MEMORANDUM State of Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities

ro: All Holders of Manual for DATE: Study of Particle Velocities &Water Overpressures as Related to FILE NO: Construction Blasting Adjacent to Anadromous Streams dated TELEPHONE NO: December, 1984 FROM: susJECT: Correction to Study of Particle Dallas Rasmussen Velocities and Water Over­ pressures As Related to Construe· ion Blasting Adjacent to Anadronmous Streams

Prior to December 1984, preliminary copies of this report were sent out to various agencies and individuals for review. During revisions based .on those review comments, it was discovered that the conversion factor used to convert decibels to psi and the formula used for the same were erroneous and incomplete. During the summer of 1985 some necessary information (the bac~round 1~ater pressure at each monitoring site) was gathered and with the help of representatives from the water pressure equipment supplier personnel, proper conversion factors and conversion.formula were obtained. This enabled us to make correct pressure calculations, very greatly lowering the water overpressure values obtained. ALL COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL REPORT DATED DECEMBER, 1984 SHOULD BE DESTROYED AS THE WATER PRESSURE DATA AND, THEREFORE, SOME CONCLUSIONS MADE BASED ON THAT DATA, ARE NOT VALID. PROJECT F"RF-RS-071-1 (25)

RICHARDSON HIGHWAY MILE 6 - 14

Study of Particle Velocities and Water Overpressures As Related To Construction Blasting Adjacant To Anadromous Streams

by Dallas Rasmussen and Paul Mulcahy

October, 1985

ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION SECTION SOUTHCENTRAL DISTRICT VALDEZ

------INDEX

Page Acknowledgements ...... i List of Figures ...... ii List of Tables . . iii List of Appendices iv Introduction . . . 2 Description of the Geology and Terrain 2 Monitoring Procedure 3 Equipment . . . 3 Equipment Use, Placement and Problems 5 Analysis 5 Findings 6 Recommendations 13 Examples . 13 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Many thanks are due the Alaska Department of Fish and Game personnel of Glennallen, Mr. Fred Williams, Ken Roberson and Franklin H. Bird for their assistance and cooperation given not only for the conducting of this study but also for their efforts to bring the project to a successful completion. Thanks are also due to the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities drilling and blasting inspectors, Mary Nan Cunningham and David "Sarge" Talvensaari. Their neat and thorough field notes combined with their dedication to get it right made the data gathering process much easier and a finished project as perceived by the Designers. Extensive use was made of reports of prior work done by various groups and i ndi vi dua 1 s. Prominent among these were the "Fina 1 Report on the 2 psi Blast Mani tori ng Program for the U. S. Borax Quartz Hi 11 Molybdenum Mine Access Road Project," October, 1982, prepared by J. E. Marrow; ''Engineering of Rock Blasting On Civil Projects" by A. J. Hendron, Jr.; and "Blast Vi brati ans and Their Effects On Structures" by Harry R. Nicholls, Charles F. Johnson and Wilbur I. Duvall for the U. S. Bureau of Mines (Bulletin 656).

i LIST OF FIGURES

Page Figure 1. Key Map of Study Area . Figure 2. Parti.cle Velocity Versus Scale Distance 7

Figure 3. Water Overpressures Versus Scale Distance 8

Figure 4. Particle Velocity Versus Water Overpressure 9 Figure 5. Relative Location of Shots to the Water . . 11 Figure 6. Typical Cross-Section, Keystone Canyon . 14

ii LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table l. Cut, Station 559+00 - Station 604+00 16 Table 2. Cut, Station 618+00 - Station 631+00 17 Table 3. Cut, Station 639+00 - Station 650+00 18 Table 4. Cut, Station 973+00 - Station 977+00 19 Table 5. Cut, Station 989+00 - Station 991+00 20 Table 6. Cut, Station 991+00 - Station 995+00 21 Table 7. Cut, Station 1041+00 - Station 1048+00 22 Table 8. Cut, Station 1073+00 - Station 1075+00 23 Table 9. Cut, Station 1075+00 - Station 1080+00 24

Table 10. Cut, Station 1083+00 - Station 1089+00 25 & 26

iii LIST OF APPENDICES

Page Appendix A. Keystone Canyon Blasting Study ...... 27 Appendix B. Final Report on the 2 psi Blast Monitoring Program for the U. S. Borax Quartz Hill Molybdenum Mine Access Road Project ...... 58 Appendix C. Addendum No. 2, Richardson Highway, Mile 6-14 . . 76 Appendix D. FG 84-11-7 (Amendment 1) Letter of Stipulation Changes ...... • ...... 86 Appendix E. Proposal to Conduct a Field Analysis of ADOT/PF's Proposed Blasting Methods for the Richardson Highway, Lowe River 14 Project ...... 90 Appendix F. Glossary of Terms ...... 100

iv -i- INTRODUCTION: Because the construction of the Richardson Highway, Mile 6-14 reconstruction project would require the use of explosives near several anadromous fish streams, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game required several stipulations concerning the conduct of the road construction relative to the streams (see Appendix D). These stipulations included one stating that the hydrostatic overpressure developed due to the discharge of explosives adjacent to anadromous waters could not exceed 2 psi without the specific permission of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. In order to comply with this stipulation, it was then necessary to monitor the water overpressure developed during the blasting process. It was decided by Department of Transportation personnel to attempt to correlate and determine the relationship of the water overpressure and the particle velocity. A joint venture was also initiated between the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities personnel to attempt to define mutually acceptable blasting limits for use on future construction projects. The Alaska Department of Fi sh and Game personnel furnished live fish for selected blasts placing the live fish in water at the closest proximity to the blast as possible. The Department of Transportation and Public Facilities personnel documented all aspects of each blast as to size, delays, drilling patterns, loading, overburdens, etc., and monitored each blast as to particle velocity (Vp) and hydrostatic overpressure (Pw). After each live fish test blast the Alaska Department of Fish and Game personnel examined each fish to ascertain any harm done to them. This report presents the results of this monitoring project. DESCRIPTION OF THE GEOLOGY AND TERRAIN: Basica.lly two areas were monitored--the Mile 5i, to Mile 6i, area (Station 595+00 to Station 651+00) and the Keystone Canyon area (Station 973+00 to Station 1090+00). Each of these areas contain several individual cuts. The bedrock in the 5i, to 6i, Mile area is described as a thin, bedded, metasedimentary graywacke, shale and phyllite. The rock displays numerous joints and faults. The major structure (foliation) dips N47°W at 60°. The following description of the rock in Keystone Canyon is taken from the materials report, "Centerline Soils, Rockslope Stability and ·Materials Sites Investigation, Richardson Highway, Mile 5.2 to Lowe River Bridge, F-071-1(25), May, 1979": : Two main rock types exist within this portion of the Keystone Canyon. The most predominate type is a massive, fine to medium grained graywacke. The less predominate rock type is a fine grained, highly fractured, platy phyllite. The platy phyll i te is the least competent of the two types of work encountered.

-2- The structural geology is quite consistent throughout the Keystone Canyon. Geotechnical mapping in the canyon defined three major and four minor sets of discontinuities. The average trend of the major set are: East - West dipping 54°N N l2°W dipping B0°SW N l6°E dipping 55°SE These discontinuities are through going, and can be traced for several hundred feet. The minor sets observed have an average trend of: N 9°W dipping 62°NE N 46°E dipping 49°SE N 89°W dipping 63°SW N 89°W dipping 34°SW Generally, the discontinuity surfaces are clean with occasional quartz and calcite infillings. Open discontinuities are common. Depth of weathering varies, but was noted to be in excess of 15 feet on the Keystone Tunnel Bypass project. Slope instability in the existing cuts and natural slopes are very pronounced. It is not uncommon to have rockfall material deposited on the highway. Rock slopes for the most part are wet and in several locations produce severe icing conditions. MONITORING PROCEDURE: Equipment: The instruments used to monitor the blasting were: 1. A Dallas Instrument Model BR-2-3 particle velocity monitor. 2. A Bruel and Kjaer Model 2209 Sound Level Meter with a B and K Model 2306F Level Recorder and a B and K Type Bl DO Hydrophone. The hydrophone readings were taken in the following manner: l. A backround reading was taken at each monitoring site to establish the water pressure already present at each site. This was mea­ sured in microvolts. The sensitivity of our hydrophone was 30.5

-3- microvolts/pascal. There are 6895 pascals/psi. Therefore:

X microvolts ) 30. 5 tiicrovolts/PascaT} 6895 Pascals/psi Where: Pb = Backround pressure present naturally in PSI X = Meter reading of the natural backround noise {pressure) in microvolts. The following data was obtained in this portion of the project: Cut Microvolt Natura 1 Station Reading Back round PSI (Pb) 5 559-604 5.5 2.615 x 10 - 5 618-631 5.5 2.615 x 10 - 639-650 (l)* 5.0 2.378 x 10 -5 (2) 5.5 2 .615 x 10 -5 5 973-977 6.0 2.853 x 10 - 989-991 6.0 2.853 x 10 -5 991-995 6.0 2.853 x 10 -5 1041-1048 8.0 3.804 x 10 - 5 1073-1075 5.5 2 .615 x 10 -5 1075-1080 5.5 2 .615 x 10 -5 1083-1089 8.0 3.804 x 10 -5 * This cut was monitored at 2 locations, one at each end of the cut. 2. Readings were then taken at each shot. These readings were taken in decibels and the decibel rise (dB) or increase over the natural backround noise was recorded. These readings were converted to overpressure as follows:

Pw = Pma~ - Pb

Where Pw =water pverpressure developed in PSI

Pb = Natural backround pressure in PSI

= the maximum total pressure in PSI developed by the shot or Pb x anti log rn~J Example: Shot B-47 in the Sta. 1075-1080 Cut. 5 Pb = 2.615 x 10 -

dB rise = 40 dB

= antilog (dB ~bx 20 ~ - Pb l 0 - 5 x 10 - 5 =[2.615 x psi x anti log ( ~~ ~ - 2 .615 5 = (2.615 x 10 - 5 psi x 100) - 2.615 x 10 - psi 3 = 2.589 x 10 - psi Both instruments were certified by the manufacturers to be operational within the tolerance of the instrument prior to use. The sound level meter was equipped with a calibra- tion device which was used periodically throughout the project to check the machine calibration. The particle velocity mon­ itor was checked·for calibration by the manufacturer again near the end of the project. No variations in calibration were noted during any check. Equipment use, Placement and Problems: Where possible, the geophone of the particle velocity monitor and the hydrophone of the water pressure monitor were placed adjacent to each other and as close to the shot as terrain and safety of machines and personnel would allow. The exception to this procedure occurred at the Station 618 to 631 and Station 639 to 650 cuts.There were residential structures to the left of the road and the water bodies of interest were right of the road here so the geophone was placed at or near the residences and the hydrophone was placed in the streams. Thus, in these situations the monitors were separated by up to several hundred feet. It was noted during this monitoring project that the water pressure devices (sound meter and hydrophone) we,r.e more difficult to work with than the particle velocity monitor. The sound meter is quite complicated and is subject to external disturbances such as air-blast shock waves and construction equipment working in ;the vicinity. The hydrophone and its cable are much more sensitive to damage ·from fly-rock and rough handling than the geophone. The set up procedure and equipment operational procedures for the particle velocity monitor are simple and very straight forward. The instrument is not vulnerable to external disturb­ ances. Tables l through 10 show the data collected and the various cal­ culated results derived therefrom. ANALYSIS: The particle velocities and water overpressures obtained from the instruments were plotted on logarithmic paper versus the scale distance for that particular shot. The scale distance formula used is as follows:

-5-

, __ ""----~---~------D = ---wt

Where: Ds = Scale Distance

D = Distance, shot to monitor in feet

W = Maximum charge weight per delay in pounds This formula, sometimes referred to as the Bureau of Mines blasting formula, was developed by the Bureau of Mines by observing the effect of blasting on various types of structures. They found that particle velocity varies with the scale distance and that the scale distance varies with either the square root or cube root of the weight of explosives used. The square root formula is considered to be the more conservative for most cases and, thus, was chosen as the Bureau of Mines standard. Since these results are logarithmic in nature, they represent straight line functions of a constant slope when plotted on logarithmic paper. Previous investigators have found the slope of the line formed by plotting particle velocity against scale distance will be about -1.6. Information concerning shot hole layout, pounds of explosive used, delays used, delay layout and so forth was collected by State drilling and blasting inspectors as a routine part of the inspection procedure. From this data, the approximate pounds per delay for each delay was computed. These results were plotted as shown on Figures 2 and 3 for the particle velocities and water overpressures respectively. A comparison of the two figures indicates an apparent correlation between the particle velocity and the water overpressure results. Figure 4 was developed to graphically show this relationship. First, values of the particle velocities and water overpressures as determined for any particular scale distance from Figures 2 and 3, using line B (the 85 percent) were plotted against each other. This resulted in line C on Figure 4. Second, the actual values read on the monitors when the hydrophone and geophone located adjacent to each other were plotted. This resulted in the addition of lines A and B to Figure 4. FINDINGS: Under the conditions present at this project where the blasting was always done above and to the side of the available water bodies, we were unable to even remotely approach the max 2 psi water overpressure limit stipulated by Fish and Game. On shot B-40 we loaded up to 1673 lbs./delay trying in conjunction with Fish and Game to develop some out of spec over­ pressures, but developed a normalized overpressures of 1.714 x 10 -2 psi, (or .0174 psi). On normal shots the normalized psi's were in the 10 -3to lo-5 range. The conclusions and recommendations made in this report pertain to situations as described above. It should be noted that substantially higher water overpressures would prob­ ably be developed if the blasts were located in or beneath the water body of concern. -6- FIGURE 2. Particle Velocity Versus Scale Distance A 95t Line (95'.l: of test values fall below this line). B = 85~ Line (85'.l: of test values fall below this line).

D5G (Scale Distance, Geophone, ft./lb, 1;)

-7- fl ·~c,:; l.111n /'l',~ nf tr~t VillUP~ f~!J hnlOW fhi~ Jill•!).

fl')r, line (fl!.!~ of t.e>~t value~ f.111 ticilow thi~ line).

0 ·-·-·---,·-·:-.. ··-·- -.

"fl ,n ,-.. 1· .00 ' .DD .oo . OD .L . .,, i : .OD -i -:- ,- 1_ --· ' ' • _j l ; : ~ ~ I : 1' ! ~ ! ! ~ .00 .;. - r. " • l!IJ[) "• .ono -+-·- ~ • i.- i. : i-·! .' .. {_• ____ ... =- .oou ,----·-· - , tlOO ~' .000 .·· . 000 ' . ., ~ .

. 000 ,.

n11n . ·•-- .. : :iJ•oir:i , r,"•IUll) ,flll(ll') ,. •,' .111mn ·;I· .•Jflf)ll . -l ' . .0\!)0 ' .,-, ----.J_:_ I I I • 1111r1 ' ·I t. i ' i ! " I .nrmo ' ·: ! ••·-·I ! I ! l I I I' ; .0000 . -·--~ - ._ __ ,, ·" . '.-l -' -- ··---- ' - ·--! -· I. R "0 0 0 0 0000 ~ "' ID ,._'"ll'".:l

-8- filURE 4, Particle Velocity Jn TPS VP.rsus Wat.er PressurE> in PSI A !J5% Line (95% of test values fA11 below this line). 05% L1ne (BS-:: of test values fall below this linP.), Value of Pw for any Vs based on Line B, Figures 2 and 3.

©'

' '

,QQQ I

V5 (Particle Velocity, !PS)

-9- There is a probable usable correlation between the particle velocity and the water overpressure developed. Due to many variables in the whole system of blasting and the geology of the areas, this correlation is a range rather than a specific value. This is shown on Figure 4. Because of this relationship, it would appear possible to generally monitor the water overpressure utilizing a particle velocity monitor. In Appendix A of the "Final Report on the 2 psi Blast Monitoring Program for the U. S. Borax Quartz Hill Molyodenum Mine Access Road Project" (see Appendix B of this report) there is given a formula for estimating water overpressure based on particle velocity measurements. The formula is as fa 11 ows : v zw . z s PW = u;-+ zg) (32.2)(12) 3

p = Water Overpressure w vs = Particle Velocity

z = Density of Water X seismic velocity of water w Zg = Density of the transmitting ground (soil or rock) X the seismic velocity of that ground. 32.2 and 123 are unit conversion factors _Utilizing this formula in conjunction with Shot B-47 data we der~ried the following: z z v Pw calculated= w • g • s (Zw + Zg) (32.2)(12) 3 (62.5 x 4800)(120 x 5000)(1.7 ips) = 3 [(62.5 x 4800) + (120 x 5000)] (32.2)(12)

= 3. 594 x l. 7 = 6.1 psi As noted in the previous example using Shot B-47, the measured value of Pw was 2.589 x 10 -3 psi. The author of Quartz Hill report states that this formula approximates energy transmitted through the soil-water interface normal or perpendicular to that face.· Since the shots in this study were all located above the water surface, the ener!lv waves traveled by the soil-water interface rather than into it (see Figure 5 ), therefore very little energy was transferred in this manner and we found this equation not valid in this type of situation. This formula could be valid and useful--:in situations where the blast was located at or below the elevation of the soil-water interface. -10- ··~ ~ '· ' \ \ \ \\

\ I / / I ,rShot ·- \ j ;' . - '·~-~' ....-\_,·1-, '\ v__,JI r l\/ .\ . ! Richardson Highway ~ BOOM .~ ~·-·;------

Lowe River

. •' /): I I Lines

/ j / I

I I Direction ol Energy Waves

FIGURE 5. Relative Location of Shots t o the Water

- l l -' Also included in the Quartz Hill report is a method of calculating values for Pw at locations other than the location of the hydrophone. This value is referred to as a "normalized value" or calculated value. The formula used is: NP = p (Distance to Point of Interest)-1.6 w w Distance to Hydrophone Where NP =The "normalized"water overpressure at the point of w interest. If you desire to plot the NPw - VS - Os you must figure a NDs (Normalized Scale Distance) based on the distance from the shot to the new point of interest. The formual is useful in cases where the monitor cannot be place in the closest water as was the case on nearly all of our shots. A normal­ ized Pw and Ds was figured for each appropriate shot and is shown on Tab 1es 1-1O. Example: On Shot 8-47, the monitor (hydrophone) was placed 290 feet from the shot with a resulting reading of 2.589 x 10 -4 psi overpressure. The closest water was 89 feet from the shot. 89' -1.6 Using the formula NPw = 2.589 x lo-4 psi (~) = 1.714 x lo-2 psi at the nearest water

Fish and Game placed some fish at this point s~ the calculated reading at the fish was 1.714 x 10 -2 psi, not 2.589 x 10 - psi as read at the hydrophone. When utilizing the tables to find the water overpressure developed by any shot, the normalized (NPw) should be used as it represents the overpressure at the closest water. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game assisted in this project by providing some "live fish testing" on shots 8-9, 8-11 and 8-47 of the Keystone Canyon section. The pressure conditions developed in our tests with the Department of Fish and Game were not sufficient to damage the fish used. See Appendix A and Tables 7 and 9.

