BP SDEIS App E Preliminary Geo Report-Terracon 11-19-10 Cape Vincent

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report - Terracon
Appendix E
February 2011
Project No. 0092352
Environmental Resources Management Southwest, Inc.

206 East 9th Street, Suite 1700
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 459-4700
Preliminary Geotechnical
Engineering Report
Proposed Cape Vincent Wind Farm
Cape 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
Terracon Consultants, Inc. 201 Hammer Mill Road Rocky Hill, CT 06067
P [860] 721 1900 F [860] 721 1939 t erracon.com
November 19, 2010
BP Wind Energy – North America

700 Louisiana Street, 33rd Floor
Houston, Texas 77002
Attn: Ms. Sarah Nournia, P.E. – Civil/Structural Engineer, Technical Authority

P: [713] 354 2181
E: Sarah.Nournia@bp.com
Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report

Proposed Cape Vincent Wind Farm
Cape Vincent, New York
Dear Ms. Nournia:
Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) is submitting, herewith, the results of our preliminary
geotechnical evaluation for the above-referenced project. The purpose of this evaluation
was to obtain limited information on subsurface conditions at the project site and, based on
this information, to provide preliminary recommendations regarding the design and
construction of foundations and site development for the proposed wind farm, as well as
provide recommendations for follow-on investigation and testing. An environmental
assessment was not part of the assignment.
In this letter report, we include our understanding of the project, a summary of the
exploration program, our preliminary design and construction recommendations and our
recommendations for additional investigation. This report is subject to the General
Comments in Section 6.
Terracon Consultants, Inc. 201 Hammer Mill Road Rocky Hill, CT 06067
P [860] 721 1900 F [860] 721 1939 t erracon.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................... 1

2.1 Project Description ................................................................................................ 1
2.2 Site Location and Description ................................................................................ 3
3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS AND CONDITIONS .................................................... 3
3.1 Typical Profile ........................................................................................................ 3
3.2 Groundwater .......................................................................................................... 4
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ....................................... 5
4.1 Geotechnical Considerations ................................................................................. 5
4.2 Potential Karst Conditions ..................................................................................... 6
4.3 Soil Corrosion Potential ......................................................................................... 6
4.4 Earthwork .............................................................................................................. 7
4.4.1 Site Preparation ......................................................................................... 7
4.4.2 Material Types ........................................................................................... 8
4.4.3 Compaction Requirements ........................................................................ 8
4.4.4 Utility Trench Backfill ................................................................................. 9
4.4.5 Construction Considerations...................................................................... 9
4.5 Foundation Recommendations ............................................................................ 10
4.5.1 Preliminary Design Recommendations – Shallow Foundations .............. 11
4.5.2 Construction Considerations – Shallow Foundations .............................. 11
4.5.3 Preliminary Design Recommendations – Drilled Shaft Foundation ......... 13
4.5.4 Construction Considerations – Drilled Shaft Foundation ......................... 13
4.6 Seismic Considerations ....................................................................................... 14
4.7 Site Access Drives............................................................................................... 14
4.7.1 Design Recommendations ...................................................................... 14
4.7.2 Construction Considerations.................................................................... 15
5.0 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................. 16
5.1 Recommendations for Additional Geotechnical Services .................................... 16
5.2 Premium Site Development Considerations ........................................................ 16
6.0 GENERAL COMMENTS ................................................................................................. 17
APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION

Exhibit A-1 Site Location Map
Exhibit A-2 Exploration Location Diagram
Exhibit A-3 Boring Logs
Exhibit A-4 Field Exploration Description
APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TESTING
Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing
Exhibit B-2 Grain Size Distribution Test Report
APPENDIX C – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Exhibit C-1 General Notes
Exhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification System
Exhibit C-3 General Notes – Bedrock
Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
PROPOSED CAPE VINCENT WIND FARM
CAPE VINCENT, NEW YORK
November 19, 2010
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The preliminary geotechnical engineering evaluation for the proposed Cape Vincent Wind Farm
located in Cape Vincent, New York, as shown on the Site Location Map (Exhibit A-1) in
Appendix A, has been completed. Eight soil borings were drilled throughout the site to depths up
to 50 feet below existing ground surface. An Exploration Location Diagram (Exhibit A-2) and
individual exploration logs are included in Appendix A.
The purpose of these services is to provide information and preliminary geotechnical

engineering 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 additional

geotechnical engineering investigation, testing, and engineering services. These services will be
required to characterize subsurface conditions and provide comprehensive geotechnical
engineering recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed developments at
each portion of the project site.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
The site is located within predominantly undeveloped farmland near Cape Vincent, Jefferson
County, New York. The proposed development includes over 11,000 acres of occupied and
leased properties. The general area of the project is bordered by Lake Ontario to the south and
the St. Lawrence River to the west and north. The area consists of gently rolling hills with
topography 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 dated
August 19, 2010, our conversations with you, and a plan by BP Wind Energy of Houston, Texas,
titled “Project Site”, dated 11/05/2010.
Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 1

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed Cape Vincent Wind Farm Cape Vincent, New York
November 19, 2010 Terracon Project No. J2105219
The project consists of the construction of 80 Wind Turbine Generators (WTGs), various
interconnect substations, and underground electric utilities. Access to the WTG sites will be
provided by gravel drives from adjacent public roadways. A summary description of the project is
presented below:
ITEM DESCRIPTION
Site layout Appendix A, Exhibit A-2, Exploration Location Diagram
Structures consist of 80 GE 1.6 MW WTGs and an undetermined
number of interconnect substations.
Operations and Maintenance Building will consist of a pre-
engineered metal building.
Proposed development
Roadways will be constructed connecting WTG locations with local
roads. Additionally, crane pads will be constructed at each WTG
location for erection. Some local gravel roads will likely be
improved during the development.
WTGs: Steel tubular shaft with WTG at the top of the shaft.
Structure construction Substation buildings: Prefabricated metal building, supported on
spread footing or drilled shaft foundations.
Finished grade elevation of Unknown at the time that this report was prepared; assumed to be
structures near existing grade.
Specific loading information was not available at the time of this
report. However, based on our experience with similar projects we
estimate the following foundation loading conditions:
WTGs
Axial Load: 430 kips
Moment: 26,086 ft-kips
Maximum loads 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
Total Settlement: 1 inch (assumed)
Maximum allowable settlement
Differential Settlement: ½ inch (assumed)
Proposed grading plans were not available at the time of this report.
However, based on our observation of site topography and knowledge
Grading
of the project, we consider only minor grading, cuts and fills of about a
foot or so, will be required to achieve finished grade.
Cut and fill slopes Not required.
Retaining walls Not required.

