U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5120

Prepared in cooperation with the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District

Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a

Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, 

Maine, 2003–2006
Cover. Photograph shows Air Force Radar Tracking Station at Howard Mountain, at a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine. 
Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a 

Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, 

Maine, 2003–2006

By Carole D. Johnson, Remo A. Mondazzi, and Peter K. Joesten

Prepared in cooperation with the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District

Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5120

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2011

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Johnson, C.D., Mondazzi, R.A., and Joesten, P.K., 2011, Borehole geophysical investigation of a Formerly Used 

Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5120, 

333 p., at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5120/.
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................3

Description of the Study Area ............................................................................................................3

Previous Investigations........................................................................................................................7

Borehole Geophysical Methods..................................................................................................................8

Caliper Logging......................................................................................................................................9

Gamma Logging.....................................................................................................................................9

Resistivity Logging..............................................................................................................................10

Normal Resistivity Logging.......................................................................................................10

Single-Point Resistance Logging ............................................................................................10

Spontaneous Potential Logging ..............................................................................................10

Electromagnetic-Induction Logging ................................................................................................11

Deviation Logging ...............................................................................................................................11

Acoustic-Televiewer Logging...........................................................................................................11

Optical-Televiewer Logging ..............................................................................................................12

Fluid Logging........................................................................................................................................13

Fluid Conductivity (Fluid-Resistivity) Logging........................................................................13

Temperature Logging ................................................................................................................13

Differencing of Fluid Logs.........................................................................................................13

Water-Quality Parameter Logging ...................................................................................................13

Heat-Pulse Flowmeter Logging ........................................................................................................15

Estimates of Transmissivity and Hydraulic Characterization ......................................................17

Estimation of Specific Capacity and Transmissivity of Open Boreholes..........................17

Estimation of Transmissivity and Hydraulic Head of Fractures..........................................18

Analysis of Borehole Geophysical Data ..................................................................................................19

Methods of Analysis...........................................................................................................................19

Miller Mountain—Ground/Air Transmitter/Receiver Site............................................................24

Borehole MW-14........................................................................................................................24

Borehole MW-13........................................................................................................................26

Borehole DW-22.........................................................................................................................27

Borehole DW-23.........................................................................................................................29

Borehole DW-24.........................................................................................................................31

Borehole DW-25.........................................................................................................................31

Borehole DW-31.........................................................................................................................33

Borehole DW-32.........................................................................................................................34

Borehole DW-33.........................................................................................................................35

Borehole DW-34.........................................................................................................................36

Borehole DW-39.........................................................................................................................37

Borehole DW-40.........................................................................................................................38

Borehole WY-GATR....................................................................................................................40
iv

Howard Mountain—Air Force Radar Tracking Station Area ......................................................41

Borehole DW-2...........................................................................................................................41

Borehole WY-3B.........................................................................................................................43

Borehole WY-4............................................................................................................................44

Borehole WY-15..........................................................................................................................45

Transmitter Site ...................................................................................................................................46

Borehole DW-6...........................................................................................................................46

Borehole DW-10.........................................................................................................................47

Other Borehole Geophysical Data ...................................................................................................49

Results of the Borehole Geophysical Investigation...............................................................................49

Well Construction ...............................................................................................................................49

Determination of Lithology ................................................................................................................49

Fracture Analysis................................................................................................................................52

Miller Mountain...................................................................................................................................54

Howard Mountain—Air Force Radar Tracking Station................................................................58

Transmitter Site ...................................................................................................................................58

Hydraulic Characterization ...............................................................................................................63

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................70

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................73

References....................................................................................................................................................73

Appendix 1. Borehole geophysical logs from boreholes on or near Miller Mountain, near 

Machiasport, Maine

Appendix 2. Borehole geophysical logs from boreholes near the Air Force Radar Tracking 

Station on Howard Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine

Appendix 3. Borehole geophysical logs from boreholes near the Transmitter Site on 

Howard Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine

Appendix 4. Plots and interpretations of borehole geophysical logs collected by 

Geophysical Applications, Inc., for boreholes near Machiasport, Maine

Appendix 5. Plots and interpretations of borehole geophysical logs collected by Hager-Richter 

Geoscience, Inc., for boreholes near Machiasport, Maine

Appendix 6. Summary of structure interpreted from geophysical logs for boreholes near 

Machiasport, Maine
v

Figures

1. Maps showing locations of boreholes near a Formerly Used Defense Site, 

Machiasport, Maine.....................................................................................................................4

2. Plot of example showing differences in fluid logs before and after imposing a 

hydraulic stress...........................................................................................................................14

3. Plot of example of interpretation of water-quality data to identify hydraulically 

active fractures...........................................................................................................................16

4. Cross-plots of selected borehole geophysical logs from borehole DW-10, near 

Machiasport, Maine...................................................................................................................20

5. Plots of selected borehole geophysical logs and lithology in borehole DW-10, near 

Machiasport, Maine, showing correlation of logs to the lithology ....................................21

6. Cross-plot of data from gamma and acoustic televiewer reflectivity logs from 

borehole MW-14, near Machiasport, Maine .........................................................................22

7. Cross-plot of data from gamma and acoustic televiewer reflectivity logs from 

borehole DW-23, near Machiasport, Maine ..........................................................................23

8. Plot of selected borehole geophysical logs and rock types in borehole MW-14, near 

Machiasport, Maine...................................................................................................................25

9. Plot of flowmeter model for borehole DW-22, near Machiasport, Maine, showing 

solid model lines overlying interpretation of measured flow..............................................28

10. Cross-plot of gamma emissions and acoustic reflectivity for selected segments of 

boreholes near Machiasport, Maine.......................................................................................50

11. Plot of gamma and reflectivity logs and interpretations for boreholes in the 

Miller Mountain site, near Machiasport, Maine ...................................................................51

12. Plot of gamma and reflectivity logs and interpretations for boreholes in the 

Howard Mountain area, near Machiasport, Maine..............................................................53

13. Cross-plot of gamma emissions and acoustic reflectivity for selected segments of 

the boreholes in the Howard Mountain area, near Machiasport, Maine.........................54

14. Tadpole plot and stereoplot showing all fractures and lithologic features in the 

37 boreholes near Machiasport, Maine..................................................................................55

15. Tadpole plots, stereoplots, and rose diagram showing all fractures and lithologic 

features in 14 boreholes on or near Miller Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine...........56

16. Plots of poles to planes of transmissive fractures in 14 boreholes on or near 

Miller Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine...........................................................................57

17. Tadpole plots, stereoplots, and rose diagram showing all fractures and lithologic 

features in 17 boreholes near the Air Force Radar Tracking Station on Howard 

Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine ......................................................................................59

18. Plots of poles to planes of transmissive fractures in 17 boreholes near the Air Force 

Radar Tracking Station on Howard Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine........................60

19. Tadpole plots, stereoplots, and rose diagram showing all fractures and lithologic 

features in six boreholes near the Transmitter Site on Howard Mountain, near 

Machiasport, Maine...................................................................................................................61

20. Plots of poles to planes of transmissive fractures in six boreholes near the 

Transmitter Site on Howard Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine ....................................62

21. Stereoplots and rose diagrams for selected boreholes on or near Howard Mountain, 

Machiasport, Maine...................................................................................................................64

22. Stereoplots and rose diagrams for selected boreholes on or near Miller Mountain, 

Machiasport, Maine...................................................................................................................65

23. Graph showing comparison of open-hole transmissivity determined from Bradbury 

and Rothschild (1985) method and summed transmissivity determined from modeled 

heat-pulse flowmeter profiles and water levels....................................................................69
vi

Tables

1. Boreholes at the Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine..................................6

2. Borehole logs collected by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2004 and 2005, near 

Machiasport, Maine.....................................................................................................................8

3. Borehole logs collected by others in 2003 and 2006, near Machiasport, Maine...............9

4. Correction factors for gamma tools used in this study ........................................................10

5. Flow model for borehole DW-22, near Machiasport, Maine...............................................29

6. Flow model for borehole DW-23, near Machiasport, Maine...............................................30

7. Flow model for borehole DW-24, near Machiasport, Maine...............................................31

8. Flow model for borehole DW-25, near Machiasport, Maine...............................................32

9. Flow model for borehole DW-31, near Machiasport, Maine...............................................34

10. Flow model for borehole DW-32, near Machiasport, Maine...............................................35

11. Flow model for borehole DW-33, near Machiasport, Maine...............................................36

12. Flow model for borehole DW-34, near Machiasport, Maine...............................................37

13. Flow model for borehole DW-39, near Machiasport, Maine...............................................38

14. Flow model for borehole DW-40, near Machiasport, Maine...............................................39

15. Flow model for borehole WY-GATR, near Machiasport, Maine..........................................41

16. Flow model for borehole DW-2, near Machiasport, Maine.................................................42

17. Flow model for borehole WY-4, near Machiasport, Maine .................................................45

18. Flow model for borehole WY-15, near Machiasport, Maine ...............................................46

19. Flow model for borehole DW-6, near Machiasport, Maine.................................................47

20. Transmissivity results for borehole DW-10, near Machiasport, Maine.............................48

21. Topographic setting and direction of ambient flow for boreholes near Machiasport, 

Maine, sorted by land-surface elevation................................................................................66

22. Summary of transmissivity values derived from heat-pulse flowmeter data and 

hydraulic tests for boreholes near Machiasport, Maine.....................................................67
vii

Conversion Factors, Datum, and Abbreviations

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

Volume

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L)

gallon (gal) 0.003785 cubic meter (m3)

gallon (gal) 3.785 cubic decimeter (dm3)

Flow rate

foot per minute (ft/min) 0.3048 meter per minute (m/min)

gallon per minute (gal/min) 0.06309 liter per second (L/s)

Specific capacity

gallon per minute per foot [(gal/min)/ft)] 0.2070 liter per second per meter [(L/s)/m]

Transmissivity*

foot squared per day (ft2/d) 0.09290 meter squared per day (m2/d)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

 °F=(1.8×°C)+32

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

 °C=(°F–32)/1.8

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

(NAVD 88).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Elevation, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.

*Transmissivity: The standard unit for transmissivity is cubic foot per day per square foot 

times foot of aquifer thickness [(ft3/d)/ft2]ft. In this report, the mathematically reduced form, foot 

squared per day (ft2/d), is used for convenience.

Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm at 

25°C).

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given either in milligrams per liter (mg/L) 

or micrograms per liter (μg/L).
viii

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN REPORT

APIu American Petroleum Institute units

ATV acoustic televiewer

cps counts per second

EMI electromagnetic induction

gal/min/ft gallons per minute per foot

h hour

HPFM heat-pulse flowmeter

in inch

min minute

mg/L milligrams per liter

mmhos/m millimhos per meter

mS/m millisiemens per meter

mV millivolts

ohm-m ohm-meter

OTV optical televiewer

ppm parts per million

RMS root-mean square

SP spontaneous potential

SPR single-point resistance

SSE sum of squares error

μS/cm microseimens per centimeter
Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, collected borehole geophysical 

logs in 18 boreholes and interpreted the data along with logs 

from 19 additional boreholes as part of an ongoing, collaborative investigation at three environmental restoration sites in 

Machiasport, Maine. These sites, located on hilltops overlooking the seacoast, formerly were used for military defense. At 

each of the sites, chlorinated solvents, used as part of defensesite operations, have contaminated the fractured-rock aquifer. 

Borehole geophysical techniques and hydraulic methods were 

used to characterize bedrock lithology, fractures, and hydraulic 

properties. In addition, each geophysical method was evaluated for effectiveness for site characterization and for potential 

application for further aquifer characterization and (or) evaluation of remediation efforts.

Results of borehole geophysical logging indicate the subsurface is highly fractured, metavolcanic, intrusive, metasedimentary bedrock. Selected geophysical logs were cross-plotted 

to assess correlations between rock properties. These plots 

included combinations of gamma, acoustic reflectivity, electromagnetic induction conductivity, normal resistivity, and 

single-point resistance. The combined use of acoustic televiewer (ATV) imaging and natural gamma logs proved to be 

effective for delineating rock types. Each of the rock units in 

the study area could be mapped in the boreholes, on the basis 

of the gamma and ATV reflectivity signatures. The gamma 

and mean ATV reflectivity data were used along with the other 

geophysical logs for an integrated interpretation, yielding a 

determination of quartz monzonite, rhyolite, metasedimentary 

units, or diabase/gabbro rock types. The interpretation of rock 

types on the basis of the geophysical logs compared well to 

drilling logs and geologic mapping. These results may be helpful for refining the geologic framework at depth. 

A stereoplot of all fractures intersecting the boreholes 

indicates numerous fractures, a high proportion of steeply 

dipping fractures, and considerable variation in fracture orientation. Low-dip-angle fractures associated with unloading 

and exfoliation are also present, especially at a depth of less 

than 100 feet below the top of casing. These sub-horizontal 

fractures help to connect the steeply dipping fractures, making 

this a highly connected fracture network. The high variability 

in the fracture orientations also increases the connectivity of 

the fracture network. 

A preliminary comparison of all fracture data from all the 

boreholes suggests fracturing decreases with depth. Because 

all the boreholes were not drilled to the same depth, however, 

there is a clear sampling bias. Hence, the deepest boreholes are 

analyzed separately for fracture density. For the deepest boreholes in the study, the intensity of fracturing does not decline 

significantly with depth. It is possible the fractures observed 

in these boreholes become progressively tighter or closed with 

depth, but this is difficult to verify with the borehole methods 

used in this investigation. The fact that there are more sealed 

fractures at depth (observed in optical televiewer logs in some 

of the boreholes) may indicate less opening of the sealed fractures, less water moving through the rock, and less weathering 

of the fracture infilling minerals. 

Although the fracture orientation remained fairly constant with depth, differences in the fracture patterns for the 

three restoration sites indicate the orientation of fractures 

varies across the study area. The fractures in boreholes on 

Miller Mountain predominantly strike northwest-southeast, 

and to a lesser degree they strike northeast. The fractures on 

or near the summit of Howard Mountain strike predominantly 

east-west and dip north and south, and the fractures near the 

Transmitter Site strike northeast-southwest and dip northwest 

and southeast. The fracture populations for the boreholes on 

or near the summit of Howard Mountain show more variation 

than at the other two sites. This variation may be related to 

the proximity of the fault, which is northeast of the summit of 

Howard Mountain. In a side-by-side comparison of stereoplots 

from selected boreholes, there was no clear correspondence 

between fracture orientation and proximity to the fault. There 

is, however, a difference in the total populations of fractures 

for the boreholes on or near the summit of Howard Mountain 

and the boreholes near the Transmitter Site. Further to the 

southwest and further away from the fault, the fractures at the 

Transmitter Site predominantly strike northeast-southwest and 

northwest-southeast. 

Heat-pulse flowmeter (HPFM) logging was used to 

identify transmissive fractures and to estimate the hydraulic properties along the boreholes. Ambient downflow was 

measured in 13 boreholes and ambient upflow was measured 

in 9 boreholes. In nine other bedrock boreholes, the HPFM did 

not detect measurable vertical flow. The observed direction of 

vertical flow in the boreholes generally was consistent with the 

Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used 

Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

By Carole D. Johnson, Remo A. Mondazzi, and Peter K. Joesten
2 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

conceptual flow model of downward movement in recharge 

locations and upward flow in discharge locations or at breaks 

in the slope of land surface. 

Under low-rate pumping or injection rates [0.25 to 

1 gallon per minute (gal/min)], one to three inflow zones 

were identified in each borehole. Two limitations of HPFM 

methods are (1) the HPFM can only identify zones within 1.5 

to 2 orders of magnitude of the most transmissive zone in each 

borehole, and (2) the HPFM cannot detect flow rates less than 

0.010 ± 0.005 gal/min, which corresponds to a transmissivity 

of about 1 foot squared per day (ft2/d). Consequently, the 

HPFM is considered an effective tool for identifying the most 

transmissive fractures in a borehole, down to its detection 

level. Transmissivities below that cut-off must be measured 

with another method, such as packer testing or fluidreplacement logging. 

Where sufficient water-level and flowmeter data were 

available, HPFM results were numerically modeled. For each 

borehole model, the fracture location and measured flow rates 

were specified, and the head and transmissivity of each fracture zone were adjusted until a model fit was achieved with the 

interpreted ambient and stressed flow profiles. The transmissivities calculated by this method are similar to the results of 

an open-hole slug test; with the added information from the 

flowmeter, however, the head and transmissivity of discrete 

zones also can be determined. The discrete-interval transmissivities ranged from 0.16 to 330 ft2

/d. The flowmeter-derived 

open-hole transmissivity, which is the combined total of each 

of the transmissive zones, ranged from 1 to 511 ft2/d. The 

whole-well open-hole transmissivity values determined with 

HPFM methods were compared to the results of open-hole 

hydraulic tests. Despite the fact that the flowmeter-derived 

transmissivities consistently were lower than the estimates 

derived from open-hole hydraulic tests alone, the correlation 

was very strong (with a coefficient of determination, R2, of 

0.9866), indicating the HPFM method provides a reasonable 

estimate of transmissivities for the most transmissive fractures 

in the borehole. 

Geologic framework, fracture characterization, and 

estimates of hydraulic properties were interpreted together to 

characterize the fracture network. The data and interpretation 

presented in this report should provide information useful 

for site investigators as the conceptual site groundwater flow 

model is refined. Collectively, the results and the conceptual 

site model are important for evaluating remediation options 

and planning or implementing the design of a well field and 

borehole completions that will be adequate for monitoring flow, remediation efforts, groundwater levels, and (or) 

water quality. Similar kinds of borehole geophysical logging 

(specifically the borehole imaging, gamma, fluid logs, and 

HPFM) should be conducted in any newly installed boreholes 

and integrated with interpretations of any nearby boreholes. If 

boreholes are installed close to existing or other new boreholes, cross-hole flowmeter surveys may be appropriate and 

may help characterize the aquifer properties and connections 

between the boreholes. 

Introduction

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) collected borehole 

geophysical logs in 18 boreholes and interpreted them along 

with logs from 19 additional boreholes as part of an ongoing, 

collaborative investigation at three environmental restoration 

sites in Machiasport, Maine (fig. 1). The former ground-air 

transmitter-receiver (GATR) site is on Miller Mountain 

(fig. 1). The former Air Force Radar Tracking Station 

(AFRTS) and a former Transmitter Site are on Howard 

Mountain. Collectively, the three sites have been classified by 

the U.S. Department of Defense as a Formerly Used Defense 

Site (FUDS), and the environmental restoration is managed 

by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). As part of 

the ongoing investigations, the USGS, in cooperation with 

the USACE, conducted borehole geophysical surveys to 

identify the location and orientation of fractures, to identify 

which fractures are hydraulically active, to test the potential 

applications of each borehole geophysical method for further 

aquifer characterization and (or) evaluation of remediation 

efforts, and to use the results to verify and refine the site 

conceptual groundwater flow models.

During the operation of the military base from the 1950s 

to the 1980s, the U.S. Air Force used solvents, including 

trichloroethylene (TCE), trichloroethane (TCA), and tetrachloroethene (PCE), for automotive maintenance, paint thinning, 

degreasing, and cleaning electronic equipment (Weston 

Solutions, 2005). TCE was reportedly disposed of directly on 

the ground surface at the three facilities and in the leach field 

at the GATR site. In addition, TCE was used as a defoliant and 

herbicide at the three facilities (Leitch and Clemens, 2006). 

Over the last 20 years, these chemicals have leached into the 

shallow groundwater and into the bedrock. During the 1990s, 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) discovered numerous occurrences of groundwater contamination at the former 

AFRTS (fig. 1) in Machiasport, Maine.

Contaminant-distribution data indicated potential TCE 

source areas were present in the southern part of Howard 

Mountain summit area (Weston Solutions, 2005). Because 

residential wells were contaminated with fuel and TCE, in 

1997, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

(MEDEP) ordered the USACE to clean up the site and to 

provide an alternative water supply for local residents (ABB 

Environmental Services, Inc., 1997).

The USGS conducted the logging investigation in two 

phases. The initial logging was conducted in November 2004 

and continued in March and April 2005. Borehole geophysical 

surveys were conducted in 5 monitoring wells and 13 domestic wells that are collectively called “boreholes” in this investigation (table 1). Six of the boreholes are on or near Howard 

Mountain, including four near the AFRTS site and two near 

the Transmitter Site (fig. 1). Geophysical surveys also were 

collected in 12 boreholes on or near Miller Mountain. 
Introduction 3

Purpose and Scope

This report summarizes the purpose, methods of investigation, and results of a borehole geophysical-logging investigation conducted in November 2004 and March–April 2005 

at the former AFRTS in Machiasport, Maine. These investigations were conducted in cooperation with the USACE to 

expand the USACE existing hydrogeologic interpretation of 

the site. As a part of the evaluation, this report summarizes 

the borehole geophysical and hydraulic data collected from 18 

boreholes and domestic wells completed in bedrock and summarizes the interpretation of geophysical logs from a total of 

37 boreholes. Mechanical caliper logs, borehole imaging, and 

electromagnetic induction (EMI) logs were used to confirm 

borehole construction and borehole integrity. Borehole logging 

methods, including gamma and electric (EMI, normal resistivity, and single-point resistance), were used to determine electrical properties of the geologic formations. Borehole imaging, 

including acoustic televiewer (ATV) and optical televiewer 

(OTV), was used to identify the location and orientation of 

bedrock fractures. Fluid and hydraulic properties of the aquifer 

were determined using the fluid logging tool, which measures 

the specific conductance, temperature, pH, oxidation-reduction 

potential, and percent oxygen of the water in the borehole column. The heat-pulse flowmeter (HPFM) was used to measure 

vertical flow in the borehole and to determine the depth of 

inflow and outflow under pumping and ambient conditions. 

Borehole geophysical logs were collected in 12 boreholes 

by Geophysical Applications, Inc., in 2003 (Weston Solutions, 

2005). Two of those boreholes, WY-3B and MW-13, were 

logged again in 2003 and in 2004 by the USGS. In 2006, 

seven additional boreholes were logged by Hager-Richter 

Geoscience, Inc. (The Johnson Company, 2006). The original 

data for these 19 additional boreholes have been published 

and are not reproduced in this report. However, the image 

data for these boreholes were interpreted as a part of this 

investigation and are summarized together with the boreholes 

logged by the USGS. The results of the three logging efforts 

were combined into a single borehole geophysical dataset. 

The structural interpretations for all 37 boreholes in the study 

area are summarized for each of the contaminated sites in the 

study area. There were a total of 14 boreholes at the Miller 

Mountain site, 17 boreholes at the Howard Mountain site, and 

6 boreholes at the Transmitter Site (fig. 1). 

Description of the Study Area

The study area includes the area around and between 

Howard, Miller, and Bucks Mountains (fig. 1). The study area 

is characterized by small hills that have been shaped by glacial 

and recent erosion, creating a northwest-southeast oriented 

drainage pattern parallel to the direction of glacial movement. The eastern side of Howard Mountain is characterized 

by a steep cliff face with highly fractured bedrock exposure 

that trends northwest-southeast and parallels a mapped fault 

zone. The study area ranges in elevation from 252 ft on Miller 

Mountain and 243 ft on Howard Mountain to boreholes at 

43 ft above NAVD 88. 

Four major rock types are mapped in the study area 

(Gates and Moench, 1981). The oldest rock unit is the early 

Devonian Eastport Formation, which is characterized by two 

distinct lithologic groups and original depositional settings. 

The unit is exposed at the land surface southeast of Miller 

Mountain near Bucks Neck in the northern part of the study 

area. The rock unit consists of shale, siltstone, and fine-grained 

bedded tuffs and is gray and maroon in color. The second 

rock type is a younger unit of the Eastport Formation, a 

bimodal volcanic unit consisting of silicic members including 

a rhyolitic eruptive unit with flow-banded stony rhyolite, 

vitrophyre, autobreccia, and pyroclastic zones. Dacite and tuff 

breccias also are locally present, but no basalt flows have been 

found in the study area (Drew Clemens, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, written commun., 2006). This early Devonian 

volcanic unit is the most abundant rock in the study area 

and has been mapped on Howard Mountain southward and 

eastward to the coast. The volcanic units erupted along a fault 

bordering the Machias syncline. 

The third rock type is a Devonian plutonic unit consisting of hornblende-bearing biotite, granodiorite, and quartz 

monzonite (a suite of quartz diorite to diorite rocks) that were 

intruded into the Eastport Formation. The granodiorite has 

been mapped on the northwest side of Howard Mountain and 

on the south-southeast flank of Miller Mountain. The unit 

has also been observed to a depth of about 52 ft below land 

surface in rock core from borehole MW-14 on the south-southeastern flank of Miller Mountain (Weston Solutions, 2005). 

The fourth unit consists of Silurian-Devonian-age diabase 

dikes and sills that were emplaced during and after volcanism. Many of these mafic dikes strike northwest-southeast. 

These mafic intrusives are present throughout the study area. 

Massive diabase and gabbro were mapped on the summit and 

eastern side of Miller Mountain (Gates and Moench, 1981).

Large-scale regional structures include a syncline, 

normal faults, and block faults. The site lies within the 

Machias syncline, which is a post-early Devonian, northeasttrending fold that includes the Pembroke Group and Eastport 

Formation. The Lubec fault zone, a northeast-trending fault, 

was mapped offshore from the Bucks Harbor site and is 

characterized by sheared and tightly folded rocks of the 

Eastport and Quoddy Formations (Gates and Moench, 1981). 

Subsequent block faulting associated with Silurian volcanism 

created numerous northwest-trending faults. A large normal 

fault transects the study area and is coincident with the 

northwest-southeast trending drainage between Howard and 

Miller Mountains (ENSR, 2006). The fault is mapped from 

the coast at Howard Cove and extends inland several miles 

to the northwest. Numerous northwest-southeast trending 

faults dissect the region with scattered northeast-southwest 

faulting and folding (Gates, 1981). These faults and associated 

fractures appear to have had an effect on the development of 
4 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

Figure 1. Locations of boreholes near a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine.

Contour interval is 10 feet

MACHIAS

ROAD

BASE

ROAD

PORT

ROAD

SMALLS

POINT

ROAD

BEACH

ROAD

HOWARD

COVE

BUCKS

HARBOR

INDIAN

COVE

CLAMSHELL

COVE

WHALEBACK

COVE

AIR FORCE RADAR

TRACKING STATION

DOWNEAST CORRECTIONAL 

FACILITY HOUSING AREA

Monitoring well Residential well

Well logged by U.S. Geological

Survey

Well logged by Geophysical

Applications, Inc.

Well logged by Hager-Richter

Geoscience, Inc.

N

 0 200 400 600 800 Meters

 0 800 1600 2400 Feet

HOWARD

MOUNTAIN

TRANSMITTER

SITE

MILLER

MOUNTAIN

BUCKS

MOUNTAIN

A

B

44o39'34"

Maine

44o37'09"

67o

21'44"

(AFRTS)

Well logged by U.S. Geological

Survey

Well logged by Geophysical

Applications, Inc.

Well logged by Hager-Richter

Geoscience, Inc.

Other

67o24'17"

EXPLANATION Map Source: Base map is a compilation of electronic files 

obtained from U.S. ArmyTopographic Engineering Center,

7701Telegraph Road, Alexandria,VA 22315-3864.
Introduction 5

Figure 1. Locations of boreholes near a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine.—Continued

0 200 400 Meters

Contour interval is 10 feet

Well logged by U.S. Geological

Survey

Well logged by Geophysical

Applications, Inc.

Residential well and identification

number

Monitoring well and identification

number

DW-6

MW-9

B

A

Well logged by U.S. Geological

Survey

Well logged by Geophysical

Applications, Inc.

Well logged by Hager-Richter

Geoscience, Inc.

EXPLANATION

Residential well and identification

number

DW-36

0 800 1600 Feet

Map Source: Base map is a compilation of electronic files 

obtained from U.S. ArmyTopographic Engineering Center,

7701Telegraph Road, Alexandria,VA 22315-3864.

PORT ROAD PORT ROAD

ROAD

GATOR
6 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

Table 1. Boreholes at the Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine.

[TOC is top of casing. Negative land-surface correction values indicate the top of casing is below land surface. Latitude and longitude shown in degrees, 

minutes, digital seconds for North American Datum of 1983; --, no data]

Borehole

U.S. Geological 

Survey local 

identifier

Elevation 

of borehole 

TOC 

(feet)

Land 

surface 

correction 

(feet)

Depth of 

borehole 

from TOC

(feet)

Casing 

length

(feet)

Latitude Longitude Dates logged

Miller Mountain—Ground/Air Transmitter/Receiver Site

DW-22 ME-WW 974 57.44 0.34 110 22.5 44 38 54.39 67 23 09.56 11/10–11/2004

DW-23 ME-WW 975 54.54 1.95 181.2 21.7 44 38 53.84 67 23 10.28 11/09–12/2004

DW-24 ME-WW 976 59.97 1.52 191 72 44 38 46.43 67 23 11.45 11/15–16/2004

DW-25 ME-WW 977 140 -0.78 142.8 81.3 44 38 53.62 67 23 01.37 11/12–13/2004

DW-29 -- 99.80 2.54 117 8 44 38 56.94 67 23 13.30 2006

DW-31 ME-WW 978 208.80 2.20 245 17 44 39 05.12 67 23 20.50 11/11–12/2004

DW-32 ME-WW 979 64.55 1.40 105 23.5 44 38 55.22 67 23 08.57 11/13–14/2004

DW-33 ME-WW 980 52.80 1.98 82 34 44 39 01.26 67 23 06.20 11/13/2004

DW-34 ME-WW 968 67.17 2.25 312.7 40.5 44 38 45.41 67 23 18.36 4/03/2005

DW-39 ME-WW 981 138.25 2.18 221 20 44 39 30.98 67 23 22.74 11/16/2004

DW-40 ME-WW 969 92.46 2.45 242 31.5 44 39 13.30 67 23 06.61 4/02/2005

MW-13 ME-WW 982 253.90 3.48 220 20.5 44 39 13.39 67 23 19.96 6/2003, 11/09–10/2004

MW-14 ME-WW 983 78.57 4.10 99.1 22 44 38 54.63 67 23 13.74 6/2003

WY-GATR ME-WW 970 255.26 3.45 417 27 44 39 15.32 67 23 21.04 11/12/2004 and 

3/30/2005–4/04/2005

Howard Mountain—Air Force Radar Tracking Station

DW-2 ME-WW 964 66.31 2.60 222.3 17.7 44 37 38.66 67 23 33.11 3/30–31/2005

DW-4 -- 83.96 1.06 243.1 216 44 37 41.05 67 23 34.80 2003

MW-8 -- 165.16 3.42 58.4 29 44 37 36.30 67 23 44.93 2003

MW-9 ME-WW 971 197.51 2.89 122.9 29 44 37 39.35 67 23 43.83 2003

MW-10 ME-WW 972 245.96 2.66 203.7 219 44 37 44.52 67 23 40.88 2003

MW-11 -- 58.14 2.21 202.2 297 44 37 43.45 67 23 33.44 2003

MW-12 -- 44.67 1.44 244.4 219.5 44 37 46.70 67 23 36.33 2003

WY-3 -- 46.01 0.91 342.9 280 44 37 52.28 67 23 35.47 2003

WY-3B ME-WW 973 39.47 1.87 221 58 44 37 53.90 67 23 35.68 11/14/2004

WY-4 ME-WW 966 171.47 0.70 180 53.8 44 37 38.25 67 23 48.41 4/05/2005

WY-15 ME-WW 967 191.62 4.40 297 28 44 37 41.84 67 23 46.39 4/01/2005

WY-3C -- 69.78 1.44 353.0 104.2 44 37 55.67 67 23 41.64 2006

MW-15 -- 243.69 2.77 52.2 20 44 37 56 67 23 42 2006

MW-16 -- 240.37 2.52 172.0 23 44 37 56 67 23 42 2006

MW-17 -- 74.93 2.29 251.0 67 44 37 56 67 23 42 2006

C-114 -- 237.30 2.30 82.0 -- 44 37 43.38 67 23 41.24 2006

C-501 -- 221.60 2.70 50.5 -- 44 37 40.87 67 23 42.42 2006

Transmitter Site

DW-6 ME-WW 965 3175 1.80 123.5 20.0 44 37 33.20 67 23 52.92 4/06/2005

DW-10 ME-WW 984 215.45 0.97 380 20 44 37 40.73 67 24 00.70 11/14–15/2004

MW-4 -- 217.53 3.31 101.3 215 44 37 37.47 67 24 09.99 2003

MW-5 -- 224.16 3.50 101.5 211 44 37 36.17 67 24 05.91 2003

MW-6 -- 223.66 3.21 123.2 29 44 37 33.80 67 24 01.51 2003

MW-7 -- 208.00 2.41 132.4 29 44 37 34.21 67 24 06.72 2003 1

 Elevation estimated from map.

2

 Casing elevation, land-surface correction, depth of borehole from TOC, and casing length have been changed after the logging was done. Three feet of 

additional casing were added to the borehole after the logging was complete. 3

 Casing length from ground surface (Weston Solutions, written commun., 2005).
Introduction 7

the surface drainage and may be strong controls on the flow of 

groundwater within the bedrock aquifer. 

Maps of the surficial deposits indicate most of the area 

is covered by a thin veneer of till and brown silty sand and 

gravel of Pleistocene age (Borns, 1974). ABB Environmental 

Services, Inc. (1995), however, indicated the Downeast 

Correctional Facility (DCF) housing area, located on the western slope of Howard Mountain, is underlain by mixed fill, silt, 

sand, and gravel glaciomarine deposits overlying gray glacial 

marine clay. The thickness of the clay in this area ranges 

from about 20 to more than 25 ft. No substantial amounts of 

overburden material have been mapped outside of the DCF 

housing area.

This investigation focused on boreholes in locations near 

to, or downgradient from, three suspected contaminationsource areas (Weston Solutions, 2005): 

1. The GATR site is north of Bucks Harbor on Miller 

Mountain, which has a thin (0 to more than 5 ft) veneer 

of till and is underlain by a granodiorite that has been 

intruded by quartz monzonite, diabase and gabbro dikes, 

and gabbro sills (Gates, 1981). In outcrop and borehole 

exposures, the contacts between mafic dikes and gabbro/

diabase commonly are sharp. Diabase, also known as dolerite, is the hypabyssal representative of gabbro and basalt 

and is texturally intermediary to the coarse-grained gabbro and the aphanitic (microcrystalline) basalt. The mafic 

dikes cannot be further classified without thin-section 

and (or) chemical analyses but are likely to be basalt. On 

Miller Mountain, coarse-grained rocks are found near the 

summit, and fine-grained units are found on the periphery 

(James Vernon, ENSR International, written commun., 

2006). Boreholes near the GATR site and logged as a 

part of this investigation include MW-13, WY-GATR, 

DW-22, DW-23, DW-24, DW-25, DW-31, DW-32, 

DW-33, DW-34, DW-39, and DW-40 (table 1). Data from 

additional boreholes that were used in the analysis and 

summary include MW-14 and DW-29. Previous investigations have identified groundwater contamination at the 

GATR site and to the southeast of the former GATR site 

on Miller Mountain. 

2. The AFRTS site is on top of Howard Mountain, which is 

underlain by highly fractured banded sequences of rhyolite and stony rhyolite intruded by mafic dikes (Gates and 

Moench, 1981). Rhyolite is a fine-grained volcanic rock 

comprised predominantly of quartz and feldspar, having a 

fine-grained or glassy texture called vitrophyric texture. A 

stony rhyolite has a very-fine-grained crystalline texture. 

Boreholes near the AFRTS site and logged as part of this 

investigation include WY-3B, WY-4, WY-15, and DW-2 

(table 1). Data from additional boreholes that were used in 

the analysis and summary include DW-4, MW-8, MW-9, 

MW-10, MW-11, MW-12, WY-3, WY-3C, MW-15, 

MW-16, MW-17, C-114, and C-501. Previous investigations have identified groundwater contamination northeast 

of the Howard Mountain site as well as near the summit 

of Howard Mountain.

3. The Transmitter Site is on a hill west of the Howard 

Mountain summit. The hill consists of glacial and end 

moraine till that ranges in thickness from 0 to over 

11 ft (Borns, 1974). The Transmitter Site is underlain by 

fractured stony to vitrophyric rhyolite locally intruded by 

northwest striking mafic dikes (Gates, 1981). Boreholes 

logged for this investigation near the Transmitter Site 

include DW-6 and DW-10 (table 1). Data from additional 

boreholes that were used in the analysis and summary 

include MW-4, MW-5, MW-6, and MW-7. Previous 

investigations have identified groundwater contamination 

to the southwest and northeast of the Transmitter Site and 

at the site itself. 

Previous Investigations

Surface geophysical investigations were conducted in 

2003 to identify the depth to bedrock and to characterize 

fracture patterns in the bedrock (White and others, 2005; 

Thompson and others, 2005). These investigations confirmed 

the presence of a thin veneer of glacial deposits 0.5 to 

10 ft thick. In addition, the surface geophysical investigations 

identified locations with highly fractured bedrock surface and 

fracture zones extending into the bedrock subsurface. The surface geophysical data were used to identify possible fracture 

zones that could potentially serve as contaminant pathways 

in the crystalline rock (White and others, 2005). The results 

were used by the USACE to optimize the siting of boreholes 

for additional subsurface investigation (U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 2004). 

Results of the Remedial Investigation (RI) phase of drilling, coring, and borehole geophysical logging performed in 

2003 were summarized by Weston Solutions (2005). Additional surface geophysical surveys were conducted to identify 

the former location of buildings used for the operation of the 

defense site (Thompson and others, 2005). Results of these 

investigations have been used by the USACE to help identify 

possible contamination-source locations and to plan additional 

remediation work at the site. 

The USGS conducted a pilot investigation to determine 

the effectiveness of borehole-radar methods in the mafic 

dike-intruded rhyolite underlying Howard Mountain and to 

determine the optimal separation distance for hole-to-hole 

radar surveys (Johnson and Joesten, 2005). Because of the 

highly resistive rock, radar reflections were detected up to 

130 ft into the rock from the borehole. The radar surveys also 

showed that the subsurface bedrock on Howard Mountain is 

highly fractured with steeply dipping fractures consistent with 

fractures observed in outcrops.

In 2006, borehole geophysical logs were collected in five 

boreholes and two inclined coreholes (The Johnson Company, 

2006). The coreholes, on Howard Mountain, were drilled at 

inclined angles in the area of the borehole radar investigations 

to intersect the maximum number of fracture planes. Four of 

the boreholes were on Howard Mountain and one was near 

Miller Mountain. 
8 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

Borehole Geophysical Methods

The USGS conducted borehole geophysical logging 

in the study area on November 9–16, 2004, and March 30–

April 5, 2005. The purpose of the geophysical logging was 

to characterize the fractured-rock aquifer and to evaluate 

the potential application of these geophysical tools to 

future remediation monitoring and evaluation efforts in this 

hydrogeologic setting. The geophysical logs collected in each 

borehole are summarized in tables 2 and 3.

Geophysical logs measuring a range of earth properties 

at different scales of resolution were collected in each of the 

bedrock boreholes. For each borehole, the different logs were 

synergistically analyzed together to provide an integrated 

interpretation, thereby reducing the ambiguity that can occur 

by interpreting each geophysical log individually. 

Conventional and advanced borehole geophysical methods were used in this study to provide information about the 

physical, electrical, and chemical properties of the bedrock 

and fluids in the subsurface and to provide important information on subsurface structures including lithology, bedrock 

fabric, and location, orientation, and hydraulic properties of 

fractures. Conventional borehole geophysical methods include 

caliper, gamma, normal resistivity, single-point resistance, 

spontaneous potential, EMI, fluid resistivity/conductivity, fluid 

temperature, and deviation. Advanced borehole geophysical 

methods include optical-televiewer imaging, acoustic-televiewer imaging, HPFM logging (under ambient and pumping 

conditions), and water-quality logging, which measures typical 

field parameters of pH, temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, oxidation-reduction potential, and pressure. 

The gamma, resistivity, and acoustic and optical image 

data were used to determine changes in the subsurface lithology. Fracture location and orientations were identified using 

a combination of acoustic and optical imaging, mechanical 

caliper, and normal resistivity logs. Hydraulic characterization 

made use of the fluid temperature and resistivity, water-quality, and HPFM logs. The hydrogeologic interpretation included 

determination of the magnitude and direction of vertical flow 

within boreholes and calculation of the specific capacity and 

transmissivity of the open holes and of selected fractures or 

fracture zones in the boreholes. Collectively, these data are 

critical for understanding the sources of water obtained from 

pumping a borehole, whether it is for purposes of obtaining 

a water sample or for domestic water supply. These data can 

be used to assess large-scale recharge-discharge patterns, 

to design source-area remediation alternatives, to design a 

groundwater monitoring program, and (or) to identify the 

potential for cross-contamination within an open borehole.

Table 2. Borehole logs collected by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2004 and 2005, near Machiasport, Maine.

[EMI, electromagnetic induction logging; Res., resistivity; SP, spontaneous potential; SPR, single-point resistance logging; OTV, optical televiewer logging; 

ATV, acoustic televiewer logging; Temp., temperature; HPFM, heat-pulse flowmeter logging; X indicates the log was collected; -- indicates the log was not 

collected]

Log

Borehole

DW-2DW-6

DW-10DW-22DW-23DW-24DW-25DW-31DW-32DW-33DW-34DW-39DW-40

WY-3B

WY-4

WY-15

WY-GATR

MW-13

Caliper X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Gamma X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

EMI X X X X X X X X X X X -- -- X X X X X

Normal Res. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

SP X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

SPR X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

OTV -- -- X X X -- -- X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X --

ATV X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1X

Fluid Res. and Temp. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Water quality X X X X X X X -- X X -- -- -- X X X X 1X

HPFM–ambient X X X X X X X X X X X X X -- X X X 1X

HPFM–post stress X X X X X X X X X X X X X -- X X X 1X

1

 Data collected by Geophysical Applications, Inc. (Weston Solutions, 2005).
Borehole Geophysical Methods 9

Caliper Logging

The “mechanical” caliper instrument generates a 

continuous record of the borehole diameter using a threearm, spring-loaded tool (Keys, 1990). Changes in borehole 

diameter are caused by drilling and borehole-construction 

procedures, collapse of less-competent rocks, and the presence 

of fractures. The borehole diameter was recorded in inches. 

Two mechanical caliper tools, manufactured by different 

companies, were used for this investigation. Their model 

numbers are Century Geophysical Corp. (CGC) 9065A and the 

Mount Sopris Instruments, Inc. (MSI) 2PCA/F. Both caliper 

tools were calibrated to 4- and 7-in. calibration rings prior to 

each measurement. Acoustic caliper methods are discussed 

with the acoustic televiewer.

Gamma Logging

Gamma logging records the total amount of gamma 

radiation emitted by the formation surrounding the borehole 

(Keys, 1990). The most common naturally occurring sources 

of gamma radiation are potassium-40 and daughter products of 

the uranium- and thorium-decay series. The gamma logs were 

used to help delineate changes in rock type in the formation 

surrounding the borehole. Mafic igneous rocks typically have 

very low counts of total gamma relative to less mafic rocks 

such as rhyolites and dacites. Consequently, intrusions of 

mafic rock show fewer gamma counts than the country rock 

adjacent to them. 

The vertical resolution of the gamma probe is 1 to 2 ft. 

Although a change in rock type or alteration associated with 

a fracture can be detected, the tool requires a thickness of 1 ft 

to obtain a full response. The gamma logs were collected at a 

constant logging speed of 10 to 15 ft/min. 

The gamma tools are calibrated by the manufacturers to 

American Petroleum Institute units (APIu); however, over 

time, the tool can drift away from this calibration. Hence, 

without verification that the tool is referenced to APIu, the 

gamma emissions can be measured in units of counts per second. With measurements in counts per second, the gamma data 

are no longer referenced to a common standard, but the measurements collected by a single tool can be compared directly 

with each other. However, gamma data collected in counts per 

second with different tools may not be directly comparable 

to one another. If the counts per second logs are normalized 

to a single tool response, the measurements can be consistent 

across the site.

Table 3. Borehole logs collected by others in 2003 and 2006, near Machiasport, Maine.

[EMI, electromagnetic induction logging; Res., resistivity; SP, spontaneous potential; SPR, single-point resistance logging; OTV, optical televiewer logging; 

ATV, acoustic televiewer logging; Temp., temperature; HPFM, heat-pulse flowmeter logging; X indicates the log was collected; -- indicates the log was not 

collected]

Log

Borehole

1

2003 22006

MW-14

MW-8MW-9

MW-10MW-11

MY-12

WY-3

DW-4

MW-4MW-5MW-6MW-7

DW-29

MW-15MW-16MW-17

WY-3C

C-114C-501

Caliper X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X -- --

Gamma X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

EMI X X X X X X X X X X X X -- X X -- -- -- X

Normal Res. X X X X X X X X X X X X X -- X X X X X

SP X X X X X X X X X X X X X -- X X X X X

SPR X X X X X X X X X X X X X -- X X X X X

OTV X X -- X -- -- X -- X -- -- -- X X X X -- X X

ATV X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Fluid Res. and Temp. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Water quality X X X X X X X X X X X X -- -- -- -- -- -- --

HPFM–ambient X X X X X X -- -- X X X X X X X X X -- --

HPFM–post stress X X X X X X -- -- X X X X X X X X X -- --

1

 Weston Solutions, 2005.

2

 The Johnson Company, 2006.
10 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

Four gamma tools were used in this investigation 

(table 4). In order to compare gamma data collected in counts 

per second using the different gamma tools, the logs were 

adjusted to a common datum. The gamma counts of the CGC 

9042 tool were used as a common datum because most of the 

boreholes were logged with the CGS 9042 tool and because 

the counts were strong. To normalize the other logs to the 9042 

tool response, gamma logs were adjusted with a multiplication 

factor that adjusts the counts to match the log collected with 

the 9042 tool. The normalization factors were determined by 

comparing logs in boreholes that were logged with multiple 

tools over the portions of the boreholes that were logged with 

more than one tool. The adjustments of the gamma counts per 

second values permit direct comparison of all the gamma logs. 

The gamma logs collected with the multi-parameter resistivity 

tool (MSI model number 2PEA 0-2500 ohm-m, Gam, Res) 

were multiplied by 1.4 (table 4). The gamma data collected 

with the CGC EMI tool (model number 9511) were multiplied 

by 0.77. Because of a calibration error in the MSI fluid tool 

(model number 2PCA/F +PPGA), data collected with this tool 

were used sparingly. However, when the gamma data were 

adjusted to the 9042-tool data by multiplying by 20, they were 

consistent with data from the other tools. 

Resistivity Logging

For this investigation, normal resistivity, single-point 

resistance (SPR), spontaneous potential (SP), and gamma were 

all measured with the same tool. 

Normal Resistivity Logging

Normal resistivity logging measures the apparent 

resistivity of the formation in ohm-meters over a range 

of electrode spacings. The tool applies a constant current 

across two electrodes while measuring the potential between 

two other electrodes. Traditionally, normal resistivity was 

measured over two distances, called long and short normal. 

For this investigation, four measurement spacings were 

used. The volume of investigation is roughly a sphere whose 

diameter is equal to twice the potential-electrode spacing, 

which was fixed at 8, 16, 32, and 64 in. However, the exact 

shape and volume of investigation change depending on the 

resistivity of the formation. To obtain the true resistivity, 

the apparent resistivity must be corrected for borehole 

diameter, drilling mud invasion, and formation bed thickness 

(Keys, 1990). In many cases, the apparent resistivity can be 

used to identify fractures and changes in the lithology. The 

normal resistivity tool is more accurate than the EMI tool 

for measuring the electrical properties of the rock when the 

resistivities are high, as is typical with crystalline and silicic 

volcanic rock. 

The normal resistivity tool is only used in the uncased 

and saturated portion of the borehole. A MSI tool (model 

2PEA 0-2500 ohm-m, Gam, Res) was used to collect the data. 

For this investigation, a resistivity calibration box, with known 

resistivities ranging from 25 to 2,000 ohm-m, was used prior 

to data collection to verify the tool was working correctly. 

All calibration measurements were verified to have less than 

1 percent error. Because the resistivity of the rock formations 

at this site is higher than the functional range of the tool, the 

measured values should only be viewed qualitatively; relative 

changes in normal resistivity measurements were used to identify changes in lithology and the presence of fractures where 

the resistivity decreases adjacent to the fractures.

