Attachment F - GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.pdf

Ulster County Department of Emergency Services 238 Golden Hill Lane, Kingston, NY 12401

Attention: Mr. Steven J. Peterson Project Manager (Via email: spet@co.ulster.ny.us)

November 25, 2024

RE: W.O. 12701.ROSENDALE

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED 190-FOOT-HIGH SELF SUPPORT TOWER

1915 LUCAS AVENUE

HAMLET OF COTTEKILL, TOWN OF ROSENDALE, ULSTER COUNTY, NEW YORK

Dear Mr. Peterson, Tectonic Engineering Consultants, Geologists & Land Surveyors, D.P.C. (Tectonic) has performed a subsurface investigation and geotechnical engineering analyses for the foundations of the proposed tower and associated appurtenances, at the above referenced site. This report presents our findings and recommendations for the design and construction of the foundations for the proposed tower and appurtenances.

1.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

The proposed tower is a self-support tower (SST) that will be used to mount emergency service communication equipment. It is expected that the SST foundation will be subjected to compressive and uplift loading, while the overturning loading will be modest in comparison. The actual loads from the SST tower are to be determined by others.

-222-H), it shall be permissible to determine seismic design parameters from the ASCE 7 online Hazard Tool based on ASCE 7-16. Additionally, it is our understanding that the SST is categorized as Risk Category III.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The proposed project site (site) is a rectangular shaped 7,000 square foot (sf) fenced gravel compound located at the above referenced address. The site is generally bound by undeveloped wooded land on all sides with an adjacent section of cleared, undeveloped, land northeast of the tower site along the western edge of the proposed access road. The existing Rosendale Police Department facility and municipal office building is located approximately 400-feet north of the project site. Topographic data presented within the project documents, entitled Pr th , 2024, indicates the site generally slopes to the north with existing elevations between +305 and +311 feet. The tower site is proposed at approximate coordinates 41.847117 N, -

74.109864 E, at an approximate elevation of +308 feet. All elevations listed herein are approximate and are in reference to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88).

mailto:spet@co.ulster.ny.us

W.O. # 12701.ROSENDALE Page 2 November 25, 2024

The proposed construction will include the SST, an equipment shelter, a generator, propane tank, and associated appurtenances in a proposed 70- by 100-foot fenced gravel compound. The proposed tower will be located near the approximate center of the compound, with the shelter, generator, and associated appurtenances to the east and north of the tower. Although a grading plan was not available as of the preparation of this report, no significant cutting or filling is anticipated to construct the tower. Access to the site will be provided by a proposed approximately 800-foot long, 10-foot-wide, gravel access drive that connects directly to an existing parking lot located to the north of site, within the existing Rosendale Police Department and municipal office facility.

3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

The subsurface investigation consisted of advancing six (6) test borings, designated as B-1 through B-6, the performance of two (2) soil resistivity tests, designated as TEST-1 and TEST-2, and one (1) infiltration test, designated as INF-1. Boring B-2 was advanced at the approximate proposed tower center, B-1 within the proposed tower compound, and B-3 through B-6 were advanced along the proposed access drive alignment. The approximate boring, infiltration test, and soil resistivity test locations are shown on the attached Boring, Infiltration, and Soil Resistivity Test Location Plan, Figure 1.

The borings were performed by Land, Air, Water Environmental Services, Inc., on October 31 st , and November 1 st

2024 using a Mobile B61 HCX truck-mounted drill rig, equipped with a donut hammer. The borings were advanced to depths ranging from 1.2 to 11 feet below ground surface (bgs) using 4-1/2-inch diameter hollow stem augers.

Within the borings, Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) was performed using standard 2-inch diameter split-spoon samplers Penetration Test and Split- -N values of the soil samples taken were recorded.

Where bedrock was encountered within borings B-1 and B-2, an NX (2-inch I.D.) double-tube core barrel, equipped with a diamond-impregnated core bit was used to collect samples of the bedrock. Five (5) feet of rock core was collected within boring B-1 and B-2, between the depths of 4.5 to 9.5 feet bgs, and 6 to 11 feet bgs, respectively.

Samples of the soil and rock obtained during the investigation were collected and retained in glass jars and are currently stored at our material testing laboratory. Upon completion, the borings were backfilled with drill cuttings to generally match existing conditions. Groundwater conditions were monitored during and upon completion of drilling.

Soil resistivity and infiltration testing was performed at the site on November 1, 2024. The infiltration testing was performed in general accordance with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Appendix D guidelines and resistivity testing was performed in general conformance with ASTM Standard G57.

Infiltration testing consisted of one (1) infiltration test performed within a 4-inch diameter borehole advanced to 2-feet bgs. Soil resistivity testing consisted of the performance of two (2) Wenner arrays, designated as Test 1 and Test 2. The soil resistivity tests were performed approximately perpendicular to each other, bisecting the approximate center of the proposed tower location. The infiltration and resistivity testing are further discussed in Sections 7 and 8.

The subsurface investigation was observed on a full-time basis by a Tectonic representative, working under the supervision of a New York State licensed Professional Engineer. The representative also classified soil and rock samples as they were recovered; collected representative soil samples for laboratory testing; prepared logs of the soil, rock, and groundwater conditions encountered; performed infiltration testing; and performed the soil resistivity testing. All soil and rock were field classified in accordance with the New York State Building Code (Code), the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), as detailed in ASTM D2488, and the Modified Burmister Soil Classification System. The boring, soil resistivity, and infiltration test logs are attached.

W.O. # 12701.ROSENDALE Page 3 November 25, 2024

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory testing consisted of one (1) soil corrosivity test and four (4) grain size distribution analyses performed in general accordance with ASTM D6913. The corrosivity testing was performed on a bulk soil sample, collected from a depth of about 2 to 4 feet bgs, to identify the chloride and sulfate contents, and the pH of the soils. The soil corrosivity testing was performed by Phoenix Environmental Laboratories, Inc., of Manchester, Connecticut. The results of the laboratory testing are attached.

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Subsurface conditions within all borings generally consisted of topsoil like material overlying a thin layer of sands and silts extending to relatively shallow bedrock. The following is a general description of the encountered subsurface conditions. Detailed descriptions can be found on the attached boring logs.

As noted in Section 3 above, a donut hammer was used by the driller to perform the standard penetration tests. An energy correction is typically applied to convert the field N-values measured with the donut hammer to those of a safety hammer (N60-values), which is the standard used for most geotechnical engineering analyses. A donut hammer typically applies approximately 0.75 times the energy to the soils than a safety hammer (because of its relative inefficiency), and subsequently, a correction factor of 0.75 has been applied to the field N-values reported on the boring logs, to calculate the N60-values reported herein.

