-S=-t':";,;:':· f':';f;:';,~b:"">'r-'-o-=wCJ:n-,-=-=-s'::'a-n-'d";"y~S';-I L:=-;T=-'-, -t:-r-a-c-e-o""'f=-;:;'; ;.: .
fine Qravel 5;~~'3.5
l~:~~i!!i::~~;:1~i~~;~:i:~~~i:::~~ !III! 705
orange-brown to gray-brown, sl i ghtly .~ .. ~.
silty. sandy. fine to coarse GRAVEL and :~~;~r3.
gravelly, fine to coarse SAND iff0~i;'!
Medium dense to dense, gray-brown,
clean to slightly silty, gravelly,
fine to coarse SAND and sandy fine
coarse GRAVEL
~::.~;~
f..!...o ~;~.~~
til ~~~~~ 16.0
o.D o·
ta 11[~
R:·Q:·~ ~:.C?:.,:
".~.~:'
" ~~~$
...,
-' A. • ..
"'"
S-ll
s-21
s-31
s-41
S-51
S-61
S-71
S-81
*
10' .\,,) •• 0
.~~3~ iT . ,0',;D S-1 01 Itt 3 0 f-' Medium dense, gray, silty, sandy
GRAVEL (Glacial Till) ~~ . S-ll
.-t""""':';;'~"&:j-"'~""'}:t"3,-,4,-" . ..:5 __ I
V h~1edium dense, gray, clean to sl .
I ,Silty gravelly SAND and sandy
Frozen
Ground Sand
S i It
Y (cont )
~
Impervious seal
later level
Piezometer tip
Thermocoup I e
c::a • z....,
~..-c::a ..
:i-
~
(,!j
z: .....
-I
-I .....
c:::
Cl
(,!j
:z ..... c:::
=> Cl
Cl
LJ.J > c:::
LJ.J
V')
c:J
0
---PENETRATION RESISTANCE . (3.0 I b, .. i ah t. 30 H drop) = ..-... Blows per foot L
~O ?O 40
.............
:::.:::1:::::::::
. : ~ : : : : j : : : : : : : : .
5 ~--+-+-· W~ •
·;::;:':1:::::::·:
......... ~ ...... ~.
1 0 ··: .. ·: .. ·~ .. :· .. :· .. :···: .. ·: .. .:. .. t .. : .. ·:···:..·~-:...:...s~·.:..
[)6. A
......... l ...... 78 ••
1 5 .. · .... · ................ ·: .. ·: .. :-r .. :-: .. :·:::·::
.•••• :.:. i: ••••• fA
2o--J-r~-T
2S..:. ............... ~~~
. . . .. " ... .
3 0 .. : ... : ... : ... : ... : ... : ... : ... : .. ~ ... L.: ... ~ .. : ... : ... ~ .. ~ ... ~.~ ..
y ..li ____ __ ~ .• _._ .. __ .~ .. _._
20 40 • ~ Water content
Note: The stratification I,nes represent
the approximate boundaries bet.een SOl I
types and the transition may be aradual.
Stone & \~ebster
Newhalen River Canal Diversion
Newhalen, Alaska
Clay
13-0.D.splitspoonsample n 3'" O.D. thin-wall sample * Sample not recovered LOG OF BORING NO. B-7
Pea t
" .; '.; I, 0 r ga n i C
~jI.;'''1 Content
Attlrbera I imi ts:
I • I .. L i qu i d lim it
~':""-,atlr .content
Plastic limit
April 1982
SHANNON' IILSON, INC.
;lOTlCHNICAL CONSULTANTS
K-05l7-0l
FIG. 8
-
...
..
-----
-
-
..
-
. '
-
-
-
-..
--
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Station: Apprdx. 97+90, 45 1 L
Surface Elevation: ",174 1
Gravelly SAND, and sandy GRAVEL,
as above
c.:I
ZU:It
Q. = .. ~ • c:I
p::-'····~:k ~~.§5~.
I Ii -.....
~ . Q.
Z ..... • .. Q. "" ..... _
S-11..J..
-. PENETRATION RESISTANCE z ..... =-..... . (340 I b, WI i ah t. 30 H d rap) Z = .. ..... A810 .. per foot ::;-Q.
