bp sdeis app e preliminary geo report-terracon 11-19-10 cape vincent

8/7/2019 BP SDEIS App E Preliminary Geo Report-Terracon 11-19-10 Cape Vincent

1/43

Environmental Resources Management Southwest, Inc.206 East 9 th Street, Suite 1700

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 459-4700

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report - TerraconAppendix E

February 2011

Project No. 0092352


2/43

Terracon Consultants, Inc. 201 Hammer Mill Road Rocky Hill, CT 06067P [860] 721 1900 F [860] 721 1939 t er ra co n. co m

Preliminary GeotechnicalEngineering Report

Proposed Cape Vincent Wind FarmCape Vincent, New York

November 19, 2010

Terracon Project No. J2105219

Prepared for:BP Wind Energy North America.

Houston, Texas

Prepared by:Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Rocky Hill, Connecticut


3/43

Terracon Consultants, Inc. 201 Hammer Mill Road Rocky Hill, CT 06067P [860] 721 1900 F [860] 721 1939 ter ra co n. com

November 19, 2010

BP Wind Energy North America700 Louisiana Street, 33 rd Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Attn: Ms. Sarah Nournia, P.E. Civil/Structural Engineer, Technical Authority

P: [713] 354 2181E: [email protected]

Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report

Proposed Cape Vincent Wind FarmCape Vincent, New YorkTerracon Project No. J2105219

Dear Ms. Nournia: Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) is submitting, herewith, the results of our preliminarygeotechnical evaluation for the above-referenced project. The purpose of this evaluationwas to obtain limited information on subsurface conditions at the project site and, based onthis information, to provide preliminary recommendations regarding the design andconstruction of foundations and site development for the proposed wind farm, as well asprovide recommendations for follow-on investigation and testing. An environmentalassessment was not part of the assignment. In this letter report, we include our understanding of the project, a summary of theexploration program, our preliminary design and construction recommendations and our recommendations for additional investigation. This report is subject to the GeneralComments in Section 6.


4/43


5/43

Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................... 1

2.1 Project Description ................................................................................................ 12.2 Site Location and Description ................................................................................ 3

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS AND CONDITIONS .................................................... 3

3.1 Typical Profile ........................................................................................................ 33.2 Groundwater .......................................................................................................... 4

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ....................................... 5

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... ....... 54.2 Potential Karst Conditions ..................................................................................... 64.3 Soil Corrosion Potential ......................................................................................... 64.4 Earthwork .............................................................................................................. 7

4.4.1 Site Preparation ......................................................................................... 74.4.2 Material Types ........................................................................................... 8

4.4.3 Compaction Requirements ........................................................................ 84.4.4 Utility Trench Backfill ................................................................................. 94.4.5 Construction Considerations...................................................................... 9

4.5 Foundation Recommendations ........... .......... ........... ........... .......... ........... .......... .. 104.5.1 Preliminary Design Recommendations Shallow Foundations .............. 114.5.2 Construction Considerations Shallow Foundations .............................. 114.5.3 Preliminary Design Recommendations Drilled Shaft Foundation ......... 134.5.4 Construction Considerations Drilled Shaft Foundation ......................... 13

4.6 Seismic Considerations ....................................................................................... 144.7 Site Access Drives ............................................................................................... 14

4.7.1 Design Recommendations ...................................................................... 144.7.2 Construction Considerations.................................................................... 15

5.0 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................. 16

5.1 Recommendations for Additional Geotechnical Services .................................... 165.2 Premium Site Development Considerations ........................................................ 16

6.0 GENERAL COMMENTS ................................................................................................. 17 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION

Exhibit A-1 Site Location MapExhibit A-2 Exploration Location Diagram

Exhibit A-3 Boring LogsExhibit A-4 Field Exploration Description

APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTINGExhibit B-1 Laboratory TestingExhibit B-2 Grain Size Distribution Test Report

APPENDIX C SUPPORTING DOCUMENTSExhibit C-1 General NotesExhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification SystemExhibit C-3 General Notes Bedrock


6/43

Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 1

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORTPROPOSED CAPE VINCENT WIND FARM

CAPE VINCENT, NEW YORKTerracon Project No. J2105219

November 19, 2010

1.0 INTRODUCTION The preliminary geotechnical engineering evaluation for the proposed Cape Vincent Wind Farmlocated in Cape Vincent, New York, as shown on the Site Location Map (Exhibit A-1) inAppendix A, has been completed. Eight soil borings were drilled throughout the site to depths upto 50 feet below existing ground surface. An Exploration Location Diagram (Exhibit A-2) andindividual exploration logs are included in Appendix A.

The purpose of these services is to provide information and preliminary geotechnicalengineering recommendations relative to:

subsurface soil conditions foundation design and construction groundwater conditions seismic considerations earthwork roadway design and construction

In addition to these recommendations, we have included our recommendations for additionalgeotechnical engineering investigation, testing, and engineering services. These services will berequired to characterize subsurface conditions and provide comprehensive geotechnicalengineering recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed developments ateach portion of the project site.

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION The site is located within predominantly undeveloped farmland near Cape Vincent, JeffersonCounty, New York. The proposed development includes over 11,000 acres of occupied andleased properties. The general area of the project is bordered by Lake Ontario to the south andthe St. Lawrence River to the west and north. The area consists of gently rolling hills withtopography that grades moderately downward to the west and south from about Elevation (El)400 to 250 feet. There are several natural drainage stream corridors throughout the project site. 2.1 Project Description Our knowledge of the project is based on a Scope of Work (SOW) received in an email datedAugust 19, 2010, our conversations with you, and a plan by BP Wind Energy of Houston, Texas,titled Project Site, dated 11/05/2010.


7/43

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering ReportProposed Cape Vincent Wind Farm Cape Vincent, New YorkNovember 19, 2010 Terracon Project No. J2105219


The project consists of the construction of 80 Wind Turbine Generators (WTGs), variousinterconnect substations, and underground electric utilities. Access to the WTG sites will beprovided by gravel drives from adjacent public roadways. A summary description of the project ispresented below:

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Site layout Appendix A, Exhibit A-2, Exploration Location Diagram

Proposed development

Structures consist of 80 GE 1.6 MW WTGs and an undeterminednumber of interconnect substations.

