GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING
REPORT
Mount Wachusett Community College
Wind Power Project
444 Green Street
Gardner, MA

JOB NO. 1049281.

 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1

2.0 SITE AND PROJECT INFORMATION ......................................................................... 1

2.1 Site Description ............................................................................................................. 1
2.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................ 1

3.0 EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES......................................................... 2

4.0 SUMMARIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................ 2

4.1 Surficial Material ............................................................................................................ 3
4.2 Silt ................................................................................................................................. 3
4.3 Sand .............................................................................................................................. 3
4.4 Till .................................................................................................................................. 3
4.5 Bedrock ......................................................................................................................... 3
4.6 Groundwater ................................................................................................................. 4

5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................. 4

5.1 General ......................................................................................................................... 4
5.2 Foundation Area Preparation ........................................................................................ 4
5.3 Foundation Design ........................................................................................................ 5
5.4 Seismic Design Parameters .......................................................................................... 6
5.5 Dynamic Soil Properties ................................................................................................ 6
5.6 Excavation and Construction Dewatering ..................................................................... 7
5.7 Subgrade Compaction .................................................................................................. 7
5.8 Subgrade Stabilization .................................................................................................. 8
5.9 Subgrade Proof-roll and Compaction ............................................................................ 8
5.10 Structural Fill, Placement, Compaction ......................................................................... 9
5.11 Sub-Drainage .............................................................................................................. 10
5.12 Access/Haul Road ....................................................................................................... 10

6.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................. 11

6.1 Use of Report .............................................................................................................. 11
6.2 Subsequent Involvement ............................................................................................. 11
6.3 Representation and Interpretation of Data .................................................................. 12

List of Figures
FIGURE 1 Site Location Map
FIGURE 2 Boring Location Plan

2009 PROJECT 1049281. May 14, 2009 ii

 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

List of Appendices
APPENDIX - Symbols and Terms Used on Borehole and Test Pit Logs
Borehole Logs B-1 to B-9

2009 PROJECT 1049281. May 14, 2009 iii

 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Jacques Whitford Company Inc. (Jacques Whitford) now Stantec has performed a geotechnical
exploration and analysis for the proposed wind turbines to be located on the campus of Mount
Wachusett Community College at 444 Green Street in Gardner, Massachusetts (Site). These services
are pursuant to our proposal of May 12, 2008 and our Subconsulting Agreement (Agreement No.
F5W95700-S08-005) with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (Client) executed on February 20, 2009 and
modified on April 6, 2009. The purpose of these services was to assess surficial and subsurface
conditions at the Site in order to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations and
considerations for the design and construction of the proposed Wind Turbines.

The scope of the subsurface exploration consisted of the drilling of nine test borings and associated
sampling and field testing. This report presents our findings of the Site observations and explorations,
and provides geotechnical recommendations for the Wind Turbine foundation and construction based
upon the proposed loading understood at the time of this study.

2.0 SITE AND PROJECT INFORMATION

Our understanding of the existing Site conditions is based on field observations made during the
subsurface exploration, and our telephone and e-mail correspondence with Mr. Fred Unger of the
Heartwood group Inc.

2.1 Site Description

The Site is on the campus of Mount Wachusett Community College at 444 Green Street and is at or
near the intersection of Green Street and Matthews Street in Gardner, Massachusetts. The location of
the proposed wind turbines is in a currently undeveloped area located on the southwest portion of the
campus in an open field.

At the time of our exploration, the area of the proposed wind turbines was undeveloped and sloped
from elevation (El) 1175 to El 1130 moving from east to west across the Site over a span of
approximately 850 feet. A small pond is located on the western end of the site and the majority of the
west end of the area is marked as wetlands. The proposed tower locations are beyond the limits of the
wetland buffer zone.

2.2 Project Description

It is our understanding that the two proposed wind turbines will be mounted on single monopole towers
and are to be located within the campus of Mount Wachusett Community College in an undeveloped
area on the southwest portion of the campus. The monopole towers are to be located on the northern
and southern ends of the development area and outside the flagged wetland areas

Jacques Whitford, 2009 1049281. Mt. Wachusett Community College, Gardner, MA - Geotechnical Report May14, 2009 Page 1
 3.0 EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES
The subsurface exploration was performed on March 16, 2009 through March 18, 2009 by New
England Boring Contractors of Glastonbury, CT, under subcontract to Jacques Whitford. The soil
borings, designated B-1 through B-9, were observed and logged by a Jacques Whitford geotechnical
engineer. The collected soil samples were classified per the USCS classification using visual-manual
methods. The borings were advanced to depths ranging between 6.5 feet to 45 feet below the existing
ground surface (bgs) by a track mounted Mobile B-48 drill rig using a combination of drilling methods
that included 3 inch solid stem augers, drive-and-wash with 3 inch inside diameter casing, and rock
coring utilizing a NQ double tube core barrel. Details of drilling and sampling methods, descriptions of
soils encountered, and the testing carried out are indicated on the borehole logs within the Appendix of
this report.

Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were performed in each boring in accordance with ASTM D1586.
The SPT consists of driving a 1-3/8-inch inside diameter split spoon sampler with a 140 pound hammer
falling 30-inches. The blows for each 6-inches of penetration are recorded for a total of 24-inches. The
sum of the blows required to drive the sampler from 6-inches to 18-inches of penetration is referred to
as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or N-value, which is an index of measure of in-situ soil density
or consistency. Soil samples from the test borings were visually classified in the field by Jacques
Whitford in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).

Coring of bedrock was in accordance with the requirements of ASTM D 2113. Rock cores were
obtained utilizing a NQ double tube core barrel with an inside diameter of 1-7/8-inch. Boring B-1 was
advanced 10 feet into bedrock and boring B-7 was advanced 15 feet into bedrock. The recovered
cores were evaluated for percent recovery and rock quality designation (RQD).

All soil samples recovered were stored in sealed glass jars and rock cores were stored in wooden pine
boxes. The soil samples and rock cores were transported to our laboratory for further classification and
applicable testing. Samples remaining after testing will be stored for a period of 60 days, at which time
they will be disposed of unless we have been notified otherwise.

4.0 SUMMARIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations are described in detail on the Borehole
Logs that are presented in the Appendix of this report, and are summarized in the paragraphs below.
The conditions encountered are based on widely spaced explorations and variations in conditions
should be anticipated. In general, the test borings encountered surficial material consisting of grass
and topsoil overlying silt and/or sand, underlain by sandy till. Beneath the glacial till is metamorphic
bedrock consisting of Quartzite and/or Schist.

Jacques Whitford, 2009 1049281. Mt. Wachusett Community College, Gardner, MA - Geotechnical Report May14, 2009 Page 2
 4.1 Surficial Material
The field in which the borings were drilled is grass covered. Topsoil was encountered at all boring
locations and consisted of dark brown silt with fine to coarse sand and extended to depths of 8 inches
to 18 inches below the existing ground surface.

4.2 Silt
A silt stratum was observed underlying the topsoil at boring locations B-1, B-5, B-6, B-8, and B-9. This
stratum generally consisted of brown Silt (ML) with varying amounts of fine to medium sand and
extended to depths ranging from 1.5 feet to 3.5 feet below the existing grade. The silt stratum was
generally 1 foot to 1.5 feet in thickness and therefore SPT N-values were not recorded.

4.3 Sand
Brown silty Sand (SM) with varying amounts of gravel was encountered beneath the topsoil at boring
locations B-2, B-3, and B-4 and below the Silt stratum at boring location B-7 and extended to depths
ranging from 2.5 feet to 4.5 feet below the existing grade. The recorded SPT N-values within the sand
ranged between 8 blows per foot (bpf) to 22 bpf, indicating a loose to medium dense relative density.

4.4 Till
Glacial Till consisting of brown and/or gray silty sand (SM) and containing varying amounts of gravel,
cobble, and boulders was observed at all boring locations. The till extended to the underlying bedrock
at boring locations B-1 and B-7 to 15 feet and 28.5 feet below the existing grade, respectively, to the
top of apparent bedrock at boring location B-4 at 44 feet below the existing grade, and to the
termination of the remainder of the borings at depths ranging from 6.5 feet to 16.5 feet below the
existing grade. The recorded SPT N-values within till ranged between 44 bpf to 200 bpf or practical
refusal of the sampling equipment and averaged 108 bpf, indicating a dense to very dense relative
density.

4.5 Bedrock
The coring of the underlying metamorphic bedrock (quartzite and schist) was conducted at boring
locations B-1 and B-7. Boring B-1 encountered bedrock at approximately 15 feet below the existing
grade and extended to the termination of the boring at 26.5 feet below the existing grade. Boring B-7
encountered bedrock at approximately 28.5 feet below the existing grade and extended to the
termination of the boring at 44 feet below the existing grade.

An NQ type core barrel was used to recover rock core samples from borings B-1 and B-7. The core run
recoveries varied between 98% and 100%. The RQD values for the recovered samples at boring B-1
were 6.6% and 32% indicating a very poor to poor rock quality. The RQD values for the recovered
samples at boring B-7 were 0%, 43%, 62%, and 87% indicating a very poor to good quality bedrock.
In general, the quality of the bedrock improves with depth.

Jacques Whitford, 2009 1049281. Mt. Wachusett Community College, Gardner, MA - Geotechnical Report May14, 2009 Page 3
 4.6 Groundwater
Groundwater was observed during drilling at depths between 4 feet and 8 feet below the existing
ground surface and at some locations groundwater was observed to be perched above the till stratum
at depths as shallow as 1 foot to 3 feet below the ground surface. Groundwater observation wells were
not installed and were beyond the scope of work. Equilibrated hydrostatic levels may vary dramatically
from those recorded during drilling. Actual groundwater levels may further vary significantly over time
due to seasonal changes in precipitation and temperature, snowmelt, and surrounding and on-site
drainage characteristics.