~O 20 40
35
occasional zones of fine sand
: .':I:'::Q'
:~:D:c
.0.' "',i :~t~~~f . S 1 21 l . . •. ::i;::.::~:'::!: -40 ................................. __ ..... :::::::::::::. -.:: .... :: ... -:: ..... ::--. :"-:-~'1 '~"~1" 'o':~"<::,,, p.p:~
.. o·.~ s: 131 : : l : • : : : :
\,'j
I--v-e-rY-d-e-n-S-e-,-g-r-a-Y---b-ro-w-n-,-S-'i -It-Y-S-a-n-dy--t:l~r'i'?O':'1~~'~;~--52 0
5
-
141
50 _. __ ._-------y-
GRAVEL (Glacial Till)
I--------v------+=I· . 59.1
(cant. )
Frozen
Ground
LEGEND
Sand
S i It
Clay
Pea t
,,~ I, Organic
~jI/"1 Content
r Impery i ous seal
,.ter lenl
~ Piezometer tip
~ Thermocouple
I 3-0.0. split spoon sample n 3" O. D. t h i n-u II samp I e * Samp Ie not recovered
Atterbera limits;
I. 1 .. L.iquidlimit
,~,.ter content
Plastic limit
55
--~-.......... _ ......... __ .: ... :_~.~_~ .. ~~ .. ~_. _. r::
60 Began NX diamond:
.c~~~~g. @ 60.5 I
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
··· .. ·· .. ·_·· .. ·· .. ···· .. ········· .. ··r······aau ••••••• _ •• _ .......... --..
· .... · .... ·· .. · .. · .. · .. · .. · .. · .... ···T····· .. ·· .... · .. ·· .......... · .. · ....
20 40 • ~ Water content
Note: The stratification lines represent
thl apprOllmate bound~rles bet •• en soi I
types and the transition may be aradull.
Stone & Webster
Newhalen River Canal Diversion
Newhalen, Alaska
LOG OF BORING NO. B-7 (CONT,)
April 1982
SHANNON & IIL.SON, INC.
;[OT[CHNICAL CONSULTANTS
K-0517-01
FIG. 8
-
-
-,-..
----
-
-
-
..
-
-
...
,.
.-
' ... ..
-..
til1ANNON & WIL.SON, INC. SUMMARY LOG OF lORING: B -7 (con t. )
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS JOB NO: I DATE' I--pR-QJ-EC-T-:----------------K -051 7 -0 1 . 3/9/82 Stone & Webster
Newha1en River Canal Diversion STATION: "",97+90, 45 1L IELIY: ....... 174 1
DEIPTNH i ~ I i GROUND TEMP. (OF) ~ DESCRIPTION Of MATERIALS ~ z. 04 RIC The rm i s to rca sin g
FEn ::I %"'iQD not installed
I-I/~~:" I-'9..' G1acia1Ti11,asabove ~ ~;~~ ~ ~.o/.~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~~--~--~~--~~------~ ~ 60++++ Moderately hard, dark gray
~ ++t+ to black, very slightly
~ + + weathered BASALTIC ANDESITE,
~ ++++ closely jointed at all angles.
~ + + Serpentine coating on irregu-t:.. + + 1ar joint faces.
~ 65 +1-++ Numerous healed joints
I-++++ throughout.
~ + + Common joint spacings:
I-+ + 60.5 1-63.0 1 3"-5" ~ ++++ 63.0 1-64.5 1 1"-2"
~ 1\ 64.5 1-66.5 1 10"-15"
~ 70 66.5 1-67.5 1 1"-2" ~ 67.5 1-68.11 "']"
P-....
I-
~
I-....
~
~75
I--
~
~
I---
~
I-
~
I---
~ 80
~
I---
~
I--
l-
I---....
l-
I-
I--85
~
I---
I-
~
I--
~
I--....-
~90
~
~
I--
I---
~ ....-
~
~
~
I---95
~
l-
I-
~ ....
l-
I--
~ ~ 100
Bottom of Exploration
Completed 3/9/82
/
60.5
1 100
63.0 40
2
68 1
100
39
REMARKS
Began NX diamond
coring @ 60.5 1
FIG. 8
,i!ililt
-
...
-----
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
------
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Station: Approx. 130+00, 1290'L
Surface Elevation: 152'
Very dense, gray-brown, silty,
sandy GRAVEL, with cobbles
(Glacial Till)
. -y
z ut
... c:t Z .. ~ ~ -...
c:I .....
c:::I
!'.:~.:
-..... c:::I • PENETRATION RESISTANCE ~ z .....
0(340 Ib, uiaht. 3D" drop) ... ~~ ::z:: -c:::I .. ~ .810 .. per foat .. :-... "" ~O 20 40
. . . ~ . . . . .