Operations and Maintenance Building will consist of a pre-engineered metal building.

Roadways will be constructed connecting WTG locations with localroads. Additionally, crane pads will be constructed at each WTGlocation for erection. Some local gravel roads will likely be

improved during the development.

Structure constructionWTGs: Steel tubular shaft with WTG at the top of the shaft.

Substation buildings: Prefabricated metal building, supported onspread footing or drilled shaft foundations.

Finished grade elevation of structures

Unknown at the time that this report was prepared; assumed to benear existing grade.

Maximum loads

Specific loading information was not available at the time of thisreport. However, based on our experience with similar projects weestimate the following foundation loading conditions:

WTGs

Axial Load: 430 kipsMoment: 26,086 ft-kips

Base shear: 427 kips

Substation buildings

Floor live load: 75 pounds per square-foot (psf)

Column Load: 5 kips

Operations and Maintenance Building

Floor live load: 100 psf

Column Load: 50 kips

Maximum allowable settlementTotal Settlement: 1 inch (assumed)

Differential Settlement: inch (assumed)

Grading

Proposed grading plans were not available at the time of this report.However, based on our observation of site topography and knowledgeof the project, we consider only minor grading, cuts and fills of about afoot or so, will be required to achieve finished grade.

Cut and fill slopes Not required.

Retaining walls Not required.


8/43



2.2 Site Location and Description

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Location Near Cape Vincent, Jefferson County, New York.

Existing improvements The site is currently undeveloped.

Current ground cover Generally farmland with gravel roads for access throughout thesite. Several local and county roads bisect the site.

Existing topography Rolling hills with natural drainage stream corridors throughout theproject site. This region is near El 400 with Lake Ontario at aboutEl 250 to the southwest.

The 1985 USGS topographic quadrangle map for Cape Vincent, New York-Ontario depicts thearea of the site to be within the 250- to 400-foot surface elevation contours (NGVD 1929).

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS AND CONDITIONS 3.1 Typical Profile Based on the results of the borings and observations at the time of drilling, subsurface conditionson the project site can be generalized as follows:

DescriptionApproximate Depth to

Bottom of Stratum (feet)Material Encountered

Consistency / RelativeDensity

Stratum 1 2 to 18.5

Lean clay, zones of high

plasticity, grey(Glaciolacustrine Deposit)1

Stiff to very stiff,occasionally soft

Stratum 2 19Silty gravel, with sand,

grey-brown (Glacial Till) 2 Medium dense to very

dense

Stratum 3 N/A 3

Limestone, fresh toslightly weathered, slightly

to moderately fractured,medium hard, fine

grained, gray to dark gray(Bedrock)

N/A

1. Topsoil and/or subsoil were encountered at the surface in each boring.2. Glacial till encountered in JB-21 only. Occasionally, weathered bedrock was encountered above

the competent bedrock surface.3. Subsurface conditions were explored to a maximum depth of 50 feet below existing grade.

The Surficial Geologic Map of New York (1989) , prepared by the USGS, identifies the soil at thesite as a glaciolacustrine deposit. The Geologic Map of New York (1970) identifies the bedrockunderlying the site as predominantly limestone.


9/43



Conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs inAppendix A of this report. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximatelocation of changes in soil/rock types; in situ , the transition between materials may be gradual.Further details of the borings can be found on the boring logs.

Laboratory testing, consisting of moisture content determinations (ASTM D2216), Atterberglimits determination (ASTM 4318), a grain size distribution test (ASTM D422), and unconfinedcompressive strength of rock (ASTM D7012, Method C), was performed on select soil and rocksamples recovered from the test borings. The moisture contents, Atterberg limits, and unconfinedcompressive strengths are shown on the boring logs in Exhibit A-3. The results of the grain sizedistribution test are included in Exhibit B-2. 3.2 Groundwater

Water was encountered in JB-21, JB-31, and JB-75 at depths ranging from 2 to 21.5 feet belowexisting grade. Water observations were made in the borings at the time of drilling or ingroundwater monitoring wells, as noted on the individual boring logs. Water was used to advance the borings in the bedrock; therefore, water observations in JB-21may be drilling water trapped in the borehole and may not be indicative of groundwater levels.Groundwater monitoring wells were installed in JB-31 and JB-75 for long-term monitoring of groundwater conditions. Water level readings taken in the monitoring wells likely represent truegroundwater conditions at the time of measurement. Groundwater observations made in theborings at the time of drilling and in the monitoring wells after drilling are as noted below.

Groundwater Levels

Exploration No.Approximate Depth toGroundwater During

Drilling (ft)

Approximate Depth to Groundwater measured in monitoring wells on

November 11, 2010

JB-21 9.5 NA 1

JB-31 21.7 21.3

JB-75 3.7 2.0

1. Not applicable groundwater monitoring well not installed at this location


10/43



Fluctuations in groundwater level may occur because of seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff, and other factors. Additionally, grade adjustments on and around the site, as wellas surrounding drainage improvements, may affect the water table. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the

project.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 4.1 Geotechnical Considerations We understand that the preferred foundation type for the WTGs is a shallow foundationconsisting of a monolithic mat, pier and pad, or inverted T type foundation with circular pedestal and octagonal footing, bearing at a depth of approximately 7 to 9 feet below finishedgrade. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the preliminary investigation, we

consider the use of shallow foundations to be feasible for the support of the WTG towers. Shallowfoundations are also feasible for support of the proposed substation structures. Shallowfoundations may bear directly on the native glaciolacustrine deposit or on compacted structural fillor minus -inch crushed stone placed on the native glaciofluvial deposit. However, if crushedstone is used, a geotextile separation fabric should be placed directly under the crushed stone. Bedrock was encountered at or above 8 feet in JB-10, JB-59, JB-75, and JB-83. Where bedrockis encountered above the depth required to provide adequate overturning resistance, the bedrockmay be removed to the required depth with the foundation bearing on a concrete leveling matplaced over the bedrock surface. Alternately, the foundation may be cast at the existing bedrocksurface with permanent tie-down anchors installed to provide overturning resistance. Preliminarydesign recommendations are presented in the following sections. The substation and operations and maintenance buildings may be supported on shallow spreadfootings bearing on the native glaciolacustrine deposit or on compacted structural fill or minus-inch crushed stone placed on the native glaciolacustrine deposit. Drilled shaft foundationsmay also be an economic foundation alternative for miscellaneous steel structures within thesubstation area. In general, we consider the upper 1 foot, or so, of the bedrock can be effectively removed bymechanical means, such as excavator-mounted hydraulic ram. Below this level, controlledblasting is likely to be required. Based on bedrock conditions encountered, we consider controlled blasting can be accomplished with limited risk to existing structures and utilities. Potential Karst features, such as caves and sinkholes, are known to exist in the general vicinityof the project site. Because of the relative risk associated with sinkhole development, werecommend a site specific preliminary Karst condition assessment be conducted.