Single-Point Resistance Logging

Single-point resistance logging measures the electrical 

resistance between an electrode (or mudfish) buried at the 

land surface and a down-hole electrode. The resistance data 

are recorded in ohms. The measurement, which is highly 

influenced by borehole diameter, is a bulk measurement of the 

resistance of the formation, fluids saturating the formation, 

and fluids in the borehole. Increases in borehole diameter 

typically are associated with a decrease in resistance. Singlepoint resistance data can be used to delineate changes in 

lithology, clay content, porosity, and total dissolved solids 

in the formation water. The single-point resistance is 

measured below the casing in a water-filled borehole. For this 

investigation, the single-point resistance tool was checked 

against a calibration box and calibrated against a low of 

20 ohms and a high of 130 ohms. The tool was verified to have 

less than 3 percent error for the low-range measurement and 

less than 1 percent error for the high-range measurement.

Spontaneous Potential Logging

SP measures the electric potentials that develop between 

borehole fluid and the formation. Electric potentials occur at 

the contact between different materials with differing resistivities. In addition, potentials can be generated at locations of 

electrochemical or kinetic activity, such as at a flowing fracture. SP is measured in millivolts and represents the potential 

between the uppermost electrode in the tool and the armor of 

the cable, which is above the isolation bridle that extends to 

24.7 ft above the top of the tool. These logs are run only in the 

uncased and saturated sections of a borehole.

Table 4. Correction factors for gamma tools used in this study.

[CGC, Century Geophysical Corporation; MSI, Mount Sopris Instruments, 

Inc.; EMI, electromagnetic induction]

Tool with gamma detector Correction factor

CGC (9042) fluid tool 1.0

MSI (2PEA) normal resistivity tool 1.4

CGC (9511) EMI conductivity 0.77

MSI (2PCA/F + PPGA) fluid tool 20
Borehole Geophysical Methods 11

Electromagnetic-Induction Logging

EMI logging measures the bulk electrical conductivity 

of the formation and the fluids in the formation surrounding 

the borehole (Williams and others, 1993). The tool uses an 

electromagnetic induction field to induce an electrical current 

in the surrounding formation. The induced current generates 

a secondary electromagnetic field. At low induction numbers 

(less than 100 mmhos/m), the strength of the electromagnetic 

field is proportional to the formation conductivity. Changes 

in electrical conductivity are caused by variations in porosity, borehole diameter, concentration of dissolved solids of 

the water in the formation, and metallic minerals. The EMI 

probe is designed to maximize vertical resolution and radial 

penetration and to minimize the effects of the borehole fluid. 

The tool response is most sensitive to the bedrock and pore 

water approximately 1 ft away from the probe, and the tool 

has a vertical resolution of approximately 2 ft. In boreholes 

with diameters of 6 in. or less, the specific conductance of the 

borehole fluids has a negligible effect on the induction-log 

response (Keys, 1990). Both CGC 9511 and MSI 2PIA tools 

were used for this study. 

Calibration rings with conductivity values of either 15 

or 98 mS/m and a free-air value of zero were used to calibrate the tools. During calibration, the tool is inserted into 

the calibration ring and held vertically in the air. It is best to 

calibrate the tool and to collect data at the same temperature 

because EMI tools do not compensate for thermal changes. 

During this investigation, the following procedure was used 

to maintain thermal equilibrium between tool calibration and 

data collection: 

1. Turn the tool power on, 

2. Lower the tool into the borehole until fully 

submerged in the water, 

3. Wait approximately 15 min for the electronics 

and the tool to equilibrate to the borehole fluid 

temperature, 

4. Remove the tool from the borehole for calibration, 

and

5. Conduct calibration procedures quickly in order to 

prevent the tool temperature from equilibrating with 

the open air temperature. 

The boreholes were then logged with tools calibrated to 

the ambient temperature of the borehole. EMI logs typically 

were collected in both directions. The data from logging down 

the borehole were compared to the data from logging upward 

to assess and verify there was no thermal drift in the tool 

response. For analysis, the log collected going up the borehole 

with the cable under tension was used. 

The EMI log is used to delineate changes in rock type or 

in electrical properties of water in the rock formation. Because 

the bedrock at this site is highly resistive, the measured 

conductivity values are very small. Although the tool was 

calibrated at each borehole, it is difficult in these electrically 

resistive rock units to calibrate the tool accurately enough to 

prevent the measured values from going negative. In this setting, the EMI tool is most effective for identifying the bottom 

of steel casing. This information is valuable especially when 

the water level is below the bottom of casing, in which case 

the high-resolution acoustic televiewer data are not available 

to determine the bottom of casing. 

Deviation Logging

Deviation logging provides a continuous record of the 

three-dimensional geometry of a borehole (Keys, 1990). Data 

collected by a 3-axis magnetometer and 3-axis inclinometer 

are used to compute deviation in the azimuthal direction 

(0–360°) and inclination (0–90°) over the depth of the borehole. Borehole-deviation tools generally indicate an azimuthal 

bearing to within ±2° and inclination to within ±0.5°. Deviation logs are collected simultaneously with ATV and OTV 

logs. The deviation tool is calibrated at the factory under 

controlled laboratory conditions, but the tool response was 

checked simultaneously with the field check of the ATV (see 

the next section).

The deviation logs were processed using WellCAD 

software version 4.0. In post-processing, the azimuthal bearing 

and the inclination angles were used to calculate the deviation in the northing and easting directions and the true vertical 

depth for each depth increment of the log. The magnetic 

declination for the Bucks Harbor site (17.5° west of true north) 

was incorporated into the deviation post-processing. Deviation 

results were plotted in radial plots and in cross sections, and 

the results were used for correcting the orientation of planar 

features intersecting the borehole and identified in the ATV 

and OTV data. In addition, the deviation logs can be used to 

identify badly deviated boreholes so that potential logging 

problems can be avoided. These data also are essential for 

processing any future hole-to-hole geophysical data.

Acoustic-Televiewer Logging

ATV logging produces a high-resolution, magnetically 

oriented, digital image that is used to map the location and 

orientation of fractures that intersect the borehole (Williams 

and Johnson, 2004). The ATV tool emits a narrow acoustic 

beam that rotates 360° and is focused at the borehole wall. 

The acoustic wave moves through the fluid in the borehole, 

is reflected off the borehole wall, and is recorded by the tool. 

The log records the amplitude and traveltime of the reflected 

wave, which can be displayed as a flattened 360° image of the 

borehole wall. 

Two ATV tools were used at the Bucks Harbor site—

CGC model 9801 and MSI model ABI40. The CGC model 

9801 can collect logs at speeds of 12 ft/min and can log 

boreholes with diameters of up to 9 in. The MSI multi-echo 

ABI-40 can collect logs at speeds up to 3 ft/min but can log 
12 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

boreholes with diameters of up to 20 in. The ABI-40 tool uses 

a fixed head (source) and rotating mirror to direct the acoustic 

beam to the borehole wall and back to the transducer, producing higher-resolution images than the tools that have a rotating 

source and receiver (Williams and Johnson, 2004). Although 

the tool designs are slightly different, both produce oriented 

images of the acoustic traveltime and reflectivity of the borehole wall. The reflectivity values from the two tools vary. The 

tools were calibrated by the manufacturers under controlled 

laboratory settings. Only a field check was performed on the 

ATV tool prior to data collection in order to verify direction 

and deviation. Using a 6-in.-diameter casing with a vertical slot in a bucket of water, the image orientation and the 

bearing and magnitude of deviation were checked and the 

results recorded. The image and deviation data were collected 

relative to magnetic north, and the interpretation, images, 

and deviation were corrected for magnetic declination during 

post-processing. 

The ATV logs are used to determine well construction, 

changes in lithology, and the location and orientation of fractures. The televiewer data also can be used to identify the bottom of the casing in both the traveltime and amplitude plots. 

The reflectivity or contrast in acoustic impedance between 

the fluid and the borehole wall can be correlated to the rock 

type. The traveltime and amplitude data were interpreted 

side-by-side. 

A fracture that intersects the borehole causes scattering of the acoustic wave and appears as a high contrast, low 

amplitude line (dark feature) on the acoustic amplitude image. 

On the acoustic traveltime log, a fracture is indicated by an 

increase in the one-way traveltime of the wave because of an 

increase in borehole diameter. The “acoustic caliper,” which 

is derived from the traveltime log, provides a much higher 

resolution continuous record of borehole diameter than that 

collected with a three-arm caliper. Interpretation of the magnetically oriented images in conjunction with other logs allows 

for the determination of transmissive fracture structures that 

may provide information about the hydraulics of the aquifer.

Using post-processing software, the ATV images were 

rotated 17.5° east to correct for magnetic declination; the 

images were corrected for missing data at incremental depths 

by interpolation with data above and below the missing data; 

and statistical values were calculated, including maximum, 

minimum, mean, and median for amplitude and traveltime 

for each depth increment. In addition, these statistical values 

can be used to help optimize the display settings to maximize 

the image resolution. Images near the base of casing were 

corrected to remove the “spin” in the images, caused by the 

presence of steel on the tool’s magnetometer, so the fractures 

near the base of the casing can be identified. 

Once the images were rotated and displayed, they were 

analyzed to determine the depth and orientation of fractures 

and other planar structural features on the images. The deviations of the boreholes were applied to the interpreted features 

to correct the structural interpretations. Structural interpretations were plotted in projection mode, which overlays directly 

on the image data, and in tadpole and stereo plots that help in 

the analysis of the image data. 

All fracture orientations were interpreted directly off 

of the image logs and were exported from the interpretation 

software in the format of dip azimuth, the direction of dip in 

azimuthal degrees east of north, and dip magnitude in degrees 

from horizontal. The dip azimuth was converted to strike in 

right-hand-rule (RHR), in which the dip is always 90° to the 

right of the strike direction. Both formats, dip azimuth and 

strike in RHR, describe the orientation of a planar feature with 

respect to north and can be used interchangeably. However, 

the strike format is conventional and has been used in most 

geologic mapping. Strike and dip are reported in both formats. 

The mean and median acoustic amplitude values were 

computed for each depth increment in the ATV log, resulting 

in logs that can be used for a more rigorous comparison 

between logs. Cross-plots were generated to visualize the 

correlation between pairs of logs, such as gamma and acoustic 

reflectivity or EMI conductivity and acoustic reflectivity. 

Because of design differences, the acoustic reflectivity values 

are different for the two ATV tools used in this investigation. 

The reflectivity values for the CGC tool are about 10 times 

greater than those of the MSI tool. Hence, logs collected by 

the same tool can be compared directly, but only relative 

comparisons can be made between logs collected with 

different tools. 

Optical-Televiewer Logging

OTV logging records a magnetically oriented, 360° optical image of the borehole wall (Williams and Johnson, 2004). 

The OTV can be used in air or below the borehole water level, 

provided the water has low turbidity. Fractures, foliation, 

flow banding, and lithologic changes nearly as small as the 

sampling interval can be interpreted from OTV images. Minor 

tonal changes visible in the images are because of changes in 

texture and mineralogy. Because the OTV is an optical system, 

features with low optical contrast, such as small fractures in 

dark rocks, can be difficult to delineate. Also, sediment, oxidation products, and biological activity that mask the borehole 

wall or cause turbidity in the water can degrade the quality 

of the OTV image. The OTV logs were analyzed to identify 

lithology and to determine the physical characteristics and 

orientation of fractures. 

A major advantage of optical imaging over acoustic 

imaging is that surveys can be conducted above the water 

level. In this investigation, selected boreholes, where there 

was an extensive length of open borehole exposed above the 

water level, were logged with an OTV tool [Advanced Logic 

Technology (ALT) model 2OIA-1000 (ALT OBI40)]. Because 

of the time required to collect optical images, not all boreholes 

were logged with the OTV tool. The OTV image data were 

processed for rotation, analyzed, and corrected for deviation 

using methods similar to those described for the ATV data.
Borehole Geophysical Methods 13

Fluid Logging

Fluid electrical resistivity and temperature are measured 

simultaneously. Frequently, these logs are collected first in the 

borehole; the logs are collected while logging from the top of 

the borehole downward in order to minimize disturbance of 

the ambient water conditions in the borehole. For this investigation, CGC 9042 and MSI 2PFA-1000 fluid tools were used 

to measure the ambient water column in the borehole.

Fluid Conductivity (Fluid-Resistivity) Logging

The electrical resistivity of the borehole fluid is measured, and its inverse, fluid conductivity in microsiemens per 

centimeter, is calculated. The specific conductance, which is 

the fluid conductivity at a reference temperature (usually 25 or 

20°C), can be calculated using:

 Specific conductance T Tref

= + − ( ) 

 [ ] Ω

10 000

1 0 022

,

.

, (1)

where

T is the temperature, in degrees Celsius;

Tref is the reference temperature, typically 25 for 

specific conductance at 25°C; and

Ω is the fluid resistivity at T, in ohm-meters.

Changes in specific conductance indicate differences in 

the concentration of total dissolved solids in the fluid in the 

borehole (Williams and Conger, 1990). These differences 

typically indicate sources of water that have contrasting 

chemistry and have come from different transmissive fracture 

zones where the water has a different residence time in 

the aquifer or, most dramatically, saltwater intrusion into 

freshwater aquifers.

A fluid log can be collected under ambient, undisturbed 

conditions and after pumping has stopped. A comparison of 

logs collected under ambient and hydraulically stressed conditions can help identify the locations of contributing inflow 

zones. In most boreholes in the study area, pumping was 

conducted and fluid logs were collected under undisturbed 

ambient conditions and after stressed conditions. However, in 

one borehole, WY-GATR, where the depth to water was deep, 

water was injected into the borehole, rather than pumped from 

the borehole, because of the difficulty in pumping water from 

below a depth of 150 ft and the high contamination levels in 

the groundwater. In this case, the post-injection fluid resistivity 

and temperature logs were used to identify the injected water 

in the water column. 

Temperature Logging

Temperature logging measures the temperature of the 

water in the borehole and is used to help identify where water 

enters or exits the borehole (Williams and Conger, 1990). 

In the absence of fluid flow in the borehole, the temperature 

gradually increases with the geothermal gradient, about 1°F 

per 100 ft of depth (Keys, 1990). Deviations from the local 

geothermal gradient indicate transmissive zones in the borehole. Intervals of vertical flow within the borehole are characterized by little or no temperature gradient. The differential 

or “del” temperature (the first derivative of the temperature 

plot) was calculated and inspected to help identify changes in 

the slope of the temperature profile and deviations from the 

geothermal gradient.

Temperature logs were interpreted in conjunction with 

specific conductance and flowmeter logs to identify fluid 

flow in the borehole under ambient and stressed conditions. 

For each borehole, the fluid resistivity, fluid conductivity, 

fluid temperature, and specific conductance were analyzed 

to identify hydraulically active fractures under pumping 

conditions and vertical flow through the borehole under 

ambient conditions.

Differencing of Fluid Logs

A comparison of fluid logs collected before and after 

hydraulically stressing a borehole can be used to determine 

where water entered the borehole under pumping conditions 

or exited the borehole under injection conditions. Using 

differencing methods, where the fluid log from background 

conditions is subtracted from a fluid log collected during or 

after an induced hydraulic stress, an image of the changes 

between the two data sets is produced, therefore delineating 

the hydraulically active fractures. 

The example in figure 2 shows fluid logs (conductivity, 

temperature, and specific conductance) before and after 

pumping in borehole DW-2. A comparison of these logs 

suggests water entered the borehole at depths of about 80, 

52, and 24 ft below the top of casing. Interpretation with the 

imaging logs was used to attribute the inflow to a specific 

fracture or fractures. In addition, these results were used 

with HPFM data for an integrated interpretation of borehole 

hydaulics. This example demonstrates the importance of 

analyzing each of the fluid logs and the utility of differencing 

the fluid logs collected before and after pumping or injection.

Water-Quality Parameter Logging

Although water-quality samples are the best method for 

evaluating the water chemistry, a multi-parameter water-quality probe can help provide valuable information about water 

conditions in the borehole and can help identify transmissive 

fractures. Water-quality parameters of the borehole column 

can be used to help assess contaminant attenuation processes 

and to identify potential inflow or outflow zones, zones of 

vertical flow, and potentially zones with horizontal flow. An 

Ocean Seven 303 probe, manufactured by Idronaut, Srl, was 

used to measure pressure, temperature, dissolved oxygen, 

specific conductance, pH, and oxidation-reduction potential. 
14 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

Figure 2. Example showing differences in fluid logs before and after imposing a hydraulic stress. (COND, conductivity; AMB, 

ambient; SP Cond at 25, specific conductance at 25 degrees Celsius; TEMP, temperature; PP, post pumping; Deg F, degrees 

Fahrenheit; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter)

INTERPRETATION

TEMP AMB

40 DEG F 44

FLUID COND AMB

110 μS/cm 120

SP COND at 25 - AMB

180 μS/cm 220

SP COND at 25 PP

180 220

TEMP PP

40 DEG F 44

FLUID COND PP

110 120

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

100

110

120

Ambient water level at 8.97 ft below top of casing

Pumping water level at 18.11 ft below top of casing

Divergence in before- and after-pumping temperature

logs at 50.4 ft below top of casing

Divergence in before- and after-pumping fluid

conductivity and specific conductance logs at 

about 80 ft below top of casing

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING

μS/cm μS/cm
Borehole Geophysical Methods 15

Similar to fluid logging, water-quality data can be collected 

under ambient and pumped conditions, and the differences can 

help identify hydraulically active zones in the borehole. For 

this investigation, the water-quality parameter tool was used in 

the ambient water column, unless otherwise noted. The waterquality parameter tool was checked with pH standards (4, 7, 

and 10) and conductivity standards (usually 98, 494, and 

1,000 μS/cm) prior to measurements.

Because electrical properties are temperature dependent, 

the specific conductance is computed for a fixed temperature, 

20°C, so that data can be directly compared (Keys, 1990). The 

utility of the fluid log is not necessarily in the absolute value 

of the electrical resistivity, fluid conductivity, or temperature 

but rather in the relative changes along the water column 

that indicate potential inflow or outflow zones. The range of 

acidity and alkalinity of the water is measured with pH on a 

logarithmic scale of hydrogen and hydroxide concentration. 

When both ions have equal concentrations, the pH is neutral at 

7.0. When more hydroxide ions are present, the pH is greater 

than 7, and the water is alkaline. When more hydrogen ions 

are present, the pH is less than 7, and the water is acidic, 

which can help mobilize elements in the water. Changes in 

pH in the water column can help identify inflow or outflow 

zones at fractures. Additionally, low pH values potentially 

indicate recharge zones. The typical pH in similar crystallinerock aquifers in nearby New Hampshire is 7.7; pH in sand 

and gravel is more acidic and closer to the pH of precipitation 

(Moore, 2004; Robinson and others, 2004). 

Oxidation-reduction (redox) potential is a numerical 

index used to characterize whether water is under reducing 

conditions (negative values) or under oxidation conditions 

(positive values). In an oxidation-reduction process, electrons 

are transferred from the substance that is oxidized to the 

substance that is reduced. The redox potential is measured 

in millivolts. In the Idronaut tool, an electrochemical cell 

consisting of a reference electrode and a platinum electrode 

is used to measure the potential of the water in the borehole 

column. A correction factor must be added to the redox 

measurement to give a number relative to the potential of 

hydrogen, Eh (Idronaut, 2006). The correction factor for this 

tool is computed as follows:

Y = -1.0239 (T) + 221.85 , (2)

where 

Y is the correction factor to be added to the 

redox measurement, in millivolts; and

T is the temperature, in degrees Celsius.

Redox values along with pH values typically are used 

with the Nernst equation to predict the equilibrium behavior 

of multivalent elements such as iron and manganese (Hem, 

1985). At sites contaminated with chlorinated solvents, redox 

conditions can be used as an indicator of whether conditions 

are favorable for reductive dechlorination or microbial oxidation (Bradley, 2003). 

Dissolved oxygen (DO) logs are recorded in percent 

oxygen and in parts per million, which is equivalent to 

milligrams per liter. The presence of dissolved oxygen can 

be indicative of recharge zones where infiltrating water is 

rich in oxygen. In addition, dissolved oxygen can be used to 

determine the likelihood of aerobic or anaerobic conditions, 

which greatly impact the type and growth of microorganisms 

(Chapelle, 1993). Typically, DO greater than 1 ppm indicates 

aerobic conditions; DO less than 1 ppm indicates anaerobic 

conditions. Hence, at contamination sites, the characterization 

of DO may be important to identify the potential for natural 

attenuation or enhanced biodegradation. 

Because the water-quality parameter tool measures the 

water in the water column in the borehole, it may not reflect 

the water chemistry in adjacent fractures. However, changes 

in the water chemistry may help identify ambient flow in the 

borehole or fractures that contribute to the borehole under 

stressed conditions. The results of the water-quality probe 

logging were used to optimize locations of the flowmeter 

measurements. The results also were compared to fluid logs 

collected under ambient and pumping conditions; temperature, 

fluid resistivity, and specific conductance data should be similar to those from the fluid tool; differences can be explained by 

changes in the water column imposed by pumping. 

Where HPFM data were not collected, or where the 

interpretation of the HPFM profiles was ambiguous, the fluid 

and (or) water-quality logs were used to help identify hydraulically active zones in the borehole. Like the fluid conductivity 

and temperature tool, the water-quality tool can also be used 

in a differencing mode, by collecting logs before and after 

hydraulically stressing the borehole; in practice, it was not 

used in differencing mode because the log is time-consuming 

to collect (at a rate of <5 ft/min). Water-quality logs collected 

under ambient conditions, however, can identify zones where 

the flow rate is less than the resolution of the HPFM. Consequently, for all boreholes, the fluid conductivity, temperature, 

specific conductance, pH, oxidation-reduction potential, and 

dissolved oxygen were plotted and compared with borehole 

imaging logs and flowmeter data for an integrated interpretation. In some cases where no flowmeter data were collected or 

where no flow was identified with the HPFM tool, the waterquality results were used to infer hydraulically active zones. 

The water-quality log in figure 3 shows an example of how 

these data were used to infer hydraulically active fractures. 

Heat-Pulse Flowmeter Logging

HPFM logging measures the direction and rate of vertical 

flow in a borehole. Used in conjunction with other geophysical logs, fractures or fracture zones where water enters or 

exits the borehole can be identified with the flowmeter. Under 

ambient conditions, differences in hydraulic head between two 

transmissive fractures produce vertical flow in the borehole. 

Water enters the borehole at the fracture zone with the higher 

head and flows towards and out of the fracture with the lower 
16 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

Figure 3. Example of interpretation of water-quality data to identify hydraulically active fractures. (Deg C, temperature in 

degrees Celsius; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; SP Cond at 20C, specific conductance at 20 degrees Celsius; O2sat, 

dissolved oxygen in percent; Redox, oxidation-reduction potential, uncorrected; Redox Eh, redox oxidation-reduction potential 

relative to the potential of hydrogen, Eh; mV, millivolt)

WY-3B collected on 11/14/2004 under ambient conditions

Temperature

6.5 Deg C 7

 O2sat

0 percent 15

 pH

7.2 11.2

Fluid Conductivity

50 μS/cm 300

SP Cond at 20 C

100 μS/P 400

 Redox

-150 mV 150

 Redox Eh

200 mV 320

6 0

8 0

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

65.6

Ambient logs

Water level

73.0

97.0

Change in water chemistry - 

112.7

Change in water chemistry

hydraulically active fracture

121.7

Change in water chemistry - hydraulically active fracture

181.1

Possible change in water chemistry

hydraulically active fracture?

204.7

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Possible hydraulically active fracture

hydraulically active fracture
Borehole Geophysical Methods 17

head. If the hydraulic heads in transmissive zones are the 

same, there will be no vertical flow in the borehole. Therefore, 

flowmeter logging also is conducted under low-rate (0.25 to 

1 gal/min) pumping or injection to identify transmissive zones 

with similar ambient heads that would not be identified without stressing the aquifer. The flow under stressed (pumping 

or injection) conditions can be proportioned and attributed to 

specific fracture zones in the borehole. 

The HPFM uses a heat-pulse tracer that moves upward 

or downward in the presence of vertical flow, and the tool 

measures the time it takes for the heat pulse to arrive at the 

sensor above or below the source. Typically, the flowmeter is 

outfitted with a diverter that channels all the flow through a 

measurement chamber. HPFM measurements were collected 

at discrete locations, usually above and below fractures at 

locations where the diverters seat well in the borehole and 

“capture” the vertical flow. Hence, the measurement locations 

were chosen in conjunction with the interpretations of the fluid 

temperature and resistivity, caliper, imaging, and water-quality 

parameter logs. 

A MSI HPFM, model HPF-2293, was used for this investigation. The HPFM was calibrated at the factory under controlled conditions. When conditions permitted, flow measurements were made in the casing, which typically provides the 

best fit of the diverter, under known pumping conditions with 

a steady water level. These measurements were used to verify 

the performance of the tool. When necessary, the flowmeter 

measurements were normalized to these known flow rates. 

The HPFM can measure flows as small as 0.01 gal/min 

(Hess and Paillet, 1990). In some cases, the temperature, specific conductance, and (or) other water-quality parameters may 

indicate potential inflow or outflow zones in a borehole, but 

the flow cannot be verified by flowmeter methods. Other methods such as discrete-interval packer testing (Shapiro, 2001) 

or hydrophysical logging (Tsang and others, 1990; Pedler 

and others, 1992) are needed to measure flow rates below the 

detection level of the HPFM. The upper detection limit of 

the HPFM is about 1 gal/min and can be extended by using 

an underfit diverter. An underfit diverter allows some of the 

water to by-pass the measurement channel, thereby reducing 

the amount of flow measured by the tool. In this investigation, 

four boreholes were pumped or were flowing under ambient 

conditions at rates greater than the range of the HPFM tool 

and required the use of an underfit (4-in.) diverter. By-pass 

factors, which are used to adjust measurements made with 

underfit diverters, were computed to determine how much 

water flows through the channel and how much bypasses the 

measurement channel with the specific underfit diverter. The 

measured flow rates are multiplied by the bypass factor, which 

is always greater than 1 (Paillet, 2004). 

Water-level and HPFM measurements recorded during 

pumping ideally are made after the borehole reaches quasisteady state, in which the amount of water coming out of 

storage is less than the measurement resolution of the tool. 

The initial water level and the water level at quasi-steady state 

under stressed conditions were used in the numerical modeling 

of the flowmeter data. In addition, the specific capacity of the 

open boreholes was computed from the water level and pumping rates. The specific capacity is a relative measure of how 

much water can be pumped from the borehole per unit foot of 

drawdown. For selected wells that took a long time to reach 

steady state, the water-level data were used to compute how 

much water was derived from borehole storage, and this information was used in the interpretation of the flowmeter data.

For this investigation, selected low-yielding boreholes 

were pumped at a relatively high pumping rate to quickly 

lower the water level in the borehole. The flowmeter was 

then used to identify the inflowing zones as the water level 

recovered from pumping. However, the rate of recovery in this 

method is not steady because inflow rates are highest when the 

pump is turned off and dissipate as the water level recovers. 

Because the water levels in these low-yielding boreholes (for 

example, WY-15) did not reach steady state, transmissivity 

was estimated with transient solutions. 

For selected boreholes, a pressure-sensitive transducer 

was used to record the water-level data before, during, and 

after stressing the boreholes. The results were analyzed to 

help identify oscillations or changes in the water level under 

ambient conditions as well as under stressed conditions. The 

water-level analysis helped identify tidal fluctuations and 

well interference. 

Estimates of Transmissivity and Hydraulic 

Characterization

Transmissivity is a measure of the ability of the 

aquifer to transmit water. For each borehole, transmissivities were estimated for the open hole and for individual 

transmissive fractures and fracture zones within the borehole. 

Transmissivity values in this report should be considered 

estimates that are within an order of magnitude of the true 

borehole transmissivity. 

Estimation of Specific Capacity and 

Transmissivity of Open Boreholes

The transmissivity was estimated in open boreholes from 

specific-capacity data collected concurrently with the HPFM 

logging under pumped conditions. The water-level drawdown 

and elapsed time of pumping were recorded in response to 

low-rate pumping. The duration of the single-hole pumping test was typically 1 h but ranged from 0.6 to 1.2 h. The 

pumping rates for these tests were 0.25 to 1 gal/min. Specific 

capacity, which is the yield of the borehole per unit length of 

drawdown, was calculated and recorded in gallon per minute 

per foot. 

The open-hole transmissivity was calculated in one of 

three ways, depending on whether the borehole (1) reached 

a steady state under pumping, (2) did not reach steady state 

under pumping, or (3) was too hydraulically tight to pump. 

For boreholes that reached a steady water level under pumping 
18 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

conditions, an open-hole transmissivity was calculated using 

a program described by Bradbury and Rothschild (1985) with 

an assumed storage coefficient of 0.0005 for fractured rock 

(Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Well-loss coefficient is a parameter that quantifies the effects of turbulent flow, which causes 

drawdown in the borehole relative to the formation. The 

well-loss coefficient was not determined explicitly for these 

boreholes; thus, the value was set equal to 1.0 (Bradbury and 

Rothschild, 1985).

For selected boreholes that did not reach steady state, the 

Cooper-Jacob straight-line solution was used to estimate the 

transmissivity of the open borehole (Lohman, 1979). By this 

method, the drawdown was plotted against logarithmic 

time, and a straight line was fitted through late-time data. 

The change in water level over one log cycle was used to 

estimate transmissivity: 

Tk = (2.3 Q) / (4 π ∆Sl) , (3)

where

Tk is the transmissivity of zone k, in length

squared per time;

Q is the constant pumping rate, in length cubed 

per time; and

∆Sl is the drawdown over 1 log cycle, in length.

For this method to be valid, the dimensionless parameter, 

u, should be less than or equal to about 0.01, where u = 

(r2 S) / (4 T t); r is the borehole radius, S is the storativity, T is 

the transmissivity, and t is the elapsed time of pumping. This 

method works best under confined conditions and when the 

distance between pumping and observation wells is small. 

When this method is used for a single-hole test, distance is set 

to 1. For comparative purposes, pumping tests analyzed with 

the Cooper-Jacob straight-line approximation also were analyzed with a Theis curve-matching solution (Lohman, 1979). 

For boreholes that were thought to be hydraulically tight, 

a slug-test approach was used. A slug of water was removed 

quickly from the borehole, drawing the water level down 

several feet. Typically, the boreholes were pumped for about 

10 min at the highest discharge rates, usually 3 to 5 gal/min. 

After the pumping was terminated, the water-level recovery 

was monitored while concurrent HPFM measurements were 

made to identify inflow zones along the borehole. A CooperBredehoeft-Popadopulos (CBP) solution was used to approximate the open-hole transmissivity and storativity (Cooper 

and others, 1967). In the CBP method, the recovering head 

is normalized by the total initial displaced head and plotted 

against dimensionless time for type curves for dimensionless storage parameters. A curve-matching method is used to 

determine transmissivity and storativity for the borehole. The 

storage coefficient determined by this method does not yield 

highly reliable results (Cooper and others, 1967).

Estimation of Transmissivity and Hydraulic Head 

of Fractures

In all boreholes with HPFM data, transmissivity for 

the open-hole measurements was proportioned between 

transmissive zones using the method of subtraction 

(Paillet, 1995 and 2000). In boreholes with no measurable 

ambient flow, the open-hole transmissivity was apportioned 

according to HPFM results under pumping conditions. The 

total transmissivity determined for the open borehole was 

distributed among the hydraulically active zones in proportion 

to the relative contribution of each zone as measured 

by the HPFM. Proportioning the transmissivity to the 

individual fracture zones was used to estimate fracture-zone 

transmissivity; however, the transmissivity values determined 

by this method should be viewed qualitatively. 

In boreholes with measurable ambient flow, numerical 

flow modeling was used to estimate transmissivity and the 

hydraulic head of each transmissive zone (Paillet, 1998). The 

difference between steady flows for each transmissive zone in 

a borehole under ambient and pumping conditions is a function of the transmissivity and water levels:

Qs

k – Qpk

 = 2 πTk (wp – ws) loge (r0/r) , (4)

where 

Qs

k is the flow into borehole from zone k under 

ambient conditions, in length cubed 

per time;

Qp

k is the flow into borehole from zone k under 

pumping conditions, in length cubed 

per time;

Tk is the transmissivity of zone k, in length 

squared per time;

wp is the water level in the borehole under 

pumping conditions, in length;

ws is the water level in the borehole under 

ambient conditions, in length;

r0 is the zone radius, distance to the recharge 

boundary of the producing zone, in length; 

and

r is the borehole radius, in length.

The difference in flow between two fractures is directly 

proportional to zone transmissivity because the ratio between 

the zone and borehole radius can be treated as a constant. 

Because the open-hole head is a transmissivity-weighted 

average of all the heads in the borehole, the solution is further 

constrained by the open-hole heads under pumping and ambient conditions. 

Using the FWRAP program by Paillet (1998 and 2000), 

the transmissivity and hydraulic head were determined for 

each hydraulically active zone. The method uses two flow 

regimes—either flow data for ambient and one pumping condition or flow data for two different pumping conditions—and 
Analysis of Borehole Geophysical Data 19

the difference in water level between the two regimes. Model 

input requires information on the location of the transmissive 

fractures, ambient open-hole water level, quasi-steady-state 

water level under pumping conditions, HPFM data under 

two flow regimes, and estimates of transmissivity and head 

for each zone. The program produces models of the two flow 

regimes. The simulated regimes were graphically compared 

to the measured flow profiles, and the head and transmissivity parameters were iteratively varied until a unique solution 

was obtained for the transmissivity and head of each fracture. 

The model also provides a sum of squares error (SSE) analysis 

and root-mean square (RMS) values to assess the fit of the 

predicted flow profile to the measured profile and the validity 

of the solution. The final transmissivity and head estimates are 

presented in summary tables for each borehole. 

Analysis of Borehole Geophysical Data

A brief summary of the methods of analysis is provided 

in this section. This is followed by a detailed explanation of 

data and interpretation for each of the boreholes, including 

a summary of the location and construction and a lithologic, 

fracture, and hydraulic characterization. The data for all 

boreholes are provided in appendixes 1–3. Interpretations 

of data collected by Geophysical Applications, Inc., in 2003 

(Weston Solutions, 2005) and by Richter Geoscience, Inc., in 

2006 (The Johnson Company, 2006) are in appendixes 4 and 

5, respectively. 

Methods of Analysis

Borehole geophysical logs were used to determine construction of the borehole, to interpret the rock types, to identify 

fracture locations and orientations, and to estimate hydraulic 

parameters of the boreholes. 

Lithology was determined using a combination of the 

borehole geophysical logs. Initially, cross-plots of data from 

multiple borehole logs were constructed to identify correlation 

of specific borehole logs with rock types and to determine a 

combination of individual logs that could be used to identify 

the rock types. Cross-plots of gamma and EMI conductivity, 

gamma and single-point resistance, and gamma and normal 

resistivity (figs. 4A–C) show bimodal clustering of gamma 

counts but scattered ranges of the second parameter. The 

cross-plot of gamma and mean amplitude of acoustic reflectivity, however, shows clustering of the gamma values and 

clustering of the reflectivity values (fig. 4D), making it a good 

indicator of lithology. Sections of borehole with low gamma 

counts had higher reflectivity and sections with higher gamma 

counts tended to have lower reflectivity. Although this analysis 

was done for several boreholes, figure 4 displays data collected for borehole DW-10, on Howard Mountain, to demonstrate the method and to describe how these data were used to 

interpret data from the other boreholes in the study area. 

In figure 5, it is clear that the gamma and reflectivity logs 

(“GAM-fluid” and “ATV amp,” respectively) for borehole 

DW-10 are visibility correlated with one another and with the 

OTV log and ATV traveltime log, which is also displayed in 

the form of an acoustic caliper plot. Together, these logs show 

a distinct correlation between gamma and acoustic reflectivity 

for the rock units. The mafic dikes centered at depths of 42, 

102, 161, 208, and 298 ft below the top of casing have very 

low gamma and high reflectivity, consistent with hard, mafic 

rock types. Acoustic and mechanical caliper logs support the 

conclusion that these low gamma zones are harder rock types 

than the country rock they intrude because the mafic dikes 

correspond to the smaller and smoother diameter sections of 

the borehole. The country rock, interpreted as rhyolite, has a 

higher gamma count and lower reflectivity and hardness than 

the mafic dikes. One additional consideration is that the reflectivity and gamma counts are affected by borehole diameter. 

Within the same rock unit, the reflectivity and gamma counts 

decline where the borehole is enlarged. Thus, these logs are 

interpreted closely with caliper, ATV, and OTV data, and 

minor variations at fractures were ignored while determining 

the rock types.

These logs describe two of the rock units in the study 

area, and hence borehole DW-10 was used as a borehole 

geophysical “type locality” for responses of the gamma and 

acoustic reflectivity tools to mafic dikes and rhyolite. 

For borehole MW-14, the gamma and reflectivity logs 

were helpful in delineating major changes in the rock units. 

Geophysical logs collected in borehole MW-14 in June 2003 

were plotted and compared to descriptions of the lithologic 

core (Weston Solutions, 2005) and to geologic maps (Gates 

and Moench, 1981). The core obtained from this borehole was 

described for texture, color, and mineralogy and is interpreted 

as quartz monzonite in the upper part of the borehole and 

diabase or gabbro in the lower part of the borehole. Relatively 

high gamma activity and low acoustic reflectivity amplitudes 

characterize the upper unit from the bottom of casing to about 

halfway down the borehole. The rock in the bottom half of 

the borehole is characterized by low gamma activity and high 

reflectivity. The cross-plot for gamma and acoustic reflectivity in borehole MW-14 shows a bimodal population in the 

gamma counts with one mode clustering just below 100 cps 

and the other clustering over 200 cps (fig. 6). For the acoustic 

reflectivity, there is a large range of values, but the reflectivity 

values associated with low gamma values are higher than the 

reflectivity values associated with the higher gamma emissions. These logs are shown in further detail in the description of borehole MW-14. Because of the unique response of 

the gamma and reflectivity logs to the rock types in borehole 

MW-14, this borehole was used as another “type locality” for 

the gamma and acoustic reflectivity tools for two additional 

rock types in the study area—quartz-monzonite and diabase 

and (or) gabbro.
20 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006 Figure 4. Cross-plots of selected borehole geophysical logs from borehole DW-10, near Machiasport, Maine. (EMI, electromagnetic induction)

0 100 200 300

SINGLE POINT RESISTANCE, IN OHMS 5,000 3,000 50,000 10,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 

A

0 100 200 300

EMI CONDUCTIVITY,

IN MILLISIEMENS PER METER

0

300 

200100

0 100 200 300

MEAN AMPLITUDE, IN MILLIVOLTS

0

3,000 2,000 1,000 

GAMMA, IN COUNTS PER SECOND

0 100 200 300

NORMAL RESISTIVITY 32-in,

IN OHM-METERS

-5E+8

5E+8

2.5E+91.5E+9

B

C

D

GAMMA, IN COUNTS PER SECOND

GAMMA, IN COUNTS PER SECOND

GAMMA, IN COUNTS PER SECOND
Analysis of Borehole Geophysical Data 21

Figure 5. Selected borehole geophysical logs and lithology in borehole DW-10, near Machiasport, Maine, showing correlation 

of logs to the lithology. (cps, counts per second; GAM, gamma log; ATV, acoustic televiewer; OTV, optical televiewer; MN, 

magnetic north; amp, amplitude; mV, millivolts; EMI-COND, electromagnetic conductivity; μS/m, microsiemens per meter; 

CALIPER, mechanical caliper; CAL-N-S, north-south measurement (shown in reverse); CAL E-W, east-west measurement)

GAM-fluid

0 CPS 300

EMI-COND

0 mS/m 100

CALIPER

5 INCH 7

OTV MN

0° 90° 180° 270° 0°

ATV amp - mean

0 3000

A CAL E-W

0 INCH 20

A. CAL-N-S

20 INCH 0

ATV amp

0° 90° 180° 270° 0°

350 MV 2700 0 CPS 300

Lithology

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING

CASING

RHYOLITE

RHYOLITE

MAFIC DIKE

RHYOLITE

RHYOLITE

MAFIC DIKE

RHYOLITE

MAFIC DIKE

RHYOLITE

 0
22 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

The other major rock unit in the study area is the 

sedimentary sequence of the Eastport Formation (Gates and 

Moench, 1981). Borehole DW-23 was used as the “type 

locality” for the metasedimentary unit. Gamma counts in the 

metasedimentary unit are higher than in the quartz monzonite, gabbro/diabase, and mafic dikes. In borehole DW-23, 

the acoustic reflectivity and hardness of the metasedimentary 

units are generally lower and softer than the reflectivity and 

hardness of the gabbro/diabase (fig. 7). The more reflective, 

low-gamma-count unit that is represented on the left side of 

figure 7 was observed in the bottom half of borehole DW-23 

and was interpreted as gabbro or diabase. The rocks in the 

upper part of borehole DW-23, interpreted to be metasedimentary units of the Eastport Formation, are represented on 

the right side of figure 7, with the higher gamma counts. The 

gamma and reflectivity signatures were used along with the 

OTV images and ATV traveltime to identify the sedimentary 

layering of the rock units in borehole DW-23. 

The geophysical logs collected in boreholes DW-10, 

MW-14, and DW-23 are discussed in further detail in the 

descriptions for the individual boreholes. The general correspondence between gamma and reflectivity measurements and 

their correlation with the rock types was used in the interpretation of all other boreholes in the study. 

Fractures were identified in the ATV, OTV, caliper, 

and normal resistivity logs. In this report, the term “fracture” 

refers to planar discontinuities in the rock. No attempt was 

made to determine the genesis or mode of fracturing. The term 

“transmissive fracture” indicates a single fracture identified 

with the HPFM as transmitting water to or from the borehole 

Figure 6. Cross-plot of data from gamma and acoustic televiewer reflectivity logs from borehole 

MW-14, near Machiasport, Maine.

0 100 200 300

700

800

900

1,000 

1,100 

MEAN AMPLITUDE, IN MILLIVOLTS

GAMMA, IN COUNTS PER SECOND
Analysis of Borehole Geophysical Data 23

under ambient or low-rate pumping conditions. The term 

“transmissive zone” refers to a region of the borehole where 

two or more closely spaced fractures were identified with the 

ATV and (or) OTV and where water flowed in or out of the 

borehole under ambient or pumping conditions. Because the 

HPFM cannot be placed between closely spaced fractures, the 

measured inflow was attributed to the fracture zone.

Hydraulic characterization was determined with a 

combination of results from fluid, water-quality, and flowmeter logs, along with pumping (or injection) and water-level 

monitoring.

The following is a brief outline of the procedures used in 

this investigation for analyzing and interpreting the data for 

each borehole.

● All logs were combined into a common collection and 

plotted side by side. WellCAD v4 was used to display 

the data and aid in the analysis. 

● The fluid and caliper logs were used to verify the 

reported depth and diameter of the borehole, and EMI 

and imaging logs were used to verify the depth to the 

bottom of casing. 

● Deviation data were corrected for magnetic declination, 

which is 17.5° west of true north (TN).

● Average reflectivity logs were extracted from the ATV 

data, and the results were compared to gamma and 

resistivity logs to help identify changes in rock type. 

Figure 7. Cross-plot of data from gamma and acoustic televiewer reflectivity logs from borehole 

DW-23, near Machiasport, Maine.

GAMMA, IN COUNTS PER SECOND

0 100 200 300

MEAN AMPLITUDE, IN MILLIVOLTS

0

1,000 

2,000 
24 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

● ATV and OTV logs were oriented to TN by rotating the 

images 17.5° such that TN was aligned with the left 

and right edges of the image. Strike and dip of planar 

features were determined and plotted as projection 

overlays directly on the images. The features in these 

structure logs were color-coded: 

o red, prominent fractures; 

o light blue, minor cracks; 

o green, lithologic features including contacts, bedding planes, and layering; 

o gray, sealed fractures; 

o yellow, possible fractures; and 

o dark blue, transmissive fractures.

● Structure logs were corrected from apparent to true 

strike and dip using the borehole deviation log that had 

been rotated to TN. The planar features were tabulated. 

● Interpretations of planar features were plotted in stereoplots for assessing clustering of data. The interpretations were also plotted in tadpole plots to assess the 

change in orientation with depth and with interpreted 

rock types.

● Cross-plots of gamma and reflectivity, and gamma and 

resistivity, were constructed to assess lithology and to 

identify changes in rock types. 

● Fluid and flowmeter logs were analyzed to determine 

transmissive fractures. These fractures or fracture 

zones were coded blue in the structure plots and 

stereoplots. 

● HPFM data were processed for ambient and pumping 

conditions, and proportions of inflow were determined 

by the method of subtraction.

● Water-level data were analyzed, and open-hole specific 

capacity and transmissivity were computed using 

steady-state or transient solutions.

● Results of flowmeter tests were modeled to determine 

hydraulically active fractures in the borehole and to 

estimate the transmissivity and head of the individual 

modeled zones within the borehole.

● Interpretations of hydraulic properties were compared 

to water-quality parameter logs.

After the individual interpretations were completed, borehole to borehole comparisons were made to assess rock types 

and fracture patterns over larger portions of the aquifer. The 

results, which are summarized by borehole, are presented for 

each of the contaminated sites.

Miller Mountain—Ground/Air Transmitter/

Receiver Site

Previous investigations have identified chlorinated 

solvents in groundwater samples collected to the southeast of 

the Miller Mountain summit, strongly suggesting that Miller 

Mountain was the residual source area (Weston Solutions, 

2005). Boreholes WY-GATR and MW-13 are on the top of 

Miller Mountain in or near two areas of contamination 

(table 1 and fig. 1A). Domestic wells DW-22, DW-23, DW-29, 

DW-31, and DW-32 are along the southeastern slope of Miller 

Mountain. Wells DW-34, MW-14, and DW-24 are south of 

Miller Mountain and upgradient from an east-west trending 

surface-water drainage. Domestic wells DW-33 and DW-40 

are due east of Miller Mountain summit and in the surface 

drainage that runs between Miller and Bucks Mountains. 

Borehole DW-25 is east-southeast of the summit and further 

downgradient of boreholes DW-33 and DW-40 in the surface 

drainage. Borehole DW-39 is north of the summit along the 

flank of Miller Mountain. 

In this section, borehole MW-14 is presented first because 

it provides a good review of the rock types and the tool 

responses in a cored borehole local to the Miller Mountain 

area. Boreholes logged by USGS for this investigation are 

presented after borehole MW-14. Finally, a brief summary is 

presented for borehole DW-29, logged in 2006 (The Johnson 

Company, 2006). All results are summarized together in the 

“Results of the Borehole Geophysical Investigation” section of 

this report. 

Borehole MW-14

Geophysical logs and core descriptions were collected in 

borehole MW-14 in June 2003 (Mark Blackey, Geophysical 

Applications, Inc., written commun., 2003; Weston 

Solutions, 2005). 

Lithology. The ATV, OTV, gamma, and selected logs 

were plotted along with lithologic descriptions of core 

obtained from the borehole (fig. 8). The OTV log indicates 

the bedrock from the bottom of casing to a depth of about 

57 ft below the top of casing is gray with some reddish and 

pink color. The rock unit appears to be massive, uniform, and 

fine grained, which is consistent with the quartz monzonite 

observed in core samples and the maps of Gates and Moench 

(1981). The contact at a depth of 57.8 ft, which is coincident 

with several fractures, is clearly evident in the OTV log. 

Above the contact, the fractures appear to be open and have 

no felsic infilling. Below the contact, the fractures appear to 

have felsic infilling. The generalized description of the drilling 

log is on the left, and the rock types are color-coded. The 

upper zone has been interpreted as quartz monzonite (Weston 

Solutions, 2005), and the lower unit, color-coded in green, has 

been interpreted as gabbro or diabase. The gamma log, shown 

in the shaded stratigraphic plot and in the standard line plot, 

shows a strong correlation to the rock types; the more mafic 
Analysis of Borehole Geophysical Data 25

Figure 8. Selected borehole geophysical logs and rock types in borehole MW-14, near Machiasport, Maine. (cps, counts per 

second; mV, millivolts; OTV, optical televiewer; μ Sec, microseconds; Mech., mechanical; max, maximum; ft, feet)

Amplitude

0° 90° 180° 270° 0°

11 (mV) 1111

Travel Time 

0° 90° 180° 270° 0°

950 (u Sec) 1250

OTV Image

0° 90° 180° 270° 0°

Gamma

0 (cps) 300

MW-14 Gamma .

0 (cps) 400

Core Analysis -- generalized description Amplitude - mean

300 mV 1200

Amplitude- median

800 (mV) 1100

Mech. Caliper

2 (inches) 6

Acoustic caliper max

-7 (Inches) 7

Approx Amplitude

8 (x100 mV) 11

Projection

20

40

60

80

100

9.00

10.0

10.1

OVERBURDEN to 16.1 ft

BOTTOM OF CASING to 22.1 ft QUARTZ MONZONITE Average gamma = 240 cps

DEP

TH, IN FEE

T BELO

W

T

O

P

OF CASIN

G

Average gamma = 75 cps

GABBRO or DIABASE
26 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

gabbro/diabase unit has low gamma emissions. The adjacent 

ATV logs show a slight variation in acoustic reflectivity above 

and below the contact at a depth of 57.8 ft. By converting 

the acoustic reflectivity image data to an average or median 

value for each depth increment, the results can be compared 

to the gamma log in a cross-plot (fig. 6). These plots indicate 

the uppermost zone, which has an average gamma of 240 cps 

and a median reflectivity of 900 mV, is associated with the 

more felsic quartz monzonite. The unit below the contact at a 

depth of 57.8 ft below the top of casing, which has an average 

gamma count of 75 cps and a median reflectivity of 1,010 mV, 

is associated with the more mafic and very hard, reflective 

gabbroic or diabase unit. 