All borings were advanced through native overburden soils until split spoon refusal, which is defined as less than 6 inches of sampler penetration for 50 blows of the hammer, or auger refusal was encountered at depths of approximately 1.2 to 6 feet bgs. The thin native soils consist of alternating sandy silts and silty sands with approximately 7 to 20 percent coarse-to-fine gravel. Field SPT N-values within the native soils range from 7 to 73 blows per foot (bpf), corresponding to energy correct N60-values of 5 to 55 bpf, indicating these soils are in a loose to very dense condition. Bedrock was cored within borings B-1 and B-2 at approximate depths of 4.5 to 9.5 feet and 6 to 11 feet bgs, respectively. Dark-gray, slightly weathered, moderately fractured, coarse-to-fine grained, hard chert bedrock was encountered. Recovery (REC) ranged from approximately 90 to 93 percent with Rock Quality Designation (RQD) values ranging from approximately 75 to 85 percent, indicating the rock is of good quality. Borings B-3 through B-6, performed within the proposed access drive encountered consistent thin native overburden soils and shallow sampler and auger refusal on apparent bedrock or cobble/boulder obstructions.

Table 5-1 below summarizes the approximate depths and elevations to bedrock/auger refusal within the borings.

TABLE 5-1

Boring (B)

Designation

Approximate Boring

Surface Elevation

(NAVD88) (1)

Refusal Depth

BGS (ft.) (1)

B-1 +306 4.5 (2)

B-2 +307 6 (2)

B-3 +307 5.3 (3)

B-4 +300 3 3)

B-5 +299 4.2

B-6 +289 1.2

(1) Depths and elevations are approximate. Elevations are based on survey data provided in project documents.

(2) Bedrock confirmed by coring.

(3) Bedrock is inferred at refusal depth, not cored. Could also be cobble or boulder obstructions.

W.O. # 12701.ROSENDALE Page 4 November 25, 2024

Saturated soil conditions were not encountered during drilling activities. It should be noted that groundwater levels will fluctuate with variations in rainfall and with season and may be encountered in a perched condition within the fine-grained soils and overlying the bedrock.

6.0 SOIL CORROSIVITY TESTING

As noted, chemical testing was performed on a composite soil sample to evaluate the chloride and sulfate contents, pH, and electrical resistivity of the native soils. Testing was performed on a composite sample collected from the native soils. The chemical testing was performed by Pheonix Environmental Laboratories, Inc. at their testing facility in Manchester, Connecticut. Table 6-1 summarizes the results of the laboratory testing. Additional details are presented within the attached laboratory report.

Table 6-1 Corrosivity Test Results

Soil Type Sample

No.

Depth

(ft)

Chloride

Content

(mg/kg(1,2))

Sulfate

Content

(mg/kg(1,2) pH

Native Composite 0 to 6 <57 <57 5.70

Notes:

1. The ratio mg/kg is equal to parts per million (ppm).

2. Content values preceded with a less than symbol (<) indicate that the content was below the detectable limit.

7.0 RESISTIVITY TESTING

The resistivity testing was performed with an AEMC Industries Model 6472 digital Ground Resistance Tester, using

1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 25 feet. The data presented below in Table 7-1 includes the

Wenner array method, represents the average earth resistivity of a hemisphere of soil having a radius equal to the

ng. Resistivity test logs are attached.

Table 7-1 - Resistivity Test Results

-Cm)

Array

Number

Electrode Spacing

1 Ft 2 Ft 4 Ft 6 Ft 8 Ft 25 Ft

Test 1 392598 555382 435113 245900 194575 248007

Test 2 379192 616666 450434 364254 222153 216407

8.0 INFILTRATION TESTING

The infiltration testing was performed in accordance with NYSDEC Stormwater Management Design Manual Appendix D procedures on November 11, 2024. The infiltration test hole consisted of a 4-inch diameter PVC pipe placed within a borehole at a depth of 2 feet bgs. Four consecutive tests were performed yielding a stable infiltration rate of 12.0 inches per hour. The infiltration test log is attached.

W.O. # 12701.ROSENDALE Page 5 November 25, 2024

9.0 SITE CLASS AND SEISMIC SITE COEFFICIENTS

Based on the results of the subsurface investigation and the criteria outlined in the current edition of the New York State Building Code and TIA-222-H, the subsurface conditions underlying the site should be considered Class C. The associated seismic design parameters from the ASCE 7-16 are attached.

10.0 TOWER FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Due to the presence of relatively shallow bedrock, it is recommended that the proposed tower be supported on a mat foundation (pad and pier). Alternately, the SST can be supported on drilled shafts socketed into the encountered bedrock. Recommendations for both mat and drilled shaft foundations are provided below.

10.1 Mat Foundation Design Recommendations:

A single mat foundation, bearing directly on competent bedrock should be sized using a net allowable bearing capacity of 8 tons per square foot (tsf). Alternatively, a single mat foundation bearing on soil at a minimum depth of 4 feet bgs, should be sized using a net allowable bearing capacity of 2 tsf.

Bedrock was encountered within the general area of the tower footprint at depths ranging from 4.5 to 6 feet bgs. Where a mat foundation is to bear on soil and bedrock is encountered above the proposed bearing elevation, rock shall be undercut by a minimum of 1-foot and replaced with compacted crushed stone backfill.

Recommendations for rock anchor design, if required, can be found in Section 10.3 of this report. The maximum compressive pressure at the edges of the foundation that occur because of overturning loads should not exceed the above recommended bearing capacity value for bedrock, or soil subgrades. The dimensions and depth of embedment of the foundation should be established by the design engineer to provide sufficient resistance to the design loads. If required, where bearing on bedrock, lean concrete fill with a minimum compressive strength of 2,000 pounds per square inch (psi), or a maximum 6-inch layer of crushed stone, may be utilized to level or shim the bedrock surface prior to placement of the mat foundation.

The rock or soil subgrade should be confirmed by the Tectonic geotechnical engineer prior to placing any steel or concrete, and prior to performing any other construction activities, other than excavation. The calculation of sliding resistance at the base of the mat should incorporate a sliding (friction) coefficient of 0.6 for concrete cast directly against competent bedrock. The passive earth pressure resistance along the sides of the foundation can be calculated using the following properties:

Lateral Parameters Existing Soil Structural Fill Bedrock

120 130 150

Kp 2.77* 3.54* 4.60

28° 34° 40°

Where, = design unit weight of soil (pounds per cubic foot).

= angle of internal friction (degrees).

Kp = passive earth pressure coefficient.

