HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix_D_-_Geotechnical_Report.pdf
PREPARED FOR:
BLACK OAK WIND FARM LLC
863 HAYTS ROAD
ITHACA, NY 14850
PREPARED BY:
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING CONSULTANTS P.C.
70 PLEASANT HILL ROAD
MOUNTAINVILLE, NEW YORK 10953
January 7, 2013
GEORGE P. MURPHY, P.E.
TECTONIC
Practical Solutions, Exceptional Service
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
BLACK OAK WIND FARM
ENFIELD, NEW YORK
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
BLACK OAK WIND FARM
ENFIELD, NEW YORK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................................................................ 1
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.................................... 1
4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 2
5.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION ................................................................................. 3
5.1 Test Borings .......................................................................................................... 3
5.2 Electrical Resistivity Surveys ................................................................................ 5
5.3 Multi-Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) Survey ................................................ 5
5.4 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................ 6
6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................... 6
6.1 Native Glacial Till Soil ........................................................................................... 7
6.2 Shale Bedrock ....................................................................................................... 8
6.3 Groundwater ......................................................................................................... 9
7.0 SEISMIC SITE COEFFICIENTS AND LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL ........................ 10
8.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................... 11
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 13
9.1 Foundation Design Criteria ................................................................................. 13
9.2 Rock Anchor Design Criteria ............................................................................... 15
9.3 Drainage Blanket Design .................................................................................... 16
9.4 Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes ........................................................................... 16
10.0 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA ............................................................. 16
10.1 Subgrade Preparation-Soil Subgrades ................................................................ 16
10.2 Subgrade Preparation – Rock Subgrades ........................................................... 17
10.3 Construction Dewatering ..................................................................................... 17
10.4 Fill and Backfill Materials ..................................................................................... 18
11.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING ............................................................................... 18
12.0 LIMITATIONS.............................................................................................................. 19
FIGURE 1 BORING LOCATION PLAN
FIGURE 2 USDA SOIL CLASS SAMPLING PLAN
APPENDIX I BORING LOGS
APPENDIX II ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY AND MASW SURVEY RESULTS
APPENDIX III LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Tectonic Engineering & Surveying Consultants P.C. has completed a geotechnical
investigation for the proposed Black Oak Wind Farm in Enfield, New York. The purpose of
the investigation was to identify the engineering properties of the site soils and bedrock
necessary for the design of the tower foundations, electrical grounding and buried electrical
transmission lines. This report provides the results of the investigation and our geotechnical
recommendations for the design and construction of the wind turbine foundations. These
are preceded by brief summaries of the performed scope of services, the proposed
construction, the existing site conditions, and descriptions of the performed investigation
and testing.
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The following services were performed for Black Oak Wind Farm, LLC, herein referred to as
Client:
· Drilling, sampling and logging of six (6) test borings, one at each of the proposed
tower locations for which we were given access. We were denied access to one of
the originally proposed seven (7) tower locations, Tower No. 2 as identified on the
tower location plan provided by the Client. An additional eight (8) borings were
performed to shallow depths to sample soils characteristic of those that will be
encountered along the proposed buried electrical transmission cable routes.
· Mobilization of a geophysical subcontractor to perform electrical resistivity surveys to
provide design criteria for equipment grounding and Multi-Analysis of Surface Wave
(MASW) testing to identify the shear wave velocity profiles. Both types of testing
were performed at each of the six (6) tower locations for which access was granted.
· Laboratory testing to assist in identifying the engineering characteristics of the site
soils.
· Preparation of this engineering report presenting the results of the subsurface
investigation, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and our geotechnical
recommendations for the design and construction of the foundations for the
proposed wind turbine towers.
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed project is to consist of the installation of at least six (6) wind turbines. As
noted, seven turbines were proposed, but access was not granted to one of the sites, Tower
No. 2 as identified on the plan provided by the Client.
2
We understand that loading from the proposed towers will be similar to those identified in
the General Electric document “Technical Specification, Wind Turbine Generator Systems,
International, Foundations, Part II of V, Geotechnical Design”. This document identifies
preliminary gravity foundation design stresses for two series of turbines. The smaller is
identified to have a gravity foundation (mat or raft) with a diameter of approximately 46 feet,
peak edge stresses of approximately 4,500 pounds per square foot (psf), and a
corresponding mid foundation stress of approximately 3,350 psf. The larger turbine is
identified to have a mat diameter of approximately 53 feet, peak edge stresses of
approximately 6,000 psf, and mid foundation stress of approximately 4,500 psf. The smaller
foundation is identified to have an average dead weight of foundation concrete of 777 tons.
The larger foundation is identified to have a foundation dead weight of 942 tons. Both
correspond to foundation heights of approximately 6 feet. It is therefore assumed that
gravity foundations will bear at a depth of at least 6 feet below grade, but more likely at a
depth of 8 feet or more below grade to take advantage of the dead weight of backfill soils
above the mat. The tolerable magnitude of differential settlement due to dead loads is
identified to be 3mm/meter, or 0.036 inches per foot. The total allowable uniform settlement
under gravity loads is identified to be 20mm, or about 0.8 inches.
Power generated by the wind turbines will be conducted by buried conduits.
4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed wind turbines will be located on properties located in close proximity to Black
Oak Road in Enfield, New York. The proposed turbine installations span an area measuring
slightly in excess of 1 square mile, an area bounded roughly by Weatherby Road on the
north and an existing electrical easement located roughly 1000 feet north of Cayutaville
Road on the south. The proposed towers are offset distances ranging up to approximately
one-half mile on the east and west sides of Black Oak Road.
Five of the six tower locations addressed in the investigation are located on the edges of
agricultural fields, Turbine Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Tower Nos. 1 and 3 are located on the
northeastern end of the site on the edges of gently sloping fields. Surface grades in the
area of Turbines 1 and 3 range up to approximately 3 percent based on elevation data from
Google Earth. Turbine Nos. 5 and 6 are located in the southeastern end of the site, with
3
Tower No. 5 being located near the crest of a gently sloping ridge. Surface grades in the
area of Turbine 5 range up to roughly 5 percent, and surface grades in the area of Turbine 6
range up to approximately 16 percent. Turbine 7 is located in the southwestern end of the
site in gently sloping terrain. Surface grades in this area range up to approximately 5
percent. There is a pond located approximately 150 feet north of the Turbine 7 location.
The turbine not located on the edge of a field is No. 4. This turbine is located on the gently
sloping crest of a ridge on the western end of the proposed site. This area is lightly
vegetated with brush and occasional small trees. Surface grades over the footprint of a mat
foundation range up to approximately 3 percent.
Regionally, the ground surface generally slopes down from the southwest to the northeast,
with surface grades ranging from a high elevation of approximately 1936 feet on the ridge
near B-4 to a low elevation of approximately 1627 feet, again with all elevation data being
obtained from Google Earth.
No bedrock outcrops were noted in the immediate area of the turbine locations. However, a
relic shale quarry was noted in the area northwest of Turbine No. 4. A side hill cut in the
quarry was estimated to be in excess of 15 feet in height. No groundwater seepage was
observed from the cut.
5.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
The subsurface investigation consisted of the performance of test borings, electrical
resistivity surveys, MASW Survey, and laboratory testing. The following subsections
describe the performed subsurface investigation.
5.1 Test Borings
Six (6) test borings were performed for the proposed wind turbines, one at each of
the proposed turbine locations for which we were given access. These are Tower
Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. The borings were designated by the turbine number, and
their locations are shown on the attached Boring Location Plan, Figure 1. The
borings were field located relative to the proposed tower locations identified on an
aerial image provided by the Client. The locations identified on the attached plan
4
correspond to the GPS coordinates obtained by Tectonic at the performed boring
location using a hand-held GPS unit.
An additional eight (8) shallow borings were performed across the site for the
purpose of sampling soils for thermal resistivity testing. These borings were located
to sample the eight USDA soil classes that are identified to exist along the proposed
buried cable routes. These borings were identified by the USDA Soil Class
abbreviation, and their locations are shown on the attached Soil Sampling Plan,
Figure 2.
The borings for the proposed towers were performed by Transtec Drilling Services
between the dates of November 19 and November 29, 2012 utilizing an ATV
mounted drill rig. The borings were advanced through soil and weathered bedrock
using a 3-7/8-inch diameter tricone bit and mud-rotary drilling techniques. The near
surface soils were stabilized with 4-inch I.D. steel casing. Standard Penetration
Testing was performed with a split-spoon sampler continuously to a minimum depth
of 12 feet and at maximum 5-foot spacings thereafter in soil and highly weathered
bedrock. The borings were advanced through more competent bedrock using an NX
double-tube diamond core barrel. Where bedrock was encountered at a shallow
depth, which occurred at Boring B-4 (Tower 4), supplemental probes were
performed to identify the variability in bedrock depth over the area of the proposed
foundation. At this location, three probes were performed with a split-spoon sampler
at approximate 25-foot off-sets from the tower center, each located approximately
120 degrees apart.
The borings ranged in depth from approximately 23 feet to 52 feet. Where the
borings were terminated at a depth of less than 52 feet, bedrock was encountered
and cored for lengths ranging from approximately 3 to 20 feet.
The borings were left open over the duration of the investigation to monitor the
groundwater level.
5
The borings performed to sample the different soil classes were typically advanced
by auger to a depth of 4 feet. Five-gallon samples of soil were obtained from the
depth interval from 2 to 4 feet at each location.
All drilling operations were observed on a full-time basis by an engineering geologist
to confirm conformation of drilling and sampling procedures to the appropriate ASTM
Standards. The engineering geologist also collected samples for laboratory testing
and prepared logs of the soil, bedrock and groundwater conditions encountered.
Copies of the logs are included in Appendix I.
5.2 Electrical Resistivity Surveys
Electrical resistivity surveys were performed by ARM Geophysics on November 27th
and 28th, 2012. The testing consisted of the performance of two mutually
perpendicular Wenner arrays centered as close as possible to the turbine center with
electrode spacings of 5, 10, 20, 40, and 60-feet. The testing followed the guidelines
of the IEEE81 Guide for Measuring Earth’s Resistivity, Ground Impedance, and
Earth Surface Potentials of a Ground System. The results of the electrical resistivity
testing are presented in Appendix II.
5.3 Multi-Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) Survey
A MASW survey was performed by ARM Geophysics on November 28th and 29th,
2012 at all six turbine locations. This testing, which yields a vertical profile of the
subsurface shear wave velocity for selected depths, was performed in two
approximately perpendicular arrays centered as close as possible to the center of
the proposed turbine as site conditions would allow. Vertical profiles were obtained
at three locations for each array, the center, and approximately 25 feet off the center
in opposite directions along the array. This yields six shear wave velocity profiles for
each tower location. Shear wave velocity profiles were developed to a minimum
depth of 60 feet. The results of the MASW testing are also provided in Appendix II,
and recommended shear wave velocities for design purposes are provided in
Section 7 of this report.
6
5.4 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory testing was performed on selected soil samples to assist in evaluating
the engineering properties of the soil. Tests were performed to identify the potential
corrosivity of the site soils to buried concrete and steel. These tests consisted of the
determination of soil pH and soluble soil sulfate and chloride contents on samples
obtained at and above the anticipated bearing depth of the foundations. One sample
was tested from each of the proposed turbine locations. The soil pH tests were
performed in accordance with ASTM Standard 4972. The water soluble sulfate and
chloride content tests were performed in accordance with EPA Standards 375.1 and
325.3, respectively.
Testing also included the performance of eleven (11) gradation analyses in
accordance with ASTM Standard D422, eight (8) Standard Proctor density tests in
accordance with ASTM Standard D698, and two multi point soil thermal resistivity
tests in accordance with ASTM Standard D5334. Eight of the gradations and all of
the density tests were performed on the samples obtained from the eight USDA Soil
Classes that the proposed buried transmission cables will traverse. Soil samples
EBB-1 and BAC-1 were selected for the performance of thermal resistivity testing
based on the results of this testing as they were identified to roughly bound the
density and gradation spectrum of the eight soil classes. The soil resistivity tests
were performed at a density corresponding to 90 percent of the Standard Proctor
density.
Five Atterberg limit tests were also performed on representative glacial till samples.
This testing was performed in accordance with ASTM Standard D4318.
The results of the laboratory testing are included in Appendix III and discussed in
Sections 5 and 6 of this report.
6.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The encountered subsurface conditions consist, in turn, of a thin layer of topsoil, native
glacial till soils, and shale bedrock. The glacial till consists predominately of sandy, gravelly
clay and gravelly, clayey sand, and also likely contains cobbles and boulders. The shale
7
bedrock typically has a completely weathered surface layer of varying thickness and it was
encountered as shallow as 3.8 feet at boring B-4, and at depths varying from 2 to 3 feet at
the probe holes located around boring B-4. Bedrock was not encountered at boring B-7, but
based on the MASW survey results, it is estimated to be at a depth of approximately 60 feet
at this location. The observed groundwater conditions vary across the project site, with
water levels being measured at depths varying from approximately 3 to 26 feet below
existing grade.
The following subsections provide generalized descriptions of the encountered soil, bedrock
and groundwater conditions at the different turbine sites. More detailed descriptions of the
subsurface conditions are provided in the boring logs included in Appendix I. A table at the
end of this section provides the depth and elevation that bedrock and groundwater was
encountered at each tower location.
6.1 Native Glacial Till Soil
The native site soils consist primarily of glacial till soils derived largely from shale
bedrock. Based on the gradation testing performed, the till has relatively minor
variations in gradation and plasticity. Typically, the till either consists of 50 to 60
percent low plasticity clay with sand and gravel contents ranging from roughly 20 to
35 percent, and has the Unified Soil Classification of Low Plasticity Clay (CL), or the
combined sand and gravel content exceeds the clay content, and the till has the
Unified Soil Classification of Clayey Sand (SC). Occasionally, the gravel content
exceeds the sand content, and the till has the Unified Classification of Clayey Gravel
(GC). The minimum clay content of the tested samples was approximately 35
percent. The tested till samples were identified to have plasticity indexes ranging
from 12 to 17 percent and natural water contents ranging from approximately 7 to 28
percent, with the higher moisture content samples typically occurring within the
shallow samples obtained for the eight USDA soil classes. These were obtained
following a snow melt event. It is also noted that cobbles and boulder size relic
shale rock blocks or rocks of other lithologies can also occur within the glacial till.
8
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values within the till typically ranged from
approximately 8 to 30 blows per foot (bpf) indicating consistencies typically varying
from stiff to very stiff. Shear wave velocities in the glacial till were highly variable
ranging from 600 feet per second to in excess of 2,500 feet per second. In general,
the shear wave velocities were consistently lower within the tills of boring B-7, where
the soils are often more sandy and gravelly.
Soil thermal resistivity testing on the more sandy & gravelly soil sample, sample
EBB-1, predicts thermal resistivity ranging from approximately 80 to 170 0C-cm/W
over the range of moisture testing on the more clayey sample, BAC-1 predicts
thermal resistivity ranging from approximately 70 to 190 0C-cm/W over the tested
moisture contents. The tests were performed at moisture contents ranging from
approximately the natural moisture content of less than 1 percent.
6.2 Shale Bedrock
Bedrock at the site consists of sub-horizontally bedded shale. The depths at which
bedrock was encountered are identified in the table at the end of Section 5. These
depths correspond to the depth that split-spoon sampler refusal was encountered.
This is noted because the transition to bedrock is often gradual with an upper zone
being weathered to a stiff to hard gravelly soil consistency. This highly decomposed
zone extends to depths ranging up to 10 feet above rock that is sufficiently
competent to sample with a core drill. On split-spoon sampling, the weathered
bedrock typically breaks into gravel and sand sized shale fragments with varying
amounts of low plasticity clay.