These pounds/delay requested by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for live fish testing were excessive even by construction practice where protection of the backslope, excessive fly-rock and traffic maintenance are also considerations. We concur with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's Keystone Canyon Blasting Study (Appendix A) summary and recommendations that the 2 psi is very conservative and that this restriction should not be stated as a "hard and fast" rule, but "a more flexible approach similar to that used for this study might be used." This flexibility is being applied to our own blasting specifications as we define restrictive blasting by the formula: W= (D/DS)2 where: W= Weight of explosives in pounds/delay

-12- D = Distance in feet between the nearest blast site and the point where it is desired to know the particle velocity.

D = 50 s It is done in the special prov1s1ons (see Appendix C) for this project by allowing the contractor to provide short demonstration sections, less than 100 feet, to prove the acceptability of such methods to the Engineer. This allowed us to reduce Ds = 50 to as low as Ds = 10 and still stay near the Vp = 2 ips and well below the Pw = 2 psi requirements as recorded on our monitoring instruments. This same approach could be utilized with regard to specifying blasting restriction as pertains to blasting near streams and other bodies of water, for hydrostatic pressures, by the estimating of water overpressures based on particle velocity measurements. ''\, RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Continue to control contractor blasting, where necessary, by defining restrictive blasting as W = (D/05)2 with a maximum;h,:. particle velocity of 2 ips based on delay EB caps with at least eight (8) milliseconds between periods to initiate blasts when fisheries are a point of interest. This would keep water ov~rpressures in the 10 -2 to 10 -3 range. 2. Because of the difficulty in placing monitoring equipment at the nearest water' point Pw as determined in Recommendation 1 should then be converted if necessary to indicate the water overpressure at the nearest water by used of the "normalizing" formula. EXAMPLES: The following are some typical problems for which Figures 2, 3 and 4 can give estimated results. Problem 1: The contractor wishes to detonate a maximum charge per day of 600 1bs. There is a structure 500 feet from t)le b1 as t site. Estimate if the blast will exceed 2 ips particle velocity at the structure using D 500 DG= -.r- = s w 600! = 20.4 From Figure l, a D of 20.4 gives a Vs of 2. 3 on the 95% 'line and a Vs of 1.4 on thes85% line. Conclusion: This shot should not exceed the 2 ips particle velocity at the structure, using the 85% line as the controlling criteria. Problem 2: On the same shot as #1, there is an anadromous fish stream 150 feet from the blast. Estimate the water overpressure from the b 1ast. · D = 150 = 6. l -wr- 600!-

-13- FIGURE 6: Typical Cross-Section of Shots in Keystone Canyon 1

:1 "11 ' Production Holes

Buffe,. Holes~

riginal Ground

I ~ +> I

Lift 2

Presplit~ 'i Holes I Typical Geophone Placement I Finished Sacks 1 ope

Ftnt shed Grade Typtc.al Hydrophone Placement .f- ' Lowe River

NO SCALE '.?> From Figure (S:, a D:;H of 6.1 gives a WP of .00053 psi at the 95% 1ine and .0002 psi on tne 85% line. Conclusion: This shot will not exceed 2 psi at the stream. Problem 3: A shot by the contractor yields a particle velocity of 1.5 ips at the water body of interest. Estimate the water overpressure in the water body. Utilizing Figure 4, we get values of .0044 psi and .0018 psi on the 95% line and 85% line respectively. For highly critical situations, utilize the maximum value.

-15- T.1tH 1 . ST~ r·rnri 559+00 - 604+00 Cut snnr DISTANCE ·1:1;.'JER LOCATION DATE w SHOT TO (feet) 0 H D G dB D ND H (lbs.) 5 s vs PW n NPW s (JPS) In- (PS I) crease (Ft.) (PSI) HYDRO- PHONE GEO PHONE

A-21 598+50 - 599+60 05/25/84 146 305 285 25.2 23.6 0.5 22 3.031 x 10 -4 4 215 -4 A-22 599+60 - 600+60 5.303 x 10_4 17.8 05/29/84 324 210 190 11. 7 ltl.G 1.2 17 1. 590 x 10-4 180 2.035 x 10_4 10.IJ A-23 600+60 - 601+70 05/29/84 361 150 l 20 7.9 5.3 1. 7 27 5.593 x 10=4 150 5.593 x 10_4 7.9 A-24 501+70 - 602+75 05/30/84 341 170 1~~ 9.2 7 .6 2.6 28 6.308 x 10 4 140 8.6;]6 x 10 _4 A-25 7.6 61)2+75 - 604+34 05/31 /84 168 245 2?1) 18.9 17 .4 0.6 18 1.816 x M- 140 4.446 x 10 10.3

I 5 ~ Backround Pressure (P ) = 2. l5xl0- psi en b I

D -- Scale Distance = w Max. Lbs./Delay NPW = Values of normalized Pw where Pw is the pressure Os WI v Particle Velocity read on the hydrophone and NPw is a normalized value for the water nearest the blast using a D Distance, shot to monitor p~ Water Overpressure DuPont-.tyoe attenuation relation: Ds'I Ds for Hydrophone NDsH 05 for norma 1 i zed Pw O._;r; 05 for Geophone using 00 . NP = p ( Distance to Point of (Dn)lnterest) -1. 6 On Distance. shot to nearest water dB Oecible Rise w w Distance to Hydrophone • Pw considered inaccurate due to equip­ ment malfunction or air blast effects. T_A~~[ 2 STAT.ION 618+00 - 631+00 Cut- - DISTANCE Sii OT DATE w SHOT TO (feet) il!W nm LOCATION DsH DSG v, dB PW D NPW ND II ( 1 bs. ) n s (!PS) Rise (PSI) (Ft.) (PS I) HYDRO- PHONE GEOPHONE

A-2 ; 618+58 - 619+78 06/02/84 375 5 -4 -3 lBO 150 9.3 7. 7 0.9 27 .593 x 10_4 90 1.696 x 10_4 4.6 A-2 l 619+78 - 621+34 06/05/84 300 170 130 9.8 7 .5 2.8 21 2.673 x 10 165 2.804 x 10 9.5 A-2 l 627+79 - 629+30 06/05/84 300 855 415 49.4 24.0 0.4 MF 170 A-3 ) 621 +34 - 623+45 ------5 ------5 06/07/84 105 305 240 29.8 23.4 0.7 8 3.954 x 10_3 245 5.614 x 10_3 3.9 A-3 I 623+45 - 624+95 06/08/84 188 450 120 32.8 8.8 0.3 36 1.624 x 10_5 260 3.906 x 10_4 9.0 A-3 ~ 630+18 - 631+48 06/08/84 64 1075 645 13-1.4 80.6 0.1 5 2.035 x 10_4 140 5.310 x 10_3 7.5 A-3 I 624+95 - 625+90 06/13/84 70 565 140 67.S 16.7 0.4 24 3.834 x 10 270 l. 266 x 10 2.3 I I· ·~ 5 Backround Pressure (Pb) = 2.61 5 x l 0 - IJSi I~ i '

-0 o, Scale Distance = w Max. Lbs./Delay NP Values of normalized Pw where Pw 1s the p w! v Particle Velocity " read on the hydrophone and NPw is a normalized value for the water nearest the blast using a D Distance, shot to moni!_Jr p~ Water Overpressure 0 Hydrophone ND 11 0 for normalized Pw DuPont-tyoe attenuation relation: o,~ 5 for 5 5 using 0 • -1.6 0511 05 for Geo pr. 1ne 0 NP = p (Distance to Point of (On) Interest) Dn Distar.ce, shot to nearest water 18 Oecible Rise w w Dis ta nee to Hydrophone * Pw considered inaccurate due -'to equip­ ment malfunction or air blast effects. TABLE- -- 3. STATfON 639+00 - 650+o0 Cut " - -· SHOT DISTANCE NUMBER LOCATION DATE w SHOT TO (feet) DSH D G v dB p D NP ND.11 (lbs.) s s w n w (JPS) (PS!) (Ft.) (PSI) ' HYDRO- PHONE GEOPHONE . - - A-1 650+00 - 650+70 ** (2) 04/26/84 39.3 225 85 35.9 13.6 0.8 26 4.957 x 10-4 225 4.957 x 10~4 39.6 A-2 649+26 - 649+70 (2) 04/28/84 112.5 325 l 55 30.6 14.6 0.8 27 5.593 x 10=4 325 5.593 x 10 4 30.6 A-3 6.!7+26 - 648+50 (2) 04/28/84 124.2 475 86 42.6 7.7 7.6 26 4.957 x 10_3 400 6.525 x 10=3 35.9 A-4 639+07 - 640+15 ( l) 05/01/84 155.0 210 340 16.9 27.3 0.3 35 ' l.313xl0 160 2.029 x 10 12.9 A-5 6-lO+QO - 641+00 05/01/84 362. 5 260 430 13.7 22.6 0.4 MF . ------4 ------3 -- A-6 5.\6+90 - 647+70 ( 1) 05/01 /84 60.7 900 540 115. 5 69.3 0.4 32 9.228 x 10_4 460 2.701 x 10_4 59.0 A-7 o.\5+3o - 646+90 ( l) 05/02/84 52.2 760 430 105.2 59.5 0.2 22 2.755 x 10_4 490 5.561 x 10_4 67.3 A-8 &' 642+8J - 645+70 (l) 05/02/84 99.9 600 330 60.0 33.0 0.3 20 2.140x10 4 300 6.487 x 10_3 30.0 A-10 541 +oo - 642+40 (l) 05/02/84 72.6 350 325 41.1 38.1 .J.8 24 3.530 x 10=5 165 l .176 x l 0 4 19.4 A-11 648+68 - 648+50 ( l ) 05/03/84 127. l 900 450 79.B 39.9 0.3 14 ' ~.539 x 10 5 450 2 .822 x 10=5 39.9 A-12 643+:0 - 645+30 (I) 05/03/84 100.0 620 320 62.0 32 .0 0.6 6 2.366 x 10-6 295 7. 766 x 10 _5 29.5 ,· A-13 -5J6+50 - 647+26 (2) 05/05/84 100.0 585 585 58.5 58.5 0.4 2 ' 6,. 772 x 10=6 490 8.992 x 10_5 49.0 ...,. A-14 ii45+34 - 646+56 ( l) 05/07/84 98.7 765 410 77.0 41.3 0.5 2 6.156 x 10_6 510 1.178 x 10_5 51.3 'if A-15 549+4J - 650+70 (2) 05/08/84 97.6 275 70 27.8 7 .1 0.6 2 6.772 x 10 275 6.772 x 10 27.8 . A-16 541+90 - 643+85 05/10/84 85. l 455 675 49.3 73.2 0.2 11F ------A-17 o..is+so - 646+6a 05/12/84 128.8 None 420 -- 37 .0 0.8 ------5 ------4 -- i A-17 I xt. 644+30 - 645•16 (1) 05/15/84 71.3 640 340 75.8 40.3 0.4 12 7.088 x 10 5 295 2.447 x 10 4 35.0 A-18 642+32 - 643+50 (2) 05/14/84 98.9 470 660 47.3 66.0 0.1 9 4.756 x 10= 235 5 l .442 x 10=5 23.6 A-2 E. '. 6•3+84 - 649+30 (2) 05/16/84 108. l 410 160 39.4 15. 4 0.6 9· 4.756 x 10_5 380 5.370 x 10 4 36.5 A-19 641+00 - 642+70 (l) 05/19/84 232.8 380 300 24.9 19. 7 0.6 9 4.323 x 10_4 175 1.495 x 10:4 9.7 651 Approach 181. 0 150 800 A-20 (2) 05/21/84 11 .1 59.5 0.4 29 T.110 x 10 4 150 7.110 x 10 4 11. l A-27 648+48 - 648+90 (2) 06/04/84 137 430 635 36. 7 54.3 0.3 28 6.308 x 10=4 400 7 .082 x 10=4 34.2 A-33 646+54 - 648+14 (2) 06/09/84 274 566 535 34.2 32.3 0.6 20. 2.354 x 10 460 3.280 x 10 27.8

D" = Values of normalized Pw where Pw is the pressure Sea le Di stance = Wf""" w Max. Lbs./Delay NP Ds Particle Velocity w read on the• hyirophone and NPw is a normalized vs value for the water nearest the blast using a D = Distance, shot to monitor Pw Water Overpressure 0 normalized Pw DuPont-tyoe attenuation relati.on: DsH 0 for Hydrophone NDsH 5 for 5 using 0 . -1.6 O,G D5 for Geophone 0 NP = p ( Distance to Point of (Dn)lnterest) D~ Distance. shot to nearest water dB Oecible Rise w w Distance to Hydrophone· • Pw considered inaccurate due to equip­ ment malfunction or air blast effects. ** Backround Pressure (Pb) used

Backround Pressure {Pbl 1 = 2.378 x io-§ psi Backround Pressure (Pb 2 = 2.615 x 10- psi )

. ~t'.1;':§~.'.,!~ f,1Bl.E 4. STATION 973+00 - 977+00 Cut - -·--- DISTANCE SJIOT SHOT TO (feet) p ';;Jf·mER LOCAT!Orl DATE w D H D G v dB D NPW ND II - (I bs.) 5 s s w n 5 (JPS) (PS I) (Ft.) (PSI) HYDRO- GEOPHDNE PHONE

5 5 8-19 976+00 - 977+80 06/13/84 466 390 390 18. 1 18. 1 0.3 11 7.270 x 10- 390 7.270 x 10 - 18. 1 B-20 975+00 - 976+00 06/14/84 416 435 435 21.3 21.3 0.2 D ------5 435 ------5 21 .3 B-23 973+02 - 974+94 06/19/84 333 560 560 30.7 30.7 12 8.505 x 10 4 560 8.5-:5 x 10 _ -- 4 30.7 B-35 974+36 - 976+51 07/12/84 668 335 330 13.0 12.8 0.5 28 6.8:31 x 10- 335 6.881 x 10 13.0 B-50 973+25 - 976+00 07/31/84 ------Lost Lost ------B-54 975+30 - 976+40 08/07/84 458 ------5 Backround Pressure (Pb) = 2 .E 53 x lo- osi

!, r..... I

-- ~-- J D = Values of normalized Pw where Pw is the pre>sure Scale Distance = w Max. Lbs./Delay NPW Os Wl v Particle Velocity read on the hydrophone and NPw is a norma 1 i zed p~ Water Overpressure value for the water nearest the blast using a D Distance, shot to monitor DuPont-tyoe attenuation relation: 0 for Hydrophone ND H 05 for normalized Pw D,>I 5 5 -1.G using On. NP = Distance to Point of (On)lnterest) 05 G 05 for Ge1~rihone p ( Rise w w n~ ... -t-,, ... .-c -t-n il .. rl..-nnhnnc Dn Distance, shot .. to nearest, w_atcr dB Decible * Pw considered in.accurate.~d\J·~ ti:reQUip-·· ment malfunction·or air blast effects. T1\BLE 5. STAT°ION 989+00- - - 991+00- - Cut

IOT O!STANCE s DATE NU ·IBCR LOCl\T!Orl w SHOT TO (feet) 0 H o G v dB PW D NP N0 11 (lbs.) 5 5 s n w 5 (!PS) (PSI) (Ft.) (PSI) HYDRO- GEOPHONE PHONE

B-43 989+60 - 990<90 07/25/84 638 590 580 23.4 23.0 0.4 ------

5 Backround Pressure (P j = 2., ,53 x 10 - b psi

h r '' I

D o, Scale Distance = w-r- w Max. Lbs./Delay NPW Values of normalized Pw where Pw is the pressure v Particle Velocity read on the hydrophone and NPw is a normalized D Distance, shot to monitor p~ Water Overpressure value for the water nearest the blast using a DuPont-tyoe attenuation relation: D,H 0 for Hydrophone ND 5 H 05 for normalized Pw 5 -1-fi 05 11 Ds for Geophone using Dn· Distance to Point of (On) Interest) Dn Distance, shot to nearest water dB Decible Rise NPW PW Distance to Hydrophone • Pw considered inaccurate due to equip­ ment malfunction or air blast effects. L

4 3 B-26 994+00 - 994+75 06/26/B4 341 480 480 26.0 26.0 0.2 18 1.981 x 10- 60 5.519 x 10 - 3. B-37 992+50 - 993+33 07 /17 /84 242 310 315 19.9 20.2 D.4 0.0* 185 0.0 11. B-45 992+38 - 994+00 07 /28/84 333 330 335 i a. l lB.4 0.4 0.0* 150 0.0 8. 5 Backrourd Pressure (Pb) = 2. 53 x 10 - psi