* Passive pressure should be reduced above a depth of 4ft to account for frost disturbance

W.O. # 12701.ROSENDALE Page 6 November 25, 2024

Based on the information gathered during drilling activities, groundwater is not anticipated to impact the design of the mat, however, localized dewatering may be required to remove perched water or infiltrating surface water if it is encountered within the fine-grained soils or overlying bedrock after periods of wet weather.

10.2 Mat Foundation Construction Considerations

The foundation subgrade should be prepared by excavating to the bearing depth using hydraulic excavation equipment or other methods as discussed in Section 11.2 and using hand equipment to remove all soil and broken rock materials loosened by excavation. The subgrade should then be inspected by the geotechnical engineer to verify that the materials are consistent with those described in this report. Any unsuitable materials (soil or rock other than those recommended for bearing) should be removed as directed by the geotechnical engineer. The area of removal should be within the zone of influence of the foundation as defined in the above section.

If bearing directly on bedrock, bedrock encountered above proposed bearing elevation should be removed and prepared in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 11 below, to create a level bearing surface. Contractors involved in the excavation for the foundation should be prepared for the need for rock removal.

Any new fill slopes should be constructed on a slope inclination no steeper than 3 to 1 (Horizontal to Vertical) unless a detailed slope stability evaluation is performed. The sides of the excavation should be sloped back for safety unless a sheeting or bracing system is used. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and other applicable agency requirements pertaining to worker safety should be met during the excavation activities.

10.3 Rock Anchor Design Recommendations

If required, rock anchor materials and installation procedures should conform to the recommendations of the Post-

) except as modified in this report. Rock anchors should consist of minimum Grade 150 prestressing steel thread bars conforming to ASTM A722. Rock anchors should have a minimum 15 feet long free stressing length for steel strands, and 10 feet for bars. The free stressing length of the anchor should be greased and encased in a plastic sheath to prohibit bonding of the bar and rock during grouting.

For the bedrock encountered within the site, an ultimate grout-to-ground bond stress of 200 psi is recommended. A recommended factor of safety of 2.0 should be applied when calculating allowable bond capacities. To mitigate potential cone-breakout of rock anchors in uplift, related to geologic discontinuities, a minimum rock embedment length of 5-feet is recommended. These recommendations pertain to geotechnical considerations only.

The rock anchors should be installed in a drilled hole, having a minimum diameter of 4 inches. Anchor holes should be drilled 1-foot longer than the total anchor length (free stressing length plus anchor bond length).

Centralizers should be provided to ensure a minimum ½ inch grout cover around the anchor. If lean concrete is used to level the foundation subgrade, this should be placed prior to anchor installation and allowed to cure so as to have sufficient strength to resist the prestress loads.

W.O. # 12701.ROSENDALE Page 7 November 25, 2024

The water tightness of the fractured rock should be determined by in-situ testing at each anchor hole location prior to installation. This testing is required to control loss of grout which could affect corrosion protection and bonding of the anchor. Constant head permeability testing should be employed. Testing should consist of maintaining a water pressure of 5 psi (11.5 feet head) in the holes for a minimum of 10 minutes. Pre-grouting should be employed to waterproof holes prior to anchor installation if the rate of water loss exceeds 0.5 gallons per minute. The grout should be allowed to set for a minimum of 24 hours prior to redrilling the holes and retesting. The process should be repeated until the rate of water loss is less than

0.5 gallons per minute.

On acceptance of the hole, the anchor assembly should be installed in the drilled hole (through the leveling pad, if used) and grouted for the full length with neat cement grout. The grout should be a non-shrink grout with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 6,000 psi.

All rock anchors should be proof tested to 120 percent of the design load under the observation of the geotechnical engineer. The proof testing should be performed by means of a hydraulic jack capable of tensioning the anchor under the observation of the geotechnical engineer. The proof load should be held for a minimum period of 5 minutes. If the bolt shows no sign of yielding during the 5-minute hold period, the anchor should be locked off at the design load with a stop type coupling against a bearing plate bearing on the lean concrete leveling pad or the bedrock surface. Load transfer to the foundation(s) should be made using a coupled length of anchor with plates embedded in the foundation(s).

Spacing of rock anchors should not be less than ½ D where D is the bonded length of anchor. Should site restrictions or design require anchor spacing less than ½ D, the specific anchor layout should be analyzed to determine the group capacity.

10.4 Drilled Shaft Recommendations

Drilled shaft foundations can also be used for foundation support. The drilled shafts should be designed to derive their entire axial support from the encountered bedrockThe drilled shaft diameter, reinforcing and embedment depth will depend upon the design loads and will be determined by the design engineer. To resist axial loads, the rock socket should be designed utilizing an ultimate bond stress between the concrete and the sides of the rock socket of 200 psi. This represents an ultimate bond capacity, minimum recommended factors of safety of 2.0 for compression and 3.0 for uplift should be applied by the designer.

Drilled shafts should be constructed under the full-time observation of the geotechnical engineer to verify subsurface conditions during construction and embedment depth of the drilled shaft.

10.5 Recommendations for Concrete Pad Foundations

The associated appurtenances can be supported on a concrete slab turned down at the edges a minimum of 12 inches (designed by others). The pad should overlie a minimum 12 inches of crushed stone conforming with New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Standard Specifications, Section 733-Earthwork Materials, Table 733-04A, Type 2, on an approved compacted soil subgrade. It is recommended that the approved soil subgrade be covered with a separation fabric (Mirafi 140N, or similar) prior to the placement of crushed stone or concrete.

11.0 EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA

The following sections present our recommendations regarding earthwork and construction monitoring.

W.O. # 12701.ROSENDALE Page 8 November 25, 2024

11.1 General Site Preparation

Initially, the site should be stripped of all topsoil-like material and organics, debris, and vegetation. Debris and vegetation from the clearing operations should be removed from the site and disposed of at a legal dump site. All soils, loose rock, and subsurface obstructions, should be removed from the mat foundation footprint where bearing directly on bedrock.

If encountered, any existing utilities within the project limits should be excavated and re-routed or removed.

The resulting excavations should be backfilled with structural fill in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 11.5. Trench excavations should be properly benched to allow for adequate compaction.

11.2 Rock Excavations

Bedrock is present at relatively shallow depths at the project site. Excavation of rock is expected and should be performed in a manner that will minimize damage to underlying bedrock. Bedrock should be removed to create a level bearing surface. Contractors involved in the excavation for the foundation should anticipate the need for rock removal. The feasibility and methodology for rock removal should be developed by an experienced qualified contractor or a specialist, and it should be performed in a manner that will minimize damage to underlying bedrock that will serve as foundation subgrades.