Rock was core drilled at three locations; boring B-3 from a depth of approximately 20
to 25 feet, B-4 from a depth of 3.5 to 23.5 feet, and B-5 from a depth of 35 to 38.5
feet. The core at borings B-3 and B-5, and the core to a depth of 18.5 feet at boring
B-4 is moderately to highly weathered and moderately to highly fracture, with
fracture spacings typically being less than several inches. The rock is typically
characterized as being moderately hard, except in the upper core intervals of boring
B-4, which were characterized as being moderately hard to soft. The RQD (Rock
Quality Designation, which is the cumulative sum of the lengths of core pieces 4
9
inches or longer divided by the length of the core interval, and expressed as a
percentage), was zero for all of the core intervals except for the interval from 13.5 to
18.5 at boring B-4, which had an RQD of 6 percent. The interval from 18.5 to 23.5 at
boing B-4 was also highly to moderately fractured, but is less weathered being
moderately to slightly weathered. Based on the RQDs of the rock core samples, all
of the cored rock has a very poor rock mass rating. The core recoveries were
typically 100 percent. The results of the probes performed to identify the variation in
bedrock depth at Turbine 4 showed that weathered bedrock varies from an
approximate depth of 2 to 3.8 feet over the area of the proposed turbine foundation.
Shear wave velocities in the shale were also highly variable ranging from roughly
2,000 fps to in excess of 5,000 fps.
6.3 Groundwater
Water was measured in the borings at the depths identified in the table below. Due
to the generally low permeability of the glacial till soil and the fact that drilling fluids
were introduced into the borings during both rotary drilling and rock core drilling, the
recorded groundwater levels may not reflect the actual conditions. It is noted that
the deepest recorded water levels were generally associated with the borings where
the duration between drilling and the final water level reading were longest. It is also
noted that drilling fluids were identified to be lost during the bedrock coring at boring
B-5, and this corresponds to the deepest recorded water level, which was 26 feet.
At boring B-4, the bedrock was relatively impermeable and water introduced during
drilling did not subside below a depth of 1 foot over the duration of observation.
Electrical resistivity test results provide an estimate of groundwater depth as the soil
and bedrock resistivity typically decreases significantly at the groundwater table or
the saturated capillary zone above the groundwater table. Based on the results of
this testing, it is estimated that the static groundwater table is below a depth of 20
feet at Turbine 1, between a depth of 10 and 20 feet at Turbines 3, 4, 5 and 6, and at
an approximate depth of 20 feet at Turbine 7.
10
It should be noted that groundwater levels will fluctuate with variations in rainfall and
with season. Also, the site soils have relatively low permeability. Therefore, shallow
perched water conditions should be anticipated following rain or snow-melt events.
Boring Summary Table
Tower/
Boring ID
Approximate
Surface
Elevation(1)
(feet)
Depth to
Bedrock(2)
(ft)
Approximate
Bedrock
Elevation
(ft)
Measured
Groundwater
Depth
(ft)
Approximate
Measured
Groundwater
Elevation (ft)
1 1631 45.8 1585.2 3.5 (11/29) 1627.5
3 1627 16.3 1610.7 2.9 (11/29) 1624.1
4 1938 3.8 1934.2 Unknown Unknown
5 1846 26.8 1819.2 26 (11/29) 1820
6 1788 46 1742 8.3 (11/29) 1779.7
7 1796 60(3) 1736 21.2 (11/29) 1774.8
1) Surface elevation from Google Earth and GPS coordinates of boring and should be
considered approximate.
2) Depth to bedrock based on depth to split-spoon sampler refusal.
3) Bedrock not encountered in boring. Bedrock depth estimated from MASW survey
results.
7.0 SEISMIC SITE COEFFICIENTS AND LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
As part of our investigation, we have evaluated the seismic classes of the tower sites and
the appropriate site coefficients for use in seismic design. Based on the results of the
subsurface investigation, the tower sites fall under two site classes. Tower sites 1, 6 and 7
fall under Site Class C, which is very dense soil and soft rock. Tower Sites 3, 4 and 5 fall
under Seismic Site Class B, which is bedrock. The tower sites falling under Site Class C
(Nos. 1, 6 and 7) have maximum spectral response accelerations at short periods (SmS)
equal to 0.15g and at 1-second periods (Sm1) equal to 0.095g. The tower sites falling under
Site Class B (Nos. 3, 4 and 5) have maximum spectral response accelerations at short
periods (SmS) equal to 0.125g and at 1-second periods (Sm1) equal to 0.056g.
11
Liquefaction of soils can be caused by a strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Both
research and historical data indicate that loose, granular soils saturated by a shallow
groundwater table are most susceptible to liquefaction. Liquefaction occurs when an
earthquake and associated ground shaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain-
to-grain contact due to a rapid increase in pore-water pressure, causing the soil to behave
as a fluid for short periods. Based on the results of the subsurface investigation, the site
soils are not subject to liquefaction due to their cohesive nature and stiff consistency.
8.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
In general, the site conditions are favorable for the proposed wind farm construction. Both
the glacial till soils and the weathered shale bedrock provide suitable support for the
standard sized gravity foundations identified in Section 3. Also, due to the very shallow
depth of bedrock at the location of Tower 4, this site is suitable for the use of an anchored
foundation, which can significantly reduce the required weight of the foundation. Rock at
the other tower locations is believed to be too deep to cost effectively utilize anchored
foundations. This is because the foundation needs to bear entirely on competent rock in
order to have strain levels that are compatible with tensioned rock anchors.
Recommendations for the design of gravity foundations as well as foundations secured to
bedrock utilizing high strength rock anchors are provided in Section 9 of this report.
Other conclusions that can be made regarding the proposed construction include the
following:
· The site soils are not subject to liquefaction
· Test results indicate that the plasticity indicies of the soils range from approximately
10 to 17 percent. This indicates that the site soils are non-expansive.
· The site soils are not considered corrosive to buried concrete and steel. This
assessment is based on the pH of the soil samples typically being either neutral to
slightly alkaline. The most acidic sample had a pH was 6.15. Generally, pH levels
above 5.5 are considered to be non-corrosive. The soluble sulfate and chloride
contents were typically less than their detectable limits. Exceptions occur for the
sulfate content for the 0 to 2 foot deep sample at Tower 1 and the 4 to 6 feet deep
sample at Tower 7, where 41.9 and 38.3 ppm were recorded, respectively.
However, these quantities are considered negligible per the American Concrete
Institute (ACI), and Type I or II cements are appropriate for use at the site. Another
exception is that a soluble chloride content of 84.1 ppm was recorded for the 0 to 2
foot sample at Tower 1. However, chloride contents less than 500 ppm are
12
considered to be non-corrosive to reinforced concrete (Department of
Transportation, Division of New Technology and Materials Research, California Test
532, 1993).
· The thermal resistivity of the site soils are predicted to vary from approximately 75 to
136 0C-cm/W over the soil moisture contents expected to be encountered at the site.
The high value corresponds to a moisture content of 3 percent and is recommended
for design purposes.
· The glacial till site soils are considered unsuitable for use as structural fill due to their
high clay and silt contents, and they are often moisture sensitive, being difficult to
place if the moisture conditions are not optimal. They are therefore not
recommended for use as fill beneath the foundations should fill be required. They
can be used as backfill around the sides and placed over the top of gravity or
anchored mat foundations, however. It is noted that of the eight soil samples
obtained from depths of 2 to 4 feet and tested for Standard Proctor density, only two
had moisture contents within two percent of the optimum moisture contents. The
remaining six had moisture contents ranging from 3 to 8.3 percent over optimum.
Therefore, if similar moisture conditions were encountered at the time of
construction, much of the soil would need to be dried to achieve adequate
compaction, and this can result in construction delays when these materials are
used for fill. Structural fill should be import material meeting the gradation
requirements provided in Section 10.
· The glacial till soils can be excavated with standard heavy duty excavators or
dozers. Based on the Caterpillar Handbook of Ripping (8th Edition), shale with a
compressional wave velocity of 7,400 feet per second (fps) can be ripped with a D9
Dozer equipped with a ripping bar. A 7,400 fps compressional wave velocity
approximately correlates with a shear wave velocity of approximately 4,270 fps.
Based on the shear wave velocities from the MASW survey at Tower 4, the rock to a
depth of at least 10 feet is considered rippable. Excavator mounted hydraulic
hammers can also be used to efficiently break-up the rock.
· Based on the groundwater observations made during the performance of the
investigation and observations of the regional topography, groundwater is not
anticipated to impact the design of Turbine Nos. 4 and 7. Turbine 4 is located
relatively high on a ridge. Turbine 7 falls within an apparent buried valley that
contains more permeable till soils, and groundwater was recorded at a greater depth
at this location. At the other turbine locations, perched water was recorded at
relatively shallow depths, or in the case of Tower No. 5, the relatively deep
groundwater reading of 26 feet is attributed to the draining of the water within the
boring within the more permeable bedrock that was encountered at this location.
Although the water in these area is perched, it can still impact foundation design as it
reduces the effective weight of the gravity foundation and the backfill soils. In order
to be certain that excess pore pressure does not develop beneath the foundations at
these locations, it is recommended that a gravel drainage blanket be placed beneath
the mat foundations and that an outlet drain be installed to discharge water at a
sufficient distance downslope from the turbine that the water can drain by gravity.
This is discussed in more detail in Section 9.
13
· Subgrades consisting of the native site soils will be sensitive to disturbance.
Therefore, subgrades consisting of the native soils without the above described
drainage blanket should have a minimum 4-inch thick layer of concrete placed to
protect the subgrade during placement of formwork and steel reinforcement.
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following sections provide our geotechnical recommendations for design and
construction of the proposed foundations. The recommendations are based on our
understanding of the proposed project as summarized in Section 3 of this report, and the
results of the subsurface investigation as described previously. It is noted that if the
proposed Turbine locations change, Tectonic will need to confirm the validity of the provided
recommendations. This is due in part to the locally abrupt variations in bedrock depth
identified by the borings and MASW surveys.
9.1 Foundation Design Criteria
Foundations for the proposed wind turbine should bear on moderately stiff to very
stiff glacial till or weathered shale bedrock. Foundations bearing on soil should bear
at a minimum depth of 54 inches below proposed finish grades for frost protection
unless a greater embedment is required based on the local jurisdiction. Foundations
bearing on bedrock (Turbine 4) should bear at a minimum depth of 3 feet below
proposed finish grade, or deeper as required to fully bear on rock of suitable quality
as discussed in Section 10.
The following criteria should be used to design both the gravity and rock anchored
foundations. Recommendations for the design of the rock anchors are provided in
Section 9.2.
Turbine 1
Depth Below
Grade at
Boring
Location (ft)
Net
Allowable
Bearing
Pressure(tsf)
Coefficient of
Sliding Resistance
of Concrete against
Gravel Drainage
Layer
Moist/
Saturated
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Design
Shear
Modulus
(tsf)
Poisson’s
Ratio
4.5 to 28 5+ 0.43 120 315 0.5
28 to 45 NA NA 125 595 0.5
45 to 60 NA NA 140 1650 0.3
14
Turbine 3
Depth Below
Grade at
Boring
Location (ft)
Net
Allowable
Bearing
Pressure
(tsf)
Coefficient of
Sliding Resistance
of Concrete against
Gravel Drainage
Layer
Moist/
Saturated
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Design
Shear
Modulus
(tsf)
Poisson’s
Ratio
4.5 to 20 5+ 0.43 125 560 0.5
20 to 30 NA NA 140 1360 0.3
30 to 60 NA NA 140 1700 0.3
Turbine 4
Depth Below
Grade at
Boring
Location (ft)
Net
Allowable
Bearing
Pressure
(tsf)
Coefficient of
Sliding
Resistance of
Concrete
against
Bedrock
Moist/Saturated
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Design
Shear
Modulus
(tsf)
Poisson’s
Ratio
3 to 30 10+ 0.57 140 1600 0.3
30 to 60 NA NA 145 2600 0.3
Turbine 5
Depth Below
Grade at
Boring
Location (ft)
Net
Allowable
Bearing
Pressure
(tsf)
Coefficient of
Sliding Resistance
of Mat against
Gravel Drainage
Layer
Moist/
Saturated
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Design
Shear
Modulus
(tsf)
Poisson’s
Ratio
4.5 to 24 5+ 0.43 120 600 0.5
24 to 35 NA NA 135 925 0.3
35 to 60 NA NA 145 2900 0.3
Turbine 6
Depth Below
Grade at
Boring
Location (ft)
Net
Allowable
Bearing
Pressure
(tsf)
Coefficient of
Sliding Resistance
of Concrete against
Gravel Drainage
Layer
Moist/
Saturated
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Design
Shear
Modulus
(tsf)
Poisson’s
Ratio
5.5 to 25 5+ 0.43 120 315 0.5
25 to 37 NA NA 130 730 0.5
37 to 60 NA NA 140 1250 0.3
15
Turbine 7
Depth Below
Grade at
Boring
Location (ft)
Net
Allowable
Bearing
Pressure
(tsf)
Concrete-
Native Soil
Base Adhesion
(psf )
Design
Unit Weight
(pcf)
Design
Shear
Modulus
(tsf))
Poisson’s
Ratio
5.5 to 40 5+ 750 120 185 0.5
40 to 60 NA NA 135 475 0.5
The net allowable bearing pressures provided in the above tables is based on
consideration of bearing failure only. Deflections based on the design shear
modulus shall determine the service limit. Foundations designed based on the
preceding criteria can be expected to have differential settlements under gravity
loads less than the identified limit of 3mm per meter and a total uniform settlement
less than the identified limit of 20mm.
With the incorporation of the drainage blankets at Turbine Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 6, the
design high groundwater table can be assumed to coincide with the elevation of the
drainage blanket. The design high groundwater tables at Towers 4 and 7 can be
assumed to be at a depth of 15 feet.
9.2 Rock Anchor Design Criteria
Rock anchors used to resist the overturning loads on the turbine foundations should
be designed and load tested in accordance with the latest requirements of the Post
Tensioning Institute. Bar anchors should have a minimum free stressing length of 10
feet and should consist of minimum grade 150 deformed bars such as manufactured
by Williams Form Company or Dywidag Systems International. Standard anchor
sizes range from 1-inch to 1-3/8-inch diameters. Anchors should be installed in
holes having a minimum diameter of 4-inches. The anchor size should be selected
based on the magnitude of the overturning loads, and the lock-off load should be a
maximum of 60 percent of the ultimate strength of the selected bar. The rock bolt
anchor zone should be designed assuming an allowable rock-grout bond strength of
40 pounds per square inch (psi). However, the anchor zones should have a
minimum length of 5 feet. The grout should have a minimum 28-day unconfined
16
compressive strength of 4,000 psi. The group capacity of the rock anchors should
be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer. The anchor zones lengths may need to
be extended following this review. At least one rock anchor should be performance
tested. The remaining rock anchors should be proof tested.
9.3 Drainage Blanket Design
Drainage blankets, where required, should consist of an approximately 12-inch thick
layer of ¾-inch washed crushed stone. The drainage blanket should be isolated
from the native soils using Mirafi’s 140N non-woven filter fabric or an approved
equal. The filter fabric should be wrapped around the sides and lapped over the top
of the drainage blanket for such a distance that the concrete of the mat foundation
overlies the fabric by a minimum distance of 2 feet. The drainage blanket should be
positively drained with a minimum 6-inch diameter pipe out-letting downslope at a
location that is safe from damage from tillage or other sources and can be
periodically inspected. The outlet of the drain should have a rodent guard.
9.4 Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes
Permanent fill slopes constructed from the site soils should have a maximum slope
of 2.5 Horizontal to 1 Vertical. Permanent cut slopes in the native site soils should
have a maximum slope of 2 Horizontal to 1 Vertical. Permanent cut slopes in the
weathered shale bedrock should have a maximum slope of 1 Horizontal to 1 Vertical.