I ~

,_ ___ D- Values of normalized Pw where Pw is the pressure Scale Distance ~ w Max. lbs./Oelay NPW o, WI v Particlr Velocity read on the hydrophone and NPw is a normalized Water 0\erpressure value for the water nearest the blast using a 0 Distance, shot to monitor P0 DuPont-tyoe attenuation relation: 0 for Hydrophone NDsH 0 for normalized Pw 05H 5 5 - l . Ii 0 Geophone using On. NP = p ( Distance to Point of (On)lnterest) 05G 5 for Oecible Rise w w Distance to Hydrophone Dn Distance 1 shot to nearest water dB • Pw considered in,~ccurate due to equip­ ment malfunction or air blaSt effects. ,.,, • . .,,, - ,..,...,.., •uu - - " - ::.1111 r DISTANCE 'l·Jt-:B[R LOC1\TION DATE w SHOT TO (feet) 0 H 0 G v dB p D NP M[) ll (lbs.) 5 5 s w n w (!PS) (PS I) (Ft.) (PS I) ' HYDRO- GED PHONE PHONE

-3 B-1 1040+50 - 1042+50 04/23/84 750 110 105 4_0 3.8 1.4 30 ]_165 x 10_4 100 1.357 x l0 -3_3 3.7 B-2 1042+50 - 1044+50 04/25/84 323 185 185 10.3 10.3 1.0 24 5.649 x 10 4 70 2.675 x 10 3 3.9 B-3 1044+80 - 1046+33 04/27/84 245 430 430 27.5 27.5 0.3 16 2 .020 x 10=4 70 3.687 x 10=3 4.5 B-4 1045+97 - 1047+00 0400/84 200 505 505 35.7 35.7 0.2 12 1.134 x 10_5 80 2.162 x 10_4 5.7 B-7 1042+07 - 1043+50 05/07/84 125 145 150 13 .0 13.4 l.B 8 5.751 x 10_4 80 1.489 x 10 3 7 '.) B-9 1043+29 - 1044+66 05/09/84 1065 255 255 7.8 7 .8 l.O 20 3.424 x 10_4 90 1.812 x 10=3 2 .8 B-11 1044+32 - 1045+43 05/14/84 1037 320 320 9.9 9.9 0.8 12 l .134 x 10 _4 80 1.042 x 10_3 2.5 8-12 1045+50 - 1047+40 05/18/84 438 500 500 23.9 23.9 0.6 12 1.134 x 10 75 2.36,J x 10 3.6 5 Backround Pressure (Pb) = 3. 04 x 10 - psi I ~ I -

...., ___ ~ -0 Values of normalized Pw where Pw is the pressure o, Scale Distance = w Max. Lbs./Delay NPW WJ v Particle Velocity read on the hydrophone and NPw is a normalized value for the water nearest the blast uslng a D Distance, shot to monitor p~ Water Overpressure ND H o for norma 1 i zed Pw OuPont-tyoe attenuation relation: 0:)1 05 for Hydrophone 5 5 G Ds for Geophone using Dn. P ( Distance to Point of (On) Interes_I:_) -1.6 o5 NP Dn Distance, shot to nearest water dB Decible Rise w w Distance ta Hydrophone * P.. , considered inaccurate due to equip­ .111~nt malfunction or air blast effects. PBLE 8. STATfON 1073+00 - 1075+00 Cut DISTMICE JllOT LOCATIOll DATE SHOT TO (feet) dB p 0 fji) H .":<.iMUE I DSH DSG vs NP ' (I bs.• ) w n w > (!PS) (PSI) (Ft. ) (PSI) HYDRO- GEO PHONE PHONE

5 B-25 1073+02 - 1074+21 06/23/84 599 285 280 11.6 11.4 l.3 4 1 .530 x 10- 105 7 .599 x 10-5 4.3 B-32 1073+30 - 1074+40 07/10/84 493 290 285 13. l 12. B l. l 0 90 4. 1 4 4 8-38 1073+50 - 1074+63 07/20/84 543 315 310 13. 5 13 .3 l. 1 15 1 .2a9-~ lo- 85 9.834-~ 10- 3.5

Backround Pressure (Pb) = 2 615 x 10 -~ psi

I. N

;~ I

--- NP "" Values of no1·malized Pw where Pw is the pressure n, Scale Distance = wt­ w Max. Lbs./Oelay w vs Partlcle Velocity read on the hydrophone and NPw is a normul iz.:erl Pw Water Overpressure value for the water nearest the blast using a 0 Distance, shot to monitor OuPont-tyoe attenuation relation: 0 Hydrophone NOsH 0 for normalized Pw D5d 5 for 5 using 00 . = -1.o 05G 05 for Geophone NP p ( Distance to Point of (On) Interest) Dn Distance, shot to nearest. wa_~er dB Decible Rise w w . Distance to Hydrophone • Pw considered inaccurate due--to equip­ ment malfunction or air blast effects.

'"• r:.i~.1:_£1. STA{ION 1075+00 - 1080+00 Cut

~··llllT OJ STANCE !:11:·Hl[R LOC/\TION DATE w SHOT TO (feet) OSH DSG v dB D r111 11 (lbs. ) s PW n ~PW (JPS) (PS I) (Ft. ) (PSI) ' HY ORO- PHONE GEOPHDrlE ·- B-5 1076+40 - 1077+20 05/04/84 304 490 470 28. l 27 .0 0.4 0 ------5 170 7.7 B-6 1077+20 - 10;8+20 05/05/84 151 220 395 17. 9 32. 1 0.4 10 5.655 x 10 170 8.54J-;-l0-5 13 .3 B-8 i076+24 - 1077+24 05/09/84 150 500 475 40.8 38.3 0.3 0 4 190 10. 5 B-10 1077+54 - 1079+10 05/ll /84 228 460 43,) 30.5 28.5 0.6 16 l .3S9-;-10- 160 7 .52;-;-10-4 10.6 B-14 1076+40 - 1077+45 05/26/84 450 390 381) 18.4 17.9 0.8 ------4 155 B-17 1077+40 - 1078+50 06/06/84 500 360 34,] 16. l 15. 2 0.6 26 4.957 x 10 ' 195 l .322-;-10=~ 8.7 B-18 1077+36 - 1079+29 06/ll /84 539 330 320 14.2 13.8 0.6 13 9.057 x 10=;; 160 2.887 x 10 3 6.9 B-21 1077+15 - 1078+88 06/15/84 646 330 310 13.0 12. 2 0.4 26 4.957 x 10_5 145 1.848 x 10=4 5.7 B-29 1076T,6 - 1079+42 06/30/84 517 300 280 13.2 12. 3 1.3 13 9.067 x 10 150 2.749 x 10 6.6 8-30 1074+93 - 1079+25 07/09/84 698 480 460 18.2 17.4 0.6 0 0 140 0 5.3 8-33 l07o+l7 - 1on+11 07/11/84 515 240 220 10.6 9.7 1.0 ------3 140 ------3 8-40 1076+20 - 1078+50 07/23;84 614 260 245 10.5 9.9 l.4 35 1.445 x 10_4 120 4.977 x 10 3 4.8 B-4-J. 1078+35 - .1079+75 07/25/84 570 410 405 17 .2 17.0 0.6 20 2.354 x 10_3 110 1.932 x 1( 4 .6 1 B-47 1076+84 - 1079+00 07/27/74 1673 290 280 7. 1 6.8 1.7 40 2.589 x 10 89 1.714xl0 2 2.2 5 Backround Pressure (Pb) = 2.f 15 x'lO - psi I ! I L. __ -0 Values of normalized Pw where Pw is the pressure o, Scale Distance = w Max. Lbs ./De 1ay NPW \.II Particle Velocity read on the hydrophone and NPw is a normalized v, value for the water nearest the blast using a 0 Distance, shot to monitor Pw Water Overpressure N0 H 0 for noTlllalized Pw DuPont-tyoe attenuation relation: 05 H 05 for Hydrophone 5 5 0 for Geophone using Dn. D5 G 5 NP w = pw ( Dis ta~;: .. :~-~o~~t u~~~~~~~~~teres t) - l. 6 Dn Distance, shot to nearest water dB = Decible Rise • Pw considered inaccurate due to equip­ ment malfunction or air blast effects. TABLE 10. STATION 1083+00 - 1089+00 Cut DISTANCE SHOT LOCMION DATE w SHOT TO (feet) D H D G v dB p D NP ND Ii NUMBER ( 1bs.) 5 s s w n w (JPS) (PSI) (Ft.) (PSI) ' HYDRO- GEOPHONE PHONE - 8-13 1089+75 - 1090+50 05/19/84 364 360 330 18. 9 17 .3 0.3 0 0 195 4 0 4 10 - ~ 8-15 Vi88+47 - 1089+80 05/31 /84 350 415 405 22.2 21.6 0.4 18 2.641 x 10- 210 7 .855 x 10- 11.2 B-16 ~~33+25 - 1088+47 06/04/84 550 545 530 23.2 22.6 0.2 0 0 200 0 8.5 B-22 1J86+20 - 1087+50 06/16/84 417 640 630 31.3 30.9 0.4 0 0 220 0 10 .s 8-24 1888+03 - 1090+78 06/22/84 614 515 500 20.8 20.2 0.9 0 0 170 0 5.9 8-27 1•J88+13 - 1089+07 06/27/84 388 470 460 23.9 23.4 0.2 0 0 6 170 0 5 9.2 B-28 1C87+14 - 1086+90 06/29/84 516 575 560 25. 3 24.7 0.4 2 9.850 x 10-4 185 5.045 x 10=4 8.1 l,~85719 - 1086T90 07/04/84 795 350 330 12.4 11. 7 0.9 18 ·2.641 xl0- I B-30 3 190 7.020 x 10? 5. 7 8-34 1188+57 - 1091+10 07 /12/84 533 350 335 15. 2 14. 5 0.6 42 ' 1.751 x 10- 170 1.509 x 10-- 7.4 8-36 i~31+68 - 1085+00 07/16/84 500 820 810 36. 7 36.2 0.4 0 0 4 125 0 4 5.5 B-39 1cB5"1i9 - 1087+42 07/21/84 255 290 280 18.2 17.5 0.9 19 ' 3.010 x 10=5 155 8.201 x 10-5 9.7 .I 8-41 1~85+50 - 1087+50 07/23/84 298 300 280 17 .4 16 .2 1.2 5 2.951 x 10_3 160 8.095 x 10=3 9.3 ~ 8-42 i 1:25+50 - 1087+50 07 /24/84 368 305 285 15. 9 14.9 1.4 38 2.984 x 10 4 175 7 .257 x 10_3 9.1 II 1035+11 - 1085+74 07/26/84 354 550 565 29.2 30.0 1.0 22 180 8-46 4.409 x 10= 5 2.633 x 10_4 9.5 B-43 1;87+00 - 1088+70 07/28/84 481 520 510 23.7 23.3 0.5 10 8.226 x 10 145 6.347 x 10 5.5 ;,J89+07 - 1091+30 07/30/84 322 --- -- Lost -- Lost _ --- Lost _ B-49 --- -- 4 3 8-51 1 J85+60 - 1086+32 08/01/84 385 380 365 19. 4 18.6 0.5 25 ~ .384 x 10_4 155 2.681 x 10_3 7.9 B-52 1)85,50 - 1088+80 08/02/84 597 270 255 11.1 10.4 0.8 25 c..384 x 10 135 l.935xl0 5.5 B-53 1G84+74 - 1087+50 08/05/84 508 ------B-55 1J81+47 - 1083+53 08/09/84 428 275 --- 13.3 -- -- 22 4.409-~-10- 4 125 1.ss;-~-,0- 3 6.0 B-55 1084+75 - 1089+32 08/10/84 596 515 --- 25.2 -- -- 0 0 -4 ll 5 0 3 4.7 B-57 1·J22+5Q - 1087+50 08/15/84 574 810 800 33.8 33.4 0.8 18 . 2.541 x 10 4 115 6.002 x 10=4 4.8 B-58 1087+01) - 1092+50 08/25/84 588 250 240 10.3 9.9 0.8 18 2.541 x 10- 120 S.547 x 10 4.9 0 Scale Distance = - w Max. Lbs./Oelay NPW Values of nonnal ized Pw where Pw is the pressu1·e Os ~ v Particle Velocity read on the• hydropl1one and NPw is a normal lz~d value for the water n€arest the blast using a 0 Distance, shot to monitor p~ Water Ove!·pressure ND H 0 for normalized Pw OuPont-tyoe attenuation relation: 0 H 05 for Hydrophone 5 5 5 using 0 . 051.i Os for Geophone 0 NP = p (Distance to Point of (Dn)li~terest) -1 . " Dn Distance, shot to nearest water dB Decible Rise w w Distance to Hydrophone • Pw considered inaccurate due to equip­ I ment malfunction or air blast effects. TABLE10. STATION 1083+00 - 1089+00 Cut (Continued) - SHOT DISTANCE LOCATION DATE w SHOT TO (feet) D H D G v, dB p D NP t1fJ H NUMBER ( 1bs. ) 5 s w n w (!PS) (PS I) (Ft.) (PS.I) ' HYDRO- PHONE GEOPHONE

B-S9 1082+50 - 1083+50 08/27/84 357 335 325 17.7 17 .2 0.2 14 1.526 x 10-~ 100 1 .0!:6 x 10_2-3 5.3 B-60 1083+17 - 1Gc5+4~ 09/05/84 878 330 325 11 .1 11.0 0.8 37 2.655 x io-- 90 2. 123 x 10 3.J

5 8ackround Pressure (Pb) o 3.8 04 x 10- psi .. . ' "'a. '

- Scale Distance = D w Max. Lbs./Delay NPW Values of normalized Pw where Pw is the pressure a, ltt Particle Velocity read on the• hydropllone and NP'r'I is a norma 11 zed v, value for the water nearest the blast usinu a D Distance, shot to monitor Pw Water Overpressure = 0 for ncinna 1 i zed Pw OuPont-tyoe attenuation re 1 at ion: DsH 0 for Hydrophone ND5H 5 5 using Dn. - J . I~ 05G 05 ror Geophone NP = p ( Distance to Poi~!.!___Q_f-1Q.i_J...!!1tecest.) o,, Distance, shot to nearest water dB Decible Rise w w DistJnce ti> l\ydrophune Pw considered inaccurate due to equip­ I . ' ment malfunct1on or a1r blast effects. )

------

, . -.·::-: ,;;

-- ··:i-..i.

------A P P E N D I X A

-27-

------~---·-·--- ·------KEYSTONE CANYON BLASTING STUDY MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH - 1985

REPORT TO THE ALASKA BOARD OF FISHERIES (PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND DATA REPORT #1986-6)

By Frank Bird Ken Roberson

Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Commercial Fisheries Glennallen, Alaska 99588

October 1985 Lis~ of Figures

Page

Map of study area ...... 3

Figure 2. Profile of a ~ypical blast in Keystone Canyon 8

-28- List of Tables

Table 1. Physical parameters for three blast tests near Lowe River in Keystone Canyon in 1984 11 Table 2. Biological information pertinent to blasting test number one conducted on May 9, 1984 near the Lowe River in Keystone Canyon, Valdez, Alaska 14 Table 3. Biological information pertinent to blasting test number two conducted on May 14, 1984 near the Lowe River in Keystone Canyon, Valdez, Alaska 15

Taole 4. Biological information pertinent to blasting test number three conducted on July 27, 1984 near the Lowe River in Keystone Canyon near Va 1dez, A1 as ka ...... 16

ii -29- Table of Contents Page

Li st of Figures i List of Tables ii Abstract .... iii Acknowledgments iv Introduction 1 Objectives 2 Study Area 2

Literature Review 4 Materials and Methods 7 Results . 12 Discussion 13 Summary and Recommendations 22 Bibliography ...... 23 A3STRACT

Ir three tests conducted during highway realignment in Keystone Canyon nF.:a1' Valdez, Alaska, in 1984, chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), coho sal1non _(_Q. kisutch), and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma), physostomous fish (open swim bladder), were subjected to blast overpressure burdens of up to 0.01714 psi and particle velocities to an extrapolated 10.6 ips, with no apparent trauma. Blasting occurred in fairly well fractured gr3y wacke with a distance between blast and study fish of 26-27 m. EAJlosives used were Tovex T-1, Tovex 930 and Anfo-P; maximum loads per delay were 1065-1673 pounds with delays of 25 ms. All fish were observed closely a~ter each test and for a period of 24 hours. Dissection of selected specimens occurred immediately after each blast and at the 24- hour mark.

i i i -30-

____ ., ______ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Grateful acknowledgment is given to Mr. Dallas Rasmussen and Hr. Paul Mulcahy (Alaska Dept. of Transportation/Public Facilities) for their help and cooperation in the implementation of this study. Also, thanks to Ms. Kathy Adler (Alaska Dept. Fish and Game) for her gracious

ass~stance in the preparation of this manuscript.

iv -31-

-----·-·------KEYSTONE CANYON BLASTING STUDY

Introduction

In 1980 the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF) proposed a highway improvement project between Mile 6 and 14 of the Richardson Highway near Valdez, Alaska. As proposed, the project entailed the use of explosives adjacent to the Lowe River, a stream specified, pursuant to AS 16.05.870(a), as being important to the migration, spawning or rearing of anadromous fish. The initial Habitat Protection Permit and Amendment (FG 84-11-7), issued by Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game (AOF&G), contained standard blasting constraints on charge size (50 #/delay, a delay being one of a series of charge detonations which make up a shot, or blast event) and set-back distances (100 ft. from water) which would be applicable to this project. Because of the restrictions on proposed project blasting and subsequent cost, DOT/PF requested from ADF&G, modification of the blasting stipulations increasing charge size/delay and reducing set-back. The modifications were allowed under the condition that "Explosives may not be discharged in or adjacent to anadromous waters if the blast event results in an increase in excess of two pounds per square inch (PSI) in the ambient hydrostatic pressure of the adjacent anadromous waters. Exceptions to this restriction require prior Department of Fi sh and Game approva 1." Since significantly higher than normally permitted blast levels - were requested to be used during construction, an opportunity for studying

1 -32- the effects of elevated blast levels on fish was recognized. As a r2sult, DOT/PF, in a joint venture with ADF&G, provided funding for a study with the objective of evaluating the mandated 2 psi limits.