5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The considerations and recommendations presented herein are based on the subsurface conditions
encountered in the boreholes and our understanding of existing conditions and the proposed
development.

5.1 General
Jacques Whitford performed subsurface investigations at three (3) potential locations for the proposed
monopole wind turbines. It is our understanding that the two locations where borings B-7, B-8, and B-9
(north tower) and borings B-4, B-5, and B-6 (south tower) will be chosen for the proposed development.
Based on the nature of the proposed structures, we understand that the foundation support system
must be able to resist substantial overturning moments as well as vertical and lateral loadings that will
be induced by the monopoles and wind turbines. A gravel surfaced construction haul
road/maintenance access road will be constructed between the two wind turbine locations and will
connect to the College Access Road and Matthews Road. This road will cross the flagged wetland
area at its narrowest point (60 feet) and will have several culverts installed to allow the seasonal flow of
surface water.

5.2 Foundation Area Preparation

The test borings indicated topsoil, over silt and/or sand over very dense glacial till underlain by
metamorphic bedrock. Groundwater was encountered between 4 feet and 8 feet below the existing
grade. However, water was perched above the glacial till at depths of 1 foot to 2 feet below the existing
ground surface

A shallow foundation support system consisting of a reinforced concrete mat foundation to support the
monopole combined with excavation to remove the topsoil, silt, and loose sand is recommended to
support the proposed wind turbine monopoles. All organic and deleterious material must be removed
from within the limits of the proposed foundation area(s). Due to the depth of groundwater and
perched groundwater at 1 foot to 2 feet below the existing ground surface, excavation dewatering
consisting of a system of sump pumps is anticipated. The excavation should be kept dry and free from
standing water. It is recommended that a Geotechnical Engineer be present during preparation of the
Jacques Whitford, 2009 1049281. Mt. Wachusett Community College, Gardner, MA - Geotechnical Report May14, 2009 Page 4
 foundation area to assist with defining the limits of removal of unsuitable soil and to observe the
preparation of the glacial till subgrade prior to pouring concrete. After the subgrade soils are inspected
by a qualified geotechnical engineer, any areas in need of repair should be over-excavated backfilled
with compacted Structural Fill to the bottom of the tower structural mat foundation, as described later
herein.

All existing topsoil, organic material, unsuitable fill material, existing debris, and if encountered
underground utilities and structure should be removed from the planned foundation subgrade areas for
support of the proposed towers. Prior to backfilling with Structural Fill, all foundation subgrade areas
should be visually evaluated and all deleterious or oversized materials removed. The subgrade should
then be surface compacted, repaired as necessary, and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior
to the installation of the structural mat foundation, as discussed later herein.

5.3 Foundation Design

The foundation subgrade should be founded a minimum depth of 4-feet below finished exterior grade
for frost protection. All structural mat foundations should bear on a 12-inch thick layer of compacted
Structural Fill or Free Draining Structural Fill observed and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer.
The actual extent of overburden removal will be determined during excavation.

Foundations supported on Structural Fill as previously described may be designed for a net allowable
bearing pressure of 8,000 pounds per square foot (psf). A shallow foundation system should be
supported directly on the glacial till. The actual dimensions of the foundation system should be
determined by the Structural Engineer based on the net allowable bearing pressure, the actual
combined live and dead loads, and total post-construction foundation-induced settlements of less than
1-inch.

Structural concrete mat foundations to be supported on the glacial till subgrade soils prepared in this
manner may be designed with an allowable bearing pressure of 8,000 pounds per square foot (psf).
The foundation subgrade should be excavated to a minimum depth of 4-feet below finished exterior
grade for frost protection or deeper to resist overturning moments from the wind turbine monopole
tower. Based upon the structural design, to be determined during the design phase, the foundation
subgrade depth may be required to be deeper. For deeper excavations temporary shoring or sloping of
the excavation sidewalls will be necessary. The foundation mat should not be formed on loose, soft, or
frozen soil, slough, debris, other structures or utilities, or surfaces covered by standing water. In the
event of winter construction, the foundation subgrade should be protected from freezing. Bearing
surfaces should be inspected by qualified geotechnical personnel prior to concrete placement to
confirm adequate bearing conditions.

An ultimate friction factor, tan , of 0.45 may be used for calculation of the sliding resistance between
the underlying glacial till and concrete surfaces. A total soil unit weight of 128 pounds per cubic foot
(pcf) may be assumed for backfill adjacent to the tower foundation. An ultimate passive earth pressure

Jacques Whitford, 2009 1049281. Mt. Wachusett Community College, Gardner, MA - Geotechnical Report May14, 2009 Page 5
 coefficient, Kp, of 3.50 (soil friction angle, , of 34) should be used for the calculation of passive
resistance provided by compacted granular backfill adjacent to the tower foundation.