10.0 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA
The following sections provide our recommendations regarding earthwork, fill placement
and subgrade preparations.
10.1 Subgrade Preparation-Soil Subgrades
Final excavation to the subgrade elevation should be performed with a grading
bucket mounted on an excavator or a standard excavator bucket with a steel plate
welded over the teeth of the bucket to minimize disturbance to the subgrade soils.
The subgrades should be inspected by the geotechnical engineer. Any soil deemed
unsuitable by the geotechnical engineer should be removed as directed by the
geotechnical engineer. Over-excavated areas should be backfilled with concrete fill
17
or crushed stone. On turbine sites requiring a drainage blanket, filter fabric should
be placed over the subgrade after the subgrade has been approved and then the
clean crushed stone should be placed over the subgrade to protect the subgrade
from foot and construction traffic. A 4-inch layer of lean concrete should be placed
over the inspected and approved turbine subgrade that does not require a drainage
blanket (Turbine 7). Concrete should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength
of 2,000 psi.
Soil subgrades should also be protected from the effects of frost. Insulating blankets
and/or heaters should be used as required to protect the subgrades.
10.2 Subgrade Preparation – Rock Subgrades
The subgrade of the rock bearing foundation (Turbine 4) should be prepared by
removing all soil and loose rock fragments resulting from excavation activities.
Bedrock subgrades should be prepared approximately level. Lean concrete, having
a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 2,000 psi, may be used to fill undulations
in the bedrock surface, but should not be used to level a consistently-sloping
bedrock surface due to the shear forces which could develop at the concrete-
bedrock interface.
Rock subgrades should be inspected by a geotechnical engineer to identify potential
soft zones or undesirable fracture planes within the subgrade. Any areas deemed
unsuitable by the geotechnical engineer should be removed as directed by the
geotechnical engineer and replaced with lean concrete fill.
10.3 Construction Dewatering
Perched water seepage is anticipated during foundation construction, especially
following periods of rainfall or snow melt. As the site soils are susceptible to
disturbance, infiltrating seepage and surface water should be diverted from the
subgrade area prior to the placement of the gravel drainage blanket or protective
concrete pad. If required, dewatering should be performed to maintain the water
level at least 2 feet below the deepest excavation.
18
10.4 Fill and Backfill Materials
The on-site soils may be used as fill over the top and along the sides of the
foundations provided the moisture content of the fill does not vary by more than 2
percent of the optimum moisture content. It should be noted that minor fluctuations
in the moisture content of the soil will affect the ability of contractors to properly
compact these soils, and construction delays should be anticipated during periods of
wet weather.
If import fill is required, it is recommended that relatively impermeable fill be used to
minimize water infiltration and the ponding of water around foundations that are not
constructed on a drainage blanket. Import fill should contain no particles exceeding
4 inches in the largest dimension, should contain no organic matter, and should
have the Unified Soil Classification of CL, SC or GC.
All fill should be compacted to at least 97 percent of the maximum dry density as
determined by the Standard Proctor test (ASTM D698). The water content of the fill
should be within 2 percent of the optimum water content. The required lift thickness
will vary depending on the type of compaction equipment used. A geotechnical
engineer with appropriate field and laboratory support should inspect and approve all
materials for use as fill, and test backfill materials for compliance with the
recommended compaction.
11.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
A geotechnical engineer familiar with the existing subsurface conditions and having the
appropriate laboratory and field testing support should be engaged by the Owner to observe
that all earthwork is performed in accordance with the specifications and the design criteria
outlined in this report.
The following work should be performed under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer:
· Foundation subgrade preparation
· Rock anchor installation and load testing
· Fill placement and compaction
· Dewatering
19
All materials proposed for use as soil fill should be tested and approved prior to delivery to
the site. Additionally, all fill materials should be tested as they are being placed to verify
that the required compaction is achieved. We further recommend that the project plans and
specifications be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant prior to final completion of the bid
documents. It should be noted that upon review of those documents, some
recommendations presented herein may be revised or modified.
12.0 LIMITATIONS
Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily
exercised under similar circumstances by reputable geotechnical engineers and geologists
practicing in this or similar situations. The interpretation of the field data is based on good
judgment and experience; however, no matter how qualified the geotechnical engineer or
detailed the investigation, subsurface conditions cannot always be predicted beyond the
points of actual sampling and testing. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as
to the professional advice included in this report.
The recommendations contained in this report are intended for design purposes only.
Contractors and others involved in the construction of this project are advised to make an
independent assessment of the soil, bedrock, and groundwater conditions for the purpose
of establishing quantities, schedules and construction techniques.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Black Oak Wind Farm LLC for the
specific application to the proposed wind farm project described in this report. We
recommend that prior to construction, Tectonic review the project plans and specifications.
It should be noted that upon review of those documents, some recommendations presented
herein might be revised or modified. In the event that any changes in the design or location
of the proposed structures are planned, Tectonic shall not consider the conclusions and
recommendations contained in this report valid unless reviewed and verified in writing. It is
further recommended that Tectonic be retained to provide construction monitoring and
inspection services to ensure proper implementation of the recommendations contained
herein, which would otherwise limit our professional liability.
G:\Mountainville\Geotechnical\6500\6506.01 Black Oak Wind Farm\Report\6506.01 Black Oak Wind Farm Geotech Report.docx
FIGURES
APPENDIX I
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
S-7
S-8
18
18
4
14
10
4
14
5
GM
GC
GC
GC
SC
GC
GC
SC
GC
6
11
5
16
23
20
17
13
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
1
2
4
4
3
4
7
6
3
1
4
17
9
9
7
4
9
11
12
10
6
11
9
10
4
7
10
10
7
7
6
7
Bwn-gy CLAYEY SILT, and f Gravel, little c-f
Sand (TILL)
Bwn-gy f GRAVEL, and Silty Clay, little c-f
Sand, slightly mottled (TILL)
Same (TILL)
Same to 7'
Bwn-gy c-f SAND, and f Gravel, little Silty Clay
(TILL)
Gy f GRAVEL, and Silty Clay, little c-f Sand
(TILL)
Bwn-gy f GRAVEL, some Silty Clay, little c-f
Sand (TILL)
Gy c-f SAND, and Silty Clay, some f Gravel
(TILL)
Gy f GRAVEL, and Silty Clay, little c-f Sand
NE
0
0
See Remarks
1:20 pm
INSPECTOR:
DRILLER:
DATUM:
DATE START:
DATE FINISH:
Barry Ouimet
John Leonhardt
NOYES
11/26/12
11/27/12
POWER AUGER:
ROT. DRILL:
CASING:
DIAMOND CORE:
RIG: CME 550x with Auto Hammer
3 7/8"
4"TEMP:
*CHANGES IN STRATA ARE INFERRED
SURFACE ELEVATION:
TO
TO
TO
TO
DATE TIME DEPTH
DEPTH
Not Encountered'GROUNDWATERX
DIA.
TO
Overcast
MON. WELL
SCREEN DEPTH:
WEATHER:
DEPTH TO ROCK:
11/28/12
50'
35'
METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING
---
---
35° F
---
TransTech Drilling Services, Inc.
UNCONFINED COMPRESS. STRENGTH
DEPTH (FT.)LENGTH(IN.)Black Oak Wind Farm
Surface elevation taken from Google Earth based on GPS coordinates taken at location of boring with hand held unit and should be
considered approximate. Depth to bedrock based on depth to split spoon sampler refusal.
CONTRACTOR:LITHOLOGY*1 2 3 4 5
10 20 30 40 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10 20 30 40 50N OR MIN./FT.(TONS/FT)
WATERCONTENT %LIQUIDLIMIT %
STANDARD
PENETRATION (BLOWS/FT.)
Black Oak Wind FarmPROJECT:
LOCATION:DEPTH (FT.)Enfield, NY
PROJECT No.PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BL/6 IN.)SAMPLENUMBERRQD(%)UNIFIEDSOIL CLASS.DESCRIPTION
OF
MATERIAL
PLASTICLIMIT %MOISTURESAMPLES
RECOV.
CLIENT:
SHEET No. 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
REMARKS:
6506.01 BORING No. B-0
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.BORING LOG 6506-01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 1/7/13
S-9
S-10
S-11
S-12
S-13
S-14
12
12
12
14
16
5
GC
GC
GC
GC
GC
GC
16
19
12
27
38
100+
M
M
M
M
M
M
10
10
6
12
7
9
10
15
5
6
6
7
12
10
17
18
9
18
20
33
100/4
Gy f GRAVEL, and Silty Clay, little c-f Sand
(TILL)
Gy f GRAVEL, some Silty Clay, little c-f Sand
(TILL)
Gy f GRAVEL, and Silty Clay, little c-f Sand
(TILL)
Gy f GRAVEL, some Silty Clay, little c-f Sand
(TILL)
Same with decomposed shale (bedrock
residual) (TILL)
Same with decomposed shale (bedrock
residual) (TILL)
End of Boring at 50.4'
TransTech Drilling Services, Inc.
UNCONFINED COMPRESS. STRENGTH
DEPTH (FT.)LENGTH(IN.)Black Oak Wind Farm
Surface elevation taken from Google Earth based on GPS coordinates taken at location of boring with hand held unit and should be
considered approximate. Depth to bedrock based on depth to split spoon sampler refusal.
CONTRACTOR:LITHOLOGY*1 2 3 4 5
10 20 30 40 50
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
10 20 30 40 50N OR MIN./FT.(TONS/FT)
WATERCONTENT %LIQUIDLIMIT %
STANDARD
PENETRATION (BLOWS/FT.)
Black Oak Wind FarmPROJECT:
LOCATION:DEPTH (FT.)Enfield, NY
PROJECT No.PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BL/6 IN.)SAMPLENUMBERRQD(%)UNIFIEDSOIL CLASS.DESCRIPTION
OF
MATERIAL
PLASTICLIMIT %MOISTURESAMPLES
RECOV.
CLIENT:
SHEET No. 2 of 2
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
REMARKS:
6506.01 BORING No. B-0
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.BORING LOG 6506-01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 1/7/13100
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
S-7
S-8
20
18
2
10
16
12
4
8
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
SC
SC
8
9
18
10
21
29
17
28
M
M
W
W
W
W
W
W
2
4
4
4
4
5
4
9
7
8
10
3
7
7
3
7
10
11
10
12
12
15
14
12
6
8
9
10
9
10
18
11
Bwn CLAY & SILT, some f Gravel, little c-f
Sand with roots
Bwn CLAY & SILT, some f Gravel, some c-f
Sand
Same
Gy-bwn CLAY & SILT, some c-f Sand, little f
Gravel
Same
Same
Gy c-f SAND, and Clay & Silt, some c-f Gravel
Same
3.5'
0
0
See Remarks
11:50 am
INSPECTOR:
DRILLER:
DATUM:
DATE START:
DATE FINISH:
Barry Ouimet
John Leonhardt
NOYES
11/27/12
11/28/12
POWER AUGER:
ROT. DRILL:
CASING:
DIAMOND CORE:
RIG: CME 550x with Auto Hammer
3 7/8"
4"TEMP:
*CHANGES IN STRATA ARE INFERRED
SURFACE ELEVATION:
TO
TO
TO
TO
DATE TIME DEPTH
DEPTH
45.8'GROUNDWATERX
DIA.
TO
Overcast
MON. WELL
SCREEN DEPTH:
WEATHER:
DEPTH TO ROCK:
11/29/12
50'
35'
METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING
---
1631.0
40° F
---
TransTech Drilling Services, Inc.
UNCONFINED COMPRESS. STRENGTH
DEPTH (FT.)LENGTH(IN.)Black Oak Wind Farm
Surface elevation taken from Google Earth based on GPS coordinates and should be considered approximate. Depth to bedrock based on
depth to split spoon sampler refusal.
CONTRACTOR:LITHOLOGY*1 2 3 4 5
10 20 30 40 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10 20 30 40 50N OR MIN./FT.(TONS/FT)
WATERCONTENT %LIQUIDLIMIT %
STANDARD
PENETRATION (BLOWS/FT.)
Black Oak Wind FarmPROJECT:
LOCATION:ELEVATION (FT.)Enfield, NY
PROJECT No.PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BL/6 IN.)SAMPLENUMBERRQD(%)UNIFIEDSOIL CLASS.DESCRIPTION
OF
MATERIAL
PLASTICLIMIT %MOISTURESAMPLES
RECOV.
CLIENT:
SHEET No. 1 of 2
1626.0
1621.0
1616.0
1611.0
1606.0
REMARKS:
6506.01 BORING No. B-1
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.BORING LOG 6506-01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 1/7/13
S-9
S-10
S-11
S-12
S-13
S-14
6
8
16
18
10
4
CL
CL
CL
GC
GC
GC
8
18
36
50
100+
100+
W
W
W
W
W
W
4
3
5
8
6
8
10
11
10
17
19
23
11
21
29
41
17
100/4
100/4
Gy CLAY & SILT, some c-f Sand, little f Gravel
Same
Same
Gy f GRAVEL, (shale bedrock fragments)
some Clay & Silt, some c-f Sand
Gy c-f GRAVEL (shale bedrock fragments)
some c-f Sand, little Silt & Clay (orange
staining) (weathered shale bedrock)
Same
End of Boring at 50.4'
TransTech Drilling Services, Inc.
UNCONFINED COMPRESS. STRENGTH
DEPTH (FT.)LENGTH(IN.)Black Oak Wind Farm
Surface elevation taken from Google Earth based on GPS coordinates and should be considered approximate. Depth to bedrock based on
depth to split spoon sampler refusal.
CONTRACTOR:LITHOLOGY*1 2 3 4 5
10 20 30 40 50
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
10 20 30 40 50N OR MIN./FT.(TONS/FT)
WATERCONTENT %LIQUIDLIMIT %
STANDARD
PENETRATION (BLOWS/FT.)
Black Oak Wind FarmPROJECT:
LOCATION:ELEVATION (FT.)Enfield, NY
PROJECT No.PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BL/6 IN.)SAMPLENUMBERRQD(%)UNIFIEDSOIL CLASS.DESCRIPTION
OF
MATERIAL
PLASTICLIMIT %MOISTURESAMPLES
RECOV.
CLIENT:
SHEET No. 2 of 2
1601.0
1596.0
1591.0
1586.0
1581.0
1576.0
REMARKS:
6506.01 BORING No. B-1
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.BORING LOG 6506-01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 1/7/13100
100
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
S-7
S-8
C-1
18
20
14
14
10
10
16
1
60 0
CL
SC
CL
CL
SC
SC
GC
GC
7
9
6
11
31
24
112+
100+
4
4
3
3
3
M
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
1
3
4
4
3
4
5
4
1
3
3
4
2
3
8
12
7
14
17
10
10
10
14
20
12
12
100/4
100/1
Bwn CLAY & SILT, some c-f Sand, some f
Gravel, with roots
Bwn c-f SAND, and Clay & Silt, trace f Gravel
Bwn CLAY & SILT, some c-f Sand, little f
Gravel
Bwn f GRAVEL, and Silty Clay, little c-f Sand
Gy-bwn c-f SAND, and Clay & Silt, some f
Gravel
Same
Gy c-f GRAVEL, some Silt & Clay, some c-f
Sand (weathered shale bedrock)
Gy c-f GRAVEL (shale fragments) some c-f
Sand, little Silt & Clay
Gy, highly to moderately weathered,
moderately to highly fractured, fine grained,
medium hard, SHALE; fractures primarily
oriented along horizontal bedding planes, also
has vertical fracture
2.82'
2.87'
0
0
20.1
See Remarks
1:55 pm
11:55 am
INSPECTOR:
DRILLER:
DATUM:
DATE START:
DATE FINISH:
Barry Ouimet
John Leonhardt
NOYES
11/27/12
11/27/12
POWER AUGER:
ROT. DRILL:
CASING:
DIAMOND CORE:
RIG: CME 550x with Auto Hammer
3 7/8"
4"
NX
TEMP:
*CHANGES IN STRATA ARE INFERRED
SURFACE ELEVATION:
TO
TO
TO
TO
DATE TIME DEPTH
DEPTH
16.3'GROUNDWATERX
DIA.