Where feasible, rock excavation should be performed by ripping techniques. Other methods, including controlled blasting, hydraulic hoe-ramming, rock trenching, or expansive chemical grout, should also be considered as potential means for the rock excavation. It should be noted that blasting of the rock may be feasible, if required. If blasting is selected, it should be performed by a qualified contractor in accordance with all applicable standards, and consideration should be given to the relatively close proximity of the proposed tower to the existing tower. In addition, local permits will likely be required for blasting. Rock removal should also be conducted in a manner that will minimize ground vibrations at adjacent structures.

Depending on the final location and method of rock excavation selected, consideration should be given to a construction phase monitoring program. If required, pre- and -post construction surveys should be completed, and baseline vibration readings established, prior to any rock excavation activities. Additionally, if deemed necessary, vibration monitoring should be performed at sensitive structures throughout the duration of all rock excavation activities. Final and temporary cuts in bedrock should be thoroughly scaled to remove any loose rock blocks.

11.3 Soil Subgrade Preparation

Soil subgrades should be inspected by the geotechnical engineer prior to the placement of backfill or concrete. Any soil deemed unsuitable by the geotechnical engineer, or areas found to be soft/loose during proofrolling, should be removed and replaced with properly compacted controlled fill.

All subgrades, and any surfaces to receive backfill, crushed stone, or concrete, should be proofrolled under the observation of the geotechnical engineer. Proofrolling should be performed under the observation of the geotechnical engineer, by making a minimum of four (4) passes in perpendicular directions with a 5-ton static roller, in open areas, or a 1.5-ton trench roller, where access is confined, to verify that the subgrade is in a firm, stable and unyielding condition. Site soils contain an appreciable amount of fines and preparation of soil subgrades in wet or cold weather will be exceedingly difficult, accordingly. Care should be take to protect exposed soil subgrades from conditions that may lead to saturation. Proofrolling should not be performed on saturated soils or in areas having freestanding surface water, until they are dewatered and allowed to dry. Proofrolling soils that exceed the optimum moisture content may disturb the soils, W.O. # 12701.ROSENDALE Page 9 November 25, 2024 resulting in more unfavorable conditions. Once proofrolling, and any resulting remedial removals and replacements, are complete, a minimum 6-inches of crushed stone, or structural fill, should be placed and compacted prior to pouring of concrete.

11.4 Rock Subgrade Preparation

All rock subgrades, if applicable, should be inspected by the Tectonic geotechnical engineer prior to the placement of structural fill, steel, or concrete. The foundation subgrade should be prepared by excavating to the bearing depth using methods discussed above and using hand equipment to remove all soil and broken rock materials loosened by excavation. Rock subgrades should be prepared approximately level and they should be cleaned of all soil materials and rock fragments. The subgrade should then be inspected by the Tectonic geotechnical engineer to verify that the materials are consistent with those described in this report. Any unsuitable materials (other than those recommended for bearing) should be removed as directed by the Tectonic geotechnical engineer. Over-excavated or uneven areas within the subgrade can be filled with lean concrete having a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 2,000 psi. If lean concrete is used to provide a level subgrade, the Tectonic geotechnical engineer should evaluate the degree and direction of the slope of the rock surface and their variation over the area of the leveling pad to determine the stability of the leveling pad relative to sliding failure along the concrete-bedrock interface. If it is determined that the leveling pad is unstable due to shear forces resulting from a sloping rock surface, the bedrock surface should be stepped or dowels should be installed to resist the sliding forces.

11.5 Backfill Materials

The existing native soils were identified to have appreciable amounts of silt (fines) and are therefore not suitable for structural fill to be used around the mat foundation.

these soils may be tested and used as backfill material overlying the mat foundation if 95 percent compaction can be achieved as described below. The existing soils may also be reused in landscape areas.

Imported structural fill, if required as backfill against foundations, should be free of organic material, be tested and approved by the geotechnical engineer, and should conform to the following gradation:

Sieve Size Percent Finer by Weight 2 inch 100 ¼ inch 30-70 No. 40 5-40 No. 200 0-10

As previously mentioned, the native soils were found to have relatively high fines contents. These soils should be considered highly susceptible to moisture and disturbance, and construction delays following periods of wet weather or in the spring and winter months should be anticipated. If used for backfilling, the native soils will likely need to be moisture conditioned to at or below the optimum moisture content to achieve the project specified compaction. The native soils will readily soften and experience a reduction in load-carrying capacity when exposed to moisture. These soils are also frost susceptible and will experience expansion and contraction during freeze-thaw cycles.

All fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density at near optimum moisture contents as determined by ASTM Standard D1557, of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft

(2,700 kN-m/m

The lift thickness for the fill soils will vary depending on the type of compaction equipment used. Fills should generally be placed in uniform horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness in open areas. In confined areas, the loose lift thickness

W.O. # 12701.ROSENDALE Page 10 November 25, 2024 should be reduced to 4 inches or less and each lift should be compacted with sufficient passes of hand operated vibratory or impact compaction equipment.

A geotechnical engineer with appropriate field and laboratory support should approve materials for use as fill, and test backfill materials for compliance with the recommended compaction. Each lift of backfill placed at the site should be tested for compaction.

11.6 Construction Dewatering and Protection of Subgrades

Approved bedrock subgrades should be protected from the effects of frost, construction traffic, perched groundwater, surface water, and precipitation. The necessary protection should be provided as soon after acceptance, as is practicable, and should be maintained until coverage with concrete. It is recommended that temporary surface drainage measures be installed to divert runoff away from the proposed construction limits.

Given the presence of bedrock at and below the anticipated bearing depth, dewatering below the subgrade elevation will not be necessary; however, dewatering should be adequate to effectively allow work to be performed in-the-dry. Sump pumps may be operated on the bedrock subgrade surface. As per our field observations, the on-site soils were observed to contain significant amounts of silt, which make them moisture sensitive. They will readily soften and experience a reduction in load-carrying capacity when exposed to moisture. These soils are also frost susceptible and will experience expansion and contraction during freeze-thaw cycles.

Approved soil subgrades, where used for tower appurtenances, should be protected from the effects of frost, construction traffic, perched groundwater, surface water, and precipitation. The necessary protection should be provided as soon after acceptance as is practicable and should be maintained until coverage with compacted structural fill, crushed stone, or concrete. It is recommended that temporary surface drainage measures be installed to divert runoff away from the proposed construction limits. It is not anticipated that groundwater will impact exposed soil subgrades.

Due to the appreciable amount of fines in the native soils, maintaining subgrade stabilization during periods of wet weather is a concern. Accordingly, crushed stone may be placed on slab subgrades after excavation and proofrolling. The crushed stone should be clean ½ to ¾ inch gravel, stone, or recycled concrete, and should not exceed 6 inches in thickness.