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 the
site. Several local and county roads bisect the site.
Existing topography Rolling hills with natural drainage stream corridors throughout the
project site. This region is near El 400 with Lake Ontario at about
El 250 to the southwest.
The 1985 USGS topographic quadrangle map for Cape Vincent, New York-Ontario depicts the
area 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 conditions
on the project site can be generalized as follows:
Approximate Depth to Consistency / Relative

Description Material Encountered
Bottom of Stratum (feet) Density
Lean clay, zones of high
plasticity, grey Stiff to very stiff,
Stratum 1 2 to 18.5
(Glaciolacustrine Deposit) occasionally soft
1
Silty gravel, with sand, Medium dense to very

Stratum 2 19
grey-brown (Glacial Till) 2 dense
Limestone, fresh to
slightly weathered, slightly
to moderately fractured,
Stratum 3 N/A 3 N/A
medium hard, fine
grained, gray to dark gray
(Bedrock)
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 the
site as a glaciolacustrine deposit. The Geologic Map of New York (1970) identifies the bedrock
underlying the site as predominantly limestone.

Conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs in
Appendix A of this report. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate
location 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), Atterberg

limits determination (ASTM 4318), a grain size distribution test (ASTM D422), and unconfined
compressive strength of rock (ASTM D7012, Method C), was performed on select soil and rock
samples recovered from the test borings. The moisture contents, Atterberg limits, and unconfined
compressive strengths are shown on the boring logs in Exhibit A-3. The results of the grain size
distribution 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 below
existing grade. Water observations were made in the borings at the time of drilling or in
groundwater monitoring wells, as noted on the individual boring logs.
Water was used to advance the borings in the bedrock; therefore, water observations in JB-21
may 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 true
groundwater conditions at the time of measurement. Groundwater observations made in the
borings at the time of drilling and in the monitoring wells after drilling are as noted below.
Groundwater Levels
Approximate Depth to Approximate Depth to Groundwater

Exploration No. Groundwater During measured in monitoring wells on
Drilling (ft) November 11, 2010
JB-21 9.5 NA1
JB-31 21.7 21.3

JB-75 3.7 2.0
1. Not applicable – groundwater monitoring well not installed at this location

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 well
as 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 foundation
consisting 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 finished
grade. 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. Shallow
foundations are also feasible for support of the proposed substation structures. Shallow
foundations may bear directly on the native glaciolacustrine deposit or on compacted structural fill
or minus ¾-inch crushed stone placed on the native glaciofluvial deposit. However, if crushed
stone 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 bedrock
is encountered above the depth required to provide adequate overturning resistance, the bedrock
may be removed to the required depth with the foundation bearing on a concrete leveling mat
placed over the bedrock surface. Alternately, the foundation may be cast at the existing bedrock
surface with permanent tie-down anchors installed to provide overturning resistance. Preliminary
design recommendations are presented in the following sections.
The substation and operations and maintenance buildings may be supported on shallow spread
footings bearing on the native glaciolacustrine deposit or on compacted structural fill or minus
¾-inch crushed stone placed on the native glaciolacustrine deposit. Drilled shaft foundations
may also be an economic foundation alternative for miscellaneous steel structures within the
substation area.
In general, we consider the upper 1 foot, or so, of the bedrock can be effectively removed by
mechanical means, such as excavator-mounted hydraulic ram. Below this level, controlled
blasting 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 vicinity
of the project site. Because of the relative risk associated with sinkhole development, we
recommend a site specific preliminary Karst condition assessment be conducted.

Subsurface conditions in the explorations have been reviewed and evaluated with respect to the
proposed construction plans known to us at this time. Additional subsurface investigation is
required 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 site
specific preliminary Karst condition assessment be conducted. In addition, based on the
potential for the development of Karst conditions in the area, certain site design measures
should 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 proposed
structures. 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 sealed
connections 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 the
likelihood 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 and
resistivity 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 a
16gl 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 resistivity
of soil is a measure of resistance to the flow of galvanic currents, which tend to be lower in high
resistivity soils. The electrical resistivity of the soil varies primarily with its chemical and
moisture contents. Typically, the lower the resistivity of native soil, the more likely that galvanic
currents may develop and increase the possibility of corrosion. Based on laboratory test results,

the electrical resistivity values for the near surface soils generally ranged from about 1,700 to
2,200 ohm-cm, i.e., corrosive. The pH of the soil was measured to be 7.3, i.e., neutral and
generally associated with low corrosion rates in carbon steel. Based on the results of the
electrical 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 implementing
corrosion 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 to
embedded reinforcing. Other buried corrosion-sensitive building and utility components may
need to be evaluated by a corrosion engineer.
4.4 Earthwork
4.4.1 Site Preparation

Prior 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 should
be 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. Unstable
subgrades should be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill or minus ¾-inch
crushed stone, as necessary. A geotextile separation fabric (Mirafi 140N, or equivalent) should
be 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 required
grade.