11/43



Subsurface conditions in the explorations have been reviewed and evaluated with respect to theproposed construction plans known to us at this time. Additional subsurface investigation isrequired to further characterize subsurface conditions at and between each WTG site. Further engineering analysis is also required in order to assess the performance of the existing soils

based on the proposed construction loading. 4.2 Potential Karst Conditions Because of the relative risk associated with sinkhole development, we recommend a sitespecific preliminary Karst condition assessment be conducted. In addition, based on thepotential for the development of Karst conditions in the area, certain site design measuresshould be considered at this preliminary stage. The development of Karst conditions, e.g., cavitation, can be accelerated by the infiltration of

water below grade. The site design must control the infiltration of water around the proposedstructures. Granular fill or crushed stone placed over the bedrock could become paths for stormwater to permeate into cracks and depressions, creating an increased potential for cavitation. Therefore, we recommend a minimum 6-inch thick concrete mud mat be placed over all exposed bedrock subgrades in order to seal potential pathways for water. We anticipate the installation of infiltrating stormwater and septic systems will not be required for this project. Infiltration would increase the likelihood of the formation of sinkholes. If required,we suggest locating infiltration systems and leaching fields away from structures or other sensitive site features, such that future sinkhole development would have a limited potential for harm and cause reduced property damage. Utility pipes should be constructed with sealedconnections to prevent leaking and promotion of sinkhole formation through water infiltration.Utility trenches should be sealed in the vicinity of settlement sensitive structures to reduce thelikelihood of infiltration and migration of water. Evidence of Karst conditions was not observed during this preliminary investigation. 4.3 Soil Corrosion Potential An initial assessment of the corrosion potential of the site soils was made by conducting pH andresistivity testing on a representative composite soil sample taken from JB-69. The electrical

resistivity of the composite sample was measured in the laboratory using a soil test box and a16gl Earth Resistivity Meter with distilled water added to create a standardized condition of saturation. Resistivity is at about its lowest value when the soil is saturated. Electrical resistivityof soil is a measure of resistance to the flow of galvanic currents, which tend to be lower in highresistivity soils. The electrical resistivity of the soil varies primarily with its chemical andmoisture contents. Typically, the lower the resistivity of native soil, the more likely that galvaniccurrents may develop and increase the possibility of corrosion. Based on laboratory test results,


12/43



the electrical resistivity values for the near surface soils generally ranged from about 1,700 to2,200 ohm-cm, i.e., corrosive. The pH of the soil was measured to be 7.3, i.e., neutral andgenerally associated with low corrosion rates in carbon steel. Based on the results of theelectrical resistivity testing, there is a likelihood of a potentially corrosive environment at the

project site. We recommend further corrosion potential studies be conducted across the site.Depending on the results of these studies, consideration should be given to implementingcorrosion protection measures. In this regard, based on the available information, we consider the use of Type II Portland cement in concrete will provide adequate corrosion protection toembedded reinforcing. Other buried corrosion-sensitive building and utility components mayneed to be evaluated by a corrosion engineer. 4.4 Earthwork 4.4.1 Site PreparationPrior to placing fill for crane pads, site access drives, and other site features, vegetation, topsoil,organic subsoils, i.e., subsoil with visible roots, and any otherwise unsuitable materials shouldbe removed. The subgrade should be proofrolled with a minimum 10-ton roller compactor operating in static mode to avoid disturbance of the fine-grained native soils. Unstablesubgrades should be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill or minus -inchcrushed stone, as necessary. A geotextile separation fabric (Mirafi 140N, or equivalent) shouldbe used between crushed stone and the native glaciofluvial deposit to reduce the likelihood of migration of fines. Structural or common fill may then be placed within to attain the requiredgrade.


13/43



4.4.2 Material TypesFill should meet the following material property requirements:

Fill Type 1 USCS Classification Acceptable Location for Placement

Structural Fill GW 2

All locations and elevations. The nativeglaciolacustrine deposit is not suitable for re-use asstructural fill because of its high fines content.Imported structural fill should meet the gradationrequirements in Note 2, below.

Common fill Varies 3

Common fill may be used for site grading to within 12inches of finished grade. Common fill should not beused under settlement sensitive structures. The nativeglaciolacustrine deposit is not suitable for re-use ascommon fill because of its high fines content. Commonfill should meet the requirements of Note 3, below.

1. Compacted structural fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter and

debris. Frozen material should not be used. Fill should not be placed on a frozen subgrade.2. Imported structural fill should meet the following gradation:

Percent Passing by Weight

Sieve Size Structural Fill

6 100

3 70 100

2 (100)*

45 95

No. 4 30 90

No. 10 25 80 No. 40 10 50

No. 200 0 12

* Maximum 2-inch particle size within 12 inches of the underside of footings or slabs

3. Common fill should have a maximum particle size of 6 inches and no more than 25 percent byweight passing the US No. 200 sieve.

4.4.3 Compaction Requirements

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Fill Lift Thickness 8 inches or less in loose thickness

Compaction Requirements 1 95% maximum modified Proctor dry density (ASTM D1557,Method C)

Moisture Content Granular Material Workable moisture levels

1. We recommend that structural fill be tested for moisture content and compaction duringplacement. Should the results of the in-place density tests indicate the specified moisture or compaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked andretested, as required, until the specified moisture and compaction requirements are achieved.