Objectives

The primary objective of this study was to determine whether or not proposed blasting methods would produce any adverse effects on resident or anadromous fish indigenous to the Lowe River. Secondary objectives were to determine: 1) The extent of adverse effects on fish, using the criteria established by Hubbs and Rechnitzer (1952), and further refined by Ferguson (1962); and 2) If possible, what blast levels would produce adverse effects on fish under conditions prevailing on a highway construction project adjacent to a sensitive fish stream. This report will not reiterate the results of the many other studies which have examined the effects of blasting on fish; this has been adequately covered by other work. These reports will, however, be included in the Bibliography.

Study Area

The study area is within the confines of Keystone Canyon along a section of the Lowe River located at approximately Mile 14 of the Richardson Highway (Figure I). The Lowe River is a glacial stream and at this location is characterized by a gradient of from 0.31%-0.72% with an

2 -33- ·)Richardson \Highway / ) -./ N ,..-- (~ 1/'/~ ' ~\ _,, ,,/ Copper l I i ver G )/ I. ~ [email protected]:'~ ,,,,---~ \\ 1 Glenn___ ----... Highway ___ ,,-- __. // \j/ \

I-- ..- "''L~ l I -...,_, I I -....:""'\ l, Chitina '\ ---:::_ ) '- )/ '- Valdez* __ ...,.,. / ,..._ ..J ,,,__ _;v-....~=" __ _) \ Study Area Keystone Canyon

River

GULF OF ALASKA

Map Area

>----~ Figure 1. Map of the study area.

3 -3.4- ordinary high water flow of 1800 cfs (from Alaska DOT/PF, personal com1;iunication). High water usually occurs during the surrmer and is pr'iarily dependent on glacial melt. Economically important fish species indigenous to the Lowe River, including migratory or anadromous species, are Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma), coho salmon (Dncorhynchus kisutch), pink salmon (Q. gorbuscha), chum salmon (Q. keta) and sockeye salmon (Q. nerka). In the area of interest, the two predominant species are Qolly Varden and coho salmon; species that are present year-round in one or more of their life stages. The rock formations within the study area, which were also those fractured by the blasting, consist of two types: massive fine-to medium- gra;ned graywacke, by far the most predominant type; and fine-grained, highly fractured, platy phyllite (Personal Communication, Mr. Paul Malcahy, Project Engineer). These two types constitute both the extensive sheer wall formations along the Lowe River and the bedrock over which the river flows.

Literature Review

Al:hough much has been written on the effects of blasting on fish, under many different conditions, producing a broad array of results, very little information has come out on the effects of blasting in substrate adjacent to fish habitat. Below is a discussion of some of the more pertinent literature which appears relevant to this subject and this study. Marrone (1982) conducted a blast mpnitoring study, without fish, for the dual purpose of evaluating overpressures in waterways adjacent to

4 -35- blasts and for the collection of data to verify or refine the blast ground velocity attenuation relationship for the study site relative to 2 psi. Richardson (1964) conducted what he termed an ''administrative study" to determine the effects of large dynamite blasts in adjacent streambeds which contained salmon eggs and alevins. In a similar study, Roberson and Bird (1976), in work conducted in conjunction with the Trans Alaska Pipeline construction, tested the effects of twelve 37.5 pound dynamite charges, with 9 ms delays, on juvenile coho salmon in Canyon Slough near Valdez, Alaska. Most blasting literature pertains to seismic studies involving blasting either directly in water or in substrate below water, rather than in substrate adjacent to water. Even so, regardless of shock wave source, damage to fish from shock is believed to remain the same; therefore, much of the literature relevant to in- or underwater seismic· work should also be relevant to this study. Andersen (1984) provides an excellent overview of available literature on the "effects of current and possible future devices commonly used for sound wave generation in geophysical exploration ... '' upon marine organisms, especially fish. Trasky (1976) provides additional information on buried seismic charges and their effects on fish, with much of< the literature more pertinent to Alaska conditions than is normally f~und in blasting studies. Falk, et al. (1973) present a good discussion of literature pertaining to seismic blasting and its nature and ~ffect. Hill (1978) reviews previous studies pertaining to shock wave generation and effect evaluation, and applies several methods for the prediction of

5 -36- damage to fish. Of these four literature reviews, the most complete and comprehensive seems to be Andersen's. Several studies have been conducted, solely for determining the effects of in-water or substrate underwater blasting on fish, to establish fish damage criteria as well as overpressure and underpressure burdens (psi) associated with blasting. Hubbs, et al. (1952), as a .result of blast experimentation with caged fish and subsequent dissection, estdbl ished fish damage criteria that is now commonly used by other researchers. Peak overpressures (psi) were determined for various charge sizes of dynamite hercomite and black powder either jetted into the bottom or detonated as a free-floating explosive. Ferguson (1962), in experiments on caged yellow perch, discusses the effects of free-floating charges of black powder, nitrone primer and straight nitrone on test fish without psi measurements. Kerns, et al. (1965) monitored ocean seismic work detonating free-floating charges of nitrone. Observation of surface mortalities were related to charge size and water depth. Rasmussen (1967) insofar as it relates to and determines regulatory direction of the Norwegian sector of the North Sea, discusses seismic work conducted on the sea world-wide. Included are observations on black powder and dynamite as they relate to charge size, detonation depth, overpressure and bubble pulse levels and fish and fishery damage. In a non-empirical approach to the problem of fish damage resulting from underwater explosions, Christian (1973), of the Norad Ordnance Laboratory (NOL) developed equations defining the relationships between charge weight and charge depth to produce two categories of damage ranges: A total kill zone called "immediate kill zone: and a zone of probable fish

6 -37- kill termed "remote danger zone". Related to this work, Young (1973), also of NOL, sumnarized information for evaluation of environmental and ecological effects of underwater explosion tests with the intent of prov;ding guidance for operational and regulatory agencies. Other studies of a definitive nature relevant to fish damage by blasting would be Graspin (1975), Yelverton, et al. (1977), Gaertner (1978) and Fernet (1982). All literature of a relevant nature which was encountered in the literature search, including those mentioned above, is included in the Bibliography.

Materials and Methods

Due to time and fiscal constraints, study design was kept as simple as possible. Test fish were held in three holding containers and placed as close to the blast as possible, at the instrument monitoring site (which was usually farther from the blast), or a combination of both (Figure 2). Instrumentation included a hydrophone and geophone for monitoring with the gear placed far enough from the blast to prevent gear damage from fly-rock. Physical parameters pertinent to all blasts are found in Table 1. During the first and second tests all cages were placed in the proximity of the sensing equipment, which was 70-90 meters from the nearest blast zone. In the third test all cages were as close to the test blast as possible (27 m); pl acing them at least 90 m from the sensing equipment. Two types of cages were used for holding test fish. Type 1 was a 1/8" plastic mesh screened box 0.20 m square by 0.28 m with a plywood

7 -38- KtYSTONE CANYON PROF'l.E

Figure 2. Profile of a typical blast in Keystone Canyon.

fl -39- frame. Type 2, of which there were two, was a 20 liter collapsible plastic water jug. Fish in Type 1 were subjected to water flowing through the cage; thus, any pressure wave caused by blasting should have passed unin1peded through the cage and the fish. Fish in Type 2 containers were in large plastic water jugs and not in a free flowing state; thus,, a thin plastic wall was between the fish and the blast source. It was felt that if no air was trapped in the container, and if it were not filled to maximum extension, then any pressure wave would be transmitted through the container. These containers were used because in the first test, which occurred in fresh water, the test fish, which were obtained from a hatchery, were being reared in salt water. Thus, any testing of these fish would have to be with them held in salt water. Due to the ease of handling and transporting test fish, plus allowing for continuity and easier observation of test fish, these containers were also used for subsequent tests which involved only freshwater fish. Prior to each test, the wild fish to be used in the test were obtained from local sources, placed in their respective test containers, if possible, then placed in their appropriate test locations. All test containers were emplaced at least one hour prior to blasting. Immediately before a blast all test containers were checked to confirm that test fish were alive and well. " Test containers were checked as soon as possible after a blast, usually within five minutes. This depended on how agi.le research personnel were at maneuvering through and around operating heavy equipment cleaning up post-blast debris. This clean-up was always in the immediate vicinity of the test area and could be a potential problem plaguing any future studies .

. -----7 9 -40- At the time the test containers were checked, they were removed from the blast area to avoid interfering with continued construction. Those fish in the screened container were placed in an insulated carrier containing water from which they had just been removed. The other test containers could be moved at will since they were in self-contained units. When the test containers were placed in the blast area they were suspended from a line keeping them just under the surface. The exact location of each container relative to the blast zone, shore and the bottom were recorded (Table 1). Each container held 10 fish, usually of a mixed species composition (Tables 2, 3 and 4). Fish sources for the tests included coho and chum salmon fry and fingerlings from the Valdez Fisheries Development Association facility and wild coho and Dolly Varden fry captured from natural rearing areas within the Lowe River drainage. DOT/PF engineers conducted monitoring of each blast's overpressure Jurden, in pounds per square inch (psi), and particle velocity, in inches per second (ips). Measurements were made using a calibrated hydrophone, a Brueland Kjaer Model 2209 Sound meter with a B & K Model 2306F Level Recorder and a B & K Type 8100 Hydrophone for psi, and a Dallas Instrument Model BR-2-3 Particle Velocity Monitor for ips. These instruments were deployed prior to each blast in a location that would ensure both equipment orptection and reasonable data collection. Both instruments were checked immediately prior to and after each blast, with recording·chart data extracted at the latter check. Water overpressure was estimated from the charts by converting the decibel readings to

10 -41- ; i

Tab1e 1. Physic.a1 parameters for three blast tests near the Lowe River in Keystone Canyon in 1984.

Maximum Total Hydrophone Charge/ Minimum Distance Charge and Geophone Explosives/ Water Particle Blast Delay Delay to River Number Used Distance from Cubic Yard Overpressure Velocity Test Date (Lb/delay) (MS) (m) Delays (lbs) Shot (m) (Lbs) P.S.I I.P.S.

1 5/09 1065 25 27 5 3038 77.7 0. 4 1. 3 1.0 2 5/14 1037 25 27 7 3035 97. 5 0.6 0.8 0.8

3 7 /27 1673 25 26 4 4716 88.4 0.6 2.7 1. 7

...I ,_. N ,_. I

,•-,fi actual water pressure (see accompanying report). Particle velocity was read directly from the chart (Table 1). Equipment constraints precluded measuring peak pulse rise and decay times. Except for the immediate post-blast external examination of test fish, initial comprehensive post-blast examination of test fish was done between 1-16 hours after the test, depending primarily on time and workspace constraints. Each comprehensive examination consisted of a vi sua 1 external search for trauma fo 11 owed by a more intense internal examination under a 20x dissecting scope. Each specimen had species and length (TSFT) recorded. At each examination controls were handled first to establish a condition base-line. During this initial examination only a few fish from each test container were dissected. The remainder were held for at least 24 hours to determine if there were any delayed mortalities. It was not feasible to hold samples longer because of problems with maintaining adequate oxygen and temperature levels. After the 24-hour holding period, examination as above described was conducted on those specimens remaining. Explosives used in the tests were Tovex T-1, Tovex 930 and Anfo-P. Permitted maximum charge per delay was to be less than 500 pounds, with a delay being greater than 8 microseconds with a minimum set-back from the river of 100 feet. Any deviation from these limits was under the authority of Alaska Department of Fish and Game at the discretion of the. project biologist.

Results

In three blasting tests, overpressure (PW) and particle velocity

12 -43-

--·---·--- (Vs) ranged from 1.042 x 10- 3 to 1.714 x 10- 2 psi and 0.8 to an estimated 10.6 ips, respectively (Table 1). The particle velocity (Vs) of 10.6 ips was estimated from: NVs = Vs (Distance to point of interest)-1· 6 Distance to geophone

Where, NVs = Particle velocity at test fish (ips) Vs = Particle velocity at geophone (ips) Set-back distances from the river were 26-27 meters and charges per delay were from 102-1673 pounds, with a mean of 715 pounds for all delays. Permitted 2.0 psi levels were not exceeded during the tests; however, the permitted 0.5 ips particle velocity, 500 pounds/delay and minimum 100 foot (30.5 m) set-back distance from the river were all challenged. Examinations of test fish after each blast revealed no discernible external or internal trauma (Tables 2, 3 and 4).

Discussion

During this study an attempt was made to measure the effect of permitted and greater blast levels on physostomous (open air bladder) fish adjacent to a highway construction project. Although study fish were undamaged at all blast levels, results are nonetheless significant. The below discussion will be confined to test three since it had the greatest charges without any damage ·to fish. Lack of discernible trauma is attributable to one of two reasons: 1) Either study results

13 -44- Table 4. ,Biological information perlinent to blasting test nu1nber 3 conducted on July 27, 1984 near the Lowe River in Keystone Canyon near Valdez, Alaska. j Fi sh Water ' Blast Species Length Temperature Test Tested Number (mm) (0°C) Test Fish Container Location Relative to Blast I 3 Container 1 Coho 2 39-78 NT Turbulent water; touching rip-rap of shore; water depth unknown(> 1.0 m); 27.4 m from blast center. Dolly Varden 2 53-80 NT

I ,.,. >--' U1 ,.,. Container 2 I coho 10 38-75 NT Turbulent water; touching rip-rap of shore; water depth unknown (> 1.0 m); 27.4 m from blast zone.

Container 3 Coho 10 40-80 NT Turbulent water; touching rip-rap of shore; water depth unknown (> 1.0 m); 27.4 m from blast zone.

Control Coho 10 38-78 NT Held in insulated container away from blast area.

NT = Not Taken. Hydrophone and geophone located 88 m from blast and 84 m from nearest test container. Table 3. Biological information pertinent to blasting test number 2 conducted on May 14, 1984 near the Lowe River in Keystone Canyon, Valdez, Alaska.

Fish Water Blast Species Length Temperature Test Tested Number (mm) (9°C) Test Fish Container Location Relative to Blast

2 Container 1 Coho 10 38-41 2.2 Eddy; 0.4 m deep water; 1.2 m from shore; 9.75 m from blast edge.

Container 2

I Coho 10 38-41 2.2 Eddy; 0.3 m deep water, 2.1 m from shore; 9.75 m .,,...... from blast edge; hydrophone attached to container . "'I Ul Container 3 Coho 10 38-41 2.2 0.2 mps current; 0.4 m deep water; 1.3 m from shore; 27.4 m from blast center.

Control Coho 10 38-41 7.2 Held in insulated container away from blast area. Table 2. Biological information pertinent to blasting test nun1ber 1 conducted on May 9, 1984 near the Lowe River in Keystone Canyon, Valdez, AldSKa.

Fish Water Blast Species Length Temperature Test Tested Number (mm) (0°C) Test Fish Container Location Relative to Blast

1 Container 1

Coho 10 38-40 5.6 Eddy; 0.5 m deep water; 2.0 m from shore; 73.6 m from blast.

Container 2

Coho 5 73-82 y 5.6 0.6 mps current; 0.4 m deep water; 2.8 m from shore; 75.3 m from blast. .,,.I ,_...... °' I Chum 5 34-39 '}_/ 5.6

Container 3 Coho 5 75-80 y 5.6 0.6 mps current; 0.5 m deep water; 3.7 m from shore; 77.7 m from blast; hydrophone attached to container

Chum 5 37-39 y 5.6

Control Coho 10Y 38-40 5.6 Held in insulated container away from blast area. l/ 3 fish lost in transferring to transport container. 2/ Small coho from Rainbow gravel pit (wild stock); larger coho and chum from Valdez Fisheries Development· - Association stocks. are valid and no damage occured, or, 2) results are erroneous. Of the two the former seems more likely, but the latter is possible; thus discussion of both is warranted. Based on the Quartz Hill Molybdenum Project (Marrone 1982), 2 psi has been established as the conservative upper limit for streamside blast overpressures relative to fish. Initial results indicate that this limit was not exceeded during this study, but based on existing blast parameters it ostensibly should have been. The Quartz Hill Report discusses several conditions affecting the dispersion of blast energies within the blast substrate and adjoining water bodies which are essential to excessive pressure overburdens and which may be pertinent to this study. The report states that in blasting which occurs directly beneath or adjacent to a steep, smooth-sided water body, or within a relatively deep water body, conditions exist which may subject fish to the deadly effects of sharply rising waveforms, high pressure overburdens and negative pressures associated with a surface reflected shock wave (rarefraction wave). Although none of these conditions, with the exception of the adjacent criteria, were met by the study, other research has shown that in spite of this, excessive pressure overburdens could have occurred. Also, correspondence from Du Pont De Nemours and Company's Mr. M. E. Swanson to Mr. MacMcMillan, on August 10, 1977, discussing pending regulations by the U.S. Forest Service concerning blasting adjacent to streams or lakes and its possible effects on marine life, describes two criteria for blast damage which indicates why, given study parameters, higher psi and ips values could have been encountered.