4.4.2 Material Types

Fill should meet the following material property requirements:
Fill Type 1 USCS Classification Acceptable Location for Placement

All locations and elevations. The native
glaciolacustrine deposit is not suitable for re-use as
Structural Fill GW 2 structural fill because of its high fines content.
Imported structural fill should meet the gradation
requirements in Note 2, below.
Common fill may be used for site grading to within 12
inches of finished grade. Common fill should not be
Common fill Varies 3 used under settlement sensitive structures. The native
glaciolacustrine deposit is not suitable for re-use as
common fill because of its high fines content. Common
fill 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)*
¾” 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 by
weight passing the US No. 200 sieve.
4.4.3 Compaction Requirements

ITEM DESCRIPTION
Fill Lift Thickness 8 inches or less in loose thickness
95% maximum modified Proctor dry density (ASTM D1557,
Compaction Requirements 1
Method C)
Moisture Content – Granular Material Workable moisture levels
1. We recommend that structural fill be tested for moisture content and compaction during
placement. 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 and
retested, as required, until the specified moisture and compaction requirements are achieved.

4.4.4 Utility Trench Backfill

High spots in the bedrock surface will be encountered during utility trench excavation. Utility
trench sizing and backfill will need to be designed in consultation with the project electrical
engineer 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 and
conveyance 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 a
serious safety risk or high repair cost if settlement occurred, as the migration of water can
accelerate the formation of Karst conditions.
4.4.5 Construction Considerations

The 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 Quality
Designation (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 by
mechanical means. Weathered bedrock was observed in JB-10, JB-31, JB-42, and JB-59. The
rippability may extend some distance, up to about a foot or so, into the more competent bedrock
as 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 most
locations where bedrock is encountered above the desired foundation depth; blasting will be
more efficient. If explosive methods are used, controlled blasting should be specified to
excavate rock safely.
Based on observation of the rock cores and limited laboratory testing, effective blasting of the
limestone bedrock should be achievable with relatively small charges. While the risk of rock
blasting cannot be eliminated, with proper pre-drilling and charge selection, blasting can likely
be conducted with limited risk to existing structures and utilities, such as houses and drinking
water wells, while also maintaining reasonable efficiency. Further evaluation of bedrock
conditions 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 should
require the blaster to be licensed with the State of New York and to provide proof of experience
with similar types of projects and constraints.

Although the exposed subgrades, i.e., native soils expected to receive fill, are anticipated to be
relatively stable upon initial exposure, unstable subgrade conditions could develop during general
construction operations before placement of fill, particularly if the soils are wetted and/or subjected
to repetitive construction traffic. Should unstable subgrade conditions develop, stabilization
measures will need to be employed before fill for roadways or site development may be placed.
Construction traffic over the completed subgrade should be avoided to the extent practical. Site
access roads, constructed in accordance with local Department of Transportation (DOT)
specifications, should be constructed early on in the project to reduce the likelihood of the
development of unstable subgrades. The site should also be graded to prevent ponding of
surface water on the prepared subgrades or in excavations. If the subgrade should become
frozen, wet, or disturbed, the affected material should be removed, or should be scarified,
moisture conditioned, and recompacted.
As a minimum, temporary excavations should be sloped or braced, as required by Occupational

Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) regulations, to provide stability and safe working
conditions. Temporary excavations will probably be required during grading operations,
excavation to subgrade, and utility trenching. The contractor, by his contract, is usually
responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and should shore,
slope or bench the sides of the excavations, as required, to maintain stability of both the
excavation sides and bottom. All excavations should comply with applicable local, State, and
federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety
Standards. The native glaciolacustrine deposit would be considered Type C in terms of OSHA
sloping standards.
The geotechnical engineer should be retained during the construction phase of the project to
observe earthwork and to perform necessary tests and observations during subgrade
preparation; proofrolling; placement and compaction of controlled compacted fills; backfilling of
excavations in the completed subgrade; and just prior to construction of foundations.
4.5 Foundation Recommendations
Based on the results of the preliminary investigation, support of the proposed WTGs and
substation buildings with shallow foundations appears feasible. Additional investigation will be
required at each WTG and substation location to further characterize subsurface conditions and
to develop site specific design recommendations. Shallow spread footings should bear on the
native glaciolacustrine deposit or on compacted structural fill or minus ¾-inch crushed stone
placed on the glaciolacustrine deposit. If crushed stone is used, a geotextile separation fabric
(Mirafi 140N, or equivalent) should be used between crushed stone and the glaciofluvial deposit
to reduce the likelihood of migration of fines. Where bedrock is encountered at or above
planned bottom of foundation elevation, foundations should bear on a minimum 6-inch thick
concrete mud mat placed on the bedrock. Alternatively, drilled shafts could be used to support
the towers, where conditions are favorable to such foundations. Preliminary design

recommendations and construction considerations for the recommended foundation systems

are presented in the following paragraphs and tables.
4.5.1 Preliminary Design Recommendations – Shallow Foundations

DESCRIPTION VALUE
2,000 to 3,000 psf – Native glaciolacustrine deposit
Net allowable bearing pressure 1
8,000 to 10,000 psf – Bedrock
2
Approximate total settlement <1 inch
2
Estimated differential settlement <½ inch
100 to 110 pcf – Native glaciolacustrine deposit
Total unit weight ()
120 to 135 pcf – Compacted Structural Fill
Cohesion (psf) 150 to 300 psf – Native glaciolacustrine deposit
3
Passive earth pressure coefficient, Kp (soil) 3.0 (ultimate)
4
Passive pressure coefficient, Kp (rock) 5.0 (ultimate)
0.35 – Native glaciolacustrine deposit (ultimate)
Coefficient of sliding friction 5
0.45 – Bedrock (ultimate)
1. The recommended net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum
surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation.
2. Foundation settlement will depend upon the variations within the subsurface soil profile, the
structural loading conditions, the embedment depth of the footing, the thickness of compacted fill,
and the quality of the earthwork operations. Settlement of foundations over bedrock subgrades will
be negligible.
3. Passive pressure calculated with this parameter should be reduced by at least a factor of safety of 3,
to reflect the amount of movement required to mobilize the passive resistance.
4. Passive pressure calculated with this parameter should be reduced by at least a factor of safety of
1.5, to reflect the reduced amount of movement required to mobilize the passive resistance against
bedrock.
5. A factor of safety of at least 1.5 should be applied to the sliding resistance.
Uplift resistance for spread footings may be computed as the sum of the weight of the foundation
element and the weight of the soil overlying the foundation. We recommend using a soil unit
weight of 120 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for engineered fill overlying the footing placed as
described in this section of this report. A unit weight of 150 pcf could be used for reinforced
footing concrete. A factor of safety of 1.0 may be applied to calculations of dead load; a higher
factor of safety may be appropriate for loadings resisted by dead load.
4.5.2 Construction Considerations – Shallow Foundations