14/43



4.4.4 Utility Trench BackfillHigh spots in the bedrock surface will be encountered during utility trench excavation. Utilitytrench sizing and backfill will need to be designed in consultation with the project electricalengineer so that adequate thermal resistivity characteristics are met to reduce the likelihood of

damage to the utility. In addition, consideration should be given to reducing the infiltration andconveyance of surface water through the trench backfill. This is of particular concern for trenches in the vicinity of settlement sensitive structures, i.e., structures that would have aserious safety risk or high repair cost if settlement occurred, as the migration of water canaccelerate the formation of Karst conditions. 4.4.5 Construction ConsiderationsThe bedrock sampled tends to be fresh to slightly weathered, with slight to moderate fracturing.The frequency of joints is indicated on the logs by relatively moderate to high Rock QualityDesignation (RQD) values, generally greater than 60 percent. Joints are typically near

horizontal and associated with bedding. Bedrock excavation by non-explosive methods, such as a hoe-mounted ram or large excavator,will be feasible in the weathered bedrock above the level of auger refusal in our test borings.We anticipate that the weathered bedrock, if encountered, is rippable, i.e., removable bymechanical means. Weathered bedrock was observed in JB-10, JB-31, JB-42, and JB-59. Therippability may extend some distance, up to about a foot or so, into the more competent bedrockas the weathered zone transitions into harder bedrock. However, based on the quantity of bedrock to be removed, the use of mechanical methods will not be cost or time effective in mostlocations where bedrock is encountered above the desired foundation depth; blasting will bemore efficient. If explosive methods are used, controlled blasting should be specified toexcavate rock safely. Based on observation of the rock cores and limited laboratory testing, effective blasting of thelimestone bedrock should be achievable with relatively small charges. While the risk of rockblasting cannot be eliminated, with proper pre-drilling and charge selection, blasting can likelybe conducted with limited risk to existing structures and utilities, such as houses and drinkingwater wells, while also maintaining reasonable efficiency. Further evaluation of bedrockconditions and the effects of blasting should be conducted in areas where WTGs or underground trenches will be located within 1,000 feet of existing structures or drinking water wells.

The contractor should perform a pre-blast survey of all structures within 300 feet of the blasting.Prior to blasting, the blasting contractor should submit proposed blast methods for typical pre-split and production rounds, and lift sizes to the engineer for review. Specifications shouldrequire the blaster to be licensed with the State of New York and to provide proof of experiencewith similar types of projects and constraints.


15/43


16/43


17/43



encountered at the bedrock surface and within sand/silt seams in the native glaciolacustrinedeposit. The contractor should be required to maintain a stable subgrade during construction.The contractor should prevent groundwater, if encountered, and surface water runoff fromcollecting in the excavation. Subgrade soils that become unstable because of water and/or

reworking by construction activity should be replaced with compacted structural fill or minus -inch crushed stone, as necessary. The predominant soil type at the recommended subgrade level will often be the nativeglaciolacustrine deposit, which consists primarily of silts and clays (fines). Soil with a higher fines content will be sensitive to moisture and lose strength quickly during wet periods or because of construction activity. Contractors experienced in earthwork construction in the areashould be aware of this soil behavior and the effect that moisture, inclement weather, and/or construction traffic can have on its workability. If a contractor bids construction knowing thatearthwork must begin during the winter or wet months, the contractor should include acontingency in his bid to use off-site suitable fill, concrete mud mats, and to remove and disposeof on-site soils that become unsuitable. Even during the remainder of the year, considerationcould be given to protecting the soil subgrade with a concrete mud mat or a few inches of crushed stone underlain by a geotextile separation fabric in order to provide an adequateworking surface. The geotechnical engineer should be retained to observe and test the soil foundation bearingmaterials.


18/43



4.5.3 Preliminary Design Recommendations Drilled Shaft FoundationDESCRIPTION VALUE

Net Allowable Bearing Capacity

Bedrock

10 - 25 ksf 1

Ultimate Side Friction 2

Glaciolacustrine Deposit

Glacial Till/Weathered Bedrock

0.5 - 1.5 ksf

4 - 6 ksf

Ultimate Rock Bond 100 - 200 psi

Coefficient Lateral Subgrade Reaction

Glaciofluvial Deposit


Bedrock

10 - 20 (z/D) kcf 3

50 - 80 (z/D) kcf 3

150 - 250 (z/D) kcf 3

Estimated In-situ Soil Unit Weight

Glaciofluvial Deposit


100 - 110 pcf

130 - 140 pcf

Approximate Groundwater Depth Varies

1. The allowable end bearing pressure assumes that loose rock pieces and soil have been removed fromthe base of the shaft excavation and that the shaft has been extended at least 3 feet into the bedrock.

2. Contribution to shaft capacity above the frost depth should be ignored. The uplift capacity of theshaft will be based on side friction and the dead weight of the shaft.

3. z is depth below the ground surface and D is diameter of shaft, both in feet. We anticipate that the design length of the shaft will be primarily dependent on theembedment/lateral capacity required to resist live loading, such as the combination of wind and iceloads. However, the base of the drilled shaft should be located in the bedrock. The drilled shaftwill be designed to resist tension loads and therefore should have reinforcing steel installedthroughout the entire length of the shaft. 4.5.4 Construction Considerations Drilled Shaft FoundationDrilling of drilled shaft foundations will extend through medium plastic silts and clays, glacial till,weathered bedrock, and limestone bedrock. Cobbles and boulders may be encountered withinglacial till. The contractor should consider these aspects in developing the proposed drillingmethod(s).

Groundwater is likely to be encountered perched on top of the bedrock surface and travellingthrough sand/silt seams in the native glaciolacustrine deposit. To maintain the integrity of theshaft walls during drilling, the use of drilling fluid and/or temporary casing may be required.