17 -48-

------Mr. Swanson points out that the Du Pont studies, and others, have established that injury to marine life will occur if, 1) the rise time of the pressure pulse in water is nearly instantaneous (so that a large pressure gradient exists), and, 2) if the water is placed in tension by the reflection of a compressional wave from the air-water interface. He elaborates further, stating that explosions in rock satisfy the first criterion at distances of a few feet or more due to frequency attenuation, and that the second criterion is satisfied if the overpressure burden is less than atmospheric pressure, or 14.7 psi. Knowing the types and quantities of explosives used in test three and their blast characteristics (i.e. that a sharp pressure gradient is established), the first criteria discussed above for causing extensive damage to fish should have been met. The second criteria, since it is contingent on the first criteria, should have been met, but obviously was not. Both of the above references al so examined 'the relationship between quantity of explosives per delay and distance from the blast relative to either pressure overburdens or particle velocities. The Du Pont study generated a table showing the relationship between charge per delay and distance from the blast relative a particle velocity of 2 ips. Based on this table, the Quartz Hill group developed a similar table relative to a 2 psi level. Both of these tables are based on the assumptions of normal field conditions and blasting in rock; assumptions met by this study. According to these tables (the Du Pont table is becoming an industry standard), the explosives/delay during test three should have produced

18 -49-

------both ips and psi readings at the geophone/hydrophone sites greater than those recorded. The Du Pont relationship, derived empirically, indicates that for the distance of 280 feet between geophone and blast in test three a 2 ips reading would have occurred with a charge of only 470 pounds of explosives. The recorded value was actually 1.7 ips. According to the relationship used to derive the table, with 1673 pounds/delay at 280 feet, the recorded value should have been 5.5 ips. Carrying this a

step further and· backcalculating to the test fish holding site 89 feet from the blast, with the same formula, a charge of 1673 pounds should have created a particle velocity of 34.6 ips. The relationship used to generate the table and the above calculations is:

5 Vr = 120 -,-(R ) -l. (w'>)

Where, Vr = Peak particle velocity in inches/second (ips) R = Distance from blast to water (feet) W= Charge weight/delay (pounds)

Using the Quartz Hill table relative to 2 psi, we find that tp maintain a level of 2 psi with 290 feet between hydrophone and blast, the explosives/delay should have been 1239 pounds. Obviously, for, the actual test the 1673 pounds/delay should have produced a level somewhat greater than 2 psi. The actual recorded psi value for this 1673, pounds/delay test was .0026 psi, a value at least 700. times less than would be expected. The relationship used to generate the above calculation, based on the Du Pont work is:

[_ __ , __ / 19 -50- Pw = (Zw'Zg)Vs 3 (Zw + Zg)(32.2)(12)

where, Pw =Overpressure in water in pounds/square inch (psi) Vs = Particle velocity (ips) Z =Acoustic impedence of materials or density pounds/cubic foot) times compressional velocity (feet/second) subscripts w = water g = ground 32 and 12 cubed are for unit conversions

There are several possible explanations why many of these indicators point toward excessive psi levels while none were observed: 1) Probably most important, blasting actually occurred slightly above the plane of the surface of the water, thus creating a situation in which the blast energy hit the groundwater interface at an acute angle, possibly reflecting much of the energy, 2) This acute angle was further enhanced because the ground/water interface angle of incidence relative to the blast energy transmission plane, 3) The roughness of this large, rip-rap interface could have had a defininte attenuating affect on the amplitude of any transmitted pressure pulse, 4) The force of the blast is initially transmitted through a considerable distance of rock, which may have had a further attenuating affect on the shock wave. The magnitude of attenuation is contingent on rock type and condition. (fractured, solid, etc.), which ·in this case was very fractured, and, 5) After this attenuated and disrupted waveform did enter the water, it was further disrupted through reflective dissipation within the irregular surfaces of the water body.

20 -51- This becomes very important since it means that the most lethal element of most blasts, the reflective negative pressure wave, is eliminated. By entering the water laterally, the shock wave encounters no air-water interface for reflection of the rarefraction wave. Had either of the first two of these points been in effect a wavefonn of adequate magnitude and conformation to damage fish would probably have entered the water. If it had, then other factors would have assumed importance and could have affected results. Examples of some of these factors are biology of the test fish (i.e. size and stage of maturity), attitude of each test fish relative to the blast plane, conformation, construction and composition of test fish holding cages, etc. Much of the above discussion becomes slightly academic when we consider that there is very little information relating to this type of blasting; comparing results from this study with those from studies relating to blasting within water bodies or under water bodies may not be valid. Although no data exist to substantiate the above statement, comment on the problem as it pertains to this project is needed. ··~ The blasting limits imposed on this construction project are regulatory directives from the Habitat Division of the Alaska Department • of Fish and Game and are somewhat arbitrary recommendations resulting from the examination of current blasting literature and applying the infonnation gathered to the rather broad and all encompassing Anadromous ~ Fish Act (A.S. 16.05.870). The charge size and set back limitations currently recommended have been designed to preclude the potential for lethal or sub-lethal affects on resident or anadromous fish species and

21 -52- have been developed with an extremely limited data base to work from. Unfortunately, virtually all of these baseline studies pertained to blasting within or beneath water bodies; which meant the chance existed for establishing erroneous limits. In a discussion with Habitat Division personnel the opinion was expressed that regulatory limits based on the literature were in fact very conservative, and dealt only with anadromous species, but that these limits would have to suffice until further research was forthcoming. The problem with this approach is that current limits are often too limiting to allow reasonable progress in construction projects. What is needed is a case by case permitting process which takes into account specific project parameters such as affected the above blasting. Perhaps a definitive list of affective parameters, to be applied in the permitting process, could be developed to help the project designers and engineers during the planning phase.

Summary and Recommendations

The results of this study suggest that current limits on blasting appear conservative. Therefore, until more relevant studies regarding blasting within varying substrate types produces the needed information for establishing realistic blast limits, a more flexible approach similar to that used for this study might be reasonable. It is recommended for future construction projects of this nature that blasting limits remain the same with the stipulation that alterations be permitted at the discretion of the regulatory agency and that these same regulations apply equally well to non-anadromous fishes, as well as other aquatic animals. 22 -53- BIBLIOGRAPHY

Rather than restrict the report by confining this section to just literature cited, included will be references found to be relevant to the type of blasting examined by this study, especially those pertaining to studies conducted in the Arctic, or sub-Arctic, plus references of a definitive nature regarding blasting in general and its effects on fish.

Anderson, J. 1984. Report on recommendation for the state of Texas seismic guidelines for the Gulf of Mexico. Project Completion Report. 60p.

Baxter, R. 1971. Effects of explosives detonated in ice on N. pike, Kuskokwim. Fishery Bulletin No. 1. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game. Commercial Fishery Division.

Bell, M. 1973. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria. U.S. Corps of Engineers pub.

,, Christian, E. A. 1973. The effects of underwater explosions on swimbladder fish. NOLTR 73-103, Naval Surface Weapons Center (fonnerly Naval Ordnance Laboratory). White Oak, Silver Springs, MD.

Coker, C. M., and E. H. Hollis. 1950. Fish mortality caused by a series

of heavy explosions in Chesapeake Bay. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 14:435-444.

_j

23 -54-

------Falk, M. R., and M. J. Lawrence. 1973. Seismic exploration: its nature and effect on fish. Environment Canada, Fish & Mar. Ser. Tech. Rep. Series No. CEN T-73-9.

Ferguson, R. G. 1962. The effects of underwater explosions on yellow perch. Can. Fish. Cult. Nov. 1961 (29) :31-39.

Fernet, D. A. 1982. The effects of underwater detonation of explosives on caged fish in the Bow River, Alberta. Prepared for: The Alaska Project Division of Nova, an Alberta corporation. By: Environmental Management Associates, Calgary, Alberta. 39pp.

Gaspin, J. B. 1975. Experimental investigations of the effects of

underwater explosions on swimbladder fish, I: 1973 Chesapeake Bay Tests. Naval Weapons Center Publication No. NSWC/WOL/TR 75-58. 74pp.

Gaspin, J. 8., M. L. Wiley, and G. 8. Peters. 1976. Experimental investigations of the effects of underwater explosions on

swimbladder fish, II: 1975 Chesapeake Bay Tests. Naval Surface Weapons Center. NSWC/WOL/TR-76-61.

Gaertner, J. F. 1977. Dynamical model for explosion injury to fish. Proc. of 2nd Conf. on environmental .effects of explosives, and explosions. G. A. Young, compiler. Naval Surface Weapons Center NSWC/WOL/TR 77-36.

24 -55- Hill, S. H. 1978. A guide to the effects of underwater shock waves on Arctic marine mammals and fish. Institute of Ocean Sciences, Patricia Bay, B. C., Canada. PMSR 78-26.

Hubbs, C. L., and A. B. Rechnitzer. 1952. Report on experiments designed to determine effects of underwater explosives on fish life. California Fish and Game. 38(3) :333-366.

Jonnson, S. M. 1971. Explosive excavation technology. U. S. Army Engineer Nuclear Cratering Group, Livermore, Calif. NCG Tech. Rep.

No. 21.

Kerns, R. K., and F. C. Boyd. 1965. The effects of a marine seismic exploration on fish populations in British Columbia coastal waters. Fish Culture Development Branch, Department of Fisheries of Canada, Pacific Area, Vancouver, B. C. 26pp.

Marrone, J. E. 1982. Final report on the 2 psi blast monitoring program for the U. S. Borax Quartz Hill molybdenum mine access road project. Source unknown.

Muth, K. M. 1966. A report on fish mortality caused by seismic explorations in lakes of the Northwest Territories. Unpub. 9pp.

Paterson, C. G. and W. R. Turner. 1968. The effect of an underwater explosion on fish of Wentzel Lake, Alberta. Can. Field-Natur. ____ J 82:219-220.

25 -56- Post, G., D. Power and T. Koppel. 1974. Survival of rainbow trout eggs after receiving physical shocks of known magnitude. Trans. American Fish Society. Vol. 103, No. 4., p 711.

Rasmussen, B., 1967. The effect of underwater explosions on marine fauna. Burgen, Norway. In: Falk, M. R. and M. J. Lawrence. 1973. Seismic exploration: its nature and effect on fish. GEN T-73-9. 17pp.

Richardson, T. 1964. Preliminary report on effects of blasting on salmon alevins. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Unpublished report.

Roberson, K. R., and F. H. Bird. 1976. Unpublished study examining effects of construction blasting in waters on juvenile salmonids. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Commercial Fisheries Division, Glennallen, AK.

26 -57- A P P E N D I X B

__ )

-58-

QUARTZ HILL ~LYBDENUli PROJECT

•.

Final Report on the 2 psi Blast Monitoring Program for the U.S. Borax Quartz Bill Holybdentllll Hine· Access Road Project

'

This report, dated October 1982, ~as prepared by: .-

'. ~ ~ L .·11 fvV,~....,__ J. E. Marrone

under the supervision of:

. -·.,

~--"

1ri tehiser -59------This report preGents the results of a blast monitoring proi;rarn

conducted from Septeir,ber 10 to October 10, 1982 during initial

construction of the U.S. Borax Quartz Hill Holybdenum Hine Project

access road, This program vas implemented to assure confor-..ance to

blasting specifications set forth in Road Standard 16 of the U.S.

Forest Service Special Use Permit. This standard states that, "shots

vithin proximity of a designated fish stream shall be designed to limit

overpressure in the stream to 2 psi." A coordinated effort vas made by

Bechtel, South Coast Incorporated, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Borax

personnel during the blast design, detonation, and data interpretation

stages to satisfy the permit specification.

There vere tvo parts of the blast monitoring program: 1) evaluation of

overpressures in vatervays near blasts, and 2) collection of data to verify or refine ~ blast ground velocity ~ttenuation relationship for the !iite area. The first objective deals directly vith the

overpressure of blasts in designated fish streams. The second. objective lead.s to a relationship betveen blast distance, blast size -. (charge veight/delay), and ground velocity. !bis velocity attenuation relationship is a valuable empirical tool aiding blast design to ensure confo~nce to the Special Use Permit specific.atrons during futur·e .. • blasts f.or vhich no direct measurement of near-vatervay ground velocity ; or water overpressure is anticipated.

:

-60- _)

The blaGt monitoring progra"' ~·as conducted in t'-'O stages. During the

first stage, peak particle velocity on the grouno surface '-'BS mea.sured

using a 3-component geophone near a 1Jatervay. The corresponding •. overpressure in the 1Jater1Jay \JBS esti.it.ated using.a theoretical

calculation that relates velocity to overpressure (see Appendix A).

Because the calculated overpressures occasionally approached or

exce~ded 2 psi during first stage monitoring, the second stage '-'BS

implemented. In this stage overpressures \Jere measured directly using

a hydrophone. Velocity measurem·ents with the geophone were ·continued.

As requested by the U. S, Forest Service (personal co=unic>

Septem!ier 24, 1982), monitoring with both hydrophone and geophone was

carried out for several blasts.

OBSERVATIONS

Table l and Figure l summarize the blast monitoring data. The

. locations referred to in Table 1 are shown in Figure 2. Both blast and

monitoring sites are indicated.

·i

Vs in Table 1 is the maxi=m vector sum velocity determined fr'om the tria:xial velocity recording on a Sprengnether Engineering Seismogr~ph

' " Model,V,5-1100. "Ground" refers to foundation conciitions at the blast

monitoring site. "Rock" sites were 'generally on hard gneisses and '' . granites and "alluvium'; sites "ere generally on saturatec.· sandy or

cobbly tid~ flat iD:>terials. P.,(V ) is the overpressure in the 8 water1Jay calculated from the measured velocity V using relation (3) 8

. -61- .· ...: . .:.· . ~ ·.-.· ·+·~, . ~~~:~~-~.~_:.~· of Appendix A. ?..,(direct) lS the overpressure measured directly

using the hydrophone. The charge 1Jeight/delay, 'h', is the greatest

amount of charge detonated '..,ithin an 8 millisecond period. "n.a." (not

applicable) in the last column of Table 1 indicates that the blast 1Jas

not near a 1Jater..,ay. The data collected for these blasts 1Jere used to

supplement the blast ground velocity attenuation .analysis.

As indicated in Table l and Figures 2A-2F, the monitoring sites 1Jere

not usually set at the closest approach of the water. The attempt 1Jas

made to locate the monitoring instruments at closes.t \.'Ster, but this

was not often passible or preferable for various reasons. ·Protection

of instruments and operating perso~nel Had to be considered due to the

flyrock created during bl as ts. Further, for adequate ground coupling and orientation the geophone needed placement on a nearly level

pl.atform of rock or on firm soil 1'ith minimal vegetative cover, cobbles, or 1'ater saturation. Such adequate geophone site conditions

1'ere not usually available at the pcint of nearest \Jater. During stage

t\.70 monitoring 1'ith both the geophone and hydrophone, it \.'as necessary to place both instruments at essentially the same location to gain unders.t.anding of the correlation betveen the t"o ·readings (note: in

Figures 2A-2F the stage n.·o monitoring locations of the geophone and ' hydrophone are given as a single location). lt 1Jas necessary for stage t1'o monitoring, therefore, to find a safe location next to the vater1Jay that· pr.ovided an aoequate site for the geophcne. .-

-62- DISCUS Sl ON

During the first stage of blast monitoring, the overpressures

determined from velocity measurements for adjacent vaten.iays sometimes

exceeded the 2 psi specification (see the Pw(V ) column of Table 5 l). In particular, a calculated overpressure.. of 6.9 psi occurred during the first blast monitored. One of .the assumptions made to

derive the theoretical relationship between peak ground velocity and

overpressure is normal, plane-vave transmission of blast seismic ~aves

from the ground to the water. For the actual blast-site/monitoring-

site geometry of most access road shots, this assumption is violated

and leads to conservative estimates of overpressure - that is,

calculated overpressures would be greater than those actually

~ - occurring. Becaus'e this conservatism was ncit well quantified, the

overpressures determined during the first stage "ere thought to be

significant enough to suggest the use of a hydrophone for di.rec t

overpressure readings.

During the second stage of monitoring, measurements were taken with • both a_.hydrophone and a geophone. As expected, the overpressures

calculated from geophone velocity measurements "ere greater than the '. . actual overpressures measured by ·the hydrophone. From the ratio of

measured to calculated overpressures i-t is concluded that all blasts

d'urings both :f(iases of the monitoring program were vell within the 2

psi limit •.

,_ -63- ·./

There is no simple. correlation between Pw (V s ) (calculated) and P.,,(direct) (measured) in the data collected. Over-estimation of overpressure from the velocity measureoents v~ries from ~bout 10 times

to possibly 80 times (the factor of 80 comes from a reading taken nenr the lower limit of resolution of the "hydrophone record), The theoretical relationship between Pw and Vs is baseG on the normal transmission of plane-waves through the interface between ground and water. Where the interface is not a ~mooch surface normal to the direction of energy transmission, amplitude of the transmitted pressures will be less. At heading ~l, where the rock surface dips steeply into the ~ilson Arm, the degree of over-estimation of overpressure was the lowest (9.5 times). Other phase two measurement sites were in tidal areas, where the dip of the ground/water interface was shallow, and the over-estimation of overpressure was notably , greater. The scope of the monitoring program would have had to be significantly larger (multiple measurements at each blast site with detailed.. description and parameterization of geology and geometry) to obtain a more de.finitive correlation between P {V ) and w s

Pw{direct). It can be concluded, however, that the data of phase two indicates that the overpressures calculated from the measured veloci~ie-; represent a minimum over-estimation of the actual overpressu.;res by a factor of at least 10.

Figure 1 indicates ~hat the observed attenuation of peak surface part.icle velocity {the data points of Figure l) agrees w~ll with a

-64- ' .../ '

published Du Pont attenuation curve (the straight line and forniula of

Figure 1). Using this attenuation la" and the assumption of normal -.

incidence, the theoretical peak velocity corresponding to 2 psi is

about 0.4 inches/second (see Appendix A)_. This velocity may be

increased by a factor of 10 based ._5' the empirical hydrophone data

collected at the site. 'This implies a ground velocity of 4

inches/second _and the follo1Jing relationship bet1Jeen distance to blast, -· - -·-.--- _, R, and charge "eight/delay, W:

ft lbs~

This equation defines the follo1.1ing table of R and W values: ,;-,,

, ~ R (ft) ·w (lbs) 10 1.4 20 . 5.7 40 22.8 60 51.3 80 91.2 100 142.4 -. 125 222.5 150 320 .5 175 436.2 200 569 .7 250 890.2 -- 300 1282 350 1745 400. 2279 ' 450 2884 500 35Dl 550 4308 600. 5127 650 6018 700 6979 750 8012 800 9115 10290 -~: 850 - ·~ 900 11540 "' 950 12850 1000 14240 : -65- __.. :/~{'. __ ...: ' ------·------· This table, based on data taken during both phases of the blast

monitoring program, may be used for design oi blasts along the access •. road that ._,ill conser\>atively comply \Jith the 2 psi overpressu.re

specification of the Forest Service Special Use Permit.