S-l I :~:i:":::5L6
... 1 ••..•. 5"
. ~ : : : : : : : : : I ~----------------------------~~. ~.' 4.8 S-21 ~~::~~:~~:~::~~:~~~~~n~e~~~~ !~N~ -119
0
0 5-31
5 .. : ... :-.: ... : ... : .. ~ .. ~-~ .. ~+.~.~~.~~~.~i-
J~
Loose to medium dense, gray, clean ;;i:(:~:NU.~{ S-41 1 o~:~·---·-.-r~~~
Medium dense, gray, clean, fine to
medium SAND, with scattered layers
of silty fine sand
!;::
Dense to very dense, gray-brown,
slightly silty fine SAND
S-5 I
S-9
I
S-l 0 I
A' 15 .. : .. ·:···: .. ·~··:· .. :· .. : .. ~-·t~···:· .. ~··~·~~~~
:: .::1: ..... :: : : : : : : : :.:::::
: ........ .
20 .-.~-~~-.-¥-______ ._
.......
. . . . . .
25 -~.--~~l±4_
3 0 .. : ... : ... : ... : ... : ... : ... ~.~ ... J .. : ... : ... ~ .. :.-: ... ~ .. :?-~~. •
-------------------------------iiil..ii:.:.32 0
Hard, gray SILT, laminated, trace of jjjj .
f · t d d f' //// lne 0 coarse san an lne gravel ////
. __________________ ~~~£/~j-~~---O~~-ll T
V
Frozen
Ground
(cont.)
LEGEND
Sand
S i It
Clay
Peat
r Im.pervious seal
liter IIVII
~ Piezometer tip
[gl Thermocouple
I 3-O. D. sp lit spoon samp II
II 3'" 0.0. thin-wall sample * Samp Ie nat rlcavered
Atterbera limit.:
I • I_Liquid limit
'~Ilter ocontent
Plastic limit
o LO 40
• ~ Water content
Note: The stratificat,on I,nes represent
the apprOl imate boundar I es Olt ... n so i I
types and the transition may oe aradual.
Stone & Webster
Newhalen River Canal Diversion
Newhalen, Alaska
LOG OF BORING NO. B-3
April 1982
SHANNON & IILSON, INC.
;[OT[CHNICAL CONSULTANTS
K-05l7 -01
FIG. 9
-
-
..
---
----
-
..
--.... -..
-
---.-
• ..
--------SQIL DESCRIPTION
Station: Approx. 130+00, 1290 'L
Surface Elevation: 152 '
SILT, as above V////
~////
~/jj/ ~///~
vjjj/
////
5-1 I..L
//// I //// S-12
~ ______________________________________________________ ;/~/~/~/ 40.5
.. ~:){:
Very dense, gray, silty, sandy
GRAVEL (Glacial Till)
from 54 ' Till color is locally
mottled red and/or blue-gray with
weathered bedrock fragments
~~ ~i'<J/, ~ I~~~'~ I.;.~'. 0 ~~ "M :~./j? :~Lo ,~~ r···>;,:· jW~
g~ ,.~&:
··o·~:<:) ~t:~
" '\1.. '.:. ::
S-13 I
~~I~'~"~''':
··)r9 ~~58.0
--.
:z: ....
Q.
~O
35
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
(340 lb. Wliaht, 30" drop)
& 810 .. per foot
20
....... .......
40
. ........ ..
40 ......... i······ 'A' ......................... __ ...... , N P ....... _ ........ ,-
.1110
," _A
50
0
--
0
--_
0
] __ -00 -50-..
55 oo~o~~oo:...:...:...:...:...:..r:...:...:...:...:..se-
Severe ly weathered Bedrock ........., ......... _~'1~~ 59
~ ~ / V
" ... i ~-+---"'V60 ;
Beaan Nx diam9nd
cor.;n9 @ 59r~'"
Frozen
Ground
(cont.)
LEGEND
Pea t
",,~ I, Organic
"JjJ/"1 Content
r Impervious seal
'Iter level
§ Piezometer tip
~ Thermocouple
I 3· O. D. sp lit spoon samp I e n 3'" 0.0. thin-wail sample * Sample nat recovered
At te rbar a I imi tl:
I • I .. L.iquid limit
~~'Iter ,content
PlastiC limit
·················_ .. ················r·················· ................ ..
·····································r················ .......•......•.....
• ~ Water content
Nate: The stratification lines repreSint
the approximate boundaries bet ... n sail
types and the transition may be aradual.
Stone & Webster
Newhalen River Canal Diversion
Newhalen, Alaska
LOG OF BORING NO. B-3 (CO~JT,)
Apr; 1 1982 K-0517-01
SHANNON & IIL.SON,INC.
;EOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
FIG. 9
-
-------
---,. .. -
-
---
-
-
-
----..
--•
~HANN(J", ~ WIL.SON, INC. SUMMMY LOG OF lORING: D -0 \ corn. )
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS I ___ ~ __ ~~ __________ ----IJOI NO: K-0517 -01 I DATI: 4/10/82
PROJECT: Stone & \~ebster
DEPTH
IN
FEn
f-
f--
f-
f--
f-
I-
~
I-
~60 ---r------
~65
f-
l-
f-
f--
~
~
f-
~
~70 -----f--
f-
f--
~75 r-
foo-r--~
f--r-
I-HO ~
l-
f-
l-
i-
f---
f--
I--1--85
f-
foo-
i-
f--r-
1-. r-
f--
I-1--90
l-
f--r-
I--
l-
I--
f-
f--
f-1--95 ... ----
f--
l-
I-
t-
Newhalen River Canal Diversion STATION: ..... 130+00, 1290 l L IELIY: 152 1
10·····. 10·.···.
10·····. 10·.·.·. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ ...... . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • · . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
DISCRIPnoN Of MATERIALS
Glacial Till, as above
~ND TlMP. tOF)
04RIC thermlstor caslng
;riQO not installed
Soft to very soft, blue-gray, 5 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
moderately severely to very a..-.-.:-9...:.. . ..:..6--J-_--a .............. .
severely weathered VOLCANIC
BRECCIA. Weak, easily frac-
tured. Highly fractured
zones spaced 0.3-0.6 ft.
100
NA
. ..................................... _ .................... .
apart. Clayey texture, 64.5 :::::::::::::::
especially in fractured zones.I-----J-----1··············· ................. _ ........ -..................................... .
from 66.5 1 -68.5 1
, very 2
severely weathered, brown,
local completely weathered
zones 69.5 -\
Bottom of Exploration
Completed 4/10/82
100
NA
REMARKS
Began NX diamond
coring @ 59.6 1
FIG. 9
I I
.,
1--1
G)
I----'
0
I • • I
>-
CIl
a::
UJ :z
u..
I-:z
UJ o
a::
UJ
0..
SAMPLE
NO.
B-1
S-3
B-1
S-6
I
DEPTH-FT.
7.5-9.0
15.0-16.5
I I I • I I I I j I • • I I j I J I I
SI EVE ANAlYSI S
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES I NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH. U.S. STANDARO T
'" "..,
COBBLES I
U.S.C.
SP
GP
COARSE I F IHE I COARSE I MEDIUM FINE
GRAVEl I SANO
CLASSIFICATION
• Medium dense, gray-brown, gravelly, fine
to medium SAND, trace of coarse sand
and silt .
• Medium dense, gray, slightly sandy, fine
to coarse GRAVEL
I
NAT .
w. C. %
4
5
LL
I • I I • • I J I l
PL
HYDROMETER ANAlYSI S
GRAIN SIZE IN MM I
PI
FINES
".., '" 000
000
-o
o
I-:z
UJ
~
a::
UJ
0..
~~ewha 1 en River
Canal Diversion Project
GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION
BORING B-1
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
April 1982 K-0517-01
SHANNON & WILSON
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
I I
>-
£D
cc::
LLJ :z:
LL.
;-
:z:
LLJ o
cc::
LLJ
D...
SAMPLE
NO.