5.4 Seismic Design Parameters

In accordance with Section 1615.1 (Modifications to Applicable Provisions of ASCE 7, Section
9.4.1.2.1) of the Seventh Edition of the Massachusetts State Building Code (CMR 780), the Site
classification for seismic design of the structure, based upon the average N values for the upper 100
feet of the soil profile, is Site Class C (very dense soil and soft rock). Bedrock was encountered at the
north turbine location at El 1138 (depth of 14 feet) and apparent bedrock at the south tower location at
El 1111 (depth of 44 feet). In accordance with Table 1804.3 entitled Allowable Bearing Pressures for
Foundation Materials, the Soil Class is 6 (slightly cemented sand and/or gravel, glacial till (basal or
lodgment), hardpan).

An evaluation of the liquefaction potential of the underlying natural granular soils was conducted in
accordance with Section 1804.6 of the Building Code. Per Figure 1894.6(a) entitled Liquefaction
Susceptibility Donut Hammer Blow Counts, the soils are not susceptible to liquefaction due to its very
dense condition.

5.5 Dynamic Soil Properties

Settlement from vibratory loads from the turbine are accentuated if imposed vibrations from the rotating
blades are resonant with the natural frequency of the foundation soil system. Both the amplitude of
foundation motion and the unbalanced exciting force are increased at resonance, and even dense soils
will be densified to some degree with accompanying settlement. The foundations for vibration from the
monotower should be designed to avoid unacceptable amplitude.
If operating speeds exceed 1,000 rpm, then provide a foundation with natural frequency no higher than
one-half of the operating value by decreasing natural frequency by increasing the foundation block
weight. During stopping and starting, the machine will operate briefly at resonant frequency of the
foundation. Calculate probable amplitude at both resonant and operating frequencies and compare
them with allowable values to determine if the foundation arrangement should be altered.
For low speed operations at a speed less than 300 rpm, provide a foundation with a natural frequency
at least twice the operating speed by one of the following:
1. For spread foundations, increase the natural frequency by increasing base area or reducing the
total static weight.
2. Increase modulus of shear rigidity of the foundation soil by compaction.
Stiffness and damping are generally increased with embedment.
Dynamic soil properties for the soil type encountered at the Site are provided herein. It is important to
note that these parameters are based on published correlations and past experience. If more precise
parameters are necessary, additional field and laboratory testing should be performed.

Jacques Whitford, 2009 1049281. Mt. Wachusett Community College, Gardner, MA - Geotechnical Report May14, 2009 Page 6
 MOIST DYNAMIC
MATERIAL MASS
UNIT SHEAR POISSONS
SOIL MATERIAL DAMPING DENSITY
WEIGHT MODULUS Ratio
RATIO (lbs-sec2)
(pcf) (psi)
ft4
Glacial Till (SM) 125-140 0.025 15,000 0.35 4

5.6 Excavation and Construction Dewatering

The existing topsoil and subgrade soils are sensitive to moisture and construction disturbance and may
become unstable during excavation. Accordingly, deep excavation slopes should be flattened or
braced to maintain stability. Safe excavation slopes are the responsibility of the earthwork contractor.
As a minimum, temporary excavations must be sloped in accordance with the Occupational Health and
Safety Act requirements. Soil stockpiles should not be located within 1.5 times the height of the
excavation depth to avoid surcharging the excavation walls. If an excavation cannot be properly sloped
or benched, the contractor shall install an engineered shoring system to safely support the temporary
excavation. Excavation slopes should be checked regularly for signs of instability and flattened as
required. Temporary slopes should be protected from surface run-off erosion by means of berms and
swales located along the top of the slope and by means of plastic sheeting placed over the slope.
Groundwater was observed during drilling at depths between 4 feet and 8 feet below the existing grade.
However, water was perched above the glacial till at depths of 1 foot to 2 feet below the existing grade
as was evidenced by the seasonal wetland in low areas on the property. An adequately sized installed
system of sump pumps or other suitable method should be suitable to control groundwater. If
hydrostatic conditions are encountered during excavation, greater dewatering efforts may be required.
Actual groundwater levels may vary significantly over time due to seasonal changes in precipitation and
temperature, snowmelt, and surrounding and on-site drainage characteristics and tidal fluctuation.
Measures should be taken to control water seepage, precipitation, infiltration, and surface water inflows
into the excavation to minimize disturbance, maintain integrity of the soil bearing surfaces, and permit
foundation construction in the dry. Disturbed, frozen, excessively wet or loosened soils should be
removed prior to placement of foundation preparation materials. Ground surface grades within the
vicinity of the excavation should be graded to promote positive drainage away from open excavations.
Specifications should require that the Contractor divert surface water runoff away from excavations so
that structure(s), fill, and subgrade soils are not saturated. Precipitation that results in standing water in
the excavation should be removed immediately.

