Terra Con

Appendix I
Geotechnical Report
(for Riverhead Solar 1)
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Riverhead Solar
4083 Middle Country Road
Calverton, New York
May 31, 2018
Terracon Project No. J2175133
Prepared for:
Sustainable Power Group
Salt Lake City, Utah
Prepared by:
Terracon Consultants – NY, Inc.
Rocky Hill, Connecticut
May 31, 2018
S•POWER
2180 South 1300 East, Suite 600
Salt Lake City, Utah 84106
Attn: Mr. Adam Bowers

Director of Engineering
P: 415.692.7580
E: abowers@spower.com
Re: Data Report of Pile Load Testing Services

Riverhead Solar
4083 Middle Country Road
Calverton, New York
Dear Mr. Bowers,
We have completed the Geotechnical Engineering services for the above referenced project.
This study was performed in general accordance with our proposal number PJ2175133 dated
September 22, 2017, revised proposal dated March 7, 2018, and Supplemental to Agreement
for Services change order dated March 22, 2018. This geotechnical engineering report presents
the results of the subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, pile load testing, engineering
analyses and geotechnical engineering recommendations with regard to the design and
construction of the proposed Riverhead Solar project.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions
concerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Terracon Consultants – NY, Inc.
Eddy F. Ramirez, P.E. Brian D. Opp, P.E.

Senior Staff Engineer Geotechnical Department Manager
APR Review by: Scott D. Neely, P.E.
Terracon Consultants – NY, Inc. 201 Hammer M ill Road Rocky Hill, Connecticut 06067
P (860) 721 1900 F (860) 721 1939 terracon.com
Riverhead Solar ■ Calverton, New York
May 31, 2018 ■ Terracon Project No. J2175133
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS ................................................................................................. i
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ..............................................................................................2
2.1 Project Description.................................................................................................2
2.2 Site Location and Description ................................................................................3
3.0 EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES.............................................................3
3.1 Field Exploration .....................................................................................................3
3.2 Laboratory Testing ..................................................................................................4
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .........................................................................................5
4.1 Site Geology ...........................................................................................................5
4.2 Typical Subsurface Profile .......................................................................................5
4.3 Groundwater ..........................................................................................................6
4.4 Frost Considerations ...............................................................................................6
4.5 Thermal Resistivity Laboratory Testing ....................................................................7
4.6 Field Electrical Resistivity Test Results ....................................................................7
4.7 Infiltration Test Results ............................................................................................8
4.8 Corrosivity ..............................................................................................................8
4.9 Seismic Considerations...........................................................................................9
5.0 FULL-SCALE PILE LOAD TESTING (PLT) PROGRAM ...............................................10
5.1 Pile Location Procedures .....................................................................................10
5.2 Test Pile Installation .............................................................................................10
5.3 Full-Scale Pile Load Testing ................................................................................11
5.3.1 Testing Under Axial Compressive Load ...................................................12
5.3.2 Testing Under Axial Tensile (“pull-out”) Load ...........................................12
5.3.3 Testing Under Lateral Load ......................................................................13
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION .....................................14
6.1 Geotechnical Considerations.................................................................................14
6.2 Foundation Recommendations ............................................................................15
6.3 Deep Foundation Recommendations for Transmission Line and Substation
Structures .......................................................................................................................16
6.3.1 Axial Load Design Criteria........................................................................16
6.3.2 Lateral Loading Design Criteria ................................................................18
6.3.3 Drilled Hole Construction Considerations .................................................18
6.4 Mat Foundations Design Recommendations for Substation Structures ................19
6.5 Lateral Earth Pressures .......................................................................................20
6.6 Access Roadways................................................................................................21
6.6.1 General Comments ..................................................................................21
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
6.6.2 Gravel Access Road Design Recommendations ......................................21

6.6.3 Gravel Access Road Construction Considerations ...................................22
6.7 Earthwork ............................................................................................................23
6.7.1 Site Preparation .......................................................................................23
6.7.2 Reuse of On-site Materials .......................................................................23
6.7.3 Subgrade Preparation ..............................................................................23
6.7.4 Fill Material Type......................................................................................24
6.7.5 Compaction Requirements .......................................................................25
6.7.6 Utility Trench Backfill ................................................................................26
6.7.7 Grading and Drainage ..............................................................................26
6.7.8 Earthwork Construction Considerations ...................................................26
7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS ................................................................................................27
Appendix A – Field Exploration Exhibit No.

Site Location Map ........................................................................................................ A-1
Exploration Plans ........................................................................................... A-2 and A-3
General Notes ...................................................................................................................... A-4
Unified Soil Classification System ...................................................................................... A-5
Boring Logs ..................................................................................................A-6 thru A-24
Appendix B – Laboratory Testing

Atterberg Limits Results............................................................................................... B-1
Grain Size Distribution ................................................................................................. B-2
Moisture-Density Relationship Results ........................................................... B-3 and B-4
Summary of Laboratory Results .................................................................................. B-5
Thermal Resistivity Analysis Test Results ...................................................... B-6 and B-7
APPENDIX C – PILE LOAD TESTING RESULTS – AXIAL COMPRESSION LOAD (9 PAGES)
APPENDIX D – PILE LOAD TESTING RESULTS – AXIAL TENSILE LOAD (6 PAGES)
APPENDIX E – PILE LOAD TESTING RESULTS – LATERAL LOAD (13 PAGES)

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
A geotechnical engineering exploration has been performed for the proposed Riverhead Solar
project located in Calverton, New York. Terracon’s geotechnical scope of work included the
advancement of 19 test borings to approximate depths of 17 to 52 feet below existing ground
surface, two (2) field electrical resistivity tests, three (3) infiltration tests, pile load testing at 6
locations that includes compression, tensile and lateral load tests, two (2) laboratory thermal
resistivity dry-out curves, laboratory testing on representative samples of the subsurface materials,
engineering analyses, and development of engineering recommendations for design and
construction of foundations and roadways.
The site appears suitable for the proposed construction based upon geotechnical conditions
encountered in the test borings, and provided our recommendations contained in this report are
properly implemented in the design and construction. Based on the information obtained from
our engineering analyses of the field and laboratory data, the following geotechnical considerations
were identified:
n The site subsurface conditions generally consist of about 2 feet of topsoil and organic
subsoil underlain by loose to dense native sands. Groundwater was encountered at a
depth of 20 to 48 feet below the ground surface in some of the test borings.
n We expect driven, steel W-section steel pile foundations to be suitable for support of
typical solar panel racking systems. We have provided our test results of the full-scale
pile load testing program in this report to assist the designers.
n The site appears suitable for the proposed construction of the transmission line and
substation based upon geotechnical conditions encountered in the borings provided our
recommendations contained in this report are properly implemented in the design and
construction.
n The proposed transmission line poles may consist of direct embed poles or be supported
on drilled shaft foundation systems. Substation structures should be supported on
drilled shaft foundations. The recommended design parameters for direct embed poles
and drilled shaft foundations for the transmission line poles and substation structures are
presented in the Deep Foundations section of this report. Groundwater was
encountered at depths of 20 to 48 feet in some of the soil borings at the time of field
exploration, depending upon the final foundation depths, groundwater may be
encountered during construction of drilled shaft foundations.
n Mat foundations can be utilized for substation mounted equipment and invertors within
the PV Array field. We recommend a 12-inch thick layer of NFS, Crushed Stone, or
Structural Fill beneath the mat foundation to provide a uniform bearing surface and a
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i

capillary break. Mat foundations will move due to freeze-thaw effects. NFS materials
will need to be placed at least 36 inches deep to significantly reduce the effects of
freeze-thaw. Alternatively, the slab could be designed to allow movement due to frost
action. Design recommendations and construction considerations for equipment slabs
are presented in the Mat Foundation Design Recommendations section.
n The 2016 Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code (the “Uniform Code”) seismic Site
Class is C.
This executive summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design and/or
construction purposes. It should be recognized that specific details were not included or fully
discussed in the Summary of Key Findings, and that the report must be read in its entirety for a
proper understanding of the discussion and recommendations presented herein. The section titled
General Comments should be read for an understanding of the report limitations.
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable ii

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
RIVERHEAD SOLAR
4083 MIDDLE COUNTRY ROAD
CALVERTON, NEW YORK

May 31, 2018
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) is pleased to submit this report detailing the completed
full-scale pile load testing and geotechnical engineering services performed for the proposed
Riverhead Solar project located in Calverton, New York. The purpose of these services is to
provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:
n subsurface soil conditions n groundwater conditions

n earthwork n load test results
n seismic considerations n foundation design and construction
n roadway design and construction n infiltration rates
Our geotechnical engineering scope of work for this project included the following:
n 19 borings drilled to depths of approximate 17 to 52 feet below the existing ground

surface (bgs);
n Field electrical resistivity testing at 2 locations;
n Infiltration testing at 3 locations;
n Pile load testing at 6 locations that includes 9 axial compression load tests, 6 axial
tensile load tests and 13 lateral load tests;
n Two laboratory thermal resistivity dry-out curves;
n Laboratory testing of soil samples;
n Geotechnical engineering analysis; and
n Preparation of this report.
The locations of the borings, field electrical resistivity tests, and pile load testing are shown on
the Exploration Plan diagrams (Exhibits A-2 and A-3) in Appendix A. A log of each boring is
included in Appendix A (Exhibits A-6 through A-24) section of this report. The results of the
laboratory testing performed on soil samples obtained from the site during the field exploration
are included on the boring logs and in Appendix B (Exhibits B-1 through B-7) section of this
report. The pile load testing results are included in Appendices C through E.
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Project Description
ITEM DESCRIPTION
■ Geotechnical Engineering Services Request for Proposal from
■ ‘sPower Calverton Site Map’ by VHB Engineering Surveying &
Landscape Architecture of Hauppauge, New York, Project No.
29194.03, Drawing No. PR-1, dated January 26, 2017
Information Provided
■ Geotechnical Evaluation Report performed by GZA
GeoEnvironmental of New York, New York, File No. 41.0162323.00,
dated September 1, 2015
■ ‘DHTZ v3 JKM350-90 125-C 20 PSF Ground Force Analysis’ by Array
Technologies of Albuquerque, New Mexico, dated August 17, 2017
n The project will be a 20 Megawatt solar photovoltaic (PV) facility.
Project Description n We understand a new substation and a transmission line will be
constructed as part of the project.
n Ground-mounted solar panels with various electrical appurtenances.
Structures n Transmission line poles.
n The substation will consist of various structures and equipment.
n Ground-mounted solar panels will be supported on driven steel W-
section piles.
Construction n We anticipate transmission line poles, substation structures, and
equipment pads will be supported as direct embed poles, on drilled
shaft and/or mat foundations.
n 5 to 9 kips (axial compression including snow and wind loads)
n 1 to 3 kips (axial tension not including frost heave forces)
Estimated Maximum
Loads n 1 to 3.5 kips (lateral)
n Loading information for the transmission lines, substation structures,
and equipment were not provided.
We anticipate that the solar field final grades will generally follow the
Grading/Slopes
existing site grades with minimal grading.
We anticipate gravel access roads will be constructed throughout the
Access Roads
proposed solar array and substation.

2.2 Site Location and Description
ITEM DESCRIPTION
The project is located on the following tracts:
■ Green Meadows LLC APN: 0600-117.00-02.00-007.002
■ Transmission line and substation will be along easements on the
following parcels: Bolla Edwards realty LLC APN: 0600-117.00-01.00-
Parcel Information 006.000, Bashi Calverton Links LLC 0600-116.00-02.00-007.004,
Delalio Sod Farms 0600-117.00-02.00-008.002 and 7.002, and the
existing Solar Site 0600-137.00-01.00-032.001
The approximate center of the site is near: 40.92501°, -72.76510°
Refer to Site Location Map (Exhibit A-1).
Existing Improvements Agricultural land (sod farm).
Current Ground Cover Topsoil / bare ground.

The 2016 USGS quadrangle topographic map for Wading River, New York,
Existing Topography depicts the site as being relatively level, gradually sloping upward toward
the northwest from approximately Elevation (El) 50 to El 70.
3.0 EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES
3.1 Field Exploration
Boring Depth
Number of Borings Boring Nos. Planned Location
(feet BGS)
B-1 through B-9,
12 22 to 52 Proposed Solar Array
VBH-1 through VBH-3
5 GT-1 through GT-5 17 to 27 Proposed Transmission Line
2 VBH-4 and VBH-5 27 and 52 Proposed Substation
Boring Layout and Elevations: Terracon personnel provided the boring layout. Coordinates
were obtained with a handheld GPS unit (estimated horizontal accuracy of about ±10 feet). If
elevations and a more precise boring layout are desired, we recommend the borings be
surveyed.

Subsurface Exploration Procedures: Terracon observed the advancement of 9 test borings

(B-1 through B-9) throughout the solar array area on September 26 and 27, 2017 using an all-
terrain vehicle (ATV)-mounted Diedrich D-50 rotary drill rig. The borings were advanced using 4¼-
inch inside diameter continuous flight hollow-stem augers. In addition, we observed the
advancement of 10 test borings (VBH-1 through VBH-5 and GT-1 through GT-5) in the solar array,
transmission line, and substation areas on April 6, 9, and 10, 2018, using a truck-mounted
Geoprobe 7800 drill rig. The borings were advanced using 3½-inch dry rod.
In the split-barrel sampling procedure, which was used to take soil samples in the test borings, the
number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split-barrel sampler typically the
middle 12 inches of the total 24-inch penetration by means of a 140-pound safety hammer with a
free fall of 30 inches is the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance value “N”. This “N” value
is used to estimate the in-situ relative density of cohesionless soils and consistency of cohesive
soils.
The soil samples were placed in labeled glass jars and taken to our laboratory for further review
and classification by a Terracon geotechnical engineer. Information provided on the exploration
logs attached to this report includes soil descriptions, relative density and/or consistency
evaluations, exploration depths, sampling intervals, and groundwater conditions. The borings were
backfilled with auger cuttings prior to the drill crew leaving the site.
Field logs of the explorations were prepared by a Terracon field engineer. These logs included
visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling as well as interpretation by our
field engineer of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final exploration logs included
with this report represent further interpretation by the geotechnical engineer of the field logs and
incorporate, where appropriate, modifications based on laboratory classification and testing of
the samples.
Other Testing: Two field electrical resistivity tests were performed by a Terracon field engineer
on September 26, 2017, in general accordance with ASTM G57 using the four-pin Wenner
method with an AGI MiniSting earth resistivity meter.
3.2 Laboratory Testing
Samples retrieved during the field exploration were taken to the laboratory for further
observation by the project geotechnical engineer and were classified in accordance with the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described in Exhibit A-3. At that time, the field
descriptions were confirmed or modified as necessary and an applicable laboratory testing
program was formulated to determine engineering properties of the subsurface materials.

Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and the test results are presented in
appendix B. The laboratory test results were used for the geotechnical engineering analyses,
and the development of foundation and earthwork recommendations. Laboratory tests were
performed in general accordance with the applicable ASTM, local or other accepted standards.
Selected soil samples obtained from the site were tested for the following engineering
properties:
n Moisture Content n Atterberg Limits

n Sieve Analyses n Moisture-Density Relationship
n Thermal Resistivity n pH
n Soluble Chlorides n Minimum Resistivity
n Soluble Sulfates
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
4.1 Site Geology
The Surficial Geologic Map of New York – Lower Hudson Sheet, 1985, identifies soils within the
vicinity of the site as outwash sand and gravel. The Geologic Map of New York – Lower Hudson
Sheet, 1970, does not identify the bedrock underlying the site. Additionally, bedrock was not
encountered in our explorations.
4.2 Typical Subsurface Profile
Specific conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs
presented in the attached Appendix A (Exhibits A-6 through A-24). Stratification boundaries on the
boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil types; in-situ, the transition
between materials may be gradual. Based on the conditions encountered in the borings,
subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows:
Approximate Depth
Stratum to Bottom of Stratum Material Description Consistency/Density
(feet BGS)
Topsoil: brown, friable and
Surface 1 0.3 to 0.5 N/A
contained significant organic matter
Subsoil: silty sand (SM) to poorly
Loose to medium
Subsurface 2 1.8 to 2.3 graded sand (SP) with gravel, trace
dense
roots, orange to brown

Approximate Depth
Stratum to Bottom of Stratum Material Description Consistency/Density
(feet BGS)
FILL: Silty sand, pieces of bituminous
13 4 to 6 concrete and other deleterious N/A
materials
Generally silty sand (SM) to poorly
52 (maximum depth graded sand (SP), with gravel,
24 Loose to very dense
explored) occasional cobbles, gray to brown
(Native sands)
1. Encountered in B-7, VBH-1, VBH-2, VBH-5, and GT-1 through GT-5.
2. Encountered in B-1, B-3, B-4, B-8, and B-9.
3. Encountered in B-2, VBH-3, and VBH-4.
4. Medium dense clayey sand (SC) was encountered in B-9 to a depth of approximately 5 feet BGS.
Based on our exploration results, as well as our experience in the region, it is our opinion that
Stratum 2 is consistent with the mapped outwash deposit. The borings terminated without
refusal in the native sands at a depth of about 52 feet below the existing ground surface.
4.3 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 20 to 48 feet in some of the test

borings at the time of field exploration. These observations represent groundwater conditions at
the time of the field exploration and may not be indicative of other times, or at other locations.
Groundwater level fluctuations may occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall,
runoff and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Therefore,
groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the life of the solar power facility may
be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. The possibility of groundwater
level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for
the project.
4.4 Frost Considerations
The published frost depth for the town of Riverhead, New York is 36 inches. Therefore, the frost
depth of 36 inches is applicable for this project.
If frost action needs to be eliminated in critical areas, we recommend the use of non-frost
susceptible (NFS) fill. Placement of NFS material in large areas may not be feasible; however,
the following recommendations are provided to help reduce potential frost heave:

■ Provide surface drainage away from foundations, and toward the site storm drainage
system
■ Place NFS fill as backfill beneath mat foundations critical to the project as outlined in the
Earthwork section of this report
■ Place a 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3H:1V) transition zone between NFS fill, and other
soils
■ Place NFS materials in critical sidewalk areas
4.5 Thermal Resistivity Laboratory Testing
Thermal resistivity testing was performed on two soil samples obtained during our field
exploration from depths of 4 to 6 feet below the existing ground surface. The thermal resistivity
testing was performed in general accordance with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE) standard. The dry-out curves were developed from each soil sample
compacted to 95% of the maximum density determined in accordance with Modified Proctor
criteria (ASTM D1557) at the optimum moisture content and dried to 0% moisture while
obtaining intermediate moisture contents to develop the dry-out curves. The results of the
thermal resistivity testing are presented on Exhibits B-6 and B-7 in Appendix B. The thermal
resistivity obtained 25°C-cm/W moist value and 128°C-cm/W dry value.
4.6 Field Electrical Resistivity Test Results
Two field measurements of soil resistivity were performed on September 26, 2017, and
conducted in general accordance with ASTM Test Method G 57, and IEEE Std. 81, using the
Wenner Four-Electrode Method. The approximate soil resistivity test locations are shown on
Exhibit A-2 in Appendix A. The soil resistivity measurements were performed using a AGI
MiniSting earth resistivity meter. The Wenner arrangement (equal electrode spacing) was used
with the “a” spacings of 5,10, 20, 30, and 40 feet within the solar array area. The “a” spacing is
considered to be the approximate depth of influence of the test. The approximate locations and
orientations of the resistivity lines are shown on the attached Exploration Plan (Exhibit A-2).
The results of our resistivity tests are tabulated below.
Resistivity (ohm-cm)
Electrode Spacing (feet)
ER-1 (North – South) ER-1 (East – West)
5 59,050 69,210
10 91,300 90,870
20 172,800 154,700
30 225,800 223,300
40 265,000 273,400

Resistivity (ohm-cm)
Electrode Spacing (feet)
ER-2 (North – South) ER-2 (East – West)
5 62,930 57,200
10 123,400 121,200
20 222,700 214,200
30 305,500 283,900
40 373,300 305,700
4.7 Infiltration Test Results
Falling head infiltration tests were performed adjacent to VBH-3 through VBH-5 by a Terracon
field engineer. Each test was advanced to a depth of approximately 5 to 9 feet below the
existing ground surface using 4¼-inch inside diameter continuous flight hollow-stem augers.
The infiltration tests were conducted in general accordance with the New York State Stormwater
Management Design Manual (NYSSMDM) Appendix D. The approximate locations of the
borings where the infiltration tests were performed are shown on the attached Exploration Plan
(Exhibit A-2). The results of the testing are tabulated below:
Depth to bottom
Ave. Infiltration
Test Boring Stratum of Casing
Rate (in/hr)
(feet BGS)
I-1 VBH-5 Silty Sand with Gravel 5 62
I-2 VBH-3 Fill – Sand with silt and gravel, 9 255

and other deleterious materials
I-3 VBH-4 Well Graded Sand with Gravel 9 254
Infiltration tests only measure the infiltration rate in the immediate vicinity of the test, and may
not be representative of the average infiltration of the soil. Various factors may influence field
infiltration testing results, including lack of soil saturation, a non-homogenous soil profile
surrounding the test interval, the presence of large gravel or cobbles, or variation in soil density.
Field infiltration values should be evaluated based on the measured data in conjunction with
published values for the material.
4.8 Corrosivity
The following table lists the results of laboratory pH, electrical resistivity, soluble sulfate, and
soluble chloride. The test results are provided to assist in determining the type and degree of
corrosion protection that may be required.

Corrosivity Test Results Summary

Soluble Soluble
Sample Electrical
Sulfate Chloride
Location Depth Soil Description pH Resistivity
Content Content
(feet) (Ω-cm)
(ppm) (ppm)
Well Graded Sand
VBH-1 2–4 8.6 16,975 53 75
with Gravel
Well Graded Sand
VBH-2 5–7 7.3 3,880 122 123
with Gravel
Results of soluble sulfate testing indicate that samples of the on-site soils tested classify as S0
according to Table 19.3.1.1 of Section 318 of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Building
Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. Concrete should be designed in accordance with
the provisions of the ACI Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, Section 318,
Chapter 19.
These test results are provided to assist in determining the type and degree of corrosion
protection that may be required. We recommend that a certified corrosion engineer be
employed to determine the need for corrosion protection and to design appropriate protective
measures, if required.
4.9 Seismic Considerations
Description Value
2016 Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code (the
Code Used 1
“Uniform Code”)
2
Site Class C
Maximum considered earthquake ground 0.060 (1.0 second spectral response)

3
motions (5 percent damping) 0.150 (0.2 second spectral response)
Liquefaction potential in event of an
Not susceptible
earthquake
1. The Uniform Code incorporates the Seismic Design Category approach from the 2015 International Building
Code (IBC).
2. The IBC uses a site soil profile determination extending to a depth of 100 feet for seismic site
classification. The current scope requested does not include a 100-foot soil profile determination; the
borings performed for this report extended to a maximum depth of 22 feet. However, we expect that soils
at least as dense as those encountered above a depth of 22 feet BGS will extend to at least 100 feet.

5.0 FULL-SCALE PILE LOAD TESTING (PLT) PROGRAM
We have performed a full-scale pile load testing program which included:
n Directing the installation of a total of 24 piles at the project site;

n Performing full-scale testing under axial compressive load for 9 of the test piles;
n Performing full-scale testing under axial tensile (“pull-out”) load for 6 of the test piles;
n Performing full-scale testing under lateral load for 13 of the test piles; and
n Reporting the load testing results.
These services are described in more detail in the following sections of this report.
5.1 Pile Location Procedures
The field testing locations are indicated on the attached Exploration Plan (Exhibit A-2). These
locations were established in the field by using a hand-held GPS (accurate to about 10 feet) and
existing site features as reference points. Ground surface elevations were not obtained. The
mapped test locations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the means and
methods used to define them.
5.2 Test Pile Installation
We directed the installation of a total of 24 piles within the footprint of the Riverhead Solar
project area. Typically, groups of either three or five test piles were installed at each of the
locations indicated in Exhibit A-1. The test piles have been identified using an alphanumeric
system. The pile identification system for each location begins with “PLT” and is followed by the
number corresponding to the test pile pair location while the assigned letters “A”, “B”, “C”, and
“D” differentiate the individual pile in each group.
Prior to driving of the piles, all 7 and 9-foot embedment depth piles, were pre-drilled with a 10-
inch diameter hole to a depth of approximately 3 feet. All 8 and 10-foot embedment depth piles
were not pre-drilled. The test piles consisted of wide-flange steel either W6x9 or W6x15
sections that were installed with a Vermeer PD10 pile driving rig to embedment depths of
approximately 7 to 10 feet below the ground surface (bgs). The time rate of installation was
recorded with a stopwatch. The total time required to advance each pile to its specified
embedment depth was recorded and is summarized in the following table:

Actual
Average Drive
Pile Embedment Drive Time
Time
Location Depth (seconds)
(seconds/foot)
(feet)
PLT-1A 7 25 6.3
PLT-1B 7 33 8.3
PLT-1C 8 90 11.3
PLT-1D 9 60 10.0
PLT-1E 10 175 17.5
PLT-2A 7 30 7.5
PLT-2B 7 25 6.3
PLT-2C 9 50 8.3
PLT-3A 7 35 8.8
PLT-3B 7 39 9.8
PLT-3C 9 63 10.5
PLT-3D 8 160 20.0
PLT-3E 10 180 18.0
PLT-4A 7 30 7.5
PLT-4B 7 25 6.3
PLT-4C 9 45 7.5
PLT-5A 7 30 7.5
PLT-5B 7 23 5.8
PLT-5C 9 20 3.3
PLT-5D 8 25 3.1
PLT-5E 10 55 5.5
PLT-6A 7 21 5.3
PLT-6B 7 19 4.8
PLT-6C 9 20 3.3
Pile installation records showing individual pile drive times are included on each plot of the pile
load test results in Appendices C through E of this report.
5.3 Full-Scale Pile Load Testing
We performed a full-scale pile load test (PLT) program as described in the following sections.
We typically tested under:

n axial compressive load;

n axial tensile (“pull-out”) load; and,
n under lateral load
However, piles PLT-1D was not tested under any load as PLT-1A and PLT-1C passed the
lateral load criteria at its embedment depth of 7 feet. In addition, Piles PLT-1E, PLT-3E, and
PLT-5E were not tested as their pile group passed the compression load criteria at their
selected embedment depths. Detailed records from the PLT program are included in
Appendices C through E.
5.3.1 Testing Under Axial Compressive Load
We performed tests under axial compressive loads as generally described below. These
procedures were developed with reference to ASTM D1149, Test Methods for Deep
Foundations under Static Axial Compressive Load.
Nine (9) piles, a minimum of one pile in each PLT location, were tested under axial compressive
load. Please note that piles PLT-1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, and 6B were all embedded 7 feet below
the ground surface, but only had 4 feet of pile embedded into the soil as they had been installed
into 3-foot deep, 10-inch diameter pre-drilled holes. The other three piles that were tested in
compression; PLT-1C, 3A and 5D; were installed with an 8-foot embedment depth for which all
8 feet were embedded into soil.
A trackhoe excavator was mobilized to the site to provide a reaction for the applied test loads.
The excavator counter-weight, located at the rear-end of the machine, was oriented above the
test pile. A hydraulic cylinder was placed above a steel plate bearing on the top of the pile. A
load cell was placed between the hydraulic cylinder and the machine frame.
The analog indicator gauges were set to zero at the beginning of each test. The loads were
applied in varying increments from 0 pounds to the ultimate compression load for each test pile.
Each load increment was held for at least 1 minute and the stabilized deflection reading of both
indicator gauge was recorded.
Deflections were measured using a pair of calibrated analog indicator gauges and loads were
measured with a Dillon ED Junior Dynamometer 10-ton digital load cell. Deflection and applied
load readings were recorded manually on test data sheets by Terracon’s field personnel.
5.3.2 Testing Under Axial Tensile (“pull-out”) Load
We performed axial tensile load as described below. These procedures were developed with
reference to ASTM D3689, Standard Test Method for Deep Foundations under Static Axial

Tensile Load. Where applicable, piles were tested under axial tensile load following the
completion of testing under axial compressive load and prior to testing under lateral load.
Six (6) piles, one pile in each PLT location, were tested under axial tensile (“pull-out”) load.
Please note that piles PLT-1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, and 6B were all embedded 7 feet below the
ground surface, but only had 4 feet of pile embedded into the soil as they had been installed into
3-foot deep, 10-inch diameter pre-drilled holes.
The reaction force used was a stationary excavator with the arm apex directly above the test
pile with the bucket grounded on the opposite side of the test pile from the machine for axial-
tension load testing. Terracon’s test equipment was connected in line between the test pile and
the excavator arm apex for axial-tension testing. A locking “E”- plate clamp was used to grip the
top of the web for the tension tests.
The analog indicator gauges were set to zero at the beginning of each test. The loads were
applied in varying increments from 0 pounds to the ultimate tension load for each test pile.
Each load increment was held for at least 1 minute and the stabilized deflection reading of both
indicator gauge was recorded.
5.3.3 Testing Under Lateral Load
We performed testing under lateral load as described below. These procedures were
developed with reference to and ASTM D3966, Standard Test Method for Deep Foundations
under Lateral Load.
Thirteen (13) piles, a minimum of two piles in each PLT location, were tested under lateral load.
Please note that piles PLT-1A, 2A, 2C, 3A, 3C, 4A, 4C, 5A, 5C, 6A and 6C were all embedded
to 7-feet or 9-feet below the ground surface. The 7-foot embedded piles would have only had 4
feet of pile embedded into soil and the 9-foot embedded piles would have only had 6-feet
embedded into soil as all of these piles had been installed into 3-foot deep, 10-inch diameter
pre-drilled holes. The other two piles that were tested in lateral; PLT-1C, and 5D; were installed
with an 8-foot embedment depth for which all 8 feet were embedded into soil.
For lateral load testing, the excavator was parked in line with the test pile with the bucket
grounded. Terracon’s test equipment was connected in line between the test pile and the
grounded bucket for lateral load testing.