B-2
S-5
• I I 1 I j I j I I • I I • I • • I i I • I i I I
I
SI EVE ANALYSI S HYDROMETER ANALYSI S
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES I NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH. U.S. STANDARD I G RA INS I ZE IN MM I
CD U) ...,. COl <'. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ;; :;:; :; ~:; ~ o IS)
0 0 -MItl_C"l N .. to
100 r----~r-_r--r--_r-.~--_._.~._,,--r_~-------r._-----_r----·_.--_.---~----~_T_r,r_r--~----TrTr~r-r-T-~~---~'O
.. =~ :=::= ~:/:=\c-..::C':. .-.' -I-fe.----+ __ Ie.--____ -+_-_··-= ___ = ~-t==.:-.===:====~~--I-I_ 4_+ -_ 4+-_ -I:f-. -_ -_~+---_ -_ -_ -_ --I~:j~~~f--+-+--1:_ -1-+ -_-_-.... 1_ -_--l-f--____ -~~ 10
1----_4----~ --~.=±~=.~'=t=tj=±:j===t~jl======~======t=====~==t===~====t=~~==t==t=====+t+tl=t~=t==~==~ 1----~f_.__+___t---1_-----~.~-+-+~-+--_+_~------1------~-----+----+---~----4I_4_+__+___+_-1f_._----++-+~~t_+~--_+----~ ~--·4--+-+--~-·-~~·-~·~-+~~~====J=====j====±===t==j====fjtt~~=t====~~~±=±==t~~~ 8 0 .--------' ---l4-l-l-I-I--I---If-.---4----2 0
~·----+---I~~-I---j---4~\-I-+-I--~---~~======1======~=====+==~~==t=====~~=+~===t====--~~=t~t·=~-=~~==t====~
1-----~f_.__+___t--4-·~--+~\1_-+__f_._+__·4--._----_+------·+_----+_--~--~-----~-1-4·-+-4----I------
1------Ie.----+-4--~-+--~-... +-+-+__-4--1------+------4_----+_--~·-~-----I__+__t-+___+_--I_--~_t_I+_tf-f--,.----------
10 t===~C==±=i==:t=±===t=f~i=j===±=1=======t======t====~===t==~=====t=t~~=t==t=====tttt1=t=r_-=+-==~==~1 30
~--.. ---~ ~-. ----+-+-I-'\rt-~--_I_-I_-------.I__----_t_----4_---1---_+-----1·-+_+_+-4------···---H-IH-I-+·-+---I----.-. -.... ___ ." --··--I+-II-+.-l--I-I---l·------.--
6 0 .... ----.~-~-_. --_+_--·-~1'=--=--=--=--=-=-~t:=.=--=--=--=--=--=-t_-=--=--=--=-~t=_-=--=--=-t-=--=-=-1-=--=--=--=-~I--+-.+----+-·--if-.f--__ -+--___ ·-·_---Hf-.l-l-+~4__+_-_lf---·-----·· -1-4 0
------.. --~-~---1--1-f-I-\" --f--------.--... -.. -
--.f---+-+---I--+-.---... _'::-1 ----=-~--::..-. .-f-..--.----.-I--.. ---~.-.-.-r-~-'~ -I--~.---------. -f-.-f--I---.-I--.. ---.
e.---.-.... 1--.-. -_ ... -c -----. >-~ 1-.1--.--. -.-.-.-. ..-'_.--:=-=--= 5 0
" ~.:. ' :=-~~~ .= ;c.-~ = == :;~==;:= _____ .-~=. I=f~~~~ ~-;~~:=~==._j.l_I_j,.I--~~-=-_l ... --. =.-. ~~~ ~~~.~. ~~
40 f-.. i--.. - - ---~~-.j.-I___+ ----I-I-·H··.j-~__I--I-.--.-60
f_-....... -. --f-.--.-.. _-f--. -f---... ---.. ---.------.--....... .
~---.----f---.. _.. -. -- --._.-.. 1---.-------.. -----f---f----I·· ---.. _ .... -.--.. . .. _.
---~----~ -----+ .. _-.-.. _--
30 I------f-..-f-. 1----~-.-. --. f----._-. --I--I--~-.. --+-... -r-.-.--. -. -. -----.---... -. ---... --------
.. __ ....... -.. ~.... ...' --. '.--_._---. ---.-_._-. -..... -
..... ... .. . .. ---_.'.--.1-.. -... ---.--.. ---.. --
--------~-. - -------" ---
20 ... --------..•........ ---f--. .-f-----.-.--. -----. --------... --------
... --~ -.-.. ~.----.----------- - ----------_.-_ ..
-H++-f--·\-·j··---.-....... .... .
... -.-. -._-.. _ .. f···
-----I-I-·~4_I--I--.-f--... . -1 0
·f·· f--.. -, .... --. .-•... 80
..... ~ . .... . __ ._ .. -.. : ~.--.. .... . __ ..... ~ .. '.~ -.~~ .. --.--------~.~~=.= ~~-=~ .~~.~~~~ ~~.-.-.-=~. -~f--~-. -._--.. I-+.j..' •• }'-+I.-.~"-... ' .. _~._· ... l ....• = ••. -....• ---.. -....... 90 .. .. •. " .... .... : :-:::::=: r=::--b.:.~~ " .. .. . , J
o .... :L ___ ._ 1. 1.1. L. I .. LL _J []r L I J ... ..1 .. _ _ __ rJ L LLL L . .1-:. _.J_.=-... _ .lJ1 I ..... --.. .. _. -_ --100
10
00 000000 CCOCO..,.M N _COIO...,.M N _COU)..,.M N
00 CCOeD...,.Pl N 000000
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES COARSE COARSE I MEO I UM I FINE I FINE
I I SAN~ I GRAVEL
-<D IS) .. M
<> 0 0 o 0
o 0
FINES
'" o
o
-o
o
•
..... :z:
LLJ
~
cc::
LLJ
D...