11.7 Excavations and Shoring

Temporary excavation slopes, if required, should conform to the latest OSHA standards, including slopes permitted for specified heights and soil conditions encountered. OSHA and other applicable agency requirements pertaining to worker safety should be met during the excavation activities. Site soils encountered above the bedrock should be considered OSHA Type C. Excavations into the native soil should be feasible utilizing standard construction equipment (i.e., hydraulic excavator). Design of excavation support, if required, should conform to the latest OSHA and other applicable agency requirements.

12.0 LIMITATIONS

Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable geotechnical engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar situations. The interpretation of the field data is based on good judgment and experience. However, no matter how qualified the geotechnical engineer or detailed the investigation, subsurface conditions cannot always be predicted beyond the

W.O. # 12701.ROSENDALE Page 11 November 25, 2024 points of actual sampling and testing. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report.

The recommendations contained in this report are for design purposes only. Contractors and others involved in this project are advised to make an independent assessment of the subsurface conditions for the purpose of estimating quantities and scheduling. No warranty, express or implied, is made as to the advice provided in this report.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client for the specific application to the proposed project detailed in this report. If any changes in the design or location of the proposed SST is planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless reviewed and verified in writing by Tectonic Engineering Consultants, Geologists & Land Surveyors, D.P.C. It is recommended that Tectonic be retained to provide construction monitoring and inspection services to ensure proper implementation of the recommendations contained herein, which would otherwise limit our professional liability.

We trust this report will allow you to proceed with design of the proposed foundations.

Sincerely, TECTONIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, GEOLOGISTS & LAND SURVEYORS, D.P.C.

Christopher Burke, Ph.D., P.E. (NY, NJ, PA, FL), P.M.P.

Vice President, Geotechnical

Attachments: Figure 1 Boring, Infiltration, and Soil Resistivity Test Location Plan Boring, Infiltration, and Soil Resistivity Test Logs Soil Legend Sheet Laboratory Test Results ASCE 7-16 Seismic Design Parameters

MJP/CBB: \\Tectonic\TecData\Newburgh\Geotechnical\12700\12701.ROSENDALE\Report\12701.ROSENDALE.Geo.Report.docx

SITE

AutoCAD SHX Text

TEST-2

AutoCAD SHX Text

TEST-1

AutoCAD SHX Text

EXISTING ASPHALT PAVED PARKING LOT

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROPOSED 10-FOOT-WIDE GRAVEL ACCESS DRIVE

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROPOSED 190-FOOT-HIGH SELF SUPPORT TOWER

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROPOSED SPACE FOR FUTURE CARRIERS (TYP)

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROPOSED FIBER CABINET ON CONCRETE PAD

AutoCAD SHX Text B-2

AutoCAD SHX Text B-1

AutoCAD SHX Text B-3

AutoCAD SHX Text B-4

AutoCAD SHX Text B-5

AutoCAD SHX Text B-6

AutoCAD SHX Text

INF-1

AutoCAD SHX Text

TEST-2

AutoCAD SHX Text

TEST-1

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPROXIMATE FOOTPRINT OF FUTURE HIGHWAY GARAGE COMPLEX

AutoCAD SHX Text

EXISTING ROSENDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT BUILDING

AutoCAD SHX Text

1. PLAN BASED ON A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PROVIDED BY PLAN BASED ON A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PROVIDED BY TECTONIC ENGINEERING, ENTITLED "TOPOGRAPHY PLAN", SHEET: LE-2, REV. 3, DATED 09/18/2024. 2. THE BORING, INFILTRATION, AND SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST THE BORING, INFILTRATION, AND SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST LOCATIONS WERE FIELD LOCATED BY TECTONIC AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE. 3. THE DRAWING SCALE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE. THE DRAWING SCALE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE.

AutoCAD SHX Text

NOTES

AutoCAD SHX Text

LEGEND

AutoCAD SHX Text Date

AutoCAD SHX Text Scale

AutoCAD SHX Text Work Order

AutoCAD SHX Text Drawing No.

AutoCAD SHX Text Rev

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

ORIGINAL SIZE IN INCHES

AutoCAD SHX Text 11/08/2024

AutoCAD SHX Text 1"= 50'

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIGURE 1

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

12701.ROSENDALE

AutoCAD SHX Text

BORING, INFILTRATION, AND SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST LOCATION PLAN

AutoCAD SHX Text Phone: (845) 534-5959

AutoCAD SHX Text

(800) 829-6531

AutoCAD SHX Text P.O. Box 37

AutoCAD SHX Text 70 Pleasant Hill Road

AutoCAD SHX Text Mountainville, NY 10953

AutoCAD SHX Text Phone: (845) 567-6656

AutoCAD SHX Text Newburgh, NY 12550

AutoCAD SHX Text 1279 Route 300

AutoCAD SHX Text Project Contact Info

AutoCAD SHX Text www.tectonicengineering.com

AutoCAD SHX Text Tectonic Engineering Consultants, Geologists & Land Surveyors, D.P.C.

AutoCAD SHX Text B-6

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPROXIMATE SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST LOCATION

AutoCAD SHX Text

TEST-2

AutoCAD SHX Text PROPOSED 190-FOOT-HIGH SELF SUPPORT TOWER PROPOSED PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO TOWER - ROSENDALE 1915 LUCAS AVENUE HAMLET OF COTTEKILL, TOWN OF ROSENDALE, ULSTER COUNTY, NEW YORK

AutoCAD SHX Text

INF-1

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPROXIMATE INFILTRATION TEST LOCATION

AutoCAD SHX Text

LUCAS AVENUE

S-1

S-2

S-3

C-1

56/60 85

ML

ML

ML

55+

2.75

2.25

2.25

2.5

2.75

M

M

M

55/5

2" Topsoil-like material

Bwn SILT, some c-f Sand, trace f Gravel

Tn SILT, some c-f SAND, trace f Gravel

Bwn SILT, and c-f Sand, little c-f Gravel Sampler refusal at 4.5'

Dk gy slightly weathered, slightly-moderately fractured, c-f grained, hard, CHERT, with fractures oriented 0-45 degrees from horizontal

End of Boring at 9.5'

4.5

See Remarks

INSPECTOR:

DRILLER:

DATUM:

DATE START:

DATE FINISH:

Roland Lipscomb

Carl Pederson

NOYES

10/31/24

10/31/24

POWER AUGER:

ROT. DRILL:

CASING:

DIAMOND CORE:

Mobile B61 HCX Truck Rig with Donut Hammer

4.5"

2"

TEMP:

*CHANGES IN STRATA ARE INFERRED

SURFACE ELEVATION:

TO

TO

TO

TO

DATE TIME DEPTH

DEPTH

4.5'

G R

O U

N D

W A

T E

R

X

DIA.