Fractures. A series of fractures are at the contact 

between the two rock units, as seen in the OTV, ATV, caliper, 

acoustic caliper, and acoustic reflectivity plots. The contact has 

a moderate dip towards the southwest (with a strike and dip 

N150°E, 57° towards the southwest). 

Borehole MW-13

Location and construction. Monitoring well MW-13 is 

on top of Miller Mountain and was installed in April 2003 for 

the environmental assessment of the GATR site (Weston Solutions, 2005). MW-13 is cased to a depth of 17 ft below land 

surface, and the casing extends to 3.48 ft above the land surface. The total depth of the well is about 220 ft below the top 

of casing. Two rounds of borehole logs were collected in this 

borehole. MW-13 was logged in June 2003 (Weston Solutions, 

2005) and again in November 2004. On November 9, 2004, 

the water level was 15.48 ft below the top of casing, whereas 

in the spring of 2003, the water level was 32.1 ft below the top 

of casing. The variability of the water level is likely because 

the borehole is in a recharge area on a hilltop; water levels 

highly correlate to precipitation and frequently are variable 

(Johnson and others, 2005). 

Unlike any of the other boreholes in the study area, the 

water in borehole MW-13 had high amounts of suspended particles and grit, which looked more like rock flour from drilling 

than fault gouge. A tool that was lowered about 50 ft into 

the borehole emerged from the borehole covered in a gritty, 

clay-rich mud, indicating the grit is not isolated to the bottom 

of the borehole. Because of the grit and suspended particles, 

water-quality probe, HPFM, and ATV logs were not collected 

in November 2004; they could be collected if the borehole was 

flushed out. Hence, the ATV and water-quality logs from 2003 

were used in the composite log. Borehole MW-13 deviates 

about 17 ft toward the northeast (appendix 1, fig. 1A–2). Logs 

and interpretations for borehole MW-13 are in appendix 1A.

Lithology. The gamma and acoustic reflectivity logs 

indicate fairly uniform lithology over the length of the borehole. The most substantial changes in gamma emissions and 

reflectivity occur at a depth of 40 to 51 ft below the top of 

casing. Over this zone, the gamma counts increase to about 

200 cps, and the reflectivity decreases to 300 mV; in the rest of 

the borehole, the average gamma activity and reflectivity are 

about 25 cps and about 500 mV, respectively. The zone from 

a depth of 40–51 ft is consistent with a less mafic and softer 

rock type like the granodiorite and quartz monzonite in the 

upper unit in borehole MW-14 and may represent a countryrock roof pendent or xenolith. The rest of the borehole is characterized by very low gamma and high reflectivity and appears 

to be more similar to the rock unit in borehole WY-GATR than 

the rock unit in the bottom of borehole MW-14. 

The borehole diameter changes at a depth of about 87 

to 90 ft below the top of casing. The change appears to be an 

artifact of drilling; the drilling logs, however, indicate this 

zone coincides with limonite- and hematite-healed fractures. 

This zone is characterized with a slightly higher reflectivity 

and larger diameter than the rocks above and below it. If the 

response of the ATV tool was simply caused by an increased 

borehole diameter, the reflectivity would decrease, but here it 

increases over the zone from 87 to 90 ft. The smaller diameter below this zone is because of a change to a smaller drill 

bit and is unrelated to the rock type. The normal resistivity 

logs and EMI logs indicate the bedrock is very resistive, but 

no major changes in rock type were identified. The SP log 

indicates minor changes at depths of about 50, 69, and 105 ft 

below the top of casing. The uppermost SP anomaly coincides 

with the bottom of the large gamma anomaly that is interpreted as a granodiorite or quartz monzonite. 

Fractures. Stereoplots for features observed in the ATV 

log (appendix 1, fig. 1A–3) show pole to fracture planes that 

dip steeply towards the southwest and cluster fairly tightly. 

Another group of poles to fracture planes dips over a range of 

angles towards the east-southeast. Tadpole plots indicate the 

zone at the top of the log from a depth of 32 to 51 ft is highly 

fractured relative to the rest of the borehole. The fractures 

over that zone show the same range in orientation as the rest 

of the borehole. 

Hydraulic characterization. The ambient fluid conductivity and temperature logs collected in borehole MW-13 

on November 2004 indicated the possibility of hydraulically 

active fractures at depths of 20 (at the base of casing), 42, 

and 132 or 145 ft. The water-quality log collected in spring 

2003 showed possible hydraulically active fractures at depths 

of 38, 50.6, and 187 to 193 ft below the top of casing. No 

ambient flow was measured with the HPFM in either 2003 

or 2004; HPFM logs collected under pumping conditions in 

2003 tentatively identified possible inflow at a depth of about 

70 to 80 ft below land surface. However, the rock flour in the 

borehole may have clogged the fractures in the borehole and 

(or) adversely affected the performance of the tool. Collectively, the inflections in the fluid and water-quality probe show 

possible transmissive fractures at depths of 38, 41, 51, 132 or 

145, and 187 to 193 ft below the top of casing. 

The water-quality probe may have been adversely 

affected by the remnant effects of the high rock-flour and grit 

content from the drilling. The pH was fairly constant over the 

depth of the borehole and was fairly high at about 8.5. The 

redox log indicated positive or oxidizing conditions throughout the length of the borehole. The fluid conductivity logs 
Analysis of Borehole Geophysical Data 27

from the 2003 and 2004 logging events show similar profiles 

at the top of the borehole with a drop in temperature over the 

upper zone in the borehole, down to about a depth of 42 ft 

below the top of casing. In the fluid log, collected in the spring 

of 2003, the fluid conductivity remained fairly constant, and 

the temperature decreased to the bottom of the borehole. In the 

November 2004 fluid log, the temperature remained constant 

and the fluid conductivity increased gradually to the bottom 

of the borehole. These differences may be because of seasonal 

changes or because the first round of logging was conducted 

shortly after drilling. Collectively, the fluid and water-quality 

logs from both rounds of logging were used to infer the transmissive zones in the borehole. The fluid and flowmeter logs 

may produce different results after the borehole is developed 

and cleared of rock-flour and drilling debris. 

Borehole DW-22

Location and construction. Domestic well DW-22 is 

southeast of Miller Mountain along Port Road. The borehole 

has 22.5 ft of casing; the casing extends 0.34 ft above the land 

surface. Borehole DW-22 was completed to a total depth of 

110 ft below the top of casing, and is nearly plumb, deviating 

less than 1 ft towards the west (appendix 1, fig. 1B–2). DW-22 

is close to another domestic well, DW-23, which is about 

100 ft to the south. The ambient water level on November 10, 

2004, was 6.69 ft below the top of casing at 7:30 a.m. Logs 

and interpretations for borehole DW-22 are in appendix 1B.

Lithology. Gamma, ATV, OTV, and normal resistivity 

logs indicate a change in rock type at a depth of about 100 ft 

below the top of casing. Over most of the borehole, the rock 

type appears to be fairly uniform in gamma counts and acoustic reflectivity and is consistent with metamorphic sediments. 

Behind the casing, the gamma averages about 70 cps. From a 

depth of 23.5 to 100 ft below the top of casing, the rock emits 

gamma radiation of about 100 to 170 cps and has an acoustic reflectivity of 400 to 1,200 mV. Near the bottom of the 

borehole, at a depth 100 ft below the top of casing, the rock is 

harder, is more reflective (1,800 to 2,250 mV, averaging about 

1,900 mV), and has a lower gamma count (about 30 cps), 

which is consistent with gabbro or diabase. The gamma and 

reflectivity signatures are similar to that from the rock types 

in the lower portions of boreholes DW-23, DW-22, DW-32, 

DW-25, and DW-31 and in the top of borehole DW-39. The 

gamma and reflectivity signatures in the top of borehole 

DW-22 are similar to the signatures in the upper portions of 

boreholes DW-32 and DW-23. 

The multi-spaced normal resistivity logs show an 

increase in the resistivity in the rock unit below a depth of 

100 ft. In the OTV log, the rock in the top of borehole DW-22 

appears to have numerous (non-planar) features that are either 

very minor cracks or expressions of textural relief along layers 

in the rock. There is also a near-vertical feature only on one 

side of the borehole from a depth of 51 to 54 ft below the top 

of casing. It may be a vesicular feature or some other localized 

pod of crystallized minerals in the matrix of the rock. 

Fractures. The ATV and OTV logs show a prominent 

fracture at a depth of about 82.5 ft, which was shown to be 

transmissive with the HPFM. This fracture strikes southeast 

and dips 27° to the west-southwest [OTV and ATV logs indicate an average orientation of N213°E, 27° (SW)]. The fractures near the base of casing only had a signature in the OTV 

log. These features may or may not be transmissive because 

there also appears to be borehole enlargement in one section 

of the well at the base of casing that may serve as an avenue 

for leakage. The HPFM did identify leakage near the base of 

casing. Several steeply dipping features that strike to the north, 

southeast, and southwest were observed in the OTV images 

(appendix 1, fig. 1B–3). Another set of shallow dipping features striking east and dipping south was observed in the ATV 

and OTV logs. Planar features in the borehole that are associated with tonal variations in the OTV image were coded green 

in the stereoplots and tadpole and projection plots. These 

features probably result from changes in texture or mineralogy 

because they do not appear to be open. 

Hydraulic characterization. Ambient downflow was 

measured with the HPFM on November 10, 2004, at about 

11:30 a.m. to 12:25 p.m. Water entered the borehole at 

the base of casing (at a depth of about 22.5 ft or from the 

possible fractures at 23.3 and 23.5 ft) and exited the borehole 

at the fracture at a depth of 82.5 ft below the top of casing. 

Under pumping conditions of 0.7 gal/min, ambient flow was 

reversed, and water entered the borehole at the fracture at a 

depth of 82.5 ft in addition to the inflow from the feature(s) 

just below the base of casing. 

The open-hole transmissivity in borehole DW-22 was 

estimated using two methods. The water levels under pumping 

at 0.6 gal/min reached quasi-steady state prior to the flowmeter logging. The water level declined 5.6 ft from the ambient water level. Using the water-level and pumping data, the 

open-hole transmissivity was determined using the methods 

of Bradbury and Rothschild (1985). The specific capacity was 

calculated to be 0.125 (gal/min)/ft of drawdown, and the openhole transmissivity was calculated to be 22.7 ft2

/d.

The HPFM data were modeled using FWRAP to determine the transmissivity and head for the two transmissive 

zones in the borehole (fig. 9). Similar figures were constructed 

for the final model results for each borehole and are shown 

in the appendixes. Figure 9 is used to describe this presentation of HPFM data and the modeling results. In this figure, 

the points indicate HPFM measurements along the borehole. 

Dashed lines show the interpreted flow regime in the borehole, 

with downflow from a depth of about 25 to 82 ft below the top 

of casing. After interpretation of the image and fluid logs, the 

inflow and outflow were attributed to specific fractures. By 

adjusting the transmissivity and initial heads in FWRAP, the 

model generates ambient and pumped profiles (shown with 

solid lines) that are compared to the interpreted profiles. The 

transmissivity and head parameters were adjusted as needed 

to generate a good match between the observed and modeled 

profiles. In borehole DW-22, the modeled profile directly 

overlays the observed profiles over most of the borehole. The 
28 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

Figure 9. Flowmeter model for borehole DW-22, near Machiasport, Maine, showing solid model lines overlying 

interpretation of measured flow (dashed lines). (gal/min, gallon per minute; positive values of flow are upward 

flow, negative values of flow are downward flow)

Measured flow. 

Modeled flow.

Measured heat-pulse flowmeter data.

AMBIENT FLOW PROFILE

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

-0.15 0 0.15

FLOW, IN GAL/MIN

PUMPED FLOW PROFILE

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

-0.6 0 0.6

FLOW, IN GAL/MIN

DEPTH BELOW TOP OF CASING, IN FEETDEPTH BELOW TOP OF CASING, IN FEET

EXPLANATION
Analysis of Borehole Geophysical Data 29

upper fracture or feature at the base of casing, at a depth of 

about 22.5 ft below the top of casing, was modeled to have a 

transmissivity of 11.7 ft2/d and the deeper zone, 82.5 ft below 

the top of casing, a transmissivity of 6.8 ft2/d. The head of the 

upper fracture was 4.4 ft more than the head in the lower zone, 

consistent with the ambient downflow in the borehole. Under 

pumped conditions, the ambient outflow through the fracture 

at a depth of 82.5 ft was reversed, and additional water entered 

the borehole at the base of casing. These results are summarized in table 5, figure 9, and appendix 1, figure 1B–4. The 

SSE was 0.0006 (gal/min)2 or a RMS error of 0.017 gal/min.

By this method, the open-hole transmissivity is 18.5 ft2/d. 

The fluid temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, 

pH, and oxidation-reduction potential indicate changes in the 

inflow to the borehole at a depth of 23.5 ft, just below base of 

casing, and at the fracture at a depth of 82.5 ft below the top 

of casing. In addition, the fluid conductivity log shows a small 

deflection at a depth of about 100 ft below the top of casing, 

suggesting the possibility of minor ambient downflow that 

is outside the resolution of the HPFM or the possibility that 

stagnant water next to the different rock type at the bottom of 

the borehole has a very small effect on the water column. 

Borehole DW-23

Location and construction. Domestic well DW-23 is 

southeast of Miller Mountain along Port Road and about 100 ft 

south of domestic well DW-22. The borehole casing has a total 

length of 21.7 ft and extends 1.95 ft above the land surface. 

Borehole DW-23 was completed to a total depth of 181.2 ft 

below the top of casing. The borehole deviates less than a foot 

to the southwest. Because borehole DW-23 is a flowing borehole, a buried overflow pipe discharges downgradient toward 

the east. The rate of overflow (4.0 gal/min) was measured with 

a bucket and stopwatch at the discharge pipe. The head in the 

borehole could not be measured without retrofitting the well 

with a system that would prevent overflow and allow the head 

to equilibrate. The discharge pipe is open to the borehole at a 

depth of 7.7 ft below the top of casing. Logs and interpretations for borehole DW-23 are in appendix 1C.

Lithology. Image logs indicate the pitless adapter and 

the outflow pipe are above a depth of 10 ft below the top of 

casing, suggesting the depth to bedrock is at least that deep. 

The reduction in gamma counts at about 10 ft may be related 

to the overburden/bedrock contact. The OTV, ATV amplitude, 

caliper, normal resistivity, and gamma logs indicate changes 

in lithology at a depth of 112 ft below the top of casing. 

From the bottom of casing (at about a depth of 22 ft) to a 

depth of 112 ft, the bedrock is characterized by high gamma 

counts averaging 140 cps, relatively low resistivity, low 

SPR resistance averaging 2,500 ohms, highly variable EMI 

conductivity, low acoustic reflectivity averaging 340 mV, 

and dark gray and maroon units. Below a depth of 112 ft, the 

bedrock is characterized by low gamma counts averaging 

20 cps, relatively high resistivity, high SPR resistance 

averaging 10,100 ohms, uniform EMI conductivity, high 

acoustic reflectivity averaging 1,130 mV, and light gray and 

greenish gray units. 

Higher acoustic reflectivity amplitudes and lower 

traveltimes are consistent with the change in rock type to 

a harder and more competent rock below a depth of 112 ft. 

The rock type above 112 ft appears to be a thinly bedded 

to laminated unit. Below a depth of 112 ft, the rock is a 

fine-grained (aphanitic), gray, massive unit with little to no 

structure. Sealed felsic veins are present within both units. 

The gamma log suggests the zone below a depth of 112 ft is 

a mafic unit because it has very low gamma counts. Below a 

depth of 112 ft, the caliper log shows a smoother and slightly 

smaller diameter borehole, also indicating the rock below that 

depth is harder and more competent than the rock in the top of 

the borehole. These results suggest the deeper part of borehole 

DW-23 is similar to the massive gabbro/diabase, whereas the 

upper part of the borehole is characteristic of the sedimentary 

units of the Eastport Formation. The OTV log indicates the 

sedimentary layers strike about N105°E and dip 13 to 21° to 

the south. The contact between the two rock types is parallel to 

the sedimentary layers.

Fractures. This borehole intersects several steeply 

dipping fractures. Some fractures may be drilling induced 

and others are sealed with another felsic mineral. The sealed 

fractures are shown as gray features in the stereoplots. The 

sealed fractures generally cannot be seen in the ATV log but 

were visible in the OTV log. The ATV log, however, shows 

good agreement with the OTV log and identified the larger 

fractures, which are interpreted to be hydraulically active. 

The hydraulically active fractures in this borehole are nearly 

horizontal. Two fractures (at depths of 94.5 and 177.6 ft) 

Table 5. Flow model for borehole DW-22, near Machiasport, Maine.

[ft, feet; gal/min, gallon per minute; ft2/d, feet squared per day; TOC, top of casing]

Depth of 

transmissive zone 

(ft)

Ambient flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Pumped flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Zone 

transmissivity 

(ft2/d)

Water level 

(ft below TOC)

Elevation of 

water level 

(ft)

Percent of total 

transmissivity

22.5 0.00 0.52 11.7 5.08 54.92 63

82.5 -0.10 0.10 6.8 9.48 50.52 37
30 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

were determined to be transmissive with the HPFM. They are 

shown in dark blue in the stereoplots and tadpole and projection plots. The transmissive fractures are oriented in the same 

direction with a strike and dip of N99°E, 30°S.

The tadpole plots and stereoplots indicate that above a 

depth of 112 ft, the fractures and bedding planes predominantly strike south-southeast and dip to the west-southwest. 

Below a depth of 112 ft, the fractures strike west and dip 

northward. The sealed fractures generally strike south and dip 

to the west. A fracture at a depth of 111.7 ft, just above the 

contact with the mafic unit at a depth of 112 ft, strikes southsouthwest and dips at a very shallow angle towards the west. 

Hydraulic characterization. Under ambient conditions, 

upflow occurs over the entire length of the borehole 

(appendix 1, fig. 1C–4). Inflow enters the borehole at a 

depth of 177.6 ft below the top of casing and flows upwards 

to the overflow pipe at a constant rate of 4 gal/min. Although 

the HPFM data do not confirm it, it is possible there is inflow 

under pumping conditions from the fracture at a depth of 

about 95 ft below the top of casing. Under pumping at 

5.4 gal/min, or 1.4 gal/min above the ambient inflow rate, 

the water level was drawn down below the overflow outlet, 

and all the water that was going to the pump was channeled 

through the borehole and through the casing. Under ambient 

conditions, HPFM measurements in the casing measured the 

total amount of flow at the overflow pipe (4.0 gal/min); under 

pumping conditions, the HPFM measurements in the casing 

measured the total amount of water going to the pump 

(5.4 gal/min). The flowmeter and discharge measurements 

were used to proportion the flow measured in the borehole 

with the underfit diverter. The results indicate the majority of 

inflow came from the fracture zone at 177.6 ft. Possible inflow 

was suggested in the fluid and HPFM logs at the fracture at 

94 to 95 ft below the top of casing. 

Because of the design of the overflow pipe at the top of 

the borehole, the ambient water level could not be determined. 

If a packer were installed below the overflow pipe, the ambient water level could be measured. It is best, however, to measure the head concurrently with the flowmeter logging because 

the ambient head is likely to change. The ambient water level 

was estimated by plotting the time and depth to water level 

in a logarithmic plot and then extrapolating the straight line 

back to the time pumping was initiated, thereby providing 

an estimate of the starting head for the flowmeter modeling. 

The initial starting head estimate was a depth of 6.65 ft below 

the top of casing. Once the other model parameters were 

stabilized, the starting head and drawdown were modified to 

produce the best fit, which indicated a starting head of 7.3 ft 

below the top of casing. 

Using a depth of 7.3 ft below the top of casing for the 

starting head, the open-hole specific capacity was estimated 

at 1.07 (gal/min)/ft of drawdown, and the transmissivity was 

estimated at 237 ft2/d. Three fractures were modeled using the 

flowmeter data. Because the model requires a no-flow zone at 

the top of the borehole under ambient conditions, an additional 

fracture had to be modeled at the top of the borehole to 

accommodate the overflow. The transmissivity of that zone 

was set to 100 percent, such that it was able to accommodate 

all flow driven to the top of the borehole. Under this scenario, 

the lowermost fracture had a head that was 18 ft higher than 

the top of the borehole, maintaining the ambient flow rate 

of 4.0 gal/min. The modeling results using FWRAP gave a 

numerically poor-to-fair fit to the data with an RMS error of 

0.83 gal/min and a transmissivity of only 153 ft2/d. This poor 

fit to the data indicates that one or more of the parameters are 

not adequately characterized. Because of the uncertainty in 

the ambient open-hole water-level measurement, sensitivity 

analyses were conducted by varying the starting water level 

and the percent transmissivity of the top of the borehole. 

But this solution produced the best results for the flowmeter 

modeling (table 6 and appendix 1, fig. 1C–4). 

Fluid temperature and conductivity are consistent with a 

strong vertical flow rate in the borehole because they are fairly 

constant over the entire length of the borehole. There does 

appear to be a slight shift in the oxygen and pH above and 

below the fracture at a depth of 94.5 ft below the top of casing, 

which may indicate some recharge to the borehole. 

A water-quality log was collected after the pumping. 

Comparison of the ambient and post-pumping data indicates 

the water entering the borehole under ambient conditions 

comes from the fracture near the bottom of the borehole at a 

depth of 177.6 ft below the top of casing, which is consistent 

with the flowmeter results. The log collected after pumping 

suggests water also entered the borehole from a fracture at a 

depth of 94.5 ft below the top of casing. 

Table 6. Flow model for borehole DW-23, near Machiasport, Maine.

[ft, feet; gal/min, gallon per minute; ft2/d, feet squared per day; TOC, top of casing]

Depth of 

transmissive zone 

(ft)

Ambient flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Pumped flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Zone 

transmissivity 

(ft2/d)

Water level 

(ft below TOC)

Elevation of 

water level 

(ft)

Percent of total 

transmissivity

94.5 3.94 5.39 69.0 6.88 53.12 45

150.0 3.92 4.73 24.0 6.98 53.02 16

175.0 3.92 4.48 60.0 -4.52 64.52 39
Analysis of Borehole Geophysical Data 31

Borehole DW-24

Location and construction. Borehole DW-24 is 

southeast of Miller Mountain along Port Road and about 

150 ft north of domestic well DW-36. The borehole casing in 

DW-24 has a total length of 72 ft and extends 1.52 ft above 

the land surface. The borehole was completed to a total depth 

of 191 ft below the top of casing. The borehole deviates about 

4.5 ft towards the northeast (appendix 1, fig. 1D–2). Logs and 

interpretations for borehole DW-24 are in appendix 1D.

Lithology. Gamma emissions were fairly uniform over 

the open length of the borehole and ranged from about 90 to 

130 cps (appendix 1, fig. 1D–1). One narrow gamma increase 

at a depth of 87 to 91 ft below the top of casing had emissions 

of up to 200 cps. The increase coincides with an increase in 

SP, but there is no change in the reflectivity at that depth. This 

4-ft wide zone is probably a change in rock type; it does not, 

however, exhibit the gamma and reflectivity signatures of a 

diabase intrusion. Reflectivity is high relative to the rest of the 

borehole in a few prominent zones including 109 to 122, 160 

to 171, and 178 ft to the bottom of the borehole. These zones 

exhibit a reflectivity of about 450 to 500 mV, whereas reflectivity in the rest of the borehole is about 120 to 160 mV. The 

high reflectivity zones do not exhibit a change in the gamma. 

These narrow bands may represent textural variations consistent with layering in metamorphic sediments.

Fractures. Much of this borehole appears to be highly 

fractured. Low resistivity zones are centered at a depth of 

about 95 to 100, 126, and 182.5 ft below the top of casing 

(appendix 1, fig. 1D–1). These resistivity lows are associated 

with large fractures observed in the ATV log. However, the 

high reflectivity zone from a depth of 109 to 122 ft below 

the top of casing appears to be unfractured relative to the 

zones above and below it. The stereoplot and tadpole and 

projection plots indicate the fractures (shown in light blue) 

dip to the northeast and southwest at steep to shallow angles 

(appendix 1, fig. 1D–3). Major fractures (shown in red) dip 

to the northeast and southwest at moderate to steep angles. 

The only transmissive fracture zone was at a depth of 182.5 ft 

and strikes N11°E and dips 26° to the east. This fracture zone, 

consisting of several closely spaced fractures, intersects the 

borehole from a depth of 181.5 to 183.5 ft and is listed with a 

depth set at the midpoint depth of 182.5 ft below the top 

of casing. 

Hydraulic characterization. During the borehole 

logging, the water levels and ambient flow in the borehole 

oscillated over a period of minutes, which suggested the 

borehole is affected by nearby pumping. HPFM logging under 

ambient conditions showed variable downflow in the upper 

part of the borehole and variable upflow in the lower part of 

the borehole (appendix 1, fig. 1D–4). A comparison of HPFM 

measurements and concurrent water levels confirmed that all 

the measured flow under ambient conditions was accompanied 

by concurrent changing water levels (drawdown and recharge) 

and the effects of nearby pumping. These flow measurements 

indicate borehole DW-24 is connected to another well through 

the fracture at a depth of 182.5 ft.

Under pumping at 1 gal/min, flowmeter measurements 

were collected while the water level was still declining. 

Upflow of 0.8 gal/min was measured with the flowmeter and 

attributed to an inflowing fracture at a depth of 182.5 ft below 

the top of casing. The concurrent water-level decline, when 

converted to volumetric flow rate, was 0.18 gal/min, which 

accounted for the remainder of the pumped water that was 

coming from borehole storage. No other transmissive fractures 

were identified in borehole DW-24. 

The open-hole transmissivity determined with the methods of Bradbury and Rothschild (1985) was 405 ft2

/d with a 

specific capacity of 1.7 (gal/min)/ft of drawdown. A simple 

model with one fracture at a depth of 182.5 ft was used in 

FWRAP (table 7, appendix 1, fig. 1D–4). The transmissivity 

was estimated at 306 ft2/d with an RMS error of 0.006 gal/min. 

Borehole DW-25

Location and construction. Domestic well DW-25 is 

off of Smalls Point Road, southeast of Miller Mountain and 

Port Road. The borehole has PVC and steel casing that begins 

at 0.78 ft below land surface and extends to a depth of 81 ft 

below the top of casing. The casing is in a vault with a manhole access. The borehole was designed with an overflow pipe 

that discharges sporadically to the gravel in the vault. Because 

of the design of the well, the outflow could not be measured to 

verify the flowmeter measurements. In addition, water levels 

could not be determined when the water level exceeded the 

level of the outflow pipe. Borehole DW-25 was completed to a 

total depth of 142.8 ft below the top of casing. Under ambient 

conditions at 7:22 a.m. on November 13, 2005, the open-hole 

Table 7. Flow model for borehole DW-24, near Machiasport, Maine.

[ft, feet; gal/min, gallon per minute; ft2/d, feet squared per day; TOC, top of casing]

Depth of 

transmissive zone 

(ft)

Ambient flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Pumped flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Zone 

transmissivity 

(ft2/d)

Water level 

(ft below TOC)

Elevation of 

water level 

(ft)

Percent of total 

transmissivity

182.5 0.00 0.82 306.0 9.80 50.20 100
32 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

water level was 3.19 ft below the top of casing, which is the 

level of the overflow.

The ATV data indicate the borehole deviates less than 

1 ft towards the north (appendix 1, fig. 1E–2). The EMI 

conductivity log, which was used to identify the bottom of 

casing, indicates the bottom of casing is at a depth of 

81.3 ft (appendix 1, fig. 1E–1). The gamma, ATV 

magnetometer, and ATV reflectivity data confirm this depth 

to the bottom of casing. However, the ATV images and the 

mechanical caliper log suggest there may be grout on the 

inside of the casing, giving it a rough appearance. The grout 

is possibly the remnant of a drilling process whereby the 

driller grouts the casing and then drills through it and into the 

bedrock after the grout sets. Thus, the ATV images and caliper 

data inside the casing and at the top of the borehole appear 

different from the logs collected in other boreholes in the 

study area. Logs and interpretations for borehole DW-25 are 

in appendix 1E.

Lithology. The lithology is uniform over the length 

of the borehole. The gamma emissions were uniform and 

low (about 60 cps behind the casing and about 30 cps in the 

open borehole). The high gamma from behind the casing 

may indicate the presence of grout. The ATV reflectivity log 

showed more variation than the gamma tool and ranged from 

950 to 2,475 mV. The gamma and reflectivity signatures in 

borehole DW-25 are similar to the signatures in the bottom 

half of borehole DW-23 and the very bottom of borehole 

DW-32. The normal resistivity logs show an increase in 

resistivity from a depth of 105 to 120 ft below the top 

of casing. This increase is probably related to lithology. 

Decreases in the resistivity logs are centered at depths of 

about 105, 120, and 135 ft below the top of casing and 

coincide with fracture locations. Collectively, these results 

indicate borehole DW-25 intersects a mafic intrusive unit like 

gabbro or diabase. 

Fractures. Interpretations of fracture locations and 

orientations (appendix 1, table 1E–1) are shown in stereoplots and structure and tadpole plots (appendix 1, fig. 1E–3). 

Fractures dip steeply towards the southeast, northwest, and 

east. The HPFM data indicate the fractures at depths of 128 

and 137 ft below the top of casing are transmissive. The ATV 

log indicates the transmissive fractures dip steeply towards the 

northeast (appendix 1, fig. 1E–3).

Hydraulic characterization. Using the HPFM, ambient 

flow was measured coming into the borehole at the fractures 

at depths of about 128, 135, and 138.5 ft below the top of 

casing. The inflowing water flowed upward to the overflow 

pipe near the top of the borehole. The total ambient upflow 

rate was greater than the flow rate that could be measured with 

the HPFM with a fully fitted diverter. Hence, an underfit, 4-in. 

diverter was used, and flow rates as high as 5 gal/min were 

measured. Under pumping conditions, most of the flow comes 

from the fracture at a depth of 138.5 ft below the top of casing, 

and a small amount comes from the fractures at depths of 128 

and 135 ft.

The ambient water level was estimated in a method 

similar to that used in DW-23, in which the pumped water 

levels were used to estimate the initial water level at the 

initiation of pumping. The starting water level was estimated 

at 1.5 ft below the top of casing. Using the very-early-time 

water-level data produced an ambient head of about 1 ft, and 

using the remainder of the early-time water-level response 

to pumping, the ambient water level was estimated at 

2.25 ft below the top of casing. Hence, the ambient water level 

was estimated as 1.5 ft below the top of casing. Using the 

methods of Bradbury and Rothschild (1985), the open-hole 

specific capacity was estimated at 0.82 (gal/min)/ft, and the 

transmissivity was 177 ft2/d. The transmissivity was estimated 

at 130 ft2/d using FWRAP; however, the RMS error was fairly 

high at 2.9 gal/min. Under this model, the lowermost fracture 

had a head that was 5 ft higher than the top of the borehole. 

The high RMS error could be caused by poor estimates of the 

model parameters but could also be caused by the overflow 

at the top of the borehole, which was modeled as an artificial 

fracture. This fracture was assigned a transmissivity of 

100 percent, which is sufficiently large to accommodate any 

upward flow in the borehole. The model results are shown in 

table 8 and appendix 1, figure 1E–4.

Under ambient conditions, the water-quality probe 

showed changes in dissolved oxygen, pH, and oxidationreduction potential at depths of 121, 128, and 132 ft below 

the top of casing and 2.19 ft above the overflow outlet 

(appendix 1, fig. 1E–1). The ambient fluid log showed changes 

in fluid conductivity at depths of 132 and 138 ft, which are 

consistent with the transmissive fractures identified with 

the HPFM.

Table 8. Flow model for borehole DW-25, near Machiasport, Maine.

[ft, feet; gal/min, gallon per minute; ft2/d, feet squared per day; TOC, top of casing]

Depth of 

transmissive zone 

(ft)

Ambient flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Pumped flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Zone 

transmissivity 

(ft2/d)

Water level 

(ft below TOC)

Elevation of 

water level 

(ft)

Percent of total 

transmissivity

128.0 1.816 3.671 40.5 0.818 39.18 31

138.0 1.686 2.922 89.1 -2.182 42.18 69
Analysis of Borehole Geophysical Data 33

Borehole DW-31

Location and construction. Domestic well DW-31 is 

off GATR Road on Miller Mountain, south of the summit. 

The borehole has steel casing that was completed to 2.2 ft 

above land surface and extends to a depth of 17 ft below 

the top of casing. Borehole DW-31 was completed to a total 

depth of 245 ft below the top of casing. On November 12, 

2005, at 1:00 p.m., under ambient conditions the open-hole 

water level was at a depth of 133.82 ft below the top of 

casing, which is fairly deep relative to the other boreholes in 

the study area. However, boreholes WY-GATR and MW-10, 

which are on mountaintops, also have deep open-hole water 

levels. Borehole DW-31 deviated a total of 3.5 ft towards the 

northeast (appendix 1, fig. 1F–2). The OTV log, which was 

only used to survey the top of the borehole above the water 

surface, confirms the direction and magnitude of the deviation 

for the upper portion of the borehole. Logs and interpretations 

for borehole DW-31 are in appendix 1F. 

Lithology. The EMI and the OTV logs indicate the bottom of casing is at a depth of 17 ft below the top of casing 

(appendix 1, fig. 1F–1). Gamma emissions are fairly uniform 

over the entire open length of the borehole. At a depth of 30 

to 41 ft, there is a zone of increased gamma emissions, which 

averages about 200 cps and is similar to borehole MW-13 

and the upper part of borehole MW-14. From a depth of 41 to 

about 134 ft, the gamma log is fairly uniform with emissions 

of about 70 cps. At the water level, there is a small spike in 

the gamma emissions, which increases to about 160 cps at 

depths of 134 to about 139 ft below the top of casing. From a 

depth of 139 ft to the bottom of the borehole, the total gamma 

emissions average 30 to 40 cps, suggesting a mafic unit such 

as gabbro or diabase. ATV logs could be collected only in the 

bottom part of the borehole, below the water level. The ATV 

reflectivity amplitude was variable (1,200 to 2,200 mV) but 

relatively high. In general, the low gamma and high reflectivity signatures in borehole DW-31 are similar to what was 

observed in the bottom portions of boreholes DW-23, DW-25, 

and DW-32 and in the upper half of DW-39. 

The OTV log was collected in the top of the borehole 

above the water level. Below the water level, the water was 

turbid with high total suspended solids that prevented viewing the borehole wall beneath the water table. The rock type 

appears to be fairly uniform, massive, and gray. The zone with 

the increased gamma counts from a depth of about 30 to 41 ft 

shows a change in texture in the OTV log and is darker than 

the rock above and below. This darker rock may be similar to 

the rock in the top of borehole MW-14 (granodiorite or quartz 

monzonite). The normal resistivity tool and EMI indicate 

uniform rock types. The normal resistivity tool exceeded the 

measurement range in the 8- and 16-in. logs. The 32- and 

64-in. logs indicate a highly resistive rock with decreases in 

resistivity at fracture locations, including the major fracture at 

a depth of 235 ft observed in the caliper log and the minorlooking fracture at a depth of 162 ft in the ATV log. 

Fractures. Only three “major fractures” (shown in 

blue in the stereoplots) were identified in the borehole 

(appendix 1, fig. 1–F3). The deepest fracture, at a depth of 

235 ft below the top of casing, is also the only fracture that 

was identified as hydraulically active with flowmeter methods. 

The other two major fractures were at depths of 84.5 and 

146 ft below the top of casing. The fracture at 84.5 ft is 

oriented at N189°E,70°W (appendix 1, table 1F–2), and the 

fracture at 146 ft is oriented at N7°E,76°E (appendix 1, 

table 1F–1). The strike and dip of the hydraulically active 

fracture at 235 ft could not be determined, because the ATV 

log did not extend through the fracture zone. Hence, the 

fracture was shown as a horizontal feature in the stereoplots 

and projection and tadpole plots. Also, several minor-looking 

fractures were observed in the borehole (light blue in 

appendix 1, figs. 1F–1 and 3). These minor fractures strike 

northeast and southwest and dip moderate to steeply toward 

the southeast and northwest. A few shallow-dipping fractures 

also were detected in the image logs. 

Hydraulic characterization. The water level in borehole DW-31 was low relative to the other boreholes in the 

study area, except for the boreholes WY-GATR and MW-10, 

both of which are on the mountaintops where there is a strong 

downward gradient. On November 11, 2004, the water level in 

borehole DW-31 was 133.5 ft below the top of casing. On the 

next day, the water level was 134.45 ft below the top of casing 

and was declining at 2:31 p.m. The rate of decline of 0.63 ft in 

90 min translates to 0.01 gal/min in a 6-in. diameter borehole. 

The HPFM identified the lowest fracture in the borehole, 

at a depth of 235 ft, as the fracture that was receiving water 

under ambient conditions, indicating water from the borehole 

was exiting the borehole into the formation at this fracture. 

The borehole was pumped at a rate of about 0.4 gal/min. 

Under pumping conditions, the water level declined 6.18 ft 

in 39 min, which translates to a decline of 0.15 ft/min or 

0.2 gal/min coming from borehole storage. Thus, all downflow 

measured with the HPFM under ambient conditions was 

attributed to changes in well-bore storage and ocean tidal 

influence. Hence, no ambient flow was included in the models. 

Under a pumping rate of 0.4 gal/min, the ambient outflow was 

overcome and an inflow of 0.3 gal/min was measured from 

the fracture at a depth of 235 ft below the top of casing. This 

was the most substantial transmissive fracture identified with 

the HPFM in the borehole. The fracture at a depth of 235 ft 

accounts for 92 percent of the inflow to the borehole under 

pumping conditions. The remainder of the inflow comes from 

the fracture at a depth of 146 ft below the top of casing. The 

RMS error for this model was 0.006 gal/min. The open-hole 

transmissivity determined with FWRAP was 10.2 ft2/d. 

The model results are shown in table 9 and appendix 1, 

figure 1F–4.

The OTV log suggests there might be other low-yielding 

fractures above the water table. The OTV log was collected 

above the water level in an upward direction. The vertical 

black lines on the images (from 85 ft and above) may indicate 

water that had dripped onto the tool and obscured the view. 
34 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

These black lines are encountered at the fractures at depths 

of 84.5 and 33 ft, indicating dripping from these fractures. 

Because these fractures are above the water level, they could 

not be measured with the HPFM. Efforts to include the 

fracture at a depth of 85 ft in the FWRAP model produced 

poor results. 

Because the well did not reach steady state under pumping conditions, a transient solution was used for the open-hole 

test. A Cooper-Jacob straight line test for a pumping rate of 

0.4 gal/min and a water-level decline of 7.85 ft over one logcycle were used to estimate a transmissivity of 1.8 ft2

/d. All 

the inflow was attributed to the fracture at 235 ft. This value is 

lower than the results determined with FWRAP. 

Borehole DW-32

Location and construction. Domestic well DW-32 is 

south-southeast of Miller Mountain along Port Road, just 

north of neighboring well DW-22. The borehole casing 

extends 1.4 ft above land surface and to a depth of 23.5 ft 

below the top of casing. The borehole was completed to a 

total depth of 105 ft below the top of casing. The borehole is 

almost plumb; it deviates less than 1 ft towards the northwest 

(appendix 1, fig. 1G–2). Borehole DW-32 has a reported yield 

of 1.5 gal/min. The ambient water level was 17.02 ft below the 

top of casing at 7:23 a.m. on November 14, 2004. Logs and 

interpretations for borehole DW-32 are in appendix 1G.

Lithology. Minor changes in lithology were observed in 

the ATV and gamma logs. In the first 65.5 ft of open borehole, the bedrock is fairly uniform in acoustic reflectivity and 

gamma. In general, the bedrock emits gamma radiation of 

about 110 to 130 cps and has a reflectivity of 700 to 1,000 mV, 

averaging about 780 mV, which is consistent with metamorphic sediments. At a depth 89 ft below the top of casing, the 

borehole intersected a lithologic contact, below which the 

rock type is harder and more reflective (955–1,900 mV, and 

averages about 1,300 mV) than above the contact. This zone 

from a depth of 89 to 105 ft below the top of casing exhibits 

lower gamma counts (about 30 cps) relative to the top of the 

borehole. These results suggest a hard mafic rock below a 

depth of 89 ft. 

Fractures. This borehole appears to be less fractured 

than other boreholes at the site. A few minor fractures are 

shown in light blue (appendix 1, fig. 1G–3) dipping steeply to 

the west (appendix 1, table 1G–1). Three transmissive zones 

were identified in the borehole with the HPFM at depths of 

about 26, 71, and 89.7 ft below the top of casing. Five possible 

fractures were identified as transmissive (shown in stereo and 

tadpole plots in dark blue); three of the fractures comprise the 

uppermost transmissive zone. All the transmissive fractures in 

the upper part of the borehole were weakly clustered and dip 

to the south-southwest. The transmissive fracture at a depth 

of about 89.7 ft strikes 166°E and dips 23o to the west. The 

fracture is near the contact with a diabase dike. 

Hydraulic characterization. Ambient downflow was 

measured in borehole DW-32 on November 13, 2004, with the 

HPFM. Under ambient conditions, water entered the borehole from a fracture (or fractures) just below the casing near 

a depth of 26 ft, flowed down the borehole, and exited the 

borehole at a depth of 89.7 ft below the top of casing. The rate 

of downflow was 0.045 gal/min or about 65 gal per day. Under 

a pumping rate of 0.6 gal/min, water entered the borehole 

from fractures at depths of 26, 71.5, and 89.7 ft below the 

top of casing. Using the water-level data from the open hole 

under pumping conditions, drawdown was only about 0.21 ft. 

The transmissivity was estimated using steady-state solutions; 

however, the water level may not have been at steady state 

because the pumping rate changed during the pumping test. 

Assuming steady-state conditions, under pumping conditions 

of 0.6 gal/min, the open-hole transmissivity was estimated at 

632 ft2/d, and the specific capacity was 2.86 (gal/min)/ft. 

Using FWRAP and the flowmeter profiles, pumping 

information, and water levels, the open-hole transmissivity 

was determined to be 511 ft2/d. The model results are shown in 

table 10 and appendix 1, figure 1G–4. 

The deepest of the three fractures at a depth of 89.7 ft 

accounted for 65 percent of the flow. The fracture at a depth 

of 71.5 ft below the top of casing accounted for 19 percent 

of the flow, and the rest of the flow came from the uppermost 

fracture at a depth of 26.3 ft. 

Changes in specific conductance identified with the fluid 

resistivity and temperature probe and the water-quality probe 

occurred at the same depths as the transmissive fractures 

and helped identify these hydraulically active fractures. The 

Table 9. Flow model for borehole DW-31, near Machiasport, Maine.

[ft, feet; gal/min, gallon per minute; ft2/d, feet squared per day; TOC, top of casing]

Depth of 

transmissive zone 

(ft)

Ambient flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Pumped flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Zone 

transmissivity 

(ft2/d)

Water level 

(ft below TOC)

Elevation of 

water level 

(ft)

Percent of total 

transmissivity

146.0 0.00 0.33 0.8 134.45 73.55 8

235.0 0.00 0.30 9.4 134.45 73.55 92
Analysis of Borehole Geophysical Data 35

ambient fluid log showed very little variation from the top of 

the borehole down to the fracture at a depth of 89.7 ft, which 

is consistent with the interpretation of ambient inflow from 

the uppermost transmissive zone at a depth of about 26 ft, 

downflow and uniform specific conductance over most of the 

borehole, and outflow at the fracture at a depth of about 90 ft. 

After pumping, the water-quality log showed changes in the 

specific-conductance profile that showed probable inflow at 

depths of 72.7 and 26 ft below the top of casing.

Borehole DW-33

Location and construction. Domestic well DW-33 

is southeast of Miller Mountain on Port Road at the Bucks 

Harbor Shopping Mall. Borehole DW-33 is north of boreholes 

DW-32, DW-22, and DW-23 and south of DW-40 (fig. 1). 

The borehole has steel casing that extends 1.98 ft above land 

surface and extends to a depth of 34 ft below the top of casing. 

The well was completed to a total depth of 82 ft below the top 

of casing. Under ambient conditions, the open-hole water level 

was 4.06 ft below the top of casing, which is 2.08 ft below 

land surface, on November 13, 2005, at 7:33 a.m. Borehole 

DW-33 is essentially plumb because the ATV tool indicates 

the borehole deviates only about 0.5 ft towards the southwest 

(appendix 1, fig. 1H–1). Logs and interpretations for borehole 

DW-33 are in appendix 1H.

Lithology. The lithology is uniform over the length of 

borehole DW-33 (appendix 1, fig. 1H–1). The gamma, EMI, 

and acoustic reflectivity logs are fairly uniform, indicating no 

change in the rock type over the length of the open borehole. 

The gamma log indicates natural gamma emissions 

behind casing of about 65 cps and about 20 cps in the open 

borehole. The higher gamma values behind the casing may 

indicate clay or grout. The ATV reflectivity is approximately 

70 to 120 mV using the ABI-40. The gamma and reflectivity 

signatures in borehole DW-33 are similar to the signatures in 

the upper 145 ft of borehole DW-40. Throughout borehole 

DW-33 and in the upper part of borehole DW-40, the gamma 

and reflectivity values are very low, indicating a mafic rock 

type. Although the reflectivity values in borehole DW-33 

are similar to those in borehole DW-22, the gamma counts 

in DW-22 are higher than in DW-33. The increase in EMI 

conductivity and slight decrease in normal resistivity below a 

depth of 75 ft may be related to iron-rich zones in the diabase. 

Because the fluid conductivity does not increase for that zone, 

the increase is not likely caused by conductive fluids in 

these fractures.

The normal resistivity logs show a zone of increased 

resistivity from a depth of 42 to 50 ft below the top of casing. 

The zone appears to coincide with a zone that is unfractured 

relative to the rest of the borehole. Other local decreases in the 

normal resistivity correspond to fractures centered at depths 

of about 41 and 36 ft below the top of casing. The resistivity 

below a depth of 50 ft is similar to the resistivity above 40 ft 

and is probably related to the presence of fractures.

Fractures. The ATV data show a high-resolution, 

high-quality image. No ambient flow was measured in 

borehole DW-33 using the HPFM (appendix 1, fig. 1H–4). 

Under pumping conditions (discharge rate of 0.5 gal/min), 

all the inflow takes place between flowmeter measurements 

collected at depths of 44 and 38 ft below the top of casing. 

Thus, the fractures at depths of 39.2, 40.9, and 41.1 ft 

(appendix 1, table 1H–1) below the top of casing are shown in 

dark blue, indicating one or more of them are transmissive 

(appendix 1, figs. 1H–1 and 1H–3). These fractures were 

modeled as a single fracture zone at a depth of 41.0 ft below 

the top of casing. The two lower fractures, which are closer 

to the changes in the fluid column under ambient conditions, 

dip steeply to the south. The fracture at a depth of 39.2 ft 

dips steeply toward the northeast (appendix 1, fig. 1H–3). 

A fracture at a depth of 55 ft below the top of casing was 

imaged prominently in the ATV and caliper logs. The fluid 

conductivity log showed a minor deflection at a depth of 54 ft, 

but this fracture was not identified as hydraulically active with 

the HPFM under ambient or pumping conditions. 

Hydraulic characterization. The upflow rate measured 

at a depth of 30 ft was slightly larger (0.08 gal/min) than the 

upflow rate at a depth of 35 ft below the top of casing. However, the small increase in measured upflow may be because 

the 30-ft measurement was in casing and may capture slightly 

more flow than in the measurement at the 35-ft depth in the 

open borehole. Alternatively, there was a small amount of 

inflow from the vertical fracture that intersects the borehole at 

the base of casing. 

Table 10. Flow model for borehole DW-32, near Machiasport, Maine.