NA T. u. S. C. CLASS I F I CAT ION OEPTH-FT. w. c. % LL PL PI Newhalen River
Canal Diversion Project
12.5-14.0 GW • Dense, gray-brown to gray-green, sandy,
fine to coarse GRAVEL, trace of silt
6 GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION
BORING B-2
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
April 1982 K-0517-01
SHANNON & WILSON
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
I j • I I I
'l
1--1
G")
~
-CD
= ..... :z:
u..
I-:z: ..... o
= .....
D..
SAMPLE
NO.
B-3
S-9
B-3
S-13
I
0 ....
<>
<>
P)
OEPTH·fT.
24.5-26.0
~4.5-46.0
I I • I I I • • • • • J I • I
SI EVE ANALYSI S
SIZE Of OPENING IN INCHES I NUMBER' Of MESH PER INCH, U.S. STANDARD I ... ... <> <> '" ...... '" "-"-"-"-"-<> <> <> co <> <> -P) on _ P) '" ... '"
--"-_ I--1-
_L .. .•. .. tl. I I j I 1-._-j n I. j I 1 .. 1 ~ -..
<> c <> <> <> <> '" '" ... P)
<> '" ... P) '"
_Q)ID ..... M '" <>
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
1
I COAR'SE FINE I COARSE I MED IUM I fiNE COBBLES I GRAVE L I SAND
NA T.
,.C. %
U.S,C. CLASSIFICATION
I I I J I • I
... P)
<> <>
-"-'---~-
... P)
<> <>
LL PL
HYDROMETER ANALYSI S
GRA IN SIZE IN MM I ... '" ... P)
'" -<> <> <> <>
<> <> <> <> <> <>
--.
'" -COlO.-M N -• <> o Q 0 Q Q 0 <>
Q 0 Q Q <>
FINES
PI Newha1en River
Canal Diversion Project
• Stiff, gray-brown SILT, trace of sand 20 25 NP GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION
BORING B-3
GM • ~1edium dense, gray-brown, silty, sandy,
GRAVEL
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
April 1982 K-0517-01
SHANNON & WILSON
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
• I
"'TJ
H en
t;j
• I • •
I-:c
c::::J
......
;s:
>-co
a: ...... :z:
LI-
I-:z: ......
c.:"
a: ......
a..
SAMPLE
NO.
B-6
S-3
B-6
S-7
<>
'" ..,
OfPTH-fT
7.0-8.3
17.3-19.
• • I • I I I I I I I I I I • t I I • I
SI EVE ANAlYSI S
S lIE OF OPEN ING IN INCHES NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH. U.S. STANDARD
'" '"
COBBLES
U.S.C.
GP
SM
COARSE fiNE MEDIUM
GR A Yf l SANO
CLASSIFICATION
• Very dense, gray-brown, sandy GRAVEL,
trace of silt
.. Medium dense, gray-brown, silty fine
trace of medium to coarse sand
FINE
NAT. LL •. C. %
3
SAND, 19
I I I I I i I • I • i
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
PL
GAl I K S llE IN MM
FINES
PI
-.
f--
f---
l-.-
.---
r------
f----.. -,.-
1--'-"'--
1----._--
1-.
-'-..
-_., .. -
20
30
40
r-:z: ......
~
a: ......
a..
Newhalen River
Canal Diversion Project
GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION
BORING B-6
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
April 1982 K-0517-01
SHANNON & WILSON
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
, . I I
>-
eD
0::
LLI
:z::
u...
;-
:z::
LLI o
0::
LLI
D-
• I I I I I I I I I I I I • • I I I
SI EYE ANAlYSI S
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH. U.S. STANDARD
20
10 ...... _ ... _ .. _
o
o
o
M
I.
'" o
N
I··
11.1. I j I J
00 '"
<0
o 0
... M '" N
. 1 i ! j I I i
o ao <0 ... M
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COARSE FINE MEOIUM FINE
I I • I • I I I I
... M
o 0
HYDROMETER ANAlYSI S
N
o
GRAIN SIZE IN MM
... M
o 0
o 0
N o·
o
t--r--~r:-~ ..