19/43


20/43



Pavement Component Specification

Surface course NYSDOT Table 667-1 Type A (Surface)

Base course NYSDOT Table 667-1 Type B (Base)

Subbase course NYSDOT Table 667-1 Type C (Subbase)

Drainage ditches, stabilized with rip-rap or vegetation, should be incorporated into the roadwaydesign in order to collect stormwater run-off and divert it away from the road surface. Where softer glaciolacustrine soils exist at subgrade level, geogrid (Tensar BX1100, or equivalent) may be required to stabilize the roadway. The geogrid should be placed at the mid-point of the subbase layer. Depending on the loading, construction roadways may require a thicker section of granular material. We recommend that the actual loads that will be applied during construction beassessed, so that the roadway section can be adjusted to suit. 4.7.2 Construction ConsiderationsWe recommend the roadway areas be stripped of existing organic material, rough graded, andthen thoroughly compacted with a minimum 10-ton (static weight) roller compactor operating instatic mode, before being proofrolled with a loaded tandem-axle dump truck. Particular attention should be paid to areas that were rutted and disturbed during constructionand areas where backfilled trenches are located. Areas where unsuitable conditions are locatedshould be repaired by replacing the materials with properly compacted fill. Whenproofrolling/subgrade stabilization has been completed to the satisfaction of the geotechnicalengineer, subbase may be placed. Future performance of gravel roads constructed on the site will be dependent upon maintainingadequate drainage and limiting erosion potential. The following recommendations should beconsidered at a minimum:

Grade roadway surface to promote drainage to the side of the road; Provide adequate stabilized drainage ditches, culverts, and swales to collect

stormwater run-off and reduce its flow velocity; Maintain proper roadway drainage through periodic maintenance, such filling

and grading eroded areas or low spots and clearing drainage ditches.


21/43



5.0 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Recommendations for Additional Geotechnical Services

In order to provide detailed geotechnical recommendations required to develop final projectdesigns and plans, we consider that, at a minimum, the following additional investigation,testing, and analysis will be required:

Subsurface investigation at each WTG and substation location and at regular intervals (minimum every mile) along the alignment of proposed undergroundtrenching to further characterize subsurface conditions.

Engineering analysis to develop site specific geotechnical engineeringrecommendations. Additional engineering analysis should develop site specificgeotechnical recommendations and design parameters related to the design and

construction of foundations, roadways, and earthwork. Settlement analysis of shallow foundation options should also be conducted.

A site specific preliminary Karst condition assessment should be conducted toassess the potential of each site for Karst formation. Additional geophysicalinvestigation and testing may be required after the preliminary assessment.

Laboratory resistivity testing, conducted under saturated conditions, and pH,chloride, and sulfate testing should be conducted on representative samples fromacross the site to assist in the evaluation of corrosion potential of the native soils.

Thermal resistivity testing of soil along the alignment of proposed undergroundutility trenches will be required. The scope of thermal resistivity testing should bedeveloped in consultation with the project electrical engineer. Required testingwill likely consist of both in-situ and laboratory testing.

In-situ electrical resistivity testing should be conducted to assist in the design of grounding systems.

A geophysical field survey including Seismic Refraction testing by MASWmethods should be performed at select WTG locations to evaluate the elasticparameters of the soil for use in estimating soil stiffness parameters andfoundation settlements.

5.2 Premium Site Development Considerations Many factors will influence the cost of geotechnical aspects of the project. Considering thepreliminary stage of the project, the cost of the items cannot be estimated at this time.However, based on the limited subsurface investigation conducted at the site thus far, we haveidentified the following items that are likely to result in premium costs, i.e., costs in excess of typical construction cost, to the project:


22/43



Bedrock blasting and excavation will be required at many of the WTG locationsand along the alignment of underground utilities. Further subsurfaceinvestigation will be required in order to provide quantity estimates.

Tie-down anchors may be considered to anchor foundations at locations where

bedrock is encountered near the existing ground surface. Depending on the results of the preliminary Karst condition assessment and

additional investigations, mitigating measures may be required. Based on soil and bedrock conditions along underground utility trenches,

engineered backfill may be required in order to provide adequate thermalresistivity properties to reduce the likelihood of damage to buried electrical lines.

The results of corrosion potential studies will determine if additional costs will berequired to protect subsurface improvements.

Shallow bedrock at many WTG locations will require design and installation of specialty grounding systems.

6.0 GENERAL COMMENTS The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are preliminary based upon the dataobtained from the explorations performed at the indicated locations and from other informationdiscussed in this report. Additional investigation is required in order to characterize subsurfaceconditions and evaluate geotechnical parameters at each WTG location for design purposes.This report is intended to provide preliminary geotechnical insight to assist in the continueddevelopment of project planning and should not be used to develop project designs, plans,and/or specifications. This report does not reflect variations that may occur betweenexplorations, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of weather. The nature and extentof such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variationsappear, we should be immediately notified, so that further evaluation and supplementalrecommendations can be provided. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication anyenvironmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials, or conditions. If the owner is concerned about thepotential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the

project discussed and prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineeringpractices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety,excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the eventthat changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report areplanned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be consideredvalid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of thisreport in writing.


23/43

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION


24/43


25/43


26/43

11250

0.4

2

5

15

Core Rate(min./ft.)

2.0

2.02.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2.0

2.5

2.0

2.0

TopsoilSILT , with sand, trace roots, slightly plastic, brown,medium stiff.

(GLACIOLACUSTRINE DEPOSIT)Weathered Bedrock

LIMESTONE , fresh to slightly weathered, moderatelyfractured, medium hard, fine grained, gray to dark gray.

(BEDROCK)

BORING TERMINATED AT 15.0 ft

1

C1

SS

C

10

120

ML

1-22-6

RQD63%

TESTS

Approx. Surface Elev.: UNCONFINED

STRENGTH, psf

DESCRIPTION

GRAPHIC LOG

Dietrich D120

MHK

FOREMAN

JOB #

10-20-10

10-20-10

JW

J2105219

RIG

LOGGED

BP Wind Energy - North America

Page 1 of 1CLIENT

BORING STARTED

BORING COMPLETED

Not Encountered

PROJECT

OTHER TESTS

The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary linesbetween soil and rock types: in situ, the transition may be gradual.

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft

Cape Vincent, New York

LOG OF BORING No. JB-10

3 1/4" ID HSA, then NQ2 Core, 2" OD SS, 140h

Cape Vincent Wind FarmSITE

WL

WL

WL

NUMBER

TYPE

RECOVERY, in.

SAMPLES

USCS SYMBOL

DEPTH, ft.