TO
Overcast
MON. WELL
SCREEN DEPTH:
WEATHER:
DEPTH TO ROCK:
11/28/12
11/29/12
20'
10'
25.1'
METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING
---
1627.0
35° F
---
TransTech Drilling Services, Inc.
UNCONFINED COMPRESS. STRENGTH
DEPTH (FT.)LENGTH(IN.)Black Oak Wind Farm
Surface elevation taken from Google Earth based on GPS coordinates and should be considered approximate. Groundwater measurements
made in open hole with hole open to 23 feet. Depth to bedrock based on depth to split spoon sampler refusal.
CONTRACTOR:LITHOLOGY*1 2 3 4 5
10 20 30 40 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10 20 30 40 50N OR MIN./FT.(TONS/FT)
WATERCONTENT %LIQUIDLIMIT %
STANDARD
PENETRATION (BLOWS/FT.)
Black Oak Wind FarmPROJECT:
LOCATION:ELEVATION (FT.)Enfield, NY
PROJECT No.PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BL/6 IN.)SAMPLENUMBERRQD(%)UNIFIEDSOIL CLASS.DESCRIPTION
OF
MATERIAL
PLASTICLIMIT %MOISTURESAMPLES
RECOV.
CLIENT:
SHEET No. 1 of 2
1622.0
1617.0
1612.0
1607.0
1602.0
REMARKS:
6506.01 BORING No. B-3
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.BORING LOG 6506-01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 1/7/13112
100
End of Boring at 25.1'
TransTech Drilling Services, Inc.
UNCONFINED COMPRESS. STRENGTH
DEPTH (FT.)LENGTH(IN.)Black Oak Wind Farm
Surface elevation taken from Google Earth based on GPS coordinates and should be considered approximate. Groundwater measurements
made in open hole with hole open to 23 feet. Depth to bedrock based on depth to split spoon sampler refusal.
CONTRACTOR:LITHOLOGY*1 2 3 4 5
10 20 30 40 50
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
10 20 30 40 50N OR MIN./FT.(TONS/FT)
WATERCONTENT %LIQUIDLIMIT %
STANDARD
PENETRATION (BLOWS/FT.)
Black Oak Wind FarmPROJECT:
LOCATION:ELEVATION (FT.)Enfield, NY
PROJECT No.PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BL/6 IN.)SAMPLENUMBERRQD(%)UNIFIEDSOIL CLASS.DESCRIPTION
OF
MATERIAL
PLASTICLIMIT %MOISTURESAMPLES
RECOV.
CLIENT:
SHEET No. 2 of 2
1597.0
1592.0
1587.0
1582.0
1577.0
1572.0
REMARKS:
6506.01 BORING No. B-3
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.BORING LOG 6506-01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 1/7/13
S-1
S-2
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
14
16
57
60
60
60
0
0
6
0
OL
SC
GC
8
170+
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
M
M
2
4
4
20
30
70
100/4
2" Topsoil: Dk bwn SILT
Or-bwn to gy c-f SAND, and Clay & Silt, some
c-f Gravel
Gy c-f GRAVEL, little c-f Sand, little Clay & Silt
(weathered shale bedrock)
Gy, moderately to highly weathered, highly to
moderately fractured, fine grained medium
hard to soft, SHALE; fractures primarily along
subhorizontal bedding planes
Same, with some fractures at 60 degrees from
horizontal with orange staining
Same, orange staining along fractures
Gy, moderately to slightly weathered, highly to
moderately fractured, fine grained, medium
hard, SHALE, fractures primarily along
subhorizontal bedding planes, one vertical
fracture
End of Boring at 23.35'
1'
0
0
3.5
See Remarks
11:00 am
INSPECTOR:
DRILLER:
DATUM:
DATE START:
DATE FINISH:
Barry Ouimet
John Leonhardt
NOYES
11/28/12
11/29/12
POWER AUGER:
ROT. DRILL:
CASING:
DIAMOND CORE:
RIG: CME 550x with Auto Hammer
3 7/8"
4"
2"
TEMP:
*CHANGES IN STRATA ARE INFERRED
SURFACE ELEVATION:
TO
TO
TO
TO
DATE TIME DEPTH
DEPTH
3.8'GROUNDWATERX
DIA.
TO
Overcast
MON. WELL
SCREEN DEPTH:
WEATHER:
DEPTH TO ROCK:
11/29/12
3.5'
3.5'
23.5'
METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING
---
1938.0
25° F
---
TransTech Drilling Services, Inc.
UNCONFINED COMPRESS. STRENGTH
DEPTH (FT.)LENGTH(IN.)Black Oak Wind Farm
Surface elevation taken from Google Earth based on GPS coordinates and should be considered approximate. One foot water level
measured after introducing drilling fluid into boring. Water is estimated to be below the bedrock surface. Depth to bedrock based on depth
to split spoon sampler refusal.
CONTRACTOR:LITHOLOGY*1 2 3 4 5
10 20 30 40 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10 20 30 40 50N OR MIN./FT.(TONS/FT)
WATERCONTENT %LIQUIDLIMIT %
STANDARD
PENETRATION (BLOWS/FT.)
Black Oak Wind FarmPROJECT:
LOCATION:ELEVATION (FT.)Enfield, NY
PROJECT No.PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BL/6 IN.)SAMPLENUMBERRQD(%)UNIFIEDSOIL CLASS.DESCRIPTION
OF
MATERIAL
PLASTICLIMIT %MOISTURESAMPLES
RECOV.
CLIENT:
SHEET No. 1 of 1
1933.0
1928.0
1923.0
1918.0
1913.0
REMARKS:
6506.01 BORING No. B-4
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.BORING LOG 6506-01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 1/7/13170
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
S-7
S-8
20
4
14
16
14
12
18
22
OL
SC
SC
SC
SC
CL
CL
SC
CL
6
20
23
27
33
40
24
61
M
M
M
M
M
M
W
W
1
2
4
4
5
6
14
12
12
12
11
14
11
12
15
17
11
14
19
21
19
17
23
27
7
12
12
14
14
25
36
75
2" Topsoil: Dk bwn SILT, organic matter
Bwn-gy c-f SAND, and Clay & Silt, some c-f
Gravel
Same
Same
Same
Gy-bwn CLAY & SILT, some c-f Sand, little f
Gravel
Same
Gy c-f SAND, and Clay & Silt, little c-f Gravel
Gy CLAY & SILT, some c-f Sand, some c-f
Gravel
26'
26'
0
0
35
See Remarks
12:44 pm
12:13 pm
INSPECTOR:
DRILLER:
DATUM:
DATE START:
DATE FINISH:
Barry Ouimet
John Leonhardt
NOYES
11/20/12
11/20/12
POWER AUGER:
ROT. DRILL:
CASING:
DIAMOND CORE:
RIG: CME 550x with Auto Hammer
3 7/8"
4"
2"
TEMP:
*CHANGES IN STRATA ARE INFERRED
SURFACE ELEVATION:
TO
TO
TO
TO
DATE TIME DEPTH
DEPTH
26.8'GROUNDWATERX
DIA.
TO
Overcast
MON. WELL
SCREEN DEPTH:
WEATHER:
DEPTH TO ROCK:
11/28/12
11/29/12
35'
10'
38.5'
METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING
---
1846.0
50° F
---
TransTech Drilling Services, Inc.
UNCONFINED COMPRESS. STRENGTH
DEPTH (FT.)LENGTH(IN.)Black Oak Wind Farm
Surface elevation taken from Google Earth based on GPS coordinates and should be considered approximate. Depth to bedrock based on
depth to split spoon sampler refusal.
CONTRACTOR:LITHOLOGY*1 2 3 4 5
10 20 30 40 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10 20 30 40 50N OR MIN./FT.(TONS/FT)
WATERCONTENT %LIQUIDLIMIT %
STANDARD
PENETRATION (BLOWS/FT.)
Black Oak Wind FarmPROJECT:
LOCATION:ELEVATION (FT.)Enfield, NY
PROJECT No.PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BL/6 IN.)SAMPLENUMBERRQD(%)UNIFIEDSOIL CLASS.DESCRIPTION
OF
MATERIAL
PLASTICLIMIT %MOISTURESAMPLES
RECOV.
CLIENT:
SHEET No. 1 of 2
1841.0
1836.0
1831.0
1826.0
1821.0
REMARKS:
6506.01 BORING No. B-5
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.BORING LOG 6506-01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 1/7/1361
S-9
S-10
S-11
C-1
18
5
1
42
GC
GC
96
100+
50+
3
3
4
2
W
W
M
21
31
65
100/4
100/5
50/1
Gy c-f GRAVEL, some Clay & Silt, some c-f
Sand (orange staining)
Gy c-f GRAVEL (shale fragments) some c-f
Sand, little Clay & Silt (orange staining)
(weathered shale bedrock)
Gy SHALE fragments - bedrock
Gy, highly to moderately weathered, highly
fractured, fine grained, medium hard, SHALE;
fractures primarily along subhorizontal bedding
planes
End of Boring at 38.5'
TransTech Drilling Services, Inc.
UNCONFINED COMPRESS. STRENGTH
DEPTH (FT.)LENGTH(IN.)Black Oak Wind Farm
Surface elevation taken from Google Earth based on GPS coordinates and should be considered approximate. Depth to bedrock based on
depth to split spoon sampler refusal.
CONTRACTOR:LITHOLOGY*1 2 3 4 5
10 20 30 40 50
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
10 20 30 40 50N OR MIN./FT.(TONS/FT)
WATERCONTENT %LIQUIDLIMIT %
STANDARD
PENETRATION (BLOWS/FT.)
Black Oak Wind FarmPROJECT:
LOCATION:ELEVATION (FT.)Enfield, NY
PROJECT No.PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BL/6 IN.)SAMPLENUMBERRQD(%)UNIFIEDSOIL CLASS.DESCRIPTION
OF
MATERIAL
PLASTICLIMIT %MOISTURESAMPLES
RECOV.
CLIENT:
SHEET No. 2 of 2
1816.0
1811.0
1806.0
1801.0
1796.0
1791.0
REMARKS:
6506.01 BORING No. B-5
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.BORING LOG 6506-01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 1/7/1396
100
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
S-7
S-8
16
18
12
8
10
12
8
5
CL
CL
GC
CL
CL
SC
CL
CL
7
21
24
15
6
9
23
14
M
M
W
W
W
W
W
W
1
3
4
4
4
10
11
6
4
19
5
4
3
7
8
7
3
3
3
2
6
5
4
4
12
9
14
12
5
5
9
31
Bwn CLAY & SILT, some c-f Sand, some c-f
Gravel
Bwn-gy CLAY & SILT, some c-f Gravel, some
c-f Sand
Bwn-gy c-f GRAVEL, some c-f Sand, little Clay
& Silt
Bwn-gy CLAY & SILT, some f Gravel, some c-f
Sand
Same
Bwn-gy c-f SAND, and c-f GRavel, some Clay
& Silt
Bwn-gy CLAY & SILT, some f Gravel, little c-f
Sand
Gy CLAY & SILT, some f Gravel, some c-f
Sand
8.49'
8.34'
0
0
See Remarks
12:50 pm
12:35 pm
INSPECTOR:
DRILLER:
DATUM:
DATE START:
DATE FINISH:
Barry Ouimet
John Leonhardt
NOYES
11/21/12
11/21/12
POWER AUGER:
ROT. DRILL:
CASING:
DIAMOND CORE:
RIG: CME 550x with Auto Hammer
3 7/8"
4"TEMP:
*CHANGES IN STRATA ARE INFERRED
SURFACE ELEVATION:
TO
TO
TO
TO
DATE TIME DEPTH
DEPTH
46'GROUNDWATERX
DIA.
TO
Clear
MON. WELL
SCREEN DEPTH:
WEATHER:
DEPTH TO ROCK:
11/28/12
11/29/12
50'
25'
METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING
---
1788.0
30° F
---
TransTech Drilling Services, Inc.
UNCONFINED COMPRESS. STRENGTH
DEPTH (FT.)LENGTH(IN.)Black Oak Wind Farm
SSurface elevation taken from Google Earth based on GPS coordinates and should be considered approximate. Groundwater
measurements made in open hole with hole open to 12 feet. Depth to bedrock based on depth to split spoon sampler refusal.
CONTRACTOR:LITHOLOGY*1 2 3 4 5
10 20 30 40 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10 20 30 40 50N OR MIN./FT.(TONS/FT)
WATERCONTENT %LIQUIDLIMIT %
STANDARD
PENETRATION (BLOWS/FT.)
Black Oak Wind FarmPROJECT:
LOCATION:ELEVATION (FT.)Enfield, NY
PROJECT No.PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BL/6 IN.)SAMPLENUMBERRQD(%)UNIFIEDSOIL CLASS.DESCRIPTION
OF
MATERIAL
PLASTICLIMIT %MOISTURESAMPLES
RECOV.
CLIENT:
SHEET No. 1 of 2
1783.0
1778.0
1773.0
1768.0
1763.0
REMARKS:
6506.01 BORING No. B-6
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.BORING LOG 6506-01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 1/7/13
S-9
S-10
S-11
S-12
S-13
S-14
12
20
14
18
12
4
CL
CL
CL
GC
GC
GC
12
24
29
64
100+
100+
W
W
W
W
W
M
4
5
7
8
6
10
14
17
5
12
17
27
22
26
38
75
77
100/6
100/4
Gy CLAY & SILT, some c-f Sand, some f
Gravel
Gy-bwn CLAY &SILT, some f Gravel, some c-f
Sand
Same
Increase in drilling resistance at 37' - Possible
transition to completely weathered bedrock
Gy SHALE fragments, some Clay & Silt
Gy c-f GRAVEL (shale fragments) and Clay &
Silt, some c-f Sand (shale particles)
(weathered shale bedrock)
Gy f GRAVEL (shale fragments) some Clay &
Silt, little c-f Sand (Shale particles) (highly
weathered shale bedrock)
End of Boring at 50.4'
TransTech Drilling Services, Inc.
UNCONFINED COMPRESS. STRENGTH
DEPTH (FT.)LENGTH(IN.)Black Oak Wind Farm
SSurface elevation taken from Google Earth based on GPS coordinates and should be considered approximate. Groundwater
measurements made in open hole with hole open to 12 feet. Depth to bedrock based on depth to split spoon sampler refusal.
CONTRACTOR:LITHOLOGY*1 2 3 4 5
10 20 30 40 50
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
10 20 30 40 50N OR MIN./FT.(TONS/FT)
WATERCONTENT %LIQUIDLIMIT %
STANDARD
PENETRATION (BLOWS/FT.)
Black Oak Wind FarmPROJECT:
LOCATION:ELEVATION (FT.)Enfield, NY
PROJECT No.PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BL/6 IN.)SAMPLENUMBERRQD(%)UNIFIEDSOIL CLASS.DESCRIPTION
OF
MATERIAL
PLASTICLIMIT %MOISTURESAMPLES
RECOV.