-COlD .... M N
000 ClO C)
o 0 CI CI
I
-o
o
80
-'. 90
o
o
100
I-:z
LLI
c..>
0::
LLI
D-
FINES GRAVEL SA NO L~-~==~=====================~~===;=~=;=====~~~=---_" Newhalen River PL PI
Canal Diversion Project
GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION
BORING B-7
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp.
April 1982 K-0517-01
SHANNON & WILSON
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
I I I
I--:c
CJ
I--:z:
LLJ
~
= LLJ
c....
SAMPLE
NO.
• j
I
• • I I I • I I I I • I I I • I I I I I
SI EVE ANALYSI S
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES I NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH, U.S. STANDARD I
.... '" CI
N
CI .... CI
'"
CI
CI CI '" CI CI
4 0 .~._ •.. _ .. ___ ~ _____ ._/--.
30
20
o
CI
CI
OEPTH-FT.
.......
--I
-I I·· ... -.. --•.. _-.... I·· .
-.. ---1-.... _. . .. -.-.-... -. "--'-.'-f-----'. --..--.
...... _ .. -_. -
1---~
.1.. II I I I I
<>
CI
N
COBBLES
CI CI CI
CI '" '"
I
u. S. C.
o ....
COAR'SE
.-..
CI
N
GR A VE l
. ..
.. ~ ..
i ,
N
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
FINE I COARSE I MEOIUM I FINE
I SAN~
CLASSIFICATION
-'" '" • CI CI
NAT.
•. C. % lL
I I I I t
HYDROMETER ANAlYSI S
GRAIN SIZE IN MM
.... '" N CI CI CI
.... '" CI CI
N
<>
.... '" <> <>
<> CI
.... '" CI CI
CI CI
FINES
!
N
CI
CI
I
I
-. 70
80
1
...
..... 90
_ ..
100 -CI
! I
>-
al
= LLJ '
en = '"'" c
U
I--:z:
LLJ
u
= LLJ
c....
PL PI Newha1en River
Canal Diversion Project
B-8 39.0-40.5
S-12
ML • Hard, gray, SILT, trace of sand and
gravel
27 26 NP GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION
BORING B-8
Stone & Webster Engr. Corp~
April 1982 K-0517-01
SHANNON & WILSON
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
PHOTO PLATE 1
Intake Structure Area
View from east side of river, which
is flowing towards the south, right
to left. The upper rapids would be
at the right edge of the photo.
PHOTO PLATE 2
Intake Structure Area
View from east side of river, looking
northwest. River flows right to left.
Boring B-4 was drilled just off the
right margin of the photo.
-------=-
PHOTO PLATE 3
Outlet Structure Area
View looking northeast. River flows
left to right. River mouth opening
begins at left edge of photo.
PHOTO PLATE 4
Outlet Structure Area
View looking northeast. River flows
to the right. Boring B-5 was drilled
in small clearing at left center of
photo.
_-,Ii\/
PHOTO PLATE 5
Boring 3
PHOTO PLATE 6
Boring 4
PHOTO PLATE 7
Boring 4
PHOTO PLATE 8
Boring 5
PHOTO PLATE 9
Bori ng 5
PHOTO PLATE 10
Boring 5
Photo Plate 11
Boring 6
Photo Plate 12
Boring 7
Photo I P.1 ate 13
Boring 8
Photo Plate 14
Boring 8
.(J'
·z o
I-
<t >
W
...J
W
200
180
160
140
120
80
60
,RIVER
W. S. 162
FROM SURVEY
MARCH 30, 1982
SUBSURFACE PROFILE ALONG CANAL. ALIGNMENT
VES-7 VES-I, (
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
B-.:~~ ____ ----------__ ---------------------+---------------------------~B-"O'+.03.:. VES-8 VES-2, (PROJECTED ONTO SECTION) B-2 B-6 ~-:~--~ ________ ~~=:~~~~~~~~~~___ B-7 . ~d .bg .,..... __ ---+ VES-3,
VES-9
06 t<;: + _------'--~-~1,;l:-',.,.-~ ------_______ -.:o~~--~B~-1 B-8 (PROJECTED . 9 .. ZJ.··. ."p -':2 _ 9, ,; ~. ifJ".
v .sL :v,o .., ""= '0"1]' t ---___ -, ;++ - -__ _""_ 'o:Q p 'fjo ~K ~ •
. ;-+ --? ".... . P ..5L >? :.g; f"7 -." • --___ ~ /...;, D' 0-. ,~ ! . ..[) -.... _ ~:!]. ...