The load was applied at 4 feet above grade (7-feet above the bottom of the pre-drilled holes
where applicable), and the digital indicator gauges were installed at 4 feet above the ground
surface. The analog indicator gauges were set to zero at the beginning of each test. The loads
were applied in varying increments from 0 pounds to the ultimate lateral load or the limits of the
soil capacity, whichever occurred first for each test pile. The limit of sol capacity during the
lateral test is defined as movement in excess of 1-inch at the ground surface. Each load
increment was held for at least 1 minute and the stabilized deflection reading of both indicator
gauge was recorded.
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
6.1 Geotechnical Considerations
We expect driven, steel W-section steel pile foundations to be suitable for support of typical
solar panel racking systems. We have provided geotechnical engineering parameters in this
report to assist the designers of production piles.
The site appears suitable for the proposed construction of the transmission line and substation
based upon geotechnical conditions encountered in the borings, and provided that the finding
and our recommendations contained in this report are properly implemented in the design and
construction.
The proposed transmission line poles should consist of direct embed poles or be supported on
drilled shaft foundation systems.
Groundwater was encountered at depths of 20 to 48 feet in some of the soil borings at the time
of field exploration. Depending upon the final foundation depths, groundwater may be
encountered during construction of drilled shaft foundations.
Mat foundations can be utilized for invertors in the PV Array field and for substation equipment.
We recommend a 12-inch thick layer of NFS, Crushed Stone, or Structural Fill beneath the mat
foundation to provide a uniform bearing surface and a capillary break. Mat foundations will
move due to freeze-thaw effects. NFS materials will need to be placed at least 36 inches deep
to significantly reduce the effects of freeze-thaw. Alternatively, the slab could be designed to
allow movement due to frost action. Design recommendations and construction considerations
for equipment slabs are presented in the Mat Foundation Design Recommendations section.

Geotechnical engineering recommendations for foundation systems and other earth connected
phases of the project are outlined in this report. The recommendations contained in this report
are based upon the results of field and laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and our current
understanding of the proposed project.
The General Comments section provides an understanding of the report limitations.
6.2 Foundation Recommendations
As discussed in Section 6.1, the subsurface conditions at the site present several geotechnical
challenges that must be addressed by the selected foundation system. The optimum foundation
system needs to balance the required load capacity, the owner’s tolerance for foundation
installation and performance risks, and system cost.
The panels may be supported on driven piles, which should be structurally designed to resist
compression, uplift, and bending forces. The pile design capacities will be determined by others
based on the results of pile load testing performed at the site. The project Structural Engineer
should determine the actual pile lengths. Corrosion protection should be applied to the steel
piles, as required.
The axial capacity of the piles is highly dependent upon near surface conditions and must take
into consideration environmental and other factors that would reduce the axial capacity in the
near surface. Such an analysis is commonly termed a “depth of neglect” analysis, and it
includes geotechnical and other factors. We list these known factors below, along with our
opinion of their effect at this site.
■ Scour: The depth of scour should be evaluated based on scour analysis to be

performed by others.
■ Ground disturbance: The depth of disturbance will depend on near surface conditions
during construction and the design life of the project and should be evaluated by others.
■ Soil moisture variation (shrink/swell): The sand soils are not susceptible to
volumetric changes resulting from changes in soil moisture.
■ Frost: The soils on this site are frost susceptible. Frozen soils can exert a heaving
force on the piles or shallow foundations. If the anchorage of the foundations and the
deadweight of the structure is not sufficient to resist these forces, it can cause uplift of
structures. In cold weather climates, design to resist frost heave forces exerted on
foundations is often the limiting factor in the foundation design. Specifically, pile lengths
will need to be long enough to counteract potential heave forces in the seasonal frost
zone. The factor of safety against frost heave forces should be determined based on
discussions with the owner, contractor, and design engineer in consideration of the
desired level or risk, initial capital expenditure, and the long term maintenance program.

Thawing soils typically have significantly less strength than frozen or fully thawed soils.
The design skin friction and lateral soil resistance should use lower strength parameters
to account for the reduced capacity of the thawing soils.
We understand the design adfreeze and frost depth for the project will be evaluated by the
Contractor and design engineer and is therefore not being addressed in this report.
The piles should be installed vertically. Driving should be monitored, such that if obstructions
are encountered, the effect on the piles can be determined. Damaged piles should be replaced.
Frequent obstructions may require pre-augering of the pile holes to facilitate driving, which could
impact load carrying capacity and therefore should be reviewed by the geotechnical and
structural engineers. Cobbles were encountered in B-2, B-3, and B-5. Therefore, driven piles
may not reach required depths in certain areas of the site.
6.3 Deep Foundation Recommendations for Transmission Line and Substation

Structures
Based on the geotechnical engineering analyses, subsurface exploration and laboratory test
results, the proposed transmission line poles can consist of direct embed poles or be supported
on drilled shaft foundation systems. Drilled shaft foundations should have a minimum depth of
12 feet or 4B (where B is the shaft diameter), whichever is greater.
The direct embed pole structures and drilled shafts will be constructed in a drilled excavation.
For the direct embed poles, the annular space between the pole and the surrounding soil will be
backfilled with concrete grout or other specified material to the existing ground surface.
6.3.1 Axial Load Design Criteria
Transmission Line Poles – Axial Design Parameters

Nominal Nominal
Depth to Nominal Skin Depth
Soil Type Effective End Skin
Bottom Friction Friction to
(P-y) Curve Weight Bearing Friction
of Layer Angle Φ’ Compression2 Water
Model (pcf) Capacity1 Uplift2
(ft) (ksf) (Ft)
(ksf) (ksf)
Sand
5 90 29 --- 0.13 0.13
(Reese)
Sand
10 100 31 -- 0.32 0.32 20
(Reese)
Sand
20 100 31 19.2 0.72 0.72
(Reese)

Transmission Line Poles – Axial Design Parameters

Nominal Nominal
Depth to Nominal Skin Depth
Soil Type Effective End Skin
Bottom Friction Friction to
(P-y) Curve Weight Bearing Friction
of Layer Angle Φ’ Compression2 Water
Model (pcf) Capacity1 Uplift2
(ft) (ksf) (Ft)
(ksf) (ksf)
Sand
25 100 31 19.2 0.98 0.98
(Reese)
Substation Structures – Axial Design Parameters

Nominal Nominal
Depth to Soil Type Nominal Skin Depth
Effective End Skin
Bottom (P-y) Friction Friction to
Weight Bearing Friction
of Layer Curve Angle Φ’ Compression2 Water
(pcf) Capacity1 Uplift2
(ft) Model (ksf) (Ft)
(ksf) (ksf)
Sand
5 90 29 --- 0.30 0.30
(Reese)
Sand
10 100 31 -- 0.74 0.74
(Reese)
Sand
20 95 29 9.6 0.66 0.66 20
(Reese)
Sand
45 95 29 9.6 0.90 0.90
(Reese)
Sand
50 100 30 14.4 1.27 1.27
(Reese)
The factor of safety utilized for skin friction and bearing capacity is presented in the following
table:
Design Parameter Factor of Safety
Allowable Skin Friction

2.0
(Compression and Uplift)
Allowable End Bearing Capacity 3.0
If there are drilled shaft groups on the project, we recommend the efficiency factor be 1.0 for
drilled shafts working in a group provided the spacing is not less than three shaft diameters.
Drilled shafts should be considered to work in group action if the horizontal spacing is less than

six shaft diameters. A minimum practical horizontal spacing between shafts of at least three
diameters should be maintained, and adjacent shafts should bear at the same elevation.
6.3.2 Lateral Loading Design Criteria
For each design stratum geotechnical engineering parameters were assigned for use in design
of the pole embedment depth or drilled shaft for lateral load conditions. These parameters may
be used in the computer programs MFAD 5.0 and/or L-Pile for design of the embedment for
lateral loading, and they are presented in the following table:
Transmission Line Poles – Lateral Design Parameters

Rankine
Depth to Effective Soil Modulus, MFAD, Earth
Soil Type (P-y) Friction Angle
Bottom of Weight ks Ep Pressure
Curve Model Φ’ (degrees)
Layer (ft) (pcf) (pci) (kips/in2) Coefficient,
kp
5 Sand (Reese) 90 29 Allow LPILE to 0.6 2.88
choose these
25 Sand (Reese) 110 31 values 1.6 3.12
Substation Structures – Lateral Design Parameters

Rankine
Depth to Effective Friction Soil Modulus, MFAD, Earth
Soil Type (P-y)
Bottom of Weight Angle Φ’ ks Ed Pressure
Curve Model
Layer (ft) (pcf) (degrees) (pci) (kips/in2) Coefficient,
kp
5 Sand (Reese) 95 29 0.5 2.88
10 Sand (Reese) 100 31 Allow LPILE to 1.6 3.12

choose these
45 Sand (Reese) 95 29 values 0.8 2.88
50 Sand (Reese) 100 30 1.2 3.00
All shafts should be reinforced to full-depth for the applied axial, lateral and uplift stresses
imposed. For this project, use of a minimum shaft diameter of 12 inches is recommended for
the foundations.
6.3.3 Drilled Hole Construction Considerations
Drilling of foundations to design depths should be possible with conventional drilling equipment
using single flight power augers. However, considering the sandy nature of the subsurface soils,
there is a potential of caving of uncased excavations. Groundwater was encountered in some
of the soil borings during drilling at a depth of 20 to 48 feet below the existing ground surface.

Depending upon the final foundation depths, groundwater may be encountered during
construction of drilled shaft foundations. Therefore, construction of drilled shaft foundations will
likely necessitate the use of temporary casing and/or wet drilling methods.
Drilled shaft concrete should be placed upon completion of drilling and cleaning. Due to
potential sloughing and raveling, foundation concrete quantities may exceed calculated
geometric volumes.
If casing is used for drilled shaft construction, it should be withdrawn in a slow continuous
manner maintaining a sufficient head of concrete to prevent infiltration of water or the creation of
voids in pier concrete. Drilled shaft concrete should have a relatively high fluidity when placed
in cased pier holes or through a tremie. Concrete with a slump in the range of 6 to 8 inches is
recommended.
Free-fall concrete placement in drilled shaft excavations will only be acceptable for shaft
excavations without groundwater and if provisions are taken to avoid striking the concrete on
the sides of the hole or reinforcing steel. The use of a bottom-dump hopper, or an elephant's
trunk discharging near the bottom of the hole where concrete segregation will be minimized, is
recommended.
Shaft bearing surfaces should be cleaned prior to concrete placement. A representative of the
geotechnical engineer should inspect the bearing surface and shaft configuration. If the soil
conditions encountered differ significantly from those presented in this report, supplemental
recommendations will be required.
6.4 Mat Foundations Design Recommendations for Substation Structures
Reinforced concrete mat foundations can be utilized for support of the substation transformers
and other slab mounted equipment on the project. If the site has been prepared in accordance
with the requirements noted in Earthwork section of this report, the mat foundations should be
designed based on the criteria outlined below:
Design Item Description/Recommendations

Foundation Type Mat Foundations
Minimum 12-inch thickness of NFS or Structural Fill
Bearing Material bearing on proof-rolled native sands or fill placed
for site grading.
Design Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k 200 pci
Minimum Width 4 feet
Modulus Correction Factor* kc=k((b+1)/2b)2

Design Item Description/Recommendations

Maximum Design Contact Stress Any practical value up to 2,000 psf
Total Estimated Settlement 1 inch or less
Differential Settlement ¾-inch over 4 feet
* It is common to reduce the k-value to account for dimensional effects of large loaded areas. Where k c
is the corrected or design modulus value and b is the mat width (short dimension) or tributary loaded
area.
allow movement due to frost action.
6.5 Lateral Earth Pressures
The lateral earth pressure recommendations herein are applicable to the design of footings and
rigid retaining walls subject to slight rotation, such as cantilever, or gravity type concrete walls.
DESIGN PARAMETER DESIGN VALUE1,2

Active Case 35 psf/ft
Passive Case 290 psf/ft
At-Rest Case 55 psf/ft
Coefficient of Base Friction 0.45
1 Note: The values are based on the on-site soils used as backfill.
2 Note The coefficient of base friction should be reduced to 0.35 when used in conjunction with passive pressure.
The lateral earth pressures herein do not include any factor of safety, they assume drained
conditions, they do not include surcharge loading, and they are not applicable for submerged
soils/hydrostatic loading. Additional recommendations may be necessary if such conditions are
to be included in the design.
Fill against foundations and retaining walls should be compacted to densities specified in the
Earthwork section of this report. Compaction of each lift adjacent to walls should be
accomplished with hand-operated tampers or other lightweight compactors.

6.6 Access Roadways
6.6.1 General Comments
On most project sites, the site grading is accomplished relatively early in the construction phase.
Fills are placed and compacted in a uniform manner. However, as construction proceeds,
excavations occur, rainfall and surface water cause saturation, heavy traffic from concrete
trucks and other delivery vehicles disturb the subgrade and many surface irregularities are filled
in with loose soils to improve trafficability. As a result, the roadway subgrades, initially prepared
early in the project, should be carefully evaluated as the time for roadway construction
approaches.
Prior to placement of roadway surfaces, the prepared subgrade should be proof-rolled using a
loaded tandem-axle dump truck. Areas where unsuitable conditions are located should be
repaired by replacing the materials with properly compacted fill. If significant precipitation
occurs after the evaluation or if the surface becomes disturbed, the subgrade should be
reviewed again by qualified personnel prior to placing the geotextile, recommended below. The
subgrade should be in its finished form at the time of the final review.
The access road area subgrades should be properly sloped to direct water from beneath the
drive area gravel section toward the edge, and/or down gradient. Collected water should be
channeled away from the access road. Adequate sloping of the gravel surface will minimize the
potential for ponding of water on or within proximity to the drive area, which will shorten the life
of the gravel drive. We recommend side drains be installed along the gravel access roadway to
reduce the likelihood of water ponding within the roadway subbase and to maintain groundwater
at a level below the subbase material.
6.6.2 Gravel Access Road Design Recommendations
The gravel roadway design should consist of a 6-inch thickness of well-graded crushed stone,
ranging in size from about ½-inch to 1¾-inch, placed over a prepared subgrade, as described in
further detail below. A heavy-duty geotextile (Mirafi 500x or similar) should be placed over the
native sandy soil prior to placing the crushed stone. The gravel roadway design is based on the
assumption that the majority of the loading will occur during the construction phase of the
project. After the proposed structures have been constructed or installed, we anticipate only
occasional loads from lightly-loaded maintenance vehicles. A gravel road is prone to damage
from oversized or heavily-loaded vehicles. Maintenance of the gravel road will be required. The
level of maintenance will generally depend upon the amount of use. The gravel road may need
occasional repairs if traveled upon by heavily-loaded vehicles.