CLIENT:
SHEET No. 2 of 2
1758.0
1753.0
1748.0
1743.0
1738.0
1733.0
REMARKS:
6506.01 BORING No. B-6
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.BORING LOG 6506-01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 1/7/1364
100
100
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
S-7
S-8
18
10
18
18
10
16
18
15
OL
ML
CL
GC
GC
GC
GC
SC
GC
4
23
20
17
26
20
30
26
M
M
W
W
W
W
W
W
1
2
2
3
8
12
11
9
9
8
12
18
10
8
9
11
9
12
14
21
20
10
10
12
16
15
15
20
14
12
14
14
3" Topsoil: Bwn SILT with roots
Bwn CLAYEY SILT, little c-f Sand, trace f
Gravel with roots
Bwn-gy CLAY & SILT, some c-f Sand, little f
Gravel
Gy f GRAVEL, some Clay & Silt, some c-f
Sand
Same
Same
Same
Gy c-f SAND, some Clay & Silt, some f Gravel
Gy f GRAVEL, some c-f Sand, some Clay &
Silt
21.2'
21.2'
0
0
See Remarks
3:54 pm
1:05
INSPECTOR:
DRILLER:
DATUM:
DATE START:
DATE FINISH:
Barry Ouimet
John Leonhardt
NOYES
11/19/12
11/20/12
POWER AUGER:
ROT. DRILL:
CASING:
DIAMOND CORE:
RIG: CME 550x with Auto Hammer
3 7/8"
4"TEMP:
*CHANGES IN STRATA ARE INFERRED
SURFACE ELEVATION:
TO
TO
TO
TO
DATE TIME DEPTH
DEPTH
Not Encountered'GROUNDWATERX
DIA.
TO
Clear
MON. WELL
SCREEN DEPTH:
WEATHER:
DEPTH TO ROCK:
11/28/12
11/29/12
50'
40'
METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING
---
1796.0
45° F
---
TransTech Drilling Services, Inc.
UNCONFINED COMPRESS. STRENGTH
DEPTH (FT.)LENGTH(IN.)Black Oak Wind Farm
Surface elevation taken from Google Earth based on GPS coordinates and should be considered approximate. Groundwater measurements
made in open hole with hole open to 35 feet.
CONTRACTOR:LITHOLOGY*1 2 3 4 5
10 20 30 40 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10 20 30 40 50N OR MIN./FT.(TONS/FT)
WATERCONTENT %LIQUIDLIMIT %
STANDARD
PENETRATION (BLOWS/FT.)
Black Oak Wind FarmPROJECT:
LOCATION:ELEVATION (FT.)Enfield, NY
PROJECT No.PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BL/6 IN.)SAMPLENUMBERRQD(%)UNIFIEDSOIL CLASS.DESCRIPTION
OF
MATERIAL
PLASTICLIMIT %MOISTURESAMPLES
RECOV.
CLIENT:
SHEET No. 1 of 2
1791.0
1786.0
1781.0
1776.0
1771.0
REMARKS:
6506.01 BORING No. B-7
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.BORING LOG 6506-01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 1/7/13
S-9
S-10
S-11
S-12
S-13
S-14
16
0
10
12
12
10
CL
GC
CL
CL
CL
14
11
14
9
10
27
W
W
W
W
W
4
6
8
11
6
5
6
9
6
4
10
12
1
4
5
10
12
5
5
9
9
14
13
17
Gy CLAY & SILT, some f Gravel, some c-f
Sand
No Recovery
Gy c-f GRAVEL, some c-f Sand, some Clay &
Silt
Gy CLAY & SILT, some c-f Sand, little f Gravel
Same
Same
End of Boring at 52'
TransTech Drilling Services, Inc.
UNCONFINED COMPRESS. STRENGTH
DEPTH (FT.)LENGTH(IN.)Black Oak Wind Farm
Surface elevation taken from Google Earth based on GPS coordinates and should be considered approximate. Groundwater measurements
made in open hole with hole open to 35 feet.
CONTRACTOR:LITHOLOGY*1 2 3 4 5
10 20 30 40 50
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
10 20 30 40 50N OR MIN./FT.(TONS/FT)
WATERCONTENT %LIQUIDLIMIT %
STANDARD
PENETRATION (BLOWS/FT.)
Black Oak Wind FarmPROJECT:
LOCATION:ELEVATION (FT.)Enfield, NY
PROJECT No.PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BL/6 IN.)SAMPLENUMBERRQD(%)UNIFIEDSOIL CLASS.DESCRIPTION
OF
MATERIAL
PLASTICLIMIT %MOISTURESAMPLES
RECOV.
CLIENT:
SHEET No. 2 of 2
1766.0
1761.0
1756.0
1751.0
1746.0
1741.0
REMARKS:
6506.01 BORING No. B-7
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.BORING LOG 6506-01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 1/7/13
2" Spoon advance to refusal
Spoon refusal @ 3.0' on weathered shale
bedrock
End of Boring at 3'
See Remarks
INSPECTOR:
DRILLER:
DATUM:
DATE START:
DATE FINISH:
Barry Ouimet
John Leonhardt
NOYES
11/29/12
11/29/12
POWER AUGER:
ROT. DRILL:
CASING:
DIAMOND CORE:
RIG: CME 550x with Auto Hammer
TEMP:
*CHANGES IN STRATA ARE INFERRED
SURFACE ELEVATION:
TO
TO
TO
TO
DATE TIME DEPTH
DEPTH
3.0'GROUNDWATERX
DIA.
TO
Clear
MON. WELL
SCREEN DEPTH:
WEATHER:
DEPTH TO ROCK:
METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING
---
1937.0
30° F
---
TransTech Drilling Services, Inc.
UNCONFINED COMPRESS. STRENGTH
DEPTH (FT.)LENGTH(IN.)Black Oak Wind Farm
Surface elevation taken from Google Earth based on GPS coordinates and should be considered approximate. Hole dry. Probe located 25'
North of B-4.
CONTRACTOR:LITHOLOGY*1 2 3 4 5
10 20 30 40 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10 20 30 40 50N OR MIN./FT.(TONS/FT)
WATERCONTENT %LIQUIDLIMIT %
STANDARD
PENETRATION (BLOWS/FT.)
Black Oak Wind FarmPROJECT:
LOCATION:ELEVATION (FT.)Enfield, NY
PROJECT No.PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BL/6 IN.)SAMPLENUMBERRQD(%)UNIFIEDSOIL CLASS.DESCRIPTION
OF
MATERIAL
PLASTICLIMIT %MOISTURESAMPLES
RECOV.
CLIENT:
SHEET No. 1 of 1
1932.0
1927.0
1922.0
1917.0
1912.0
REMARKS:
6506.01 BORING No. P-1
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.BORING LOG 6506-01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 1/7/13
2" Spoon advanced to refusal
Spoon refusal @ 2' on weathered shale
bedrock
End of Boring at 2'
See Remarks
INSPECTOR:
DRILLER:
DATUM:
DATE START:
DATE FINISH:
Barry Ouimet
John Leonhardt
NOYES
11/29/12
11/29/12
POWER AUGER:
ROT. DRILL:
CASING:
DIAMOND CORE:
RIG: CME 550x with Auto Hammer
TEMP:
*CHANGES IN STRATA ARE INFERRED
SURFACE ELEVATION:
TO
TO
TO
TO
DATE TIME DEPTH
DEPTH
2.0'GROUNDWATERX
DIA.
TO
Clear
MON. WELL
SCREEN DEPTH:
WEATHER:
DEPTH TO ROCK:
METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING
---
1938.0
30° F
---
TransTech Drilling Services, Inc.
UNCONFINED COMPRESS. STRENGTH
DEPTH (FT.)LENGTH(IN.)Black Oak Wind Farm
Surface elevation taken from Google Earth based on GPS coordinates and should be considered approximate. Hole dry. Probe located 25'
Southeast of B-4.
CONTRACTOR:LITHOLOGY*1 2 3 4 5
10 20 30 40 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10 20 30 40 50N OR MIN./FT.(TONS/FT)
WATERCONTENT %LIQUIDLIMIT %
STANDARD
PENETRATION (BLOWS/FT.)
Black Oak Wind FarmPROJECT:
LOCATION:ELEVATION (FT.)Enfield, NY
PROJECT No.PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BL/6 IN.)SAMPLENUMBERRQD(%)UNIFIEDSOIL CLASS.DESCRIPTION
OF
MATERIAL
PLASTICLIMIT %MOISTURESAMPLES
RECOV.
CLIENT:
SHEET No. 1 of 1
1933.0
1928.0
1923.0
1918.0
1913.0
REMARKS:
6506.01 BORING No. P-2
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.BORING LOG 6506-01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 1/7/13
2" Spoon advanced to refusal
Spoon refusal @ 3' on weathered shale
bedrock
End of Boring at 3'
See Remarks
INSPECTOR:
DRILLER:
DATUM:
DATE START:
DATE FINISH:
Barry Ouimet
John Leonhardt
NOYES
11/29/12
11/29/12
POWER AUGER:
ROT. DRILL:
CASING:
DIAMOND CORE:
RIG: CME 550x with Auto Hammer
TEMP:
*CHANGES IN STRATA ARE INFERRED
SURFACE ELEVATION:
TO
TO
TO
TO
DATE TIME DEPTH
DEPTH
3.0'GROUNDWATERX
DIA.
TO
Clear
MON. WELL
SCREEN DEPTH:
WEATHER:
DEPTH TO ROCK:
METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING
---
1938.0
30° F
---
TransTech Drilling Services, Inc.
UNCONFINED COMPRESS. STRENGTH
DEPTH (FT.)LENGTH(IN.)Black Oak Wind Farm
Surface elevation taken from Google Earth based on GPS coordinates and should be considered approximate. Hole dry. Probe located 25'
Southwest of B-4.
CONTRACTOR:LITHOLOGY*1 2 3 4 5
10 20 30 40 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10 20 30 40 50N OR MIN./FT.(TONS/FT)
WATERCONTENT %LIQUIDLIMIT %
STANDARD
PENETRATION (BLOWS/FT.)
Black Oak Wind FarmPROJECT:
LOCATION:ELEVATION (FT.)Enfield, NY
PROJECT No.PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BL/6 IN.)SAMPLENUMBERRQD(%)UNIFIEDSOIL CLASS.DESCRIPTION
OF
MATERIAL
PLASTICLIMIT %MOISTURESAMPLES
RECOV.
CLIENT:
SHEET No. 1 of 1
1933.0
1928.0
1923.0
1918.0
1913.0
REMARKS:
6506.01 BORING No. P-3
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.BORING LOG 6506-01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 1/7/13
COARSE GRAINED SOIL:(Coarser than No. 200 sieve)
DESCRIPTIVE TERM & GRAIN SIZE
TERM SAND GRAVEL
coarse - c No. 4 Sieve to No. 10 Sieve 3" to 3/4"
medium - m No. 10 Sieve to No. 40 Sieve
fine - f No. 40 Sieve to No. 200 Sieve 3/4" to 3/16"
COBBLES 3" to 10"BOULDERS 10" +
none
slight
low
medium
high
very high
DESCRIPTIVE TERM
trace
little
some
and
COLOR:
U - Undisturbed Tube Sample
New York City Building Code soil classifications are given in parentheses at the end of each description
of material, if applicable. See Sections 1804.2 of the 2008 Building Code for further details.
ADDITIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS:
GRADATION DESIGNATIONS PROPORTIONS OF COMPONENT
coarse to medium, c-m less than 10% fine
coarse, c Less than 10% medium and fine
fine, f Less than 10% coarse to medium
medium to fine, m-f Less than 10% coarse
medium, m Less than 10% coarse and fine
coarse to fine, c-f All greater than 10%
FINE GRAINED SOIL:(Finer than No. 200 Sieve)
DESCRIPTION PLASTICITY INDEX PLASTICITY
Silt 0 - 1
Clayey Silt 2 - 5
Silt & Clay 6 - 10
Clay & Silt 11 - 20
Silty Clay 21 - 40
Clay greater than 40
PROPORTION:
PERCENT OF SAMPLE WEIGHT
1 - 10
10 - 20
20 - 35
35 - 50
Dk - dark
SAMPLE NOTATION:
The primary component is fully capitalized
Blue - blue Gy - gray Wh - white
Blk - black Or - orange Yl - yellow
Bwn - brown Rd - red Lgt - light
WOH - Weight of Hammer
B - Bulk Soil Sample PPR - Compressive Strength based on
Gn - green Tn - tan
WOR - Weight of Rods
C - Core Sample
S - Split Spoon Soil Sample WOC - Weight of Casing
LEGEND FOR SOIL DESCRIPTION
NR - No Recovery of Sample Pocket Pentrometer
TV - Shear Strength (tsf) based on Torvane
TECTONIC
APPENDIX II
1129 West Governor Road P.O. Box 797 Hershey, PA 17033-0797
Voice: (717) 533-8600 Fax: (717) 533-8605 Web: www.armgeophysics.net
December 21, 2012
Mr. George P. Murphy, PE
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
TECTONIC Engineering
70 Pleasant Hill Road
P.O. Box 37
Mountainville, NY 10953
Re: Final Report - Geophysical Investigation
Black Oak Wind Project
Enfield, New York
ARM Project 12525
Dear Mr. Murphy:
ARM Geophysics (ARM) has prepared this report for TECTONIC Engineering (TECTONIC) to
document the results of the geophysical surveys performed at six proposed wind turbine
locations that are part of the Black Oak Wind Project located in Enfield, New York. The
objectives of the geophysical surveys are to determine the shear velocity of the soils as well as
the soil resistance prior to installation of the foundations for the wind turbines.
The project has seven planned turbines; however, property access was not available for Turbine
#2, and as a result, ARM performed the geophysical surveys at six proposed turbine locations.
The locations of the proposed wind turbines surveyed during this investigation are shown on
Figure 1.
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS
MULTI-ANALYSIS OF SHEAR WAVE (MASW)
Seismic surveys are able to discriminate between and among materials with relatively
different physical properties (i.e. density), based on the velocity of the seismic wave as it
travels through each discrete layer. In general, the more rigid the material, the faster the
wave will travel through it.
Propagation velocity (also known as phase velocity) of surface waves is frequency (wavelength)
dependent. This property is known as dispersion. The dispersiveness of soils is determined
mainly by the vertical variation in shear wave velocity (Vs). By recording fundamental-mode
Rayleigh waves propagating from the source to receiver, the dispersive properties directly
beneath the seismic spread can be measured and represented by a curve (dispersion curve). This
ARM Project 12525 2 December 21, 2012
A R M G e o p h y s i c s
curve is used to estimate the vertical variation of Vs (1-D Vs profile) through a process called
inversion.
The MASW method utilizes pattern-recognition techniques. It employs multiple receivers
(geophones) equally spaced along a linear survey line and measures the travel-times of seismic
waves generated by an implosive source (e.g., sledge hammer). This approach allows
recognition of the various propagation characteristics of the seismic wavefield. Once the
dispersive properties of the fundamental mode Rayleigh waves are identified (via pattern
recognition), a corresponding signal curve is extracted and used in the inversion of a 1-D Vs
profile. This profile best represents the vertical Vs distribution at the middle of the receiver
spread. By moving the same shot-receiver configuration incrementally along a preset survey
line, multiple measurements can be made, each producing a 1-D Vs profile that, when all
gathered together, is used to construct a 2-D Vs cross-section along the survey line.
MASW has been used to map bedrock topography, identify bedrock fractures, abandoned mine
workings, waste pits and trenches, and evaluate sink activity (e.g., voids, pinnacles, zones of
enhanced weathering) to depths upwards of approximately 100 feet below ground surface (BGS).
Unlike refraction, MASW is not constrained by velocity inversion (high speed layer overlying a
lower speed layer), and it can be used in urbanized environments where noise associated with
vehicle traffic and buried utilities that typically mask body waves do not significantly impact the
robust (larger amplitude) surface waves.
The MASW method was utilized to obtain shear wave velocities to a depth of approximately 60
feet below the existing grade. At each turbine, ARM collected two traverses of data that were
oriented approximately north-south and west-east. Due to heavy brush and other site conditions,
the locations of the traverses were as close to the center of the planned turbine pad as possible.
Whenever possible, a shot was recorded at 25 feet from the center of the turbine on each side and
at the center of the turbine.