TO

Overcast

MON. WELL

SCREEN DEPTH:

WEATHER:

DEPTH TO ROCK:

4.5'

9.5'

METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING

306.0

60° F

Proposed Public Safety Radio Tower – RosendalePROJECT:

LOCATION:

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N

F T

Cottekill, NY

PROJECT No.

Land, Air, Water Environmental Services, Inc.

UNCONFINED COMPRESS. STRENGTH

D E

P T

H

F T

LE

N

G T

H (I

N

Ulster County

Surface elevations are estimated based upon topographic data provided within the project documents, entitled "Ulster County, Proposed Tower Site Plan", dated September 18th, 2024.

CONTRACTOR:

STANDARD

PENETRATION (BLOWS/FT.)P

E N

E T

R A

T

IO

N R

E S

IS

T

A N

C E

(B L/

IN

S A

M P

LE

N

U M

B E

R

R Q

D

) U N

IF

IE

D

S O

IL

C

LA

S

S

DESCRIPTION

OF

MATERIAL

PLASTIC

LIMIT %

M O

IS

T

U R

E

SAMPLES

RECOV.

CLIENT:

SHEET No. 1 of 1

301.0

296.0

291.0

286.0

281.0

REMARKS:

12701.ROSENDALE BORING No. B-1

LI

T

H O

LO

G

Y

1 2 3 4 5

10 20 30 40 50

10 20 30 40 50

N O

R M

IN

./F

T

(TONS/FT)

WATER

CONTENT %

LIQUID

LIMIT %

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

1.

R O

S E

N D

A

LE

.G P

J T

E C

T O

N

IC

E N

G .G

D T

/2

S-3

C-1

54/60 75

SM

ML

ML

2.5

2.75

2.5

2.75

3.0

M

M

M

55/5

1" Topsoil-like material

Lgt bwn c-f SAND, and Silt, trace f Gravel

Bwn SILT, some c-f Sand, little c-f Gravel

Bwn SILT, some c-f Sand, trace f Gravel Sampler refusal at 6'

Blk-dk gy slightly weathered, slightly-moderately fractured, c-f grained, hard, CHERT, with fractures oriented 0-45 degrees from horizontal

End of Boring at 11'

See Remarks

INSPECTOR:

DRILLER:

DATUM:

DATE START:

DATE FINISH:

Roland Lipscomb

Carl Pederson

NOYES

10/31/24

10/31/24

POWER AUGER:

ROT. DRILL:

CASING:

DIAMOND CORE:

Mobile B61 HCX Truck Rig with Donut Hammer

4.5"

2"

TEMP:

*CHANGES IN STRATA ARE INFERRED

SURFACE ELEVATION:

TO

TO

TO

TO

DATE TIME DEPTH

DEPTH

6'

G R

O U

N D

W A

T E

R

X

DIA.

TO

Overcast

MON. WELL

SCREEN DEPTH:

WEATHER:

DEPTH TO ROCK:

6'

11'

METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING

307.0

76° F

Proposed Public Safety Radio Tower – RosendalePROJECT:

LOCATION:

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N

F T

Cottekill, NY

PROJECT No.

Land, Air, Water Environmental Services, Inc.

UNCONFINED COMPRESS. STRENGTH

D E

P T

H

F T

LE

N

G T

H (I

N

Ulster County

Surface elevations are estimated based upon topographic data provided within the project documents, entitled "Ulster County, Proposed Tower Site Plan", dated September 18th, 2024.

CONTRACTOR:

STANDARD

PENETRATION (BLOWS/FT.)P

E N

E T

R A

T

IO

N R

E S

IS

T

A N

C E

(B L/

IN

S A

M P

LE

N

U M

B E

R

R Q

D

) U N

IF

IE

D

S O

IL

C

LA

S

S

DESCRIPTION

OF

MATERIAL

PLASTIC

LIMIT %

M O

IS

T

U R

E

SAMPLES

RECOV.

CLIENT:

SHEET No. 1 of 1

302.0

297.0

292.0

287.0

282.0

REMARKS:

12701.ROSENDALE BORING No. B-2

LI

T

H O

LO

G

Y

1 2 3 4 5

10 20 30 40 50

10 20 30 40 50

N O

R M

IN

./F

T

(TONS/FT)

WATER

CONTENT %

LIQUID

LIMIT %

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

1.

R O

S E

N D

A

LE

.G P

J T

E C

T O

N

IC

E N

G .G

S-3

SM

SM

SM

73+

M

M

M

55/3

3" Topsoil-like material

Lgt bwn-tn c-f SAND, and Silt, little c-f Gravel

Same

Lgt bwn c-f SAND, some Silt, trace f Gravel Auger refusal encountered at 5.3' on apparent bedrock

End of Boring at 5.3'

0 See Remarks

INSPECTOR:

DRILLER:

DATUM:

DATE START:

DATE FINISH:

Roland Lipscomb

Carl Pederson

NOYES

10/31/24

10/31/24

POWER AUGER:

ROT. DRILL:

CASING:

DIAMOND CORE:

Mobile B61 HCX Truck Rig with Donut Hammer

4.5"

TEMP:

*CHANGES IN STRATA ARE INFERRED

SURFACE ELEVATION:

TO

TO

TO

TO

DATE TIME DEPTH

DEPTH

Not Encountered'

G R

O U

N D

W A

T E

R

X

DIA.

TO

Clear

MON. WELL

SCREEN DEPTH:

WEATHER:

DEPTH TO ROCK:

5.3'

METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING

307.0

71° F

Proposed Public Safety Radio Tower – RosendalePROJECT:

LOCATION:

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N

F T

Cottekill, NY

PROJECT No.

Land, Air, Water Environmental Services, Inc.

UNCONFINED COMPRESS. STRENGTH

D E

P T

H

F T

LE

N

G T

H (I

N

Ulster County

Surface elevations are estimated based upon topographic data provided within the project documents, entitled "Ulster County, Proposed Tower Site Plan", dated September 18th, 2024.

CONTRACTOR:

STANDARD

PENETRATION (BLOWS/FT.)P

E N

E T

R A

T

IO

N R

E S

IS

T

A N

C E

(B L/

IN

S A

M P

LE

N

U M

B E

R

R Q

D

) U N

IF

IE

D

S O

IL

C

LA

S

S

DESCRIPTION

OF

MATERIAL

PLASTIC

LIMIT %

M O

IS

T

U R

E

SAMPLES

RECOV.