Future performance of the gravel roadway constructed on the site will be partially dependent
upon maintaining stable moisture content of the subgrade soil. The performance may be
enhanced by reducing excess moisture that can reach the subgrade soils. The roadway surface
and subgrade should be sloped to provide positive drainage at all times. In this regard the
following recommendations are offered.
■ Slope the finished ground surface adjacent to the roads at a minimum 2% grade away
from the roadways.
■ The subgrade and roadway surfaces should be constructed and maintained with a
minimum 2% cross slope (crown) to promote proper surface drainage.
■ Provide appropriate edge drainage.
■ Provide swales and drainage ditches that frequently discharge to reduce runoff water
velocity. Adequately armor finished surfaces to limit erosion potential.
6.6.3 Gravel Access Road Construction Considerations
The roadway subgrade, if prepared early in the project, should be carefully evaluated as the
time for construction approaches. We recommend the roadway area be stripped of existing
topsoil/organic subsoil, or otherwise unsuitable material, rough graded, and compacted with a
heavy roller compactor without vibration, before being proof-rolled with a loaded tandem-axle
dump truck. Particular attention should be paid to high traffic areas that were rutted and
disturbed, and areas where backfilled trenches are located. Areas where unsuitable conditions
are located should be repaired by replacing the materials with properly compacted fill. When
proof-rolling/subgrade stabilization has been completed to the satisfaction of Terracon, the
geotextile fabric may be placed followed by the Crushed Stone.
Crushed stone surfaced drives, regardless of the section thickness or subgrade preparation
measures, will require on-going maintenance and repairs to keep it in a serviceable condition. It
is not practical to design a gravel section of sufficient thickness that on-going maintenance will
not be required. This is due to the porous nature of the gravel that will allow precipitation and
surface water to infiltrate and soften the subgrade soils, and the limited near surface strength of
unconfined gravel that makes it susceptible to rutting. When potholes, ruts, depressions or
yielding subgrades develop, they must be addressed as soon as possible in order to avoid
major repairs.
Maintenance should consist of periodic grading with a road grader. Typical repairs could
consist of placing additional gravel in ruts or depressed areas. Potholes and depressions
should not be filled by blading adjacent ridges or high areas into the depression areas. New
material should be added to the depressed areas as they develop. The use of a biaxial geogrid
product below the aggregate course may improve performance.

6.7 Earthwork
The following presents recommendations for site preparation, excavation, subgrade preparation,
and placement of engineered fills on the project. The recommendations presented for design
and construction of earth supported elements including foundations and roadways are
contingent upon following the recommendations outlined in this section.
Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. The evaluation of
earthwork should include observation and testing of engineered fill, subgrade preparation,
foundation bearing soils, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during the construction of
the project.
6.7.1 Site Preparation
Topsoil, organic subsoil (subsoil with visible roots), uncontrolled fills, and any otherwise
unsuitable materials should be removed prior to placing fill. The exposed subgrade should be
proofrolled with a minimum 10-ton (static weight) vibratory compactor. Unsuitable material at
subgrade level should be removed and replaced with compacted Structural Fill. Fill may then be
placed to attain the required grade.
6.7.2 Reuse of On-site Materials
Based on our laboratory results, it is our opinion that native sands may be selectively reused as
Common and Structural Fill, provided it is close to meeting our gradation requirements
presented in the table below. Reused material must be placed at moisture contents suitable for
compaction purposes and be compacted to the densities recommended below. Cobbles and
boulders, if encountered, should be culled from the material prior to reuse. Portions of the native
sands contained relatively higher concentrations of fines which may make reuse less desirable,
as these materials will be moisture sensitive and difficult to maintain at moisture levels suitable
for compaction, particularly during periods of wet weather.
6.7.3 Subgrade Preparation
The exposed bottom of over-excavated areas which will receive engineered fill, once properly
cleared and benched where necessary, should be scarified to a minimum depth of six inches,
moisture conditioned, and compacted. Exposed surfaces should be free of mounds and
depressions which could prevent uniform compaction. Exposed surfaces which will receive fill
should be observed and approved by Terracon prior to placement of engineered fill.

allow movement due to frost action.
6.7.4 Fill Material Type
Fill and backfill should meet the following material property requirements.
USCS
Fill Type 1 Acceptable Location for Placement
Classification
All locations and elevations. Imported Structural Fill
2
GW, GW-GM, SW, should meet the gradation requirements in Note 2
Structural Fill
SW-SM, SP, GP (below). Cobbles and boulders should be culled prior
to reuse.
Common Fill may be used for general site grading.
Common Fill should not be used under settlement or
Common Fill 3 Varies
frost-sensitive structures. Cobbles and boulders should
be culled prior to reuse.
Non-Frost Susceptible
GW, GP, SW, SP All locations and elevations.
(NFS) Fill 4
For use on wet subgrades, as a replacement for
Crushed Stone GP Structural and NFS Fill (if desired), and as drainage fill.
Should be uniform ¾-inch angular crushed stone.
Can be used to level subgrades between foundations
and native soils. Lean concrete should be flowable,
Lean Concrete Not applicable
self-compacting concrete with a compressive strength
between 300 and 2,000 psi.

USCS
Fill Type 1 Acceptable Location for Placement
Classification
1. Compacted fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter and debris. Frozen
material should not be used. Fill should not be placed on a frozen subgrade.
2. Imported Structural Fill should meet the following gradation specifications:
Percent Passing by Weight
Sieve Size Structural Fill
6″ 100
3″ 70 to 100
2″ (100)*
¾″ 45 to 95
No. 4 30 to 90
No. 10 25 to 80
No. 40 10 to 50
No. 200 0 to 12
* Maximum 2-inch particle size within 12 inches of the underside of concrete elements
3. Common Fill should have a maximum particle size of 6 inches and no more than 25 percent by weight
passing the No. 200 sieve.
4. NFS Fill should contain less than 5 percent material passing No. 200 sieve size.
6.7.5 Compaction Requirements
Structural and Common Fill should meet the following compaction requirements.
Item Description
■ 12 inches or less in loose thickness when heavy, self-propelled compaction
Maximum fill lift equipment is used.
thickness ■ 6 inches in loose thickness when hand-guided equipment (i.e. jumping jack
or plate compactor) is used.
Compaction
95 percent maximum modified Proctor dry density (ASTM D1557, Method C).
Requirements 1
Moisture Content –
Workable moisture levels.
Granular Material
1. We recommend that fill be tested for moisture content and compaction during placement.
Should the results of the in-place density tests indicate the specified moisture or compaction
limits have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked and retested,
as required, until the specified moisture and compaction requirements are achieved.

6.7.6 Utility Trench Backfill
Trench excavations should be made with sufficient working space to permit construction,
including backfill placement and compaction. As utility trenches can provide a conduit for
groundwater flow, trenches should be backfilled with material that approximately matches the
permeability characteristics of the surrounding soil. Should higher permeability fill be used in
trenches, consideration should be given to installing seepage collars and/or check dams to
reduce the likelihood of migration of water through the trenches. Fill placed as backfill for utilities
located below the slab should consist of compacted structural fill or suitable bedding material.
6.7.7 Grading and Drainage
Adequate drainage should be provided at the site to reduce the likelihood of an increase in
moisture content of the foundation soils. Pavement or parking areas should be sloped away
from the arrays to reduce the likelihood of water ponding near the structure.
6.7.8 Earthwork Construction Considerations
Unstable subgrade conditions could develop during general construction operations, particularly if
the soils are wetted and/or subjected to repetitive construction traffic. Should unstable subgrade
conditions develop, stabilization measures will need to be employed.
Construction traffic over the completed subgrade should be avoided to the extent practical. The
site should also be graded to prevent ponding of surface water on the prepared subgrades or in
excavations. If the subgrade should become frozen, wet, or disturbed, the affected material
should be removed, or should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted.
As a minimum, temporary excavations should be sloped or braced, as required by Occupational

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, to provide stability and safe working
conditions. The contractor, by his contract, is usually responsible for designing and constructing
stable, temporary excavations and should shore, slope or bench the sides of the excavations,
as required, to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. All excavations should
comply with applicable local, State, and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA
Excavation and Trench Safety Standards.
Terracon should be retained during the construction phase of the project to observe earthwork
and to perform necessary tests and observations during subgrade preparation; proofrolling;
placement and compaction of controlled compacted fills; backfilling of excavations in the
completed subgrade; and just prior to construction of foundations.

7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS
Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments
can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations
in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and
testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction and other earth-related
construction phases of the project.
The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the borings and pile load testing performed at the indicated locations and from other
information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur
across the site, or due to the modifying effects of weather. The nature and extent of such
variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we
should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations
can be provided.
The results of the test pile program should be interpreted in consideration of the subsurface
conditions at the time when and locations where testing was performed. Inherent variations
within near surface soil layers, seasonal groundwater fluctuations, seasonal wet and dry season
effects, and site disturbance (due to construction activities including clearing, grubbing, grading,
or modifications to site drainage) can significantly affect the geotechnical capacity of short pile
foundations. The results of the test pile program should also be interpreted in consideration of
the test pile connection method and test pile characteristics including the section properties,
surface texture, and installation methods.
The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any
environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or
prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the
potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the
project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site
safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the
event changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are
planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered
valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this
report in writing.

APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION

SITE
SITE
0 20,000' 40,000'
APPROXIMATE SCALE
Project Mngr: Project No.

B.Opp J2175133 SITE LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT
Drawn By: Scale:
KLJ AS SHOWN
Checked By: File No. Consulting Engineers and Scientists
Riverhead Solar
Approved By:
EFR
SDN
Date:
J2175133.DWG
05/02/2018
4685 South Ash Avenue, Suite H-4
PH. (480) 897-8200
Tempe, AZ 85282
FAX. (480) 897-1133
CALVERTON, NEW YORK
A-1
HWY 25
B-2
B-1
PLT-1
AVE
VBH-1
B-3
EDWARDS
PLT-2
ER-2
B-4 PLT-4
PLT-3
B-9
B-5
GT-3
PLT-5
B-8 GT-2
VBH-2
GT-1
MATCH EXHIBIT A-3
VBH-3 N
ER-1
B-6
PLT-6
B-7
0 250' 500'
IMAGE SOURCE: SUFFOLK COUNTY ONLINE GIS PORTAL, 2018 APPROXIMATE SCALE

B.Opp J2175133 EXPLORATION PLAN EXHIBIT
LEGEND: Drawn By: Scale:
ER-1 KLJ AS SHOWN
B-1 BORING LOCATION PLT-1 PILE LOAD TESTING LOCATION ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY TEST LOCATION Checked By: File No. Consulting Engineers and Scientists
Riverhead Solar
Approved By:
EFR
SDN
Date:
J2175133.DWG
05/03/2018
PH. (480) 897-8200
Tempe, AZ 85282
FAX. (480) 897-1133
CALVERTON, NEW YORK
A-2
AVE
EDWARDS
MATCH EXHIBIT A-2
GT-4
VBH-4
GT-5 495
VBH-5
Y
XP
DE
AN
ISL
NG
LO
N
0 250' 500'
IMAGE SOURCE: SUFFOLK COUNTY ONLINE GIS PORTAL, 2018 APPROXIMATE SCALE

B.Opp J2175133 EXPLORATION PLAN EXHIBIT
LEGEND: Drawn By: Scale:
ER-1 KLJ AS SHOWN
B-1 BORING LOCATION PLT-1 PILE LOAD TESTING LOCATION ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY TEST LOCATION Checked By: File No. Consulting Engineers and Scientists
Riverhead Solar
Approved By:
EFR
SDN
Date:
J2175133.DWG
05/03/2018
PH. (480) 897-8200
Tempe, AZ 85282
FAX. (480) 897-1133
CALVERTON, NEW YORK
A-3
GENERAL NOTES
DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Water Initially (HP) Hand Penetrometer

Encountered
Water Level After a
Bulk Shelby Tube Split Spoon (T) Torvane
Specified Period of Time
Water Level After
FIELD TESTS
WATER LEVEL
a Specified Period of Time (b/f) Standard Penetration
SAMPLING
Test (blows per foot)

Rock Macro Modified
Core Core California Water levels indicated on the soil boring N N value
Ring Sampler logs are the levels measured in the
borehole at the times indicated. (PID) Photo-Ionization Detector
Groundwater level variations will occur
over time. In low permeability soils, (OVA) Organic Vapor Analyzer
Grab No Modified accurate determination of groundwater
Sample Recovery Dames & Moore levels is not possible with short term
Ring Sampler water level observations.
DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION

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

Unless otherwise noted, Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device. The accuracy
of such devices is variable. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographical survey was
conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographic
maps of the area.
RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS

(More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.) (50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.)
Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field
Includes gravels, sands and silts. visual-manual procedures or standard penetration resistance
Descriptive Term Standard Penetration or Ring Sampler Descriptive Term Unconfined Compressive Standard Penetration or Ring Sampler
STRENGTH TERMS
(Density) N-Value Blows/Ft. (Consistency) Strength, Qu, psf N-Value Blows/Ft.