'

., .. . ' --- ;

... -·

-66-

, ___,, ______------:. .. \ ' '·li;::_\BLE l ._o ~ J:-i? c~\cJ.r Dnte of v. r.,cv.> P., (direct)& w Dietance (ft) to llloe t Locntion (in/ e) Ground (poi) (poi) (lb) Geo phone Hydrophone Wntcr

't Stn!!D , .. 971.o. llending D'i 1.4 rock b.9 - J6 75 - 85 9/12 Stn. ll+OO 0.18 rock o.8 - 7 210 - 230 _;!J 9/15(1) Heading Do 0.43 rock 2.0 - 380 - n·. a .. 9/15(2) Heoding 116 0.17 rock 0.8 - 90 350 n • a • • - 9/16 llending tl3 o.91 rock 4.4 - 255 JlO - n. a. 9/19 Heeding 112 0.66 elluv; 2.4 - 134 JOO - JOO 9/21 Sta. 30+00 0. 13 olluv. o.5 - 88 515 - 51,0

Stngc 2 9/27 lleoding 111 0. 79 rock J.8 0.4 ( l. l) 90 190 190 100 9/28(1) Stn. 31+50 O,J5 rock l. 7 0.02C.. (.OJ) 199 580 600 500 9/28(2) Heading 112 o.2J olluv, o.e o.02r;; c .oJ) 90 SJO 530 1, 5 5 Sto. 30+50 0.56 rock 2.7 0,1 (0.4) 202 470 470 200 I I 10/3 __,O'I l 0/11 Sto, t.1+00 >o.1ab- rock >0.9 0.06 (0.2) 70 500 500 215 I 10/10 lleod1ng i2 l.8 o lluv. 6,J - 1815 580 - 465

.. Voluee nre given ne· A(ll), where A ie the preesure rend on the hydrophone and B is a normal i:i:ed value for the woter ~eot the bloat ueing n Du Pont-type attenuation \._ relation: B • A{_ Dietnnce to water )-1.6, ~ietonce to hydrophone

b This value is based only on two component& of velocity ,due to malfunction of one of the hori~ontol components of the geophone,

c niese reading• repreoent nearly the lower limit of resolution of the records,

d Bleating contractor unable to furnish charge weight per deloy infor~etion on thie shot. :· . I''

;1 ' -~ I '• I

! ·\I ·· I t ! · • ·' · • · . - · , · · ·, ·· · · 1 " · • t ··· · ·· l · · · · I I J I t "' i·\·I · ·j·i .4 ··-- .... !···· ! ·- i.f ·-+·-·\·· , ... ; ., "I·· ·I.! f·...... - ·t-i·

:: ::::J :: : _ j: .'.: :J:: :~ ~ j.:1-~. j :'?- '.- '.==-i :..:.__,..:::·!· ~..:-1:.::.:::: .: F:. .::::t_::::·.:-_; .- ~.'.f ~::t:_:-: 1:=-J:J : : : I : : t ·····j ···1 ···:· ., . ·-iT. - --~·--,---· :=:r----······ ...... ! -- ·--·-·1·-·- ..I, ••• :i---·•-·=--=-1 I I . ·:: ;-..:! ·. : i:: :.i.::~ : .:j :~: i ~ -~:.~:---·- J:. : :-:;----~·: =: : .:::.:::: . ;-:-::.:+:.: :..: ~.::~:f·=:.:::r =~ i :~'.:L:::\.:i: 1·: ., ..... ·-' ---j·-·t · ·1·-;1------·--- .. -- --·--··- -,-- .. -~-·- -t·-- ---··,--··!·-··'·-.,.!"I ...... ··i ···1-···1 · .. :· --·---~ -~---1.. .. --· ····!_-- :--.!-~-- --=----!·-;---;····!-! .. ··!- ... • ' "~ • ••• '• • ,\ • - •• ·i • f ' ••• • • ' ' j • ; • ' • • ' I ! .. .. , ... ·-I I·' - ----~\-- ... j .. j ...... ___ , ...... , I:::, ... . •• j !·• ... - S\·-··l ·!· ...... ·7·····1·---~- .... -· l .... ~·-..:·~···~.; -·-·····•···~;--I . , ... , .... ; ... : • I

:: ··j. i :"i. ·-i . : ; : :

i , : : : .. :. ::::::"''·' ~ ~': 1 ==~""==-==:; ~:::::..-:~ J-==--=:..:::t..:....:::1~:-:="'::: ~: •. ··---~··. :;<-==!--'.:;,;i.: -=:;..:-~ :1 •. - -·--·-- - ··--1 ·-- • .::o-· ... =-3 ..:::::j:71.;. :- ::;:= ·- :.L·-•--...- · T=-=-·-. :·------~- ....:.. --==I-·· ...... J _: ...... ' ... ,.-:.:; '""jl~·:.:.:i=-1 :.c·· . -··· ····-- :-..:.i··:l,; .• --· .,., - . . --· -- ···--~-- :1:1 .. : .: : :~::: :1::~:.:::-.. ~~=:: l==f::..~::+:~.:1.:.. --- _.;. L;:.:..~ 7==-r::::~:= 74~--=t= =~ . :- -'~ ·~: -: -: -·-··-···----:i .,.'1" ·-~"----!· ·-·--·-- -1·•. ·:::!:::·-"""":§···- :.::.:-··-·---1--1--·.tf·...,... ·-::r:-:-;~·. .==r==--~--::·:-.a- ·-- ::-..::-···13:i·:.: ...... !...... ,----::.L:- ----,-----·---·:·:.1.:..:..: .•.... .;. ···--i----1:::.::::r=- .. -·;----~----~--- -·- ---....:. :.:t~~~~ ·----+•' ---- -·· ·1-1:··· ..; .. ···---~... ; . .., ··-- - . -··- .-:·:4·--rJ-==:-. ' - - ---'~--~ .. .J "'i.' ... . ;::-:.:·:.- :::: --=+:=1:. :i~=r:-==i:.:.~::~~=-..: :::::::::; .. :..:~: .. :.i=::j:=.j: ... ;.-;"".=.:-=j:::::::'J... :j·: ...... ,.. - .... --·· ·--'---"- . --1- '----+-·-!---. •_,I "----<·--=~ --- ~c' . I , , , I . I I I . I I 1 --·-1··---i t-· -~ ; -l··--1---- !·..i·------· - .• ..; -.---4 .-+--+-+.. ___, ______. -·\--··; - ...... ' ... '\ . . . --i· ·- - -- -+ ----r--j . --\-'--+-\ --t ---1--'- .. l ... , ·-. --··-··· 1·--·l· ...... +----· -·--i----;--+--+- ·+-:-+•-i--t-\· t--1_;...... -t--- ..-t-1-•·- ... - . • . ""':LO.-:. . .. ~- •••• , ~- - -. ---·j'" ... '. --- . - ~ ---·-·. ··-·-··;i::..:._:-·-----· ______... _ 1--::I:. - - ·.- --- ... -~:- I··=·===...- ~ ·-···- 1· - .·1-~···· '_ ... =-=:.:::·: ··1::"'-,. --= ~:::1-:: - ==·- :- ---:-::::;---:...... ··=- -- - :r------...:·:-. ·: :J"::·: : :·: ·:: .::·:,r:i ·~~1~:~:!-7FFi~-=--:::~~=7i~7:q:.::=i'~ ~ l :~~~\!:~~~~:::q-::,i::J, r I : ...... :.. ... _.:.:::··i ·· · :::~:::.. ,.. ~ ...... ::-::. ~-·· ::.:·----i-- -·· -:P-.;--=.j_::·-~---- . -- =::i.=...-1~-',--+--·:t:..:.J·-·~1 .·::..-:_ ..:-·~'-- -··:..~·'"7\"-=~-==:j-=-=t··m~·1·q ::-=--:-;--~:-= ·:-..: :·: ::·:·- "'. ""' •••••••'"" ••••" •••• - - :T-1 .. ·--i-- -1=r:.::r=-1 ... -- :~ - -{·1.,- .. ·--·1··- ·-· '"" " ",-1·: : : · . ! · · · i '''Ti:' ~-~! i :-i'=i:~:.:.:: ~: ;§.=-=-,~~~q:::=:!~~~~F::§~17.?~'-=----= ~'3:!~ :~""'¥.~3~:'--3:: l =i- ~:, :::: .. :.: :· i:::=;::-:: :.::: :-t: :-:;~:_ 17~:.:_:::~~==..:..::: ~l - . . . . • . ::i ... ·-·· .•:=::;:1== -- ·- - . .:.::..:..:..:t:_,______:.:=-:4:---l:.:...:::::.::.:.-_.:!t:·._-:.. . - . ~~- ., :::::::::7\._ ....::-j •.• -- .. • . • ::::. • • !:-1- 1-,;·:...... , .. , .... ·-·· ---·-· -- . ·-'--+· -;.:r·~· -i··"'- - - ...... - ~·· :·::::::. :; ~. ~:::: ~::: _,___ ------~-"1 - -~ : ·91 ··~--- - -~--1- .:. " - ~ j ·---·· -- ... ·!·--- -·-+- - ., ..... ,, .. ·--- ·--- - - ... .. """! ••• ··:-+• ... • - . ·- ...... , ... --- -=~:::1::-:: ·::d:=;:::::.-~11 .. ~·: .:11 ·--·1·-3::~:.i~: -~::~:::: :. : :i·: :-:~:: ·::~i:::: ...... - - • . - -·->--: ·- -·· _ _:_ -· - - --- ••. ..: ...... ~- ·'·· ·-· - -· . ! . :·:: ·l =: ··------··___J--i---t---·-. . I ' ----~- ·-·' ' ... -- .. I ··-..!--· --···-· .. ·•.' s•,t-i-.O.D l ' ': 7 1 5' 1.00.D : " ! t ; f

I l . 2 ?">; \;.\c...,_i "'o"",{o.-;"j d.o.io..., C.o'"'\po...rul ... ,. D "'- 'f'o "t "'12.\ o '--~ t J c...tt C..I"\ 1..1.. 0.J (o I'"\ c...u. r v e.. en , ' ._) ._/'

N

..., ~ .µ,,,"' ~ .J . - 'Z _!:l- "'0- - .i .:.J (..;- N v 0 Vl ~ P- ' c 'J f 4' l :I -..J 0 c .J "'./' 0 \. .i () \. _.\.- 0- +j \. J' c .I 0 0 ? _J £ 0

~~"'- C\J ,) \. / ..~ (';.. ,J LL·- ...... ,,, .) ! . 1~ :t "'

0 • o~ n- ~ N

.--

z

-69- J '

.....1 J Q .. ~ 0 ~ 2 ·- ~ "' ~ J} .., i ..... ~ "lj ~ l.• J~ ~ -~ .. !, • ..I ~ L 1 (" .. i ... .. ~ 0 ... ~ -4 0 $ ~ 'l ~ i ,J •J 'i . • i ~ ..... - ...... ! +-- "' "1 , i5 -:.: a < < ·< .J ..g "' •. . II ,. ' 2 ~-· G .• ; I I . . • ' '·. I I ' '-. I -- c -

. -- " . . ' .-z...__ .....

·.

1 ~ J 0 ...0 .... ~~ 0 i ....J ~ ..t. I.I • - .,'i~ ~ • t~ .1 ~ ·-"' ... i .... ~ .c~j c c ,) Q s ~ 1 ~ 0 . J ... "- ...! ·- "' 7 lA .. - ~ ...... <"

J r\ J s...

"

\ \

·.. o-f . ---

: . . . .. ·.·. ~ . .. ·. . .

-71- _)

• ·. ·. •

~ ·~ 0 ·;... L ...... • g .. • ., " 1 • -:;:• J ;'5 0 .;i 0 ~ -z:. r, •. . I I I • .. . - • I ~ ••• 0 . I I · ... • • I \...:.:.-:.; ·-. I I l 0

,

,----...... 1· • I t .~ I: >" t ... .,. . ', - ' , - ...... - _,.;;: ' ..:.. - .I l ~ I --...... u .s 3, I ... ~. '\I """';'--- .._ -...... ;.--·-~ ... _ ,_,~· - I ;:-. o;:- , r. -----Jl :i I . --- =- .,, • ..• -t • ' I . i --- ~· ' .. ,. a~-...... - ~ :J:"' -...... ::.·-. < .:i ...... ____ ~... ll.. - I ;::: -::--... <-I ;;5.. • .. -z ·I I :l ~ I I -- • II lL -72'-'·-

- -- \ \ ) ._.)

AFPE!;DlX A

:

BACKGROUllD DlFORt'.ATION AND TH.EORY

Tiierc are two aspects of translating blast energy to overpressure in an adjacent waterway. First, energy will attenuate as it t~avels froo the blast through the ground to the ground/waterway interface, Second, depending on the acoustic impedances (the product of density and cocpressional velocity) of the water and ground material, a certain percentage of the attenuated.blast energy will be reflected back into the ground material. The remaining energy is transmitted through the interface an'd into the ..,atervay, causing the o..:erpressure in the .,,ater.

, Attenuation

be developed empirically for a specific region because it is a function of the site material and structure. For blast monitoring, however, a -. coi::;:ionly used velocity attenuation relationship has been presented by

Du Pont (correspondance from A.F. Everett, Jr. of Du Pont to R.B. " Elliogsen--of Borax, November 2, 1981): <" ~~ ' ti" • (1) vs - 120

where Vs i.s __::~e f!~:'_surface p.a_rt_i,~le yi:l_ocity_ o_f the .&~ound :i.n inches/second, R is the distance to the blast in feet, and W is the ----·· ·-- .. ··----·------·· ------charge weight_{~elay in pounds. Delay has been defined as the time -73- interv.;l bet...,een discharges of 8 rnil_li.s.ecQD.Qs __oL_l.9.nger. 'h'hile this

relationship may have been developed "ith "rock-type" material in mind, •.

it may also be applicable to· s"ofter "alluvium-type" material. Blast

energy is more absorbed in softer alluvium-type material, ho...,ever,

attenuation of velocity "ith distance may be equivalent or even less in

softer alluviu:::-type material, partly due to its lesser inertia

(density). The Du Pont velocity attenuation curve, therefore, is being

considered at all sites in the blast monitoring program.

Ground/.,,ater interface transmission

Blast monitoring uses a 3-component velocity transducer to measure free

surface particle velocity. The follo...,ing expression relates

overpressure in ~ater to particle velocity of the adjacent ground

surface:

Z"' •Z g ____V s __ _ p = (2) "' z,,,+zg (32.2)(12) 3

"here _:'.i,; is overpressure in the .,,_at_e_r_i..::_l'<:>.un_:1~y_q~re_ inch and Z is

the acoustic impedance, or density (pounds/cubic. foot) times .-· compressional velocity (feet/second). Subscripts ""'" and "g" signi_fy

;:ater and ground, respectively. The factors 32.2 and 123 are for

unit conversions. This formula is ba_sed. on the percentage of energy

transmitted through· the ground./1o1ater interface at normal incidence • . -. -··-- . ·-- ·-- - ·------. - ·------.· Table A-1 gives representative values of density and cmnpressional

ve.locity for 1o1>oeer, rock, and alluvium:

-74- TABLE A-1

:

3 H2 teri al Density (1 b/ f t ) Velocity (ft/sec)

\..lat er 62.• S 4800

rock 165 15000

alluvium 120 5000

With the values given in Table A-1, the folloving conversions from free surface particle velocity to overpressure in an adjacent vaten:ay are:

rock

alluvium

Which of these relationships is used for calculation of overpressure is determined by field observation of the most dominant type of ground z:::cz::: :a: material in c·ontact at the proximal ground/,,ater interface.

-.

---

-75- -76- !'lo. or rage P:ige N~bct I I ADDENDUM TO THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS 2 ,l A~~endwn No. D3te Addendum Issuetl 2 December 27, 1983 f -"SU i ng 0 ffi c::e Previous Addenda Issuetl Robert R. Venusti, Acting Di.rector Design and eonstruction De?artzrent of nansportation Addendum No. 1 issued November 30, 1983 and Public Facilities 2301 Peger Road Fai.J:±ank.s, AK 99701

Richardson Highway Date and Bour of Bid Openin3 Mile 6-14 Projerl No. January 10, 1984, at 2:00 P.M. F-RF-RS-071-1(25) Prevailing Time

'Ib.e Con Ir.let Documents for the above project are amended as follows (All Other Temis and Conditions Remain Unch.mged):

The bid opening has been delayed fo~r weeks from December 13, 1983 to January 10, 1984. THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS ARE MODIFIED AS F.OLLOWS: ~04-1.05 Rights ,in the Use of Materials ,Found on the Work. Delete the words ''The first sentence of". /107-1: 11 Protection and Restoration of Property and Landscape. De 1ete the first sentence of the second paragraph and substitute the following: Explosives shall not be discharged adjacent to anadromous waters if the charge weight and substrate type result in excess of two (2) pressure pounds per square inch in the ambient hydrostatic pressure of the adjacent anadromous waters ,_wi_thout the written approval of the Engineer. /"'203-3.14 Materials Taken from Excavation for Special Use. Delete the words ---''of as a source -for surshed materials" ----from the first sentence. Add the following: Each ton of Riprap produced from rock taken from unclassified excavation shall be replaced with 1.2 tons of Borrow, Type 'A' at no expense to the State. AD3-2.01 Mat~rials. ·Delete .i!l its entirety. . / /603-3.04 Joining Pipe. Add the following between words 'two' and 'end' in subparagraph _g_: ••• circumferential rows. of projections for each pipe ...