Based on the groundwater conditions encountered during our other explorations, we do not
expect that significant dewatering will be required during construction of the foundations.
However, control of surface and perched water conditions from precipitation will likely be
required to prevent run-off from entering the site. Perched groundwater is likely to be

encountered at the bedrock surface and within sand/silt seams in the native glaciolacustrine
deposit. The contractor should be required to maintain a stable subgrade during construction.
The contractor should prevent groundwater, if encountered, and surface water runoff from
collecting 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 ¾-
inch crushed stone, as necessary.
The predominant soil type at the recommended subgrade level will often be the native
glaciolacustrine 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 area
should 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 that
earthwork must begin during the winter or wet months, the contractor should include a
contingency in his bid to use off-site suitable fill, concrete mud mats, and to remove and dispose
of on-site soils that become unsuitable. Even during the remainder of the year, consideration
could 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 adequate
working surface.
The geotechnical engineer should be retained to observe and test the soil foundation bearing
materials.

4.5.3 Preliminary Design Recommendations – Drilled Shaft Foundation

DESCRIPTION VALUE
Net Allowable Bearing Capacity
Bedrock 10 - 25 ksf 1
Ultimate Side Friction 2
Glaciolacustrine Deposit 0.5 - 1.5 ksf
Glacial Till/Weathered Bedrock 4 - 6 ksf
Ultimate Rock Bond 100 - 200 psi
Coefficient Lateral Subgrade Reaction
Glaciofluvial Deposit 10 - 20 (z/D) kcf 3
Glacial Till/Weathered Bedrock 50 - 80 (z/D) kcf 3
Bedrock 150 - 250 (z/D) kcf 3
Estimated In-situ Soil Unit Weight
Glaciofluvial Deposit 100 - 110 pcf
Glacial Till/Weathered Bedrock 130 - 140 pcf
Approximate Groundwater Depth Varies
1. The allowable end bearing pressure assumes that loose rock pieces and soil have been removed from
the 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 the
shaft 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 the
embedment/lateral capacity required to resist live loading, such as the combination of wind and ice
loads. However, the base of the drilled shaft should be located in the bedrock. The drilled shaft
will be designed to resist tension loads and therefore should have reinforcing steel installed
throughout the entire length of the shaft.
4.5.4 Construction Considerations – Drilled Shaft Foundation

Drilling 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 within
glacial till. The contractor should consider these aspects in developing the proposed drilling
method(s).
Groundwater is likely to be encountered perched on top of the bedrock surface and travelling
through sand/silt seams in the native glaciolacustrine deposit. To maintain the integrity of the
shaft walls during drilling, the use of drilling fluid and/or temporary casing may be required.

4.6 Seismic Considerations
DESCRIPTION VALUE
Code Used New York State Building Code 1
Site Class C2
Maximum considered earthquake 0.071g (1.0 second spectral response acceleration, S1)
ground motions (5 percent damping) 0.226g (0.2 second spectral response acceleration, Ss)
Liquefaction potential in event of an Not susceptible
1. In general accordance with Section 1615.

2. The New York State Building Code requires a site soil profile determination extending a depth
of 100 feet for seismic site classification. The current scope requested does not include the
required 100-foot soil profile determination; the borings performed for this report extended to a
maximum depth of 50 feet. However, we expect soil at least as dense as those encountered
above 50 feet or bedrock to extend to a depth of at least 100 feet.
4.7 Site Access Drives
Permanent gravel access roads will be constructed to each WTG location to allow for periodic
inspection and maintenance. Access roads will be subject to relatively infrequent loading because
of the periodic nature of their use. Therefore, design of access roads is based primarily on selecting
suitable materials to allow for proper drainage, resist erosion, and limit susceptibility to frost action.
However, access roads may be subject to heavy loading if used as construction access.
4.7.1 Design Recommendations

Based on anticipated subgrade and traffic conditions, we recommend the design of gravel
access roads meet the following design section properties.
Surface Course Base Course Subbase Course Total Thickness

(inches) (inches) (inches) (inches)
6 6 6 18
Gravel access roadway design is based on New York State Department of Transportation
(NYSDOT) Standard Specifications (2006) and our experience with similar projects. The
thickness of each course is a function of subgrade strength, traffic, design life, serviceability
factors, and frost susceptibility. Aggregates should meet the following material specifications
from the NYSDOT Standard Specifications.

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 roadway
design 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 be
assessed, so that the roadway section can be adjusted to suit.
4.7.2 Construction Considerations

We recommend the roadway areas be stripped of existing organic material, rough graded, and
then thoroughly compacted with a minimum 10-ton (static weight) roller compactor operating in
static mode, before being proofrolled with a loaded tandem-axle dump truck.
Particular attention should be paid to areas that were rutted and disturbed during construction
and areas where backfilled trenches are located. Areas where unsuitable conditions are located
should be repaired by replacing the materials with properly compacted fill. When
proofrolling/subgrade stabilization has been completed to the satisfaction of the geotechnical
engineer, subbase may be placed.
Future performance of gravel roads constructed on the site will be dependent upon maintaining
adequate drainage and limiting erosion potential. The following recommendations should be
considered 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.