[ft, feet; gal/min, gallon per minute; ft2/d, feet squared per day; TOC, top of casing]

Depth of 

transmissive zone 

(ft)

Ambient flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Pumped flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Zone 

transmissivity 

(ft2/d)

Water level 

(ft below TOC)

Elevation of 

water level 

(ft)

Percent of total 

transmissivity

26.0 0.00 0.57 82.5 16.95 45.05 16

71.5 -0.04 0.42 99.0 17.04 44.96 19

89.7 -0.05 0.30 330.0 17.07 44.93 65
36 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

The HPFM did not measure any flow under ambient 

conditions. Under pumping conditions of 0.5 gal/min, the 

open-hole transmissivity was estimated at 112 ft2/d using the 

methods of Bradbury and Rothschild (1985). Two scenarios 

were modeled—one with a single fracture at a depth of 

41.0 ft and the other with inflow at the base of casing (at a 

depth of 34 ft below the top of casing). The flowmeter profiles 

and water-level data were interpreted using FWRAP (the twofracture model results are shown in table 11 and appendix 1, 

fig. 1H–4). Total transmissivity for the single-fracture model 

in DW-33 is estimated as 100 ft2/d, with an RMS error of 

0.012 gal/min. Total transmissivity for the two-fracture model 

was essentially the same, at 98 ft2/d with an RMS error of 

0.004 gal/min. 

The ambient water-quality and fluid conductivity logs 

show changes in the water chemistry at the base of casing, 

at 41.4 ft, and a minor change at 54 ft below the top of 

casing (appendix 1, fig. 1H–1). The difference in the fluidconductivity measurements between the two tools likely is 

caused by the difference in the temperature measurement of 

the same water for the two tools. The water-quality parameter 

tool consistently measures a lower temperature than the fluid 

tool. Temperature was not changed in the calibration. At a 

depth of 41.4 ft below the top of casing, the fluid conductivity 

and pH increased and the oxygen decreased. These changes 

in the fluid column further support the interpretation that the 

fractures at just beneath the base of casing are transmissive. 

Borehole DW-34

 Location and construction. Domestic well DW-34 is 

south of Miller Mountain along Port Road and across the road 

and upgradient from neighboring well DW-24. The borehole 

has 6-in. steel casing set to a depth of 40.5 ft below the top 

of casing. The well was completed to a total depth of 312.7 ft 

below the top of casing. The casing extends 2.25 ft above the 

land surface. DW-34 deviates about 4 ft to the south 

(appendix 1, fig. 1I–2). The ambient water level on April 3, 

2005, was 8.56 ft below the top of casing at 8:15 a.m. Logs 

and interpretations for borehole DW-34 are in appendix 1I.

Lithology. Gamma logs collected in borehole DW-34 

have an average activity of 375 cps for the upper part of the 

borehole from the bottom of casing down to a depth of about 

151 ft below the top of casing. From a depth of 151 to about 

157 ft below the top of casing, the gamma counts are lower 

(about 155 cps) than the unit above, and from a depth of 157 

to 270 ft, the activity is fairly uniform at 250 cps. Two narrow 

(<5-ft wide) low-count gamma peaks (about 150 cps), which 

probably are associated with mafic dikes, are at depths of 

275 and 297 ft below the top of casing. The major change 

in gamma emissions is at a depth of 151 ft below the top of 

casing. Also at this depth, the electromagnetic conductivity log 

increases slightly. The highest gamma values in this borehole 

at the top of the well and the lowest EMI conductivity values 

appear to be correlated. As observed in the mechanical caliper 

log, the uppermost part of the borehole (above a depth of 

151 ft) appears to have a more variable and slightly larger 

borehole diameter than the bottom of the borehole. The ATV 

reflectivity plot shows slightly higher amplitude (200 mV) 

over the top portions of the borehole and less variable, lower 

average amplitudes (about 100 mV) in the bottom of the 

borehole. These results are consistent with a change in rock 

type at a depth of 151 ft below the top of casing. No consistent 

pattern that would help identify a change in rock type was 

observed in the resistivity logs. The gamma and acoustic 

reflectivity signatures in borehole DW-34 are similar to nearby 

wells. Specifically, signatures in the bottom of borehole 

DW-34 and in the top of borehole MW-14 are similar and 

are interpreted to be quartz monzonite. The top of borehole 

DW-34 has higher gamma emissions than any other borehole 

in the study area. This unit, which is highly reflective and 

hard, is thought to be igneous and is interpreted to be a more 

alkali-rich unit than quartz monzonite, quartz diorite, and 

gabbro, such as quartz syenite. 

Fractures. Because of a deviation-tool malfunction, the 

deviation data for the middle portion of the borehole were 

corrupted. Hence, the deviation data for the vertical tilt of the 

tool were interpolated between the good data at the top of the 

borehole and the good values at the bottom of the borehole 

(between depths of 95 and 295 ft) (appendix 1, fig. 1I–2). 

Table 11. Flow model for borehole DW-33, near Machiasport, Maine.

[ft, feet; gal/min, gallon per minute; ft2/d, feet squared per day; TOC, top of casing]

Depth of 

transmissive zone 

(ft)

Ambient flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Pumped flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Zone 

transmissivity 

(ft2/d)

Water level 

(ft below TOC)

Elevation of 

water level 

(ft)

Percent of total 

transmissivity

Single-fracture model

41.0 0.00 0.50 100.0 3.97 48.83 100

Two-fracture model

34.0 0.0 0.51 14 3.97 48.83 14

41.0 0.0 0.42 84 3.97 48.83 86
Analysis of Borehole Geophysical Data 37

The orientation of the image data was not affected by the 

tool malfunction.

The projection, stereo, and tadpole plots indicate most 

of the fractures in the borehole are steeply dipping to nearly 

vertical (appendix 1, fig. 1I–3). There are only a few shallow 

dipping fractures. The steeply dipping fractures strike a variety 

of orientations and dip to the west-northwest and to the east-to 

southeast.

Hydraulic characterization. The HPFM log collected 

under ambient conditions shows slight ambient flow that 

enters the borehole at a depth of 145 ft and flows upward in 

the borehole, exiting at the fracture just below the base of casing at a depth of 40.5 ft (appendix 1, fig. 1I–4). Under pumping conditions, water enters the borehole from the fracture 

at a depth of 145 ft and at the fracture just below the base of 

casing. Additionally, a small proportion of water enters at a 

depth of 212 ft below the top of casing. 

Open-hole transmissivity was estimated using the 

open-hole water-level data collected during pumping and by 

modeling the HPFM and water-level data. The pumping rate 

was initially 0.5 gal/min, but it had to be reduced to a final 

rate of 0.26 gal/min. The specific capacity was estimated at 

0.042 (gal/min)/ft and the transmissivity was estimated at 

7.4 ft2/d using open-hole methods of Bradbury and Rothschild 

(1985) (table 12). These preliminary transmissivity results 

were used as initial estimates for modeling the transmissivity 

and head of individual fractures using FWRAP.

HPFM profiles and water levels under ambient and 

pumped conditions were modeled to determine the head and 

transmissivity of the three fractures identified as transmissive. 

The heads and transmissivity are summarized in table 12 and 

appendix 1, figure 1I–4. The total transmissivity using this 

method was 8 ft2/d, which is more than the open-hole estimate.

A transducer was left in borehole DW-34 to monitor the 

recovery of the water level and its response to pumping and 

to verify if the water level in the borehole was influenced by 

tidal forces or by nearby pumping. The water level in borehole DW-34 recovered approximately 4 h after the pump was 

turned off. Once recovered, there were only small, random 

variations in the water level, which do not suggest tidal or 

pumping influences.

Under ambient conditions, the fluid conductivity log 

shows three changes that might indicate ambient flow. Prominent changes take place at depths of 142 and 165 ft below the 

top of casing. A minor change takes place at a depth of 205 ft 

below the top of casing. A fluid log collected after pumping 

indicates the temperature logs are nearly identical, so the fluid 

conductivity logs can be directly compared without converting 

to specific conductance at a fixed temperature.

The post-pumping fluid conductivity logs suggest water 

enters the borehole at the fractures at a depth of 145, possibly 

212, and around 265 ft below the top of casing; however, no 

fracture was independently located at 265 ft. 

Borehole DW-39

Location and construction. Domestic well DW-39 is 

north of Miller Mountain along the west side of Port Road. 

The borehole has 6-in. steel casing that extends 2.18 ft above 

land surface and was completed to a depth of 20 ft below the 

top of casing. The well was drilled to a total depth of 221 ft 

below the top of casing. On November 16, 2005, at 4:04 p.m., 

under ambient conditions, the open-hole water level was 

16.04 ft below the top of casing. Borehole DW-39 deviates 

about 4.5 ft to the southeast (appendix 1, fig. 1J–2). Logs and 

interpretations for borehole DW-39 are in appendix 1J.

Lithology. The lithology is fairly uniform over the 

length of the borehole with some minor changes. The gamma, 

acoustic reflectivity, and normal resistivity logs show minor 

variations, which are indicative of changes in the rock type 

(appendix 1, fig. 1J–1). From a depth of about 20 to 31 ft 

below the top of casing, the borehole is slightly enlarged, 

rough, and not highly reflective in the ATV log, probably 

because of the highly fractured nature of the rock below the 

base of casing. From a depth of 31 to 135 ft below the top 

of casing, the bedrock is less fractured and is characterized 

by low gamma (15 to 30 cps) and uniform reflectivity at 

approximately 1,600 mV. These signatures are typical of the 

gabbro/diabase unit.

Table 12. Flow model for borehole DW-34, near Machiasport, Maine.

[ft, feet; gal/min, gallon per minute; ft2/d, feet squared per day; TOC, top of casing]

Depth of 

transmissive zone 

(ft)

Ambient flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Pumped flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Zone 

transmissivity 

(ft2/d)

Water level 

(ft below TOC)

Elevation of 

water level 

(ft)

Percent of total 

transmissivity

40.5 0.000 0.262 6.0 8.65 58.25 75

145.0 0.009 0.084 1.5 7.65 59.25 19

210.0 0.002 0.022 0.5 7.65 59.25 6
38 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

From depths of 135 to 176 ft below the top of casing, the 

bedrock has a gamma signature of about 50 cps and a reflectivity of 980 to 1,030 mV, which appears darker in the ATV 

amplitude image than the bedrock above and below it. Also, 

this zone has rough mechanical and acoustic caliper logs. At 

a depth of 176 ft below the top of casing, there is a sharp contact that strikes N205°E and dips 55° to the west-northwest. 

The gamma and reflectivity signatures of this section of the 

borehole are similar to the gamma and reflectivity signatures 

observed for the diabase or gabbro unit in the lower part of 

borehole MW-14. 

From a depth of 176 to 205 ft below the top of casing, 

the bedrock is highly reflective (1,200 to 2,400 mV) and has 

a gradual increase in gamma emissions from 50 to about 

200 cps. Below a depth of 205 ft to the bottom of the borehole, 

the gamma emissions are generally 180 to 200 cps, and the 

reflectivity is lower (about 1,060 mV) than in the zone above 

it. The rocks at the bottom section of this borehole are not 

typical of the diabase but may be typical of granodiorite or 

quartz monzonite.

The 32- and 64-in. normal resistivity logs show a slight 

increase in resistivity from a depth of 145 ft to the bottom of 

the borehole relative to the resistivity at the top of the borehole. Reductions in resistivity are consistent with prominent 

fractures observed in the borehole. 

Fractures. The ATV log shows a rough and enlarged 

borehole from the bottom of casing at a depth of 20 ft to 

about 30 ft below the top of casing. In general, the fractures 

that intersect borehole DW-39 dip to the west and east and 

southeast and northwest. Hydraulically active fractures were 

identified at depths of 24.6, 75, and 90 ft below the top of 

casing and dip to the northeast, west-southwest, and southeast, 

respectively. They are shown in dark blue in the stereoplots 

and tadpole and projection plots.

Hydraulic characterization. HPFM data indicate inflow 

at a depth of 24.6 ft and outflow at depths of 75 and 90 ft 

below the top of casing. Under ambient conditions, downflow 

originated at the upper fracture zone (with the most prominent 

fracture at a depth of 24.6 ft), flowed downward through the 

borehole at a rate of 0.16 gal/min, and exited at depths of 75 

and 90 ft below the top of casing. Under pumping conditions, 

ambient outflow was reversed at the fractures at depths of 75 

and 90 ft, and water continued to enter the borehole at the 

fracture zone just below base of casing. These hydraulically 

active fractures dipped to the northeast, west, and southeast 

and are shown in dark blue in the stereoplots and tadpole and 

projection plots (appendix 1, fig. 1J–3). 

Under a pumping rate of 0.5 gal/min, the specific capacity was 0.09 (gal/min)/ft, and the open-hole transmissivity 

was estimated at 15 ft2/d by the method of Bradbury and 

Rothschild (1985). Individual fractures and fracture zones 

were modeled using the HPFM profiles, pumping rates, and 

water levels. Because of the scatter in HPFM measurements, 

several models were attempted. Results of the best-fit model 

are summarized in table 13 and appendix 1, figure 1J–4. The 

fracture at a depth of 75 ft accounted for about 70 percent of 

the transmissivity; the lowermost fracture accounted for 

21 percent; and the uppermost fracture accounted for 9 percent 

of the total transmissivity. Although the uppermost fracture 

has the lowest transmissivity, it has a very high head, about 

20 ft higher than the head of the lowermost fracture. The high 

head of this zone drives the ambient downflow in the borehole. 

The total transmissivity of borehole DW-39 was modeled as 

18.6 ft2/d, with an RMS error of 0.012 gal/min. 

The fluid log showed changes in the temperature at 

depths of about 30 and 90 ft below the top of casing. In addition, there were step-like changes in the specific conductance 

at depths of 22, 24, 26, 31, 34, 102, and 114 ft below the base 

of casing (appendix 1, fig. 1J–1). No post-pumping fluid logs 

were collected.

Borehole DW-40

Location and construction. Borehole DW-40 is a 

domestic well east of Miller Mountain, on Port Road, north of 

borehole DW-33, and in a drainage valley. The well is adjacent 

to a wetland, and there was standing water about 4 ft below 

the land surface near the well head, or about 6.5 ft below 

the top of casing. The terrain has rugged hills with bedrock 

exposures both east and west of the house and well. The 

Table 13. Flow model for borehole DW-39, near Machiasport, Maine.

[ft, feet; gal/min, gallon per minute; ft2/d, feet squared per day; TOC, top of casing]

Depth of 

transmissive zone 

(ft)

Ambient flow 

above transmissive 

zone 

(gal/min)

Pumped flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Zone 

transmissivity 

(ft2/d)

Water level 

(ft below TOC)

Elevation of 

water level 

(ft)

Percent of total 

transmissivity

31.0 0.00 0.486 1.6 -3.81 133.81 9

75.0 -0.127 0.309 13.0 12.19 117.81 70

90.0 -0.087 0.024 4.0 16.19 113.81 21
Analysis of Borehole Geophysical Data 39

steel casing extends 2.45 ft above land surface and extends 

to a depth of 31.5 ft below the top of casing. The well was 

completed to a total depth of 242 ft below the top of casing. 

Borehole DW-40 deviates a total of 4.5 ft toward the west 

(appendix 1, fig. 1K–2). On April 2, 2005, the ambient water 

level was consistently above the land surface and 0.5 to 0.7 ft 

below the top of casing, indicating a strong upward gradient. 

Logs and interpretations for borehole DW-40 are in 

appendix 1K.

Lithology. The gamma and ATV logs are fairly uniform 

over the length of the borehole; however, there are subtle 

variations. The 32- and 64-in. resistivity data showed spikes at 

depths of 76, 105, 124, 137.5, 169, 184, 193, 208.5, and 228 ft 

below the top of casing. The resistivity increase at a depth of 

124 ft below the top of casing is the largest spike. A second, 

smaller, resistivity spike extends down to a depth of 146 ft, 

ending at the fracture oriented with a strike of about N221°E, 

83°(NW) (appendix 1, table 1K–1). These spikes do not coincide with narrow spikes in the gamma data or with changes in 

acoustic reflectivity. The background resistivity level showed 

a gradual increase from a depth of 165 ft to the bottom of the 

borehole, which coincides with a gradual increase in gamma 

over the same depths in the borehole. In the top of the borehole, from the bottom of casing to a depth of about 150 ft, 

the gamma was about 30 cps, and the mean amplitude of the 

reflectivity was about 1,000 mV. There is a narrow spike in 

the gamma data (200 cps) centered at a depth of 185 ft below 

the top of casing. Below a depth of 156 ft to the bottom of the 

borehole, the gamma emissions increased from 50 to about 

100 cps, and the mean amplitude was about 600 mV. Collectively, these logs indicate a change in rock type at a depth 

of about 156 ft below the top of casing. These signatures are 

similar to borehole DW-39 and are consistent with gabbro in 

the upper part of the borehole and metamorphic sediments in 

the lower part of the borehole. 

Fractures. The ATV images showed multiple fractures. 

Numerous minor fractures in the stereoplot (shown in light 

blue) strike southeast to west and dip moderately to steeply 

towards the southwest to north. The orientation of the contact 

at a depth of 145 ft has a dip azimuth of 311° with a dip of 83° 

(N221°E, 83°NW). The hydraulically active fractures strike 

west and dip steeply to the north or strike southeast and dip 

steeply to the southwest. 

Hydraulic characterization. HPFM measurements 

do not indicate flow within the borehole under ambient conditions (appendix 1, fig. 1K–4). Under pumping conditions of 

about 0.45 gal/min, the water level declined a total of 

3.6 ft to a depth of 4.16 ft below the top of casing. The HPFM 

measurements collected under pumping conditions showed 

water entered the borehole at depths of about 34, 112, and 

215 ft below the top of casing. The specific conductance logs 

collected under ambient conditions and after pumping indicate 

the fracture zone at a depth of about 112 ft accounts for flow 

into the borehole (appendix 1, fig. 1K–4). The specific conductance logs suggest ambient upflow in the borehole from a 

depth of 215 to about 118 ft. 

Under pumping conditions of 0.45 gal/min, the openhole specific capacity was 0.14( gal/min)/ft, and open-hole 

transmissivity was estimated at 8.6 ft2/d using the methods 

of Bradbury and Rothschild (1985). The HPFM profiles and 

water-level data were interpreted using FWRAP (table 14 

and appendix 1, fig. 1K–4). Because the borehole achieved a 

quasi-steady state under pumping, the decline in water level 

did not have to be accounted for in the model. A three-fracture 

model was used, and head and transmissivity values were fitted to the HPFM profiles, water levels, and measured pumping 

rate. The total modeled transmissivity for borehole DW-40 

was 21.0 ft2/d, with a RMS error of 0.008 gal/min. This 

model indicated the fracture at a depth of 215 ft accounted 

for 29 percent of the transmissivity. The fracture at a depth of 

112 ft accounted for 14 percent of the transmissivity, and the 

fracture at a depth of 34 ft accounted for 57 percent. 

A comparison of before and after fluid conductivity, temperature, and specific conductance logs suggests there might 

be ambient flow that is less than the resolution of the HPFM. 

Post-pumping conditions indicate most of the inflow came 

from below the fracture at a depth of 112 ft, pulling more 

conductive water from the fracture at a depth of 215 ft up the 

borehole and mixing with the water at 112 ft. These results are 

consistent with the HPFM results. 

Table 14. Flow model for borehole DW-40, near Machiasport, Maine.

[ft, feet; gal/min, gallon per minute; ft2/d, feet squared per day; TOC, top of casing]

Depth of 

transmissive zone 

(ft)

Ambient flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Pumped flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Zone 

transmissivity 

(ft2/d)

Water level 

(ft below TOC)

Elevation of 

water level 

(ft)

Percent of total 

transmissivity

34.0 0.00 0.44 12.0 0.56 92.00 57

112.0 0.00 0.20 3.0 0.56 92.00 14

215.0 0.00 0.13 6.0 0.56 92.00 29
40 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

Borehole WY-GATR

Location and construction. The WY-GATR well is at 

the top of Miller Mountain. This borehole had been previously 

used as a water-supply well for the GATR by the U.S. Air 

Force. The borehole has been unused since sometime prior to 

1983. It has subsequently been used to monitor the subsurface 

water chemistry as part of the Bucks Harbor, R.I. The steel 

casing extends 3.45 ft above the land surface and extends to a 

depth of 27 ft below the top of casing (table 1). The total 

depth of the borehole is 417 ft below the top of casing. The 

borehole deviates about 2.5 ft towards the north (appendix 1, 

fig. 1L–2). The water level was 155.73 ft below the top of casing on March 30, 2005, at 8:00 a.m. Logs and interpretations 

for borehole WY-GATR are in appendix 1L.

Lithology. The gamma log shows fairly uniform gamma 

emissions over the length of the borehole with an average 

count of about 30 cps. The acoustic reflectivity also was 

uniform and was highly reflective, averaging about 2,000 

mV. Collectively, these logs suggest borehole WY-GATR 

penetrates a homogeneous diabase or gabbro, which is 

consistent with nearby outcrops and geologic maps (Gates 

and Moench, 1981).

From a depth of 280 to 366 ft below the top of casing, the 

EMI conductivity increased. Conductivity also increased from 

depths of 366 to 390 ft below the top of casing. However, no 

clear change in rock type was observed in the image log. The 

OTV log indicated the bottom of casing is at a depth of 

26.9 ft, consistent with the results of the EMI log. Below casing to the water level, OTV images show a light gray mafic 

rock unit. Below the water level, images show a dark gray 

rock with some light gray layers and fractures sealed with 

felsic minerals. 

Fractures. The OTV and ATV logs showed apparent 

rifling, which may have been caused by the drill rig used to 

ream the borehole in November 2004. The ATV and OTV 

images are of fairly high quality. Several fractures were 

observed in the ATV log below the water table and in the OTV 

log above and below the water table. In general, the OTV and 

ATV logs show agreement, although more features were identified in the OTV log than in the ATV log. 

Two prominent enlargements were observed in the 

mechanical caliper log—one at a depth of 378 to 385 ft below 

the top of casing and another larger one from a depth of 410 ft 

to the bottom of the borehole. These prominent features also 

were observed in the televiewer logs. The average orientation 

of the fractures in the OTV log strikes to the north and dips 

steeply east (N6°E, 86°E) (appendix 1, fig. 1L–4). There is a 

fairly tight clustering of poles to fracture planes that indicates 

a northwest strike and an easterly dip, and another cluster of 

poles that indicates a strike to the southwest with a very shallow to nearly horizontal dip. 

Hydraulic characterization. The ambient fluid logs 

showed no change in temperature and fluid conductivity 

over the depth of the borehole indicating probable vertical 

flow within the borehole. The direction of flow cannot be 

determined with the fluid log alone. The HPFM confirmed 

vertical flow in the downward direction (appendix 1, 

fig. 1L–4). The HPFM log indicates that under ambient 

conditions water entered the borehole at a depth of 186 ft, 

flowed downward at a rate of 0.135 gal/min, and exited the 

borehole at the bottom, below a depth of 411 ft. Below the 

large-aperture fracture at a depth of about 186 ft, the HPFM 

measured a downward vertical flow of 0.135 gal/min, and 

these measurements were fairly constant to the bottom of the 

borehole. The deepest measurement in the borehole, at a depth 

of 410.5 ft, was 0.135 gal/min downward. Hence, outflow 

from the borehole was attributed to the fractures identified at 

depths of 411.5 to 415 ft below the top of casing. This ambient 

flow rate of 0.135 gal/min is equivalent to about 194 gal/d. 

Because of the depth to the water and the high levels of 

contaminants in this borehole (3 ppm total volatile organic 

chlorides), water was injected into the borehole to stress 

the well while HPFM logging was conducted. Water from 

a USACE-approved source was injected through a hose 

extending from the top of casing down to below the water 

surface. The first attempt used a gravity-feed method; the flow 

rate, however, could not be held at a constant rate that was 

sufficiently low enough to be measured by the HPFM. In order 

to control the injection rate, water was pumped from a tank at 

the land surface into the borehole at a rate slightly less than 

1 gal/min. Under injection conditions, the HPFM data 

confirmed the fracture at the bottom of the borehole received 

all the flow. 

During the injection test, the open-hole water levels and 

pumping rate were monitored. An open-hole transmissivity 

of 90 ft2/d was estimated using the method of Bradbury 

and Rothschild (1985). The HPFM profiles, collected under 

ambient and injection conditions, and the water levels were 

modeled with FWRAP to estimate transmissivity and head for 

both of the hydraulically active zones in borehole WY-GATR. 

The upper fracture at a depth of 186 ft had a transmissivity 

of 12 ft2/d; the deeper fracture zone had a transmissivity of 

96 ft2/d. The head of the upper fracture was estimated to 

be about 3 ft higher than the water level in the lower zone, 

which is consistent with the downward flow. These results are 

summarized in table 15. The SSE was 0.0001 (gal/min)2, or an 

RMS error of 0.0066 gal/min (appendix 1, fig. 1L–4).

The USACE conducted a single-hole aquifer test 

in November 2004 (Robert Leitch, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, written commun., 2005). Borehole WY-GATR 

was pumped at 6.25 gal/min for 4 h but did not reach steadystate conditions. This aquifer test did not affect levels in 

nearby boreholes, including MW-13. The open-hole water 

levels were used to estimate transmissivity using the CooperJacob straight-line, Theis curve-matching, and Bradbury and 

Rothschild (1985) methods. These tests produced similar 

estimates of transmissivity ranging from 70 to 190 ft2/d. The 

Cooper-Jacob straight-line method estimated an open-hole 

transmissivity of 70 to 190 ft2/d using early- and later-time 

water-level data, respectively. Theis curve matching produced 

a transmissivity of 150 ft2/d with a storativity of 0.01. 
Analysis of Borehole Geophysical Data 41

Although the aquifer test did not reach steady-state conditions, 

the rate of drawdown was declining. Using the methods of 

Bradbury and Rothschild (1985) on the USACE aquifer-test 

data, the transmissivity was estimated to be 147 ft2/d. 

Specific-conductance logs collected under ambient conditions showed a uniform fluid column. After injection, however, 

the log showed the injected water advanced from the water 

level at a depth of 154 ft down to 280 ft below the top of casing. The peak increase in specific conductance was adjacent 

to the fracture at a depth of 186 ft and probably indicates 

more conductive water flowing from the fracture into the less 

conductive injected water. The peak in specific conductance 

reached a maximum after the injection was terminated and 

prior to the collection of the post-injection fluid log. The fact 

that the fresh water “tracer” went down to a depth of about 

280 ft below the top of casing indicates that about 190 gal of 

water were injected into the borehole. This is consistent with 

the estimated water use. 

Howard Mountain—Air Force Radar Tracking 

Station Area

The AFRTS site is on top of Howard Mountain where 

former building locations are also possible contaminant-source 

locations. Boreholes on or near Howard Mountain (fig. 1B) 

were logged in 2003, including boreholes DW-4, MW-9, 

MW-10, MW-11, MW-12, and WY-3 (Weston Solutions, 

2005). Additional domestic and former water-supply wells, 

including boreholes DW-2, WY-3B, WY-4, and WY-15, were 

logged as a part of this investigation. In 2006, boreholes 

MW-15, MW-16, MW-17, WY-3C, C-501, and C-114 were 

logged by Hager-Richter Geosciences (The Johnson Company, 

2006) using all the same tools as the 2003–2005 field efforts, 

except for the water-quality parameter tool. Data from a total 

of 17 boreholes were used to characterize the fractures at 

this location. 

Borehole DW-2

Location and construction. Domestic well DW-2 is 

southeast and downgradient from Howard Mountain and the 

former AFRTS site. The borehole was drilled to a depth of 

222.3 ft below the top of casing. Steel casing was set to a 

depth of 17.7 ft below the top of casing, and the top of casing 

was about 2.6 ft above land surface. The borehole deviates 

5.2 ft to the northeast over the length of the borehole 

(appendix 2, fig. 2A–2). On March 30, 2005, the depth to 

water under ambient conditions was at a depth of 30.36 ft 

below the top of casing. Logs and interpretations for borehole 

DW-2 are in appendix 2A.

During well logging, the water level was observed to 

decline without pumping the borehole. A transducer was 

placed in the borehole on March 31, 2005, to monitor the 

water level in the borehole. The transducer data showed it took 

6 h for the water level to recover. Once the water level recovered at midnight, it declined again until the next day, when the 

transducer was removed. The water-level decline appears to be 

gradual and not oscillatory as if due to tidal influences. Over a 

24-h period, the water level declined a total of 2.2 ft.

Lithology. The natural-gamma log showed only minor 

changes in gamma activity (appendix 2, fig. 2–A1). The 

gamma counts were about 90 cps behind the casing. Below 

the casing to a depth of 210 ft, the gamma emissions increased 

to about 200 cps. Below a depth of 210 ft to the bottom of the 

borehole, the gamma counts were about 160 cps. The only 

gamma anomaly in the borehole is a zone of decreased gamma 

activity (about 75 cps) from a depth of 81 to 86 ft below the 

top of casing, which coincides with a borehole enlargement 

observed in the mechanical caliper and ATV images and is not 

related to a mafic dike. The rock type is interpreted to 

be rhyolite. 

A comparison between the normal resistivity, ATV reflectivity, and gamma logs indicates no clear electrical signature. 

A few distinct zones in the SPR and 64-in. normal resistivity 

logs show decreases in resistivity at fracture locations; major 

decreases are centered at depths of 52, 83, and 130 ft. From 

a depth of 160 ft to the bottom of the borehole, the SPR log 

increases slightly, indicating a possible change in rock type. 

Fractures. The caliper log indicated increases in diameter at depths of 53.0, 58.6, 81.1 to 86.9, 103.0, 133.0, 141.2, 

145.8, and 157.6 ft below the top of casing. Fractures were 

identified in the ATV logs at the same depths as the enlargements identified in the mechanical log. The ATV and caliper 

logs show variable borehole diameter and a high rugosity. 

Table 15. Flow model for borehole WY-GATR, near Machiasport, Maine.

[ft, feet; gal/min, gallon per minute; ft2/d, feet squared per day; TOC, top of casing]

Depth of 

transmissive zone 

(ft)

Ambient flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Pumped flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Zone 

transmissivity 

(ft2/d)

Water level 

(ft below TOC)

Elevation of 

water level 

(ft)

Percent of total 

transmissivity

186 0.000 -1.000 12 150.51 121.49 11

412 -0.142 -1.006 96 153.31 118.69 89
42 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

A total of 28 fractures was identified in the ATV images 

(appendix 2, fig. 2A–3). The stereoplot shows highly variable 

orientations. Most of the features strike northeast-southwest 

and dip moderately to steeply to the southeast and northwest, 

respectively (appendix 2, table 2A–1). The most transmissive 

facture at a depth of 52.2 ft strikes N240°E, 67°NW. Another 

transmissive fracture at a depth of 106.5 ft strikes and dips 

N36°E, 49°SE. 

Hydraulic characterization. The HPFM logs under 

ambient conditions indicated upflow at a rate of about 

0.018 gal/min was measured between depths of 52.2 and 

106.5 ft. Borehole DW-2 was pumped at a rate of 

0.45 gal/min. During pumping, the water-level decline 

continued and did not reach a steady state. Because the 

amount of water coming from borehole storage (converted to 

a volumetric flow rate) was greater than the upper resolution 

of the HPFM tool, it had to be subtracted from the pumping 

rate. Approximately 0.1 gal/min of water going to the pump 

was derived from storage; thus, the actual stress to the aquifer 

was 0.35 gal/min. Under pumping conditions of 0.02 gal/min, 

a minor amount of inflow came from the fracture at a depth 

of 106.5 ft. The remainder of the water going to the pump 

was attributed to the fracture at a depth of 52.2 ft, where the 

upward flowing water was exiting the borehole under ambient 

conditions. A HPFM measurement could not be obtained 

between this fracture and the pump, which was set at a depth 

of 50.5 ft below the top of casing. Because of the length of the 

tool and the placement of the pump, the highest measurement 

in the borehole was at a depth of 55.4 ft, which was below the 

most transmissive zone in the borehole. 

A transducer left in the borehole monitored the recovery 

of the borehole from pumping conducted as part of the HPFM 

test. The water-level recovery continued for approximately 

6 h after the pump was turned off. After recovering about 

60 percent of the measured drawdown, the water level in the 

borehole began to decline at a constant rate of about 2.2 ft 

in 24 h. This water-level decline coupled with the ambient 

HPFM log indicates the water coming from borehole storage 

under ambient conditions is likely exiting the borehole at 

the fracture at a depth of 52.5 ft below the top of casing. 

Although downflow was not measured between the water 

level and the fracture at a depth of 55.2 ft, upflow was 

measured immediately below the fracture. These data suggest 

a convergent flow regime in the borehole with water exiting at 

the fracture at a depth of 52.5 ft.

Using FWRAP, this interpretation of the flow regime in 

borehole DW-2 was quantified. Initially, flow was modeled 

with three fractures at depths of 52.2, 82.5, and 106.5 ft below 

the top of casing. Ambient upflow between the depths of 106.5 

and 52.5 ft was included, and a pumping rate of 0.35 gal/min 

was simulated. In the iterative process of entering transmissivity and heads for each of the fractures, the transmissivity of the 

zone at a depth of 82.5 ft was reduced to 0.02 ft2/d, indicating 

this is not a hydraulically active fracture despite the enlarged 

borehole and deflections in the water-quality logs. The borehole was modeled with a 2-fracture simulation; the uppermost 

fracture accounted for 97 percent of the transmissivity 

(table 16), and the rest of the transmissivity was from the 

fracture at a depth of 106.5 ft below the top of casing. 

The total transmissivity for the borehole was 18.6 ft2/d 

(appendix 2, fig. 2A–4). The lowermost, less-transmissive 

fracture was modeled with a head that was 4.1 ft greater than 

the head of the upper fracture. 

This HPFM interpretation is consistent with the deflections observed in the temperature, fluid conductivity, oxidation, oxidation-reduction potential, and pH logs, although it 

indicates that only two of the fractures were hydraulically 

active enough to be measured with the HPFM. The transmissivity values determined with the HPFM data are similar to 

the results of the open-hole specific-capacity models, which 

produced a transmissivity of 25.7 ft2/d and a specific capacity 

of 0.129 (gal/min)/ft (Bradbury and Rothschild, 1985).

A fluid log was collected on March 31, 2005, and the 

water level was 40.36 ft below the top of casing. The ambientfluid conductivity log indicates the potential for vertical flow 

between the fractures at depths of about 54 to 107 ft below 

the top of casing. Changes in temperature, fluid conductivity, 

and specific conductance helped identify potentially active 

fractures where there were changes at depths of about 106.5 

and 163 ft below the top of casing. The specific conductance 

was computed at a uniform temperature of 20°C and is shown 

in units of microsiemens per centimeter. The specificTable 16. Flow model for borehole DW-2, near Machiasport, Maine.

[ft, feet; gal/min, gallon per minute; ft2/d, feet squared per day; TOC, top of casing]

Depth of 

transmissive zone 

(ft)

Ambient flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Pumped flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Zone 

transmissivity 

(ft2/d)

Water level 

(ft below TOC)

Elevation of 

water level 

(ft)

Percent of total 

transmissivity

52.5 0.000 0.347 18.0 44.34 21.66 97

106.5 0.016 0.031 0.6 40.24 25.76 3
Analysis of Borehole Geophysical Data 43

conductance logs before and after the pumping were consistent over most of the borehole; the only difference occurred 

above a depth of 57.7 ft, which indicates the fracture at 57.7 ft 

is transmissive. 

The water-quality parameter tool showed minor changes 

in the percent of oxygen saturation and oxidation-reduction 

potential. Changes occur at the fractures at depths of about 52, 

77, 83, 96, 106.5, 137.5, and 163 ft below the top of casing. 

There was a small, gradual increase in the dissolved oxygen 

from the water level to the top of the borehole enlargement 

at a depth of about 79 ft below the top of casing. From the 

bottom of the borehole enlargement, at 85 ft, to a depth of 

106.5 ft, the concentration of dissolved oxygen remained 

fairly constant, and it increased from a depth of 106.5 to 

137.5 ft below the top of casing. The oxidation-reduction 

potential shows a similar signature to the dissolved-oxygen 

profile. The oxidation-reduction potential was positive from 

the water surface down to a depth of 180 ft below the top 

of casing. Over the portion of the borehole where vertical 

flow is interpreted (from 52 to 106.5 ft), the oxidationreduction potential was fairly constant (3,300 to 340 mV). The 

oxidation-reduction potential declined steadily from a depth of 

160 ft to the bottom of the borehole. The pH showed a gradual 

increase from 7.2 at the fracture at a depth of 52.2 ft to a pH 

of 8.2 at a depth of 106.5 ft. Collectively, these logs indicate 

the borehole enlargement near a depth of 83 ft impacts the 

water-quality parameters, which may or may not correspond to 

borehole inflow or outflow at that depth. Other possible inflow 

or outflow zones include fractures at depths of 52.5, 106.5, 

136.6, and 163.5 ft below the top of casing.

Borehole WY-3B

Location and construction. Monitoring well WY-3B 

is at the base of Howard Mountain, northeast of the summit, 

downgradient from the cliff, and west of Port Road. This well 

was drilled as part of the U.S. Air Force test-well program to 

locate a water-supply well near the DCF Housing Facility. It 

was completed with 8-in. steel casing extending 1.87 ft above 

the land surface and 58 ft below the top of casing (table 1). 

Borehole WY-3B was completed to a depth of 221 ft below the 

top of casing. The exact mode of construction is not known, 

but the completed borehole diameter is 8 in. or greater, which 

is not typical of rotary drilled wells. Borehole WY-3B deviates a total of 3.8 ft to the north (appendix 2, fig. 2B–2). The 

water level on November 14, 2004, at 8:41 a.m. was 65.95 ft 

below the top of casing. Logs and interpretations for borehole 

WY-3B are in appendix 2B.

The closest vehicle access to the borehole was a few 

hundred feet away, over irregular and snow-covered terrain. 

Because so much wireline was extended between the well 

head and the winch, it was difficult to log smoothly with the 

light-weight probes while logging in the downward direction. Care was taken to guide the fluid and water-quality tools 

down the borehole. The pressure log, collected as part of the 

water-quality tool, verified a gradual increase in pressure with 

only one small deflection at a depth of 122 ft below the top of 

casing. All other logs were collected in the upward direction 

with the cable under tension. 

Lithology. The gamma emissions behind the steel 

casing were about 70 cps (appendix 2, fig. 2B–1). Below the 

casing, over the entire length of the open borehole, the gamma 

emissions were fairly uniform, averaging about 150 cps. The 

acoustic reflectivity was also fairly uniform at about 300 mV. 

The normal resistivity, SP, SPR, and EMI conductivity 

logs are fairly uniform with only minor deflections at 

fracture locations. 

Fractures. The acoustic caliper and mechanical caliper 

logs verify this is an 8-in. diameter borehole with an 8-in. 

inner diameter casing. The caliper logs show a very rough 

borehole wall, with enlargements centered at depths of 69.1, 

95.3, 108.1, 113.0, 176.6, 203.0, and 205.9 ft below the top 

of casing. Because of the roughness of the borehole wall, the 

quality of the ATV log is fairly poor. However, several small 

fractures were identified in the images. The minor fractures 

generally strike east-west and dip moderately to steeply to 

the north and south (appendix 2, table 1 and fig. 2B–3). The 

larger fractures strike north and dip east. Because of the lack 

of the flowmeter logs, the fluid and water-quality logs were 

used to estimate the locations of hydraulically active fractures. 

These features were coded with blue squares in the tadpole 

and stereo plots to identify that they were inferred from the 

water-quality log.

Hydraulic characterization. Because of difficulty in 

accessing the borehole during the November field effort, 

HPFM logging and pumping were not conducted in WY-3B.

Borehole WY-3B exhibits dramatic changes in the 

ambient-fluid log (appendix 2, fig. 2B–1). The pH decreased 

substantially from the water surface down to a depth of 73 ft, 

then decreased gradually to 97 ft below the top of casing. The 

pH increased from 7.4 to 8.9 between 97 and 112 ft in depth; 

then pH increased slightly more to 9.4 at a depth of 122 ft 

below the top of casing. The actual values are not as important 

as the indication of a change. The temperature on the waterquality tool (not shown), and to a lesser extent on the fluid 

tool, followed a similar pattern of increases and decreases 

at the same depths as the pH log. The fluid-conductivity log 

showed only small increases at depths of 97, 112, 122, and 

181 ft below the top of casing. The percent oxygen exhibited 

decreases at depths of 97, 112, and 122 ft. Collectively, these 

logs indicate the fractures at depths of 69.0, 94.5, 95.5, 112.4, 

176.1, and 202.9 are possibly hydraulically active fractures.

A comparison of the fluid and water-quality logs collected in November 2004 indicates some minor differences. 

The temperature of the fluid log was adjusted to match the 

fluid log of the water-quality probe, and the resultant specificconductance logs before and after pumping were compared. 

The results indicate water likely entered the borehole at depths 

of 73 and 122 ft below the top of casing. 
44 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

Borehole WY-4

Location and construction. Former water-supply well 

WY-4 is on Howard Mountain, southwest of the summit and 

across from the DCF facility in an abandoned pump house. 

Borehole WY-4 was previously used to supply cooling water 

for the electronics in former Building 501 but was abandoned 

in the early 1990s after Building 501 was demolished by the 

FAA, and the pump house was converted to a storage shed. 

Borehole WY-4 was completed with 6-in. steel casing 0.7 ft 

above land surface and to a depth of 53.8 ft below the top of 

casing (table 1). The total depth of well WY-4 is 180 ft below 

the top of casing. Borehole WY-4 deviates a total of 1.4 ft to 

the southeast (appendix 2, fig. 2C–2). The water level on April 

5, 2005, was 6.73 ft below the top of casing at 7:15 a.m. Logs 

and interpretations for borehole WY-4 are in appendix 2C.

Lithology. The natural gamma, acoustic televiewer, 

normal resistivity, and EMI conductivity logs show little variation over the length of the borehole. The gamma logs average 

about 200 cps and show only small variations in the gamma 

counts. The variation appears to be correlated with borehole 

diameter. Where the borehole is larger, the gamma log showed 

less counts per second. 

The long- and short-normal resistivity tool in borehole 

WY-4 showed extremely high resistivity values that exceeded 

the range of the tool. The 8- and 16-in. logs show negative 

values, but the relative tool response suggests a relation to 

borehole diameter. The 32- and 64-in. measurements were 

positive values that showed only a weak correlation to borehole diameter. The normal resistivity log shows little variation over the length of the borehole. Formation conductivity 

measurements with the EMI tool, coupled with logs from the 

ATV tool, verified the bottom of casing is at a depth of 53.8 ft 

below the top of casing. In addition, there is a small increase 

in the formation conductivity from a depth of 130 to 150 ft 

below the top of casing, but this zone does not appear to be 

correlated to anomalies in any of the other borehole logs. 

The acoustic reflectivity log shows only small variations that 

occur over short depths of the borehole, such as those that may 

be produced by narrow changes in rock type caused by flow 

banding in the rhyolites or the mafic dikes. 

Fractures. The mechanical caliper and ATV logs in borehole WY-4 indicate the borehole wall was rough and diameter 

varied over short distances. Because of the rugosity of the 

borehole wall, the identification of fractures and determination of orientation were difficult. The bottom of the borehole 

showed an enlarged zone where no specific fractures could be 

determined. At the top of that zone, at a depth of about 

172 ft below the top of casing, the fracture strikes southwest 

and dips northwest (N226°E, 28°NW). Most of the fractures 

that intersect borehole WY-4 plotted in the northwest or southeast quadrants of the stereoplot, indicating they strike northeast and dip southeast or strike southwest and dip northwest 

(appendix 2, fig. 2C–3). Most of the identified fractures were 

steeply dipping. The lack of identified horizontal fractures 

may be caused by the poor resolution caused by the rugosity 

of the borehole wall. Features that extend over an interval 

depth are easier to identify in the borehole images. The two 

deepest transmissive zones (at depths of 112 and 172 ft) had 

shallow dips. However, the actual orientation of fractures in 

the fracture zone at the bottom of the borehole is unknown 

(only the top of the zone was determined.) 

Hydraulic characterization. Borehole WY-4 was 

logged with the HPFM under ambient and pumped conditions 

(appendix 2, fig. 2C–4). Under pumping conditions, borehole 

WY-4 achieved steady-state conditions, and HPFM measurements were made. 

The HPFM logs show ambient upflow that extended 

over almost the entire length of the borehole. An inflowing 

fracture zone was identified at a depth of about 172 ft from 

which water flowed upward (at 0.02 gal/min) and exited the 

borehole just below the base of casing. Upflow was measured 

under ambient conditions at a depth of 58 ft, indicating water 

exits the borehole between this point and the bottom of casing. The most likely out-flowing fractures were at depths of 

53.9 or 56.9 ft (appendix 2, table 2C–1), or outflow was from 

a bad seal at the base of casing. Under pumping conditions, 

the HPFM measured upflow from the bottom of the borehole 

at a depth of 168 ft. Flow was attributed to the fracture zone 

at a depth of 172 ft below the top of casing. Examination of 

the HPFM measurements from a depth of 168 ft suggests the 

measurements were good, whereas for measurements between 

depths of 168 and 130 ft, the diverter seal in the borehole was 

not good, and the measurement did not capture the upflow in 

the borehole. 

The open-hole transmissivity was determined with 

water-level monitoring in response to pumping using methods 

described by Bradbury and Rothschild (1985). Under pumping conditions of 0.5 gal/min, the water level declined a total 

of 4.27 ft below the ambient water level. Open-hole specific 

capacity was 0.117 (gal/min)/ft and transmissivity was estimated at 22.9 ft2

/d. 

The HPFM results were numerically modeled using 

FWRAP (Paillet, 2000). Two fractures were modeled using the 

HPFM profiles and water-level measurements that are shown 

in table 17 and appendix 2, figure 2C–4. The transmissivity 

and relative head values were adjusted until the observed and 

simulated results matched. The final model has fractures at 

depths of 172 and 55 ft with transmissivities of 20 and 1 ft2/d 

and relative heads of 6.6 and 9.3 ft, respectively, indicating 

upward flow. The RMS error is 0.04 gal/min. These results are 

consistent with the open-hole transmissivity results. 

An alternative interpretation was explored in which the 

HPFM measurements at a depth of 168 ft were attributed to 

transient effects and no inflow was identified at the bottom 

of the borehole. Because comparison of fluid conductivity 

and specific-conductance logs from before and after pumping 

shows a deviation in the fluid suggesting inflow from the fracture at a depth of 112 ft, the alternative interpretation assumes 

that all inflow is from the fracture at 112 ft. The alternative 

interpretation was modeled using FWRAP, and the results 

were not as good as the model discussed above.
Analysis of Borehole Geophysical Data 45

The fluid logs include fluid conductivity, temperature, 

oxygen, pH, and oxidation-reduction potential. All but the 

temperature log show change at the fracture zone at the bottom 

of the borehole (appendix 2, fig. 2C–1). There were also minor 

deflections at the base of casing at a depth of 53.8 ft and at 

depths of 110 to 120 ft below the top of casing. Under ambient 

conditions, there was a step-wise increase in fluid conductivity 

at a depth of 172 ft below the base of casing. 

Borehole WY-15

Location and construction. Water-supply test well 

WY-15 is just southwest of the summit of Howard Mountain 

between the AFRTS and the DCF facility. Boreholes MW-9 

and MW-10 are within 400 ft of borehole WY-15 and are topographically higher than WY-15. Borehole WY-15 was completed with 6-in. steel casing to 4.4 ft above the land surface 

and 28 ft below the top of casing. The total depth of WY-15 

is 297 ft below the top of casing. Borehole WY-15 deviates 

about 7 ft to the north (appendix 2, fig. 2D–2). On April 1, 

2005, the ambient water level was 33.95 ft below the top of 

casing at 9:06 a.m. Logs and interpretations for well WY-15 

are in appendix 2D.

Lithology. The gamma log shows a fairly uniform 

response that averaged about 200 cps over most of the borehole (appendix 2, fig. 2D–1). The only anomaly in the gamma 

log was a narrow (3-ft) zone at a depth of about 200 ft below 

the top of casing. The anomaly, which shows a lower gamma 

count than the rock above and below, is typical of a mafic dike 

relative to the rhyolite it intrudes. The ATV amplitude log 

shows higher median and average amplitudes associated with 

larger diameter parts of the borehole. However, there were 

no changes in amplitude that suggest a major change in rock 

type. The EMI log confirms the depth to base of casing is at 

28 ft below the top of casing; however, it did not identify any 

changes in rock type.

Fractures. The ATV log was of fair quality, and the 

borehole wall appears to be rough and enlarged over many 

sections of the borehole. The two most pronounced enlargements were at depths of about 130 to 170 ft and at the bottom 

of the borehole at a depth of 291 ft. The fractures identified in 

the ATV log generally were steeply dipping and strike northnortheast with dips to east-southeast and strike southwest with 

dips to the west-northwest. The mechanical caliper and ATV 

data indicate the borehole was enlarged from a depth of 153 

to 172 ft below the top of casing. The ATV tool was unable to 

image the borehole wall over that part of the borehole 

(appendix 2, fig. 2D–3). Another smaller enlargement was 

identified from a depth of 289 to 295 ft. In the bottom half of 

the borehole below the fracture zone at a depth of 153 to 

172 ft, the borehole walls appear to be rougher than the upper 

part of the borehole. 