5.7 Subgrade Compaction

Once rough graded, the natural glacial till subgrade material should be surface compacted in the
presence of, and approved by, a Jacques Whitford Geotechnical Engineer to detect any weak or
unstable areas that should be repaired. Methods of repair of low strength, excessively dry or wet,
frozen, and/or variable materials are discussed under Subgrade Stabilization.

Jacques Whitford, 2009 1049281. Mt. Wachusett Community College, Gardner, MA - Geotechnical Report May14, 2009 Page 7
 Surface compaction should be completed with an appropriate piece of construction equipment based
on the size of the excavation. Surface compaction is intended to detect evidence of pumping or rutting,
which is indicative of unstable and unsuitable materials, and should be completed under the
Geotechnical Engineers observation. Subsequently, all soil subgrade should be moisture conditioned
to within 3% of optimum moisture and compacted to 95% of maximum dry density in accordance with
ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor) with adequately sized vibratory compaction equipment. If the
Geotechnical Engineer determines that vibratory compaction within the glacial till will result in instability
of the natural soils, an alternate method of compaction may be approved.

5.8 Subgrade Stabilization

Once exposed, the soil subgrade are extremely sensitive to weather and construction traffic
disturbance and may require stabilization prior to placing new fills. The specifications should therefore
contain provisions for subgrade repair. The subgrade should be graded to promote positive runoff to a
suitable drainage feature at all possible times during construction, and all excavations and exposed
subgrade should be maintained in a moist but unsaturated condition throughout construction. The
degree of subgrade disturbance will be determined during proof-roll/compaction on the Contractors
ability to coordinate site activities around anticipated precipitation, to protect exposed subgrade from
excess moisture, and construction equipment traffic disturbance.
Subgrade repair can include either:

Scarification, moisture conditioning, and recompaction;

Over-excavation to a stable subgrade; or
Partial over-excavation and stabilization with coarse graded aggregate and/or geotextile.
Frozen subgrade should be stripped and replaced with compacted Structural Fill. Optionally, the frozen
subgrade may be thawed by means approved by Jacques Whitford, scarified, and recompacted.

5.9 Subgrade Proof-roll and Compaction

The subgrade should be proof-rolled and compacted in the presence of and approved by the
Geotechnical Engineer to detect any weak or unstable areas that should be repaired. Methods of
repair of low strength, excessively dry or wet, frozen, and/or variable materials are discussed under
Subgrade Stabilization.
Once rough graded, and immediately prior to placing the road subbase, the subgrade should be proof-
rolled with heavy rubber-tire construction equipment such as a loaded dump truck. The proof-rolling is
intended to detect evidence of pumping, rutting or weaving, which is indicative of unstable and
unsuitable materials.
All soil subgrade should then be moisture conditioned to within 3% of optimum moisture and
compacted with adequately sized vibratory equipment to 95% of maximum dry density per Modified
Proctor (ASTM D 1557).

Jacques Whitford, 2009 1049281. Mt. Wachusett Community College, Gardner, MA - Geotechnical Report May14, 2009 Page 8
 The proof-roll and compaction effort may be waived at the discretion of the geotechnical engineer if
these methods appear to disturb or weaken the soil subgrade. In such case, the geotechnical engineer
must derive an appropriate alternative means of evaluating subgrade strength and stability.

5.10 Structural Fill, Placement, Compaction

All new fill within the foundation bearing zones should consist of Structural Fill or Free-Draining
Structural Fill. Structural Fill should be comprised of clean soil and/or aggregate, free of organics,
deleterious materials, ice, snow, and waste of any kind, and meet the following gradation:

STRUCTURAL FILL
Particle Size % Passing by Weight
3 inch 100
No. 4 50 85
No. 10 25 75
No. 40 10 50
No. 100 8 35
No. 200 0 12

The soil moisture content range should be 3 percent of its optimum moisture content per ASTM D
1557 and compacted Structural Fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 12 inches loose
thickness, to at least 95% of the maximum dry density per ASTM 1557 (Modified Proctor). The percent
compaction is determined in the field by ASTM D-1556 (sand cone) or ASTM D-2922 or D-6038
(nuclear densometer).

Free-Draining Structural Fill should be used as subbase beneath spread footing and mat foundations,
and floor slab-on-grade, as wall backfill, and in other applications where free-draining and non-frost
material is desired. Free-Draining Structural Fill should be comprised of clean soil and/or aggregate,
free of organics, deleterious materials, ice, snow, and waste of any kind, and meet the following
gradation:

FREE DRAINING STRUCTURAL FILL

Particle Size % Passing by Weight
2 inch 100
inch 50 - 85
No. 4 40 - 75
No. 50 8 - 25
No. 200 08

The on-site soils are not considered suitable for reuse as Structural Fill or Free-Draining Structural Fill.
The specifications should include provisions for offsite disposal of unsuitable materials at an approved
disposal facility. Alternatively, materials not suitable for Structural Fill, may possibly be used in non

Jacques Whitford, 2009 1049281. Mt. Wachusett Community College, Gardner, MA - Geotechnical Report May14, 2009 Page 9
 load-bearing areas and non-infiltrating areas (i.e. landscape, shallow slopes, etc.) with the Geotechnical
Engineers review, as an option to off-Site disposal.