BIOCERS ARE REQUIRED TC ACKNOWL.EDGE THIS ACCENDUM ON THE PROPOSAi. OR BY WIRE, PRIOR TC THE HOUR ANO DATE SET FOR THE BID OPENING. required by the contract work. This information is to be reported on Form PR-1391. If on-the-job training is being required by "Training Special Provisions,'' the contractor will be required to furnish State of Alaska Form 25A312. •. 107-1.11 Protection and Restoration of Property and Landscape. Add the following: All instream work including temporary dike construc­ tion in the Lowe River shall be conducted between October 14 and March 31, except that instream work in that portion of the Lowe River between Station 980+00 and the End of the Project shall be conducted from October 15 to May 15 and from June 15 to August 15. Blasting is restricted to a maximum charge weight of 500 pounds per production delay at a minimum setback of 100 feet from the Lowe River between May 16 to June 14 and from August 16 to October 14. Charges s ha 11 not be detonated di re ct 1y beneath an andromous water body without the written approval of the Engineer.

SECTION 109 MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT 109-1.03 Scope of Payment. Add the following: Due to the uncertainty in estimating the costs of asphalt products that wil 1 be used during the life of this contract, adjustment in compensation for certain contract items is provided for as follows: Asphalt products price adjustment will apply to increases and decreases in the posted prices of asphalt cement, cut-back liquid asphalt and emulsified asphalt, except that no adjustment shall be made for changes in the posted prices of these asphalt products which may occur supsequent to the contract completion time. Adjustments in compensation may be plus or minus depending on whether the posted prices increase or decrease from those in effect on the bid opening date. The Department will maintain a listing of posted prices of record for asphalt products which will be effective as of the first and sixteenth day of each month and determined as set forth below. The listed posted prices for asphalt products will be those of the Anchorage, Alaska bulk plant of Chevron Oil Company as of the fifteenth day and the last day of each month.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS Project No. F-RF-RS-071-1(25) Richardson Highway, Mile 6-14

-78- Station 990+00) to facilitate blasting and rock removal operations. The Contractor shall submit a schedule of road closures to the Engineer at least 72 hours prior to the expected closures. No road closures will be allowed without the Engineer's approval. Seventy-two hours prior to any closure, notice of the closures shall be given to the Alaska Carriers Association, K and W Owners and Operators Association, and shall be published in the local newspapers and broadcast radio stations serving Valdez, Copper Center, Glennallen, Anchorage and Fairbanks. Whenever one-way traffic is required through the construction zones, a pilot car and driver shall be provided by the Contractor to work in conjunc­ tion with the flag person. The Contractor's traffic maintenance plan shall also include the following: a. Permanent Construction Signing (Beginning of Project and End of Project). b. Detours.

c. Blasting Procedures and Requirements. d. Lighting, when required. e. Expected signing during non-working hours. f. Procedure for handling emergency vehicles such as ambulance, fire and law enforcement during road closure. The Contractor shall designate one or more of his personnel as Traffic Maintenance Coordinator, authorized to accept instruction from the Engineer in the field for timely changes of signing or other problems;

115-5.01 Basis of Payment. Amend the first paragraph entitled "Traffic Maintenance" Er deleting the words: "Except for the work paid for under pay items 115(2), (3), (4),0) and (6)".

Add the fo 11 owi nr All work required for pay items 115(2), 115(3), 115(4},115\5) and 115 6) will not be paid for directly, but shall be consid- ered incidental.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS Project No. F-RF-RS-071-1(25) Richardson Highway, Mile 6-14

-79- CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS

203-3.01 General. Add the following: Portions of the alignment for •. this project lie on theactive portion of the Lowe River floodplain and the various meander channels may significantly change location from season to season. The locations shown on the plans are based on the best information available, but are not guaranteed to be accurate. The Contractor shall be prepared to construct diversion channels and dikes, whether shown on the plans or not, as may be required to construct the project. Placement of embankment material directly across the flowing streams or channels will not be permitted unless otherwise specified or authorized by the Engineer in writing. Temporary diversion dikes shall be constructed from on-site materials within the right-of-way. Riprap may be used if required to maintain the dike during its period of usefulness, but its use shall be kept to a minimum. At the con cl usi on of construction of embankments protected by the dike, the dike shall be breached and the river allowed to return to its natural course. If, in the opinion of the Engineer, riprap is significantly impeding the river flow after the dam is breached, it shall be removed by the Contractor. All cost and expense of riprap removal shall be considered incidental to other items of the contract, and no separate compensation will be allowed. USGS water-discharge records for the Lowe River for 1974 and 1975 are bound into this document. The gauging station was located approximately one mile upstream from the End of Project. It is expressly understood that the State will not be responsible for any deduction, interpretation or conclu­ sion drawn therefrom by the Contractor. This information is made available so that the Contractor may have access to the same information as the State. 203-3.03 Embankment Construction. Delete paragraph .ll and add the fol1owing: When the excavation material consists predominately of rock fragments or boulders of such size that the material cannot be placed in layers of thickness prescribed without crushing, pulverizing or further breaking down the pieces resulting from excavation methods, such material may be placed in the embankment in layers not exceeding in thickness the approximate average size of the rock fragments; except, in no case shall the 1 ift thickness exceed 48 inches. Secondary bl as ting may be required to meet the requirement for 48-inch maximum lift. The rock fragments shall not be dumped in final position but shall be deposited on the fill and distri­ buted by blading or dozing in a manner that will insure proper placement in the embankment so that voids, pockets, and bridging will be reduced to a minimum. The intervening

SPECIAL PROVISIONS Project No. F-RF-RS-071-1(25) Richardson Highway, Mile 6-14

-80- 203-3.08 Blasting Requirements for Excavation in Rock. General: Repre­ sentatives of the State Department of Transportation have performed geological mapping for each cut area and designated the cut slope angles shown on the -. plans. Periodic geotechnical field inspections wil 1 be conducted as the backslopes of each cut are exposed; and when unfavorable geologic structure anomalies are encountered, specific recommendations on stabilization will be made. In the event the Contractor is required by the Engineer to revise a slope which has already been drilled and blasted according to specifications, the Contractor shall be compensated at the applicable unit contract prices. Pioneer access to the top of cuts will be the responsibility of the Contractor. Pioneer access will be within the 1 imits of the existing State right-of-way, and preferably within 20 feet of the staked slope 1 imits. Any instability created by the pioneering effort will be corr.ected by the Contractor to the satisfaction of the Engineer. No payment will be made to the Contractor for the pioneer access but it will be considered incidental to Unclassified Excavation. Faces of all rock cut slopes which require blasting to excavate shall be formed by controlled blasting. Controlled blasting techniques for forming the faces of other formations which can be excavated by means other than blasting may be required when directed by the Engineer. Controlled blasting shall include such techniques as cushion blasting, pre-shearing, etc'; and is defined as the controlled usage of explosives and blasting accessories in appropriately aligned and spaced drill holes for the purpose of producing a free surface or shear plane in the rock cut slopes in close conformity with those staked by the Engineer and to minimize blast damage, ground vibra­ tion and overbreak. The use of horizontal lifters in any rock cut is prohibited. This requirement may be waived only if the Contractor encounteres rock in a pioneer access to the top of the cut, provided the Contractor corrects any instability to the satisfaction of the Engineer. In addition to the restrictions contained in Sectioii' 107-1.11 of the Special Provisions, blasting will be restricted as directed by the Engineer within 1000 feet of any utility, structure or environmentally sensitive area.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS Project No. F-RF-RS-071-1(25) Richardson Highway, Mile 6-14

-81- The Contractor shall retain the services of a Blasting Specialist who is recognized as an expert in the field of drilling and blasting and who is acceptable to the Department to develop a blasting program. This specialist shall not be a staff employee of the Contractor. At the Precon­ struction Conference the Contractor shall submit a resume of his credentials for approval. The specialist will re qui re approval by the Engineer prior to the beginning of any drilling or blasting work, and then be available on the job site prior to excavation of major cuts, and at other times as required.

The Contractor may adopt methods. of control blasting and excavation which vary from those required herein, provided short demonstration sections, less than l OD feet in length a re first used to prove the acceptability of such methods to the satisfaction of the Engineer.

If in the opinion of the Engineer the methods of excavation required herein or adopted by the Contractor are unsatisfactory in that they result in excessive rock throw or do not produce a uni form slope and shear face within the nea tl i nes specified, the Contractor sha 11 adopt revised methods by drilling, blasting and excavating short sections until a technique is developed that will produce the acceptable results.

Drill hole conditions may vary from wet or filled with water to a dry condition. The Contractor will be required to use whatever type of explosive and/or accessories necessary to accomplish the specified result.

' Storage and handling of explosives shall be in accordance with Subsection 107-1.10, Use of Explosives.

The Contractor shall observe the entire blast area for 10 minutes follow­ ing a blast to guard against rock fall before commencing work in the cut .

. The slopes of all rock cuts shall be scaled and dressed to a safe, stable condition by removing all loose spalls and rocks not firmly keyed to the rock slope and by removing all overhanging rock which in the opinion of the Engineer may be a hazard to the public use of the roadway. This work shall be accomplished as an integral sequence as each lift is excavated.

Material outside the planned neatline slopes which is unstable and constitutes potential slides in the opinion of the Engineer shall be excavated and removed. Such material shall be used in the construction

SPECIAL PROVISIONS Project No. F-RF-RS-071-1(25) Richardson Highway, Mile 6-14

-82- Engineer, will be permitted to utilize that spacing. The maximum explosive charge shall be approximately equal to 0.1 pounds of Kleenkut E, Tovex T-1 or equivalent per square foot of final surface rock slope. Ammonium nitrate •. fuel oil type explosives shall not be used in preshear holes. These holes will be 1oaded and detonated 30 feet beyond the end of the worked lift or to the end of the cut, as applicable. All preshear blast holes shall be stemmed full depth with sand or drill fines if initial results without stemming are considered inferior by the Engineer. Where backbreak becomes a definite problem in the opinion of the Engineer, guide holes shall be drilled between the controlled blast drill holes. These shall be of the same diameter and in the same plane as the preshear blast holes and shall not exceed 10 feet in depth. They shall remain unloaded. Buffer holes shall be drilled approximately 3 feet out from the controlled blast holes and spaced 3 to 5 feet center to center. These holes will be drilled parallel to the final cut slope and the loads shall not exceed 50 percent of the average explosive loads in the nearest production holes. Production Blasting; In production blasting the amount of explosive per delay shall not exceed 500 pounds. Production blast holes shall not be drilled closer than 6 feet to the pres hear 1 i ne. Where more than one lift is required, production holes shall not be drilled to an el~,yation lower than the controlled blast holes. ~· 203-3.09 Rock Stabilization. Rock Bolts: Rock bolts of the specified lengths will be installed where directed by the Engineer. These bolts shall be installed in such a manner as to exert a permanent normal force across potential failure planes. Rock bolts may be installed on both existing and newly blasted slopes. All rock bolts to be installed on this project, including anchorages, corrosion proofing and other appurtenances, sha 11 be products of a manufacturer regularly engaged in the manufacture of rock bolts. Bolts shall be fabricated from deformed bars not less than 1-3/B i~ches in diameter. The Contractor shall submit for the approval of the Engineer plans, manufacturer's literature and detailed information on the materials and methods to be employed in providing rock bolts in accordance with this speci­ fication. Rock bolts shall be fully corrosion protected and all parts of the bolt, bearing plate and nut on the surface of the rock shall either be encased in shotcrete or painted with a corrosion protective paint. Plastic cover bolts shall not be used unless approved by the Engineer.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS Project No. F-RF-RS-071-1(25) Richardson Highway, Mile 6-14 -33- Dowels shall be grouted the full depth of the drill hole with a grout material approved by the Engineer. •. The exposed dowel and the toe area of the rock it supports sha 11 be encased with pneumatically applied or hand packed mortar to provide adequate support between the dowel and the rock block and protection from corrosion. Wood packing will not be allowed. 203-3.10 Horizontal Drain Holes. Drain holes to relieve water conditions in rock backslopes may be required. Location and slope of horizontal drains sha 11 depend on conditions encountered and as directed by the Engineer, but shall not exceed the limits of the equipment in use on the project for preshear or production holes. Any rock cuts in which drain holes will be installed will be as directed by the Engineer. The drain holes will be drilled 30 feet into the slope on a plus 5 percent grade. Minimum hole diameter shall be 3 inches. Drain holes may be drilled with an Air-Trac drill . Up to 3 ho 1es may be fanned out from one dril 1 i ng set-up. Holes shall be fanned so they will be 15 feet apart at the back end. In cuts with more than one lift, the drain holes will be installed before excavation of the next lift. Holes shall be flushed with water upon completion of drilling to remove drill cuttings. 203-3.11 Rock Scaling Existing Slopes. Where directed by the Engineer, the Contractor shall scale existing rock slopes. It is anticipated that the existing rock slope between Station 1030+00 and 1034+00 will be scaled and that other locations may require this procedure. Rock scaling of existing slopes shall consist of removing loose spalls and rocks not firmly keyed to the s 1 ope and by removing overhanging rock which in the opinion of the Engineer may be a hazard to the public use of the roadway and/or to long-term slope stability . . 203-3.12 Upgrade Existing Dike. The existing dike near Station 979+00 (Rt.) shall be .constructed to the cross-section shown on the plans and to the limits as determined in the field by the Engineer. 203-3. 13 Diversion Channels and Special Ditches. A11 permanent diversion channels and special ditches shall be constructed in a meandering fashion to approximate natural stream conditions. The width of the channel shall match the natural channel, but in no case shall the width be less than that shown on the plans. Where practicable, the upper limit of the channel shall be located at least 10 feet from the toe of adjacent embankments. The align­ ment of all channels shall be staked by the Contractor as directed by the Engineer.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS Project No. F-RF-RS-071-1(25) Richardson Highway, Mile 6-14

-84- Add the following: Pay I tern Pay Unit Pay Item No. -. 203(3A) Unclassified Excavation, Area A Cubic Yard 203(3B) Unclassified Excavation, Area B Cubic Yard 203(8) Controlled Blast Holes Linear Foot 203(9A) 8-Foot Rock Bolts Each 203(9B) 12-Foot Rock Bolts Each 203(10) Rock Dowels Each 203(11) Horizontal Drain Holes Linear Foot 203(12) Guide Holes Linear Foot 203(13) Rock Scaling Existing Slopes Contingent Sum 203 (14) Blasting Specialist Lump Sum 203(15) Spread Existing Roadway Station

SECTION 301 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE 301-3.01 Placing. Add the following: Placement of ,crushed aggregate base course shill not commence until the Contract0r has certified, in writing to the Engineer, that such base course will be covered with hot asphalt pavement, in accordance with the specifications and prior to winter shutdown. In the event that base course is placed and the overlying pavement is not comp 1eted prior to winter shut down, the Contractor shall assume full responsibility for the condition of those materials upon commencement of work the following construct"ion season. All materials found to be. damaged; displaced, or otherwise degraded will be removed and replaced with approved material at the Contractor's expense. No extension of contract time will be granted for such work.· Nothing in the above shall be construed to limit the placement of the crushed aggregate base course, and pavement on portions of the project, provided such portions are constructed full width and in specification .

. SPECIAL PROVISIONS Project No. F-RF-RS-071-1(25) Richardson Highway Mile 6-14

-85- A P P E N D I X D

-86- BILL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR

•. DEPART.MEN'f:9.fr.'f~~I! AND GAME ..-

Norlh-I ._ ..• •&~ •l>c-'~n • .,. ::J•"'"' 333 RASPBERRY ROAD ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99502 November 28, 1983 NOV 2.9 1~93 FG 84-II-7 (Amendment Tedmiccf Sc:·v!c::!s

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 2301 Peger Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Attention: Robert E. Oligney, Chief, Technical Services Gentlemen: Re: Richardson Highway Project, RF-071-1(25), Mile 6-14, Richardson Highway, (Lowe River 14) The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) reviewed this project in July 1983 and issued Habitat Protection Permit FG 84-II-7 on August 10, 1983. The project has subsequently been modified to omit the proposed construction of a multi-segmented bin wall betl~een Mile 13 and 14 of the Richardson Highway. Highway widening along this section will now be accomplished using fill ~aterial armored with rock rip-rap. Analysis by ADOT/PF has indicated encroachment into the river with the highway fill will not result in the creation of a velocity barrier which would impede the efficient passage of fish. In addition to the project design change the ADOT/PF has requested stipulations 2, 7, 8, and 14 of the original permit be modified or deleted. The ADF&G has reviewed this request and agrees to the following stipulation changes: Stipulation No. 2. This stipulation is rescinded and shall now read as fo 11 ows: 2. All blasting associated with this project shall occur in compliance with the stipulations developed by the ADF&G as a result of an analysis of the proposed blasting methods. An analysis of the proposed blasting methods impact on fish shall be accomplished in a joint study effort by ADDT/PF and ADF&G. ~ draft study plan is enclosed (Enclosure I). Stiyulation No. 7. Tbis stipulation is recinded· and shall now read as fo i ows: - 1 ECHNICt.L S'.:~VICES /l.'· L..V'1 /; -87- O-.iri, '\'t

~•T'ldllll"'tid ,. ·... "4-~..