Blows/Ft. Blows/Ft.
Very Loose 0-3 0-6 Very Soft less than 500 0-1 <3
Loose 4-9 7 - 18 Soft 500 to 1,000 2-4 3-4
Medium Dense 10 - 29 19 - 58 Medium-Stiff 1,000 to 2,000 4-8 5-9
Dense 30 - 50 59 - 98 Stiff 2,000 to 4,000 8 - 15 10 - 18
Very Dense > 50 >

_ 99 Very Stiff 4,000 to 8,000 15 - 30 19 - 42
Hard > 8,000 > 30 > 42
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY

Descriptive Term(s) Percent of Major Component Particle Size
of other constituents Dry Weight of Sample
Trace < 15 Boulders Over 12 in. (300 mm)
With 15 - 29 Cobbles 12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm)
Modifier > 30 Gravel 3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm)
Sand #4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mm
Silt or Clay Passing #200 sieve (0.075mm)
RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION
Descriptive Term(s) Percent of Term Plasticity Index
of other constituents Dry Weight
Non-plastic 0
Trace <5 Low 1 - 10
With 5 - 12 Medium 11 - 30
Modifier > 12 High > 30
Exhibit A-4
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Soil Classification
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Group B
Group Name
Symbol
E F
Gravels: Clean Gravels: Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 GW Well-graded gravel
C E F
More than 50% of Less than 5% fines Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 GP Poorly graded gravel
F,G,H
coarse fraction retained Gravels with Fines: Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel
Coarse Grained Soils: on No. 4 sieve More than 12% fines
C
Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel
F,G,H
More than 50% retained E I

on No. 200 sieve Sands: Clean Sands: Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 SW Well-graded sand
D E I
50% or more of coarse Less than 5% fines Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3 SP Poorly graded sand
G,H,I
fraction passes No. 4 Sands with Fines: Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand
sieve More than 12% fines
D
Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand
G,H,I
J K,L,M
PI 7 and plots on or above “A” line CL Lean clay
Inorganic: J K,L,M
Silts and Clays: PI 4 or plots below “A” line ML Silt
K,L,M,N
Liquid limit less than 50 Liquid limit - oven dried Organic clay
Fine-Grained Soils: Organic: 0.75 OL K,L,M,O
Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt
50% or more passes the K,L,M
No. 200 sieve PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay
Inorganic: K,L,M
Silts and Clays: PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt
K,L,M,P
Liquid limit 50 or more Liquid limit - oven dried Organic clay
Organic: 0.75 OH K,L,M,Q
Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt
Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat
A H
Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.
B I
If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.
J
or boulders, or both” to group name. If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.
C K
Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel,”
gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly whichever is predominant.
L
graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay. If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add “sandy” to
D
Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded group name.
sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded M
If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add
sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay “gravelly” to group name.
2 N
(D 30 ) PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line.
E O
Cu = D60/D10 Cc = PI 4 or plots below “A” line.
P
D 10 x D 60 PI plots on or above “A” line.
Q
F PI plots below “A” line.
If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.
G
If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.
Exhibit A-5
BORING LOG NO. B-1 Page 1 of 1
PROJECT: Riverhead Solar CLIENT: Sustainable Power Group
SITE: 4083 Middle Country Road
Calverton, New York
LOCATION See Exhibit A-2
PERCENT FINES
OBSERVATIONS
RECOVERY (In.)
GRAPHIC LOG
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
CONTENT (%)
FIELD TEST
DEPTH (Ft.)
RESULTS
WATER
Latitude: 40.92568° Longitude: -72.76511°
DEPTH
SILTY SAND (SM), trace roots, orange to brown, medium dense, (SUBSOIL)
8-6-4-4
18
N=10
2.3
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), with gravel, gray to brown, medium dense to dense 11-14-12-12
18
N=26
5
9-14-18-18
16 2 2
N=32
GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL J2175133 RIVERHEAD 20 MEGA.GPJ TERRACON2015.GDT 5/4/18
20-23-24-29
16
N=47
10
6-8-18-24
15
N=26
15
6-13-21-18
18
N=34
20
9-18-21-22
18
N=39
22.0
Boring Terminated at 22 Feet
THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT.
Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

Samples taken with 2" outside-diameter split spoon sampler driven by a safety hammer
operated by winch and cable.
Advancement Method: Notes:
4 1/4-inch inside diameter continuous flight hollow-stem
augers. Topsoil stripped prior to our exploration.
See Appendix B for description of laboratory
procedures and additional data (if any).
Abandonment Method: See Appendix A-4 for explanation of symbols
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. and abbreviations.
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Boring Started: 9/27/2017 Boring Completed: 9/27/2017

Groundwater not encountered
Drill Rig: Diedrich D-50 Driller: O. Cone
201 Hammer Mill Rd
Rocky Hill, CT Project No.: J2175133 Exhibit: A-6
Calverton, New York
PERCENT FINES
OBSERVATIONS
RECOVERY (In.)
GRAPHIC LOG
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
CONTENT (%)
FIELD TEST
DEPTH (Ft.)
RESULTS
WATER
DEPTH
FILL - SILTY SAND , pieces of bituminous concrete, brown
7-6-7-10
20
N=13
17-16-35-29
10
N=51
4.0
SILTY SAND (SM), orange to brown, loose to medium dense
5
4-3-4-3
1
N=7
4-6-7-9
2
N=13
10.0
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), with gravel, occasional cobbles, gray to brown,
10
10-22-22-22
medium dense to dense 3
N=44
15
8-11-12-11
10
N=23
20
8-8-13-15
10
N=21
22.0

augers.

201 Hammer Mill Rd
Calverton, New York
PERCENT FINES
OBSERVATIONS
RECOVERY (In.)
GRAPHIC LOG
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
CONTENT (%)
FIELD TEST
DEPTH (Ft.)
RESULTS
WATER
DEPTH
SILTY SAND (SM), trace roots, brown, medium dense, (SUBSOIL)
4-7-8-5
16
1.8 N=15
SILTY SAND (SM), occasional cobbles, gray to brown, loose to dense
6-13-18-13
4 9
N=31
5
6.0 4-6-22-29
18
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), with gravel, gray to brown, dense to very dense N=28
31-29-33-35
17
N=62
10
9-11-20-27
14
N=31
15
9-18-24-26
18
N=42
20
20-24-26-29
16
N=50
22.0


201 Hammer Mill Rd
Calverton, New York
PERCENT FINES
OBSERVATIONS
RECOVERY (In.)
GRAPHIC LOG
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
CONTENT (%)
FIELD TEST
DEPTH (Ft.)
RESULTS
WATER
DEPTH
SILTY SAND (SM), with gravel, trace roots, orange to brown, medium dense,
6-10-11-18
(SUBSOIL) 18
N=21
2.0
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), with gravel, gray to brown, medium dense to dense
10-13-18-20
18
N=31
5
16-18-18-21
14
N=36
10-14-19-22
12
N=33
10
15-13-14-14
10
N=27
15
12-14-18-20
20
N=32
20
12-12-16-18
24
N=28
22.0


201 Hammer Mill Rd
Calverton, New York
PERCENT FINES
OBSERVATIONS
RECOVERY (In.)
GRAPHIC LOG
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
CONTENT (%)
FIELD TEST
DEPTH (Ft.)
RESULTS
WATER
DEPTH
SILTY SAND (SM), occasional cobbles, brown, loose to medium dense
2-4-4-5
20
N=8
11-14-12-13
6 5
N=26
4.0
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), with gravel, occasional cobbles, gray to brown,
medium dense to very dense 5
15-26-24-26
8
N=50
21-17-16-19
16
N=33
10
6-12-12-19
16
N=24
15
10-13-16-21
18
N=29
20
13-16-21-21
16
N=37
22.0


201 Hammer Mill Rd
Calverton, New York
PERCENT FINES
OBSERVATIONS
RECOVERY (In.)
GRAPHIC LOG
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
CONTENT (%)
FIELD TEST
DEPTH (Ft.)
RESULTS
WATER
DEPTH
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SP-SM), orange to brown,
2-3-4-4
loose 14
N=7
2.0
SILTY SAND (SM), brown, loose
3-4-4-6
12
N=8
5.0
5
12-13-16-15
12 3
N=29
13-16-18-21
16
N=34
10
12-13-13-16
16
N=26
15
10-13-16-18
15
N=29
20
19-21-25-28
18
N=46
22.0


201 Hammer Mill Rd
Calverton, New York
PERCENT FINES
OBSERVATIONS
RECOVERY (In.)
GRAPHIC LOG
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
CONTENT (%)
FIELD TEST
DEPTH (Ft.)
RESULTS
WATER
DEPTH
0.3 TOPSOIL
2-4-10-14
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), with gravel, gray to brown, medium dense to dense 10
N=14
12-16-16-21
12
N=32
5
9-22-20-29
13
N=42
7.0
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), gray to brown, dense to very dense

25-30-26-28
14 3
N=56
10
10-13-17-23
14
N=30
15
12-22-22-29
16
N=44
20
20-26-27-26
16
N=53
22.0

augers.

201 Hammer Mill Rd
Calverton, New York
PERCENT FINES
OBSERVATIONS
RECOVERY (In.)
GRAPHIC LOG
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
CONTENT (%)
FIELD TEST
DEPTH (Ft.)
RESULTS
WATER
DEPTH
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), with gravel, trace roots, orange to brown, loose,
1-3-3-4
(SUBSOIL) 12
N=6
2.0
10-12-14-18
6
N=26
5
12-16-16-20
18
N=32
13-18-19-22
16
N=37
10
14-18-20-22
18
N=38
15
12-15-18-22
16
N=33
20
16-18-20-23
14
N=38
22.0


201 Hammer Mill Rd
Calverton, New York
PERCENT FINES
OBSERVATIONS
RECOVERY (In.)
GRAPHIC LOG
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
CONTENT (%)
FIELD TEST
DEPTH (Ft.)
RESULTS
WATER
DEPTH
SILTY SAND (SM), trace roots, brown, medium dense, (SUBSOIL)
6-10-11-10
12
N=21
2.0
CLAYEY SAND (SC), gray, medium dense
3-8-10-15
14 14 39
N=18
5.0
5
10-15-18-20
12
N=33
15-16-19-22
16
N=35
10
10-15-18-22
12
N=33
15
10-12-16-20
10
N=28
20
12-14-18-22
12
N=32
22.0


201 Hammer Mill Rd
BORING LOG NO. VBH-1 Page 1 of 2
Calverton, New York
PERCENT FINES
OBSERVATIONS
RECOVERY (In.)
GRAPHIC LOG
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
CONTENT (%)
FIELD TEST
DEPTH (Ft.)
RESULTS
WATER
DEPTH
0.3 TOPSOIL
1-1-2-2
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP), brown, loose to medium dense 10
N=3
3-3-4-5
12
N=7
5
9-9-7-7
16
N=16
6-7-4-5
16
N=11
9.0
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), trace gravel, gray to brown, loose to medium dense
10
5-4-5-6
16
N=9
15
7-8-6-7
16
N=14
20
8-9-9-7
18
N=18
25
11-9-8-9
20
N=17
30
8-7-6-7
13
N=13

Samples taken with 2" outside-diameter split spoon sampler driven by a automatic hammer
3 1/2" dry rod

48' While drilling
Drill Rig: Geoprobe 7800 Driller: E. Santiago
201 Hammer Mill Rd
Calverton, New York
PERCENT FINES
OBSERVATIONS
RECOVERY (In.)
GRAPHIC LOG
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
CONTENT (%)
FIELD TEST
DEPTH (Ft.)
RESULTS
WATER
DEPTH
(continued)
35
13-9-10-12
19
N=19
40
13-12-9-11
17
N=21
45
3-3-5-6
12
N=8
groundwater encountered at 48 feet during drilling
50
5-7-15-15
6
N=22
52.0

3 1/2" dry rod

48' While drilling
201 Hammer Mill Rd
Calverton, New York
PERCENT FINES
OBSERVATIONS
RECOVERY (In.)
GRAPHIC LOG
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
CONTENT (%)
FIELD TEST
DEPTH (Ft.)
RESULTS
WATER
DEPTH
0.5 TOPSOIL
11-12-12-17
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP), brown, loose to medium dense 24
N=24
7-10-12-12
20
N=22
5
1-1-3-7
16
N=4
4-7-7-7
16
N=14
10
8-10-9-10
14
N=19
15
9-8-10-10
18
N=18
17.0
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), gray to brown, loose to medium dense

20
2-6-6-6
16
N=12
25
2-4-4-3
20
N=8
27.0

3 1/2" dry rod

20' While drilling
201 Hammer Mill Rd
Calverton, New York
PERCENT FINES
OBSERVATIONS
RECOVERY (In.)
GRAPHIC LOG
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
CONTENT (%)
FIELD TEST
DEPTH (Ft.)
RESULTS
WATER
DEPTH
FILL - SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL , black, with plastic wrapping, pvc, rubber,
2-2-2-2
roots, and stumps 16
N=4
2-1-3-2
13
N=4
5
6.0 13-13-16-17
18
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP), brown, loose to medium dense N=29
12-10-11-12
17
N=21
10
10-10-11-10
18
N=21
15
8-8-7-10
17
N=15
17.0
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), gray to brown, medium dense
20
6-8-9-9
18
N=17
25
10-9-10-10
16
N=19
27.0

3 1/2" dry rod

201 Hammer Mill Rd
Calverton, New York
PERCENT FINES
OBSERVATIONS
RECOVERY (In.)
GRAPHIC LOG
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
CONTENT (%)
FIELD TEST
DEPTH (Ft.)
RESULTS
WATER
DEPTH
FILL - SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL , black, with plastic wrapping, pvc, rubber,
1-4-4-3
roots, and stumps 18
N=8
3-3-4-8
16
N=7
5
6.0 9-10-10-8
16
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP), brown, loose to medium dense N=20
9-6-6-5
18
N=12
10
4-5-4-4
18
N=9
15
4-4-3-4
16
N=7
17.0
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), trace gravel, gray to brown, medium dense
20
3-3-2-3
14
N=5
22.0
25


3 1/2" dry rod

201 Hammer Mill Rd
Calverton, New York
PERCENT FINES
OBSERVATIONS
RECOVERY (In.)
GRAPHIC LOG
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
CONTENT (%)
FIELD TEST
DEPTH (Ft.)
RESULTS
WATER
DEPTH
0.3 TOPSOIL
2-2-4-5
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), brown, loose to medium dense 17
N=6
5-5-4-6
13
N=9
5
4-7-8-7
13
N=15
7.0
6-4-4-4
14
N=8
10
4-4-4-4
16
N=8
15
3-3-4-3
18
N=7

20
3-4-5-5
16
N=9
25
8-5-6-8
17
N=11
30
5-5-3-5
16
N=8
32.0

3 1/2" dry rod

20' While drilling
201 Hammer Mill Rd
Calverton, New York
PERCENT FINES
OBSERVATIONS
RECOVERY (In.)
GRAPHIC LOG
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
CONTENT (%)
FIELD TEST
DEPTH (Ft.)
RESULTS
WATER
DEPTH
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP), gray to brown, loose to medium
dense (continued)
35
2-3-4-4
12
N=7
40
1-3-4-4
17
N=7
45
4-4-8-7
7
N=12
50
4-6-8-10
9
N=14
52.0

3 1/2" dry rod

20' While drilling
201 Hammer Mill Rd
BORING LOG NO. GT-1 Page 1 of 1
Calverton, New York
PERCENT FINES
OBSERVATIONS
RECOVERY (In.)
GRAPHIC LOG
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
CONTENT (%)
FIELD TEST
DEPTH (Ft.)
RESULTS
WATER
DEPTH
0.5 SUBSOIL
7-9-9-6
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), trace fines, gray to brown, loose 17
N=18
1-2-4-8
14
N=6
5
2-3-9-5
15
N=12
2-3-3-3
16
N=6
9.0
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), trace gravel, tan, medium dense
10
7-8-8-7
14
N=16
15
6-6-8-10
18
N=14
20
5-6-6-1
16
groundwater encountered at 21 feet during drilling N=12
25
8-7-12-10
24
N=19
27.0