Hydraulic characterization. Under pumping conditions, 

the water level continued to decline and did not stabilize. 

The estimated total pumpage from borehole WY-15 was 

22 gal. Initially, the borehole was pumped at a rate of 

0.5 gal/min, but the water level declined rapidly and the 

pumping rate could not be sustained. As the water level 

declined, the pump had to be lowered deeper so that flow 

measurements could be collected in the upper part of the 

borehole. After 40 min of pumping, the pumping rate declined 

to about 0.1 gal/min, and the water level stabilized so that 

the HPFM measurements could be made. The water level 

reached a quasi-steady state of 40 ft below the top of casing, 

which was equivalent to 6.85 ft of drawdown. Under pumping 

conditions, HPFM measurements made at a depth of 282 ft 

below the top of casing suggest water entered the borehole at 

the bottom of the borehole from the fracture at a depth of 

291 ft below the top of casing. The additional inflow entered 

the borehole between depths of 207 and 100 ft below the 

top of casing. The measurements at depths of 176 and 145 ft 

below the top of casing did not have a good seal, and less flow 

than was measured in the bottom of the borehole. Inflow was 

interpreted to come from the fracture zone at a depth of 153 to 

172 ft below the top of casing. Minor deflections in the fluid 

and water-quality logs occurred near a depth of 165 and 169 ft, 

supporting this interpretation. 

This borehole did not support much of a pumping rate, 

and the lowest sustainable pumping rate of about 0.1 gal/min 

was used. The HPFM measurements collected under pumping conditions had to be normalized to the total discharge rate 

measured at the pump outlet. This assumes the total inflow 

going to the pump was coming from the fractures measured 

with the HPFM, and there were no additional fractures at the 

top of the borehole that could not be logged with the HPFM 

because of the declining water levels and the placement of the 

Table 17. Flow model for borehole WY-4, near Machiasport, Maine.

[ft, feet; gal/min, gallon per minute; ft2/d, feet squared per day; TOC, top of casing]

Depth of 

transmissive zone 

(ft)

Ambient flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Pumped flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Zone 

transmissivity 

(ft2/d)

Water level 

(ft below TOC)

Elevation of 

water level 

(ft)

Percent of total 

transmissivity

55.00 0.00 0.550 1.0 9.30 161.40 5

172.00 0.020 0.537 20.0 6.60 164.10 95
46 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

pump. Because the water levels had stabilized during these 

HPFM measurements, accounting for the contributions from 

borehole storage was not needed. HPFM measurements at 

depths of 56 and 100 ft were normalized to 0.1 gal/min. These 

results suggest the low-flow values may be beyond the lower 

resolution of the HPFM tool. 

A comparison of fluid conductivity and specific conductance at 20°C collected before and after pumping indicates 

water entered at the bottom of the borehole from the fracture 

at a depth of 290 ft (appendix 2, fig. 2D–1). Open-hole specific capacity was 0.017 (gal/min)/ft, and transmissivity was 

estimated as 2.9 ft2/d (Bradbury and Rothschild, 1985).

The ambient and pumped flow profiles, water levels, 

and pumping rate were used to model the head and transmissivity of three fractures in the borehole at depths of 44, 153, 

and 291 ft below the top of casing. Results from the FWRAP 

model indicate the fracture zone from a depth of 153 to 

172 ft is the most transmissive of the three fractures (table 18 

and appendix 2, fig. 2D–4). The model estimated a total 

open-hole transmissivity of 3.4 gal/min with an RMS error 

of 0.01 gal/min. 

The pumping associated with the HPFM testing, which 

pumped about 22 gal out of the borehole, produced a total 

water-level decline of about 7 ft. A transducer monitored the 

water levels in borehole WY-15 for a few days after the test. 

The transducer data indicate borehole WY-15 did not recover 

until about 15 h after pumping stopped, confirming that 

WY-15 is hydraulically tight. 

Because of the low transmissivity in borehole WY-15 and 

the poor quality of the HPFM data, the water-quality data 

were important in the interpretation of the flowmeter data 

(appendix 2, fig. 2D–4). The fluid conductivity log under 

ambient conditions shows a large step change in fluid 

conductivity at a depth of 44.5 ft indicating a zone of inflow 

or outflow (appendix 2, fig. 2D–1). The fluid logs had minor 

deflections at depths of 144, 168, and 203 ft below the top of 

casing. The water-quality log was collected under ambient 

conditions but after the fluid column had been disturbed by 

other logs collected in the borehole (appendix 2, fig. 2D–1). 

The HPFM measured upflow under ambient conditions 

(appendix 2, fig. 2D–4). Flow entered the bottom of the 

borehole at a depth of about 291 ft at a rate of 0.03 gal/min. 

The amount of upflow in the borehole declined between 

depths of 176 and 145 ft below the top of casing. Because of 

the change in oxidation-reduction potential at the same depth, 

this upflow is thought to be real and indicative of some 

outflow in the large fracture zone (between a depth of 153 

and 172 ft below the top of casing). Above 140 ft, an upflow 

of about 0.1 gal/min was measured up to a depth of 44.4 ft. 

On the basis of the fluid conductivity log, the outflow was 

interpreted to be at the fracture at a depth of about 44.0 ft 

below the top of casing.

Transmitter Site

The former Transmitter Site is southwest of Howard 

Mountain. Boreholes DW-6 and DW-10 were logged as part 

of this investigation. In addition, boreholes MW-4, MW-5, 

MW-6, MW-7, and MW-8 were logged previously by Weston 

Solutions (2005). 

Borehole DW-6

Location and construction. Domestic well DW-6 is on 

Howard Mountain off Base Road, on a hill slope southeast of 

the Transmitter Site and south of the AFRTS site. Borehole 

DW-6 was drilled to a total depth of 123.5 ft below land 

surface. Steel casing was set to a depth of 20 ft below the 

top of casing and was completed with 1.8 ft above the land 

surface. Borehole DW-6 deviates 2 ft to the east (appendix 3, 

fig. 3A–2). The water level on April 6, 2005, was 8.97 ft below 

the top of casing at 7:20 a.m. The reported well drillers’ yield 

was 2 gal/min. Logs and interpretations for borehole DW-6 are 

in appendix 3A.

Lithology. The natural gamma log was fairly uniform 

over the entire section of open borehole and did not indicate 

any changes in rock types (appendix 3, fig. 3A–1). The gamma 

counts were 150 to 200 cps. The SPR log was uniform (at 

about 25,500 ohms) over most of the borehole and showed a 

sharp increase (to 53,400 ohms) from a depth of 91 to 109 ft 

below the top of casing. The normal resistivity logs show a 

similar pattern as the SPR log. The acoustic reflectivity logs 

show uniform values over the upper part of the borehole, 

Table 18. Flow model for borehole WY-15, near Machiasport, Maine.

[ft, feet; gal/min, gallon per minute; ft2/d, feet squared per day; TOC, top of casing]

Depth of 

transmissive zone 

(ft)

Ambient flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Pumped flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Zone 

transmissivity 

(ft2/d)

Water level 

(ft below TOC)

Elevation of 

water level 

(ft)

Percent of total 

transmissivity

44.0 0.000 0.121 0.4 36.25 157.63 12

153.0 0.006 0.111 2.0 35.25 158.63 59

291.0 0.022 0.058 1.0 30.25 163.63 29
Analysis of Borehole Geophysical Data 47

averaging 230 mV. From a depth of 91 to 111 ft, the reflectivity was higher (about 650 mV) than above 91 ft and below 

111 ft, indicating a harder rock type. These signatures are 

consistent with a rhyolite. 

Fractures. The ATV and caliper logs indicate the walls of 

the borehole are rough (appendix 3, fig. 3A–1). No clear fabric 

or layering of the bedrock could be seen in the ATV images; 

however, multiple fractures were identified over the depth of 

the borehole. The electrically resistive zone from a depth of 

91 to 111 ft exhibited apparently narrow aperture fractures, 

whereas elsewhere in the borehole the fractures were wider 

and more open. The lack of large fractures in the zone may 

be the cause of the increased electrical resistivity. In general, 

the minor fractures (shown in light blue in the stereo and 

tadpole plots) strike both east and west and dip at steep angles 

to the north and south (appendix 3, fig. 3A–3). The stereoplot 

indicates the transmissive fractures (dark blue) strike north, 

east, and southeast and dip moderately towards the east, south, 

and southwest. 

Hydraulic characterization. No vertical flow was measured in borehole DW-6 with the HPFM under ambient conditions (appendix 3, fig. 3A–4). Under pumping conditions, 

water entered the borehole at the fractures identified at depths 

of 23.5, 52, and 82 ft below the top of casing. These results are 

consistent with the fluid conductivity logs collected before and 

after pumping. The HPFM logs indicate about 74 percent of 

the transmissivity to the borehole came from the fractures near 

the top of the borehole, about 12 percent of the transmissivity 

was attributed to the fracture at a depth of 52 ft, and about 

5 percent of the transmissivity came from the fractures near 

a depth of 82 ft below the top of casing (table 19 and 

appendix 3, fig. 3A–4). 

The total transmissivity determined with FWRAP was 

2.4 ft2/d, which is similar to the specific-capacity models for 

open-hole transmissivity. The specific capacity was estimated 

at 0.016 (gal/min)/ft, and the transmissivity was 2.6 ft2/d 

(Bradbury and Rothschild, 1985). 

A fluid log was collected on April 4, 2005, while the 

water level was 8.86 ft below the top of casing. The ambient 

and pumped fluid resistivity (conductivity) and temperature 

profiles did not help identify transmissive fractures. However, 

a comparison of the specific conductance at 25°C before and 

after pumping indicates water entered the borehole under 

pumping conditions at a depth of 82 ft below the top of casing. 

The before and after pumping temperature logs indicate inflow 

at the fracture at a depth of 52 ft below the top of casing. 

Very slight deflections occur at depths of 52 and 23.5 ft in the 

specific-conductance log collected under pumping conditions. 

The water-quality parameter tool collected under ambient 

conditions showed only minor changes and did not suggest 

ambient flow in the borehole. The pH log showed deflections 

at the base of casing, and at depths of 21.3, 40, and 82 ft. The 

temperature log showed a change at a depth of 52 ft. No substantial changes were identified in the oxygen concentration, 

except for a change at the base of casing.

Borehole DW-10

Location and construction. Domestic well DW-10 is on 

the west side of Howard Mountain and west of the DCF, and is 

northeast and topographically downgradient from the Transmitter Site. The nearest boreholes are DW-6 and WY-4, logged 

in April 2005, and boreholes MW-4, MW-5, MW-6, and 

MW-7, which were logged in 2003 (Weston Solutions, 2005). 

Borehole DW-10 was completed with 6-in.-diameter steel 

casing that rises 0.97 ft above the land surface and extends 

into the bedrock to a depth of 20 ft below the top of casing. 

The total depth of the well is 380 ft below the top of casing, 

and the well was reported to have a yield of 1 gal/min at the 

time of drilling. The OTV and ATV deviation tools indicate 

the borehole deviates a total of 13.6 ft towards the northwest 

(appendix 3, fig. 3B–2). Logs and interpretations for 

borehole DW-10 are in appendix 3B.

Lithology. Changes in lithology were observed in the 

OTV, ATV, and gamma logs (appendix 3, fig. 3B–1). The more 

massive, light gray, fine-grained unit observed in the OTV log 

exhibits a lower gamma count, higher amplitude reflections, 

yellow zones in the ATV amplitude log, smooth sections on 

the mechanical and acoustic caliper logs, and possibly slightly 

lower conductivity than the country rock in which it intrudes. 

The country rock, which is the darker unit in the OTV log, 

exhibits a rougher and slightly larger borehole wall and a 

lower reflectivity, which collectively indicate the country rock 

Table 19. Flow model for borehole DW-6, near Machiasport, Maine.

[ft, feet; gal/min, gallon per minute; ft2/d, feet squared per day; TOC, top of casing]

Depth of 

transmissive zone 

(ft)

Ambient flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Pumped flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Zone 

transmissivity 

(ft2/d)

Water level 

(ft below TOC)

Elevation of 

water level 

(ft)

Percent of total 

transmissivity

23.50 0.00 0.16 1.75 8.86 191.14 74

52.00 0.00 0.04 0.28 8.86 191.14 12

82.00 0.00 0.02 0.35 8.86 191.14 5
48 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

is softer than the intrusive mafic dikes. The country rock is 

thought to be bimodal metavolcanic rock, and the intrusives 

are diabase. The mafic dikes in borehole DW-10 consistently 

have a strike and dip of about N159°E, 54°W and a dip azimuth of about N249°E. 

The mean acoustic reflectivity and gamma logs were 

effective in delineating changes in rock type in borehole 

DW-10 (fig. 4D). Gamma counts of 30 to 45 cps and amplitudes of about 1,600 to 2,600 mV characterize zones of what 

is thought to be mafic dikes. The flow-banded stony rhyolite 

and rhyolitic vitrophyre units have gamma counts of 180 to 

200 cps and reflectivity values of about 800 to 1,200 mV. 

Mafic dikes were identified at depths of 39 to 44.5, 

74 to 129.1, 197.6 to 204.7, 208.7 to 214.2, and 260.6 to 

322.5 ft below the top of casing. The ATV and OTV logs 

indicate these dikes dip steeply towards the southwest (in 

right hand rule, strike is N130 to 170°E, and dip is 38 to 75°, 

averaging N159°E, 59°W). The trend of the dikes is consistent 

with the orientation of mafic dikes on the local geologic maps.

Fractures. Interpretations of fracture locations and 

orientations are shown in structure, tadpole, and stereoplots 

(appendix 3, fig. 3B–3). Several small-aperture, less-open 

looking fractures (light blue) and a few larger aperture fractures (red) were identified in the ATV and OTV logs. HPFM 

logging and fluid temperature, conductivity, pH, and dissolved 

oxygen logs indicate the fractures at depths of 43.7, 156.5, 

and 327.3 ft below the top of casing are transmissive. Several 

sealed fractures, possibly filled with calcite, were identified in 

the borehole. They were observed in both the mafic dikes and 

the rhyolite volcanic units. The sealed fractures are steeply 

dipping southeast, steeply dipping southwest, and gently dipping toward the south. 

Hydraulic characterization. HPFM logs collected under 

ambient conditions indicate a small amount of water inflowing 

to the well from a fracture at a depth of about 43 ft, flowing 

downward, and exiting the borehole at a depth of about 

156 ft below the top of casing. This borehole was pumped at a 

rate of about 5.0 gal/min for 10 min. The water level declined 

31.4 ft in response to this pumping rate, which was high 

relative to the pumping rates used in other boreholes. After 

10 min, the pump was turned off and the inflow to the 

borehole was measured as the water level recovered. Under 

recovery conditions, the fractures at depths of about 327, 156, 

and 43.7 ft showed inflow. 

Because the inflow rate to this borehole was changing 

during the recovery, a steady-state solution is not appropriate. 

Instead, a Cooper-Bredehoeft-Papadopulos slug-test solution 

was used to approximate the open-hole transmissivity and 

storativity (Cooper and others, 1967). In this method, an 

instantaneous slug of water is removed from the well and 

the water-level recovery is monitored. In borehole DW-10, 

the water was removed quickly from the borehole, drawing 

the water level down 31.4 ft below ambient conditions, 

the water-level recovery was monitored, and concurrent 

HPFM measurements were made to identify inflow zones. 

The method of subtractions, which subtracts ambient inflow 

from pumped inflow, was used to determine the relative 

proportions of transmissivity. By these methods, the openhole transmissivity was estimated at 1.9 ft2

/d, and inflow 

was identified in fractures at depths of 43.7, 156, and 327 ft 

(table 20 and appendix 3, fig. 3B–3). The zone at a depth of 

156 ft below the top of casing was the most transmissive at 

65 percent of the total. Because this zone was receiving flow 

under ambient conditions, the ambient head is lower than 

the uppermost zone, which was inflowing under ambient 

conditions. The fracture at a depth of 286.6 ft, which appeared 

to have a change in water chemistry, was not found to be 

transmissive with the HPFM. 

The fluid conductivity logs indicate a change in water 

chemistry at about 320 ft. Under ambient and stressed 

conditions, the fluid conductivity and temperature logs are 

almost identical and indicate a change in total dissolved solids 

at about 320-ft depth. The temperature, fluid conductivity, 

oxidation-reduction potential, pH, and dissolved oxygen logs 

were fairly uniform over most of the borehole. However, they 

all showed a large change below 320 ft, which is thought to 

be the lowermost hydraulically active fracture in the borehole. 

The dissolved oxygen, fluid conductivity, oxidation-reduction 

potential, and pH logs also indicate the open fracture at a 

depth of 286.6 ft below the top of casing may be hydraulically active. 

Table 20. Transmissivity results for borehole DW-10, near Machiasport, Maine.

[ft, feet; gal/min, gallon per minute; ft2/d, feet squared per day]

Depth of 

transmissive zone 

(ft)

Ambient flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Pumped flow above 

transmissive zone 

(gal/min)

Zone 

transmissivity 

(ft2/d)

Percent of total 

transmissivity

43.7 0.00 0.254 0.4 21

156.0 -0.167 0.156 1.2 65

327.0 0.00 0.072 0.3 14
Results of the Borehole Geophysical Investigation 49

Other Borehole Geophysical Data

The USACE provided borehole geophysical data collected by Geophysical Applications, Inc., and Hager-Richter 

Geoscience, Inc., to the USGS for inclusion in this study. 

To improve spatial coverage and the total statistical population of fractures, these additional data were included in the 

integrated analysis of the three environmental restoration sites. 

The interpretations of the data from Geophysical Applications, 

Inc. (Weston Solutions, 2005) and Hager-Richter Geoscience, 

Inc. (The Johnson Company, 2006) are in appendixes 4 and 5, 

respectively.

Results of the Borehole Geophysical 

Investigation

Borehole geophysical logs and hydraulic tests were 

conducted to (1) verify borehole construction, (2) identify and 

characterize rock types in the boreholes, (3) locate and characterize locations and orientations of fractures that intersect the 

boreholes, and (4) characterize the hydraulics of the individual 

boreholes. The results of fracture logs were summarized for 

each borehole in the previous section of this report. The following discussion summarizes the logging results for multiple 

boreholes and provides an integrated interpretation of rock 

type, fracturing, and borehole hydraulics for the three environmental restoration sites in the study area. 

Well Construction

The caliper, OTV, ATV, and EMI logs were most effective for identifying the bottom of casing, total depth, diameter, 

and integrity of the borehole wall. Where necessary, these 

physical parameters were updated in table 1, and measured 

differences were reported to the USACE.

Determination of Lithology

Selected geophysical logs were cross-plotted to assess 

correlations between rock properties (fig. 4). These plots 

included combinations of gamma, acoustic reflectivity, EMI 

conductivity, normal resistivity, and SPR. Using the results 

from boreholes MW-14, DW-10, and DW-23, where there 

were OTV images, the rock types were correlated with the 

gamma and reflectivity signatures (figs. 4, 6, and 7). These 

cross-plots show general patterns that correlated to physical 

properties of the rock. For all the boreholes, gamma and ATV 

reflectivity were compared to the results of the ATV traveltime 

and amplitude images, OTV images, and caliper logs for an 

integrated interpretation, yielding a determination of either 

quartz monzonite, rhyolite, metasedimentary units, or gabbro/

diabase rock types. 

Cross-plots were constructed using borehole logs from 

the boreholes in the study area (fig. 10). Average gamma and 

reflectivity values are shown for selected segments of the 

boreholes that appear to represent the major rock type in each 

borehole. Care was taken to avoid sections that were heavily 

fractured or enlarged and would give lower gamma and reflectivity values. Most of the boreholes had more than one value 

per well. The resultant plot was used to help identify similar 

rock units and determine gamma and reflectivity signatures 

that could be used to identify the rock types in other boreholes in the study area. Through this analysis, one of the rock 

types, that had previously not been “mapped” in the boreholes 

was identified in some of the boreholes. The interpretation of 

metasedimentary rocks of the Eastport Formation was corroborated by other geophysical logs and field mapping and is 

consistent with published geologic maps. 

In this study area, the majority of the gamma emissions 

are thought to come from potassium. Because igneous rocks 

have varying amounts of potassium, the gamma tool can be 

effective in identifying changes in the rock related to compositionally different magmas or melts. In addition, the metasedimentary units have varying amounts of gamma emissions that 

are related because of clay content and emissions from other 

natural sources. The reflectivity of the rocks is related to the 

hardness (density and velocity), which is a function of the rock 

type (including mineralogy, texture, grain size, and the rugosity of the borehole wall). By combining the tool responses for 

natural-gamma emissions and acoustic reflectivity, signatures 

were determined for the major rock types in the study area. 

The signatures observed in figure 10 are described for each of 

the major rock types in the study area.

● The mafic dikes (example borehole DW-10) exhibit a 

very low gamma signature and high reflectivity. 

● The gabbro/diabase units (example boreholes WYGATR and MW-14) exhibit very low gamma emissions 

and variable but generally high reflectivity. 

● The metasedimentary units show the most variation 

in signature but tend to have moderate gamma and 

reflectivity counts. Some short-depth intervals of the 

boreholes (such as in borehole DW-40) have very high 

gamma counts and may be an original depositional 

layer that was rich in clay and fine sediments. Other 

short-depth increments show very high reflectivity 

relative to the rocks above and below them without a 

change in gamma. These zones may be the metasedimentary layers of quartzite, such as the very high 

reflectivity unit in the metasedimentary rocks in borehole DW-39. Because of the variation in the original 

depositional sediments, the reflectivity and gamma 

logs for the metasedimentary layers tend to be 

highly variable.
50 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

● Quartz monzonite (example borehole MW-14) has high 

gamma counts and moderate reflectivity. The gamma 

and reflectivity signatures of quartz monzonite were 

similar to those of the metasedimentary units. But 

where OTV logs were available, the massive quartz 

monzonite could be distinguished from the laminated 

to banded metasedimentary units. In addition, the 

reflectivity logs in the metasedimentary units appear 

to be more variable over short distances than the more 

uniform and massive quartz monzonite. 

● Rhyolite has moderately high gamma counts and 

fairly low to moderate reflectivity values. The higher 

reflectivity zones in some of the rhyolite zones may 

be associated with rhyolite dikes, whereas the lower 

reflectivity may be associated with the silicified rhyolite country rock (Drew Clemens, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, written commun., 2006). Examples of 

these signatures are observed in borehole DW-2. These 

proposed interpretations can account for the minor 

variations in reflectivity; however, OTV logs would be 

helpful to confirm this interpretation. 

● The reflectivity amplitudes for boreholes MW-13, 

MW-14, and MW-33, which were logged with the MSI 

tool, showed lower reflectivity values than the boreholes logged with the CGC tools. Despite the lower 

magnitude of the reflectivity response, the patterns 

in the gamma and reflectivity logs were sufficient to 

determine the rock type. 

Collectively, these signatures were used to characterize the rock types in the boreholes. The borehole logs for the 

Miller Mountain site are shown in figure 11. The reflectivity 

and the gamma logs are superimposed on the general interpretation of the rock types. The logs have been plotted to a 

common elevation datum in feet above NAVD 88.

Figure 10. Cross-plot of gamma emissions and acoustic reflectivity for selected segments of boreholes near Machiasport, 

Maine.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

WY-GATR

MW-13

MW-14

DW-31

DW-23

DW-22

DW-24

DW-25

DW-32

DW-33

DW-34

DW-39

DW-40

DW-2

WY-3B

WY-4

WY-15

DW-6

DW-10

Quartz monzonite

Diabase/Gabbro

Mafic dikes

Massive Diabase 

Quartz Monzonite dike?

Rhyolite

Diabase/Gabbro Metasediments

Rhyolite Quartz syenite?

Rhyolite dike rock or highly silicified rhyolite?

Quartzite layers in 

metasedimentary units

ACOUSTIC REFL

E

C

TIVITY, IN MILLIVOLTS

GAMMA, IN COUNTS PER SECOND

EXPLANATION

WELL NUMBER
Results of the Borehole Geophysical Investigation 51

Figure 11. Gamma and reflectivity logs and interpretations for boreholes in the Miller Mountain site, near Machiasport, Maine. 

All gamma logs are shown from 0–300 cps, except for DW-34, which is 0–600 cps. Reflectivity is shown from 0–3,000 millivolts. 

(cps, counts per second; mV, millivolts; QZM, quartz monzonite; DES Metaseds, Devonian-Silurian metamorphosed sedimentary 

unit; OVB, overburden)

240

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

-0

-20

-40

-60

-80

-100

-120

-140

-160

-140

-120

-100

-80

 RED traces are gamma logs normalized to the

 9042- tool response

ROYAL BLUE is the acoustic reflectivity (mv) from the 

 CG-9800 tool 

 and 

DARK BLUE is the acoustic reflectivity 

 from the MSI-ABI tool (note it is lower than 

 the response from the CGC 9800)

QZM?

QZM?

ELEVATION, IN FEET ABOVE NAVD 88

GABBRO / DIABASE

GABBRO / DIABASE

CASING

DES MET

ASEDIMENTARY

QUART

Z SYENITE ?

DES MET

ASEDS

GABBRO / DIABASE

GABBRO / DIABASE

clay rich?

Mafic Dike? clay rich

layer?

QUARTZ MONZONITE

OVB

WY-GATR MW-13 DW-31 DW-29 MW-14 DW-33 DW-34 DW-24 DW-23 DW-22 DW-32 DW-25 DW-40 DW-39
52 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

The borehole logs indicate the rock types at the summit 

of Miller Mountain are mainly mafic gabbro or diabase (boreholes WY-GATR, MW-13, DW-31, and MW-29). Along the 

southeast flank of Miller Mountain, the rock types are quartz 

monzonite and possibly quartz syenite, an igneous rock that 

has more potassium feldspar than the quartz monzonite and 

could account for the increase in gamma emissions relative 

to those of the quartz monzonite (borehole DW-34). Further 

east of the Miller Mountain summit, there is at least a 60-ftthick zone of metasedimentary rock overlying the gabbro and 

diabase (boreholes DW-22, DW-23, DW-32, and DW-25). In 

borehole DW-24, only metasedimentary units were identified. 

North and east of the summit of Miller Mountain, gabbro and 

(or) diabase overlays the metasedimentary units (boreholes 

DW-40 and DW-39). 

The rock types on Howard Mountain are predominantly 

rhyolite with some mafic-dike intrusions (fig. 12). The rhyolitic rock units show some variation in texture and hardness, 

possibly depending on whether they are rhyolite country rock 

or rhyolite dikes; the rhyolite dikes have a higher reflectivity. 

The rock types at the Transmitter Site, southwest of the summit of Howard Mountain, also are rhyolite intruded with mafic 

dikes that dip steeply toward the west, which is consistent with 

the geologic maps (Gates, 1981). Most of the boreholes at the 

Howard Mountain and Transmitter Sites (boreholes DW-10 

and MW-4) were logged with MSI tools; hence, the overall 

magnitude of the reflectivity is lower than the reflectivity 

obtained with the CGC tool. A cross-plot of gamma emissions 

and acoustic reflectivity for selected segments of the boreholes 

on or near Howard Mountain is shown in figure 13.

Core samples collected from boreholes MW-9 and 

MW-4 provided hand samples for description of mineralogy 

and texture and determination of the rock type. The borehole 

logs were compared to these interpretations. Borehole MW-9, 

which has rhyolite at the top of the borehole down to a depth 

of about 75 ft below the top of casing, was characterized by 

moderate and variable gamma counts and low reflectivity. 

The mafic or gabbro dike below a depth of 75 ft in borehole 

MW-9 is characterized by high gamma emissions and higher 

reflectivity than the rhyolite (fig. 12). The core in borehole 

MW-4 is interpreted as a mafic dike overlying a rhyolite with 

the contact at a depth of about 34 ft below the top of casing. 

The entire core sample from borehole MW-4, from a depth 

of about 34 ft to the bottom of the borehole, is interpreted as 

rhyolite. However, the acoustic reflectivity (and to a lesser 

extent the gamma log) shows variation from a depth of about 

34 to 62 ft and then much lower and uniform reflectivity from 

a depth of 62 ft to the bottom of the borehole (fig. 12). These 

clearly defined changes in the borehole logs are probably 

because of textural changes in the rhyolite lava flows. A sideby-side comparison of multiple logs from Howard Mountain 

indicates variations in the gamma and reflectivity logs for 

the units interpreted as rhyolite and very clear delineations 

between rhyolite and the mafic dikes. 

Fracture Analysis

Stereoplots and tadpole plots were generated individually 

for each borehole so that the orientation of fractures could be 

observed with location, depth, and rock type (appendixes 1–5). 

In addition, stereoplots and tadpole plots were generated for 

groups of boreholes including (1) all the boreholes in the study 

area, (2) boreholes on or near Miller Mountain, (3) boreholes 

near the AFRTS site on Howard Mountain, and (4) boreholes 

near the Transmitter Site on Howard Mountain. These summary plots were constructed to determine if fracture patterns 

vary at the three sites within the study area. The interpretations 

for all boreholes in the study area and interpretations for 

each of the three restoration sites are summarized in 

appendix 6. For each site, the total population of fractures 

is shown as a function of depth in projection, tadpole and 

stereographic projection plots, rose diagrams, and fracture 

density plots. The density plots, which were constructed for all 

the fractures and for the transmissive fractures only, show the 

number of fractures in 10-ft intervals to quantify the intensity 

of fracturing with depth. The projection, tadpole, stereo, and 

rose diagram, and density plots also were constructed for 

100-ft depth intervals to assess changes in frequency and 

fracture orientation with depth. In addition, the same plots 

were constructed as a function of elevation in feet above 

NAVD 88 to assess any potential fracturing associated with 

changes in elevation. Because no clear pattern was observed in 

these plots, they were not included in this document. 

For fracture analyses, all possible borehole data were 

used, including the 18 boreholes logged by the USGS for 

this investigation; the 12 boreholes logged by Geophysical 

Applications, Inc., in 2003; and the 7 boreholes logged by 

Hager-Richter, Inc., in 2006. The borehole data were corrected 

for deviation and magnetic declination. Composite tadpole 

and projection plots were generated for multiple boreholes 

and shown in depth in feet below land surface. For the two 

inclined boreholes, C-501 and C-114 (fig. 1), the depths were 

converted to true vertical depth for the tadpole and 

projection plots. 

A total of 2,279 fractures and lithologic features from 

37 boreholes were included in the tadpole and stereoplots. 

The fractures show a wide range of orientations, and poles to 

fractures cover most of the stereoplot (fig. 14). There is some 

clustering of the poles to fracture planes in the stereoplot. The 

clusters represent shallow dipping fractures to the southeast, 

fractures that strike north-northwest to the south-southeast and 

dip south-southwest and east-northeast, and another cluster 

that strikes southwest and dips northwest. The transmissive 

fractures (dark blue) in these boreholes do not appear to follow a distinct pattern either but have a wide distribution of 

orientations (fig. 14). The tadpole plot shows the depth-bias of 

the boreholes, which are mostly less than 200-ft deep. It also 

shows a substantial population of steeply dipping fractures. 

Because vertical boreholes statistically under-sample vertical features, a sampling bias is commonly applied (Terzaghi, 

1965). For these boreholes, however, because the tadpole plot 
Results of the Borehole Geophysical Investigation 53

Figure 12. Gamma and reflectivity logs and interpretations for boreholes in the Howard Mountain area, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Shading indicates lithology.

DW-10 MW-09 MW-4 MW-10 MW-16 MW-12 MW-11 WY-3C WY-3B WY-3 MW-17 DW-4 DW-2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

360

380

MAFIC DIKE

RHYOLITE

STEEL CASING

TEXTURAL

VARIATION

in RHYOLITE

RHYOLITE

MAFIC DIKE

MAFIC DIKE

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING

RHYOLITE

RHYOLITE

RHYOLITE

RHYOLITE

RHYOLITE

RHYOLITE

RHYOLITE

MAFIC DIKE

MULTIPLE MAFIC INTRUSIONS

MAFIC DIKE

RHYOLITE

RHYOLITE

RHYOLITE

RHYOLITE

MAFIC DIKE

RHYOLITE

TEXTURAL

VARIATION

in RHYOLITE

STEEL CASING

RHYOLITE

TEXTURAL VARIATION 

IN RHYOLITE

MAFIC INTRUSION

Natural gamma 

Amplitude of reflectivity

Mechanical caliper 
54 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

readily shows a very high proportion of vertical fractures, no 

vertical-bias corrections were applied. It is noteworthy that 

there are so many steeply dipping fractures because they may 

serve to connect low-dip-angle unloading or sheeting fractures 

that mimic the topography and are ubiquitous in the near surface. These sub-horizontal fractures appear to decrease in frequency with depth, as indicated by the lack of shallow-dipping 

tadpoles at depth, relative to the number of steeply dipping 

fractures at depth (fig. 14). A total of 144 lithologic features 

were identified and coded with green squares in the stereo and 

tadpole plots (fig. 14). These lithologic features show a wide 

range of orientations.

Miller Mountain

A total of 836 fractures and lithologic features were 

identified in the 14 boreholes on and near Miller Mountain. 

A stereoplot of the fractures shows a wide distribution of 

orientations (fig. 15). The maximum cluster of poles to 

fracture planes plots towards the center of the stereoplot and 

represents shallow-dipping fractures that strike northeast with 

an average bearing of about N55°E (fig. 16). These shallowdipping fractures are most likely caused by unloading. The 

total population of fractures and the population of transmissive 

fractures in the Miller Mountain wells strike northwest and 

southeast and dip moderately to steeply towards the northeast 

and southwest, respectively. These fractures are parallel to 

local faulting and parallel to the incised valley between Miller 

and Bucks Mountains. Another cluster of poles to fracture 

planes strikes southwest and dips very steeply to the northwest 

at a dip azimuth of N335°E, which is parallel to the regional 

trend of fractures. 

A total of 38 lithologic features were identified and coded 

with green squares in the stereo and tadpole plots (fig. 15). The 

lithologic features identified in the Miller Mountain boreholes 

were either very shallow dipping or steeply dipping towards 

the northwest. Fractures with infilling (gray circles) 

appeared to have the same orientations as the transmissive 

fractures and the total population of fractures for the Miller 

Mountain boreholes. 

Figure 13. Cross-plot of gamma emissions and acoustic reflectivity for selected segments 

of the boreholes in the Howard Mountain area, near Machiasport, Maine. Boreholes MW-9 

and MW-4 were interpreted in core samples. Boreholes DW-10, DW-4, and DW-2 were 

logged with a Century Geophysics acoustic televiewer; all other boreholes were logged with 

the Mount Sopris Instruments televiewer.

HOWARD MOUNTAIN BOREHOLES 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

GAMMA, IN COUNTS PER SECOND

ACOUSTIC REFLECTIVITY, IN MILLIVOLTS

DW-10

DW-4

DW-2

MW-9

MW-4

MW-10

MW-12

WY-3C

WY-3B

WY-3

MW-17

EXPLANATION

WELL NUMBER
Results of the Borehole Geophysical Investigation 55

Figure 14. Tadpole plot and stereoplot showing all fractures and lithologic features in the 37 boreholes near 

Machiasport, Maine. Stereoplot is lower hemisphere Schmidt, equal area plot. (deg, degrees)

Depth Dip, in degrees

0 90

5 0

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

True North

Mean

Counts Dip

 [deg]

Azimuth

 [deg]

1540 59.49 245.03

167 51.31 181.96

143 51.92 213.99

144 49.44 227.50

78 68.98 348.39

20 36.72 210.12

20 61.08 202.66

0°

270° 90°

180°

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE

Minor fracture

Transmissive fracture

Large fracture

Partial fracture

Sealed fracture

Possible fracture

Lithologic feature

Transmissive fracture, 

inferred from fluid logs

EXPLANATION
56 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

Figure 15. Tadpole plots, stereoplots, and rose diagram showing all fractures and lithologic features in 14 boreholes on or 

near Miller Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine. Stereoplots are lower hemisphere Schmidt, equal area plots. Rose diagram 

shows direction of dip azimuth, which is 90 degrees to the right of the strike. (deg, degrees)

DIP

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

360

380

400

ALL FEATURES

Counts

Dip

[deg]

Azimuth

[deg]

574 54.41 216.51

52 48.40 314.43

38 34.30 240.70

12 74.52 121.74

81 56.71 249.39

56 55.88 214.77

14 23.78 207.82

9 72.94 211.03

0°

180°

LITHOLOGIC AND SEALED 

 FEATURES

Counts

Dip

[deg]

Azimuth

[deg]

38 34.30 240.70

81 56.71 249.39

0°

180°

TRANSMISSIVE 

 FRACTURES

Counts

Dip

[deg]

Azimuth

[deg]

52 48.40 314.43

9 72.94 211.03

0°

180°

0°

270° 90°

180°

25

25

50

50

75

75

 DIP AZIMUTH 

ALL FEATURES

270° 90°

270° 90° 270° 90°

420

DIP

0° 90°0° 90°

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING

True North

True North True North

True North

Minor fracture

Transmissive fracture

Large fracture

Partial fracture

Sealed fracture

Possible fracture

Lithologic feature

Transmissive fracture, 

inferred from fluid logs

EXPLANATION
Results of the Borehole Geophysical Investigation 57

Figure 16. Poles to planes of transmissive fractures in 14 boreholes on or near Miller Mountain, near Machiasport, 

Maine.
58 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

A total of 61 fractures were identified as transmissive 

in the 14 boreholes on and near Miller Mountain. The 

transmissive fractures are shown with dark blue circles for 

fractures identified with the HPFM and dark-blue squares 

for fractures inferred by water-quality or temperature logs. 

A stereoplot showing contours of transmissive fractures 

indicates the majority of these fractures strike southeast and 

dip southwest (fig. 16). 

The tadpole and projection plots (fig. 15) and 100-ft 

incremental stereoplots and rose diagrams (appendix 6) show 

that as depth increases, the fracture orientation remains fairly 

constant. The transmissive fractures show a small amount of 

rotation with depth in the fracture strike (and dip azimuth) 

towards the west. Density plots, which show the number of 

fractures for a fixed-depth interval, were constructed for 

10- and 100-ft intervals to quantify the intensity of fracturing 

with depth. Density plots constructed with 10-ft intervals for 

all the wells in the Miller Mountain area show an apparent 

decrease in fracture density with depth (appendix 6, 

fig. 6A–1). Because of the sampling bias of the well depths, 

more near-surface fractures were encountered in the shallow 

boreholes relative to the total population. When density is 

plotted as a function of elevation, the highest fracture density 

still shows a sampling bias. Hence, an assessment of fracture 

density with depth is probably best estimated by looking at 

the deepest boreholes individually. The OTV log for borehole WY-GATR (appendix 6, fig. 6A–4) shows only a small 

decrease in number of fractures with depth and an increase in 

sealed fractures with depth. The tadpole plot indicates most of 

the fractures at depth are steeply dipping, although the transmissive fractures in the bottom of borehole WY-GATR have 

shallow dips (fig. 6A–4). 

Howard Mountain—Air Force Radar Tracking 

Station

A total of 898 fractures and lithologic features in 17 

boreholes on or near Howard Mountain shows a wide range of 

orientations in the poles to fracture planes, with some minor 

clustering in the stereoplot. The stereo and tadpole plots for 

Howard Mountain indicate most of the fractures are steeply 

dipping; a smaller subset of fractures is sub-horizontal and 

dips towards the southeast (fig. 17). Similar to the fractures on 

Miller Mountain, there are many southeast-northwest striking fractures that dip very steeply toward the southwest and 

northeast, respectively. Numerous fractures strike southwestnortheast and dip very steeply to the northwest and southeast, 

respectively. There is a very large population of steeply dipping fractures, as indicated by the dense population of tadpoles 

on the right side of the tadpole plot; this is uncorrected for the 

vertical sampling bias. The majority of fractures dip towards 

N237°E and strike and dip N147°E, 85°SE. In general, the 

fracture orientation on or near Howard Mountain is more 

variable than on or near Miller Mountain or at the Transmitter Site. This variability in the Howard Mountain data may be 

attributed to the influence of the fault, which is directly northeast of the Howard Mountain summit (Gates, 1981). 

A stereoplot of the 61 transmissive fractures (poles to 

fracture planes shown in dark blue circles and squares) from 

the 17 boreholes on or near Howard Mountain is similar to 

the overall fracture population for Howard Mountain (fig. 17). 

Contoured stereoplots show the clustering of poles to fracture 

planes for all fractures identified as transmissive (fig. 18). The 

transmissive fractures strike (and dip) in almost every direction, but most notably they do not strike west (and dip due 

north), as do many of the fractures, which dip due north, in 

the entire fracture population for Howard Mountain (fig. 17). 

This observation is confirmed by the lack of contours on the 

southern side of the stereoplot (fig. 18). The lithologic features 

identified in the Howard Mountain boreholes (coded in green) 

show a wide range of orientations, without a strong pattern of 

clustering of the poles to the planes (fig. 17). 

An assessment of fracturing with depth indicates a strong 

sampling bias when all boreholes are included (fig. 17 and 

appendix 6, figs. 6B1–3). Because most of the boreholes are 

about 120 ft deep, the fracture count in the total population 

appears to decline abruptly below a depth of about 120 ft 

below land surface. However, the fracture density for the three 

deepest wells in the Howard Mountain area, WY-3, WY-3B, 

and WY-15, does not show a decline in fracturing with depth 

(appendix 6, fig. 6B–4). Most of the fractures below a depth of 

200 ft are moderately to steeply dipping, indicating a decline 

in the frequency of shallow-dipping unloading or sheeting 

fractures with depth. 

Transmitter Site

A total of 275 fractures and lithologic features were 

identified in the six boreholes near the Transmitter Site on the 

southwest side of Howard Mountain (fig. 19). The fractures 

show a wide range of orientations in poles to fracture planes, 

with some minor clustering on the stereoplot. The stereo 

and tadpole plots for the Transmitter Site indicate fractures 

trend in two directions—southwest-northeast and southeastnorthwest. The fractures that strike southwest and northeast 

dip steeply towards the northwest and southeast, respectively. 

Another substantial cluster of poles to fracture planes indicates fractures strike south and southeast and dip toward the 

west-southwest. 

A stereoplot of the 35 transmissive fractures (dark blue 

circles) is similar to the overall fracture population for the 

Transmitter Site (figs. 19 and 20). There are clusters of poles 

to transmissive fracture planes that dip steeply towards the 

southeast and towards the northwest (fig. 20). These fracture 

orientations appear to follow the regional pattern of northeastsouthwest striking fractures with dip directions towards the 

southeast and northwest. Another small cluster of poles to 

planes of transmissive fractures occurs near the center of the 

stereoplot, indicating a shallow dip towards the east (fig. 20).
Results of the Borehole Geophysical Investigation 59

Figure 17. Tadpole plots, stereoplots, and rose diagram showing all fractures and lithologic features in 17 boreholes near the Air 

Force Radar Tracking Station on Howard Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine. Stereoplots are lower hemisphere Schmidt, equal 

area plots. Rose diagram shows direction of dip azimuth, which is 90 degrees to the right of the strike. (deg, degrees)

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING

0°

180°

True North

44 60.46 97.36

74 47.84 173.08

50 54.91 247.19

666 64.84 189.21

3 69.67 242.95

50 63.83 5.45

11 50.89 174.77

0°

180°

Counts

Dip

[deg]

Azimuth

[deg]

44 60.46 97.36

63 54.60 122.55

0°

180°

50 54.91 247.19

11 50.89 174.77

0°

270° 90°

180°

25

25

50

50

75

75

Counts

Dip

[deg]

Azimuth

[deg]

True North

270° 90°

True North True North

Counts

Dip

[deg]

Azimuth

[deg]

270° 90° 270° 90°

ALL FEATURES LITHOLOGIC AND SEALED 

FEATURES

TRANSMISSIVE 

 FRACTURES

 DIP AZIMUTH 

ALL FEATURES

DIP DIP

0° 90°0° 90°

Minor fracture

Transmissive fracture

Large fracture

Partial fracture

Sealed fracture

Possible fracture

Lithologic feature

Transmissive fracture, 

inferred from fluid logs

EXPLANATION
60 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

Figure 18. Poles to planes of transmissive fractures in 17 boreholes near the Air Force Radar Tracking Station on Howard 

Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine.

True North

Equal area projection, lower hemisphere 

True North

Number of poles = 61

Maximum density 6.03 at N88oE, 12o

Contours at

0.5,1.0, 2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0

Poles to planes
Results of the Borehole Geophysical Investigation 61

Figure 19. Tadpole plots, stereoplots, and rose diagram showing all fractures and lithologic features in six boreholes near 

the Transmitter Site on Howard Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine. Stereoplots are lower hemisphere Schmidt, equal 

area plots. Rose diagram shows direction of dip azimuth, which is 90 degrees to the right of the strike. (deg, degrees)

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

360

160 63.35 284.70

35 50.90 129.19

29 57.11 174.16

28 56.21 201.23

19 57.45 257.43

3 66.33 198.20

1 79.00 328.00

28 56.21 201.23

19 57.45 257.43

35 50.90 129.19

0°

180°

0°

270° 90°

180°

5

5

10

10

15

15

20

20

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE

Counts

Dip

[deg]

Azimuth

Counts [deg]

Dip

[deg]

Azimuth

[deg]

Counts

Dip

[deg]

Azimuth

[deg]

270° 90°

0°

180°

270° 90°

0°

180°

270° 90°

True North True North

True North True North

380

DIP DIP

0° 90°0° 90°

ALL FEATURES LITHOLOGIC AND SEALED 

 FEATURES

 DIP AZIMUTH 

ALL FEATURES

TRANSMISSIVE 

 FRACTURES

Minor fracture

Transmissive fracture

Large fracture

Partial fracture

Sealed fracture

Possible fracture

Lithologic feature

EXPLANATION
62 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

Figure 20. Poles to planes of transmissive fractures in six boreholes near the Transmitter Site on Howard 

Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine.

True North

True North

Equal area projection, lower hemisphere 

Number of poles = 35 

Contours at 

1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0

True North Poles to planes
Results of the Borehole Geophysical Investigation 63

Mafic dikes strike to the south-southeast and dip moderately to steeply towards the west-southwest at an average 

dip azimuth of N275°E (appendix 3 and fig. 19). Many of the 

mafic dikes generally parallel a subset of the transmissive fractures at the Transmitter Site. The lithologic features (coded in 

green, fig. 19) generally dip moderately to very steeply to the 

west. Sealed fractures dip at all angles towards the west and 

the east-southeast and were observed at all depths. 

An assessment of fracturing with depth indicates fractures from a depth of 0 to 100 ft below land surface at the 

Transmitter Site strike to the southwest and northeast and 

dip steeply towards the northwest and southeast (tadpole and 

stereoplots, appendix 6, fig. 6C–2). These fractures tend to 

parallel the regional structural northeast trend. From depths of 

100 to 200 ft below land surface, the fractures dip towards the 

northwest and southwest. Deeper than 200 ft below land surface, the limited number of fractures dip towards the east and 

west. Because most of the boreholes are less than 120 ft deep, 

the analysis with depth is limited to borehole DW-10 

(appendix 6, fig. 6C–4). In general, the fracturing appears 

to be fairly uniform with depth.

In order to assess the pattern of the fracture populations 

with respect to proximity to the northwest-trending fault that 

bounds the northeast side of Howard Mountain, a series of 

stereoplots and rose diagrams are shown side-by-side for 

selected Howard Mountain boreholes (fig. 21). The plots 

represent a cross section extending from the southwest at the 

Transmitter Site towards the northeast, Howard Mountain, 

and the fault location. The stereoplots and rose diagrams show 

numerous fractures in these boreholes with a wide variation in 

fracture orientation. Many of the boreholes across this section 

have fractures that are parallel to the regional northeast trend. 

Boreholes MW-4, DW-6, MW-9, WY-15, MW-10, MW-15, 

MW-12, DW-2, DW-4, and WY-3C have dominant fracture 

sets that strike northeast and southwest and dip southeast and 

northwest, respectively. Other boreholes, including WY-3 and 

MW-17, have lesser amounts of northeast-southwest striking 

fractures. The fractures in boreholes MW-17, WY-4, MW-9, 

and DW-6 predominantly strike northwest-southeast, parallel 

to the northwest trending fault north of Howard Mountain. 

Most of the fractures in boreholes MW-10 and MW-11 strike 

north and south and dip towards the east and west, respectively; boreholes WY-3B, MW-9, and MW-4 show small 

numbers of north-south striking fractures. Boreholes DW-6, 

MW-12, WY-3, and WY-3B have prominent fracture sets that 

strike east and west and dip south and north, respectively. 