The MASW data were processed using the SurfSeis® processing software. The results and one-
dimensional graphs of the shear velocities and the corresponding depths are discussed below.
FIELD RESISTIVITY SURVEY
At each of the six turbine locations, soil resistances were recorded along two traverses which
were oriented perpendicular to each other. For each measurement/data point, the probes were
driven into the ground at equal electrode spacings (using the 4-Point Resistivity Measurement
Procedure). For this project, the electrode spacings were set at 5, 10, 20, 40, and 60-feet in each
direction for a total of 10 data points at each proposed turbine location. The resistance value (in
Ohms) is measured for each electrode spacing set-up. The soil resistivity (in Ohm-Meters) is
calculated using the simplified Wenner formula. The resistivity surveys followed the guidelines
of the IEEE81 Guide for Measuring Earth’s Resistivity, Ground Impedance, and Earth Surface
Potentials of a Ground System.
ARM Project 12525 3 December 21, 2012
A R M G e o p h y s i c s
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY RESULTS
Figure 1 shows the locations of the six turbines that were surveyed during this investigation. At
each turbine location, there were two seismic/resistivity traverses collected. The following tables
summarize the shear velocities and the soil resistance measurements collected from the surveys.
Seismic surveys are able to discriminate between and among different materials, based on the
velocity of the seismic wave as it travels through each discrete layer. In general, the more rigid
the material, the faster the wave will travel through it. The table below describes typical shear
(seismic) wave velocities for different earth materials.
Material Shear Wave Velocity (ft/s)
Loose Silt, Sand and Gravel 607
Soft Clay 328
Medium Silt, Sand and Gravel 673
Medium Clay 656
Dense Silt, Sand and Gravel 837
Stiff Clay 984
Soft Rock 2297
Medium Rock 3609
Hard Rock 5250
(Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M, 1970.)
The following table presents the site classifications and their representative soil shear wave
velocities in accordance with Table 1615.1.5 of the International Building Code.
Site Class Soil Shear Wave
Velocity, vs, (ft/s)
Standard Penetration
Resistance
A vs > 5000 N/A
B 2,500<vs≤5,000 N/A
C 1,200<vs≤2,500 N>50
D 600≤vs≤1,200 15≤N≤50
E vs<600 N<15
Copies of the 1-D profiles recorded by the seismic equipment are included in Attachment A.
Graphs of the measured resistance values versus electrode spacings at each turbine are included
in Attachment B. Please note that in the seismic data tables presented below, shot locations A,
B, and C are the locations of the three seismic shots recorded along each traverse. Shots A and C
were recorded at least 25 feet from the center of the turbine pad, and Shot B was located as close
to the center of the turbine pad as possible, given the site conditions.
ARM Project 12525 4 December 21, 2012
A R M G e o p h y s i c s
Turbine 1 – Seismic Results
Turbine 1
Seismic Traverse 1 Seismic Traverse 2
Depth
Interval
Shot
Location
Depth
(Feet)
Velocity
(ft/sec)
Shot
Location
Depth
(Feet)
Velocity
(ft/sec)
0-10 Feet
A
-2.513 1416.749
A
-2.169 1246.072
-5.654 914.855 -4.88 1344.08
-9.58 814.855 -8.269 1476.843
B
-1.81 1353.347
B
-1.815 1258.135
-4.072 1548.188 -4.084 1385.035
-6.9 1852.955 -6.92 1628.193
C
-1.639 1478.654
C
-4.653 937.002
-3.688 1183.882
-6.249 1205.873
-9.451 1268.94
10-20 Feet
A -14.488 1158.456 A -12.506 1346.839
B -10.435 1912.215 -17.802 875.652
-14.854 1334.081 B -10.465 1642.058
C
-13.453 985.763 -14.896 1103.091
-18.456 1934.656 C -10.469 1175.589
-17.739 1249.717
20-30 Feet
A -20.623 1238.353
A -24.422 981.007
-28.291 1319.109 B -20.435 773.457
B -20.377 714.01 -27.359 1241.676
-27.281 1212.76
C -26.826 2139.353
C
-24.709 2986.397
30-40 Feet
A -37.876 2140.216
A -32.697 2039.882
B -35.911 2496.709
B -36.014 2587.12
C
-32.526 2419.317 C
-38.185 2719.209
40-50 Feet
A -49.858 3116.188
A -43.04 2629.163
B -46.699 3081.892
B -46.832 3399.403
C -42.297 1339.36
C
50-60 Feet
A -64.835 3112.879 A -55.969 2363.292
B -58.374 2575.763 -69.961 2574.035
C
-52.871 5465.547
B -58.54 2401.615
C -52.384 1769.661
ARM Project 12525 5 December 21, 2012
A R M G e o p h y s i c s
Turbine 1 – Resistivity Results
Turbine Direction
Distance
(FT)
Measured
Resistance Value
(Ohms [Ω])
Calculated
Soil
Resistivity
(Ohm-meters
[Ωm])
Calculated Soil
Resistivity
(Ohm-centimeters
[Ωcm])
1 E-W 5 12.21 116.9329234 116,932.9234
1 E-W 10 6.5 124.498608 124,498.608
1 E-W 20 3.21 122.9663174 122,966.3174
1 E-W 40 1.5 114.921792 114,921.792
1 E-W 60 0.98 112.6233562 112,623.3562
1 N-S 5 10.59 101.4184814 101,418.4814
1 N-S 10 7.89 151.1221565 151,122.1565
1 N-S 20 2.85 109.1757024 109,175.7024
1 N-S 40 1.54 117.9863731 117,986.3731
1 N-S 60 1.02 117.2202278 117,220.2278
ARM Project 12525 6 December 21, 2012
A R M G e o p h y s i c s
Turbine 3 – Seismic Results
Turbine 3
Seismic Traverse 1 Seismic Traverse 2
Depth
Interval
Shot
Location
Depth
(Feet)
Velocity
(ft/sec)
Shot
Location
Depth
(Feet) Velocity (ft/sec)
0-10 Feet
A -2.191 2178.162 A -1.927 2445.976
-4.929 2226.129 -4.336 2540.185
-8.352 1881.682 -7.347 2266.723
B
-3.086 2459.252
B
-3.748 2291.715
-6.943 2901.139 -8.433 2202.11
C -2.71 1499.238 C -3.362 2361.365
-6.098 1064.161 -7.564 2758.577
10-20 Feet
A -12.631 1540.078 A -11.111 1812.313
-17.98 1882.781 -15.816 1707.749
B -11.764 2823.066 B -14.289 2482.84
-17.791 2749.165
C
-10.333 1777.457 C -12.817 3188.046
-15.627 2382.04 -19.383 3104.057
20-30 Feet
A -24.666 2705.41 A -21.698 2358.161
A -29.05 3202.339
B -25.325 2542.083 B -21.609 2857.736
C -27.591 2137.304
C -22.244 3745.827
30-40 Feet
A -33.023 3058.717 A -38.24 3450.154
B -34.742 1374.01 B -30.76 1362.673
C -30.515 3530.867 C -37.851 1965.565
40-50 Feet
A -43.469 2656.79 A -49.728 2650.872
B -46.513 3342.913 B -42.198 2829.966
C -40.854 3856.488
50-60 Feet
A -56.527 3117.916 A -62.16 5264.014
B -61.227 5549.713
C -53.778 5111.919 B -56.496 4999.657
C -50.676 4155.501
ARM Project 12525 7 December 21, 2012
A R M G e o p h y s i c s
Turbine 3 – Resistivity Results
Turbine Direction Distance (FT)
Measured
Resistance Value
(Ohms [Ω])
Calculated Soil
Resistivity
(Ohm-meters [Ωm])
Calculated Soil
Resistivity
(Ohm-centimeters
[Ωcm])
3 E-W 5 16.87 161.5608859 161,560.8859
3 E-W 10 7.26 139.0553683 139,055.3683
3 E-W 20 3.37 129.0954797 129,095.4797
3 E-W 40 1.76 134.8415693 134,841.5693
3 E-W 60 1.32 151.6967654 151,696.7654
3 N-S 5 15.04 144.0353126 144,035.3126
3 N-S 10 7.28 139.438441 139,438.441
3 N-S 20 3.57 136.7569325 136,756.9325
3 N-S 40 1.93 147.866039 147,866.039
3 N-S 60 1.24 142.5030221 142,503.0221
ARM Project 12525 8 December 21, 2012
A R M G e o p h y s i c s
Turbine 4 – Seismic Results
Turbine 4
Seismic Traverse 1 Seismic Traverse 2
Depth Interval
Shot
Location
Depth
(Feet)
Velocity
(ft/sec)
Shot
Location
Depth
(Feet)
Velocity
(ft/sec)
0-10 Feet
A
-4.266 3281.797
A
-6.952 1808.493
-9.599 3375.016
B
-3.812 3144.485
B
-5.403 3579.756
-8.578 3367.016
C
-3.704 2385.783
C
-3.141 2575.698
-8.333 2354.638 -7.068 2178.906
10-20 Feet
A -16.265 4143.887 A -15.642 1046.38
B -14.535 4324.146 B -12.157 4072.514
C -14.12 1883.227 C -11.976 1988.087
-18.111 1888.403
20-30 Feet
A -24.597 5440.308 A -26.505 4175.987
B -21.981 5636.227 B -20.599 4584.398
C -25.78 2621.831
C -21.353 1562.035
30-40 Feet
A -35.012 6575.11 A
B -31.289 5136.011 B -31.152 4062.499
C -30.395 2176.959 C -35.367 3781.953
40-50 Feet
A -48.031 5922.6 A -40.083 1986.438
B -42.924 4942.863 B -44.343 2800.247
C -41.697 3638.133 C -47.35 4086.939
50-60 Feet
A -64.305 2747.969 A -57.056 4403.34
B -57.467 1749.01
C -55.825 4280.361 B -60.832 2789.233
C
ARM Project 12525 9 December 21, 2012
A R M G e o p h y s i c s
Turbine 4 – Resistivity Results
Turbine Direction Distance (FT)
Measured
Resistance Value
(Ohms [Ω])
Calculated Soil
Resistivity
(Ohm-meters [Ωm])
Calculated Soil
Resistivity
(Ohm-centimeters
[Ωcm])
4 E-W 5 121.8 1166.456189 1,166,456.189
4 E-W 10 37.6 720.1765632 720,176.5632
4 E-W 20 14.3 547.7938752 547,793.8752
4 E-W 40 5.2 398.3955456 398,395.5456
4 E-W 60 2.4 275.8123008 275,812.3008
4 N-S 5 178.8 1712.334701 1,712,334.701
4 N-S 10 51.1 978.7505952 978,750.5952
4 N-S 20 13.2 505.6558848 505,655.8848
4 N-S 40 4.7 360.0882816 360,088.2816
4 N-S 60 2.2 252.8279424 252,827.9424
ARM Project 12525 10 December 21, 2012
A R M G e o p h y s i c s
Turbine 5 – Seismic Results
Turbine 5
Seismic Traverse 1 Seismic Traverse 2
Depth
Interval
Shot
Location
Depth
(Feet)
Velocity
(ft/sec)
Shot
Location
Depth
(Feet)
Velocity
(ft/sec)
0-10 Feet
A
-3.497 2353.998
A
-4.833 2768.97
-7.868 2276.824
B
-3.279 2207.721
B
-4.428 2685.353
-7.378 1088.377 -9.963 1404.095
C
-6.11 3653.342
C
-3.362 2017.548
-7.565 2728.613
10-20 Feet
A -13.332 2088.104 A -10.875 2807.645
-18.427 1045.01
B -12.501 1388.004 B -16.882 1863.473
-18.905 2408.159
C -13.747 1335.288 C -12.818 2997.263
-19.384 2108.621
20-30 Feet
A -20.162 1760.917 A -27.867 1125.152
-28.7 2131.617
B -26.91 2657.351 B -25.531 2292.281
C -27.592 1344.304
C -23.293 1928.801
30-40 Feet
A -39.372 3975.944 A -39.667 2249.732
B -36.917 2331.323 B -36.342 2718.835
C -35.226 3934.461 C -37.852 2997.969
40-50 Feet
A A
B -49.425 3740.649 B -49.856 5613.358
C -50.142 2938.521 C
50-60 Feet
A -52.712 4642.164 A -54.417 4652.079
B -65.06 5414.558 B -66.748 6744.025
C -68.787 4248.106 C -50.677 4422.336
-66.708 5302.633
ARM Project 12525 11 December 21, 2012
A R M G e o p h y s i c s
Turbine 5 – Resistivity Results
Turbine Direction Distance (FT)
Measured
Resistance Value
(Ohms [Ω])
Calculated Soil
Resistivity
(Ohm-meters [Ωm])
Calculated Soil
Resistivity
(Ohm-centimeters
[Ωcm])
5 E-W 5 21.6 206.8592256 206,859.2256
5 E-W 10 7.5 143.65224 143,652.24
5 E-W 20 4.4 168.5519616 168,551.9616
5 E-W 40 2.4 183.8748672 183,874.8672
5 E-W 60 1.7 195.3670464 195,367.0464
5 N-S 5 20.7 198.2400912 198,240.0912
5 N-S 10 7.7 147.4829664 147,482.9664
5 N-S 20 4 153.229056 153,229.056
5 N-S 40 2.4 183.8748672 183,874.8672
5 N-S 60 1.8 206.8592256 206,859.2256
ARM Project 12525 12 December 21, 2012
A R M G e o p h y s i c s
Turbine 6 – Seismic Results
Turbine 6
Seismic Traverse 1 Seismic Traverse 2
Depth
Interval
Shot
Location
Depth
(Feet)
Velocity
(ft/sec)
Shot
Location
Depth
(Feet)
Velocity
(ft/sec)
0-10 Feet
A
-2.677 1030.584
A
-7.024 2295.672
-6.023 792.692
B
-5.284 1143.717
B
-4.646 2847.433
C
-3.518 1941.928
C
-4.89 2098.843
-7.916 1298.875
10-20 Feet
A -10.206 947.048 A -15.803 932.818
-15.434 1093.727
B -11.889 1995.432 B -10.453 1027.471
-17.712 713.01
C -13.413 798.673 C -11.002 1441.824
-18.642 1436.619
20-30 Feet
A -21.969 1107.641 A -26.777 1468.022
B -20.145 681.846 B -26.786 2427.513
C -28.192 1984.501
C -20.285 931.286
-28.875 2109.544
30-40 Feet
A -30.138 1739.806 A
B -30.466 2861.57 B -38.128 3581.294
C -39.612 3354.64 C
40-50 Feet
A -40.349 2460.774 A -40.495 2985.577
B -43.367 3736.084 B
C C -40.129 2249.288
50-60 Feet
A -53.113 2520.985 A -57.642 2922.841
B -59.493 2042.331
C -53.033 1713.645 B -52.306 3861.733
C -55.051 2266.471
ARM Project 12525 13 December 21, 2012
A R M G e o p h y s i c s
Turbine 6 – Resistivity Results
Turbine Direction Distance (FT)
Measured
Resistance Value
(Ohms [Ω])
Calculated Soil
Resistivity
(Ohm-meters [Ωm])
Calculated Soil
Resistivity
(Ohm-centimeters
[Ωcm])
6 E-W 5 16.09 154.0909694 154,090.9694
6 E-W 10 6.27 120.0932726 120,093.2726
6 E-W 20 3.11 119.135591 119,135.591
6 E-W 40 1.5 114.921792 114,921.792
6 E-W 60 1.1 126.4139712 126,413.9712
6 N-S 5 13.82 132.3515971 132,351.5971
6 N-S 10 6.05 115.8794736 115,879.4736
6 N-S 20 3.13 119.9017363 119,901.7363
6 N-S 40 1.6 122.5832448 122,583.2448
6 N-S 60 1.1 126.4139712 126,413.9712
ARM Project 12525 14 December 21, 2012
A R M G e o p h y s i c s
Turbine 7 – Seismic Results
Turbine 7
Seismic Traverse 1 Seismic Traverse 2
Depth Interval
Shot
Location
Depth
(Feet)
Velocity
(ft/sec)
Shot
Location
Depth
(Feet)
Velocity
(ft/sec)
0-10 Feet
A -5.385 1681.904 A -3.399 854.543
-7.648 772.722
B -6.867 582.367 B -3.45 995.109
-7.762 838.929
C -4.804 1345.297 C -3.911 1336.966
-8.8 755.105
10-20 Feet
A -12.116 966.965 A -12.959 881.419
-19.598 1260.542
B -15.451 1632.684 B -13.152 877.14
-19.889 1197.835
C -10.809 1279.753 C -14.912 951.157 -18.315 1120.523
20-30 Feet
A -20.529 961.191 A -27.897 1274.824
B -26.181 798.333 B -28.311 1209.141
C -22.552 1214.525
C -27.698 879.612
30-40 Feet
A -31.046 979.771 A -38.271 992.012
B -39.594 1078.173 B -38.838 1028.676
C -39.427 1418.945 C -32.101 1126.779
40-50 Feet
A -44.192 1707.411 A -51.238 1706.58
B B
C C -44.038 1054.751
50-60 Feet
A -60.624 2556.51 A B -56.36 1460.693
C -54.088 2363.286 B -51.997 1747.799
C
ARM Project 12525 15 December 21, 2012
A R M G e o p h y s i c s
Turbine 7 – Resistivity Results
Turbine Direction Distance (FT)
Measured
Resistance Value
(Ohms [Ω])
Calculated Soil
Resistivity
(Ohm-meters [Ωm])
Calculated Soil
Resistivity
(Ohm-centimeters
[Ωcm])
7 E-W 5 28.1 269.1085296 269,108.5296
7 E-W 10 12.66 242.4849811 242,484.9811
7 E-W 20 4.28 163.9550899 163,955.0899
7 E-W 40 1.82 139.438441 139,438.441
7 E-W 60 1 114.921792 114,921.792
7 N-S 5 32.9 315.0772464 315,077.2464
7 N-S 10 11.42 218.7344774 218,734.4774
7 N-S 20 4.2 160.8905088 160,890.5088
7 N-S 40 1.8 137.9061504 137,906.1504
7 N-S 60 1.1 126.4139712 126,413.9712
SURVEY LIMITATIONS
By their inherent capabilities and limitations, geophysical surveys are not 100-percent accurate,
nor can they completely define subsurface conditions. ARM will not accept responsibility for
inherent technique limitations, survey limitations, potentially foreseen or unforeseen site-specific
conditions, or alleged operator error. The Client, Owner, and all persons in any way using or
relying on the information collected from this survey will accept all liability for the use, reliance,
and actions taken based on the information collected in the survey and contained in the report,
and shall hold ARM harmless for any and all damages allegedly resulting from or actually
resulting from the information collected from the survey.