FG 84-11-7 (Amendment I) -2- November 28, 1983

7. If water for any construction purpose is required from any water ·. containing anadromous fish, each water intake structure shall be centered and enclosed in a screened box designed to prevent fish < entrapment, entrainment, or injury. The effective screen opening shall not exceed 0.04 of an inch, with the exception that water intakes located in the Lowe River upstream from the Alyeska Pipeline Access Bridge (T. 9 S., R. 4 W., Section 27, C.R.M.) shall have an effective screen opening not exceeding 0.25 of an inch. To reduce fish impingement on screened surfaces, water velocity at the screen/water interface when the pump is operating may not exceed 0.5 ft. per second or the existing water velocity, whichever is greater. Stiyulation No. 8. This stipulation is rescinded and shall now read as fol ows: 8. All instream work including temporary dike construction in the Lowe River shall be conducted between October 15 and March 31, except that instream work in that portion of the Lowe River upstream from the Alyeska Pipeline Access Bridge (T. 9 S., R. 4 W., Section 27, C.R.M.) shall be conducted during the periods October 15 to April 15 and June 15 to September 1. Entering of anadromous \'later bodies by heavy equipment during the above periods shall be kept to an absolute minimum. Stipulation No.14. _This stipulati"-on is rescinded and shall now read: 14. The Stream channel at the toe of the existing fill between Stations 632+50 and 634+50 shall be realigned to the southern edge of the highway right-of-way. The vegetative cover along the edges of -the new channel and between the new toe of fill shall be maintained to the greatest extent possible. All other permit stipulations specified in Habitat Protection Permit FG 84-II-7 remain in effect. You are hereby advised that pollution, as defined by a violation of the State Water Quality Standards (18 AAC 70.010-110) of the specified anadromous waters downstream from your operation will constitute a violation of AS 16.05.870. This letter constitutes a permit amendment issued under the authority of AS 16.05.870. This permit amendment must be retained onsite during construction, and expires 31 December 1985. Please be advised that our approval does not relieve you of the responsibility of securing other permits: State, Federal, or local. You are encouraged to contact the Alaska Permit Information Center, 437 "E" Street, Suite 200, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, telephone 279-0254 if you are in doubt as to the need for obtaining other permits •.

Pursuant to 6 AAC 80:010(b), the conditions of this permit are consistent with the Standards of the Alaska Coastal Management Program. -BB- FG 84-II-7 (Amendment I) -3- November 28, 1983

In addition to the penalties provided by law, this permit may be terminated -. or revoked for failure to comply with its provisions or failure to comply with applicable statutes and regulations. The Department reserves the right to require mitigation measures to correct disruption to fish and wildlife created by the project and which were a direct result of the failure to comply with this permit or any applicable law. Sincerely, Dennis Kelso, Deputy Commissioner cAf;1of?-cr svC'. Philip J. Brna f' Habitat Biologist Habitat Division Telephone 267-2284 cc: M. Hayes, ADNR B. Martin, ADEC K. Roberson, ADF&G F. Williams, ADF&G M. Fox, FWP M. Hanna, ADOT/PF S. Eckert, CE

Enclosure

-89- A P P E N D I X E

-90- ...... "'-.::\·.'

-.

' I PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT A FIELD ANALYSIS OF ADOT/PF's PROPOSED BLASTING METHODS FOR THE RICHARDSON HIGHWAY, LOWE .RIVER 14 PROJECT

Submitted to the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public:facilities

by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commercial Fish/Fisheries Rehabilitation, Enhancement and Development Division P. 0. Box 47 Glennallen, Alaska 99588

November 15, 1983

-91- Introduction '

The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT/PF) has proposed a Highway Improvement's Program between mile six and fourteen of the Richardson Highway. The project would entail the use of explosives immediately adjacent to the Lowe River. The Lowe River has been specifii:d as being important to the migration, spawning or rearing of anadromous fish pursuant to AS 16.05.870(a). A Habitat Protection Permit and Amendment (FG 84-II-7) approving the proposed project has been issued by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) pursuant to AS 16.05.870(c) (Anadromous Fish Act). The original permit contained standard blasting constraints (including charge size and set back distance from anadromous waters) applicable to this project. The ADDT/PF has subsequently requested,a modification of this blasting stipulation 1'ihich would allow the use of larger charge·Size (500 lbs. per production delay) with smaller set back requirements (minimum 100 feet from the river high water mark). The ADF&G cannot approve the ADOT/PF request until it has been determined that the blasting method prop.osed will not result in signif1cant injury and/or mortality to fish populations utilizing the affected river reach.

Problem Identification

The detonation of explosives in and adjacent to waters containing fish has been shown to adversely affect swim bladder fish to varying degrees. These adverse physical affects include damage to swim bladder, heart, kidney, -92- \;:, ..

liver, spleen, gonads, sinus venosus and scale loss (Aplin, 1947; Hubbs and Rechnitzer, 1952; Kearns and Boyd, 1965; Tyler, 1960; Falk and Lawrence,· 1973; and Yelverton, et. al., 1975). The resultant affect on exposed fish ranges from little or no visible impact to high mortality. ·.The degree of impact to individual fish is dependent on several variables which, among others includes: size (weight) and species of fish exposed, the individual fishes orientation to blast shock wave(s), type and size of explosive detonated, location of explosive charge, length of delay between charge detonation, substrate type, and water depth. Literature study has resulted in the ADF&G identifying that unacceptable adverse impacts to swim bladder fish occur when the hydrostatic overpressure on the fishes swim bladder exceeds 2 pounds per square inch (psi) (Rasmussen, B. 1967 and Yelverton, et. al. 1975). The lethal impulse of a blast shock wave (defined as an

integration of pressure and time) has also.. been shown to be a good parameter for measuring explosion induced pressure effects on fish (Yelverton, et. al. 1975).

The ADF&G has therefore stipulated that blasting associated with projects in and adjacent all anadromous fish streams which includes the Lowe River 14 project, shall comply with ithe standards listed in Table 1 (Enclosed).

The ADOT/PF. has requested an exemption from these standards for the Lowe River 14 project to allow the use of multiple 500 pound charges per production delay with a minimum setback of 100 feet from the Lowe River during periods of high fish use (migration periods). No blasting restrictions other than precluding the blockage of or creating a blockage to efficient fish passage would apply outside the fish migration periods which -93- \.. .'

·--- -·- TABLCl ---

DJSTANCE TD AJiADROl~DUS FJSH STREAM MEASURED lN FEET

Explosive Charge Weight in Pounds Substrate 1 2 5 10 25 JDO 500 1000 Rock 80 80 120 170 270 530 1180 1670 Frozen J'.ateri al 50 70 110 ]60 250 500 l 120 1580 Stiff Clay, Gr.avel, rce 40 60 100 140 220 440 990 1400 Clayey Silt, Dense Sand 40 50 80 120 180 3.70 820 1160 Medium to Dense Sand 30 50 70 100 160 320 720 1020 J·:edium Organic Clay 30 30 50 70 100 210 460 660

So_ft Organic Clay 20 30. 40 60. JOO 190 4. 40 . 620

..

:

-94- ...... include the periods May 16 to June 14 and August 16 to October 14. It is assumed that there are no fish present within the river reach to be affected •. by the blasting operation other than during the migration periods.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of the proposed study is to: Ascertain whether or not the blasting methods proposed for the Lowe River 14 project will result in significant adverse effects to resident and anadromous fish present. The results of the test blast analysis will be used to establish blasting limits applicable to the Lowe River 14 project.

Study Methods

I. Calibration Tests

A. Two or three test blasts will be used to establish the lethal/non-lethal distances from ground zero.

1. These tests would use limited numbers of live fish (two species if available) in live cages set up at varying distances from the blast location.

2. These tests will be used to verify adequacy and location of fish containers and calibrate individual test instruments including pressure transducers and/or hydrophones.

-95- II. Blasting Impact Analysis

A. Blast Tests. This will include the monitoring of six to eight blasts using ADOT/PF's proposed blasting plan which would include a known blast pattern, charge size, delays and powder velocity, Test fish shall be caged in live cars oriented in a configuration which will enable assessment of the full range of impacts from lethal to non-lethal. Test fish will be placed in the live cars immediately before each blast and removed preserved and shipped to the ADF'&G lab immediately after the blast. Variation in ambient pressure associated with each blast shall be monitored and recorded using pressure transducers and/or hydrophones.

B. LaboratO\Y Analysis. Post mortem analysis of each test fish shall be conducted by the ADF&G in their laboratory facilities in Anchorage. This analysis will identify the level of physical damage incurred by each fish resulting from blast exposure.

C. Timing. Test blasts shall occur outside critical migration periods wh.ich include April 15 through June 15 and Septeml;ier 10 through October 15. Specific test blast timing will be coordinated between ADF&G study personnel and ADOT/PF project managers.

III~ Analysis Results Reporting. ADF&G study personnel shall prepare a detailed report which shall identify study meth9ds used, field observations ma.de, and laboratory necropsy results. The report shall -96- include recommended blasting methods designed to protect fish species likely to be affected by blasting operations based upon the test blast

results.

IV. Budget

Line 100 Personnel

Fisheries Biologist I 1 man-month with benefits $3,200.00 Clerk Typist provided by the AQF&G 0 Laboratory Technician 5 days $ 500.00

Subtotal $3,700.00 Line 200 Travel.

Vehicle Mileage - 3,000 miles 12 trips at 250 miles round-trip each $ 900.00

Subtotal $ 900.00

Meals and Per Diem $ 500.00

• Subtotal $ 500.00 -97- ,_.

Line 300. Contractual Services

Equipment Rental $ SOD.DO

Subtotal $ SOD.OD

Line 400 Commodities 0

Subtotal 0

TOTAL $5,60D4DD

-98- 1. Aplin, J. A. 1947. The Effects of Explosives on Marine Life. . ' California Fish and Game 33(1):23-30.

2. Hubbs, C. L., and A. B. Rechnitzer, 1952. Report on experiments designed to determine effects of underwater explosions on fish life. California Fish and Game. 38(3):333-366.

3. Falk, M. R., and M. J. Lawrence~ 1973. Seismic Explorations: Its nature and effect on fish. Department of Environment, Canada.

Fisheries and Marine Service. Technical Report Serie~ No. CEN/T-73-9.51 pp.

4. Kearns, R. K. and F. C. Boyd 1965. The effect of a marine seismic exploration on fish populations io British Columbia Coastal Waters. J. Can. Soc. Expl. Geop. 1:83-106 .

. . 5. Rasmussen, B. 1967. The effect of unden>1ater explosions on marine life. Bergen, Norway. 17 pp.

6. Tyler, R. W. 1960. Use of dynamite to recover tagged salmon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Scientific Report, Fisheries No. 353. 9 pp.

7. Yelverton, J. T., et. al. 1975. The relationship between fish size and their response to underwater blast. Defense Nuclear Agency, Department of Defense, 'Washington, D.C. Topical Rep.· DNA 3677.T. 42 pp. -99------A P P E N D I X F

-100- GLOSSARY OF TERMS

•. Air Blast The airborne shock wave or acoustic transient generated by an explosion. Ammonium Nitrate A chemical compound represented by the formula NH4N03. ANFO A mixture of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil. Black Powder A deflagrating or low explosive compound of an intimate mixture of sulfur, charcoal, and an earth nitrate, usually potassium or sodium nitrate. Blasting Agent Any material or mixture consisting of fuel and oxidizer, intended for blasting, not other­ wise defined as an explosive: Provided that the finished product as mixed for use or ship­ ment cannot be detonated by means of a numbered 8 Test Blasting Cap when unconfined. (18 USC, Chapter 40, as amended, Section 841) Blasting Vibrations The energy from a blast that manifests itself in earth-borne vibrations which are transmitted through the earth away from the immediate blast area. Booster An explosive charge, usually of high strength and high-detonation velocity, used to increase the efficiency of the initiation system of the main charge. Borehole (Blast Hole) A hole drilled in a medium, usually rock, for the purpose of accepting an explosive charge. Burden That dimension of a medium to be blasted measured from the borehole to the face at right angles to the spacing. It means also the total amount of material to be blasted by a given hole, usually measured in cubic yards or in tons. Cast, Extruder or A cast, extruded or pressed solid high explosive Pressed Booster or (not nitroglycerin-sensitized) used to detonate Primer less sensitive explosives. Co 11 a r The mouth or opening of a borehole. Column Charge A charge of explosives in a blast hole in the form of a long continuous unbroken column.

-101- Confined Detonation The detonation velocity of an explosive or Velocity blasting agent in a container such as a bore­ hole in contrast to detonating in the open. Connecting Wire A wire of smaller gauge than leading wire and used for connecting to lead lines or extending electric blasting cap leg wires from one bore­ hole to another. Cushion Blasting A method of blasting in which an air space is left between the explosive charge and the stem­ ming, or in which the blast hole is purposely drilled larger than the diameter of the explo­ sive cartridge to be loaded. Deck Loading (Decking) A method of loading blast holes in which the explosive charges in the same hole are separated by stemming. Deflagration An extremely rapid burning producing vigorous evolution of heat or flame and moving through the material at a speed less than that of sound in the material. Delay Blasting The practice of initiating individual blast holes or rows of blast holes at predetermined time in­ tervals as compared to instantaneous blasting where all holes are fired essentially simultan­ eously. Delay Electric Electric blasting caps with a built-in delay Blasting Caps mechanism that delays the cap detonation from the application of current in predetermined time intervals from milli-seconds up to about ~ to l second between successive nominal delay periods. Delay Element The element in a delay electric blasting cap or a non-electric delay blasting cap that pro­ duces the required predetermined time delay between initiation and detonation. Delay Tag A tag, band, or marker on a delay electric blasting cap or a non-electric delay blasting cap denoting the delay sequence and/or the actual delay firing time. Density The mass of an explosive per unit of volume, usually expressed in grams per cubic centimeter or pounds per cubic foot.

-102- Detonating Cord A flexible cord containing a center core of high explosive and used to detonate other explosives. •. Detonating Cord Downline The section of detonating cord that extends within the blast hole from the ground surface down to the explosive charge.

Detonating Cord The line of detonating cord that is.used to Trunkl ine connect and initiate other lines of detonating cord. Detonation An explosive reaction, also called detonation wave, that moves through the material at a velocity greater than the speed of sound in the material. Detonation Pressure The pressure, usually expressed in pounds per square inch or atmospheres, produced in the raction zone of a detonating explosive. Drilling Pattern A description of the location of blast holes in relationship to each other and the free face. The burden and spacing dimensions are usually expressed in feet. Dynarnite A high explosive used for blasting, consisting essentially of a mixture of, but not limited to, nitroglycerin, nitrostarch, ammonium nitrate, sodium nitrate, and carbonaceous materials. Electric Blasting Cap A blasting cap designed for, and capable of, initiation by means of an electric current. Explosive Loading Factor The amount of explosive used per unit of rock, usually expressed as pounds of explosives per cubic yard of rock or tons of rock per pound of explosives, or their reciprocals. Explosives Any chemical compound, mixture or device, the primary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion. Extra (Ammonia) A dynamite that derives a major portion of its Dynamite energy from ammonium nitrate. Firing Line The wire(s) connecting the electrical power source with the electric blasting cap circuit. Flash Over The sympathetic detonation between explosives charges or between charged blast holes.

-103- Fly Rock Rocks propelled from the blast area by the force of an explosion. Gelatin Dynamite A type of highly water-resistant dynamite characterized by its gelatinous consistency. Initiation The act of causing an explosive material to detonate. Leading Lines or The wire(s) connecting the electrical power Leading Wires source with the electric blasting cap circuit. Leg Wires The two single wires or one duplex wire extending out from an electric blasting cap. Loading Density The pounds of explosive loaded per lineal foot of borehole occupied by the explosive, expressed as pounds/foot of borehole. Low Explosives Explosives which are characterized by deflagra­ tion or a low rate of reaction and the develop­ ment of low pressures. Main Explosive Charge The explosive material which is expected to perform the work of blasting. This is usually the dynamite or blasting agent which fills the borehole. Millisecond One thousandth of a second. Muckpile The pile of broken burden resulting from a blast. Nitroglycerin An explosive chemical compound used as a sensi­ tizer in dynamite and represented by the formula C3HS(ON02)3. Pre-splitting A smooth blasting method in which cracks for (Pre-shearing) the final contour are created by firing a single row of holes prior to the blasting of the rest of the holes for the blast. pattern. Prilled Ammonium Nitrate Ammonium nitrate in a pelleted or prilled form. Primary Blast A blast that loosens the rock or ore from its original or natural location in the ground. It is as compared to a secondary blast which may be used to, reduce the rocks from the primary blast to smaller size for ease of handling.

-104- Primer A unit, package or cartridge of explosives used to initiate other explosives or blasting agents, and which contains: 1) A detonator; •. or 2) Detonating cord to which is attached a detonator designed to initiate the detonating cord, which is inserted or attached at the time of use. Propagation The detonation of explosive charges by an impulse received from adjacent or nearby explosive charges. Scaled Distance A factor relating similar blast effects from various size charges of the same explosive at various distances. Scaled distance referring to blasting effects is obtained by dividing the distance of concern by an exponential root of the explosive materials. Sensitivity A physical characteristic of an explosive, class­ ifying its ability to detonate upon receiving an external impulse such as impact, shock, flame, or other influences which can cause explosive decomposition. Short Delay Blasting The practice of detonating blast holes in suc'cessive intervals where the time differences between any two successive holes is measured in milliseconds. Smoke The air-borne suspension of solid particles from the products of detonation or deflagration. Spacing The distance between boreholes measured parallel to the free face toward which rock is expected to move. Specific Gravity The ratio of the weight of any volume of sub­ stance to the weight of an equal volume of pure water. Stemming Inert material placed in a borehole after the explosive. Used for the purpose of confining explosive materials or to separate charges of explosive material in the same borehole. Subdrilling The practice of drilling boreholes below floor level or working elevation to insure breakage of rock to working elevation. Subsonic Less than the speed of sound.

-105-

------Supersonic Greater than the speed of sound. Tamping To compact an explosive charge or the stemming in a blast hole. Frequently used synonymously •. with stemming. Trunkl i ne The line of detonating cord on the ground surface which connects detonating cord downlines. Water Gels These comprise a wide variety of materials used · for blasting. As manufactured, they have varying degrees of sensitivity to initiation. They usually contain substantial proportions of water and ammonium nitrate, some of which is in solution in the water. Some water gels are sensitized by a material classified as an explosive. Some contain no ingredient classified as an explosive but may be sensitized with metals such as aluminum or with other fuels. Under the regulations of the U. S. Department of Transportation, water gels may be classified as Explosives Class A, Explo­ sives Class B, or Oxidizing Materials. Water Resistance The ability of an explosive to withstand the desensitizing effect of water penetration.

-106-

-·------