3 1/2" dry rod

21' While drilling
201 Hammer Mill Rd
Calverton, New York
PERCENT FINES
OBSERVATIONS
RECOVERY (In.)
GRAPHIC LOG
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
CONTENT (%)
FIELD TEST
DEPTH (Ft.)
RESULTS
WATER
DEPTH
0.5 SUBSOIL
6-6-5-5
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), brown, loose to medium dense 12
N=11
1-1-3-5
20
N=4
5
6-6-5-5
16
N=11
7.0
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), trace gravel, tan, loose to medium dense
4-4-4-5
17
N=8
10
5-5-4-7
16
N=9
15
3-4-4-5
16
N=8
20
5-3-5-5
18
N=8
25
6-6-7-7
18
N=13
27.0

3 1/2" dry rod

201 Hammer Mill Rd
Calverton, New York
PERCENT FINES
OBSERVATIONS
RECOVERY (In.)
GRAPHIC LOG
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
CONTENT (%)
FIELD TEST
DEPTH (Ft.)
RESULTS
WATER
Latitude: 40.9192° Longitude: 72.748°
DEPTH
0.5 SUBSOIL
2-1-3-2
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), brown, loose 13
N=4
2-2-2-2
16
N=4
4.0
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), trace coarse gravel, tan, medium dense
5
13-13-16-17
18
N=29
12-10-11-12
17
N=21
10
10-10-11-10
18
N=21
15
8-8-7-10
17
N=15
20
6-8-9-9
18
N=17
25
10-9-10-10
16
N=19
27.0

3 1/2" dry rod

201 Hammer Mill Rd
Calverton, New York
PERCENT FINES
OBSERVATIONS
RECOVERY (In.)
GRAPHIC LOG
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
CONTENT (%)
FIELD TEST
DEPTH (Ft.)
RESULTS
WATER
Latitude: 40.9143° Longitude: 72.7458°
DEPTH
0.5 SUBSOIL
5-5-11-14
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), occasional cobbles, brown, loose to dense 13
N=16
1-1-6-6
13
N=7
5
15-17-20-18
16
N=37
7.0
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP), tan, medium dense

11-10-13-12
15
N=23
10
10-12-10-15
15
N=22
15
9-9-13-13
16
N=22
20
12-14-14-16
18
N=28
25
14-9-13-20
16
groundwater encountered at 26 feet during drilling N=22
27.0

3 1/2" dry rod

26' While drilling
201 Hammer Mill Rd
Calverton, New York
PERCENT FINES
OBSERVATIONS
RECOVERY (In.)
GRAPHIC LOG
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL
CONTENT (%)
FIELD TEST
DEPTH (Ft.)
RESULTS
WATER
DEPTH
0.3 TOPSOIL
1-2-3-3
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), brown 15
N=5
4-4-6-6
13
N=10
5.0
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), trace gravel, gray to brown
5
7-8-8-7
16
N=16
8-7-6-6
7
N=13
10
6-5-5-6
16
N=10
15
7-5-6-6
14
N=11
17.0

3 1/2" dry rod

201 Hammer Mill Rd
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING

ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS
ASTM D4318
60
50
P
L
H
A
O
S 40
T
i ne
or
"L
I
e
H
C
"U in
C
I
"L
T 30
Y
"A
L
O
I
N 20
or
D
L
E MH or OH
X C
10
CL-ML
ML or OL
ATTERBERG LIMITS J2175133 RIVERHEAD 20 MEGA.GPJ TERRACON2015.GDT 5/2/18
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
LIQUID LIMIT
Boring ID Depth LL PL PI Fines USCS Description

B-9 2-4 40 20 20 39 SC CLAYEY SAND
LABORATORY TESTS ARE NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT.
PROJECT: Riverhead Solar

PROJECT NUMBER: J2175133
SITE: 4195 Middle Country Road CLIENT: Sustainable Power Group

Calverton, New York Salt Lake City, Utah
201 Hammer Mill Rd
Rocky Hill, CT EXHIBIT: B-1
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D422 / ASTM C136
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
4 2 1 1/2 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 200
6 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 8 14 20 40 60 140
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
60
55
50
45
GRAIN SIZE: USCS-2 J2175133 RIVERHEAD 20 MEGA.GPJ TERRACON2015.GDT 5/2/18
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAVEL SAND
COBBLES SILT OR CLAY
coarse fine coarse medium fine
Boring ID Depth USCS Classification WC (%) LL PL PI Cc Cu

LABORATORY TESTS ARE NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT.
B-1 5-7 POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL (SP) 2 0.75 6.65
B-9 2-4 CLAYEY SAND (SC) 14 40 20 20
Boring ID Depth D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Fines %Clay
B-1 5-7 25 2.029 0.683 0.305 28.0 69.7 2.3
B-9 2-4 19 0.674 14.7 46.7 38.6
PROJECT: Riverhead Solar

PROJECT NUMBER: J2175133

Calverton, New York Salt Lake City, Utah
201 Hammer Mill Rd
Rocky Hill, CT EXHIBIT: B-2
LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL REPORT
Report Number: J2175133.0001
Service Date: 10/04/17 201 Hammer Mill Rd
Report Date: 10/04/17 Rocky Hill, CT 06067-3768
860-721-1900
Client Project
Sustainable Power Group Riverhead 20 Megawatt
Attn: Sean McBride 4195 Middle Country Road
135 East 57th Street Calverton, NY 11933
New York, NY 10022
Project Number: J2175133
Material Information Sample Information
Source of Material: B-1 4-6 feet Sample Date: 09/27/17
Proposed Use: Thermal Resistivity Test Sampled By: Jared Hall
Sample Location: B-1
Sample Description: Native sands
Laboratory Test Data Result Specifications

Test Procedure: ASTM D1557 Liquid Limit:
Test Method: Method C Plastic Limit:
Sample Preparation: Dry Plasticity Index:
Rammer Type: Mechanical In-Place Moisture (%):
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 131.0
Optimum Water Content (%): 7.0
USCS:
Zero Air Voids Curve for Assumed Specific
Gravity 2.70
133
132
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
131
130
129
128
127
126
125
124
123
122
121
120
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Water Content (%)
Comments: 0.3% retained on 3/4" sieve
Services: Moisture-Density Relations
Terracon Rep.: Carrington Klopfer

Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(1) Sustainable Power Group, Sean McBride
Reviewed By: _______________________________

Brian D. Opp
Project Manager
Test Methods: ASTM D1140, ASTM D1557
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of
the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein
are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently
similar or identical materials.
CR0006, 10-16-13, Rev.7 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit B-3
LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL REPORT
Report Number: J2175133.0002
Service Date: 10/04/17 201 Hammer Mill Rd
Report Date: 10/04/17 Rocky Hill, CT 06067-3768
860-721-1900
Client Project
Sustainable Power Group Riverhead 20 Megawatt
Attn: Sean McBride 4195 Middle Country Road
135 East 57th Street Calverton, NY 11933
New York, NY 10022
Material Information Sample Information
Source of Material: B-7 4-6 feet Sample Date: 09/26/17
Proposed Use: Thermal Resistivity Sampled By: Jared Hall
Sample Location: B-7
Sample Description: Native sands
Laboratory Test Data Result Specifications

Test Procedure: ASTM D1557 Liquid Limit:
Test Method: Method C Plastic Limit:
Sample Preparation: Dry Plasticity Index:
Rammer Type: Mechanical In-Place Moisture (%):
Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf): 122.5
Optimum Water Content (%): 8.2
USCS:
Zero Air Voids Curve for Assumed Specific
Gravity 2.70
125
124
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
123
122
121
120
119
118
117
116
115
114
113
112
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Water Content (%)
Comments: 1.2" retained on the 3/4" sieve
Services: Moisture-Density Relations
Terracon Rep.: Carrington Klopfer

Reported To:
Contractor:
Report Distribution:
(1) Sustainable Power Group, Sean McBride
Reviewed By: _______________________________

Brian D. Opp
Project Manager
Test Methods: ASTM D1140, ASTM D1557
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM, AASHTO, or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of
the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein
are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently
similar or identical materials.
CR0006, 10-16-13, Rev.7 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit B-4
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESULTS
USCS In-Situ Properties Classification Expansion Testing Corrosivity
Borehole Depth
Soil Passing Atterberg Limits Dry Water Expansion Remarks
No. (ft.) Resistivity Sulfates Chlorides
Class. Dry(pcf)
Density Water
Content (%) #200 Density Content
Surcharge Expansion
(psf) (%)
Index pH
(ohm-cm) (ppm) (ppm)
Sieve (%) LL PL PI (pcf) (%) EI 50
SOIL PROPERTIES 2 J2175133 RIVERHEAD 20 MEGA.GPJ TERRACON2012.GDT 5/2/18
B-1 5.0 - 7.0 SP 2 2 2

B-3 2.0 - 4.0 SM 9 2
B-5 2.0 - 4.0 SM 5 2
B-6 5.0 - 7.0 SP 3 2
B-7 7.0 - 9.0 SP 3 2
B-9 2.0 - 4.0 SC 14 39 40 20 20
VBH-1 2.0 - 4.0 SP 8.6 16975 53 75 2
VBH-2 5.0 - 7.0 SP 7.3 3880 122 123 2
REMARKS
1. Dry Density and/or moisture determined from one or more rings of a multi-ring sample.
2. Visual Classification.
3. Submerged to approximate saturation.
4. Expansion Index in accordance with ASTM D4829-95.
5. Air-Dried Sample
PROJECT: Riverhead Solar PROJECT NUMBER: J2175133

Calverton, New York 201 Hammer Mill Rd
Rocky Hill, CT Salt Lake City, Utah
PH. 860-721-1900 FAX. 860-721-1939 EXHIBIT: B-5
Project Name: Riverhead 20 MW Thermal Resistivity Test Results
Sample ID: B-1, 4'-6' Thermal
Moisture Temperature
Soil Type: POORLY GRADED SAND Resistivity
Content (%) (°C)
Standard/Modified Proctor: ASTM D 1557-C (˚C-cm/watt)
Max Dry Density, pcf: 131.0 0.0 102 21.7
Optimum Moisture Content, %: 7.0 2.6 29 17.8
Target % Compaction: 95 5.0 26 16.4
Sample Dry Density, pcf: 124 5.8 25 17.8
Sample % Compaction: 95 6.9 29 17.9
Thermal Resistivity Dry-Out Curve
120
Thermal Resistivity, °C-cm/watt
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8
Moisture Content, %
Date: 10/22/17 Run By: DDW Reviewed By: KTH
Exhibit B-6
Project Name: Riverhead 20 MW Thermal Resistivity Test Results
Sample ID: B-7, 4'-6' Thermal
Moisture Temperature
Soil Type: POORLY GRADED SAND Resistivity
Content (%) (°C)
Standard/Modified Proctor: ASTM D 1557-C (˚C-cm/watt)
Max Dry Density, pcf: 122.5 0.1 128 18.1
Optimum Moisture Content, %: 8.2 1.7 39 16.9
Target % Compaction: 95 4.2 33 16.7
Sample Dry Density, pcf: 116 6.4 31 15.9
Sample % Compaction: 95 8.8 26 19.6
Thermal Resistivity Dry-Out Curve
140
120
Thermal Resistivity, °C-cm/watt
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Moisture Content, %
Date: 10/22/17 Run By: DDW Reviewed By: KTH
Exhibit B-7
APPENDIX C
RESULTS OF PILE TESTING UNDER AXIAL COMPRESSIVE

LOAD

Compression Load Test Result for PLT-1B
Project Information
Project Name: Riverhead Solar Compression Test Results
Project Location: Calverton, New York % of Axial
Project Number: J2175133 Design Load Deflection Δ (in.) Comments
Load [lbs] Gauges #1 & #2
0% 0 0.000
Axial Load Test Set Up 18% 548 0.009
Number of Gauges: 2 44% 1326 0.022
Height of Gauges [in]: 12 73% 2201 0.030
Load Cell: 0 154% 4630 0.063
235% 7060 0.085
154% 4630 0.085
Test Date and Representative 73% 2201 0.073
Tested By Terracon Rep: Brian O. 0% 0 0.038
Date Tested: 4/25/2018
Pile Information
Pile ID: PLT-1B
Latitude: 40.92539
Longitude: -72.76377
Pile Type: W6x9
Pile Embedment Depth [in]: 84
Pile Diameter [in]: 5.9
Pile Stick-Up [in]: 0
Axial Design Load [lbs]: 3000
Pile Area [sq. in]: 2.68
Elastic Modulus [ksi]: 29,000
Drive Time [sec]: 33
0.00
0.05
0.10
Deflection (inches)
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
Compression Axial Load (lbs)

Axial Deflection
Exhibit C-1
Compression Load Test Result for PLT-1C
Project Information
0% 0 0.000
Load Cell: 0 90% 2687 0.002
122% 3658 0.002
154% 4630 0.002
Date Tested: 4/25/2018 235% 7060 0.020
268% 8032 0.025
316% 9490 0.035
Pile Information 349% 10462 0.040
Pile ID: PLT-1C 397% 11920 0.076
Latitude: 40.92539 430% 12892 0.116
Longitude: -72.76377 478% 14350 0.141
Pile Type: W6x15 316% 9490 0.133
Pile Embedment Depth [in]: 96 154% 4630 0.055
Pile Diameter [in]: 5.99 0% 0 0.008
0.00
0.05
0.10
Deflection (inches)
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000

Axial Deflection
Exhibit C-2
Project Information
0% 0 0.000
Load Cell: 0 106% 3172 0.064
154% 4630 0.081
187% 5602 0.090
Date Tested: 4/25/2018 44% 1326 0.080
0% 0 0.002 See Note 1
Note 1: Reading error on Dial Gauge #2
Pile Information
Pile ID: PLT-2B
Latitude: 40.92358
Pile Type: W6x9
0.00
0.05
0.10
Deflection (inches)
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000

Axial Deflection
Exhibit C-3
Project Information
0% 0 0.000
Load Cell: 0 106% 3172 0.031
138% 4144 0.051
171% 5116 0.103
Date Tested: 4/26/2018 138% 4144 0.121
73% 2201 0.107
0% 0 0.072 See Note 1
Pile Information Note 1: Disregard Dial Gauge #1 readings. Dial gauge became loose during testing.
Pile ID: PLT-3B
Latitude: 40.92102
Pile Type: W6x9
0.00
0.05
0.10
Deflection (inches)
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000