Also, boreholes DW-2 and WY-4 have minor fracture sets that 

strike east and west. Collectively, these observations indicate 

similarities in the orientations of fracture sets between the 

boreholes, but there does not appear to be a consistent pattern 

associated with topography or distance from the fault. When 

all the other Transmitter Site boreholes are included in the 

analysis (appendix 4), a general observation is that the fracture 

pattern goes from mostly southwest-northeast striking to more 

variable near the summit of Howard Mountain and in the boreholes near the fault.

A similar series of stereoplots and rose diagrams were 

plotted side-by-side for adjacent boreholes on or near Miller 

Mountain (fig. 22). Boreholes DW-39, DW-31, DW-33, 

DW-23, and DW-34 have dominant fracture orientations that 

strike northeast and southwest. Boreholes WY-GATR, MW-13, 

DW-32, and DW-24 have fracture orientations that strike 

to the northwest and southeast, and boreholes DW-25 and 

DW-40 have fracture sets that strike both northeast-southwest 

and northwest-southeast. 

The stereoplots for Howard Mountain (fig. 21) show 

more variation in strike than the Miller Mountain stereoplots, 

but they also show less variation in dip. In general, the fracture 

populations in the Howard Mountain boreholes are dominated 

by steeply dipping fractures that dip at steeper angles than the 

Miller Mountain fractures. 

Hydraulic Characterization

Hydraulic characterization included determination of 

ambient vertical flow, inflow and outflow zones under ambient and stressed hydraulic conditions, discrete-zone transmissivity and head within individual boreholes, and whole-well 

open-hole transmissivity. Ambient flow through a borehole is 

“artificial” in that the borehole serves as a conduit between 

fractures and “aquifers” with different heads; ambient vertical 

flow is, however, an indicator of the hydraulic potential within 

the aquifer. Usually, regional groundwater flow is inferred to 

follow land-surface topography; however, actual flow paths 

can vary because of the fracture network. Typically, downward flow occurs on mountain tops and in recharge zones, and 

upflow occurs where there is a break in the slope of the land 

surface and in discharge locations (Toth, 1963; Winter and 

others, 1998). The natural pattern of flow moves water from 

recharge locations with higher head to discharge locations 

with lower head. In this investigation, the direction of flow 

generally followed this pattern with a few localized variations 

in this conceptual site model. 

The results of HPFM logging are summarized for all 

boreholes in this study, showing the direction of flow and 

a code for topographic setting (table 21). Within the study 

area, 9 boreholes had ambient upflow that could be measured 

with the HPFM, 13 boreholes had measurable ambient 

downflow, and 11 boreholes showed no measurable ambient 

flow or were affected by well interference or tidal influences. 

Differences in flow rates and flow directions in closely spaced 

boreholes indicate a difference in heads and (or) the presence 

of interconnected fractures and show the complexity and 

heterogeneity of fractured rock. In many of the boreholes 

logged for this investigation, the direction of vertical flow in 

the borehole was consistent with the conceptual groundwater 

flow model of recharge in topographic highs and discharge at 

topographic lows.

Two boreholes, DW-23 and WY-GATR on Miller 

Mountain, showed strong ambient flow with more than 

100 gal moving through the borehole each day. One borehole, 
64 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

Figure 21. Stereoplots and rose diagrams for selected boreholes on or near Howard Mountain, Machiasport, Maine. Rose diagrams show the direction of dip azimuth.

DW-10 DW-6 WY-4 WY-15 MW-10 MW-9 MW-4 MW-15

MW-12

0°

180°

0°

180°

5

5

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

WY-3B DW-2 WY-3 WY-3C DW-4 MW-11 MW-17

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°
Results of the Borehole Geophysical Investigation 65 Figure 22. Stereoplots and rose diagrams for selected boreholes on or near Miller Mountain, Machiasport, Maine. Rose diagrams show the direction of dip azimuth.

DW-23 DW-22 DW-32 DW-25 DW-39 DW-40

0°

180°

0°

180

2

°

4

0°

180°

0°

180°

2 4

0°

180°

0°

180

2

°

4

0°

180°

0°

180

2

°

4

0°

180°

0°

180°

2 4

0°

180°

0°

180

2

°

4

MW-13 WY-GATR DW-34 DW-31 DW-33 MW-14 DW-29

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

5

0°

180°

5

0°

180°

0°

180

2

°

4

0°

180

2

°

4

0°

180°

0°

180

2

°

4

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180

2

°

4 4 2

DW-24

0°

180°

0°

180

5

°

10
66 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

DW-24 on Miller Mountain, was highly influenced by nearby 

pumping, and borehole DW-31, also on Miller Mountain, was 

verified to be affected by tidal fluctuations during flowmeter 

testing. These influences precluded the determination of an 

ambient flow and ambient heads in those boreholes. Some of 

the other ambient flows observed in the HPFM measurements 

might be related to tidal fluctuations, but this was not verified 

by the water-level data collected during HPFM logging. 

Water-level monitoring in borehole DW-2 near Howard 

Mountain indicated the influence of nearby pumping (James 

Vernon, ENSR International, written commun., September 

2006) that was not observed, however, over the shortterm measurements during HPFM logging. These results 

support the observation that minor changes in water level 

or oscillations occurring over a long period of time cannot 

be measured with the HPFM if the change in head, when 

converted to a volumetric flow rate, is less than the resolution 

of the flowmeter. 

In this investigation, transmissive fractures were identified with the HPFM or inferred from fluid logs. Fractures 

interpreted as transmissive were reported in tables and shown 

in projection, stereo, and tadpole plots. Open-hole transmissivity was estimated by analysis of open-hole water levels in 

response to hydraulic stress using either transient or steadystate analysis. The open-hole transmissivities ranged from 

1.9 to 632 ft2/d. The transmissivity and head of individual 

transmissive fracture zones were estimated by numerically 

modeling the ambient and stressed HPFM profiles along with 

the hydraulically stressed water-level data (table 22). The 

discrete-interval transmissivities ranged from 0.16 to 330 ft2/d. 

The transmissivities of the individual transmissive zones were 

summed to determine a whole-well transmissivity. The total 

transmissivity values, which ranged from 2.4 to 511 ft2/d, were 

consistently lower than the estimates of open-hole transmissivity based only on water-level data. Twenty wells were used for 

this analysis: DW-2, DW-6, DW-22, DW-23, DW-24, DW-25, 

DW-31, DW-32, DW-33, DW-34, DW-39, DW-40, WY-15, 

WY-4, WY-GATR, MW-15, MW-16, MW-17, WY-3C, and 

DW-29. A correlation plot shows the two methods agree well, 

with a coefficient of determination of 0.9866 (fig. 23). The 

one-to-one line is shown as a dashed blue line. These results 

indicate that in most cases, the open-hole transmissivity can 

be used as a good starting estimate for modeling with FWRAP 

and possibly for expediting the process. 

Results of the flowmeter models and HPFM logging can 

be used to identify places where there is ambient flow in the 

boreholes that might permit the spread of contamination. In 

addition, the identification of ambient-flow regimes and the 

location and proportion of transmissive zones is important for 

designing strategies to obtain representative samples or for 

understanding open-hole samples. A water sample collected 

from an open borehole represents a transmissivity-weighted 

combination of the individual fracture zones in the borehole, 

and open-hole water-quality sampling can yield ambiguous results (Shapiro, 2002). Consequently, if the results of 

open-hole samples show contamination, the results should be 

Table 21. Topographic setting and direction of ambient flow 

for boreholes near Machiasport, Maine, sorted by land-surface 

elevation.

[HPFM, heat-pulse flowmeter; LS, land surface; Top indicates a topographic 

hill; Slope indicates borehole is on a topographic slope; BS/V indicates 

break in slope or valley setting; Tidal indicates borehole was affected by 

tidal influences; Interference indicates an impact from a nearby borehole 

precluded measurements of ambient flow directions]

Borehole

Topographic 

setting

Direction of 

ambient flow 

identified 

with HPFM

Elevation 

of land 

surface 

(feet)

Depth of 

borehole 

from LS 

(feet)

Miller Mountain

WY-GATR Top Down 251.81 415.4

MW-13 Top No flow 250.42 204.5

DW-31 Slope Tidal 206.60 242.8

DW-29 Slope Down 97.26 114.5

MW-14 Slope Down 74.47 95.0

DW-39 Slope Down 136.07 218.8

DW-40 BS/V No flow 90.01 239.6

DW-34 Slope Up 64.92 310.4

DW-32 BS/V Down 63.15 103.6

DW-24 Slope Interference 58.45 189.5

DW-23 BS/V Up 52.59 179.2

DW-22 BS/V Down 57.10 109.7

DW-33 BS/V No flow 50.82 80.0

DW-25 BS/V Up 40.78 143.6

Howard Mountain, near the Air Force Radar Tracking Station

MW-10 Top No flow 243.30 201.0

MW-15 Top No flow 240.92 49.4

MW-16 Top No flow 237.85 169.5

MW-9 Slope Down 194.62 120.0

WY-15 Slope or 

BS/V

Up 187.22 292.6

WY-4 BS/V Up 170.77 179.3

MW-8 Slope Down 161.74 55.0

MW-17 Slope Down 72.64 248.7

WY-3C BS/V Up 68.34 351.6

DW-2 Slope Up 63.71 219.7

MW-11 BS/V Up 55.93 200.0

WY-3 BS/V No flow 45.10 342.0

MW-12 BS/V No flow 43.23 243.0

Transmitter Site, on Howard Mountain

MW-5 Top No flow 220.66 98.0

MW-6 Top Down 220.45 120.0

DW-6 Slope Up 173.20 121.7

DW-10 Top Down 214.48 379.0

MW-4 Top Down 214.22 98.0

MW-7 Top Down 205.59 130.0
Results of the Borehole Geophysical Investigation 67

Table 22. Summary of transmissivity values derived from heat-pulse flowmeter data and hydraulic tests for boreholes near 

Machiasport, Maine.—Continued

[ft, feet; ft2/d, feet squared per day; gal/min, gallons per minute; B&R, Bradbury and Rothschild (1985); CJ, Cooper-Jacob straight-line test; CBP, Cooper and 

others (1967); --, no data]

Well name Depth 

(ft)

Zone 

transmissivity 

(ft2/d)

Zone 

water 

level 

(ft)

Elevation 

of water 

level 

(ft)

Percent 

transmissivity

Depth to 

ambient 

water level 

(ft)

Total borehole transmissivity 

(ft2/d)

Root mean 

square 

error 

(gal/min)

Transmissivity from 

hydraulic 

test 

(ft2/d)

Method

Miller Mountain

DW-22 22.5 11.66 5.08 54.92 63 6.7 18.5 0.017 22.7 B&R

82.5 6.82 9.48 50.52 37

DW-23 94.50 69.00 6.88 53.12 45 7.3 153.0 0.830 237 B&R

150.00 24.00 6.98 53.02 16

175.00 60.00 -4.52 64.52 39

DW-24 182.0 306.0 9.80 50.20 100 9.8 306.0 0.006 405 B&R

DW-25 121.9 40.5 0.82 39.18 31 1.50 129.0 2.943 177 B&R

138.0 89.1 -2.18 42.18 69

DW-29 20.0 2.75 7.04 92.82 56 10.72 4.9 0.015 4.9 B&R

40.8 0.60 -3.96 103.82 12

95.1 1.05 17.04 82.82 21

108.0 0.55 33.04 66.82 0

DW-31 146.0 0.8 134.45 73.55 8 134.45 10.2 0.006 1.8 CJ

235.0 9.4 134.45 73.55 92

DW-32 26.0 82.5 16.95 45.05 16 17.04 511.5 0.020 632 B&R

71.0 99.0 17.04 44.96 19

89.7 330.0 17.07 44.93 65

DW-33 34.0 14.0 3.97 48.83 14 3.97 98.0 0.004 112 B&R

41.0 84.0 3.97 48.83 86

DW-34 40.5 6.00 8.65 58.25 75 8.4 8.0 0.003 7.4 B&R

145.0 1.50 7.65 59.25 19

210.0 0.48 7.65 59.25 6

DW-39 31.0 1.6 -3.81 133.81 9 11.67 18.6 0.012 15.0 B&R

75.0 13.0 12.19 117.81 70

90.0 4.0 16.19 113.81 21

DW-40 34 12.0 0.56 92.00 57 0.56 21.0 0.009 29.3 B&R

112 3.0 0.56 92.00 14

215 6.0 0.56 92.00 29

WY-GATR 186.0 12.0 150.51 121.49 11 153 108.0 0.007 96.0 B&R

412.0 96.0 153.31 118.69 89
68 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

Table 22. Summary of transmissivity values derived from heat-pulse flowmeter data and hydraulic tests for boreholes near 

Machiasport, Maine.—Continued

[ft, feet; ft2/d, feet squared per day; gal/min, gallons per minute; B&R, Bradbury and Rothschild (1985); CJ, Cooper-Jacob straight-line test; CBP, Cooper and 

others (1967); --, no data]

Well name Depth 

(ft)

Zone 

transmissivity 

(ft2/d)

Zone 

water 

level 

(ft)

Elevation 

of water 

level 

(ft)

Percent 

transmissivity

Depth to 

ambient 

water level 

(ft)

Total borehole transmissivity 

(ft2/d)

Root mean 

square 

error 

(gal/min)

Transmissivity from 

hydraulic 

test 

(ft2/d)

Method

Howard Mountain, near the Air Force Radar Tracking Station

DW-2 52.5 18 44.34 21.66 97 44.21 18.6 0.008 25.7 B&R

106.5 0.60000 40.24 25.76 3

WY-3C 108.0 5.28 65.48 4.32 67 65.5 7.8 0.019 9.0 B&R

117.4 1.20 65.48 4.32 15

164.5 1.20 66.68 3.12 15

327.0 0.16000 57.48 12.32 2

WY-4 55.0 1.0 9.30 161.40 5 6.73 21.0 0.044 22.9 B&R

172.0 20.0 6.60 164.10 95

WY-15 44 0.4 36.25 157.63 12 33.9 3.4 0.015 2.9 B&R

145 2.0 35.25 158.63 59

290 1.0 30.25 163.63 29

MW-15 20.1 140 14.57 229.13 100 14.57 140.0 0.002 158.0 B&R

MW-16 147.0 10 117.00 123.40 100 117 10.0 0.001 10.4 B&R

MW-17 70.0 1.5 38.57 36.36 38 14.57 4.0 0.017 5.2 B&R

110.0 1.25 32.57 42.36 31

168.0 0.75 43.57 31.36 19

180.0 0.5 43.57 31.36 0

Transmitter Site, on Howard Mountain

DW-6 23.5 1.75 8.86 191.14 74 8.86 2.4 0.005 2.6 B&R

52.0 0.28 8.86 191.14 12

82.0 0.35 8.86 191.14 15

1

DW-10 43.7 0.4 -- -- 21 -- -- -- 1.9 CBP

156.0 1.2 65

327.0 0.3 14

1

 Flowmeter model could not be run on transient water-level data. Transmissivity proportioned using heat-pulse flowmeter data and method of subtraction.
Results of the Borehole Geophysical Investigation 69

considered within the measured flow regime, to help determine the sources of water in the sample and potentially identify where additional discrete-interval sampling is needed to 

determine the depth-dependent distribution of contamination. 

The transmissivity values determined by hydraulic testing 

and flowmeter analysis also were compared to the results of 

packer tests collected at the site. None of the boreholes tested 

with the straddle-packers (boreholes MW-7, MW-10, MW-11, 

and MW-12), however, had sufficient water-level data for 

modeling to be used. In general, the transmissivities obtained 

for isolated depth intervals in these boreholes ranged from less 

than 0.07 to 5.3 ft2/d (Weston Solutions, 2005). Packer testing 

has a much higher resolution for determining transmissivity 

than flowmeter logging. Depending on the equipment used, 

packer-test methods can measure transmissivity values as low 

as 10-8 ft2/s or about 10-4 ft2/d (Shapiro, 2001). The flowmeter 

can be used to identify zones that are within 1.5 to 2 orders 

of magnitude of the most transmissive fractures in the 

borehole, and the HPFM can measure flows as small as 0.01 ± 

0.005 gal/min, which corresponds to a transmissivity of about 

10-5 ft2/s or 1 ft2/d. Although the flowmeter is not as sensitive 

as the packer-test method, it is relatively easy and quick compared to packer testing.

In another fractured-rock investigation, where transmissivity values were estimated using similar HPFM methods and 

analyses, the transmissivity estimates derived with flowmeter 

methods were most commonly greater than the packer-test 

methods (Johnson and others, 2005). In that investigation, 

the log transmissivity values determined with the HPFM 

were regressed against log transmissivity values determined 

by conventional straddle-packer testing and yielded a good 

coefficient of determination, indicating the HPFM is an effective tool for screening boreholes and for identifying the most 

transmissive fractures. Moreover, these results indicate that 

caution should be used when comparing the transmissivity 

results derived from different methods. The HPFM-derived 

Figure 23. Comparison of open-hole transmissivity determined from Bradbury and Rothschild (1985) method and 

summed transmissivity determined from modeled heat-pulse flowmeter profiles and water levels. The black line indicates 

the best fit regression line, and the blue dashed line indicates a line showing one-to-one correlation.

y = 0.7907x

R2

 = 0.9866

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Open-hole transmissivity from Bradbury and Rothschild method

Sum

med transmissivity modeled from flowmeter data

Transmissivity, in feet-squared per day

One-to-one line

Linear trend (feet squared per day)
70 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

were explored using cross-plots. Cross-plots of gamma and 

electromagnetic induction (EMI), resistivity, and singlepoint resistance values do not show a clear correspondence 

between rock type and electric properties, whereas crossplots of gamma and mean ATV reflectivity were effective in 

identifying changes in rock types. 

In general, the rock types identified in the boreholes 

were consistent with the local mapping. The summit of Miller 

Mountain was verified to be gabbro or diabase. Along the 

flanks of Miller Mountain and at depth on Miller Mountain, 

quartz monzonite was observed. Along the eastern side of 

Miller Mountain and just onshore, there is a large block of 

metasedimentary rocks, thought to be part of the Eastport 

Formation, which crops out along the flank of the mountain 

and is bounded above and below by gabbro or diabase. To the 

north of Miller Mountain, gabbro was observed in the near 

surface overlying the metasediments. On Howard Mountain, at 

the Air Force Radar Tracking Station site and at the Transmitter Site, the rock types are dominated by rhyolite of varying 

composition and (or) texture. Mafic dikes that generally strike 

to the southeast and dip towards the southwest have intruded 

all rock units, especially the rhyolites on Howard Mountain. 

Fracturing: Borehole-imaging methods were used to 

identify and map the location and orientation of fractures in 

the boreholes. The interpreted image logs are shown in tabular 

and graphic forms. Projection plots were used to overlay structural interpretations directly on the borehole images. Stereoplots of poles to planar features, fractures, and rock contacts 

were used to assess the clustering of poles and to determine 

possible sets of fractures. Tadpole, projection, and fractureintensity plots were used to assess fracturing with depth. Rose 

diagrams were used to assess dip direction. Results were summarized by borehole, site-wide, and for the three environmental restoration sites. 

A stereoplot of all fractures indicates numerous fractures, 

a high proportion of steeply dipping fractures, and considerable variation in fracture orientation. Low-dip-angle fractures 

associated with unloading and exfoliation also are present, 

especially at depths of less than 100 ft below the top of casing. These low-angle fractures help to connect the steeply 

dipping fractures, resulting in a highly connected fracture 

network. The high variability in fracture orientation increases 

the probability of fracture intersections and junctions, thereby 

also increasing the connectivity of the fracture network. The 

fracture patterns for Miller Mountain appeared to be more 

uniform; whereas for Howard Mountain, the fracture pattern 

exhibited more variation.

When considering all the boreholes in the study area 

or all the boreholes in each of the three restoration sites, the 

intensity of fracturing appears to decline dramatically with 

depth. Because all the boreholes were not drilled to the same 

depth, there is a clear sampling bias that suggests there are 

more fractures near the surface and less with depth. But, when 

the deepest boreholes are analyzed separately for fracture 

density, the intensity of fracturing in each 10-ft interval does 

not decline substantially with depth. This analysis includes 

estimates of transmissivity, although overestimated relative to 

packer-test estimates, were still effective for relative comparisons with other flowmeter-derived values.

A comparison of the HPFM-derived transmissivity values 

(table 22) shows a wide range of values. The four highest 

transmissivity values are associated with boreholes on Miller 

Mountain. One factor these four boreholes (DW-32, DW-24, 

DW-23, and DW-25) have in common is their topographic 

setting; they are either along the slope or are in a discharge 

location (table 21). A regression of open-hole transmissivity 

and elevation of land surface gives highly variable results with 

a heteroskedastic distribution. Moreover, the regression shows 

that low transmissivity values occurred over all elevations, 

yielding a poor linear correlation. 

Summary and Conclusions

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), conducted two 

phases of borehole geophysical data collection at sites on and 

near Miller Mountain and Howard Mountain at a Formerly 

Used Defense Site in Machiasport, Maine. The first phase 

of data collection was in November 2004 and included 11 

boreholes mostly used for domestic water supply. The second 

phase, conducted in March and April 2005, included seven 

boreholes that were both observation wells and domesticsupply wells. In addition to the geophysical logs collected by 

USGS, the USACE had geophysical logs collected by contractors in 12 boreholes in 2003 and 7 boreholes in 2006. To 

improve spatial coverage and the total statistical population of 

fractures, all available geophysical and hydraulic data from the 

37 boreholes were interpreted and compared for an integrated 

analysis of the three environmental restoration sites. The 

data for these additional boreholes were not published in this 

report, but the methods and all interpretative results 

were included.

Characterization of individual boreholes included 

determination of geologic contacts, lithology, fractures, and 

hydraulically active fractures. All oriented data were corrected 

for magnetic declination and for deviation of the borehole. 

The results were tabulated and shown graphically for each 

borehole. In addition, the results were summarized for all 37 

boreholes, and for each of the three restorations sites within 

the study area.

Rock types: Rock types were effectively determined 

with combined use of gamma, reflectivity, optical televiewer 

(OTV), and acoustic televiewer (ATV) logging. The 

interpretations of rock type were consistent with observations 

and mineralogical and textural descriptions of rock cores, 

observations on outcrop samples, and published maps. For 

this investigation, the mean and median acoustic amplitude 

values were computed for each depth increment in the 

ATV reflectivity log, producing logs that can be compared 

directly with other logs. Correlations between log parameters 
Summary and Conclusions 71

all the fractures—transmissive, open-looking, and minor or 

tight-looking fractures. Theoretically, fracture occurrence and 

fracture aperture, which are correlated to local stress, regional 

stress, and confining pressure, decrease with depth (Trainer, 

1987). It is possible the fractures observed in these boreholes 

become progressively tighter or closed with depth, but it is difficult to verify with the methods used in this investigation. The 

fact that there are more sealed fractures at depth (observed in 

OTV logs in some of the boreholes) may indicate less opening 

of the sealed fractures, less water moving through the rock, 

and less weathering of the fracture-infilling minerals. 

The fracture orientations at each of the restoration sites 

remained fairly constant with depth. Similar results have 

been reported at other crystalline rock sites. Raven and Gale 

(1977) observed uniform orientations in joint sets in the 

near surface down to hundreds of feet in depth. Although the 

fracture orientation remained fairly constant with depth, the 

fracture patterns for the three sites showed minor variations, 

indicating a lateral change in the fracture orientation with 

location. The fractures on Miller Mountain primarily strike to 

the northwest and southeast and, to a lesser amount, strike to 

the northeast. The fractures on or near the summit of Howard 

Mountain trend in two directions, predominantly east-west and 

northeast-southwest. On the Transmitter Site, further to the 

southwest and further away from the fault, the fractures strike 

predominantly northeast-southwest and northwest-southeast. 

The fracture pattern on Howard Mountain, although similar 

to the orientation of fractures on Miller Mountain, is more 

variable than the fracture patterns for Miller Mountain and the 

Transmitter Site.

Evaluation of geophysical methods applied at the 

site: Characterizing and remediating fractured-rock aquifers 

remains a difficult challenge. However, advances in geophysical equipment and interpretive methods have helped improve 

the characterization of the subsurface and identification of 

heterogeneities that affect flow in the aquifer. 

The combined use of borehole geophysical logs, limited core sampling, and outcrop mapping was an effective 

approach for mapping the rock units at depth at this site. 

Although mechanical breakage and plucking of some fractures 

in boreholes precludes an accurate measurement of fracture 

aperture, borehole imaging logs provided information on fracture and lithology orientations not easily determined in core 

samples because of core loss, mechanical breakage, rotation, 

and lack of oriented core samples. Core samples from selected 

boreholes, however, were valuable for identifying rock types 

in hand samples for direct comparison with borehole logs. 

For this investigation, a few boreholes were cored, providing direct observation of the rocks and an interpretation of 

rock types that were essential for verifying geophysical tool 

response to various rock types. 

These analyses indicate acoustic reflectivity and gamma 

logs can be used to aid in the interpretation of rock type in the 

boreholes. The use of cross-plots and side-by-side comparison 

of logs between boreholes demonstrates the importance of 

having calibrated tools to produce logs that can be compared 

directly. Where multiple gamma logs were collected in the 

same borehole with different tools, the counts per second 

were normalized to a single tool response. Because some logs, 

such as ATV reflectivity, do not have a typical calibration, it 

would be helpful to establish a “calibration” well at the site 

that would be logged by all tools each time they are used. The 

ideal borehole for site calibration would contain multiple rock 

types to show a variety of tool responses and would be considered a background well that is not subject to change in water 

level or water chemistry over time. Logs collected by different 

tools or the same tool at different times could be adjusted for 

variation in tool response or for drift. Such a site calibration 

borehole, which is not subject to change, would provide a useful standard for each geophysical logging effort, especially if 

remediation efforts are to be initiated at the site. 

Fractures were identified with caliper, ATV, and OTV 

imaging tools, and to a lesser extent with the normal resistivity tool. The OTV and ATV tools generally identified all the 

major fractures and most of the transmissive fractures. Tight 

fractures, however, were better identified in the ATV logs, 

and sealed fractures and lithology features were identified 

more clearly in the OTV logs. The orientations of fractures 

determined with the OTV generally agreed with orientations 

determined with the ATV. 

Normal resistivity values at this site were very high and 

beyond the functional range of the tool. The calibration checks 

indicated the tool was working properly within the operable 

range. Hence, the resistivity values that were collected could 

only be used in a relative sense to identify zones with higher 

or lower resistivity, which either corresponded to a change in 

rock type or the presence of fractures. 

EMI, which measures electrical conductivity of the 

formation and fluids in the formation, was not effective for 

identifying changes in rock type in this environment of highly 

resistive (minimally conductive) rock units. However, EMI 

logs were helpful for identifying the bottom of steel casing. 

The temperature, fluid conductivity, and water-quality 

logs were effective in determining hydraulically active fractures and potential ambient flow in the borehole. Ambient flow 

occurs whenever two fractures with different heads intersect 

the borehole. The water flows through the borehole from the 

fracture with higher head to the fracture with the lower head. 

Because flowmeters can only measure flow rates above their 

detection limit, sometimes signs of vertical flow were only 

identified in the fluid conductivity and temperature logs. However, the direction and rate of flow cannot be determined with 

the fluid logs alone. In the field, temperature, fluid conductivity, and water-quality logs were used to determine measurement locations for the heat-pulse flowmeter (HPFM). 

HPFM logs were used to identify transmissive intervals 

of the borehole and to assess the relative transmissivity of the 

zones intersecting a borehole. Although HPFM methods are 

effective for identifying the most transmissive zones in the 

borehole, it is important to realize that other methods, including discrete-zone packer testing, discrete-zone monitoring 

with hydraulic testing, and hydrophysical logging, can identify 
72 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

connected fracture network is more likely to behave like an 

equivalent porous media and allow fluid flow to be described 

by continuum methods. Although these factors suggest 

flow through the highly connected fracture systems can be 

described by continuum methods, this approach is likely to be 

oversimplified and insufficient for describing mass transport 

because effective porosity in fractured rocks is heterogeneous 

and directionally dependent (Endo and others, 1984). Hence, 

the discussion of the conceptual site model is limited to 

groundwater flow.

The borehole geophysical data from this site indicate 

extensive fracturing, with numerous and variable fracture 

orientations in the near surface and over the depths intersected 

by the boreholes. The conceptual model is that the fractures 

form a three-dimensional network of blocks and fractures 

that act at some scale as a continuum. In general, water flows 

from the recharge areas towards discharge areas, and regional 

groundwater flow is inferred to follow land-surface topography. Analysis of hydraulic testing and HPFM data indicates 

the vertical flow within the boreholes generally supports the 

concept of downward movement in recharge locations and 

upward flow in discharge locations. Locally, the direction of 

groundwater flow is affected by small-scale topographic features, direction of fractures relative to the hydraulic gradient, 

effects of pumping, and, in some cases, tidal influences. The 

actual flowpaths that water and (or) contaminants follow can 

differ from the inferred regional flow. To expand the site conceptual groundwater flow model to describe contaminant flow, 

the data in this report would have to be coupled with geologic, 

hydrologic, and geochemical data to refine the site conceptual 

flow model and determine contaminant pathways (Shapiro and 

others, 1999). 

The fractures on Miller Mountain predominantly strike 

northwest and southeast and, to a much lesser extent, northeast. The dominant fracture pattern on Miller Mountain is parallel to local faulting and parallel to the incised valley between 

Miller and Bucks Mountains. The contaminant distribution, 

which has been identified southeast of the source area at the 

summit of Miller Mountain, also is parallel to this dominant 

orientation of fractures for Miller Mountain. 

The fractures on or near the summit of Howard Mountain 

predominantly trend in two directions: east-west and northeast-southwest. The contaminant distribution for the AFRTS 

site on Howard Mountain is thought to be towards the northeast, which is in the direction of that predominant fracture set, 

along the pathway of the greatest change in topographic relief, 

and towards actively pumped boreholes. 

Further to the southwest and further from the fault, 

the fractures at the Transmitter Site strike predominantly 

northeast-southwest and northwest-southeast. The observed 

contaminant distribution from this site is to the northeast and 

southwest, parallel to the strike of a predominant fracture set. 

For each of these sites, there is a large proportion of 

steeply dipping fractures. These fractures provide recharge 

to the bedrock and increase connectivity with sub-horizontal 

fractures. The analysis of fracture orientation with depth 

transmissive zones below the detection limit of the HPFM. 

Packer-testing methods can measure transmissivity over 6 

orders of magnitude, whereas flowmeter methods can measure 

1.5 to 2 orders of magnitude. Thus, the HPFM is an effective 

screening tool for determining the most transmissive zones. 

Other hydraulic tests would be required to determine the distribution of transmissivity that is less than the detection limit 

of the HPFM, about 10-5 ft2/s or 1 ft2/d.

Modeling the head and transmissivity of discrete 

intervals to match the observed water level and measured 

ambient and pumped flowmeter profiles provides quantitative 

estimates of hydraulic parameters and defines the variability 

of these parameters along the borehole. Vertical flow within 

the borehole indicates the potential for cross-contamination, 

dilution, or misleading samples. Determining the flow regime 

within a borehole is critically important for understanding 

what a water-quality sample collected from that borehole 

represents. Hence, the flowmeter data and hydraulic-modeling 

results are important for planning sampling, monitoring, and 

remediation strategies.

Cross-hole flowmeter logging, which was not used in this 

investigation, may be helpful in future efforts. The method 

involves collecting transient flowmeter profiles in one borehole while hydraulically stressing another borehole (Paillet, 

1998). The cross-hole flowmeter results produce information about aquifer properties, identify interconnectivity, and 

provide information valuable for understanding well-field 

hydraulics, designing well completions, and understanding 

water-chemistry results. This method would be appropriate if 

any new boreholes were installed adjacent to existing or other 

new boreholes. 

Conceptual site model for groundwater flow: Details 

of fracture location, orientation, and characterization are 

important for site description. But to understand these 

fracture characteristics in the context of the site conceptual 

model requires a brief discussion of the factors controlling 

flow and transport in fractured bedrock. The mechanisms for 

fluid and solute transport in fractured media are advection, 

dispersion, and diffusion. Advection occurs primarily through 

the secondary porosity, which is comprised of a network of 

fractures. The more interconnected and open the fractures, 

the more water that can be transported through the fracture 

network in the aquifer. Fractures that are oriented at multiple 

angles are more likely to cross or abut one another and, 

therefore, increase the potential for interconnectivity. Also, the 

longer the fracture length, the greater the likelihood a fracture 

will intersect other fractures. With a highly interconnected 

fracture network, water and solutes can flow more readily 

through the aquifer than in a sparsely or poorly connected 

fracture network. Moreover, when there is a highly connected 

fracture network and when the orientation of the fracture 

set varies in orientation from the hydraulic gradient, then 

there are more intersections in the field of transport and an 

increased opportunity for solutes to mix (Long and others, 

1982; Endo and others, 1984; Berkowitz and others, 1988). 

Collectively, these fracture characteristics indicate a highly 
References 73

indicates that the frequency of sub-horizontal sheeting fractures declines with depth, but the fracture orientation of the 

moderately to steeply dipping fractures remains fairly constant 

over the depths of the boreholes. 

The data and interpretation presented in this report 

should provide information useful to the site investigators as 

they refine the conceptual site model. Collectively, the results 

and the conceptual site model are important for evaluating 

remediation options and planning or implementing design of a 

well field and borehole completions that will be adequate for 

monitoring flow, remediation efforts, groundwater levels, and 

(or) water quality. 

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE), New England District, under 

MIPRs W13G8642965424 and W13G8653296728. We also 

acknowledge support from the USGS Toxic Substances 

Hydrology Program. The authors are especially grateful to the 

homeowners who permitted access to their wells and allowed 

us to work on their properties as part of this investigation. We 

appreciate the assistance of Jeff Huntley of J.L. Huntley, Inc., 

and his staff for facilitating this work by providing logistical 

assistance and access to domestic wells. We especially thank 

Mark Blackey of Geophysical Applications, Inc., and Robert 

Garfield of Hager-Richter Geoscience, Inc., for providing data 

they collected at the site and for their willingness to share data 

and information for the site-wide summary of geophysical 

data. The authors would like to acknowledge the support, 

assistance, and guidance of Drew Clemens and Robert Leitch 

of the USACE. Drew Clemens, along with James Vernon of 

ENSR International, was extremely helpful in describing the 

lithology and structural geology of the area. Additionally, the 

authors appreciate the technical assistance of Frederick DayLewis, Frederick L. Paillet, Alton Anderson, and Christopher 

Kochiss of the USGS. Finally, the authors are grateful to 

George Harlow and Kristen McSwain for technical reviews 

of this work and to Sandra Cooper of the USGS for her final 

review of the manuscript. 

References

ABB Environmental Services, Inc., 1995, Final fracture trace 

analysis report, Bucks Harbor Former Air Force Radar 

Tracking Station, Machiasport, Maine: Portland, Maine, 

Environmental Services, Inc.

ABB Environmental Services, Inc., 1997, Geophysical study 

for alternative water supply, Bucks Harbor Former Air 

Force Radar Tracking Station, Machiasport, Maine: 

Portland, Maine, Environmental Services, Inc., 76 p.

Berkowitz, B., Bear, J., and Braester, C., 1988, Continuum 

models for contaminant transport in fractured porous 

formations: Water Resources Research, v. 24, no. 8, 

p. 1225–1236. 

Borns, H.W. Jr., 1974, Surficial geology of the Machias quadrangle, Maine: Maine Geological Survey, Department of 

Conservation, Open File No. 74–4. 

Bradbury, K.R., and Rothschild, E.R., 1985, A computerized 

technique for estimating hydraulic conductivity of aquifers 

from specific capacity data: Ground Water, v. 23, no. 2, 

p. 240–245.

Bradley, P.M., 2003, History and ecology of choloroethene 

biodegradation—A review: Bioremediation Journal, v. 7, 

no. 2, p. 81–109. 

Chapelle, F.H., 1993, Ground-water microbiology and geochemistry: New York, N.Y., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 

424 p.

Cooper, H.H., Bredehoeft, J.D., and Papadopulos, I.S., 1967, 

Response of a finite-diameter well to an instantaneous 

charge of water: Water Resources Research, v. 3, no. 1, 

p. 263–269.

Endo, H.K., Long, J.C.S., Wilson, C.R., and Witherspoon, 

P.A., 1984, A model for investigating mechanical transport 

in fracture networks: Water Resources Research, v. 20, 

no. 10, p. 1390–1400. 

ENSR, 2006, Feasibility study, Bucks Harbor Former Air 

Force Radar Tracking Station, Machiasport Maine (preliminary draft), prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

New England District: Westford, Mass., ENSR AECOM, 

2 Technology Park Drive, Westford, Mass.

Freeze, R.A., and Cherry, J.A., 1979, Ground water: 

Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, Inc., 603 p.

Gates, Olcott, 1981, Bedrock geology of the Machias, 

Columbia Falls, and Great Wass Island quadrangles: Maine 

Geological Survey, Department of Conservation, Open File 

no. 81–11.

Gates, Olcott, and Moench, R.H., 1981, Bimodal Silurian and 

Lower Devonian volcanic rock assemblages in the MachiasEastport area, Maine: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 1184, 32 p., map at scale 1:62,500. 

Hem, J.D., 1985, Study and interpretation of the chemical 

characteristics of natural water (3d ed.): U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254, 263 p. 

Hess, A.E., and Paillet, F.L., 1990, Applications of the 

thermal-pulse flowmeter in the hydraulic characterization 

of fractured rocks: West Conshohocken, Pa., American 

Society for Testing and Materials, Standard Technical 

Publications 1101, p. 99–112.
74 Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006

Raven, K.G., and Gale, J.E., 1977, Project 740057, subsurface 

containment of solid radioactive waste—A study of the surface and subsurface structural and groundwater conditions 

at selected underground mines and excavation: Ottawa, 

Geological Survey of Canada, EMR-GSC-RW Internal 

Report 1–77, 105 p. 

Robinson, K.W., Flanagan, S.M., Ayotte, J.D., Campo, K.W., 

Chalmers, Ann, Coles, J.F., and Cuffney, T.F., 2004, Water 

quality in the New England Coastal Basins, Maine, New 

Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, 1999–2001: 

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1226, 38 p., available at 

http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/circ1226

Shapiro, A.M., 2001, Characterizing ground-water chemistry 

and hydraulic properties of fractured rock aquifers using the 

multifunction Bedrock-Aquifer Transportable Testing Tool 

(BAT3): U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS–075–01, 

4 p.

Shapiro, A.M., 2002, Cautions and suggestions for geochemical sampling in fractured rock: Ground Water Monitoring 

and Remediation, v. 22, no. 3, p. 151–164.

Shapiro, A.M., Hsieh, P.A., and Haeni, F.P., 1999, Integrating 

multidisciplinary investigations in the characterization of 

fractured rock, in Morganwalp, D.W., and Buxton, H.T., 

eds., U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology 

Program-Proceedings of the Technical Meeting, Charleston, 

South Carolina, March 8–12, 1999: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 99–4018C, v. 3, 

p. 669–680.

Terzaghi, R.D., 1965, Sources of error in joint surveys: 

Geotechnique, v. 15, p. 287–304.

The Johnson Company, 2006, Field report for spring 2006 

activities, Bucks Harbor Former Air Force Radar Tracking 

Station, Machiasport, Maine, volumes 1 and 2, prepared 

for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New England 

District under contract W912WJ-05-D0006 Task Order 1: 

Montpelier, Vt., The Johnson Company. 

Thompson, M.D., Miller, S.F., and Davies, W.E., 2005, 

Geophysical investigation of the Formerly Used Defense 

Site—Machiasport, Maine: Argonne, Ill., Energy Systems 

Division Argonne National Laboratory, Sponsor Report, 

141 p. 

Toth, J., 1963, A theoretical analysis of groundwater flow in 

small drainage basins: Journal of Geophysical Research, 

v. 68, p. 4795–4812.

Trainer, F.W., 1987, Hydrogeology of the plutonic and 

metamophic rocks, in Back, W., Rosenshein, J.S., and 

Seaber, P.R., eds., Hydrogeology: Boulder, Colo., 

Geological Society of America, The Geology of North 

America, v. O–2, p. 367–380.

Idronaut, Srl, 2006, Ocean Seven 303 CTD multi-parameter 

probe operator’s manual–v 7.1_05: Brugherio, Italy, 

Idronaut, 58 p.

Johnson, C.D., and Joesten, P.K., 2005, Analysis of boreholeradar reflection data from Machiasport, Maine, December 

2003: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2005–5087, 44 p.

Johnson, C.D., Kochiss, C.K., and Dawson, C.B., 2005, Use 

of discrete-zone monitoring systems for hydraulic characterization of a fractured-rock aquifer at the University of 

Connecticut landfill, Storrs, Connecticut, 1999 to 2002: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 03–4338, 105 p.

Keys, W.S., 1990, Borehole geophysics applied to groundwater investigations: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 2, chap. E2, 150 p. 

Leitch, R., and Clemens, D., 2006, Efficient approach determines nature, extents of TCE in a bedrock aquifer: The 

Corps Environment, January, v. 17, no. 1, p. 8–9.

Lohman, S.W., 1979, Ground-water hydraulics: U.S. 

Geological Survey Professional Paper 708, 70 p.

Long, J.C.S., Remer, J.S., Wilson, C.R., and Witherspoon, 

P.A., 1982, Porous media equivalents for networks of discontinuous fractures: Water Resources Research, v. 18, 

no. 3, p. 645–658.

Moore, R.B., 2004, Quality of water in the fractured bedrock 

aquifer of New Hampshire: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5093, 30 p.

Paillet, F.L., 1995, Using borehole flowmeter logging to optimize hydraulic test procedures in heterogeneous fractured 

aquifers: Hydrogeology Journal, v. 3, no. 3, p. 4–20.

Paillet, F.L., 1998, Flow modeling and permeability estimation 

using borehole flow logs in heterogeneous fractured formations: Water Resources Research, v. 34, no. 5, p. 997–1010. 

Paillet, F.L., 2000, A field technique for estimating aquifer 

parameters using flow log data: Ground Water, v. 38, no. 4, 

p. 510–521.

Paillet, F.L., 2004, Borehole flowmeter applications in 

irregular and large-diameter boreholes: Journal of Applied 

Geophysics, v. 55, no. 1–2, p. 4–39.

Pedler, W.H., Head, C.L., and Williams, L.L., 1992, 

Hydrophysical logging—A new wellbore technology for 

hydrogeologic and contaminant characterization of aquifers, 

in Sixth National Outdoor Action Conference, Proceedings: 

Westerville, Ohio, National Ground Water Association, 

p. 701–715. 
References 75

Tsang, C.F., Hufschmied, P., and Hale, F.V., 1990, Determi-

nation of fracture inflow parameters with a borehole fluid 

conductivity method: Water Resources Research, v. 26, 

no. 4, p. 561–578. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004, Howard Mountain site 

plan, prepared for the Formerly Used Defense Site Program: 

Concord, Mass., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New 

England District, 1 p.

Weston Solutions, 2005, Remedial investigation report 

former Bucks Harbor Air Force Radar Tracking Station, 

Machiasport, Maine: Manchester, N.H., Weston Solutions, 

617 p.

White, E.A., Thompson, M.D., Johnson, C.D., Abraham, 

J.D., Miller, S.F., and Lane, J.W. Jr., 2005, Surfacegeophysical investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, 

Machiasport, Maine—February 2003: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5099, 48 p.

Williams, J.H., and Conger, R.W., 1990, Preliminary delinea-

tion of contaminated water-bearing fractures intersected 

by open-hole bedrock wells: Ground Water Monitoring 

Review, v. 10, no. 4, p. 118–126.

Williams, J.H., and Johnson, C.D., 2004, Acoustic and optical 

borehole-wall imaging for fractured-rock aquifer studies: 

Journal of Applied Geophysics, v. 55, no. 1–2, p. 151–159.

Williams, J.H., Lapham, W.W., and Barringer, T.H., 1993, 

Application of electromagnetic logging to contamination 

investigations in glacial sand and gravel aquifers: Ground 

Water Monitoring and Remediation Review, v. 13, no. 3, 

p. 129–138.

Winter, T.C., Harvey, J.W., Franke, O.L., and Alley, W.M., 

1998, Ground water and surface water—A single resource: 

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1139, 79 p.
Appendixes

Explanation information for appendixes

Appendix 1. Borehole geophysical logs from boreholes on or near Miller 

Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine

Appendix 2. Borehole geophysical logs from boreholes near the Air Force Radar 

Tracking Station on Howard Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine

Appendix 3. Borehole geophysical logs from boreholes near the Transmitter Site

on Howard Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine

Appendix 4. Plots and interpretations of borehole geophysical logs collected by 

Geophysical Applications, Inc., for boreholes near Machiasport, 

Maine

Appendix 5. Plots and interpretations of borehole geophysical logs collected by 

Hager-Richter Geoscience, Inc., for boreholes near Machiasport, 

Maine

Appendix 6. Summary of structure interpreted from geophysical logs for 

boreholes near Machiasport, Maine
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Explanation Information for Appendixes 

Abbreviations on log plots: 

Acou Caliper, in inch 

ATV 

ATV Amp 

ATV Amp, in mV 

Azi 

Caliper, in inch 

deg 

dev 

DO 

Eh, in mV 

EMI Cond, in mmho/m 

Frax 

FRX 

gal/min 

gpm 

Fl Cond, in μS/cm 

Gamma, in CPS 

HPFM Amb, in gal/min 

HPFM Pump, in gal/min 

LH 

Lith 

ls 

Max 

Min 

Mtn 

O2 ppm 

OTV 

pH 

R8, in Ohm-m 

R16, in Ohm-m 

R32, in Ohm-m 

R64, in Ohm-m 

SP, in mV 

SP Cond, in μS/cm 

SPR, in Ohm 

Std. Dev. 

T-Frax 

tad 

Temp, in deg F 

TN 

toc 

tt 

Tx 

caliper measured by acoustic televiewer, in inches 

acoustic televiewer traveltime 

acoustic televiewer amplitude 

acoustic televiewer amplitude, in millivolts 

azimuth 

3-arm mechanical caliper, in inches 

degrees 

deviation 

dissolved oxygen 

electromotive potential, in millivolts 

electromagnetic induction conductivity, in millimhos per meter 

fracture 

fracture 

gallon(s) per minute 

gallon(s) per minute 

fluid conductivity, in microsiemens per centimeter 

natural gamma radiation, in counts per second 

heat-pulse flowmeter, under ambient conditions, in gallons per minute 

heat-pulse flowmeter, under pumped conditions, in gallons per minute 

lower hemisphere 

lithologic feature 

land surface 

maximum 

minimum 

Mountain 

dissolved oxygen, in parts per million 

optical televiewer image 

pH 

normal resistivity with electrode spacing of 8 inches, in ohm-meters 

normal resistivity with electrode spacing of 16 inches, in ohm-meters 

normal resistivity with electrode spacing of 32 inches, in ohm-meters 

normal resistivity with electrode spacing of 64 inches, in ohm-meters 

spontaneous potential, in millivolts 

specific conductivity, in microsiemens per centimeter 

single point resistance, in ohms 

standard deviation 

transmissive fracture 

tadpole 

temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit 

true north 

top of casing 

travel time 

transmissive 
 

 

Image log interpretation: 

Interpretations of structure from the image logs are shown in three forms, including projection, stereo, 

and tadpole plots. A consistent color code was used for all three plots. In addition, lithologic features are 

shown in the tadpole and stereoplots with squares, so as to distinguish them from interpreted fractures. 

Fractures interpreted as transmissive and shown with blue dots, were determined to be transmissive using 

the heat-pulse flowmeter. Transmissive fractures coded with blue squares were inferred to be 

transmissive from fluid conductivity, temperature, or other water-quality parameter logs. 
 

 

 

 

(A) Optical Televiewer (B) Structural Projection (C) Tadpole (D) Stereoplot 

N E S W N N E S W N 0 Dip, in degrees 90 (E) Rose diagram 

62 

64 

DEPTH, IN FEETBELOWTOPOFCASING 

63 

65 

61 

N 

N 

Example of interpretation of borehole imaging data: 

Figure. Example of interpretation of borehole imaging data. 

(A) Optical televiewer image and the corresponding interpretation of planar data in (B) structural, (C) tadpole, and 

(D) stereographic projection plots. The trace of the features on the structural projection (B) directly overlays on the 

image (A). In the tadpole plot (C), depth is plotted along the y axis, and the magnitude of dip is plotted on the x axis. 