The client hereby agrees that, to the fullest extent permitted by law, ARM’s total liability to
Client for any and all injuries, claims, losses, expenses, or damages whatsoever arising out of or
in any way relating to the project from any cause or causes including but not limited to ARM’s
negligence, errors, omissions, strict liability, or breach of contract, shall not exceed the total
amount paid by the Client for the services of ARM for this survey.
ARM Project 12525 16 December 21, 2012
A R M G e o p h y s i c s
SUMMARY
ARM appreciates the opportunity to provide geophysical services to TECTONIC on this project.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at 717-533-8600.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth A. Williams, PG
Project Manager
Scott A. Wendling, PG
Vice President, Geophysical Services
Attachments: Figure 1
1D Seismic Profiles
Resistivity Graphs
Site Base MapTectonicBlack Oak Wind ProjectEnfield, New YorkDecember 201212525FigureSurface & BoreholeGeophysics1Coordinates are in Latitude/Longitude413567121212121212-76.685 -76.68 -76.675 -76.67-76.665 -76.66 -76.655 -76.6542.3942.39542.442.40542.4142.415Turbine LocationSeismic Traverse LocationsWith Direction of Travel
02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,00016,000152 305 610 1,219 1,829ohm‐centimeterscentimetersTurbine 1N‐SE‐W
02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,00016,00018,000152 305 610 1,219 1,829ohm‐centimeterscentimetersTurbine 3N‐SE‐W
020,00040,00060,00080,000100,000120,000140,000160,000180,000152 305 610 1,219 1,829ohm‐centimeterscentimetersTurbine 4N‐SE‐W
05,00010,00015,00020,00025,000152 305 610 1,219 1,829ohm‐centimeterscentimetersTurbine 5N‐SE‐W
02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,00016,00018,000152 305 610 1,219 1,829ohm‐centimeterscentimetersTurbine 6N‐SE‐W
05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,000152 305 610 1,219 1,829ohm‐centimeterscentimetersTurbine 7N‐SE‐W
APPENDIX III
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0.0010.010.1110100
Gy Bwn CLAY & SILT
Gy Bwn Silt and Clay and c-f Sand, some f Gravel
Gy Bwn Silt and Clay, some c-f Sand, some f Gravel
10 14
10.0
9.0
10.0
Boring
Boring
100
HYDROMETER
40 200
10.0
9.0
10.0
Classification
B-1
B-3
B-5
B-1
B-3
B-5
B-1
B-3
B-5
19
19
19
54.1
41.7
45.2
140
coarse
0.155
0.63
0.763
coarse
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
B-1
B-3
B-5
3 81.5
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
3/4
SILT OR CLAY
4 60
U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
33/8 5030
GRAVEL
6
SANDCOBBLES
1641
medium
6 2
fine
1/2 20
fine
27.0
36.4
32.7
18.8
21.9
22.1PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTLL PL PI Cc CuSample Identification WC%
Source of MaterialSample Identification %ClayD100D60D30D10%Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay%Clay
11.7
10.4
10.3
Project No: 6506.01 Date: 12/21/12
Project: Black Oak Wind Farm
Location: Enfield, NY
280 Little Britain Rd
Newburgh, NY 12550
Telephone: (845) 563-9081 Fax: (854) 563-9085
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 6506.01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 12/21/12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0.0010.010.1110100
Bwn CLAY & SILT, some c-f Sand, some c-f Gravel
Bwn c-f SAND, and Clay & Silt, some c-f Gravel
Bwn c-f Sand, some Clay & Silt, some c-f Gravel
Bwn c-f GRAVEL, and Clay & Silt, some c-f Sand
Bwn CLAY & SILT, some c-f Sand, little c-f Gravel
10 14
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Native
Native
Native
Native
Native
100
HYDROMETER
40 200
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Classification
BAC-1
BGC-1
EBB-1
ECA-1
LAB-1
50
75
75
75
75
55.2
39.8
34.5
40.3
55.0
140
coarse
0.168
0.922
1.199
1.522
0.153
coarse
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
BAC-1
BGC-1
EBB-1
ECA-1
LAB-1
3 81.5
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
3/4
SILT OR CLAY
4 60
U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
33/8 5030
GRAVEL
6
SANDCOBBLES
1641
medium
6 2
fine
1/2 20
fine
24.1
34.2
38.1
29.1
25.9
20.7
26.0
27.4
30.6
19.1PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTLL PL PI Cc CuSample Identification WC%
Source of MaterialSample Identification %ClayD100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay%Clay
24.6
11.6
14.0
14.9
18.6
Project No: 6506.01 Date: 12/21/12
Project: Black Oak Wind Farm
Location: Enfield, NY
280 Little Britain Rd
Newburgh, NY 12550
Telephone: (845) 563-9081 Fax: (854) 563-9085
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 6506.01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 12/21/12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0.0010.010.1110100
Bwn c-f SAND, and Clay & Silt, some c-f Gravel
Bwn CLAY & SILT, some c-f Sand, some c-f Gravel
Bwn c-f SAND, and Clay & Silt, some c-f Gravel
10 14
1.0
1.0
1.0
Native
Native
Native
100
HYDROMETER
40 200
1.0
1.0
1.0
Classification
LN-1
MAB-1
VBB-1
75
50
75
49.3
53.4
40.2
140
coarse
0.467
0.193
0.614
coarse
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
LN-1
MAB-1
VBB-1
3 81.5
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
3/4
SILT OR CLAY
4 60
U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
33/8 5030
GRAVEL
6
SANDCOBBLES
1641
medium
6 2
fine
1/2 20
fine
29.0
26.1
35.9
21.6
20.5
24.0PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTLL PL PI Cc CuSample Identification WC%
Source of MaterialSample Identification %ClayD100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay%Clay
27.5
17.7
18.8
Project No: 6506.01 Date: 12/21/12
Project: Black Oak Wind Farm
Location: Enfield, NY
280 Little Britain Rd
Newburgh, NY 12550
Telephone: (845) 563-9081 Fax: (854) 563-9085
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 6506.01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 12/21/12
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100
PL PI Classification
12
12
14
17
15
25.0
10.0
12.0
20.0
40.0
Gy-bwn CLAY & SILT, some c-f Sand, little f Gravel
Gy-bwn c-f SAND, and Clay & Silt, some f Gravel
Gy-bwn CLAY & SILT, some c-f Sand, little f Gravel
Gy CLAY & SILT, some f Gravel, some c-f Sand
Gy CLAY & SILT, some c-f Sand, little f Gravel
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sample Identification
CL
CL-ML
P
L
A
S
T
I
C
I
T
Y
I
N
D
E
X
LIQUID LIMIT
ML MH
CH
Fines
%
WC
%
25
23
28
31
30
13
11
14
14
15
B-1
B-3
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-1
B-3
B-5
B-6
B-7
LL
ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS
9.1
8.4
19.3
7.0
14.7
Project No: 6506.01 Date: 12/21/12
Project: Black Oak Wind Farm
Location: Enfield, NY
280 Little Britain Rd
Newburgh, NY 12550
Telephone: (845) 563-9081 Fax: (854) 563-9085
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.ATTERBERG LIMITS 6506.01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 12/21/12
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
%
LL
Test Method
DRY DENSITY, pcfWATER CONTENT, %
ATTERBERG LIMITS
TEST RESULTS
Sample Identification
Curves of 100% Saturation
for Specific Gravity Equal to:
ASTM D698 Method C
Optimum Water Content
Maximum Dry Density
2.85
2.75
2.65
PCF
Native
PL PI
Bwn CLAY & SILT, some c-f
Sand, some c-f Gravel
112.4
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
BAC-1 1.0
Source of Material
Description of Material
18.1
Project No: 6506.01 Date: 12/21/12
Project: Black Oak Wind Farm
Location: Enfield, NY
280 Little Britain Rd
Newburgh, NY 12550
Telephone: (845) 563-9081 Fax: (854) 563-9085
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.COMPACTION 6506.01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 12/21/12
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
%
LL
Test Method
DRY DENSITY, pcfWATER CONTENT, %
ATTERBERG LIMITS
TEST RESULTS
Sample Identification
Curves of 100% Saturation
for Specific Gravity Equal to:
ASTM D698 Method C
Optimum Water Content
Maximum Dry Density
2.85
2.75
2.65
PCF
Native
PL PI
Bwn c-f SAND, and Clay & Silt,
some c-f Gravel
126.6
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
BGC-1 1.0
Source of Material
Description of Material
11.9
Project No: 6506.01 Date: 12/21/12
Project: Black Oak Wind Farm
Location: Enfield, NY
280 Little Britain Rd
Newburgh, NY 12550
Telephone: (845) 563-9081 Fax: (854) 563-9085
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.COMPACTION 6506.01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 12/21/12
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
%
LL
Test Method
DRY DENSITY, pcfWATER CONTENT, %
ATTERBERG LIMITS
TEST RESULTS
Sample Identification
Curves of 100% Saturation
for Specific Gravity Equal to:
ASTM D698 Method C
Optimum Water Content
Maximum Dry Density
2.85
2.75
2.65
PCF
Native
PL PI
Bwn c-f Sand, some Clay & Silt,
some c-f Gravel
128.6
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
EBB-1 1.0
Source of Material
Description of Material
11.0
Project No: 6506.01 Date: 12/21/12
Project: Black Oak Wind Farm
Location: Enfield, NY
280 Little Britain Rd
Newburgh, NY 12550
Telephone: (845) 563-9081 Fax: (854) 563-9085
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.COMPACTION 6506.01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 12/21/12
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
%
LL
Test Method
DRY DENSITY, pcfWATER CONTENT, %
ATTERBERG LIMITS
TEST RESULTS
Sample Identification
Curves of 100% Saturation
for Specific Gravity Equal to:
ASTM D698 Method C
Optimum Water Content
Maximum Dry Density
2.85
2.75
2.65
PCF
Native
PL PI
Bwn c-f GRAVEL, and Clay &
Silt, some c-f Sand
120.4
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
ECA-1 1.0
Source of Material
Description of Material
13.9
Project No: 6506.01 Date: 12/21/12
Project: Black Oak Wind Farm
Location: Enfield, NY
280 Little Britain Rd
Newburgh, NY 12550
Telephone: (845) 563-9081 Fax: (854) 563-9085
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.COMPACTION 6506.01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 12/21/12
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
%
LL
Test Method
DRY DENSITY, pcfWATER CONTENT, %
ATTERBERG LIMITS
TEST RESULTS
Sample Identification
Curves of 100% Saturation
for Specific Gravity Equal to:
ASTM D698 Method C
Optimum Water Content
Maximum Dry Density
2.85
2.75
2.65
PCF
Native
PL PI
Bwn CLAY & SILT, some c-f
Sand, little c-f Gravel
118.6
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
LAB-1 1.0
Source of Material
Description of Material
14.7
Project No: 6506.01 Date: 12/21/12
Project: Black Oak Wind Farm
Location: Enfield, NY
280 Little Britain Rd
Newburgh, NY 12550
Telephone: (845) 563-9081 Fax: (854) 563-9085
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.COMPACTION 6506.01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 12/21/12
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
%
LL
Test Method
DRY DENSITY, pcfWATER CONTENT, %
ATTERBERG LIMITS
TEST RESULTS
Sample Identification
Curves of 100% Saturation
for Specific Gravity Equal to:
ASTM D698 Method C
Optimum Water Content
Maximum Dry Density
2.85
2.75
2.65
PCF
Native
PL PI
Bwn c-f SAND, and Clay & Silt,
some c-f Gravel
108.3
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
LN-1 1.0
Source of Material
Description of Material
19.2
Project No: 6506.01 Date: 12/21/12
Project: Black Oak Wind Farm
Location: Enfield, NY
280 Little Britain Rd
Newburgh, NY 12550
Telephone: (845) 563-9081 Fax: (854) 563-9085
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.COMPACTION 6506.01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 12/21/12
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
%
LL
Test Method
DRY DENSITY, pcfWATER CONTENT, %
ATTERBERG LIMITS
TEST RESULTS
Sample Identification
Curves of 100% Saturation
for Specific Gravity Equal to:
ASTM D698 Method C
Optimum Water Content
Maximum Dry Density
2.85
2.75
2.65
PCF
Native
PL PI
Bwn CLAY & SILT, some c-f
Sand, some c-f Gravel
118.8
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
MAB-1 1.0
Source of Material
Description of Material
14.5
Project No: 6506.01 Date: 12/21/12
Project: Black Oak Wind Farm
Location: Enfield, NY
280 Little Britain Rd
Newburgh, NY 12550
Telephone: (845) 563-9081 Fax: (854) 563-9085
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.COMPACTION 6506.01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 12/21/12
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
%
LL
Test Method
DRY DENSITY, pcfWATER CONTENT, %
ATTERBERG LIMITS
TEST RESULTS
Sample Identification
Curves of 100% Saturation
for Specific Gravity Equal to:
ASTM D698 Method C
Optimum Water Content
Maximum Dry Density
2.85
2.75
2.65
PCF
Native
PL PI
Bwn c-f SAND, and Clay & Silt,
some c-f Gravel
121.6
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
VBB-1 1.0
Source of Material
Description of Material
13.6
Project No: 6506.01 Date: 12/21/12
Project: Black Oak Wind Farm
Location: Enfield, NY
280 Little Britain Rd
Newburgh, NY 12550
Telephone: (845) 563-9081 Fax: (854) 563-9085
TECTONIC ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
CONSULTANTS P.C.COMPACTION 6506.01.GPJ TECTONIC ENG.GDT 12/21/12
BD05247 - BD05252
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Sample ID#s:
Attn: Mr. James Uprights
Tectonic Engineering
70 Pleasant Hill Road
Mountainville, NY 10953
Project ID: BLACK OAK WIND FARM 6506.01
Sincerely yours,
Laboratory Director
Phyllis Shiller
If you have any questions concerning this testing, please do not hesitate to contact
Phoenix Client Services at ext. 200.