Axial Deflection
Exhibit C-4
Compression Load Test Result for PLT-3D
Project Information
0% 0 0.000
Load Cell: 0 90% 2687 0.008
138% 4144 0.028
187% 5602 0.058
Date Tested: 4/26/2018 284% 8518 0.104
316% 9490 0.114
349% 10462 0.122
Pile ID: PLT-3D 414% 12406 0.142
Latitude: 40.92102 446% 13378 0.151
Longitude: -72.76746 235% 7060 0.120
Pile Type: W6x15 154% 4630 0.095
Pile Diameter [in]: 5.99 0% 0 0.000
0.00
0.05
0.10
Deflection (inches)
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000

Axial Deflection
Exhibit C-5
Project Information
0% 0 0.000
Load Cell: 0 106% 3172 0.038
138% 4144 0.055
171% 5116 0.071
Date Tested: 4/26/2018 316% 9490 0.164
235% 7060 0.162
154% 4630 0.143
Pile ID: PLT-4B 0% 0 0.068
Latitude: 40.92099
Pile Type: W6x9
0.00
0.05
0.10
Deflection (inches)
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000

Axial Deflection
Exhibit C-6
Project Information
0% 0 0.000
Load Cell: 0 106% 3172 0.099
146% 4387 0.155
171% 5116 0.173
Date Tested: 4/26/2018 138% 4144 0.239
73% 2201 0.221
0% 0 0.155
Pile Information
Pile ID: PLT-5B
Latitude: 40.91897
Pile Type: W6x9
0.00
0.05
0.10
Deflection (inches)
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000

Axial Deflection
Exhibit C-7
Compression Load Test Result for PLT-5D
Project Information
0% 0 0.000
Load Cell: 0 106% 3172 0.012
146% 4387 0.025
171% 5116 0.035
Date Tested: 4/26/2018 268% 8032 0.063
300% 9004 0.065
333% 9976 0.086
Pile ID: PLT-5D 397% 11920 0.109
Latitude: 40.91897 430% 12892 0.125
Longitude: -72.76568 478% 14350 0.147
Pile Type: W6x15 284% 8518 0.121
Pile Diameter [in]: 5.99 106% 3172 0.060
Pile Stick-Up [in]: 0 0% 0 0.014
0.00
0.05
0.10
Deflection (inches)
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000

Axial Deflection
Exhibit C-8
Project Information
0% 0 0.000
Load Cell: 0 106% 3172 0.051
138% 4144 0.073
171% 5116 0.093
Date Tested: 4/26/2018 316% 9490 0.196
252% 7546 0.196
187% 5602 0.189
Pile ID: PLT-6B 25% 743 0.142
Latitude: 40.91588 0% 0 0.098
Pile Type: W6x9
0.00
0.05
0.10
Deflection (inches)
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000

Axial Deflection
Exhibit C-9
APPENDIX D
RESULTS OF PILE TESTING UNDER AXIAL TENSILE LOAD

Tension Load Test Result for PLT-1B
Project Information
Project Name: Riverhead Solar Tension Test Results Davisson Offset Limit Lines
Project Location: Calverton, New York % of Axial Elastic Davisson Offest
Project Number: J2175133 Design Load Deflection Δ (in.) Data (in) Limit (in) Comments
Load [lbs] Gauges #1 & #2 (PL/AE) (0.15+D/120+(PL/AE))
0% 0 0.000 0.000 0.199
Axial Load Test Set Up 10% 500 0.000 0.001 0.200
Number of Gauges: 2 24% 1200 0.000 0.001 0.200
Height of Gauges [in]: 12 30% 1500 0.001 0.002 0.201
Load Cell: 0 40% 1980 0.002 0.002 0.201
50% 2519 0.006 0.003 0.202
61% 3060 0.014 0.003 0.202
Test Date and Representative 80% 4000 0.030 0.004 0.203
Tested By Terracon Rep: Brian O. 100% 4990 0.053 0.005 0.205
Date Tested: 4/25/2018 63% 3170 0.051 0.003 0.203
36% 1820 0.052 0.002 0.201
30% 1500 0.052 0.002 0.201
Pile Information 14% 690 0.052 0.001 0.200
Pile ID: PLT-1B 0% 0 0.051 0.000 0.199
Latitude: 40.92539
Pile Type: W6x9
0.00
0.10
0.20
Deflection (inches)
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
Uplift Axial Load (lbs)

Axial Deflection Davisson Offset Limit
Exhibit D-1
Project Information
0% 0 0.000 0.000 0.199
Number of Gauges: 2 20% 1000 0.010 0.001 0.200
Load Cell: 0 41% 2040 0.014 0.002 0.201
52% 2600 0.023 0.003 0.202
60% 3000 0.026 0.003 0.202
Date Tested: 4/25/2018 90% 4500 0.050 0.005 0.204
100% 5000 0.061 0.005 0.205
114% 5700 0.084 0.006 0.205
Pile ID: PLT-2B 110% 5500 0.119 0.006 0.205
Latitude: 40.92358 56% 2800 0.117 0.003 0.202
Longitude: -72.76502 30% 1500 0.114 0.002 0.201
Pile Type: W6X9 10% 500 0.111 0.001 0.200
Pile Embedment Depth [in]: 84 0% 0 0.111 0.000 0.199
0.00
0.10
0.20
Deflection (inches)
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000

Exhibit D-2
Project Information
0% 0 0.000 0.000 0.199
Number of Gauges: 2 20% 1000 0.002 0.001 0.200
Load Cell: 0 41% 2050 0.007 0.002 0.201
52% 2600 0.011 0.003 0.202
60% 3010 0.014 0.003 0.202
Date Tested: 4/26/2018 90% 4500 0.034 0.005 0.204
100% 5000 0.037 0.005 0.205
110% 5510 0.055 0.006 0.205
Pile ID: PLT-3B 133% 6630 0.084 0.007 0.206
Latitude: 40.92102 62% 3120 0.071 0.003 0.203
Longitude: -72.76746 34% 1680 0.061 0.002 0.201
Pile Type: W6X9 22% 1080 0.055 0.001 0.200
Pile Diameter [in]: 5.9 0% 0 0.028 0.000 0.199
0.00
0.10
0.20
Deflection (inches)
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000

Exhibit D-3
Project Information
0% 0 0.000 0.000 0.199
Number of Gauges: 2 20% 1000 0.005 0.001 0.200
Load Cell: 0 40% 1980 0.013 0.002 0.201
48% 2400 0.017 0.003 0.202
60% 3000 0.022 0.003 0.202
Date Tested: 4/26/2018 89% 4450 0.041 0.005 0.204
98% 4920 0.045 0.005 0.204
108% 5400 0.050 0.006 0.205
Pile ID: PLT-4B 131% 6540 0.081 0.007 0.206
Latitude: 40.92099 100% 5000 0.081 0.005 0.205
Longitude: -72.76341 80% 4000 0.080 0.004 0.203
Pile Type: W6X9 64% 3200 0.079 0.003 0.203
Pile Diameter [in]: 5.9 37% 1830 0.076 0.002 0.201
Pile Stick-Up [in]: 0 22% 1080 0.073 0.001 0.200
Axial Design Load [lbs]: 5000 14% 690 0.071 0.001 0.200
Pile Area [sq. in]: 2.68 11% 530 0.070 0.001 0.200
Elastic Modulus [ksi]: 29,000 0% 0 0.067 0.000 0.199
0.00
0.10
0.20
Deflection (inches)
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000

Exhibit D-4
Project Information
0% 0 0.000 0.000 0.199
Number of Gauges: 2 19% 960 0.001 0.001 0.200
Load Cell: 0 40% 2000 0.019 0.002 0.201
46% 2300 0.058 0.002 0.202
52% 2600 0.096 0.003 0.202
Date Tested: 4/26/2018 80% 4000 0.231 0.004 0.203
88% 4400 0.304 0.005 0.204
98% 4920 0.365 0.005 0.204
Pile ID: PLT-5B 122% 6100 0.523 0.007 0.206
Latitude: 40.91897 130% 6500 0.517 0.007 0.206
Longitude: -72.76568 87% 4340 0.507 0.005 0.204
Pile Type: W6X9 65% 3230 0.498 0.003 0.203
Pile Diameter [in]: 5.9 32% 1580 0.488 0.002 0.201
Pile Stick-Up [in]: 0 20% 990 0.482 0.001 0.200
Axial Design Load [lbs]: 5000 12% 580 0.460 0.001 0.200
0.00
0.10
0.20
Deflection (inches)
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000

Exhibit D-5
Project Information
0% 0 0.000 0.000 0.199
Number of Gauges: 2 20% 1020 0.004 0.001 0.200
Load Cell: 0 38% 1900 0.025 0.002 0.201
51% 2530 0.026 0.003 0.202
61% 3060 0.038 0.003 0.202
Date Tested: 4/26/2018 89% 4430 0.086 0.005 0.204
99% 4950 0.128 0.005 0.205
111% 5550 0.184 0.006 0.205
Pile ID: PLT-6B 137% 6850 0.327 0.007 0.207
Latitude: 40.91897 95% 4770 0.327 0.005 0.204
Longitude: -72.76341 57% 2850 0.327 0.003 0.202
Pile Type: W6X9 35% 1760 0.326 0.002 0.201
Pile Diameter [in]: 5.9 20% 980 0.324 0.001 0.200
Pile Stick-Up [in]: 0 12% 610 0.322 0.001 0.200
Axial Design Load [lbs]: 5000 0% 0 0.314 0.000 0.199 See Note 1
Pile Area [sq. in]: 2.68 Note 1: Dial Gauge #2 got stuck after Max Load.
0.00
0.10
0.20
Deflection (inches)
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000

Exhibit D-6
APPENDIX E
RESULTS OF PILE TESTING UNDER LATERAL LOAD

Lateral Load Test Result for PLT-1A
% of Lateral
Deflection Δ (in.)
Project Information Design Load Comments
Project Name: Riverhead Solar Load [lbs] Gauges #1 and #2
Project Location: Calverton, New York 0% 0 0.000
Project Number: J2175133 16% 550 0.260
29% 1020 0.691
43% 1500 0.785
Lateral Load Test Set Up 57% 2000 1.188
Number of Top Gauges: 2 71% 2500 1.625
Number of Bottom Gauges: 0 89% 3100 2.219
Height of Top Gauges [in]: 48 103% 3600 2.781
Height of Bottom Gauges [in]: 48 86% 3000 2.563
Height of Applied Load [in]: 48 72% 2530 2.313
Load Cell: 0 57% 2000 1.938
40% 1400 1.563
23% 800 1.188
Tested By Terracon Rep: Brian O.
Pile Information
Pile ID: PLT-1A
Latitude: 40.92539
Pile Type: W6x9
Lateral Design Load [lbs]: 3500
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
Deflection (inches)
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Lateral Load (lbs)

Lateral - Gauges at 40 inches
Exhibit E-1
Lateral Load Test Result for PLT-1C
% of Lateral
Deflection Δ (in.)
Project Number: J2175133 14% 500 0.290
31% 1100 0.281
44% 1550 0.413
Load Cell: 0 57% 2000 0.755
41% 1450 0.667
28% 970 0.482
Pile Information
Pile ID: PLT-1C
Latitude: 40.92539
Pile Type: W6x15
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
Deflection (inches)
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Lateral Load (lbs)

Exhibit E-2
% of Lateral
Deflection Δ (in.)
Project Number: J2175133 15% 510 0.609
29% 1000 1.750
43% 1500 2.625
Number of Top Gauges: 2 71% 2500 3.563 See Note 1
Number of Bottom Gauges: 0 Note 1: Load did not hold past 2,700 lbs (soil failure)
Height of Top Gauges [in]: 48
Height of Bottom Gauges [in]: 48
Height of Applied Load [in]: 48
Load Cell: 0
Test Date and Representative

Pile Information
Pile ID: PLT-2A
Latitude: 40.92358
Pile Type: W6x9
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
Deflection (inches)
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Lateral Load (lbs)

Exhibit E-3
% of Lateral
Deflection Δ (in.)
Project Number: J2175133 13% 450 0.382
28% 990 1.000
41% 1450 1.750 See Note 1
Lateral Load Test Set Up Note 1: Load did not hold past 1,900 lbs (soil failure)
Number of Top Gauges: 2
Number of Bottom Gauges: 0
Load Cell: 0

Pile Information
Pile ID: PLT-2C
Latitude: 40.92358
Pile Type: W6x9
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
Deflection (inches)
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Lateral Load (lbs)

Exhibit E-4
% of Lateral
Deflection Δ (in.)
Project Number: J2175133 15% 530 0.445
33% 1140 0.948
44% 1530 1.000
Height of Bottom Gauges [in]: 48 95% 3320 4.313 See Note 1
Height of Applied Load [in]: 48 Note 1: Load did not hold past 3,400 lbs (soil failure)
Load Cell: 0

Pile Information
Pile ID: PLT-3A
Latitude: 40.92102
Pile Type: W6x9
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
Deflection (inches)
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Lateral Load (lbs)

Exhibit E-5
% of Lateral
Deflection Δ (in.)
Project Number: J2175133 13% 460 0.310
30% 1040 0.694
43% 1490 1.063
Number of Bottom Gauges: 0 86% 3000 2.188 See Note 1
Height of Top Gauges [in]: 48 Note 1: Load did not hold past 3,300 lbs (soil failure)
Load Cell: 0

Pile Information
Pile ID: PLT-3C
Latitude: 40.92102
Pile Type: W6x9
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
Deflection (inches)
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Lateral Load (lbs)

Exhibit E-6
% of Lateral
Deflection Δ (in.)
Project Number: J2175133 18% 640 0.363
28% 990 0.854
43% 1510 1.625
Load Cell: 0

Pile Information
Pile ID: PLT-4A
Latitude: 40.92099
Pile Type: W6x9
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
Deflection (inches)
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Lateral Load (lbs)

Exhibit E-7
% of Lateral
Deflection Δ (in.)
Project Number: J2175133 9% 330 0.310
17% 610 0.609
29% 1010 0.999
Load Cell: 0

Pile Information
Pile ID: PLT-4C
Latitude: 40.92099
Pile Type: W6x9
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
Deflection (inches)
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Lateral Load (lbs)

Exhibit E-8
% of Lateral
Deflection Δ (in.)
Project Number: J2175133 13% 450 0.414
29% 1010 1.125
43% 1520 1.750
Load Cell: 0

Pile Information
Pile ID: PLT-5A
Latitude: 40.91897
Pile Type: W6x9
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
Deflection (inches)
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Lateral Load (lbs)

Exhibit E-9
% of Lateral
Deflection Δ (in.)
Project Number: J2175133 14% 490 0.473
29% 1030 0.858
43% 1520 1.375
Load Cell: 0 34% 1200 2.250
24% 840 1.875
12% 420 1.375
Pile Information
Pile ID: PLT-5C
Latitude: 40.91897
Pile Type: W6x9
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
Deflection (inches)
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Lateral Load (lbs)