5.0 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Recommendations for Additional Geotechnical Services
In order to provide detailed geotechnical recommendations required to develop final project

designs 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 ½ mile) along the alignment of proposed underground
trenching to further characterize subsurface conditions.
Engineering analysis to develop site specific geotechnical engineering
recommendations. Additional engineering analysis should develop site specific
geotechnical 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 to
assess the potential of each site for Karst formation. Additional geophysical
investigation 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 from
across the site to assist in the evaluation of corrosion potential of the native soils.
Thermal resistivity testing of soil along the alignment of proposed underground
utility trenches will be required. The scope of thermal resistivity testing should be
developed in consultation with the project electrical engineer. Required testing
will 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 MASW
methods should be performed at select WTG locations to evaluate the elastic
parameters of the soil for use in estimating soil stiffness parameters and
foundation settlements.
5.2 Premium Site Development Considerations
Many factors will influence the cost of geotechnical aspects of the project. Considering the
preliminary 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 have
identified the following items that are likely to result in premium costs, i.e., costs in excess of
“typical” construction cost, to the project:

Bedrock blasting and excavation will be required at many of the WTG locations
and along the alignment of underground utilities. Further subsurface
investigation 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 thermal
resistivity properties to reduce the likelihood of damage to buried electrical lines.
The results of corrosion potential studies will determine if additional costs will be
required 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 data
obtained from the explorations performed at the indicated locations and from other information
discussed in this report. Additional investigation is required in order to characterize subsurface
conditions and evaluate geotechnical parameters at each WTG location for design purposes.
This report is intended to provide preliminary geotechnical insight to assist in the continued
development 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 between
explorations, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of weather. The nature and extent
of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations
appear, we should be immediately notified, so that further evaluation and supplemental
recommendations can be provided.
The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any
environmental 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 the
potential 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 engineering
practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety,
excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event
that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are
planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered
valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this
report in writing.

APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION
LOG OF BORING No. JB-10 Page 1 of 1
CLIENT
BP Wind Energy - North America
SITE PROJECT
Cape Vincent, New York Cape Vincent Wind Farm
SAMPLES TESTS
SPT - Blows per 6"
STRENGTH, psf
USCS SYMBOL
RECOVERY, in.
OTHER TESTS
GRAPHIC LOG
UNCONFINED
CONTENT, %
DESCRIPTION
DEPTH, ft.
NUMBER
WATER
TYPE
pH
Approx. Surface Elev.:
0.4 Topsoil 1 SS 10 1-2
2-6
SILT, with sand, trace roots, slightly plastic, brown, ML
2 medium stiff.
(GLACIOLACUSTRINE DEPOSIT)
Weathered Bedrock
5 Core Rate
5
(min./ft.)
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.0
LIMESTONE, fresh to slightly weathered, moderately
fractured, medium hard, fine grained, gray to dark gray. 10 2.5
C1 C 120 RQD 11250
63% 3.0
2.0
2.5
2.0
(BEDROCK)
15 2.0
15
BORING TERMINATED AT 15.0 ft
BOREHOLE_99 J2105219 CAPE VINCENT WIND FARM.GPJ TERRACON 20080217.GDT 11/19/10
The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines

between soil and rock types: in situ, the transition may be gradual. 3 1/4" ID HSA, then NQ2 Core, 2" OD SS, 140h
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft BORING STARTED 10-20-10

WL BORING COMPLETED 10-20-10
WL RIG Dietrich D120 FOREMAN JW
WL Not Encountered LOGGED MHK JOB # J2105219
CLIENT
SITE PROJECT
SAMPLES TESTS
SPT - Blows per 6"
STRENGTH, psf
USCS SYMBOL
RECOVERY, in.
OTHER TESTS
GRAPHIC LOG
UNCONFINED
CONTENT, %
DESCRIPTION
DEPTH, ft.
NUMBER
WATER
TYPE
pH
0.3 Topsoil 1 SS 12 2-3
5-5
SILT, with sand, trace roots, slightly plastic, brown, ML
2
stiff.
LEAN CLAY, highly plastic, gray, stiff. 5

CL 2 SS 18 5-7
11-13
8 (GLACIOLACUSTRINE DEPOSIT)
10
GM 3 SS 22 12-14
24-23
SILTY GRAVEL, with sand, gray-brown, medium

dense to dense.
15
GM 4 SS 22 10-12 14.9
14-15
(GLACIAL TILL)
19 Core Rate
(min./ft.)
20
2.5
3.0
1.5
2.5
LIMESTONE, slightly to moderately weathered, 2.5
occasional highly weathered seams, moderately to highly C1 C 118 RQD
25 45% 3.0
fractured, medium hard, fine grained, gray to dark gray.
2.5
3.0
3.0
(BEDROCK)
29 3.0


WL 9.5 AD 10 min. BORING COMPLETED 10-20-10
WL LOGGED MHK JOB # J2105219
CLIENT
SITE PROJECT
SAMPLES TESTS
SPT - Blows per 6"
STRENGTH, psf
USCS SYMBOL
RECOVERY, in.
OTHER TESTS
GRAPHIC LOG
UNCONFINED
CONTENT, %
DESCRIPTION
DEPTH, ft.
NUMBER
WATER
TYPE
pH
0.4 Topsoil 1 SS 16 1-1
2-3
LEAN CLAY, trace sand and roots, low plasticity, CL
2
brown, soft.
LEAN CLAY, highly plastic, gray, very stiff. 5

CL 2 SS 22 5-11
15-17
(GLACIOLACUSTRINE DEPOSIT) 10
10.5 CL 3 SS 6 11-50/1" 28.8
11 Weathered Bedrock Core Rate
C1 C 48 RQD
(min./ft.)
52%
1.5
1.5
1.5
15 2.0
C2 C 60 RQD
67% 1.5
1.5
1.5
2.0
20 2.0
LIMESTONE, slightly weathered, slightly to moderately C3 C 60 RQD
fractured, medium hard, fine-grained, gray to dark gray. 82% 2.0
2.0
Note: Highly weathered seam from 32 to 32.3.
2.0
2.0
25 2.0
C4 C 60 RQD
79% 2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
30 2.0
C5 C 60 RQD
87% 2.0
2.0
Continued Next Page