5.11 Sub-Drainage
During drilling, perched groundwater was observed above the glacial till layer in the borings and may be
highly variable depending upon seasonal weather and Site drainage conditions. Based upon final
grading, exterior perimeter sub-drainage at the footing elevations may be necessary to control
groundwater during periods of high seasonal water table and infiltrating water adjacent to the
foundation. Where required, the perimeter foundation drains would consist of 4-inch diameter
corrugated, perforated high density polyethylene pipe (eg. ADS drain pipe fitted with drain guard) set
near the foundation bearing grade, with minimum 0.5% slope to a suitable outlet structure. The pipe
should be equipped with a filter fabric sock, and backfilled with Free-Draining Structural Fill. The outlet
structure should be designed to prevent backflow at all times.

5.12 Access/Haul Road

During construction and for maintenance operations, an access/haul road will be constructed between
the two wind turbine towers that will extend between the College Access Road and Matthews Street.
Based upon the uniformity of the soil strata encountered during the drilling of the nine borings located at
the three proposed turbine locations, a very dense glacial till is anticipated to be encountered at a depth
of 2 feet, with the exception of boring B-9 which had a medium dense sand layer that extended to a
depth of 5 feet.

The topsoil layer should be stripped for the full width of the pavement section and the exposed road
subgrade stabilized per Section 5.8 and proof-rolled per Section 5.9. A woven geotextile, such as
Mirafi 500X or equal, should be placed on the prepared subgrade.

In the area of the wetland crossing the topsoil and any organic material encountered should be
removed and replaced with an 18-inch thick Dense Graded Crushed Stone for Subbase material in
accordance with MassHighway Standard Specifications for Highways and Bridges (MassHighway)
M2.01.7 should be placed in two equal 9-inch thick lifts and rolled with four passes using a steel drum
roller with a minimum static weight of 10-tons. A 6-inch thick layer of Gravel Base Course (M1.03.0
Type b), per MassHighway, should then be placed over the subbase in 3-inch thick lifts and compacted
to serve as the surface course. It is our understanding that this maintenance roadway would not be
asphalt paved and would remain a gravel road in the future. The surface course should be crowned to
drain to the road shoulders. Where the road crosses the low area that has been flagged as a wetland
at its narrowest point (approximately 60 feet), culverts should be installed to maintain uninterrupted
seasonal surface water flow across the wetland area.

For the roadway in areas other than the flagged wetland crossing, after the topsoil is removed, the
subgrade stabilized/proof-rolled, and the geotextile placed, then the Gravel Base Course should be
placed in a minimum of one 6-inch thick lift and compacted with a minimum of four passes using a steel

Jacques Whitford, 2009 1049281. Mt. Wachusett Community College, Gardner, MA - Geotechnical Report May14, 2009 Page 10
 drum roller with a minimum static weight of 10-tons until it no longer weaves or ruts. Any depressions
should be filled with additional gravel base course material and be recompacted.

6.0 LIMITATIONS

6.1 Use of Report

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. and their
respective assigns and designees. This report is not intended for the use or reliance of other (third)
parties, without the express consent of Jacques Whitford and Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. Any use,
which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on decisions made based on this report, is the
responsibility of such third parties. Further, the findings of this study apply only to the specific Site and
project described herein. The findings herein are inapplicable to other Sites, and to developments of
different grading, layout, loading, and performance requirements. Jacques Whitford accepts no
responsibility for damages, real or perceived, suffered by parties as a result of decisions made or
actions based on the unintended and/or inappropriate use of this report.

The Geotechnical Report provides recommendations, and is intended for informational use, requiring
interpretation by the owner, design team, and contractor for the design and construction of the project,
and interpretation of final quantities and construction costs. The Geotechnical Report is not intended, or
suitable, by itself, for use as a technical specification or to determine quantities. Anticipated quantities
and/or costs may be provided in the Geotechnical Report; such information is an Engineers
interpretation, and may vary dramatically from contractor bids, which are based on potentially differing
interpretations, and several other variables not available or considered by the Engineer.

6.2 Subsequent Involvement

The geotechnical process incorporates initial exploration and recommendations as summarized herein,
and is followed by continuous involvement during key design and construction benchmarks. The
recommendations provided herein are based on preliminary information and assumptions regarding
proposed site grading, structural loading and performance requirements. It is recommended that the
project structural engineer consult with the Jacques Whitford Geotechnical Engineer to determine the
proper foundation footing size. It is further recommended that Jacques Whitford be retained to review
final foundation, grading, and other applicable plans to assess whether or not these recommendations
require modification.