NELAC - #NY11301
CT Lab Registration #PH-0618
MA Lab Registration #MA-CT-007
ME Lab Registration #CT-007
NH Lab Registration #213693-A,B
NJ Lab Registration #CT-003
NY Lab Registration #11301
PA Lab Registration #68-03530
RI Lab Registration #63
VT Lab Registration #VT11301
This laboratory is in compliance with the NELAC requirements of procedures used
except where indicated.
This report contains results for the parameters tested, under the sampling conditions
described on the Chain Of Custody, as received by the laboratory.
All soils, solids and sludges are reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise noted
in the sample comments.
A scanned version of the COC form accompanies the analytical report and is an exact
duplicate of the original.
587 East Middle Turnpike, P.O. Box 370, Manchester, CT 06040
Telephone (860) 645-1102 Fax (860) 645-0823
Sample Information Custody Information
Matrix:
Location Code:
Rush Request:
P.O.#:
Collected by:
Received by:
Analyzed by:
SOIL
TECTONIC
72 Hour
212835
11/28/12
LB
see "By" below
BO
Laboratory Data
B-4 S-2
Phoenix ID:BD05247
12/07/12
11:00
10:03
Parameter Result
RL/
PQL Units Date/Time By Reference
FOR:Attn: Mr. James Uprights
Tectonic Engineering
70 Pleasant Hill Road
Mountainville, NY 10953
Analysis Report
December 12, 2012
Date Time
587 East Middle Turnpike, P.O.Box 370, Manchester, CT 06045
Tel. (860) 645-1102 Fax (860) 645-0823
Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
SDG ID:GBD05247
Client ID:
Project ID:BLACK OAK WIND FARM 6506.01
96Percent Solid 12/08/12 JL E160.3%
< 10Chloride 10 12/08/12 BS/EG9056mg/kg
6.15pH - Soil 0.10 12/07/12 19:00 DH/KDB4500-H B/9045pH Units 1
< 31Sulfate 31 12/08/12 BS/EG9056mg/kg 1,1P
Comments:
All soils, solids and sludges are reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise noted in the sample comments.
Phyllis Shiller, Laboratory Director
December 12, 2012
1 = This parameter is not certified by NY NELAC for this matrix. NY NELAC does not offer certification for all parameters at this time.
1P = This parameter is pending certification by NY NELAC for this matrix.
If there are any questions regarding this data, please call Phoenix Client Services at extension 200.
This report must not be reproduced except in full as defined by the attached chain of custody.
Reviewed and Released by: Johanna Harrington, Project Manager
RL/PQL=Reporting/Practical Quantitation Level (Equivalent to NELAC LOQ, Limit of Quanitation) ND=Not Detected
BRL=Below Reporting Level
Page 1 of 6 Ver 1
Sample Information Custody Information
Matrix:
Location Code:
Rush Request:
P.O.#:
Collected by:
Received by:
Analyzed by:
SOIL
TECTONIC
72 Hour
212835
11/21/12
LB
see "By" below
BO
Laboratory Data
B-6 S-5
Phoenix ID:BD05248
12/07/12
13:00
10:03
Parameter Result
RL/
PQL Units Date/Time By Reference
FOR:Attn: Mr. James Uprights
Tectonic Engineering
70 Pleasant Hill Road
Mountainville, NY 10953
Analysis Report
December 12, 2012
Date Time
587 East Middle Turnpike, P.O.Box 370, Manchester, CT 06045
Tel. (860) 645-1102 Fax (860) 645-0823
Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
SDG ID:GBD05247
Client ID:
Project ID:BLACK OAK WIND FARM 6506.01
87Percent Solid 12/08/12 JL E160.3%
< 11Chloride 11 12/08/12 BS/EG9056mg/kg
6.92pH - Soil 0.10 12/07/12 19:00 DH/KDB4500-H B/9045pH Units 1
< 34Sulfate 34 12/08/12 BS/EG9056mg/kg 1,1P
Comments:
All soils, solids and sludges are reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise noted in the sample comments.
Phyllis Shiller, Laboratory Director
December 12, 2012
1 = This parameter is not certified by NY NELAC for this matrix. NY NELAC does not offer certification for all parameters at this time.
1P = This parameter is pending certification by NY NELAC for this matrix.
If there are any questions regarding this data, please call Phoenix Client Services at extension 200.
This report must not be reproduced except in full as defined by the attached chain of custody.
Reviewed and Released by: Johanna Harrington, Project Manager
RL/PQL=Reporting/Practical Quantitation Level (Equivalent to NELAC LOQ, Limit of Quanitation) ND=Not Detected
BRL=Below Reporting Level
Page 2 of 6 Ver 1
Sample Information Custody Information
Matrix:
Location Code:
Rush Request:
P.O.#:
Collected by:
Received by:
Analyzed by:
SOIL
TECTONIC
72 Hour
212835
11/27/12
LB
see "By" below
BO
Laboratory Data
B-3 S-4
Phoenix ID:BD05249
12/07/12
14:00
10:03
Parameter Result
RL/
PQL Units Date/Time By Reference
FOR:Attn: Mr. James Uprights
Tectonic Engineering
70 Pleasant Hill Road
Mountainville, NY 10953
Analysis Report
December 12, 2012
Date Time
587 East Middle Turnpike, P.O.Box 370, Manchester, CT 06045
Tel. (860) 645-1102 Fax (860) 645-0823
Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
SDG ID:GBD05247
Client ID:
Project ID:BLACK OAK WIND FARM 6506.01
86Percent Solid 12/08/12 JL E160.3%
< 12Chloride 12 12/08/12 BS/EG9056mg/kg
7.49pH - Soil 0.10 12/07/12 19:00 DH/KDB4500-H B/9045pH Units 1
< 35Sulfate 35 12/08/12 BS/EG9056mg/kg 1,1P
Comments:
All soils, solids and sludges are reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise noted in the sample comments.
Phyllis Shiller, Laboratory Director
December 12, 2012
1 = This parameter is not certified by NY NELAC for this matrix. NY NELAC does not offer certification for all parameters at this time.
1P = This parameter is pending certification by NY NELAC for this matrix.
If there are any questions regarding this data, please call Phoenix Client Services at extension 200.
This report must not be reproduced except in full as defined by the attached chain of custody.
Reviewed and Released by: Johanna Harrington, Project Manager
RL/PQL=Reporting/Practical Quantitation Level (Equivalent to NELAC LOQ, Limit of Quanitation) ND=Not Detected
BRL=Below Reporting Level
Page 3 of 6 Ver 1
Sample Information Custody Information
Matrix:
Location Code:
Rush Request:
P.O.#:
Collected by:
Received by:
Analyzed by:
SOIL
TECTONIC
72 Hour
212835
11/20/12
LB
see "By" below
BO
Laboratory Data
B-5 S-4
Phoenix ID:BD05250
12/07/12
12:00
10:03
Parameter Result
RL/
PQL Units Date/Time By Reference
FOR:Attn: Mr. James Uprights
Tectonic Engineering
70 Pleasant Hill Road
Mountainville, NY 10953
Analysis Report
December 12, 2012
Date Time
587 East Middle Turnpike, P.O.Box 370, Manchester, CT 06045
Tel. (860) 645-1102 Fax (860) 645-0823
Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
SDG ID:GBD05247
Client ID:
Project ID:BLACK OAK WIND FARM 6506.01
90Percent Solid 12/08/12 JL E160.3%
< 11Chloride 11 12/08/12 BS/EG9056mg/kg
7.44pH - Soil 0.10 12/07/12 19:00 DH/KDB4500-H B/9045pH Units 1
< 33Sulfate 33 12/08/12 BS/EG9056mg/kg 1,1P
Comments:
All soils, solids and sludges are reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise noted in the sample comments.
Phyllis Shiller, Laboratory Director
December 12, 2012
1 = This parameter is not certified by NY NELAC for this matrix. NY NELAC does not offer certification for all parameters at this time.
1P = This parameter is pending certification by NY NELAC for this matrix.
If there are any questions regarding this data, please call Phoenix Client Services at extension 200.
This report must not be reproduced except in full as defined by the attached chain of custody.
Reviewed and Released by: Johanna Harrington, Project Manager
RL/PQL=Reporting/Practical Quantitation Level (Equivalent to NELAC LOQ, Limit of Quanitation) ND=Not Detected
BRL=Below Reporting Level
Page 4 of 6 Ver 1
Sample Information Custody Information
Matrix:
Location Code:
Rush Request:
P.O.#:
Collected by:
Received by:
Analyzed by:
SOIL
TECTONIC
72 Hour
212835
11/19/12
LB
see "By" below
BO
Laboratory Data
B-7 S-3
Phoenix ID:BD05251
12/07/12
11:00
10:03
Parameter Result
RL/
PQL Units Date/Time By Reference
FOR:Attn: Mr. James Uprights
Tectonic Engineering
70 Pleasant Hill Road
Mountainville, NY 10953
Analysis Report
December 12, 2012
Date Time
587 East Middle Turnpike, P.O.Box 370, Manchester, CT 06045
Tel. (860) 645-1102 Fax (860) 645-0823
Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
SDG ID:GBD05247
Client ID:
Project ID:BLACK OAK WIND FARM 6506.01
90Percent Solid 12/08/12 JL E160.3%
< 11Chloride 11 12/08/12 BS/EG9056mg/kg
7.68pH - Soil 0.10 12/07/12 19:00 DH/KDB4500-H B/9045pH Units 1
38.3Sulfate 33 12/08/12 BS/EG9056mg/kg 1,1P
Comments:
All soils, solids and sludges are reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise noted in the sample comments.
Phyllis Shiller, Laboratory Director
December 12, 2012
1 = This parameter is not certified by NY NELAC for this matrix. NY NELAC does not offer certification for all parameters at this time.
1P = This parameter is pending certification by NY NELAC for this matrix.
If there are any questions regarding this data, please call Phoenix Client Services at extension 200.
This report must not be reproduced except in full as defined by the attached chain of custody.
Reviewed and Released by: Johanna Harrington, Project Manager
RL/PQL=Reporting/Practical Quantitation Level (Equivalent to NELAC LOQ, Limit of Quanitation) ND=Not Detected
BRL=Below Reporting Level
Page 5 of 6 Ver 1
Sample Information Custody Information
Matrix:
Location Code:
Rush Request:
P.O.#:
Collected by:
Received by:
Analyzed by:
SOIL
TECTONIC
72 Hour
212835
11/27/12
LB
see "By" below
BO
Laboratory Data
B-1A S-1
Phoenix ID:BD05252
12/07/12
11:00
10:03
Parameter Result
RL/
PQL Units Date/Time By Reference
FOR:Attn: Mr. James Uprights
Tectonic Engineering
70 Pleasant Hill Road
Mountainville, NY 10953
Analysis Report
December 12, 2012
Date Time
587 East Middle Turnpike, P.O.Box 370, Manchester, CT 06045
Tel. (860) 645-1102 Fax (860) 645-0823
Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
SDG ID:GBD05247
Client ID:
Project ID:BLACK OAK WIND FARM 6506.01
85Percent Solid 12/08/12 JL E160.3%
84.1Chloride 12 12/08/12 BS/EG9056mg/kg
7.27pH - Soil 0.10 12/07/12 19:00 DH/KDB4500-H B/9045pH Units 1
41.9Sulfate 35 12/08/12 BS/EG9056mg/kg 1,1P
Comments:
All soils, solids and sludges are reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise noted in the sample comments.
Phyllis Shiller, Laboratory Director
December 12, 2012
1 = This parameter is not certified by NY NELAC for this matrix. NY NELAC does not offer certification for all parameters at this time.
1P = This parameter is pending certification by NY NELAC for this matrix.
If there are any questions regarding this data, please call Phoenix Client Services at extension 200.
This report must not be reproduced except in full as defined by the attached chain of custody.
Reviewed and Released by: Johanna Harrington, Project Manager
RL/PQL=Reporting/Practical Quantitation Level (Equivalent to NELAC LOQ, Limit of Quanitation) ND=Not Detected
BRL=Below Reporting Level
Page 6 of 6 Ver 1
QA/QC Data
Parameter Blank
MS
%
MSD
%
MS
RPD
QA/QC Report
December 12, 2012
587 East Middle Turnpike, P.O.Box 370, Manchester, CT 06045
Tel. (860) 645-1102 Fax (860) 645-0823
Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
SDG I.D.:GBD05247
LCS
%
Dup
RPD
LCSD
%
LCS
RPD
%
Rec
Limits
%
RPD
Limits
Sample
Result
Dup
Result
QA/QC Batch 215802, QC Sample No: BD05051 (BD05247, BD05248)
pH - Soil 97.90.30 85 - 115 2011.44 11.48
QA/QC Batch 215963, QC Sample No: BD05256 (BD05247, BD05248, BD05249, BD05250, BD05251, BD05252)
91.5ChlorideBRL94.6NC 85 - 115 207.4 7.3
91.0SulfateBRL93.6NC 85 - 115 203.6 3.6
QA/QC Batch 215803, QC Sample No: BD05375 (BD05249, BD05250, BD05251, BD05252)
pH - Soil 97.91.50 85 - 115 207.80 7.92
MS - Matrix Spike Phyllis Shiller, Laboratory Director
If there are any questions regarding this data, please call Phoenix Client Services at extension 200.
December 12, 2012MS Dup - Matrix Spike Duplicate
RPD - Relative Percent Difference
LCS - Laboratory Control Sample
LCSD - Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate
NC - No Criteria
Intf - Interference
Page 1 of 1
Sample Criteria Exceedences ReportWednesday, December 12, 2012 Page 1 of 1
Acode Phoenix Analyte CriteriaResultRLSampNo
Analysis
UnitsCriteria
GBD05247 - TECTONICRequested Criteria:None
RL
Criteria
State:NY
#Error*** No Data to Display ***
Phoenix Laboratories does not assume responsibility for the data contained in this report. It is provided as an additional tool to identify requested criteria exceedences. All efforts are made to ensure the
accuracy of the data (obtained from appropriate agencies). A lack of exceedence information does not necessarily suggest conformance to the criteria. It is ultimately the site professional's responsibility
to determine appropriate compliance.
NY Temperature Narration
December 12, 2012
587 East Middle Turnpike, P.O.Box 370, Manchester, CT 06045
Tel. (860) 645-1102 Fax (860) 645-0823
Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
SDG I.D.:GBD05247
The samples in this delivery group were received at 1°C.
(Note acceptance criteria is above freezing up to 6°C)
Page 1 of 1
TECTONIC
Practical Solutions, Exceptional Service
CORPORATE OFFICE: New York
(800) 829-6531
www.tectonicengineering.com
Regional Offices Albany, NY
Hartford, CT
Richmond, VA
BRANCH OFFICES: Located in principal cities throughout the United States