WL 21.7AD 60 hrs. 21.3 AD 3 wks. BORING COMPLETED 10-18-10
CLIENT
SITE PROJECT
SAMPLES TESTS
SPT - Blows per 6"
STRENGTH, psf
USCS SYMBOL
RECOVERY, in.
OTHER TESTS
GRAPHIC LOG
UNCONFINED
CONTENT, %
DESCRIPTION
DEPTH, ft.
NUMBER
WATER
TYPE
pH
2.0
2.0
35 2.0
C6 C 60 RQD
90% 2.0
2.0
2.0
LIMESTONE, slightly weathered, slightly to moderately
fractured, medium hard, fine-grained, gray to dark gray. 2.0
40 2.0
C7 C 60 RQD
80% 2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
45 2.0
C8 C 60 RQD
88% 2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
(BEDROCK)
50 2.0
50


WL 21.7AD 60 hrs. 21.3 AD 3 wks. BORING COMPLETED 10-18-10
CLIENT
SITE PROJECT
SAMPLES TESTS
SPT - Blows per 6"
STRENGTH, psf
USCS SYMBOL
RECOVERY, in.
OTHER TESTS
GRAPHIC LOG
UNCONFINED
CONTENT, %
DESCRIPTION
DEPTH, ft.
NUMBER
WATER
TYPE
pH
0.5 Topsoil 1 SS 20 1-1
2-4
LEAN CLAY, with sand, trace roots, low plasticity, CL
2
brown, soft.
5
CL 2 SS 22 4-3
7-10
LEAN CLAY, highly plastic, gray, stiff to very stiff.
10
CL 3 SS 22 4-6 30.1
7-10
15 Core Rate
15
15.5 Weathered bedrock 4 SS 6 14-50/0" 11.3
(min./ft.)
2
2
2
C1 C 115 RQD
81% 2.5
20
LIMESTONE, fresh to slightly weathered, slightly 2
fractured, medium hard, fine grained, gray to dark gray. 2.5
2
2
2
25.5 (BEDROCK) 25
2


CLIENT
SITE PROJECT
SAMPLES TESTS
SPT - Blows per 6"
STRENGTH, psf
USCS SYMBOL
RECOVERY, in.
OTHER TESTS
GRAPHIC LOG
UNCONFINED
CONTENT, %
DESCRIPTION
DEPTH, ft.
NUMBER
WATER
TYPE
pH
0.2 Topsoil 1 SS 16 1-0
1-4
SILT, trace sand and roots, low plasticity, brown, very ML
2
soft.
4 Weathered bedrock Core Rate
(min./ft.)
5
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.5
LIMESTONE, slightly to moderately weathered, 2.0
occasional highly weathered seams, moderately to highly C1 C 98 RQD 19350
10 17% 2.0
fractured, medium hard, fine grained, gray to dark gray.
2.5
2.5
2.0
(BEDROCK)
14 2.5


CLIENT
SITE PROJECT
SAMPLES TESTS
SPT - Blows per 6"
STRENGTH, psf
USCS SYMBOL
RECOVERY, in.
OTHER TESTS
GRAPHIC LOG
UNCONFINED
CONTENT, %
DESCRIPTION
DEPTH, ft.
NUMBER
WATER
TYPE
pH
0.2 Topsoil 1 SS 18 1-1
2-2
CL
5
CL 2 SS 20 4-7
8-12
LEAN CLAY, highly plastic, gray, soft to very stiff.

10
CL 3 SS 22 3-3 37.6
3-3
15
CL 4 SS 22 2-2 LL=48
2-2 PL=18
(GLACIOLACUSTRINE DEPOSIT) Core Rate

18.5
(min./ft.)
2.5
20
3.0
3.5
3.5
LIMESTONE, fresh to slightly weathered, slightly C1 C 120 RQD 4.0
fractured, medium hard, fine grained, gray to dark gray. 73%
4.0
25
4.0
4.0
4.0
(BEDROCK)
28.5 4.0


CLIENT
SITE PROJECT
SAMPLES TESTS
SPT - Blows per 6"
STRENGTH, psf
USCS SYMBOL
RECOVERY, in.
OTHER TESTS
GRAPHIC LOG
UNCONFINED
CONTENT, %
DESCRIPTION
DEPTH, ft.
NUMBER
WATER
TYPE
pH
0.3 Topsoil 1 SS 20 2-3
3-5
LEAN CLAY, trace sand and roots, low plasticity, CL
2
brown, medium stiff.
LEAN CLAY, highly plastic, gray-brown, very stiff. 5

CL 2 SS 20 8-8
12-16
8 (GLACIOLACUSTRINE DEPOSIT)
Core Rate
C1 C 24 RQD 7450 (min./ft.)
75%
2.0
10 3.0
C2 C 60 RQD
88% 3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
15 3.5
LIMESTONE, fresh to slightly weathered, slightly C3 C 60 RQD
fractured, medium hard, fine grained, gray to dark gray. 93% 3.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
20 3.0
C4 C 60 RQD
95% 3.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
25 3.0
C5 C 60 RQD
91% 2.5
2.5
3.0
3.0
30 3.0
C6 C 60 RQD
95% 2.5
3.0
Continued Next Page


WL 3.7 AD 36 hrs. 2.0 AD 3 wks. BORING COMPLETED 10-19-10
CLIENT
SITE PROJECT
SAMPLES TESTS
SPT - Blows per 6"
STRENGTH, psf
USCS SYMBOL
RECOVERY, in.
OTHER TESTS
GRAPHIC LOG
UNCONFINED
CONTENT, %
DESCRIPTION
DEPTH, ft.
NUMBER
WATER
TYPE
pH
2.5
3.0
35 3.0
C7 C 60 RQD
96% 3.0
3.0
3.0
LIMESTONE, fresh to slightly weathered, slightly
40 2.5
C8 C 60 RQD
95% 2.5
2.5
3.0
2.5
45 2.5
C9 C 60 RQD
93% 3.0
2.5
3.0
2.5
(BEDROCK)
50 3.0
50