The tail of the tadpole points in the direction of dip relative to True North, which is at the top of the page. The poles 

to the planar features are shown in a lower-hemisphere equal-area stereonet (stereoplot) (D), which reduces the plane 

to a point. (E) Rose diagram, which shows frequency of dip direction. 
 

 

Appendix 1. Borehole geophysical logs from 

boreholes on or near Miller Mountain, near 

Machiasport, Maine 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 1. 

Borehole geophysical logs from boreholes on or near Miller Mountain, near 

Machiasport, Maine 

A. Borehole MW-13 

Figure 1A–1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid 

temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, reduction oxidation, 

multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, and heatpulse flowmeter logs for borehole MW-13, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1A–2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-13, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 1A–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-13, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1A–3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole MW-13, near Machiasport, Maine. 

B. Borehole DW-22 

Figure 1B–1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid 

temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, reduction oxidation, 

multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, and heatpulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-22, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1B–2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-22, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 1B–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-22, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 1B–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole DW-22, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1B–3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole DW-22, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1B–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole 

DW-22, near Machiasport, Maine. 

C. Borehole DW-23 

Figure 1C–1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid 

temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, reduction oxidation, 

multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, and heatpulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-23, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1C–2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-23, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 1C–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-23, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 1C–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole DW-23, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1C–3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole DW-23, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1C–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole 

DW-23, near Machiasport, Maine. 

D. Borehole DW-24 

Figure 1D–1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid 

temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, reduction oxidation, 

multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, and heatpulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-24, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1D–2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-24, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 1D–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-24, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1D–3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole DW-24, near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1D–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole 

DW-24, near Machiasport, Maine. 

E. Borehole DW-25 

Figure 1E–1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid 

temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, reduction oxidation, 

multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, and heatpulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-25, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1E–2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-25, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 1E–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-25, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1E–3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole DW-25, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1E–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole 

DW-25, near Machiasport, Maine. 

F. Borehole DW-31 

Figure 1F–1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid 

temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, reduction oxidation, 

multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, and heatpulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-31, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1F–2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-31, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 1F–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-31, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 1F–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole DW-31, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1F–3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole DW-31, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1F–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole 

DW-31, near Machiasport, Maine. 

G. Borehole DW-32 

Figure 1G–1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid 

temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, reduction oxidation, 

multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, and heatpulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-32, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1G–2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-32, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 1G–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-32, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1G–3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole DW-32, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1G–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole 

DW-32, near Machiasport, Maine. 

H. Borehole DW-33 

Figure 1H–1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid 

temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, reduction oxidation, 

multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, and heatpulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-33, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1H–2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-33, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 1H–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-33, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1H–3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole DW-33, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1H–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole 

DW-33, near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. Borehole DW-34 

Figure 1I–1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid 

temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, reduction oxidation, 

multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, and heatpulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-34, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1I–2.	 Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-34, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Deviation (tilt) data interpolated from 95 to 295 feet below top of casing. 

Table 1I–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-34, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1I–3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data 

for borehole DW-34, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1I–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole 

DW-34, near Machiasport, Maine. 

J. Borehole DW-39 

Figure 1J–1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid 

temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, reduction oxidation, 

multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, and heatpulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-39, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1J–2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-39, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 1J–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-39, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1J–3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole DW-39, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1J–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole 

DW-39, near Machiasport, Maine. 

K. Borehole DW-40 

Figure 1K–1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid 

temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, reduction oxidation, 

multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, and heatpulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-40, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1K–2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-40, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 1K–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-40, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1K–3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole DW-40, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1K–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole 

DW-40, near Machiasport, Maine. 

L. Borehole WY-GATR 

Figure 1L–1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid 

temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, reduction oxidation, 

multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, and heatpulse flowmeter logs for borehole WY-GATR, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1L–2.	 Borehole deviation logs for borehole WY-GATR, near Machiasport, 

Maine. 

Table 1L–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole WY-GATR, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 1L–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole WY-GATR, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1L–3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole WY-GATR, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 1L–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole 

WY-GATR, near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

ATV Amp Temp 

49 52 deg F 

R8 

0 Ohm-m 1e+007 

R16 

0 Ohm-m 1e+007 

EMI Cond 

0 8 mmho/m 

Caliper 

3 5inch 

Fl Cond 

125 175 uS/cm 

SP 

0 1000 mV 

SP Cond

200 250 uS/cm 

HPFM Amb

-0.1 0.1 gal/min 

MW-13

Gamma 

0 300 CPS 

Acou Caliper

3 5inch 

HPFM Pump

-0.1 0.1 gal/min 

SPR 

0 Ohm 2e+006 

ATV 

ATV Amp 

0 1000mV 

O2 ppm 

0 1 

pH 

7 10 

Eh 

300 450 mV 

Bottom

of

Casing 

R32 & R64

Off-Scale 

0

10203040506070 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

 

 

 

Figure 1A-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole MW-13, near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

 

 

708090

100110120130140150 

Figure 1A-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole MW-13, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
160

170180190200210220 

 

 

 

Figure 1A-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole MW-13, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

 

True North 

0° 

270° 

FEET 

30° 

60° 

120° 

150° 

180° 

210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-4 -8 -12 -16 4 8 12 16 

-4 

-8 

-12 

-16 

4 

8 

12 

16 

90° 

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

increments between circles 

 

 

40
 

60
 

80
 

100
 

120
 

140
 

160
 

180
 

200
 

220
 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
 

Projection Along N58°E 

20 ft ATV 

0 4 8 12 16
 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL
 

 

 

 

Figure 1A-2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-13, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 1A–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-13, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 3.48 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

34.13 10.40 240 150 5 SW Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

36.22 11.04 64 334 51 NE Steep Partial fracture 

39.94 12.17 222 132 68 SW Steep Transmissive fracture, 

inferred from fluid logs 

40.18 12.25 242 152 53 SW Steep Minor fracture 

40.56 12.36 192 102 83 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

41.37 12.61 201 111 82 S Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture, 

inferred from fluid logs 

42.72 13.02 178 88 86 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

44.13 13.45 92 2 67 E Steep Minor fracture 

44.14 13.45 194 104 78 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

44.45 13.55 72 342 70 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

45.75 13.94 86 356 58 E Steep Minor fracture 

45.92 14.00 200 110 89 S Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

47.70 14.54 89 359 55 E Steep Minor fracture 

48.12 14.67 99 9 62 E Steep Minor fracture 

48.60 14.81 272 182 85 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

48.77 14.86 96 6 65 E Steep Minor fracture 

49.25 15.01 203 113 85 SW Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture, 

inferred from fluid logs 

50.72 15.46 200 110 82 S Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture, 

inferred from fluid logs 

51.92 15.82 96 6 64 E Steep Minor fracture 

52.23 15.92 211 121 73 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

52.57 16.02 230 140 69 SW Steep Minor fracture 

53.33 16.25 123 33 82 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

54.53 16.62 224 134 83 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

55.49 16.91 209 119 82 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

57.55 17.54 209 119 88 SW Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

62.95 19.19 233 143 12 SW Shallow Possible fracture 

64.12 19.54 115 25 11 SE Shallow Possible fracture 

68.78 20.96 42 312 59 NE Steep Minor fracture 

77.34 23.57 116 26 23 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

79.62 24.27 250 160 31 W Moderate Possible fracture 

80.00 24.38 241 151 36 SW Moderate Possible fracture 

83.00 25.30 236 146 80 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

84.69 25.81 209 119 76 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

90.88 27.70 261 171 5 W Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

90.98 27.73 256 166 59 W Steep Minor fracture 

93.85 28.60 279 189 57 W Steep Minor fracture 

96.44 29.39 128 38 51 SE Steep Minor fracture 

103.44 31.53 293 203 59 NW Steep Minor fracture 

105.49 32.15 235 145 78 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

109.33 33.32 288 198 29 W Shallow Minor fracture 

116.43 35.49 274 184 30 W Shallow Minor fracture 

126.07 38.42 7 277 16 N Shallow Minor fracture 

132.82 40.48 77 347 87 E Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

133.49 40.69 252 162 88 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

135.86 41.41 285 195 22 W Shallow Minor fracture 

138.68 42.27 289 199 22 W Shallow Minor fracture 

144.98 44.19 237 147 80 SW Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture, 

inferred from fluid logs 

145.52 44.35 221 131 77 SW Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture, 

inferred from fluid logs 

147.65 45.00 236 146 38 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

148.55 45.28 30 300 82 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 1A–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-13, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below 

top of casing, which is 3.48 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike] 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

151.29 46.11 224 134 83 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

153.69 46.84 249 159 66 W Steep Minor fracture 

154.80 47.18 292 202 47 W Moderate Minor fracture 

157.13 47.89 110 20 37 E Moderate Lithlogic/foliation 

158.53 48.32 253 163 75 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

158.89 48.43 233 143 74 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

160.24 48.84 79 349 31 E Moderate Minor fracture 

160.53 48.93 93 3 33 E Moderate Minor fracture 

163.90 49.95 266 176 69 W Steep Minor fracture 

164.89 50.26 233 143 59 SW Steep Minor fracture 

166.75 50.82 221 131 76 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

168.02 51.21 213 123 74 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

168.08 51.23 117 27 27 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

169.28 51.59 211 121 70 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

170.22 51.88 203 113 71 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

171.27 52.20 198 108 71 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

173.29 52.82 223 133 75 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

174.34 53.14 198 108 62 S Steep Minor fracture 

175.68 53.54 273 183 88 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

181.72 55.39 212 122 76 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

183.30 55.87 210 120 74 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

184.70 56.29 25 295 75 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

190.73 58.13 128 38 41 SE Moderate Transmissive fracture, 

inferred from fluid logs 

191.44 58.35 226 136 73 SW Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture, 

inferred from fluid logs 

193.14 58.87 237 147 67 SW Steep Transmissive fracture, 

inferred from fluid logs 

193.32 58.92 279 189 46 W Moderate Minor fracture 

195.23 59.50 239 149 79 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

195.62 59.62 236 146 77 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

197.00 60.04 226 136 74 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

197.02 60.05 89 359 66 E Steep Minor fracture 

199.07 60.67 314 224 22 NW Shallow Minor fracture 

202.75 61.80 253 163 76 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

204.35 62.28 184 94 84 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

204.41 62.30 84 354 50 E Steep Minor fracture 

206.16 62.83 248 158 70 W Steep Minor fracture 

207.43 63.22 244 154 80 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

211.21 64.37 200 110 78 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

212.89 64.89 234 144 75 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

213.75 65.15 224 134 69 SW Steep Minor fracture 

216.52 65.99 129 39 38 SE Moderate Minor fracture 

217.58 66.32 81 351 18 E Shallow Minor fracture 

219.57 66.92 121 31 32 SE Moderate Minor fracture 

220.90 67.33 71 341 42 E Moderate Minor fracture 
 

 

ATV 

MW-13 Miller Mountain Ground/Air Transmitter Receiver site, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

0° 

180° 

140 

150 

160 

170 

180 

190 

Figure 1A-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole MW-13, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

200 

210 

220 

Figure 1A-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole MW-13, 

near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

 

 

 

Figure 1B-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-22, near Machiasport, Maine. ATV Amp OTV Televiewers Caliper 4 8inch DW-22 Acou Caliper 0 20 inch HPFM Amb -0.5 0.5 gal/min HPFM Pump -0.5 0.5 gal/min R8 0 25000 Ohm-m R16 0 25000 Ohm-m R32 0 25000 Ohm-m R64 0 25000 Ohm-m EM Cond 0 300 mmho/m Temp 44 53 deg F Fl Cond 100 600 uS/cm O2ppm 0 1 ppm SP 0 1000 mV Gamma 0 300 CPS pH 4 7 Eh 0 400 mV SPR 0 2000 Ohm ATV Amp 0 3000mV OTV 203040

506070 

Bottom

of

Casing 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 
80

90

100110 

 

 

 

Figure 1B-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-22, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

Projection Along N250°E 0
 

10
 

20
 

30
 

40
 

50
 

60
 

70
 

80
 

90
 

100
 

110 

1.1 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
 

-0.3 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 

 

 

True North 

0°
 

FEET 

30° 

60° 

120° 

150° 

180° 

210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-0.5 0.5 

-0.5 

0.5 

270° 90° 

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

increments between circles 

20 ft ATV 

20 ft OTV 

 

 

 

Figure 1B-2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-22, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer; OTV, optical televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1B–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-22, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 0.34 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, Depth, Dip Strike, Dip Dip Dip descriptor Comment in feet in meters azimuth in RHR direction 

22.71 6.92 0 270 0 N Horizontal Bottom of casing 

23.08 7.03 63 333 66 NE Steep Transmissive fracture 

44.66 13.61 94 4 80 E Nearly vertical Fracture 

48.17 14.68 180 90 21 S Shallow Minor fracture 

51.92 15.82 230 140 39 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

56.25 17.14 256 166 68 W Steep Minor fracture 

82.89 25.26 208 118 27 SW Shallow Transmissive fracture 

90.52 27.59 242 152 81 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

95.08 28.98 49 319 78 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

99.02 30.18 261 171 14 W Shallow Fracture 

99.26 30.25 264 174 25 W Shallow Lithologic feature 

104.54 31.86 255 165 72 W Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

Table 1B–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole DW-22, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 0.34 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

22.46 6.85 5 275 0 N Horizontal Bottom of casing 

23.31 7.10 349 259 9 N Nearly horizontal Transmissive, 

not well defined fracture 

23.32 7.11 72 342 62 E Steep Transmissive, 

not well defined fracture 

28.40 8.66 343 253 52 N Steep Lithologic feature 

32.89 10.02 311 221 79 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

44.35 13.52 82 352 81 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

48.08 14.65 77 347 11 E Shallow Minor fracture 

55.49 16.91 86 356 51 E Steep Minor fracture 

59.64 18.18 180 90 11 S Shallow Lithologic feature 

63.51 19.36 203 113 78 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

69.03 21.04 166 76 18 S Shallow Lithologic feature 

75.39 22.98 184 94 10 S Shallow Lithologic feature 

82.59 25.17 199 109 27 S Shallow Transmissive fracture 

84.12 25.64 168 78 14 S Shallow Lithologic feature 

88.20 26.88 141 51 16 SE Shallow Lithologic feature 

92.15 28.09 225 135 86 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

98.88 30.14 251 161 16 W Shallow Minor fracture 

99.04 30.19 222 132 32 SW Moderate Lithologic feature 

102.54 31.25 182 92 35 S Moderate Sealed feature 

104.39 31.82 248 158 70 W Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

105.29 32.09 164 74 22 S Shallow Sealed feature 
ATV 

DW-22 Miller Mountain Ground/Air Transmitter Receiver site, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV-Tadpole OTV

0 90 

OTV-Tadpole 

0 90 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

OTV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING

0° 

180° 

0° 

180° 

Figure 1B-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole DW-22, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
 INTERPRETATION OF FLOWMETER DATA AND INPUT VALUES FOR FWRAP

Elevation of measuring point 60 feet
 

Number of fractures 2
 

Well diameter 6 inches
 

Drawdown 5.6 feet
 

 Depth to ambient water level 6.7 feet
 

Ambient Pumped 

Fracture Depth flowabove flowabove

number (ft) fracture fracture 

(gal/min) (gal/min) 

2 22.5 0.00 0.50 

1 82.5 -0.10 0.10

 MODELED OUTPUT RESULTS FROM FWRAP

 Elevation, ambient water level 53.30 feet 

 Elevation, pumped water level 47.70 feet 

Ambient Pumped Elevation Zone trans- Percent Fracture Depth flowabove flowabove Water of water missivity trans­ number (ft) fracture fracture level(ft) level (ft2

/d) missivity (gal/min) (gal/min) (ft) 

2 22.5 0.000 0.524 11.66 5.08 54.92 63 

1 82.5 -0.099 0.104 6.82 9.48 50.52 37 

 Totalborehole transmissivity 18.5 (ft 2

/d) 

Sum of squares error 0.00060 (gal/min)2 

 Rootmean square error 0.01737 (gal/min) 

 

 

 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

-0.15 0 0.15 

D EPT H BEL O W T OP O F C ASI NG, IN FEET 

FLOW, IN GAL/MIN 

Ambient Flow Profile 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120 

-0.6 

D EPT H BEL O W T OP O F C ASI NG, IN FEET 

F

Pumpe

Dashed line indicates measured flow.

Solid line indicates modeled flow.

Points indicate measured heat-pulse flowmeter data.

Figure 1B–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-22, near Machiasport, Maine.

[gal/min, gallon per minute; ft, feet; ft2/d, feet squared per day; positive values of flow are upward flow, negative values of flow are downward flow]
OTV ATV Amp

Televiewers Caliper 

5 7inch 

DW-23 Temp 

44 45 deg F

Fl Cond 

200 300 uS/cm 

Acou Caliper

0 20 inch 

HPFM Amb 

0 5 gal/min

Pump Overflow

0 5.4 gal/min

HPFM Pump 

0 0.5 gal/min 

R8 

0 50000 Ohm-m

R16 

0 50000 Ohm-m

R32 

0 50000 Ohm-m 

EMI Cond 

0 200 mmho/m 

Gamma 

0 300 CPS 

SP Cond 

200 400 uS/cm 

SP 

200 1000 mV

 OTV O2ppm 

0 0.2 ppm

pH 

6 10 

SPR 

0 12000 Ohm 

Eh 

260 360 mV 

ATV Amp 

0 2000mV 

10203040506070 

Overflowing

well at

4 gal/min 

R64

Off Scale Bottom

of

Casing 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 1C-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-23, near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

 

 8090 100 110

120130140150 

Figure 1C-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-23, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

 

 

160170180 

Figure 1C-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-23, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

0.0 0.5 1.0 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
 

 

 

True North 

0°
 

270° 90° 

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

increments between circles 

30° 

60° 

120° 

150° 210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

FEET 

-0.50 0.50 

0.50 

-0.50 

180° 20 ft ATV 

20 ft OTV 

 

 

 

Projection Along N240°E 

Figure 1C-2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-23 near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer; OTV, optical televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

Table 1C–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-23, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 1.95 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

23.09 7.04 184 94 31 S Moderate Minor fracture 

23.50 7.16 183 93 18 S Shallow Fabric 

27.37 8.34 195 105 54 S Steep Minor fracture 

32.22 9.82 241 151 20 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

32.48 9.90 237 147 19 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

34.00 10.36 198 108 14 S Shallow Possible fracture 

35.61 10.85 196 106 24 S Shallow Minor fracture 

37.50 11.43 269 179 71 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

39.09 11.91 258 168 74 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

43.28 13.19 156 66 14 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

45.87 13.98 228 138 37 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

49.73 15.16 221 131 59 SW Steep Minor fracture 

50.71 15.46 229 139 56 SW Steep Fabric 

53.98 16.45 167 77 12 S Shallow Minor fracture 

57.15 17.42 243 153 41 SW Moderate Fabric 

58.68 17.88 237 147 32 SW Moderate Fabric 

64.67 19.71 177 87 22 S Shallow Possible fracture 

68.43 20.86 230 140 17 SW Shallow Possible fracture 

72.60 22.13 183 140 13 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

74.91 22.83 231 141 64 SW Steep Minor fracture 

81.67 24.89 210 120 12 SW Shallow Possible fracture 

83.58 25.47 254 164 74 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

83.95 25.59 245 155 71 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

86.60 26.39 317 227 81 NW Nearly vertical Fabric 

89.91 27.40 192 102 22 S Shallow Possible fracture 

91.27 27.82 224 134 22 SW Shallow Possible fracture 

94.22 28.72 175 85 25 S Shallow Minor fracture 

98.31 29.96 235 145 84 SW Nearly vertical Fabric 

100.73 30.70 178 88 19 S Shallow Minor fracture 

108.83 33.17 225 135 81 SW Nearly vertical Fabric 

111.69 34.04 202 112 13 S Shallow Fracture 

111.88 34.10 147 57 29 SE Shallow Possible fracture 

113.94 34.73 268 178 77 W Nearly vertical Fabric 

116.33 35.46 280 190 78 W Nearly vertical Fabric 

117.77 35.89 232 142 16 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

128.20 39.07 214 124 26 SW Shallow Fabric 

129.27 39.40 172 82 11 S Shallow Minor fracture 

129.75 39.55 290 200 26 W Shallow Minor fracture 

131.94 40.21 260 170 76 W Nearly vertical Fabric 

132.47 40.37 249 159 80 W Nearly vertical Fabric 

132.93 40.52 257 167 18 W Shallow Minor fracture 

134.94 41.13 182 92 14 S Shallow Minor fracture 

135.69 41.36 16 286 49 N Moderate Fabric 

137.59 41.94 57 327 64 NE Steep Fabric 

139.31 42.46 246 156 74 SW Nearly vertical Fabric 

140.55 42.84 240 150 67 SW Steep Lithologic feature 

145.34 44.30 268 178 48 W Moderate Fabric 

148.35 45.21 268 178 30 W Moderate Fabric 

149.14 45.46 178 88 31 S Moderate Fabric 

150.77 45.95 263 173 81 W Nearly vertical Fabric 

155.65 47.44 254 164 62 W Steep Fabric 

161.24 49.14 243 153 84 SW Nearly vertical Fabric 

161.56 49.24 172 82 23 S Shallow Possible fracture 

162.58 49.55 289 199 68 W Steep Fabric 
 

 

 

 

Table 1C–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-23, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below 

top of casing, which is 1.95 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike] 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

164.22 50.05 0 270 27 N Shallow Minor fracture 

164.72 50.20 87 357 21 E Shallow Fracture 

165.15 50.34 72 342 40 E Moderate Fabric 

165.86 50.55 50 320 24 NE Shallow Fracture 

166.68 50.80 241 151 38 SW Moderate Fabric 

167.75 51.13 195 105 30 S Moderate Fabric 

170.64 52.01 15 285 67 N Steep Minor fracture 

173.66 52.93 259 169 40 W Moderate Minor fracture 

174.20 53.09 339 249 31 N Moderate Minor fracture 

175.16 53.39 285 195 62 W Steep Fracture 

177.12 53.98 189 99 30 S Moderate Transmissive fracture 
 

 

 

 

Table 1C–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole DW-23, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 1.95 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

23.09 7.04 184 94 31 S Moderate Minor fracture 

23.50 7.16 183 93 18 S Shallow Fabric or foliation 

27.37 8.34 195 105 54 S Steep Minor fracture 

32.22 9.82 241 151 20 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

32.48 9.90 237 147 19 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

34.00 10.36 198 108 14 S Shallow Possible fracture 

35.61 10.85 196 106 24 S Shallow Minor fracture 

37.50 11.43 269 179 71 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

39.09 11.91 258 168 74 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

43.28 13.19 156 66 14 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

45.87 13.98 228 138 37 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

49.73 15.16 221 131 59 SW Steep Minor fracture 

50.71 15.46 229 139 56 SW Steep Fabric or foliation 

53.98 16.45 167 77 12 S Shallow Minor fracture 

57.15 17.42 243 153 41 SW Moderate Fabric or foliation 

58.68 17.88 237 147 32 SW Moderate Fabric or foliation 

64.67 19.71 177 87 22 S Shallow Possible fracture 

68.43 20.86 230 140 17 SW Shallow Possible fracture 

74.91 22.83 231 141 64 SW Steep Minor fracture 

81.67 24.89 210 120 12 SW Shallow Possible fracture 

83.58 25.47 254 164 74 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

83.95 25.59 245 155 71 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

86.60 26.39 317 227 81 NW Nearly vertical Fabric or foliation 

89.91 27.40 192 102 22 S Shallow Possible fracture 

91.27 27.82 224 134 22 SW Shallow Possible fracture 

94.22 28.72 175 85 25 S Shallow Minor fracture 

98.31 29.96 235 145 84 SW Nearly vertical Fabric or foliation 

100.73 30.70 178 88 19 S Shallow Minor fracture 

108.83 33.17 225 135 81 SW Nearly vertical Fabric or foliation 

111.69 34.04 202 112 13 S Shallow Fracture 

111.88 34.10 147 57 29 SE Shallow Possible fracture 

113.94 34.73 268 178 77 W Nearly vertical Fabric or foliation 

116.33 35.46 280 190 78 W Nearly vertical Fabric or foliation 

117.77 35.89 232 142 16 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

128.20 39.07 214 124 26 SW Shallow Fabric or foliation 

129.27 39.40 172 82 11 S Shallow Minor fracture 

129.75 39.55 290 200 26 W Shallow Minor fracture 

131.94 40.21 260 170 76 W Nearly vertical Fabric or foliation 

132.47 40.37 249 159 80 W Nearly vertical Fabric or foliation 

132.93 40.52 257 167 18 W Shallow Minor fracture 

134.94 41.13 182 92 14 S Shallow Minor fracture 

135.69 41.36 16 286 49 N Moderate Fabric or foliation 

137.59 41.94 57 327 64 NE Steep Fabric or foliation 

139.31 42.46 246 156 74 SW Nearly vertical Fabric or foliation 

140.55 42.84 240 150 67 SW Steep Lithologic feature 

145.34 44.30 268 178 48 W Moderate Fabric or foliation 

148.35 45.21 268 178 30 W Moderate Fabric or foliation 

149.14 45.46 178 88 31 S Moderate Fabric or foliation 

150.77 45.95 263 173 81 W Nearly vertical Fabric or foliation 

155.65 47.44 254 164 62 W Steep Fabric or foliation 

161.24 49.14 243 153 84 SW Nearly vertical Fabric or foliation 

161.56 49.24 172 82 23 S Shallow Possible fracture 

162.58 49.55 289 199 68 W Steep Fabric or foliation 
 

 

 

 

Table 1C–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole DW-23, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below 

top of casing, which is 1.95 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike] 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

164.22 50.05 0 270 27 N Shallow Minor fracture 

164.72 50.20 87 357 21 E Shallow Fracture 

165.15 50.34 72 342 40 E Moderate Fabric or foliation 

165.86 50.55 50 320 24 NE Shallow Fracture 

166.68 50.80 241 151 38 SW Moderate Fabric or foliation 

167.75 51.13 195 105 30 S Moderate Fabric or foliation 

170.64 52.01 15 285 67 N Steep Minor fracture 

173.66 52.93 259 169 40 W Moderate Minor fracture 

174.20 53.09 339 249 31 N Moderate Minor fracture 

175.16 53.39 285 195 62 W Steep Fracture 

177.12 53.98 189 99 30 S Moderate Transmissive fracture 
 

 

 

DW-23 Miller Mountain Ground/Air Transmitter Receiver site, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

OTV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

ATV ATV-Tadpole OTV 

0 90 

OTV-Tadpole 

0 90 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

140 

150 

160 

170 

180 

0° 

180° 

0° 

180° 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 1C-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole DW-23, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
MODELED OUTPUT RESULTS FROM FWRAP

Elevation, ambient water level 52.70 feet 

Elevation, pumped water level 51.40 feet 

Ambient Pumped Elevation Zone trans- Percent Fracture Depth flow above flow above Water of water missivity trans­ number (ft) fracture fracture level (ft) level (ft2

/d) missivity (gal/min) (gal/min) (ft) 

3 94.5 3.939 5.388 69.00 6.88 53.12 45 

2 150 3.916 4.725 24.00 6.98 53.02 16 

1 177.6 3.918 4.484 60.00 -4.52 64.52 39 

Total borehole transmissivity 153.0 (ft2

/d) 

Sum of squares error 2.74000 (gal/min)2 

Root mean square error 0.82800 (gal/min) 

 

 

 

 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200 

0 6 

DEPT H BEL OW T OP OF C ASI NG , IN FEET 

UPWARD FLOW, IN GAL/MIN 

Ambient Flow Profile 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200 

4 

D EPT H B ELO W T O P O F CASI N G, IN FEET 

Pumped Flow 

UPWARD FLOW

Measured directly at overflow

Measured flowmeter

values adjusted to 

rate at overflow 

INTERPRETATION OF FLOWMETER DATA AND INPUT VALUES FOR FWRAP

Elevation of measuring point 60 feet
 

Number of fractures 3
 

Well diameter 6 inches
 

Drawdown 1.3 feet
 

Depth to ambient water level 7.3 feet
 

Ambient Pumped 

Fracture Depth flow above flow above

number (ft) fracture fracture 

(gal/min) (gal/min) 

3 94.5 4.00 5.40 

2 150 4.00 4.70 

1 177.6 4.000 4.460

Dashed line indicates measured flow.

Solid line indicates modeled flow.

Points indicate measured heat-pulse flowmeter data.

Figure 1C–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-23, near Machiasport, Maine.

[gal/min, gallon per minute; ft, feet; ft2/d, feet squared per day; positive values of flow are upward flow, negative values of flow are downward flow]
 
 

 

 

 Amp TT Acoustic Televiewer Caliper 5 10 inch EMI Cond 0 30 mmho/m Temp 50 52 deg F ATV R8 0 20000 Ohm-m R16 0 20000 Ohm-m R32 0 20000 Ohm-m R64 0 20000 Ohm-m Fl Cond 100 300 uS/cm HPFM Pump -1 1 gal/min O2ppm 0 1 ppmpH 7 10 DW-24 Acou Caliper 3 12 inch Gamma 0 300 CPS SP 0 1200 mV SPR 0 12000 Ohm SP Cond 100 300 uS/cm Eh 0 500 mV ATV Amp 0 1200mV 

0

102030405060 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

HPFM

Ambient

Not Shown

(Flow affected

by other wells) 

Figure 1D-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-24, near Machiasport, Maine. 
70

8090

100110120130140150 

Bottom

of

Casing 

 

 

 

Figure 1D-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-24, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

 

 150 160 170 180 190 

Figure 1D-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-24, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

0
 

20
 

40
 

60
 

80
 

100
 

120
 

140
 

160
 

180
 

200
 

0 1 2 3 4 5
 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL
 

 

 

True North 

0° 

270° 

30° 

60° 

120° 

150° 

180° 

210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-4 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4

-1 

-2 

-3 

-4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

FEET 

90° 

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

increments between circles 

20 ft ATV 

Projection Along N55°E 

20 ft OTV 

 

 

 

Figure 1D-2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-24, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer; OTV, optical televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

Table 1D–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-24, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 1.52 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

72.53 22.11 0 270 0 N Horizontal Foliation 

74.28 22.64 256 166 82 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

77.85 23.73 83 353 78 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

78.68 23.98 88 358 75 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

81.38 24.80 71 341 80 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

82.70 25.21 273 183 55 W Steep Minor fracture 

83.42 25.43 259 169 85 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

85.22 25.97 234 144 79 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

85.91 26.18 67 337 72 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

88.17 26.87 69 339 68 E Steep Minor fracture 

89.80 27.37 74 344 69 E Steep Minor fracture 

90.83 27.68 259 169 74 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

92.92 28.32 68 338 30 E Shallow Minor fracture 

93.44 28.48 56 326 76 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

95.73 29.18 207 117 60 SW Steep Minor fracture 

97.74 29.79 65 335 40 NE Moderate Fracture 

98.89 30.14 55 325 61 NE Steep Minor fracture 

99.26 30.25 61 331 72 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

100.84 30.73 214 124 34 SW Moderate Fracture 

101.64 30.98 65 335 74 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

102.91 31.37 47 317 46 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

105.61 32.19 329 239 78 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

106.32 32.40 176 86 63 S Steep Fracture 

106.86 32.57 247 157 64 SW Steep Minor fracture 

108.56 33.09 56 326 54 NE Steep Fracture 

108.88 33.19 232 142 15 SW Shallow Fracture 

114.12 34.78 74 344 12 E Shallow Minor fracture 

114.20 34.81 67 337 63 NE Steep Minor fracture 

119.73 36.49 205 115 6 SW Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

121.40 37.00 85 355 61 E Steep Minor fracture 

122.38 37.30 326 236 68 NW Steep Minor fracture 

122.88 37.45 318 228 59 NW Steep Minor fracture 

123.59 37.67 59 329 49 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

124.20 37.85 55 325 42 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

124.94 38.08 72 342 46 E Moderate Minor fracture 

125.49 38.25 57 327 25 NE Shallow Minor fracture 

126.22 38.47 51 321 40 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

126.82 38.65 59 329 48 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

126.83 38.66 254 164 66 W Steep Minor fracture 

130.74 39.85 273 183 71 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

137.02 41.76 258 168 78 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

138.00 42.06 54 324 62 NE Steep Minor fracture 

140.82 42.92 230 140 64 SW Steep Minor fracture 

141.62 43.16 70 340 57 E Steep Minor fracture 

141.78 43.21 270 180 69 W Steep Minor fracture 

142.08 43.30 74 344 69 E Steep Minor fracture 

147.82 45.05 236 146 49 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

149.75 45.64 50 320 67 NE Steep Minor fracture 

154.58 47.11 259 169 73 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

155.70 47.46 74 344 76 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

157.29 47.94 267 177 54 W Steep Minor fracture 

160.53 48.93 109 19 24 E Shallow Minor fracture 

161.71 49.29 209 119 21 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

163.72 49.90 62 332 22 NE Shallow Minor fracture 

164.94 50.27 239 149 79 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 
 

 

 

 

Table 1D–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-24, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below 

top of casing, which is 1.52 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike] 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

166.80 50.84 210 120 12 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

168.10 51.23 158 68 22 S Shallow Minor fracture 

169.11 51.54 212 122 56 SW Steep Fracture 

171.30 52.21 173 83 55 S Steep Minor fracture 

173.92 53.01 57 327 50 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

176.45 53.78 55 325 49 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

177.75 54.18 237 147 14 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

179.59 54.74 256 166 25 W Shallow Minor fracture 

179.82 54.81 215 125 74 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

180.06 54.88 46 316 71 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

181.46 55.31 48 318 24 NE Shallow Minor fracture 

183.51 55.93 101 11 26 E Shallow Transmissive fracture 

184.30 56.17 251 161 42 W Moderate Minor fracture 

185.64 56.58 164 74 19 S Shallow Minor fracture 

187.48 57.14 149 59 13 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

188.99 57.60 208 118 56 SW Steep Minor fracture 

189.21 57.67 220 130 58 SW Steep Minor fracture 

189.82 57.85 266 176 15 W Shallow Minor fracture 
 

 

 

DW-24 Miller Mountain Ground/Air Transmitter Receiver site, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

ATV ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

140 

150 

160 

170 

180 

190 

0° 

180° 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 1D-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole DW-24, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

 

 

 MODELED OUTPUT RESULTS FROM FWRAP

 Elevation, ambient water level 50.20 feet 

 Elevation, pumped water level 49.70 feet 

Ambient Pumped Elevation Zone trans- Water Percent Fracture Depth flowabove flowabove of water missivity level trans­ number (ft) fracture fracture level (ft2

/d) (ft) missivity (gal/min) (gal/min) (ft) 

1 182.0 0.0 0.81 306.0 9.80 50.20 100 

 Totalborehole transmissivity 306.0 (ft 2

/d) 

Sum of squares error 0.000 (gal/min)2 

 Rootmean square error 0.006 (gal/min) 

 

 

 

INTERPRETATION OF FLOWMETER DATA AND INPUT VALUES FOR FWRAP

Elevation of measuring point 60 feet
 

Number of fractures 1
 

Well diameter 6 inches
 

Drawdown 0.5 feet
 

Depth to ambient water level 9.8 feet
 

Ambient Pumped 

Fracture Depth flow above flow above

number (ft) fracture fracture 

(gal/min) (gal/min) 

1 182.0 0.00 0.82

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200 

-0.2 0 0.2 

DEPT H BELO W T O P OF CASI N G , IN FEET 

FLOW, IN GAL/MIN 

Ambient Flow Profile 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200 

-1.2 

DEPT H BELO W T O P OF CASI N G , IN FEET 

Pump

Dashed line indicates measured flow.

Solid line indicates modeled flow.

Points indicate measured heat-pulse flowmeter data.

Figure 1D–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-24, near Machiasport, Maine.

[gal/min, gallon per minute; ft, feet; ft2/d, feet squared per day; positive values of flow are upward flow, negative values of flow are downward flow]
Temp 

50 51 deg F 

HPFM AMB 

0 4 gal/min

HPFM PUMP 

0 4 gal/min 

DW-25

Gamma 

0 100 CPS 

R8 

0 20000 Ohm-m

R16 

0 20000 Ohm-m

R32 

0 20000 Ohm-m

R64 

0 20000 Ohm-m 

EMI Cond 

0 30 mmho/m

SP 

0 1000 mV 

O2ppm 

0 2ppm 

Caliper 

5 7inch 

SPR 

0 12000 Ohm

 ATV Amp ATV 

Acou Caliper

0 20 inch 

pH 

6 12 

Eh 

200 500 mV 

Fl Cond 

100 150 uS/cm 

ATV Amp 

0 3000mV 

RI

JDOPLQ

scaleNote

0 to 4 

10203040506070 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 1E-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-25, near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

 

 8090 100 110

120130140 

Bottom

of

Casing 

Figure 1E-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-25, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
G

 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASIN 20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

0.0 0.5 1.0 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 

 

 

True North 

0° 

Depth along borehole in 16.

increments between circles 

16.5 ft ATV 

30° 

60° 

90° 

120° 

150° 

180° 

210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-0.5 0.5 

-0.5 

0.5 

270° 

FEET 

Projection Along N10°E 

5-ft 

 

 

 

Figure 1E-2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-25, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 1E–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-25, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 0.78 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

81.38 24.80 227 137 1 SW Nearly horizontal Bottom of casing 

81.40 24.81 227 137 2 SW Nearly horizontal Other 

81.64 24.88 214 124 80 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

84.01 25.60 201 111 78 S Nearly vertical Large fracture 

92.28 28.13 90 0 52 E Steep Minor fracture 

92.33 28.14 238 148 56 SW Steep Minor fracture 

93.79 28.59 250 160 66 W Steep Minor fracture 

96.89 29.53 281 191 77 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

99.28 30.26 76 346 68 E Steep Minor fracture 

100.58 30.66 72 342 77 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

106.15 32.35 330 240 82 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

106.37 32.42 130 40 72 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

110.80 33.77 249 159 77 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

111.28 33.92 250 160 78 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

114.79 34.99 241 151 81 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

115.84 35.31 33 303 61 NE Steep Minor fracture 

116.07 35.38 266 176 54 W Steep Minor fracture 

116.65 35.55 65 335 74 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

118.50 36.12 84 354 79 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

119.63 36.46 212 122 63 SW Steep Minor fracture 

121.01 36.88 85 355 83 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

121.88 37.15 231 141 44 SW Moderate Large fracture 

122.83 37.44 249 159 28 W Shallow Minor fracture 

123.60 37.67 322 232 78 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

123.77 37.72 88 358 72 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

125.06 38.12 43 313 54 NE Steep Minor fracture 

125.24 38.17 92 2 80 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

127.95 39.00 43 313 53 NE Steep Transmissive fracture 

129.98 39.62 11 281 43 N Moderate Minor fracture 

131.73 40.15 156 66 74 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

131.97 40.22 351 261 77 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

135.29 41.23 49 319 52 NE Steep Transmissive fracture 

137.90 42.03 80 350 81 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

138.22 42.13 2 272 63 N Steep Transmissive fracture 

141.30 43.07 275 185 12 W Shallow Lithologic feature 

141.91 43.25 310 220 76 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 
 

 

 

ATV 

DW-25 Miller Mountain Ground/Air Transmitter Receiver site, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV - Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

140 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

0° 

180° 

Figure 1E-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole DW-25, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

 

 

 MODELED OUTPUT RESULTS FROM FWRAP

 Elevation, ambient water level 38.50 feet 

 Elevation, pumped water level 36.04 feet 

Ambient Pumped Elevation Zone trans- Water Percent Fracture Depth flowabove flowabove of water missivity level trans­ number (ft) fracture fracture level (ft2

/d) (ft) missivity (gal/min) (gal/min) (ft) 

2 128.0 1.816 3.671 40.5 0.82 39.18 31 

1 138.0 1.686 2.922 89.1 -2.18 42.18 69 

 Totalborehole transmissivity 129.6 (ft 2

/d) 

Sum of squares error 25.98 (gal/min)2 

 Rootmean square error 2.94 (gal/min) 

 

 

 

 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

-6 

DEPT H B EL O W T OP OF C ASI NG, I N F EET 

FLOW, I

Pumped Flow 

140

160 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

-6 0 6 

DEPTH B ELOW TOP OF C ASIN G , IN FEET 

FLOW, IN GAL/MIN 

Ambient Flow Profile 

Outflow at top 

of borehole 

140

160

INTERPRETATION OF FLOWMETER DATA AND INPUT VALUES FOR FWRAP

Elevation of measuring point 40 feet
 

Number of fractures 3
 

Well diameter 6 inches
 

Drawdown 2.46 feet
 

Depth to ambient water level 1.5 feet
 

Ambient Pumped 

Fracture Depth flow above flow above

number (ft) fracture fracture 

(gal/min) (gal/min) 

2 128.0 1.80 3.70 

1 138.0 1.80 3.00

Dashed line indicates measured flow.

Solid line indicates modeled flow.

Points indicate measured heat-pulse flowmeter data.

Figure 1E–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-25, near Machiasport, Maine.

Uppermost fracture used to simulate overflow at the top of casing is not shown in model results.

[gal/min, gallon per minute; ft, feet; ft2/d, feet squared per day; positive values of flow are upward flow, negative values of flow are downward flow]
Figure 1F-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-31, near Machiasport, Maine. OTV ATV Amp Televiewers HPFM Amb -0.5 0.5 gal/min Caliper 5 7inch Acou Caliper 0 15 inch DW-31 HPFM Pump -0.5 0.5 gal/min Temp 42.5 43.5 deg F Fl Cond 130 150 uS/cm EMI Cond 0 200 mmho/m SP 0 300 mV R32 0 1e+009 Ohm-m R64 0 1e+009 Ohm-m OTV ATV Gamma 0 300 CPS SPR 0 100000 Ohm ATV Amp 0 3000mV 

0

10203040506070 

Bottom

of

Casing 

R8 & R16

Off-Scale 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 
70

8090

100110120130140150 

Water

Level 

Figure 1F-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-31, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
160

170180190200210220230 Ambient

Outflow 

Pumping

Inflow 

Figure 1F-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-31, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
240 

Figure 1F-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-31, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
True North 

0° 

270° 90°

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

increments between circles 

20 ft ATV 

20 ft OTV 

Projection Along N45°E 

0 1 2 3 4
 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 


FEET 

30° 

60° 

120° 

150° 

180° 

210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-3 -2 -1 1 2 3

-1 

-2 

-3 

1 

2 

3 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

200 

220 

0 

240 

Figure 1F-2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-31, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer; OTV, optical televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1F–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-31, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 2.2 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike;
 

--, orientation of fracture could not be determined]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

134.79 41.08 265 175 1 W Nearly horizontal Water level

138.22 42.13 96 6 22 E Shallow Minor fracture

146.02 44.50 97 7 76 E Nearly vertical Fracture

156.48 47.69 117 27 60 SE Steep Minor fracture

162.19 49.43 148 58 52 SE Steep Minor fracture

176.45 53.78 159 69 47 S Moderate Minor fracture

182.70 55.68 352 262 57 N Steep Minor fracture

186.06 56.71 5 275 19 N Shallow Minor fracture

194.09 59.16 341 251 50 N Steep Minor fracture

195.91 59.71 213 123 81 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture

199.02 60.66 130 40 52 SE Steep Minor fracture

200.53 61.12 134 44 47 SE Moderate Minor fracture

201.33 61.36 326 236 47 NW Moderate Minor fracture

204.79 62.42 299 209 10 NW Shallow Minor fracture

207.10 63.12 296 206 53 NW Steep Minor fracture

212.38 64.73 202 112 18 S Shallow Minor fracture

220.86 67.31 107 17 79 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture

228.64 69.69 341 251 53 N Steep Possible fracture

230.54 70.27 228 138 30 SW Shallow Possible fracture

231.56 70.58 244 154 66 SW Steep Minor fracture

233.56 71.19 -- -- -- -- Horizontal Transmissive fracture

Table 1F–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole DW-31, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 2.2 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

17.00 5.18 346 256 1 N Nearly horizontal Bottom of casing

26.02 7.93 18 288 72 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture

33.01 10.06 175 85 38 S Moderate Minor fracture

34.96 10.66 309 219 62 NW Steep Minor fracture

37.35 11.38 285 195 74 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture

37.62 11.47 117 27 43 SE Moderate Minor fracture

43.27 13.19 325 235 65 NW Steep Minor fracture

48.65 14.83 292 202 81 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture

70.53 21.50 256 166 75 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture

72.86 22.21 103 13 59 E Steep Minor fracture

77.36 23.58 237 147 75 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture

84.46 25.74 279 189 70 W Nearly vertical Fracture

87.19 26.57 215 125 0 SW Nearly horizontal Minor fracture

96.25 29.34 237 147 56 SW Steep Minor fracture

112.63 34.33 108 18 23 E Shallow Minor fracture

119.93 36.55 272 182 15 W Shallow Minor fracture

134.36 40.95 262 172 1 W Nearly horizontal Water level
DW-31 Miller Mountain Ground/Air Transmitter Receiver site, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

OTV-Stereonet 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

ATV-Tadpole OTV

0 90 

OTV-Tadpole 

0 90 

ATV 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

140 

150 

160 

170 

0° 

180°

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 1F-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole DW-31, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
180 

190 

200 

210 

220 

230 

240 

0° 

180° 

Transmissive fracture 

plotted as horizontal. 

Could not determine 

strike and dip of this 

feature. 

Figure 1F-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole DW-31, 

near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

 

 

 MODELED OUTPUT RESULTS FROM FWRAP

 Elevation, ambient water level 73.55 feet 

 Elevation, pumped water level 67.37 feet 

Ambient Pumped Elevation Zone trans- Water Percent Fracture Depth flowabove flowabove of water missivity level trans­ number (ft) fracture fracture level (ft2

/d) (ft) missivity (gal/min) (gal/min) (ft) 

2 146 0 0.327 0.80 134.45 73.55 8 

1 235 0 0.295 9.40 134.45 73.55 92 

 Totalborehole transmissivity 10.2 (ft 2

/d) 

Sum of squares error 0.00008 (gal/min)2 

 Rootmean square error 0.00627 (gal/min) 

 

 

 

 

INTERPRETATION OF FLOWMETER DATA AND INPUT VALUES FOR FWRAP

Elevation of measuring point 208 feet
 

Number of fractures 2
 

Well diameter 6 inches
 

Drawdown 6.18 feet
 

Depth to ambient water level 134.45 feet
 

Ambient Pumped 

Fracture Depth flow above flow above

number (ft) fracture fracture 

(gal/min) (gal/min) 

2 146 0.0 0.32 

1 235 0 0.30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

-0.15 0 0.15 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW T OP OF CASING 

FLOW, IN GAL/MIN 

Ambient Flow Profile

All measured 

downflow

attributed to 

tidal influence 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300 

-0.5 

DEPT H, IN FEET BELO W T O P O F CASIN G 

FLO

Pumped 

Dashed line indicates measured flow.

Solid line indicates modeled flow.

Points indicate measured heat-pulse flowmeter data.

Figure 1F–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-31, near Machiasport, Maine.