5

10

15

WATER

CONTENT, %

pHSPT - Blows per 6"

BOREHOLE_99 J2105219 CAPE VINCENT WIND FARM.GPJ TERRACON 20080217.GDT 11/19/10


27/43

0.3

2

8

19

29

Core Rate(min./ft.)

2.53.01.5

2.5

2.5

3.0

2.5

3.0

3.0

3.0

Topsoil

SILT , with sand, trace roots, slightly plastic, brown,stiff.

(GLACIOLACUSTRINE DEPOSIT)

LEAN CLAY , highly plastic, gray, stiff.


SILTY GRAVEL , with sand, gray-brown, mediumdense to dense.

(GLACIAL TILL)

LIMESTONE , slightly to moderately weathered,occasional highly weathered seams, moderately to highlyfractured, medium hard, fine grained, gray to dark gray.

(BEDROCK)


1

2

3

4

C1

SS

SS

SS

SS

C

12

18

22

22

118

ML

CL

GM

GM 14.9

2-35-5

5-711-13

12-1424-23

10-1214-15

RQD45%

TESTS


STRENGTH, psf

DESCRIPTION

GRAPHIC LOG

Dietrich D120

MHK

FOREMAN

JOB #

10-20-10

10-20-10

JW

J2105219

RIG

LOGGED


Page 1 of 1CLIENT

BORING STARTED

BORING COMPLETED

PROJECT

OTHER TESTS






9.5 AD 10 min.


WL

WL

WL

NUMBER

TYPE

RECOVERY, in.

SAMPLES

USCS SYMBOL

DEPTH, ft.

5

10

15

20

25

WATER

CONTENT, %




28/43

0.4

2

10.511 Core Rate

(min./ft.)1.51.51.5

2.0

1.5

1.5

1.5

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

Topsoil

LEAN CLAY , trace sand and roots, low plasticity,brown, soft.


LEAN CLAY , highly plastic, gray, very stiff.


Weathered Bedrock

LIMESTONE , slightly weathered, slightly to moderatelyfractured, medium hard, fine-grained, gray to dark gray.

Note: Highly weathered seam from 32 to 32.3.

1

2

3C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

SS

SS

SSC

C

C

C

C

16

22

648

60

60

60

60

CL

CL

CL 28.8

1-12-3

5-1115-17

11-50/1"

RQD52%

RQD67%

RQD82%

RQD79%

RQD87%

TESTS


STRENGTH, psf

DESCRIPTION

GRAPHIC LOG

Dietrich D120

MHK

FOREMAN

JOB #

10-18-10

10-18-10

JW

J2105219

RIG

LOGGED


Page 1 of 2

Continued Next Page

CLIENT

BORING STARTED

BORING COMPLETED

PROJECT

OTHER TESTS






21.7AD 60 hrs. 21.3 AD 3 wks.


WL

WL

WL

NUMBER

TYPE

RECOVERY, in.

SAMPLES

USCS SYMBOL

DEPTH, ft.

5

10

15

20

25

30

WATER

CONTENT, %




29/43


30/43

0.5

2

1515.5

25.5

Core Rate(min./ft.)

2

2

22.5

2

2.5

2

2

2

2

Topsoil

LEAN CLAY , with sand, trace roots, low plasticity,brown, soft.


LEAN CLAY , highly plastic, gray, stiff to very stiff.


Weathered bedrock

LIMESTONE , fresh to slightly weathered, slightlyfractured, medium hard, fine grained, gray to dark gray.

(BEDROCK)


1

2

3

4

C1

SS

SS

SS

SS

C

20

22

22

6

115

CL

CL

CL 30.1

11.3

1-12-4

4-37-10

4-67-10

14-50/0"

RQD81%

TESTS


STRENGTH, psf

DESCRIPTION

GRAPHIC LOG

Dietrich D120

MHK

FOREMAN

JOB #

10-20-10

10-20-10

JW

J2105219

RIG

LOGGED


Page 1 of 1CLIENT

BORING STARTED

BORING COMPLETED

Not Encountered

PROJECT

OTHER TESTS







WL

WL

WL

NUMBER

TYPE

RECOVERY, in.

SAMPLES

USCS SYMBOL

DEPTH, ft.

5

10

15

20

25

WATER

CONTENT, %




31/43


32/43

0.2

18.5

28.5

LL=48PL=18

Core Rate(min./ft.)

2.5

3.0

3.5

3.5

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

Topsoil

LEAN CLAY , highly plastic, gray, soft to very stiff.



(BEDROCK)


1

2

3

4

C1

SS

SS

SS

SS

C

18

20

22

22

120

CL

CL

CL

CL

37.6

1-12-2

4-78-12

3-33-3

2-22-2

RQD73%

TESTS


STRENGTH, psf

DESCRIPTION

GRAPHIC LOG

Dietrich D120

MHK

FOREMAN

JOB #

10-19-10

10-19-10

JW

J2105219

RIG

LOGGED


Page 1 of 1CLIENT

BORING STARTED

BORING COMPLETED

Not Encountered

PROJECT

OTHER TESTS







WL

WL

WL

NUMBER

TYPE

RECOVERY, in.

SAMPLES

USCS SYMBOL

DEPTH, ft.

5

10

15

20

25

WATER

CONTENT, %




33/43

7450

0.3

2

8 Core Rate(min./ft.)

2.03.03.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.5

3.0

3.0

2.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

2.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

2.5

2.5

3.0

3.0

3.0

2.5

3.0

Topsoil

LEAN CLAY , trace sand and roots, low plasticity,brown, medium stiff.


LEAN CLAY , highly plastic, gray-brown, very stiff.



1

2

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

SS

SS

C

C

C

C

C

C

20

20

24

60

60

60

60

60

CL

CL

2-33-5

8-812-16

RQD75%

RQD88%

RQD93%

RQD95%

RQD91%

RQD95%

TESTS


STRENGTH, psf

DESCRIPTION

GRAPHIC LOG

Dietrich D120

MHK

FOREMAN

JOB #

10-19-10

10-19-10

JW

J2105219

RIG

LOGGED


Page 1 of 2

Continued Next Page

CLIENT

BORING STARTED

BORING COMPLETED

PROJECT

OTHER TESTS






3.7 AD 36 hrs. 2.0 AD 3 wks.


WL

WL

WL

NUMBER

TYPE

RECOVERY, in.