WL 3.7 AD 36 hrs. 2.0 AD 3 wks. BORING COMPLETED 10-19-10
CLIENT
SITE PROJECT
SAMPLES TESTS
SPT - Blows per 6"
STRENGTH, psf
USCS SYMBOL
RECOVERY, in.
OTHER TESTS
GRAPHIC LOG
UNCONFINED
CONTENT, %
DESCRIPTION
DEPTH, ft.
NUMBER
WATER
TYPE
pH
0.5 Topsoil 1 SS 10 1-1
2-2
LEAN CLAY, highly plastic, gray-brown, soft. CL
3 Core Rate
(min./ft.)
3.0
5 2.0
C1 C 60 RQD 14850 2.5
92%
3.0
LIMESTONE, fresh to slightly weathered, slightly 3.0
10 3.5
C2 C 60 RQD 3.0
95%
3.5
(BEDROCK)
13 5.5


Field Exploration Description
Terracon monitored the advancement of eight test borings between October 18 and 21, 2010. The
explorations 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 3¼-inch inside diameter
hollow stem augers and terminated at refusal on bedrock. The borings were further advanced into
the bedrock using an NQ2 core barrel.
In the split-barrel sampling procedure, which was used to take soil samples, the number of blows
required 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 inches
is the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance value “N”. This “N” value is used to estimate
the 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 core
boxes, 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, relative
density 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 included
visual 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 with
this report represent further interpretation by the geotechnical engineer of the field logs and
incorporate, 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.
Exhibit A-4
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory Testing
Descriptive classifications of the soils indicated on the exploration logs are in accordance with
the enclosed General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). USCS symbols
are 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), Atterberg

limits (ASTM D4318), rock compressive strength (ASTM D7012, Method C), grain size
distribution (ASTM D422), pH (ASTM D4972), and electrical resistivity (ASTM G57), was
performed 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 and
electrical resistivity testing are included in the body of the report.
Exhibit B-1
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
ASTM TEST METHOD: D422
#100
#200
2.50
#10
#18
#20
#40
#60
3.5
1.5
3/4
1/2
3/8
1/4
#4
8
1
100
90
% Passing (Total Sample)
80 Specification Minimum
Specification Maximum
70
PERCENT FINER
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100.0
0.100
10.0
1.00
0.01
GRAIN SIZE -- mm
% Cobbles % Gravel Coarse Medium Fine % Fines
33.3 16.7 50.0 Silt (>0.002mm) Clay (<0.002mm)
0.0 0.0 % Sand 3.4 96.6
Classification: Lean clay, grey
Sieve Size U.S. Sieve Size Cumulative % Passing % Passing Specification

(mm) (in.) Wt. Retained (Total Sample)(Sand Portion)Minimum Maximum
200.0 8" 100 100
125.0 5"
90.0 3.5"
57.0 2.25" 100.0 70 100
50.0 2"
37.5 1.5"
25.0 1"
19.0 3/4" 100.0 45 95
12.5 1/2"
9.5 3/8"
6.3 1/4"
4.75 #4 0 100.0 30 90
2.00 #10 2 98.9 25 80
1.00 #18
0.425 #40 3 98.3 10 50
0.250 #60
0.150 #100 5 97.2
0.075 #200 6 96.6 0 12
Total Dry Wt. 178

Split Wt.
Project: Cape Vincent Wind Farm Project No.: J2105219 Date: 10/26/2010
City: Cape Vincent, New York Specification: Structural Fill Report No: J2105219.0001
Source: JB-42, SS-3 Sampled from: 10 to 12 feet
201 Hammer Mill Road Remarks:
Rocky Hill, CT 06067
860-721-1900 (p) 860-721-1939 (f) Tested By: M.K. Date: 10/26/2010
http://www.terracon.com/ Reviewed By: S.C.L Date: 10/28/2010
ASTM D422GSP1,Rev 1
APPENDIX C
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
GENERAL NOTES
DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS:

3
SS: Split Spoon - 1- /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 Bit
BS: 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 Removal
WCI: Wet Cave in WD: While Drilling ACR: After Casing Removal
DCI: 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. In
low 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 Soils
have 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 are
plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may
be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are defined on the
basis 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 Standard Penetration Standard Penetration
Compressive or N-value (SS) Consistency or N-value (SS) Relative Density
Strength, Qu, psf Blows/Ft. Blows/Ft.
< 500 0-1 Very Soft 0–3 Very Loose
500 – 1,000 2-4 Soft 4–9 Loose
1,000 – 2,000 4-8 Medium Stiff 10 – 29 Medium Dense
2,000 – 4,000 8 - 15 Stiff 30 – 50 Dense
4,000 – 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) Percent of Major Component
Particle Size
of other constituents Dry Weight of Sample
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 DESCRIPTION