Jacques Whitford should be retained to observe excavations and subgrade preparation to assess
whether the intent of these recommendations is followed during construction, and whether or not other
appropriate and/or cost-effective solutions may be warranted based on the actual conditions
encountered. Further, a soil exploration is a random sampling of a Site. Should any conditions at the
Site at any point during the project be encountered that differ from those summarized in the report,

Jacques Whitford, 2009 1049281. Mt. Wachusett Community College, Gardner, MA - Geotechnical Report May14, 2009 Page 11
 Jacques Whitford should be notified immediately in order to permit reassessment of these conditions
and the recommendations contained in the report.

6.3 Representation and Interpretation of Data

Surficial and subsurface information presented herein is based on field measurements obtained during
the course of the exploration and site reconnaissance. The precision and accuracy of surficial data is a
function of the references, benchmarks, methods and instruments employed, as summarized in the
report. Subsurface data is based on measurements within the borehole or test pit using the sampling
methods described on the exploration logs. The completeness, precision, and accuracy of such data is
a function of the frequency and type of exploration and sampling employed, as well as the precision
and accuracy of the surface location and elevation of the borehole, and may vary from actual conditions
encountered during excavations. Subsurface conditions between, beyond and below explorations, may
vary dramatically from the nearest exploration, due to natural geologic action, deposition and
weathering, or man-made activities.

Groundwater levels were recorded during the time periods and frequencies noted on the explorations. It
is important to note that groundwater levels are disrupted by the exploration, and require equilibration
periods to determine actual hydrostatic levels, which exceed the duration of the measurement period.
Multiple hydrostatic groundwater levels may exist, including perched or trapped water, which may not
necessarily be accurately represented by one water level reading. Groundwater levels fluctuate due to
seasonal variations, adjacent surface water bodies, precipitation, and on-Site and nearby land use.

Jacques Whitford, 2009 1049281. Mt. Wachusett Community College, Gardner, MA - Geotechnical Report May14, 2009 Page 12
 FIGURES
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Figure 2 - Boring Location Plan

Jacques Whitford, 2009 1049281. Mt. Wachusett Community College, Gardner, MA - Geotechnical Report April 21, 2009
 APPENDIX
Symbols and Terms Used on Borehole and Test Pit Logs
Borehole Logs B-1 to B-9

Jacques Whitford, 2009 1049281. Mt. Wachusett Community College, Gardner, MA - Geotechnical Report April 21, 2009
 SYMBOLS AND TERMS USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT RECORDS

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Terminology describing common soil genesis:

Topsoil - mixture of soil and humus capable of supporting vegetative growth
Peat - mixture of visible and invisible fragments of decayed organic matter
Till - unstratified glacial deposit which may range from clay to boulders
Fill - material below the surface identified as placed by humans (excluding buried services)

Terminology describing soil structure:

Desiccated - having visible signs of weathering by oxidization of clay minerals, shrinkage cracks, etc.
Fissured - having cracks, and hence a blocky structure
Varved - composed of regular alternating layers of silt and clay
Stratified - composed of alternating successions of different soil types, e.g. silt and sand
Layer - > 75 mm in thickness
Seam - 2 mm to 75 mm in thickness
Parting - < 2 mm in thickness

Terminology describing soil types:

The classification of soil types are made on the basis of grain size and plasticity in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) (ASTM D 2487 or D 2488). The classification excludes particles larger than 76 mm
(3 inches). The USCS provides a group symbol (e.g. SM) and group name (e.g. silty sand) for identification.

Terminology describing cobbles, boulders, and non-matrix materials (organic matter or debris):
Terminology describing materials outside the USCS, (e.g. particles larger than 76 mm, visible organic matter, construction
debris) is based upon the proportion of these materials present:

Trace, or occasional Less than 10%

Some 10-20%
Frequent > 20%

Terminology describing compactness of cohesionless soils:

The standard terminology to describe cohesionless soils includes compactness (formerly "relative density"), as determined
by the Standard Penetration Test N-Value (also known as N-Index). A relationship between compactness condition and N-
Value is shown in the following table.

Compactness Condition SPT N-Value

Very Loose <4
Loose 4-10
Compact 10-30
Dense 30-50
Very Dense >50

Terminology describing consistency of cohesive soils:

The standard terminology to describe cohesive soils includes the consistency, which is based on undrained shear strength
as measured by in situ vane tests, penetrometer tests, or unconfined compression tests.