\
\
\
\
\
\
_
/// '" " U tJ'< . . _ • v Q";' tJ '0" // ' .. • ... 7 '-' ". -D
? - -~/; SL g~. -~-~'O, r? ~~~
---_ /,~ q "' .,' . O· ...sL :o·~·; ·.D .
ROCK? -? -Z9 -~-;~ ~ ~~" ;¢J ROCK >30' (3;!9
- -? __ ~ ROCK? 0 ~ ~ ~ _2_ SL <i6.~
-----____ ~!~ -----? - _ _~.l._ ~.~ f9R: 9J ~~~%:
- - - - - - - - ------- - - 7 _ " Q 0" 9ti ~ 1> •..•
.=-=? -= -:..:..: - --- - - - - - - --- ---~« ------~g --- -~~ -- ---- - - -. ~ ~~
,-- - - - --- --- ---- -.--- ----,
FROM 1250' TO N.EJ
VES-IO
+~-5
1;0.
l" ~ "(3..1.
_Jot -lJ/U
/6 , /0
RIVER
W.S.53
FROM SURVEY ,
\ , i. __ , TILL OR
WEATHERED
ROCK
ROC K? -? . ~ Ob <= - ------ - ---~:~ SL
• • ---__ 0 . ;<):6 Po I.' .,: ------, .sL,PE-
I r;. ,·r "v· I SL P6
MARCH 30, 1982
-~ -ROCK >57' ~ R>04C9~' %:~ --__ ~ 0.. _ ? ++ 77;
PROPOSED CANAL INVERT
FROM
DATED
SWEC DRAWING
APRIL 14,1982
• ___ '.J..1 ? //'
--? .. / +t --...:;:::: • -_ ? ' // ..
++ -----? -~ -~ __ ? _ . <:Fe -~
- ?
INFERRED. TOP OF BEDROCK t>/,
-----~! SURFACE
BORINGS
SURVEY
PROJECTED BETWEEN
AND RE SI STIVITY
POINTS, NOTE TWO
/
--. --.-- 7 if,
1.'), ----?
"p ,,"
POSSIBLE
BETWEEN
CONFIGURATIONS
STATIONS 100 + 00
AND 144+00.
~'66
-fei'"
\ ~
"" I "'''' --~ &
I'" /1 •
1\. I
/ I I r--I
ROCK? I f 1 __ ,
I I I
I I I
I I \
I I
-
I I \
I I I __ J
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40~~---,-------------,------------_,------------_,-------------,-------------,-------------,--------~---,------------~----~------_,------------_,------------_,--~--~----_,------------_,------------_,------------_,----------L40
0+00 20+00 40+00 60+00
STATIONING ALONG CANAL
LEGEND:
B-3 LOCATION OF BORING
VES-4 LOCATION OF RESISTIVITY SURVEY
+ ELEVATION DETERMINED FROM SURVEY
• ELEVATION FROM TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
..5L WATER TABLE MEASURED IN BORING
_'L WATER TABLE INFERRED FROM RESISTIVITY' SURVEY
:::" .
df SAND S' GRAVEL ... CJ
"7 /// SILT
:LL
~ GLACIAL TILL B ANDESITIC BEDROCK
l"'" VOLCANIC BRECCIA
80+00 100+00
GEOPHYS I CAL I NFORMAT ION LSBASED,UPON GEOPHYS.\CAl
MEASUREMENTS MAOEBYGENERALL Y ACCEPTEO METHODS
ANDfIHD PROCEDURES AND OUR I NTERPRETAJiQN OF THESE
DATA. GEOLOGI CAL I NFORMA ~I ON. I S BASED UPON OUR BEST
ESTIMATE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CONSIOERIN.GTHE
GEOPHYSICAL RESULTS AND ALLQTHERINFORMATION AVAILABLE
TO US. THESE RESULTS ARE INTERPRETIVE IN NATURUND ARE
CONSIDEREO TIl BE A REASONABLY ACCURATE PRESENTATION'
OF EXISTINGCONDIT.IONS WIITHINTHELlMITATlONS'OF METHOD
OR METHODS EMPLOYED .
THE.PROFILES ARE GENERALIZED FROM THE MATERIALS
ENCOUNTERED IN THEBDRIN~S AND VARIATIONS BETWEEN
THE PROFILES AND ACTUAL 10NDITIONS MAY EXIST. . ,
REVISED APRIL 26, 1982
•
120:+00 140-+00
STONE B WEBSTER ENGR. CORP
NEWHALEN RIVER CANAL DIVERSION
APRIL 1982
SHANNON a WILSON, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
K-0517-01
PLATE
,
'I
2