Exhibit E-10
Lateral Load Test Result for PLT-5D
% of Lateral
Deflection Δ (in.)
Project Number: J2175133 19% 650 0.022
31% 1090 0.320
47% 1660 0.534
Load Cell: 0 49% 1700 0.870
31% 1100 0.723
22% 770 0.593
Pile Information
Pile ID: PLT-5D
Latitude: 40.91897
Pile Type: W6x15
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
Deflection (inches)
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Lateral Load (lbs)

Exhibit E-11
% of Lateral
Deflection Δ (in.)
Project Number: J2175133 14% 500 0.451
28% 980 1.792
41% 1450 3.625 See Note 1
Lateral Load Test Set Up Note 1: Load did not hold past 1,900 lbs (soil failure)
Number of Top Gauges: 2
Number of Bottom Gauges: 0
Load Cell: 0

Pile Information
Pile ID: PLT-6A
Latitude: 40.91897
Pile Type: W6x9
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
Deflection (inches)
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Lateral Load (lbs)

Exhibit E-12
% of Lateral
Deflection Δ (in.)
Project Number: J2175133 15% 530 0.320
30% 1060 1.250
43% 1510 1.938
Load Cell: 0

Pile Information
Pile ID: PLT-6C
Latitude: 40.91897
Pile Type: W6x9
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
Deflection (inches)
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Lateral Load (lbs)

Exhibit E-13
Appendix J
NHP and IPaC Information
December 21, 2017
Samantha Holcomb
edr Environmental Design & Research
217 Montgomery Street
Syracuse, NY 13202
Re: Riverhead Solar 2 Project EDR Project No. 17112

County: Suffolk Town/City: Riverhead
Dear Ms. Holcomb:
In response to your recent request, we have reviewed the New York Natural Heritage
Program database with respect to the above project.
Enclosed is a report of rare or state-listed animals and plants, and significant natural
communities that our database indicates occur in the vicinity of the project site.
For most sites, comprehensive field surveys have not been conducted; the enclosed
report only includes records from our database. We cannot provide a definitive statement as
to the presence or absence of all rare or state-listed species or significant natural
communities. Depending on the nature of the project and the conditions at the project site,
further information from on-site surveys or other sources may be required to fully assess
impacts on biological resources.
Our database is continually growing as records are added and updated. If this proposed
project is still under development one year from now, we recommend that you contact us
again so that we may update this response with the most current information.
The presence of the plants and animals identified in the enclosed report may result in
this project requiring additional review or permit conditions. For further guidance, and for
information regarding other permits that may be required under state law for regulated areas
or activities (e.g., regulated wetlands), please contact the NYS DEC Region 1 Office, Division
of Environmental Permits, as listed at www.dec.ny.gov/about/39381.html.
Sincerely,
Colleen Lutz
Assistant Biologist
1568 New York Natural Heritage Program
New York Natural Heritage Program Report on State-listed Animals
The following state-listed animals have been documented

in the vicinity of the project site.
The following list includes animals that are listed by NYS as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern;
and/or that are federally listed or are candidates for federal listing.
For information about any permit considerations for the project, contact the Permits staff at the
NYSDEC Region 1 Office. For information about potential impacts of the project on these species, and
how to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any impacts, contact the Wildlife Manager.
A listing of Regional Offices is at http://www.dec.ny.gov/about/558.html.
The following species has been documented at the project site.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME NY STATE LISTING FEDERAL LISTING
529
Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Endangered
The following species has been documented within 0.4 mile southwest of the project site.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME NY STATE LISTING
13216
Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Endangered
Nonbreeding
This report only includes records from the NY Natural Heritage database.
If any rare plants or animals are documented during site visits, we request that information on the observations be provided to
the New York Natural Heritage Program so that we may update our database.
Information about many of the listed animals in New York, including habitat, biology, identification, conservation, and
management, are available online in Natural Heritage’s Conservation Guides at www.guides.nynhp.org, and from NYSDEC at
www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7494.html.
12/21/2017 Page 1 of 1
Report on Rare Animals, Rare Plants, and
New York Natural Heritage Program
Significant Natural Communities
The following rare plant has been documented in the vicinity of the project site.
We recommend that potential onsite and offsite impacts of the proposed project on these species or
communities be addressed as part of any environmental assessment or review conducted as part of the planning,
permitting and approval process, such as reviews conducted under SEQR. Field surveys of the project site may
be necessary to determine the status of a species at the site, particularly for sites that are currently undeveloped
and may still contain suitable habitat. Final requirements of the project to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential
impacts are determined by the lead permitting agency or the government body approving the project.
The following plant is listed as Endangered or Threatened by New York State, and/or considered rare by the New
York Natural Heritage Program, and is a vulnerable natural resource of conservation concern.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME NY STATE LISTING HERITAGE CONSERVATION STATUS
Tooth Cup Rotala ramosior Threatened Imperiled in NYS
Conoe Pond, 0.25 mile south of the project site, 1984-09: Elongate pond set in woods surrounded by farm fields with sand pits along 9029
east side. Pond shore.
This report only includes records from the NY Natural Heritage database. For most sites, comprehensive field
surveys have not been conducted, and we cannot provide a definitive statement as to the presence or absence of
all rare or state-listed species. Depending on the nature of the project and the conditions at the project site,
further information from on-site surveys or other sources may be required to fully assess impacts on biological
resources.
If any rare plants or animals are documented during site visits, we request that information on the observations be provided to the New
York Natural Heritage Program so that we may update our database.
Information about many of the rare animals and plants in New York, including habitat, biology, identification, conservation, and
management, are available online in Natural Heritage’s Conservation Guides at www.guides.nynhp.org, from NatureServe Explorer at
www.natureserve.org/explorer, and from USDA’s Plants Database at http://plants.usda.gov/index.html (for plants).
12/21/2017 Page 1 of 1
February 22, 2018
Samantha Holcomb
Environmental Design & Research
217 Montgomery Street, Suite 1000
Syracuse, NY 13202
Re: Riverhead Solar 2 Project (EDR 17112)

County: Suffolk Town/City: Riverhead
Dear Ms. Holcomb:
In response to your recent request, we have reviewed the New York Natural Heritage
Program database with respect to the above project.
Enclosed is a report of rare or state-listed animals and plants, and significant natural
communities that our database indicates occur in the vicinity of the project site.
For most sites, comprehensive field surveys have not been conducted; the enclosed
report only includes records from our database. We cannot provide a definitive statement as
to the presence or absence of all rare or state-listed species or significant natural
communities. Depending on the nature of the project and the conditions at the project site,
further information from on-site surveys or other sources may be required to fully assess
impacts on biological resources.
Our database is continually growing as records are added and updated. If this proposed
project is still under development one year from now, we recommend that you contact us
again so that we may update this response with the most current information.
The presence of the plants and animals identified in the enclosed report may result in
this project requiring additional review or permit conditions. For further guidance, and for
information regarding other permits that may be required under state law for regulated areas
or activities (e.g., regulated wetlands), please contact the NYS DEC Region 1 Office, Division
of Environmental Permits, as listed at www.dec.ny.gov/about/39381.html.
Sincerely,
Heidi Krahling
Environmental Review Specialist
165 New York Natural Heritage Program
New York Natural Heritage Program Report on State-listed Animals
The following state-listed animals have been documented

on or in the vicinity of the project site.
The following list includes animals that are listed by NYS as Endangered or Threatened.
For information about any permit considerations for the project, contact the Permits staff at the
NYSDEC Region 1 Office. For information about potential impacts of the project on these species, and
how to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any impacts, contact the Wildlife Manager.
A listing of Regional Offices is at http://www.dec.ny.gov/about/558.html.
The following species has been documented at the project site.
Amphibians
14078
Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Endangered
The following species has been documented within 0.4 mile southwest of the project site.
Birds
13216
Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Endangered
Nonbreeding
The following species has been documented in a nearby river.
Fish
9158
Swamp Darter Etheostoma fusiforme Threatened
This report only includes records from the NY Natural Heritage database.
If any rare plants or animals are documented during site visits, we request that information on the observations be provided to
the New York Natural Heritage Program so that we may update our database.
Information about many of the listed animals in New York, including habitat, biology, identification, conservation, and
management, are available online in Natural Heritage’s Conservation Guides at www.guides.nynhp.org, and from NYSDEC at
www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7494.html.
2-22-2018 Page 1 of 1
Report on Rare Animals, Rare Plants, and
New York Natural Heritage Program
Significant Natural Communities
The following rare plants have been documented in the vicinity of the project site.
We recommend that potential onsite and offsite impacts of the proposed project on these species or
communities be addressed as part of any environmental assessment or review conducted as part of the planning,
permitting and approval process, such as reviews conducted under SEQR. Field surveys of the project site may
be necessary to determine the status of a species at the site, particularly for sites that are currently undeveloped
and may still contain suitable habitat. Final requirements of the project to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential
impacts are determined by the lead permitting agency or the government body approving the project.
The following plants are listed as Threatened by New York State, and/or are considered rare by the New York
Natural Heritage Program, and so are a vulnerable natural resource of conservation concern.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME NY STATE LISTING HERITAGE CONSERVATION STATUS
Vascular Plants
Trinerved White Boneset Eupatorium subvenosum Threatened Imperiled in NYS
Conoe Pond Upland, 0.15 mile southwest of the southeast portion of the project site. 1985-07-15: An open field near an abandoned farm.
The plants were growing along a sand road. 7913
Tooth Cup Rotala ramosior Threatened Imperiled in NYS

Conoe Pond, 0.15 mile southeast of the western portion of the project site. 1984-09: Elongate pond set in woods surrounded 9029
by farm fields with sand pits along east side. Pond shore.
This report only includes records from the NY Natural Heritage database. For most sites, comprehensive field
surveys have not been conducted, and we cannot provide a definitive statement as to the presence or absence of
all rare or state-listed species. Depending on the nature of the project and the conditions at the project site,
further information from on-site surveys or other sources may be required to fully assess impacts on biological
resources.
If any rare plants or animals are documented during site visits, we request that information on the observations be provided to the New
York Natural Heritage Program so that we may update our database.
Information about many of the rare animals and plants in New York, including habitat, biology, identification, conservation, and
management, are available online in Natural Heritage’s Conservation Guides at www.guides.nynhp.org, from NatureServe Explorer at
www.natureserve.org/explorer, and from USDA’s Plants Database at http://plants.usda.gov/index.html (for plants).
2-22-2018 Page 1 of 1
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Long Island Ecological Services Field Office
340 Smith Road
Shirley, NY 11967-2258
Phone: (631) 286-0485 Fax: (631) 286-4003
In Reply Refer To: June 29, 2018

Consultation Code: 05E1LI00-2018-SLI-0718
Event Code: 05E1LI00-2018-E-01540
Project Name: Riverhead Solar 2
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as
well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your
proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the
requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the
Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the
Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to
utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered
species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or
designated critical habitat.
06/29/2018 Event Code: 05E1LI00-2018-E-01540 2
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological
evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may
affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended
contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that
listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the
agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service
recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed
within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7
consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered
Species Consultation Handbook" at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF
Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require
development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/
eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy
guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and
bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications
towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://
www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/
comtow.html.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our office.
Attachment(s):
▪ Official Species List

06/29/2018 Event Code: 05E1LI00-2018-E-01540 1
Official Species List

This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Long Island Ecological Services Field Office

340 Smith Road
Shirley, NY 11967-2258
(631) 286-0485

06/29/2018 Event Code: 05E1LI00-2018-E-01540 2
Project Summary
Consultation Code: 05E1LI00-2018-SLI-0718
Event Code: 05E1LI00-2018-E-01540
Project Name: Riverhead Solar 2
Project Type: POWER GENERATION
Project Description: Riverhead Solar 2, LLC, an indirect subsidiary of FTP Power, LLC is
proposing to construct Riverhead Solar 2, a 36-megawatt solar power
project in the Town of Riverhead, Suffolk County, New York.
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/place/40.918690697564514N72.75001035240646W
Counties: Suffolk, NY

06/29/2018 Event Code: 05E1LI00-2018-E-01540 3
Endangered Species Act Species

There is a total of 6 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheries1, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Mammals
NAME STATUS
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis Threatened
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045
Birds
NAME STATUS
Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Threatened
Population: [Atlantic Coast and Northern Great Plains populations] - Wherever found, except
those areas where listed as endangered.
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Red Knot Calidris canutus rufa Threatened

Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii dougallii Endangered

Population: northeast U.S. nesting pop.

06/29/2018 Event Code: 05E1LI00-2018-E-01540 4
Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
Sandplain Gerardia Agalinis acuta Endangered
Seabeach Amaranth Amaranthus pumilus Threatened

Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.

Terra Con

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Terra Con

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Appendix I

Attn: Mr. Adam Bowers

Re: Data Report of Pile Load Testing Services

Dear Mr. Bowers,

Eddy F. Ramirez, P.E. Brian D. Opp, P.E.

APR Review by: Scott D. Neely, P.E.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

6.6.2 Gravel Access Road Design Recommendations ......................................21

Appendix A – Field Exploration Exhibit No.

Appendix B – Laboratory Testing

APPENDIX C – PILE LOAD TESTING RESULTS – AXIAL COMPRESSION LOAD (9 PAGES)

APPENDIX D – PILE LOAD TESTING RESULTS – AXIAL TENSILE LOAD (6 PAGES)

APPENDIX E – PILE LOAD TESTING RESULTS – LATERAL LOAD (13 PAGES)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable ii

Terracon Project No. J2175133

n subsurface soil conditions n groundwater conditions

n 19 borings drilled to depths of approximate 17 to 52 feet below the existing ground

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2

2.2 Site Location and Description

Current Ground Cover Topsoil / bare ground.

3.0 EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES

3.1 Field Exploration

2 VBH-4 and VBH-5 27 and 52 Proposed Substation

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3

Subsurface Exploration Procedures: Terracon observed the advancement of 9 test borings

3.2 Laboratory Testing

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4

n Moisture Content n Atterberg Limits

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 Site Geology

4.2 Typical Subsurface Profile

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5

Groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 20 to 48 feet in some of the test

4.4 Frost Considerations

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6

4.5 Thermal Resistivity Laboratory Testing

4.6 Field Electrical Resistivity Test Results

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7

4.7 Infiltration Test Results

I-2 VBH-3 Fill – Sand with silt and gravel, 9 255

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8

Corrosivity Test Results Summary

4.9 Seismic Considerations

Maximum considered earthquake ground 0.060 (1.0 second spectral response)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9

5.0 FULL-SCALE PILE LOAD TESTING (PLT) PROGRAM

We have performed a full-scale pile load testing program which included:

n Directing the installation of a total of 24 piles at the project site;

5.1 Pile Location Procedures

5.2 Test Pile Installation

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10

5.3 Full-Scale Pile Load Testing

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11

n axial compressive load;

5.3.1 Testing Under Axial Compressive Load

5.3.2 Testing Under Axial Tensile (“pull-out”) Load

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 12