CLIENT:

SHEET No. 1 of 1

302.0

297.0

292.0

287.0

282.0

REMARKS:

12701.ROSENDALE BORING No. B-3

LI

T

H O

LO

G

Y

1 2 3 4 5

10 20 30 40 50

10 20 30 40 50

N O

R M

IN

./F

T

(TONS/FT)

WATER

CONTENT %

LIQUID

LIMIT %

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

1.

R O

S E

N D

A

LE

.G P

J T

E C

T O

N

IC

E N

G .G

/2

SM

SM

55+

M

M

55/5

5" Topsoil-like material

Bwn c-f SAND, some c-f Gravel, little Silt

Same Auger refusal encountered at 3' on apparent bedrock

End of Boring at 3'

0 See Remarks

INSPECTOR:

DRILLER:

DATUM:

DATE START:

DATE FINISH:

Roland Lipscomb

Carl Pederson

NOYES

11/1/24

11/1/24

POWER AUGER:

ROT. DRILL:

CASING:

DIAMOND CORE:

Mobile B61 HCX Truck Rig with Donut Hammer

4.5"

TEMP:

*CHANGES IN STRATA ARE INFERRED

SURFACE ELEVATION:

TO

TO

TO

TO

DATE TIME DEPTH

DEPTH

Not Encountered'

G R

O U

N D

W A

T E

R

X

DIA.

TO

Clear

MON. WELL

SCREEN DEPTH:

WEATHER:

DEPTH TO ROCK:

3'

METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING

300.0

72° F

Proposed Public Safety Radio Tower – RosendalePROJECT:

LOCATION:

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N

F T

Cottekill, NY

PROJECT No.

Land, Air, Water Environmental Services, Inc.

UNCONFINED COMPRESS. STRENGTH

D E

P T

H

F T

LE

N

G T

H (I

N

Ulster County

Surface elevations are estimated based upon topographic data provided within the project documents, entitled "Ulster County, Proposed Tower Site Plan", dated September 18th, 2024.

CONTRACTOR:

STANDARD

PENETRATION (BLOWS/FT.)P

E N

E T

R A

T

IO

N R

E S

IS

T

A N

C E

(B L/

IN

S A

M P

LE

N

U M

B E

R

R Q

D

) U N

IF

IE

D

S O

IL

C

LA

S

S

DESCRIPTION

OF

MATERIAL

PLASTIC

LIMIT %

M O

IS

T

U R

E

SAMPLES

RECOV.

CLIENT:

SHEET No. 1 of 1

295.0

290.0

285.0

280.0

275.0

REMARKS:

12701.ROSENDALE BORING No. B-4

LI

T

H O

LO

G

Y

1 2 3 4 5

10 20 30 40 50

10 20 30 40 50

N O

R M

IN

./F

T

(TONS/FT)

WATER

CONTENT %

LIQUID

LIMIT %

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

1.

R O

S E

N D

A

LE

.G P

J T

E C

T O

N

IC

E N

G .G

S-3

SM

ML

55+

M

M

55/2

2" Topsoil-like material

Bwn c-f SAND, and Silt, trace f Gravel

Bwn SILT, some c-f Sand, little c-f Gravel No Recovery Auger refusal encountered at 4.2' on apparent bedrock

End of Boring at 4.2'

0 See Remarks

INSPECTOR:

DRILLER:

DATUM:

DATE START:

DATE FINISH:

Roland Lipscomb

Carl Pederson

NOYES

11/1/24

11/1/24

POWER AUGER:

ROT. DRILL:

CASING:

DIAMOND CORE:

Mobile B61 HCX Truck Rig with Donut Hammer

4.5"

TEMP:

*CHANGES IN STRATA ARE INFERRED

SURFACE ELEVATION:

TO

TO

TO

TO

DATE TIME DEPTH

DEPTH

Not Encountered'

G R

O U

N D

W A

T E

R

X

DIA.

TO

Clear

MON. WELL

SCREEN DEPTH:

WEATHER:

DEPTH TO ROCK:

4.2'

METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING

299.0

74° F

Proposed Public Safety Radio Tower – RosendalePROJECT:

LOCATION:

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N

F T

Cottekill, NY

PROJECT No.

Land, Air, Water Environmental Services, Inc.

UNCONFINED COMPRESS. STRENGTH

D E

P T

H

F T

LE

N

G T

H (I

N

Ulster County

Surface elevations are estimated based upon topographic data provided within the project documents, entitled "Ulster County, Proposed Tower Site Plan", dated September 18th, 2024.

CONTRACTOR:

STANDARD

PENETRATION (BLOWS/FT.)P

E N

E T

R A

T

IO

N R

E S

IS

T

A N

C E

(B L/

IN

S A

M P

LE

N

U M

B E

R

R Q

D

) U N

IF

IE

D

S O

IL

C

LA

S

S

DESCRIPTION

OF

MATERIAL

PLASTIC

LIMIT %

M O

IS

T

U R

E

SAMPLES

RECOV.

CLIENT:

SHEET No. 1 of 1

294.0

289.0

284.0

279.0

274.0

REMARKS:

12701.ROSENDALE BORING No. B-5

LI

T

H O

LO

G

Y

1 2 3 4 5

10 20 30 40 50

10 20 30 40 50

N O

R M

IN

./F

T

(TONS/FT)

WATER

CONTENT %

LIQUID

LIMIT %

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

1.

R O

S E

N D

A

LE

.G P

J T

E C

T O

N

IC

E N

G .G

S-1 5 SM58+ M

55/2

3" Topsoil-like material Bwn c-f SAND, some Silt, some c-f Gravel Auger refusal encountered @ 1.2' on apparent bedrock

End of Boring at 1.2'

0 See Remarks

INSPECTOR:

DRILLER:

DATUM:

DATE START:

DATE FINISH:

Roland Lipscomb

Carl Pederson

NOYES

11/1/24

11/1/24

POWER AUGER:

ROT. DRILL:

CASING:

DIAMOND CORE:

Mobile B61 HCX Truck Rig with Donut Hammer

4.5"

TEMP:

*CHANGES IN STRATA ARE INFERRED

SURFACE ELEVATION:

TO

TO

TO

TO

DATE TIME DEPTH

DEPTH

Not Encountered'

G R

O U

N D

W A

T E

R

X

DIA.

TO

Clear

MON. WELL

SCREEN DEPTH:

WEATHER:

DEPTH TO ROCK:

1.2'

METHOD OF ADVANCING BORING

289.0

70° F

Proposed Public Safety Radio Tower – RosendalePROJECT:

LOCATION:

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N

F T

Cottekill, NY

PROJECT No.

Land, Air, Water Environmental Services, Inc.