Undrained Shear Strength

Consistency
kips/sq.ft. kPa
Very Soft <0.25 <12.5
Soft 0.25 - 0.5 12.5 - 25
Firm 0.5 - 1.0 25 - 50
Stiff 1.0 - 2.0 50 100
Very Stiff 2.0 - 4.0 100 - 200
Hard >4.0 >200

SYMBOLS AND TERMS USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT RECORDS MARCH 2009 Page 1 of 3
ROCK DESCRIPTION

Terminology describing rock quality:

RQD Rock Mass Quality
0-25 Very Poor
25-50 Poor
50-75 Fair
75-90 Good
90-100 Excellent

Rock quality classification is based on a modified core recovery percentage (RQD) in which all pieces of sound core over
100 mm long are counted as recovery. The smaller pieces are considered to be due to close shearing, jointing, faulting, or
weathering in the rock mass and are not counted. RQD was originally intended to be done on NW core; however, it can be
used on different core sizes if the bulk of the fractures caused by drilling stresses are easily distinguishable from in situ
fractures. The terminology describing rock mass quality based on RQD is subjective and is underlain by the presumption
that sound strong rock is of higher engineering value than fractured weak rock.

Terminology describing rock mass:

Spacing (mm) Joint Classification Bedding, Laminations, Bands
> 6000 Extremely Wide -
2000-6000 Very Wide Very Thick
600-2000 Wide Thick
200-600 Moderate Medium
60-200 Close Thin
20-60 Very Close Very Thin
<20 Extremely Close Laminated
<6 - Thinly Laminated

Terminology describing rock strength:

Strength Classification Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa)
Extremely Weak <1
Very Weak 15
Weak 5 25
Medium Strong 25 50
Strong 50 100
Very Strong 100 250
Extremely Strong > 250

Terminology describing rock weathering:

Term Description
Fresh No visible signs of rock weathering. Slight discolouration along major discontinuities
Discolouration indicates weathering of rock on discontinuity surfaces. All the rock
Slightly Weathered
material may be discoloured.
Moderately Weathered Less than half the rock is decomposed and/or disintegrated into soil.
Highly Weathered More than half the rock is decomposed and/or disintegrated into soil.
All the rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated into soil. The original mass
Completely Weathered
structure is still largely intact.

SYMBOLS AND TERMS USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT RECORDS MARCH 2009 Page 2 of 3
STRATA PLOT

Strata plots symbolize the soil or bedrock description. They are combinations of the following basic symbols. The
dimensions within the strata symbols are not indicative of the particle size, layer thickness, etc.

Boulders Sand Silt Clay Organics Asphalt Concrete Fill Igneous Meta- Sedi-
Cobbles Bedrock morphic mentary
Gravel Bedrock Bedrock

SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT
Split spoon sample (obtained by performing
SS
the Standard Penetration Test)
ST Shelby tube or thin wall tube measured in standpipe,
piezometer, or well
Direct-Push sample (small diameter tube
DP
sampler hydraulically advanced)
PS Piston sample
BS Bulk sample inferred
WS Wash sample
Rock core samples obtained with the use of
HQ, NQ, BQ, etc.
standard size diamond coring bits.

RECOVERY
For soil samples, the recovery is recorded as the length of the soil sample recovered. For rock core, recovery is defined as
the total cumulative length of all core recovered in the core barrel divided by the length drilled and is recorded as a
percentage on a per run basis.

N-VALUE
Numbers in this column are the field results of the Standard Penetration Test: the number of blows of a 140 pound (64 kg)
hammer falling 30 inches (760 mm), required to drive a 2 inch (50.8 mm) O.D. split spoon sampler one foot (305 mm) into
the soil. For split spoon samples where insufficient penetration was achieved and N-values cannot be presented, the
number of blows are reported over sampler penetration in millimetres (e.g. 50/75). Some design methods make use of N
value corrected for various factors such as overburden pressure, energy ratio, borehole diameter, etc. No corrections have
been applied to the N-values presented on the log.

DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST (DCPT)

Dynamic cone penetration tests are performed using a standard 60 degree apex cone connected to A size drill rods with
the same standard fall height and weight as the Standard Penetration Test. The DCPT value is the number of blows of the
hammer required to drive the cone one foot (305 mm) into the soil. The DCPT is used as a probe to assess soil variability.

OTHER TESTS

S Sieve analysis Single packer permeability test; test

H Hydrometer analysis interval from depth shown to bottom
k Laboratory permeability of borehole
Unit weight
Double packer permeability test; test
Gs Specific gravity of soil particles interval as indicated
CD Consolidated drained triaxial
Consolidated undrained triaxial with pore pressure
CU Falling head permeability test using
measurements
casing
UU Unconsolidated undrained triaxial
DS Direct Shear
C Consolidation Falling head permeability test using
Qu Unconfined compression well point or piezometer
Point Load Index (Ip on Borehole Record equals
Ip Ip(50) in which the index is corrected to a reference
diameter of 50 mm)

SYMBOLS AND TERMS USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT RECORDS MARCH 2009 Page 3 of 3