Descriptive Term(s) Per ent of Plasticity
Term
of other constituents Dry Weight Index
Trace <5 Non-plastic 0
With 5 – 12 Low 1-10
Modifier > 12 Medium 11-30
High > 30
Exhibit C-1
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Soil Classification
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Group B
Group Name
Symbol
F
Cu t 4 and 1 d Cc d 3
E
Gravels: Clean Gravels: GW Well-graded gravel
More than 50% of C F
Cu 4 and/or 1 ! Cc ! 3
E
Less than 5% fines GP Poorly graded gravel
coarse F,G, H
Gravels with Fines: Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel
Coarse Grained Soils: fraction retained on C F,G,H
More than 12% fines Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel
More than 50% retained No. 4 sieve
I
Cu t 6 and 1 d Cc d 3
E
Sands: Clean Sands: SW Well-graded sand
on No. 200 sieve D I
Cu 6 and/or 1 ! Cc ! 3
E
50% or more of coarse Less than 5% fines SP Poorly graded sand
G,H,I
fraction passes Sands with Fines: Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand
No. 4 sieve More than 12% fines
D
Fines Classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand
G,H,I
K,L,M
PI ! 7 and plots on or above “A” line
J
CL Lean clay
Inorganic: K,L,M
PI 4 or plots below “A” line
J
Silts and Clays: ML Silt
K,L,M,N
Liquid limit less than 50 Liquid limit - oven dried Organic clay
Fine-Grained Soils: Organic: 0.75 OL K,L,M,O
Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt
50% or more passes the K,L,M
No. 200 sieve PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay
Inorganic: K,L,M
Silts and Clays: PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt
K,L,M,P
Liquid limit 50 or more Liquid limit - oven dried Organic clay
Organic: 0.75 OH K,L,M,Q
Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt
Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat
A H
Based on the material passing the 3-in. (75-mm) sieve If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.
B I
If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles If soil contains t 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.
J
or boulders, or both” to group name. If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.
C K
Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with
gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly gravel,” whichever is predominant.
L
graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay. If soil contains t 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add “sandy”
D
Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded to group name.
sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded M
If soil contains t 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add
sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay “gravelly” to group name.
N
(D 30 )
2 PI t 4 and plots on or above “A” line.
O
E
Cu = D60/D10 Cc = PI 4 or plots below “A” line.
P
D10 x D 60 PI plots on or above “A” line.
Q
F PI plots below “A” line.
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.
Exhibit C-2
GENERAL NOTES
Description 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 show
bright. 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 are
dull 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 majority
show kaolinization. Rock shows severe loss of strength and can be excavated with geologist’s pick.
Severe All rock except quartz discolored or stained. Rock “fabric” clear and evident, but reduced in strength to
strong soil. In granitoid rocks, all feldspars kaolinized to some extent. Some fragments of strong rock
usually left.
Very severe All rock except quartz discolored or stained. Rock “fabric” discernible, but mass effectively reduced to “soil”
with only fragments of strong rock remaining.
Complete Rock reduced to ”soil”. Rock “fabric” not discernible or discernible only in small, scattered locations. Quartz
may be present as dikes or stringers.
HARDNESS (for engineering description of rock – not to be confused with Moh’s scale for minerals)
Very hard Cannot be scratched with knife or sharp pick. Breaking of hand specimens requires several hard blows of
geologist’s pick.
Hard Can be scratched with knife or pick only with difficulty. Hard blow of hammer required to detach hand
specimen.
Moderately hard Can be scratched with knife or pick. Gouges or grooves to ¼ in. deep can be excavated by hard blow of
point of a geologist’s pick. Hand specimens can be detached by moderate blow.
Medium Can be grooved or gouged 1/16 in. deep by firm pressure on knife or pick point. Can be excavated in small
chips to pieces about 1-in. maximum size by hard blows of the point of a geologist’s pick.
Soft Can be gouged or grooved readily with knife or pick point. Can be excavated in chips to pieces several
inches in size by moderate blows of a pick point. Small thin pieces can be broken by finger pressure.
Very soft Can be carved with knife. Can be excavated readily with point of pick. Pieces 1-in. or more in thickness can
be broken with finger pressure. Can be scratched readily by fingernail.
a
Joint, Bedding and Foliation Spacing in Rock
Spacing Joints Bedding/Foliation
Less than 2 in. Very close Very thin
2 in. – 1 ft. Close Thin
1 ft. – 3 ft. Moderately close Medium
3 ft. – 10 ft. Wide Thick
More than 10 ft. Very wide Very thick
b
Rock Quality Designator (RQD) Joint Openness Descriptors
RQD, as a percentage Diagnostic description Openness Descriptor
Exceeding 90 Excellent No Visible Separation Tight
90 – 75 Good Less than 1/32 in. Slightly Open
75 – 50 Fair 1/32 to 1/8 in. Moderately Open
50 – 25 Poor 1/8 to 3/8 in. Open
Less than 25 Very poor 3/8 in. to 0.1 ft. Moderately Wide
Greater than 0.1 ft. Wide
a. Spacing refers to the distance normal to the planes, of the described feature, which are parallel to each other or nearly so.
b. RQD (given as a percentage) = length of core in pieces 4 in. and longer/length of run.
References: American Society of Civil Engineers. Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice - No. 56. Subsurface Investigation for Design
and Construction of Foundations of Buildings. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1976.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering Geology Field Manual.
Exhibit C-3

BP SDEIS App E Preliminary Geo Report-Terracon 11-19-10 Cape Vincent

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

BP SDEIS App E Preliminary Geo Report-Terracon 11-19-10 Cape Vincent

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report - Terracon

Environmental Resources Management Southwest, Inc.

BP Wind Energy – North America

Attn: Ms. Sarah Nournia, P.E. – Civil/Structural Engineer, Technical Authority

Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report

Dear Ms. Nournia:

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

APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION

Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative

The purpose of these services is to provide information and preliminary geotechnical

 subsurface soil conditions  foundation design and construction

In addition to these recommendations, we have included our recommendations for additional

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 1

Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 2

2.2 Site Location and Description

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS AND CONDITIONS

3.1 Typical Profile

Approximate Depth to Consistency / Relative

Silty gravel, with sand, Medium dense to very

Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 3

Laboratory testing, consisting of moisture content determinations (ASTM D2216), Atterberg

Approximate Depth to Approximate Depth to Groundwater

JB-21 9.5 NA1

JB-31 21.7 21.3

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

Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 4

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 5

4.2 Potential Karst Conditions

4.3 Soil Corrosion Potential

Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 6

4.4.1 Site Preparation

Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 7

4.4.2 Material Types

Fill Type 1 USCS Classification Acceptable Location for Placement

4.4.3 Compaction Requirements

Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 8

4.4.4 Utility Trench Backfill

4.4.5 Construction Considerations

Bedrock excavation by non-explosive methods, such as a hoe-mounted ram or large excavator,

Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 9

As a minimum, temporary excavations should be sloped or braced, as required by Occupational

4.5 Foundation Recommendations

Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 10

recommendations and construction considerations for the recommended foundation systems

4.5.1 Preliminary Design Recommendations – Shallow Foundations

4.5.2 Construction Considerations – Shallow Foundations

Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 11

Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 12

4.5.3 Preliminary Design Recommendations – Drilled Shaft Foundation

4.5.4 Construction Considerations – Drilled Shaft Foundation

Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 13

4.6 Seismic Considerations

1. In general accordance with Section 1615.

4.7 Site Access Drives

4.7.1 Design Recommendations

Surface Course Base Course Subbase Course Total Thickness

Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 14

Pavement Component Specification

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

subsurface soil conditions foundation design and construction

Grade roadway surface to promote drainage to the side of the road;

Subsurface investigation at each WTG and substation location and at regular