UNCONFINED COMPRESS. STRENGTH

D E

P T

H

F T

LE

N

G T

H (I

N

Ulster County

Surface elevations are estimated based upon topographic data provided within the project documents, entitled "Ulster County, Proposed Tower Site Plan", dated September 18th, 2024.

CONTRACTOR:

STANDARD

PENETRATION (BLOWS/FT.)P

E N

E T

R A

T

IO

N R

E S

IS

T

A N

C E

(B L/

IN

S A

M P

LE

N

U M

B E

R

R Q

D

) U N

IF

IE

D

S O

IL

C

LA

S

S

DESCRIPTION

OF

MATERIAL

PLASTIC

LIMIT %

M O

IS

T

U R

E

SAMPLES

RECOV.

CLIENT:

SHEET No. 1 of 1

284.0

279.0

274.0

269.0

264.0

REMARKS:

12701.ROSENDALE BORING No. B-6

LI

T

H O

LO

G

Y

1 2 3 4 5

10 20 30 40 50

10 20 30 40 50

N O

R M

IN

./F

T

(TONS/FT)

WATER

CONTENT %

LIQUID

LIMIT %

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

1.

R O

S E

N D

A

LE

.G P

J T

E C

T O

N

IC

E N

G .G

COARSE GRAINED SOIL

TERM

coarse - c No. 4 Sieve to No. 10 Sieve medium - m No. 10 40 Sieve fine - f No, 40 200 Sieve

COBBLES BOULDERS 10" +

FINE GRAINED SOIL

PLASTICITY INDEX

DESCRIPTIVE TERM

trace little some and

COLOR

Blue - blue Gy - gray Wh - white

Blk - black Or - orange Yl - yellow

Bwn - brown Rd - red Lgt - light

Gn - green Tn - tan Dk - dark

SAMPLE NOTATION

S - Split Spoon Soil Sample WOC - Weight of Casing

U - Undisturbed Tube Sample WOR - Weight of Rods

C - Core Sample WOH - Weight of Hammer

B - Bulk Soil Sample PPR - Compressive Strength based on

NR - No Recovery of Sample Pocket Penetrometer

TV - Shear Strength (tsf) based on Torvane

ADDITIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS

PROPORTIONS OF COMPONENT

10 - 20

20 - 35

35 - 50

11 - 20

21 - 40 greater than 40 high very high none

PLASTICITY

slight low

0 - 1

2 - 5

6 - 10

Clay

The primary component is fully capitalized if >50% of sample

1 - 10

PROPORTION

PERCENT OF SAMPLE WEIGHT

medium

Silt

Clayey Silt

Silt & Clay

(Finer than No. 200 Sieve)

DESCRIPTION

New York City Building Code soil classifications are given in parentheses at the end of each description of material, Clay & Silt

Silty Clay coarse to fine, c-f

Less than 10% coarse to medium

Less than 10% medium and fine

GRADATION DESIGNATIONS

if applicable. See sections 1804.2 of the 2008 Building Code for further details.

All greater than 10% medium, m coarse, c coarse to medium, c-m

3" to 10"

3" to 3/4"

3/4" to 3/16"

Less than 10% coarse

Less than 10% coarse and fine

Less than 10% fine fine, f medium to fine, m-f

Sieve to No.

Sieve to No.

LEGEND FOR SOIL DESCRIPTION

DESCRIPTIVE TERM & GRAIN SIZE

GRAVELSAND

(Coarser then No. 200 Sieve)

1279 Route 300

Newburgh, NY 12550

(845) 567-6656

W.O. No.: Lot No.: Date:

Client:

Project:

Project Engineer:

Inspector:

Infiltration Test Location: (see reverse)

Weather Conditions: 70

TEST TEST TEST STABLE

HOLE HOLE HOLE RATE

No. DEPTH DIA. (in/hr.)

INF-1 2' 4"

TIME

(To Be Completed On Back of Sheet)

Indicate North Indicate Nearest Roadway

Indicate Property Lines Indicate Off-Sets from 2 Adjacent Property Lines

8:05AM 14.0 14.0 12.0

COMMENTS:

The infiltration test was set to a depth of 2 feet below grade surface due to the presence of shallow bedrock.

INFILTRATION TEST DATA

12701.ROSENDALE 11/1/2024

Ulster County

12.0

Ryan Villa

Roland Lipscomb

See Boring, Infiltration, and Soil Resistivity Test Location Plan, Figure 1

Clear & Sunny Temperature:

TIME

12.0

11:05AM 12:05PM

INFILTRATION TEST RUNS

Drop in water levels (inches) at 1-hour intervals

9:05AM 10:05AM

The stable infiltration rate is recorded as the last observed reading.

COMMENTS:

Sketch Requirements

W.O.#: 12701.ROSENDALE PAGE 1 OF 2

CLIENT: DATE:

CONTRACTOR:

2050.0

1450.0

568.0

214.0

127.0

51.8

Topography:

Remarks:

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

Wenner Four Point method

Varies

See Boring, Infiltration, and Soil Resistivity Test Location Plan for further information. Test was performed parallel to the existing dry laid stone wall.

Orientation of leads: East to West

8 4.0 194575.5

25 10.0 248007.2

245900.5

2 1.2 555382.8

4 2.0 435113.7

6 3.0

SOIL RESISTIVITY

DATA SHEET

INSPECTOR: Roland Lipscomb

LOCATION OF TEST: Test 1 DATUM: NAVD88

PROJECT: Proposed Public Safety Radio Tower - Rosendale

LOCATION: 1915 Lucas Avenue, Town of Rosendale, New York

Connelly and Associates, Inc Weather / Temp. (F): Overcast / 35° F SURFACE ELEVATION: Varies

Ulster County 11/1/2024

EQUIPMENT: AEMC Instruments Model 6472 Digital Ground Resistance Tester

Electrode Depth (in)

[Max = a"/20"] Resistivity (ꭥ*cm)

1 1.0 392598.2

Electrode Spacing

"a" (ft) Resistance (ꭥ)

W.O.#: 12701.ROSENDALE PAGE 2 OF 2

CLIENT: DATE:

CONTRACTOR:

1980.0

1610.0

588.0

317.0

145.0

45.2

Topography:

Remarks:

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

SOIL RESISTIVITY

DATA SHEET

PROJECT: Proposed Public Safety Radio Tower - Rosendale

LOCATION: 1915 Lucas Avenue, Town of Rosendale, New York

Ulster County 11/1/2024 INSPECTOR: Roland Lipscomb

Connelly and Associates, Inc Weather / Temp. (F): Overcast / 35° F SURFACE ELEVATION: Varies

LOCATION OF TEST: Test 2 DATUM: NAVD88

EQUIPMENT: AEMC Instruments Model 6472 Digital Ground…