SAMPLES

USCS SYMBOL

DEPTH, ft.

5

10

15

20

25

30

WATER

CONTENT, %




34/43

50

2.5

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

2.5

2.52.5

2.5

3.0

2.5

2.5

3.0

2.5

3.0

2.5

3.0


(BEDROCK)


C7

C8

C9

C

C

C

60

60

60

RQD96%

RQD95%

RQD93%

TESTS

UNCONFINED

STRENGTH, psf

DESCRIPTION

GRAPHIC LOG

Dietrich D120

MHK

FOREMAN

JOB #

10-19-10

10-19-10

JW

J2105219

RIG

LOGGED


Page 2 of 2CLIENT

BORING STARTED

BORING COMPLETED

PROJECT

OTHER TESTS






3.7 AD 36 hrs. 2.0 AD 3 wks.


WL

WL

WL

NUMBER

TYPE

RECOVERY, in.

SAMPLES

USCS SYMBOL

DEPTH, ft.

35

40

45

50

WATER

CONTENT, %




35/43

14850

0.5

3

13

Core Rate(min./ft.)

3.02.02.5

3.0

3.0

2.5

3.5

3.0

3.5

5.5

Topsoil

LEAN CLAY , highly plastic, gray-brown, soft.(GLACIOLACUSTRINE DEPOSIT)


(BEDROCK)


1

C1

C2

SS

C

C

10

60

60

CL

1-12-2

RQD92%

RQD95%

TESTS


STRENGTH, psf

DESCRIPTION

GRAPHIC LOG

Dietrich D120

MHK

FOREMAN

JOB #

10-18-10

10-18-10

JW

J2105219

RIG

LOGGED


Page 1 of 1CLIENT

BORING STARTED

BORING COMPLETED

Not Encountered

PROJECT

OTHER TESTS







WL

WL

WL

NUMBER

TYPE

RECOVERY, in.

SAMPLES

USCS SYMBOL

DEPTH, ft.

5

10

WATER

CONTENT, %




36/43

Exhibit A-4

Field Exploration Description Terracon monitored the advancement of eight test borings between October 18 and 21, 2010. Theexplorations were advanced using an all terrain vehicle- (ATV) mounted Dietrich D-120 rotary drill

rig owned and operated by Terracon. The borings were advanced using 3-inch inside diameter hollow stem augers and terminated at refusal on bedrock. The borings were further advanced intothe bedrock using an NQ2 core barrel. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, which was used to take soil samples, the number of blowsrequired to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split-barrel sampler typically the middle 12 inches of the total 24-inch penetration by means of a 140-pound safety hammer with a free fall of 30 inchesis the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance value N. This N value is used to estimatethe in-situ relative density of cohesionless soils and consistency of cohesive soils.

The soil samples were placed in labeled glass jars and taken, along with the rock core in coreboxes, to our Rocky Hill (Hartford) laboratory for further review, testing, and classification.Information provided on the boring logs attached to this report includes soil descriptions, relativedensity and/or consistency evaluations, boring depths, sampling intervals, and groundwater conditions. The borings were backfilled with auger cuttings prior to the drill crew leaving the site. Field logs of the explorations were prepared by a Terracon field engineer. These logs includedvisual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling as well as interpretation by our field engineer of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final exploration logs included withthis report represent further interpretation by the geotechnical engineer of the field logs andincorporate, where appropriate, modifications based on laboratory classification of the samples. The locations of the explorations were established in the field by others prior to our arrival on site.


37/43


38/43

Exhibit B-1

Laboratory TestingDescriptive classifications of the soils indicated on the exploration logs are in accordance withthe enclosed General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). USCS symbolsare also shown. A brief description of the USCS is attached to this report. Classification was

generally by visual/manual procedures, aided by moisture content determinations. Laboratory testing, consisting of moisture content determinations (ASTM D2216), Atterberglimits (ASTM D4318), rock compressive strength (ASTM D7012, Method C), grain sizedistribution (ASTM D422), pH (ASTM D4972), and electrical resistivity (ASTM G57), wasperformed on representative samples recovered from the test borings. The moisture contents,Atterberg limits, and rock compressive strengths are presented on the boring logs in Exhibit A-3.The results of the grain size distribution test are included in Exhibit B-2. The results of pH andelectrical resistivity testing are included in the body of the report.


39/43

% Cobbles Coarse Medium Fine33.3 16.7 50.0 Silt (>0.002mm) Clay (


40/43

APPENDIX C

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS


41/43

Exhibit C-1

GENERAL NOTES

DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS:SS: Split Spoon - 1- 3/8" I.D., 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted HS: Hollow Stem Auger ST: Thin-Walled Tube 2 O.D., 3" O.D., unless otherwise noted PA: Power Auger (Solid Stem)RS: Ring Sampler - 2.42" I.D., 3" O.D., unless otherwise noted HA: Hand Auger DB: Diamond Bit Coring - 4", N, B RB: Rock BitBS: Bulk Sample or Auger Sample WB Wash Boring or Mud Rotary

The number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split-spoon sampler (SS) typically the middle 12 inches of the total 24-inch penetration with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches is considered the Standard Penetration or N-value.

WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS: WL: Water Level WS: While Sampling BCR: Before Casing RemovalWCI: Wet Cave in WD: While Drilling ACR: After Casing RemovalDCI: Dry Cave in AB: After Boring N/E: Not Encountered Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the times indicated. Groundwater levels at other times and other locations across the site could vary. In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of groundwater. Inlow permeability soils, the accurate determination of groundwater levels may not be possible with only short-term observations.

DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soilshave more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand.Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they areplastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents maybe added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are defined on thebasis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency.

CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS Unconfined

CompressiveStrength, Qu, psf

Standard Penetrationor N-value (SS)

Blows/Ft.Consistency

Standard Penetrationor N-value (SS)

Blows/Ft.Relative Density

< 500 0 - 1 Very Soft 0 3 Very Loose

500 1,000 2 - 4 Soft 4 9 Loose1,000 2,000 4 - 8 Medium Stiff 10 29 Medium Dense2,000 4,000 8 - 15 Stiff 30 50 Dense4,000 8,000 15 - 30 Very Stiff > 50 Very Dense

8,000+ > 30 Hard

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY Descriptive Term(s)

of other constituents Percent of Dry Weight

Major Componentof Sample

Particle Size

Trace < 15 Boulders Over 12 in. (300mm)With 15 29 Cobbles 12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm)

Modifier 30 G avel 3 in. to #4 sie e (75mm to 4.75mm)

Sand #4 to #200 sieve (4.75 to 0.075mm) Silt or Clay Passing #200 Sieve (0.075mm)

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES PLASTICITY DESCRIPTIONDescriptive Term(s)

of other constituentsPer ent of Dry Weight

TermPlasticity

Index

Trace < 5 Non-plastic 0With 5 12 Low 1-10

Modifier > 12 Medium 11-30High > 30


42/43

Exhibit C-2

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Soil Classification

GroupSymbol

Group Name B

Coarse Grained Soils:More than 50% retainedon No. 200 sieve

Gravels:More than 50% of coarse

fraction retained onNo. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels:Less than 5% fines C

Cu t 4 and 1 d Cc d 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu 4 and/or 1 ! Cc ! 3 E GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines:More than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F,G, H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F,G,H

Sands:50% or more of coarsefraction passesNo. 4 sieve

Clean Sands:Less than 5% fines D

Cu t 6 and 1 d Cc d 3 E SW Well-graded sand I

Cu 6 and/or 1 ! Cc ! 3 E SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines:More than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G,H,I

Fines Classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G,H,I

Fine-Grained Soils:50% or more passes theNo. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays:Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic:PI ! 7 and plots on or above A line J CL Lean clay K,L,M

PI 4 or plots below A line J ML Silt K,L,M

Organic:Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OLOrganic clay K,L,M,N

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,O

Silts and Clays:Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic:PI plots on or above A line CH Fat clay K,L,M

PI plots below A line MH Elastic Silt K,L,M

Organic:Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OHOrganic clay K,L,M,P

Liquid limit - not dried Organic siltK,L,M,Q

Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-in. (75-mm) sieveB If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add with cobbles

or boulders, or both to group name.C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded

gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorlygraded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.

D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-gradedsand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly gradedsand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay

E Cu = D 60 /D10 Cc =

6010

2

30

DxD

)(D

F If soil contains t 15% sand, add with sand to group name.G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add with organic fines to group name.I If soil contains t 15% gravel, add with gravel to group name.J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add with sand or with

gravel, whichever is predominant.L If soil contains t 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add sandy

to group name.M If soil contains t 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

gravelly to group name.N PI t 4 and plots on or above A line.O PI 4 or plots below A line.P PI plots on or above A line.Q PI plots below A line.


43/43

GENERAL NOTESDescription of Rock Properties

WEATHERING

Fresh Rock fresh, crystals bright, few joints may show slight staining. Rock rings under hammer if crystalline.

Very slight Rock generally fresh, joints stained, some joints may show thin clay coatings, crystals in broken face showbright. Rock rings under hammer if crystalline.

Slight Rock generally fresh, joints stained, and discoloration extends into rock up to 1 in. Joints may contain clay.In granitoid rocks some occasional feldspar crystals are dull and discolored. Crystalline rocks ring under hammer.

Moderate Significant portions of rock show discoloration and weathering effects. In granitoid rocks, most feldspars aredull and discolored; some show clayey. Rock has dull sound under hammer and shows significant loss of strength as compared with fresh rock.

Moderately severe All rock except quartz discolored or stained. In granitoid rocks, all feldspars dull and discolored and majorityshow kaolinization. Rock shows severe loss of strength and can be excavated with geologists pick.

Severe All rock except quartz discolored or stained. Rock fabric clear and evident, but reduced in strength tostrong soil. In granitoid rocks, all feldspars kaolinized to some extent. Some fragments of strong rockusually left.

Very severe All rock except quartz discolored or stained. Rock fabric discernible, but mass effectively reduced to soilwith only fragments of strong rock remaining.

Complete Rock reduced to soil. Rock fabric not discernible or discernible only in small, scattered locations. Quartzmay be present as dikes or stringers.

HARDNESS (for engineering description of rock not to be confused with Mohs scale for minerals)

Very hard Cannot be scratched with knife or sharp pick. Breaking of hand specimens requires several hard blows of geologists pick.

Hard Can be scratched with knife or pick only with difficulty. Hard blow of hammer required to detach handspecimen.

Moderately hard Can be scratched with knife or pick. Gouges or grooves to in. deep can be excavated by hard blow of point of a geologists pick. Hand specimens can be detached by moderate blow.

Medium Can be grooved or gouged 1/16 in. deep by firm pressure on knife or pick point. Can be excavated in smallchips to pieces about 1-in. maximum size by hard blows of the point of a geologists pick.

Soft Can be gouged or grooved readily with knife or pick point. Can be excavated in chips to pieces severalinches in size by moderate blows of a pick point. Small thin pieces can be broken by finger pressure.

Very soft Can be carved with knife. Can be excavated readily with point of pick. Pieces 1-in. or more in thickness canbe broken with finger pressure. Can be scratched readily by fingernail.

Joint, Bedding and Foliation Spacing in Rock a Spacing Joints Bedding/Foliation

Less than 2 in. Very close Very thin2 in. 1 ft. Close Thin1 ft. 3 ft. Moderately close Medium3 ft. 10 ft. Wide ThickMore than 10 ft. Very wide Very thick

Rock Quality Designator (RQD) b Joint Openness Descriptors

RQD, as a percentage Diagnostic description Openness Descriptor Exceeding 90 Excellent No Visible Separation Tight90 75 Good Less than 1/32 in. Slightly Open75 50 Fair 1/32 to 1/8 in. Moderately Open50 25 Poor 1/8 to 3/8 in. OpenLess than 25 Very poor 3/8 in. to 0.1 ft. Moderately Wide

Greater than 0.1 ft. Widea. Spacing refers to the distance normal to the planes, of the described feature, which are parallel to each other or nearly so.

bp sdeis app e preliminary geo report-terracon 11-19-10 cape vincent

Documents