[gal/min, gallon per minute; ft, feet; ft2/d, feet squared per day; positive values of flow are upward flow, negative values of flow are downward flow]
 

 

 

 Caliper 5 8inch ATV Amp Acou Caliper 0 20 inch HPFM Amb -0.6 0.6 gal/min HPFM Pump -0.6 0.6 gal/min DW-32 Gamma 0 300 CPS ATV Temp 44 49 deg F O2ppm 0 4 ppm Fl Cond 50 100 US/CM SP Cond 50 125 uS/cm R32 0 1e+009 Ohm-m R64 0 1e+009 Ohm-m EMI Cond 0 120 mmho/m SP 0 1000 mV pH 5 10 Eh 200 400 mV SPR 0 40000 Ohm ATV Amp 0 2000mV 2030

4050607080 

R8 and R16

Off-Scale 

Bottom

of

Casing 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 1G-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-32, near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

 

 

8090

100 

Figure 1G-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-32, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

 

 

 

 

True North 

0° 

30° 

60° 

120° 

150° 210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-0.5 0.5 

-0.5 

0.5 

FEET 

270° 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

180° 

Projection Along N330°E 

90° 

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

increments between circles 

20 ft ATV 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
 

-0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 

 

 

 

Figure 1G-2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-32, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

Table 1G–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-32, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 1.4 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike;
 

--, no measurement]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

17.00 5.18 336 246 0 -­ Horizontal Water level 

23.61 7.20 89 359 89 E Nearly vertical Bottom of casing 

24.04 7.33 232 132 59 SW Steep Transmissive fracture 

26.33 8.02 231 141 68 SW Steep Transmissive fracture 

26.38 8.04 171 81 20 S Shallow Transmissive fracture 

35.46 10.81 128 38 66 SE Steep Minor fracture 

36.50 11.12 124 34 22 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

66.75 20.34 197 107 47 S Moderate Minor fracture 

71.47 21.78 282 192 15 W Shallow Transmissive fracture 

79.09 24.11 263 173 70 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

86.86 26.47 268 178 26 W Shallow Minor fracture 

89.73 27.35 256 166 23 W Shallow Transmissive fracture 

90.16 27.48 190 100 33 S Moderate Fracture 

92.84 28.30 281 191 88 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

97.53 29.73 271 181 65 W Steep Minor fracture 

97.63 29.76 260 170 2 W Nearly horizontal Lithologic feature 

99.10 30.20 339 249 27 N Shallow Lithologic feature 

99.36 30.28 272 182 70 W Steep Minor fracture 

100.96 30.77 336 246 38 NW Moderate Lithologic feature 
 

 

ATV 

DW-32 Miller Mountain Ground/Air Transmitter Receiver site, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

0° 

180° 

Figure 1G-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole DW-32, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

 

 

 MODELED OUTPUT RESULTS FROM FWRAP

 Elevation, ambient water level 44.96 feet 

 Elevation, pumped water level 44.75 feet 

Ambient Pumped Elevation Zone trans- Water Percent Fracture Depth flowabove flowabove of water missivity level trans­ number (ft) fracture fracture level (ft2

/d) (ft) missivity (gal/min) (gal/min) (ft) 

3 26.0 0.000 0.570 82.5 16.95 45.05 16 

2 71.0 -0.045 0.422 99.0 17.04 44.96 19 

1 89.7 -0.046 0.299 330.0 17.07 44.93 65 

 Totalborehole transmissivity 511.5 (ft 2

/d) 

Sum of squares error 0.00116 (gal/min)2 

 Rootmean square error 0.01967 (gal/min) 

 

 

 

INTERPRETATION OF FLOWMETER DATA AND INPUT VALUES FOR FWRAP

Elevation of measuring point 62 feet
 

Number of fractures 3
 

Well diameter 6 inches
 

Drawdown 0.21 feet
 

Depth to ambient water level 17.04 feet
 

Ambient Pumped 

Fracture Depth flow above flow above

number (ft) fracture fracture 

(gal/min) (gal/min) 

3 26 0.000 0.600 

2 71 -0.045 0.410 

1 89.7 -0.046 0.310

0

20

40

60

80

-0.7 

DEPT H B ELO W T O P OF CASI NG, IN F EET 

FLOW, 

Pumped Flo

100

120 

0

20

40

60

80

-0.2 0 0.2 

DEPT H B ELO W T O P OF CASI NG, IN F EET 

FLOW, IN GAL/MIN 

Ambient Flow Profile 

100

120

Dashed line indicates measured flow.

Solid line indicates modeled flow.

Points indicate measured heat-pulse flowmeter data.

Figure 1G–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-32, near Machiasport, Maine.

[gal/min, gallon per minute; ft, feet; ft2/d, feet squared per day; positive values of flow are upward flow, negative values of flow are downward flow]
 
Amp TT

Acoustic Televiewer ATV Caliper 

6 8inch 

R8 

0 10000 Ohm-m

R16 

0 10000 Ohm-m

R32 

0 10000 Ohm-m

R64 

0 10000 Ohm-m 

EMI Cond 

0 15 mmho/m

SP 

600 1000 mV

SPR 

0 12000 Ohm 

O2ppm 

0 2 ppm

pH 

8 10 

Temp 

50 51.5 Deg F

Fl Cond 

0 350 uS/cm

SP Cond 

0 350 uS/cm 

HPFM Ambient

-0.55 0.55 gal/min

HPFM Pumping

-0.55 0.55 gal/min 

DW-33

Gamma 

0 100 CPS 

Acou Caliper

5 8inch 

Eh 

-400 100 mV 

ATV Amp 

0 3000mV 

203040506070 

Bottom of casing at 34.0 ft 

Bottom

of

Casing 

Inflow at

Fracture 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 1H-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-33, near Machiasport, Maine. 
80 

Figure 1H-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-33, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
True North 

0° 

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

increments between circles 

20 ft ATV

FEET 

30° 

60° 

90° 

120° 

150° 

180° 

210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-0.5 0.5

-0.5 

0.5 

270° 

Projection Along N180°E 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

0 

-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 

Figure 1H-2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-33, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

Table 1H–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-33, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 1.98 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

33.98 10.36 76.5 347 1 E Nearly horizontal Bottom of casing

34.69 10.57 177.1 87 58 S Steep Minor fracture

34.80 10.61 8.04 278 84 N Nearly vertical Partial trace of fracture

36.92 11.25 299.26 209 63 NW Steep Fracture

37.77 11.51 115.16 25 48 SE Moderate Minor fracture

39.24 11.96 57.77 328 69 NE Steep Transmissive fracture

39.31 11.98 327.19 237 25 NW Shallow Minor fracture

40.87 12.46 190.17 100 64 S Steep Transmissive fracture

41.40 12.62 170.65 81 31 S Moderate Transmissive fracture

45.84 13.97 5.82 276 52 N Steep Minor fracture

46.56 14.19 156.18 66 42 SE Moderate Minor fracture

48.49 14.78 331.43 241 51 NW Steep Minor fracture

53.12 16.19 142.8 53 42 SE Moderate Fracture

54.82 16.71 166.14 76 37 S Moderate Minor fracture

56.36 17.18 58.37 328 74 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture

57.86 17.63 334.96 245 38 NW Moderate Minor fracture

60.59 18.47 210.52 121 52 SW Steep Minor fracture

61.92 18.87 266.33 176 57 W Steep Fracture

66.15 20.16 170.87 81 54 S Steep Minor fracture

66.40 20.24 295.33 205 80 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture

70.84 21.59 201.04 111 68 S Steep Fracture

75.00 22.86 202.83 113 60 SW Steep Minor fracture

75.91 23.14 56.81 327 54 NE Steep Minor fracture

76.57 23.34 217.87 128 49 SW Moderate Minor fracture

78.21 23.84 196.49 106 60 S Steep Minor fracture

79.24 24.15 189.56 100 66 S Steep Minor fracture

79.74 24.30 180.92 91 30 S Shallow Minor fracture
DW-33 Miller Mountain Ground/Air Transmitter Receiver site, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

0° 

180°

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 1H-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole DW-33, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

 

 

 MODELED OUTPUT RESULTS FROM FWRAP

 Elevation, Ambient water level 48.83 feet 

 Elevation, Pumped water level 47.86 feet 

Ambient Pumped Elevation Zone trans- Percent Fracture Depth flowabove flowabove Water of water missivity trans­ number (ft) fracture fracture level(ft) level (ft2

/d) missivity (gal/min) (gal/min) (ft) 

2 34.0 0.000 0.506 14.0 3.97 48.830002 14 

1 41.0 0.000 0.420 84.0 3.97 48.830002 86 

 Totalborehole transmissivity 98.0 (ft 2

/d) 

Sum of squares error 0.000 (gal/min)2 

 Rootmean square error 0.004 (gal/min) 

 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 

-1 0 1 

DEPTH BELOW TOP OF CASING, IN FEET 

FLOW, IN GAL/MIN 

Ambient Flow Profile 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 

-1 

DEPT H BELOW T OP OF CASING, IN FEET 

FL

Pumpe

Dashed line indicates measured flow.

 

 

INTERPRETATION OF FLOWMETER DATA AND INPUT VALUES FOR FWRAP

Elevation of Measuring Point 52.8 feet
 

Number of fractures 2
 

Well Diameter 6 inches
 

Drawdown 0.97 feet
 

Depth to Ambient Water Level 3.97 feet
 

Ambient Pumped 

Fracture Depth flow above flow above

number (ft) fracture fracture 

(gal/min) (gal/min) 

2 34.0 0.00 0.50 

1 41.0 0.00 0.42

Solid line indicates modeled flow.

Points indicate measured heat-pulse flowmeter data.

Figure 1H–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-33, near Machiasport, Maine.

[gal/min, gallon per minute; ft, feet; ft2/d, feet squared per day; positive values of flow are upward flow, negative values of flow are downward flow]
 

 

 

 TT Amp Acoustic Televiewer 1ft:150ft Temp Amb 40 50 Deg F EMI Cond 0 200 mmho/m SP 0 5000 mV R32 0 3e+009 Ohm-m HPFM amb -0.3 0.3 gal/min R64 0 3e+009 Ohm-m HPFM pump -0.3 0.3 gal/min ATV Fl Cond Amb 80 200 uS/cm Temp PP 40 51 deg F SPR 0 200000 Ohm Caliper 5 8inch Acou Cal 0 20 inch DW-34 Gamma 0 600 CPS Fl Cond PP 80 200 uS/cm ATV Amp 0 3000mV 2030

40506070 

R8 & R16

Off-Scale 

Bottom

of

Casing 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 1I-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-34, near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

 

 8090 100 110

120130140150

160 

Figure 1I-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-34, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
160

170180190200210220230240 

 

 

 

Figure 1I-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-34, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
250

260270280290300310 

 

 

 

Figure 1I-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-34, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
True North 

0° 

270° 90°

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

increments between circles 

20 ft ATV 

Projection Along N210°E 

FEET 

30° 

60° 

120° 

150° 

180° 

210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-2-3 -1 1 2 3

-1 

-2 

-3 

1 

2 

3 

0
 

30
 

60
 

90
 

120
 

150
 

180
 

210
 

240
 

270
 

300
 

4
 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 


TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
 

0 1 2 3 

Figure 1I-2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-34, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom). Deviation (tilt) data interpolated from 95 to 295 feet below top of casing. 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer] 
 

 

 

 

Table 1I–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-34, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 2.25 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike;
 

--, no measurement]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

40.50 12.34 -­ -­ -­ -­ -­ Bottom of casing 

40.87 12.46 72 342 66 E Steep Transmissive fracture 

42.67 13.01 72 342 67 E Steep Minor fracture 

45.16 13.76 80 350 65 E Steep Minor fracture 

60.73 18.51 188 98 63 S Steep Minor fracture 

66.71 20.33 91 1 58 E Steep Minor fracture 

74.21 22.62 94 4 61 E Steep Minor fracture 

82.59 25.17 131 41 57 SE Steep Minor fracture 

82.92 25.27 326 236 78 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

93.85 28.60 74 344 63 E Steep Minor fracture 

98.79 30.11 134 44 56 SE Steep Minor fracture 

103.94 31.68 199 109 75 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

115.01 35.05 317 227 67 NW Steep Minor fracture 

132.14 40.27 118 28 49 SE Moderate Minor fracture 

136.34 41.55 164 74 28 S Shallow Minor fracture 

145.83 44.45 95 5 61 E Steep Transmissive fracture 

146.80 44.74 87 357 62 E Steep Minor fracture 

151.78 46.26 310 220 85 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

152.42 46.46 280 190 73 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

154.62 47.13 97 7 26 E Shallow Minor fracture 

156.02 47.55 335 245 73 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

157.06 47.87 324 234 74 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

159.30 48.55 355 265 74 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

160.48 48.91 351 261 72 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

165.62 50.48 352 262 65 N Steep Minor fracture 

188.05 57.31 12 282 84 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

212.39 64.73 112 22 14 E Shallow Minor fracture 

240.87 73.41 239 149 23 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

286.45 87.31 326 236 74 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

287.13 87.51 308 218 75 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

295.53 90.07 284 194 62 W Steep Minor fracture 

296.44 90.35 290 200 61 W Steep Minor fracture 

304.42 92.78 178 88 62 S Steep Minor fracture 

309.17 94.23 57 327 60 NE Steep Minor fracture 
 

 

 

DW-34 Miller Mountain Ground/Air Transmitter Receiver site, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

140 

150 

160 

170 

180 

190 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

0° 

180° 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 1I-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole DW-34, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
200 

210 

220 

230 

240 

250 

260 

270 

280 

290 

300 

310 

Figure 1I-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole DW-34, 

near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

 

 

 MODELED OUTPUT RESULTS FROM FWRAP

 Elevation, ambient water level 58.50 feet 

 Elevation, pumped water level 52.35 feet 

Ambient Pumped Elevation Zone trans- Percent Fracture Depth flowabove flowabove Water of water missivity trans­ number (ft) fracture fracture level(ft) level (ft2

/d) missivity (gal/min) (gal/min) (ft) 

3 40.5 0.000 0.262 6.00 8.65 58.25 75 

2 145 0.009 0.084 1.50 7.65 59.25 19 

1 210 0.002 0.022 0.48 7.65 59.25 6 

 Totalborehole transmissivity 8.0 (ft 2

/d) 

Sum of squares error 0.00003 (gal/min)2 

 Rootmean square error 0.00298 (gal/min) 

 

 

 

INTERPRETATION OF FLOWMETER DATA AND INPUT VALUES FOR FWRAP

Elevation of measuring point 66.9 feet
 

Number of fractures 3
 

Well diameter 6 inches
 

Drawdown 6.15 feet
 

Depth to ambient water level 8.4 feet
 

Ambient Pumped 

Fracture Depth flow above flow above

number (ft) fracture fracture 

(gal/min) (gal/min)
 

3 40.5 0.000 0.260
 

2 145 0.010 0.080
 

1 210 0.000 0.020

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350 

-0.5 

DEPT H BELOW T O P OF CASI N G , IN FEET 

FLOW

Pumped F

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

-0.15 0 0.15 

DE PTH BELO W TOP O F CAS I NG, IN FEET 

FLOW, IN GAL/MIN 

Ambient Flow Profile 

Dashed line indicates measured flow.

Solid line indicates modeled flow.

Points indicate measured heat-pulse flowmeter data.

Figure 1I–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-34, near Machiasport, Maine.

[gal/min, gallon per minute; ft, feet; ft2/d, feet squared per day; positive values of flow are upward flow, negative values of flow are downward flow]
 

 

 

 

Figure 1J-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-39, near Machiasport, Maine. Caliper 5 8inch ATV Amp Acou Caliper 0 20 inch ATV DW-39 Temp 40 50 deg F Fl Cond 45 65 uS/cm SP Cond 80 110 uS/cm HPFM Amb -0.5 0.5 gal/min HPFM Pump -0.5 0.5 gal/min R32 0 2e+009 Ohm-m R64 0 2e+009 Ohm-m SP 0 1000 mV SPR 0 100000 Ohm Gamma 0 300 CPS ATV Amp 0 3000mV 

0

10203040506070 

Bottom

of

Casing 

R8 and R16

Off-Scale 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 
 

 

 

708090

100110120130140150 

Figure 1J-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-39, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
160

170180190200210220 

 

 

 

Figure 1J-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-39, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
True North 

0° 

270° 90° 

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

increments between circles 

20 ft ATV 

Projection Along N140°E 

30° 

60° 

120° 

150° 

180° 

210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-4 -1-2-3 1 2 3 FEET

-1 

-2 

-3 

-4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
 20
 

40
 

60
 

80
 

100
 

120
 

140
 

160
 

180
 

200
 

220
 

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5
 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 


Figure 1J-2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-39, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

Table 1J–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-39, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 2.18 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

20.14 6.14 0 270 0 N Horizontal Bottom of casing 

24.93 7.60 57 327 81 NE Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

28.88 8.80 122 32 80 SE Nearly vertical Large fracture 

29.03 8.85 291 201 82 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

30.56 9.31 113 23 75 SE Nearly vertical Large fracture 

33.77 10.29 168 78 35 S Moderate Minor fracture 

35.52 10.83 191 101 12 S Shallow Minor fracture 

37.13 11.32 232 142 31 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

49.50 15.09 59 329 38 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

63.37 19.31 18 288 30 N Shallow Minor fracture 

72.03 21.95 164 74 25 S Shallow Minor fracture 

74.74 22.78 259 169 25 W Shallow Transmissive fracture 

82.49 25.14 101 11 69 E Steep Minor fracture 

88.06 26.84 132 42 56 SE Steep Minor fracture 

89.88 27.39 133 43 57 SE Steep Large fracture 

90.19 27.49 128 38 59 SE Steep Transmissive fracture 

97.01 29.57 320 230 67 NW Steep Minor fracture 

106.28 32.39 305 215 35 NW Moderate Large fracture 

108.66 33.12 274 184 39 W Moderate Lithologic feature 

111.29 33.92 281 191 75 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

113.60 34.62 87 357 34 E Moderate Minor fracture 

121.14 36.92 310 220 68 NW Steep Minor fracture 

135.49 41.30 243 153 39 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

159.77 48.70 276 186 18 W Shallow Minor fracture 

167.11 50.93 136 46 81 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

176.22 53.71 295 205 55 NW Steep Lithologic feature 

177.85 54.21 19 289 10 N Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

184.20 56.14 110 20 36 E Moderate Minor fracture 

191.42 58.34 247 157 75 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

191.56 58.38 76 346 66 E Steep Minor fracture 

193.51 58.98 76 346 53 E Steep Minor fracture 

194.13 59.17 67 337 64 NE Steep Minor fracture 
 

 

 

DW-39 Miller Mountain Ground/Air Transmitter Receiver site, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

ATV ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

140 

150 

160 

170 

0° 

180° 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 1J-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole DW-39, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
180 

190
 

200
 

210
 

220
 

Figure 1J-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole DW-39,
 

near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued
 
 

 

 

 MODELED OUTPUT RESULTS FROM FWRAP

 Elevation, ambient water level 118.33 feet 

 Elevation, pumped water level 112.50 feet 

Ambient Pumped Elevation Zone trans- Percent Fracture Depth flowabove flowabove Water of water missivity trans­ number (ft) fracture fracture level(ft) level (ft2

/d) missivity (gal/min) (gal/min) (ft) 

3 31.0 0.000 0.486 1.6 -3.81 133.81 9 

2 75.0 -0.127 0.309 13.0 12.19 117.81 70 

1 90.0 -0.087 0.024 4.0 16.19 113.81 22 

 Totalborehole transmissivity 18.6 (ft 2

/d) 

Sum of squares error 0.00046 (gal/min)2 

 Rootmean square error 0.01236649 (gal/min) 

 

 

 

0

50

100

150

200

250 

-0.7 

DEPT H B ELO W T OP OF CASI NG, I N F EET 

F

Pumpe

0

50

100

150

200

250

-0.15 0 0.15 

DEPT H B ELO W T OP OF CASI NG, I N F EET 

FLOW, IN GAL/MIN 

Ambient Flow Profile 

INTERPRETATION OF FLOWMETER DATA AND INPUT VALUES FOR FWRAP

Elevation of measuring point 130 feet
 

Number of fractures 3
 

Well diameter 6 inches
 

Drawdown 5.83 feet
 

Depth to ambient water level 11.67 feet
 

Ambient Pumped 

Fracture Depth flow above flow above

number (ft) fracture fracture 

(gal/min) (gal/min) 

3 31 0.000 0.500 

2 75 -0.130 0.310 

1 90 -0.090 0.040

Dashed line indicates measured flow.

Solid line indicates modeled flow.

Points indicate measured heat-pulse flowmeter data.

Figure 1J–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-39, near Machiasport, Maine.

[gal/min, gallon per minute; ft, feet; ft2/d, feet squared per day; positive values of flow are upward flow, negative values of flow are downward flow]
 

 

 

 Amp TT Acoustic Televiewer EMI Cond 0 3000 mmho/m Caliper 5 9inch Temp 50 51 deg F HPFM Amb -0.4 0.4 gal/min Acou Caliper 0 20 inch HPFM Pump -0.4 0.4 gal/min Fl Cond Amb 150 250 uS/cm Fl Cond PP 150 250 uS/cm DW-40 Gamma 0 200 CPS R32 0 1e+009 Ohm-m R64 0 1e+009 Ohm-m ATV SP 500 1000 mV SPR 0 60000 Ohm ATV Amp 0 3000mV 203040

50607080 

R8 & R16

Off-Scale 

Bottom

of

Casing 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 1K-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-40, near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

 

 90 100 110 120

130140150160170 

Figure 1K-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-40, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

 

 180 190 200 210

220230240 

Figure 1K-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-40, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
True North 

0° 

90° 270° 

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

increments between circles 

20 ft ATV 

30° 

60° 

120° 

150° 

180° 

210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-4 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3

-1 

-2 

-3 

-4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

4 

FEET 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING


0
 

20
 

40
 

60
 

80
 

100
 

120
 

140
 

160
 

180
 

200
 

220
 

240
 

Projection Along N270°E 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 

Figure 1K-2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-40, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

Table 1K–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-40, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 2.45 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

30.68 9.35 207 117 1 SW Nearly horizontal Other 

31.31 9.54 256 166 62 W Steep Minor fracture 

31.50 9.60 17 287 60 N Steep Minor fracture 

32.76 9.98 19 289 70 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

34.29 10.45 6 276 72 N Nearly vertical Fracture 

43.62 13.29 198 108 25 S Shallow Fracture 

45.49 13.86 146 56 57 SE Steep Lithologic feature 

50.03 15.25 248 158 45 W Moderate Minor fracture 

53.63 16.35 226 136 36 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

56.58 17.24 178 88 67 S Steep Minor fracture 

60.43 18.42 211 121 37 SW Moderate Fracture 

60.73 18.51 209 119 35 SW Moderate Lithologic feature 

61.08 18.62 197 107 49 S Moderate Minor fracture 

63.16 19.25 308 218 44 NW Moderate Fracture 

65.65 20.01 104 14 78 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

67.70 20.63 68 338 74 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

68.77 20.96 269 179 79 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

74.14 22.60 11 281 68 N Steep Minor fracture 

80.83 24.64 301 211 48 NW Moderate Minor fracture 

81.97 24.98 103 13 77 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

82.90 25.27 315 225 79 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

84.00 25.60 339 249 69 N Steep Minor fracture 

102.42 31.22 319 229 27 NW Shallow Minor fracture 

107.34 32.72 240 150 72 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

112.31 34.23 24 294 49 NE Moderate Transmissive fracture 

113.47 34.58 351 261 75 N Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

114.40 34.87 241 151 67 SW Steep Transmissive fracture 

117.06 35.68 214 124 68 SW Steep Minor fracture 

125.92 38.38 227 137 11 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

132.13 40.27 43 313 9 NE Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

132.98 40.53 135 45 10 SE Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

135.11 41.18 89 359 13 E Shallow Minor fracture 

137.08 41.78 199 109 44 S Moderate Minor fracture 

140.57 42.84 116 26 40 SE Moderate Minor fracture 

144.01 43.89 247 157 75 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

146.11 44.53 311 221 83 NW Nearly vertical Fracture 

149.12 45.45 55 325 82 NE Nearly vertical Fracture 

154.88 47.21 298 208 34 NW Moderate Minor fracture 

174.77 53.27 320 230 55 NW Steep Minor fracture 

175.83 53.59 227 137 51 SW Steep Minor fracture 

176.02 53.65 246 156 58 SW Steep Minor fracture 

176.63 53.83 241 151 46 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

178.82 54.50 285 195 48 W Moderate Fracture 

189.94 57.89 241 151 50 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

205.77 62.72 320 230 70 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

212.00 64.61 152 62 67 SE Steep Minor fracture 

215.29 65.62 233 143 40 SW Moderate Transmissive fracture 

216.43 65.96 293 203 69 NW Steep Minor fracture 

218.68 66.65 267 177 78 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

223.76 68.20 271 181 63 W Steep Minor fracture 

224.70 68.49 266 176 68 W Steep Minor fracture 

226.70 69.09 254 164 66 W Steep Minor fracture 

230.82 70.35 271 181 73 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

230.98 70.40 88 358 14 E Shallow Minor fracture 

231.58 70.58 67 337 45 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

232.56 70.88 78 348 81 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

236.52 72.09 355 265 60 N Steep Minor fracture 

236.64 72.12 327 237 27 NW Shallow Minor fracture 
 

 

 

DW-40 Miller Mountain Ground/Air Transmitter Receiver site, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

DW-40 ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

140 

150 

160 

170 

180 

0° 

180° 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 1K-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole DW-40, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
190 

200
 

210
 

220
 

230
 

240
 

Figure 1K-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole DW-40,
 

near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued
 
 

 

 

 MODELED OUTPUT RESULTS FROM FWRAP

 Elevation, Ambient water level 92.00 feet 

 Elevation, Pumped water level 88.46 feet 

Ambient Pumped Elevation Zone trans- Percent Fracture Depth flowabove flowabove Water of water missivity trans­ number (ft) fracture fracture level(ft) level (ft2

/d) missivity (gal/min) (gal/min) (ft) 

3 34 0 0.44 12.0 0.56 92.00 57 

2 112 0 0.20 3.0 0.56 92.00 14 

1 215 0 0.13 6.0 0.56 92.00 29 

 Totalborehole transmissivity 21.0 (ft 2

/d) 

Sum of squares error 0.000 (gal/min)2 

 Rootmean square error 0.008 (gal/min) 

 

 

 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300 

-0.4 0 0.4 

D EPT H BEL OW T OP O F C ASI NG, IN FEET 

FLOW, IN GAL/MIN 

Ambient Flow Profile 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300 

-0.5 

D EPT H BEL OW T OP O F C ASI NG, IN FEET 

FL

Pumpe

INTERPRETATION OF FLOWMETER DATA AND INPUT VALUES FOR FWRAP

Elevation of Measuring Point 92.56 feet
 

Number of fractures 3
 

Well Diameter 6 inches
 

Drawdown 3.54 feet
 

Depth to Ambient Water Level 0.56 feet
 

Ambient Pumped 

Fracture Depth flow above flow above

number (ft) fracture fracture 

(gal/min) (gal/min) 

3 34 0.0 0.450 

2 112 0.0 0.207 

1 215 0.0 0.134

Dashed line indicates measured flow.

Solid line indicates modeled flow.

Points indicate measured heat-pulse flowmeter data.

Figure 1K–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-40, near Machiasport, Maine.

[gal/min, gallon per minute; ft, feet; ft2/d, feet squared per day; positive values of flow are upward flow, negative values of flow are downward flow]
 

 

 

 

Figure 1L-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole WY-GATR, near Machiasport, Maine. ATV Amp OTV Televiewer Temp Amb 48 51 deg F WY-GATR Fl Cond Amb 58 62 uS/cm EMI Cond 0 1500 mmho/m SP 0 1000 mV Gamma 0 150 CPS HPFM Amb -1.25 1.25 gal/min HPFM Inject -1.25 1.25 gal/min Temp P.I. 48 51 deg F Cond P.I. 90 160 uS/cm OTV ATV Caliper 5 8 inch ATV Amp 0 3000mV O2ppm 0 2ppmpH 7.5 8 SPR 0 300000 Ohm Eh 200 500mV Acou Caliper 0 15 inch 20304050

6070 

R8, R16,

R32, R64

All

Off-Scale 

Bottom

of

Casing 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 
80

90

100110120130140150160 

Water

Level 

 

 

 

Figure 1L-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole WY-GATR, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
160

170180190200210220230240 

 

 

 

Figure 1L-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole WY-GATR, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
250

260270280290300310320 

 

 

 

Figure 1L-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole WY-GATR, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

 

 330 340 350 360 370

380390400410 

Figure 1L-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole WY-GATR, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

 

 

Figure 1L-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole WY-GATR, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

 

 

True North 

0° 

270°
 

30° 

60° 

120° 

150° 

180° 

210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-2 -1 1 2

-1 

-2 

1 

2 

FEET 

Projection Along N350°E 

20
 

40
 

60
 

80
 

100
 

120
 

140
 

160
 

180
 

200
 

220
 

240
 

260
 

280
 

300
 

320
 

340
 

360
 

380
 

400
 

90° 

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

increments between circles 

20 ft ATV 

20 ft OTV 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

0 1 2 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 

Figure 1L-2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole WY-GATR, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top) 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom). 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer; OTV, optical televiewer] 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 1L–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole WY-GATR, near Machiasport, Maine. 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below 

top of casing, which is 3.45 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike] 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

158.10 48.19 114.82 25 80 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

162.41 49.50 277.43 187 64 W Steep Minor fracture 

166.87 50.86 132.29 42 50 SE Moderate Minor fracture 

178.90 54.53 130.11 40 73 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

181.74 55.39 115.11 25 15 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

186.35 56.80 224.23 134 17 SW Shallow Transmissive fracture 

187.81 57.24 255.59 166 34 W Moderate Minor fracture 

189.94 57.89 59.5 330 84 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

190.93 58.19 77.55 348 41 E Moderate Minor fracture 

196.93 60.02 132.79 43 26 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

204.11 62.21 82.09 352 39 E Moderate Minor fracture 

213.87 65.18 121.79 32 59 SE Steep Minor fracture 

216.44 65.97 281.71 192 31 W Moderate Minor fracture 

220.36 67.16 37.35 307 34 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

231.44 70.54 233.38 143 76 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

241.38 73.57 228.98 139 75 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

244.96 74.66 10.91 281 35 N Moderate Minor fracture 

247.10 75.31 231.74 142 77 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

252.05 76.82 26.61 297 41 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

261.04 79.56 20.69 291 73 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

285.24 86.94 219.61 130 77 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

286.38 87.28 112.68 23 62 SE Steep Minor fracture 

316.80 96.56 74.55 345 58 E Steep Minor fracture 

340.78 103.86 183.16 93 67 S Steep Minor fracture 

342.82 104.49 107.68 18 73 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

353.70 107.80 5.96 276 76 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

364.87 111.21 32.35 302 77 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

369.17 112.52 239.01 149 74 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

374.51 114.15 30.04 300 68 NE Steep Minor fracture 

378.43 115.34 69.86 340 79 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

380.54 115.98 59.81 330 78 NE Nearly vertical Large fracture 

389.90 118.84 42.85 313 77 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

399.67 121.81 234.54 145 56 SW Steep Minor fracture 

401.23 122.29 248.46 158 62 W Steep Minor fracture 

407.01 124.05 62.62 333 71 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

408.05 124.37 325.65 236 77 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

408.47 124.50 246.75 157 17 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

409.85 124.92 52.56 323 81 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

415.25 126.56 52.39 322 65 NE Steep Transmissive fracture 
 

 

 

 

Table 1L–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole WY-GATR, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 3.45 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

26.90 8.20 178.8 89 1 S Nearly horizontal Bottom of casing 

34.47 10.51 338.18 248 72 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

38.88 11.85 85.84 356 72 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

39.27 11.97 58.41 328 13 NE Shallow Minor fracture 

42.39 12.92 59.08 329 4 NE Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

43.14 13.15 143.61 54 75 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

44.19 13.47 241.88 152 51 SW Steep Minor fracture 

47.61 14.51 28.19 298 82 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

53.13 16.19 198.67 109 71 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

59.45 18.12 51.92 322 38 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

61.26 18.67 234.48 144 25 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

61.47 18.74 44.73 315 14 NE Shallow Minor fracture 

64.06 19.52 212.89 123 15 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

64.85 19.77 174.4 84 77 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

65.13 19.85 5.86 276 25 N Shallow Minor fracture 

68.82 20.98 53.9 324 33 NE Moderate Large fracture 

69.91 21.31 351.48 261 15 N Shallow Minor fracture 

71.87 21.90 22.19 292 34 N Moderate Minor fracture 

76.97 23.46 265.91 176 19 W Shallow Minor fracture 

77.52 23.63 108.92 19 12 E Shallow Minor fracture 

82.12 25.03 83.34 353 62 E Steep Minor fracture 

82.29 25.08 103.05 13 85 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

93.98 28.64 132.95 43 82 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

95.26 29.03 92.8 3 72 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

113.83 34.69 97.49 7 41 E Moderate Minor fracture 

118.18 36.02 58.75 329 70 NE Steep Minor fracture 

119.77 36.50 251.69 162 25 W Shallow Minor fracture 

122.78 37.42 244.22 154 34 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

125.37 38.21 246.65 157 37 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

130.28 39.71 228.52 139 37 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

133.48 40.68 249.54 160 29 W Shallow Minor fracture 

134.09 40.87 272.31 182 22 W Shallow Minor fracture 

134.41 40.97 102.02 12 52 E Steep Minor fracture 

136.39 41.57 236.27 146 27 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

139.26 42.44 234.1 144 26 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

139.87 42.63 307.58 218 85 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

142.43 43.41 359.23 269 70 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

144.31 43.98 268.54 179 38 W Moderate Minor fracture 

148.27 45.19 66.9 337 79 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

148.85 45.37 254.36 164 40 W Moderate Minor fracture 

152.13 46.37 53 323 78 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

153.18 46.69 50.9 321 77 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

154.85 47.20 203.47 113 1 SW Nearly horizontal Water level 

154.90 47.21 238.85 149 43 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

157.76 48.08 77.91 348 80 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

162.22 49.44 306.6 217 63 NW Steep Minor fracture 

167.08 50.92 69.31 339 84 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

169.46 51.65 214.35 124 15 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

176.13 53.68 40 310 79 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

178.92 54.53 106.34 16 77 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

181.33 55.27 100.16 10 22 E Shallow Minor fracture 

183.05 55.79 93.46 3 52 E Steep Minor fracture 

185.58 56.56 88.46 358 11 E Shallow Transmissive fracture 

185.94 56.67 154.72 65 17 SE Shallow Transmissive fracture 

187.24 57.07 256.68 167 31 W Moderate Minor fracture 

189.61 57.79 37.23 307 84 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

190.55 58.08 58.68 329 40 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

193.62 59.01 165.46 75 52 S Steep Minor fracture 
 

 

 

 

Table 1L–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole WY-GATR, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below 

top of casing, which is 3.45 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike] 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

195.41 59.56 142.14 52 29 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

196.51 59.89 130.35 40 26 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

198.16 60.40 188.05 98 17 S Shallow Lithologic feature 

203.69 62.08 46.53 317 38 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

205.60 62.66 88.02 358 33 E Moderate Minor fracture 

208.74 63.62 106.88 17 22 E Shallow Minor fracture 

213.44 65.05 93.43 3 60 E Steep Minor fracture 

215.92 65.81 277.25 187 31 W Moderate Minor fracture 

219.52 66.91 50.09 320 64 NE Steep Minor fracture 

220.84 67.31 70.87 341 82 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

228.34 69.59 202.73 113 77 SW Nearly vertical Sealed fracture - felsic 

230.82 70.35 18.58 289 62 N Steep Sealed fracture - felsic 

234.05 71.33 44.56 315 69 NE Steep Sealed fracture - felsic 

237.84 72.49 199.31 109 76 S Nearly vertical Sealed fracture - felsic 

240.87 73.41 196.23 106 76 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

243.12 74.10 291.44 201 42 W Moderate Minor fracture 

244.26 74.45 221.9 132 21 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

244.66 74.57 57.27 327 35 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

247.10 75.31 231.85 142 78 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

251.38 76.62 354.56 265 76 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

252.36 76.92 23.01 293 48 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

260.28 79.33 194.05 104 83 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

267.77 81.61 284.89 195 73 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

270.29 82.38 263.76 174 59 W Steep Minor fracture 

273.08 83.23 262.03 172 63 W Steep Minor fracture 

291.05 88.71 216.92 127 21 SW Shallow Sealed fracture - felsic 

291.35 88.80 241.38 151 22 SW Shallow Sealed fracture - felsic 

293.55 89.47 259.85 170 30 W Moderate Minor fracture 

294.15 89.65 85.65 356 15 E Shallow Sealed fracture - felsic 

300.85 91.69 14.23 284 22 N Shallow Sealed fracture - felsic 

300.95 91.73 72.41 342 8 E Nearly horizontal Sealed fracture - felsic 

301.21 91.80 115.06 25 63 SE Steep Sealed fracture - felsic 

301.45 91.88 94.14 4 28 E Shallow Sealed fracture - felsic 

304.49 92.80 198.34 108 75 S Nearly vertical Sealed fracture - felsic 

313.62 95.59 48.31 318 59 NE Steep Sealed fracture - felsic 

316.75 96.54 70.55 341 58 E Steep Minor fracture 

324.32 98.85 150.34 60 62 SE Steep Sealed fracture - felsic 

325.25 99.13 330.42 240 80 NW Nearly vertical Sealed fracture - felsic 

328.86 100.23 327.7 238 82 NW Nearly vertical Sealed fracture - felsic 

331.88 101.15 241.29 151 73 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

340.33 103.73 159.64 70 67 S Steep Minor fracture 

346.90 105.73 39.16 309 59 NE Steep Minor fracture 

353.32 107.69 353.64 264 80 N Nearly vertical Sealed fracture - felsic 

357.25 108.88 189.52 100 42 S Moderate Minor fracture 

362.24 110.41 194.58 105 74 S Nearly vertical Sealed fracture - felsic 

363.80 110.88 203.88 114 60 SW Steep Minor fracture 

364.28 111.03 25.12 295 78 NE Nearly vertical Sealed fracture - felsic 

368.62 112.35 230.02 140 74 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

377.81 115.15 68.02 338 80 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

380.03 115.83 47.32 317 78 NE Nearly vertical Large fracture 

389.39 118.68 43.94 314 77 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

403.29 122.92 37.1 307 17 NE Shallow Lithologic feature 

403.62 123.02 264.95 175 17 W Shallow Minor fracture 

406.54 123.91 62.44 332 72 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

407.93 124.33 247.96 158 17 W Shallow Minor fracture 

409.91 124.93 267.6 178 19 W Shallow Minor fracture 

410.68 125.17 274.33 184 21 W Shallow Minor fracture 

411.78 125.50 106.27 16 15 E Shallow Transmissive fracture 

413.47 126.02 73.31 343 26 E Shallow Transmissive fracture 
 

 

 

 

WY-GATR Miller Mountain Ground/Air Transmitter Receiver site, Machiasport, ME 

ATV ATV - Tadpole 

0 90 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

OTV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

OTV OTV - Tadpole 

0 90 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

140 

150 

160 

170 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 1L-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole WY-GATR, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

180 

190 

200 

210 

220 

230 

240 

250 

260 

270 

280 

290 

300 

310 

320 

330 

340 

0° 

180° 

0° 

180° 

Figure 1L-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole WY-GATR, 

near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
350 

360 

370 

380 

390 

400 

410 

Figure 1L-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole WY-GATR, 

near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

 

 

 MODELED OUTPUT RESULTS FROM FWRAP

 Elevation, ambient water level 119.00 feet
 

 Elevation, injected water level 121.39 feet
 

Injected Elevation Ambient flow Zone trans- Water Percent Fracture Depth flowabove of water above fracture missivity level trans­ number (ft) fracture level (gal/min) (gal/min) (ft) missivity (gal/min) (ft) 

2 186 0.000 -1.000 12 150.51 121.49 11 

1 412 -0.142 -1.006 96 153.31 118.69 89 

 Totalborehole transmissivity 108.0 (ft 2

/d) 

Sum of squares error 0.0001 (gal/min)2 

 Rootmean square error 0.0066 (gal/min) 

 

 

 

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

360

380

400

420 

-0.5 0 0.5 

DEPT H BELOW T O P O F CASING , IN FEET 

FLOW, IN GAL/MIN 

Ambient Flow Profile 

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

360

380

400

420 

-2 

DEPT H BELOW T O P O F CASING , IN FEET 

Injec

INTERPRETATION OF FLOWMETER DATA AND INPUT VALUES FOR FWRAP

Elevation of measuring point 272 feet
 

Number of fractures 2
 

Well diameter 6 inches
 

Drawdown -2.39 feet
 

Depth to ambient water level 153 feet
 

Injected Ambient flow Fracture Depth flow above above fracture number (ft) fracture (gal/min) (gal/min) 

2 186 0.000 -1.000 

1 412 -0.135 -1.000

Dashed line indicates measured flow.

Solid line indicates modeled flow.

Points indicate measured heat-pulse flowmeter data.

Figure 1L–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole WY-GATR, near Machiasport, Maine.

[gal/min, gallon per minute; ft, feet; ft2/d, feet squared per day; positive values of flow are upward flow, negative values of flow are downward flow]
 

 

 

Appendix 2. Borehole geophysical logs 

from boreholes near the Air Force Radar 

Tracking Station on Howard Mountain, near 

Machiasport, Maine 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 2. 

Borehole geophysical logs from boreholes near the Air Force Radar Tracking 

Station on Howard Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine 

A. Borehole DW-2 

Figure 2A–1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid 

temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, reduction oxidation, 

multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, and heatpulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-2, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 2A–2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-2, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 2A–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-2, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 2A–3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole DW-2, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 2A–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole 

DW-2, near Machiasport, Maine. 

B. Borehole WY-3B 

Figure 2B–1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid 

temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, reduction oxidation, 

multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, and heatpulse flowmeter logs for borehole WY-3B, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 2B–2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole WY-3B, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 2B–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole WY-3B, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 2B–3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole WY-3B, near Machiasport, Maine. 

C. Borehole WY-4 

Figure 2C–1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid 

temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, reduction oxidation, 

multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, and heatpulse flowmeter logs for borehole WY-4, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 2C–2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole WY-4, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 2C–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole WY-4, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 2C–3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole WY-4, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 2C–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole 

WY-4, near Machiasport, Maine. 

D. Borehole WY-15 

Figure 2D–1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid 

temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, reduction oxidation, 

multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, and heatpulse flowmeter logs for borehole WY-15, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 2D–2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole WY-15, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 2D–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole WY-15, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 2D–3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole WY-15, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 2D–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole 

WY-15, near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

TT Amp 

Acoustic Televiewer Caliper 

4 8inch 

Temp Amb

50 51 DEG F 

DW-2 

Acou Caliper

0 15 inch 

ATV R32 

0 1e+009 Ohm-m

R64 

0 1e+009 Ohm-m

EMI Cond 

0 300 mmho/m 

Fl Cond Amb

200 270 uS/cm

Temp PP 

50 51 deg F

Fl Cond PP

200 270 uS/cm 

SP 

0 600 mV 

O2ppm 

0 4 ppm 

Gamma 

0 300 CPS 

SPR 

0 25000 Ohm 

HPFM Amb

-0.1 0.1 gal/min

HPFM Pump

-0.1 0.1 gal/min 

pH 

6 10 

Eh 

0 400 mV 

ATV Amp 

0 1600mV 

203040506070 

R8 & R16

Off-Scale 

Bottom

of

Casing

Ambient

Water

Table 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 2A-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-2, near Machiasport, Maine. 
80

90

100110120130140150160 

 

 

 

Figure 2A-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-2, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
160

170180190200210220 

 

 

 

Figure 2A-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-2, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

 

 

 

 

True North 

0° 

30° 

60° 

120° 

150° 

180° 

210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-4 -2 2 4

-2 

-4 

2 

4 

FEET 

270° 90° 

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

increments between circles 

20 ft ATV 

 

Projection Along N50°E 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

200 

220 

0 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 

2 4 6 

Figure 2A-2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-2, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2A–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-2, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 2.7 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

44.09 13.44 298 208 1 NW Nearly horizontal Water level 

47.00 14.33 338 248 74 N Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

49.01 14.94 123 33 10 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

50.57 15.41 346 256 81 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

52.17 15.90 330 240 67 NW Steep Transmissive fracture 

55.08 16.79 342 252 78 N Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

57.74 17.60 356 266 49 N Moderate Transmissive fracture 

80.78 24.62 98 8 57 E Steep Fracture 

82.94 25.28 125 35 44 SE Moderate Fracture 

85.65 26.11 136 46 60 SE Steep Fracture 

97.02 29.57 79 349 20 E Shallow Minor fracture 

101.44 30.92 119 29 43 SE Moderate Minor fracture 

106.49 32.46 126 36 49 SE Moderate Fracture, probably transmissive 

111.88 34.10 161 71 34 S Moderate Minor fracture 

112.81 34.38 281 191 32 W Moderate Minor fracture 

119.11 36.30 96 6 37 E Moderate Minor fracture 

125.50 38.25 179 89 20 S Shallow Lithologic feature 

126.9 38.68 112 22 20 E Shallow Lithologic feature 

130.66 39.83 252 162 82 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

132.31 40.33 267 177 83 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

136.38 41.57 267 177 81 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

137.53 41.92 203 113 20 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

144.00 43.89 349 259 83 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture, possible 

transmissive fracture 

161.07 49.09 195 105 48 S Moderate Minor fracture - weak feature 

possible transmissive fracture 

169.46 51.65 284 194 75 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

170.78 52.05 268 178 53 W Steep Minor fracture 

178.65 54.45 234 144 67 SW Steep Sealed fracture 

186.22 56.76 275 185 80 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

199.45 60.79 226 136 79 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

202.56 61.74 246 156 79 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

207.19 63.15 311 221 74 NW Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

209.92 63.98 204 114 76 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

214.64 65.42 144 54 60 SE Steep Minor fracture 

214.79 65.47 310 220 89 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

216.27 65.92 144 54 68 SE Steep Minor fracture 
 

 

 

DW-2 Howard Mountain Air Force Radar Tracking Station, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV - Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

ATV ATV- Tadpole 

0 90 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

140 

150 

160 

170 

0° 

180° 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 2A-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole DW-2 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
180 

190
 

200
 

210
 

220
 

Figure 2A-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole DW-2
 

near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

0

50

100

150

200

250 

-0.5 

DEPT H B EL O W T OP O F C ASI NG, IN FEET 

F

Pumpe

0

50

100

150

200

250 

-0.1 0 0.1 

DEPT H B EL O W T OP O F C ASI NG, IN FEET 

FLOW, IN GAL/MIN 

Ambient Flow Profile 

INTERPRETATION OF FLOWMETER DATA AND INPUT VALUES FOR FWRAP

Elevation of measuring point 66 feet
 

Number of fractures 2
 

Well diameter 6 inches
 

Drawdown 3.89 feet
 

Depth to ambient water level 44.21 feet
 

Ambient Pumped 

Fracture Depth flow above flow above

number (ft) fracture fracture 

(gal/min) (gal/min) 

2 52.5 0.000 0.350 

1 106.5 0.018 0.021

 MODELED OUTPUT RESULTS FROM FWRAP

 Elevation, ambient water level 21.79 feet 

 Elevation, injected water level 17.90 feet 

Ambient Pumped Elevation Zone trans- Percent Fracture Depth flowabove flowabove Water of water missivity trans­ number (ft) fracture fracture level(ft) level (ft2

/d) missivity (gal/min) (gal/min) (ft) 

2 52.5 0.000 0.347 18 44.34 21.66 97 

1 106.5 0.016 0.031 0.600000024 40.24 25.76 3 

 Totalborehole transmissivity 18.6 (ft 2

/d) 

Sum of squares error 0.00012 (gal/min)2 

 Rootmean square error 0.00778 (gal/min) 

Dashed line indicates measured flow.

Solid line indicates modeled flow.

Points indicate measured heat-pulse flowmeter data.

Figure 2A–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-2, near Machiasport, Maine.

[gal/min, gallon per minute; ft, feet; ft2/d, feet squared per day; positive values of flow are upward flow, negative values of flow are downward flow]
 

Amp TT 

Acoustic Televiewer Caliper 

4 12 inch 

EMI Cond 

0 50 mmho/m 

ATV 

Acou Caliper

4 12 inch 

WY-3B

Gamma 

0 300 CPS 

O2ppm 

0 4 ppm

pH 

7 12 

Temp 

47 51 deg F

Fl Cond 

100 600 uS/cm

SP Cond 

100 600 uS/cm 

Eh 

0 400 mV 

SP 

0 1000 mV

SPR 

0 12000 Ohm 

R8 

0 50000 Ohm-m

R16 

0 50000 Ohm-m

R32 

0 50000 Ohm-m

R64 

0 50000 Ohm-m 

ATV Amp 

0 300 mV 

0

102030405060 

Bottom of casing 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Bottom

of

Casing

Depth to

Water 

 

 

 

Figure 2B-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole WY-3B, near Machiasport, Maine. 
70

8090

100110120130140150 

Depth to water 

 

 

 

Figure 2B-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole WY-3B, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
150

160170180190200210220 

OFF SCALE 

 

 

 

Figure 2B-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole WY-3B, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

 

180° increments between circles 

20 ft ATV 

Projection Along N350°E 

20
 

40
 

60
 

80
 

100
 

120
 

140
 

160
 

180
 

200
 

220
 

0 1 2 3 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
 

4
 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 

 

True North 

0° 

270° 

30° 

60° 

120° 

210° 150° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-3 -2 -1 1 2 3

-1 

-2 

-3 

1 

2 

3 

FEET 

90° 

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

 

 

 

Figure 2B-2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole WY-3B, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer; OTV, optical televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

Table 2B–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole WY-3B, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 1.87 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

34.13 10.40 240 150 5 SW Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

69.01 21.03 67 337 61 NE Steep Transmissive fracture, 

inferred from fluid logs 

78.20 23.83 351 261 60 N Steep minor fracture 

94.47 28.79 351 261 62 N Steep Transmissive fracture, 

inferred from fluid logs 

94.58 28.83 146 56 27 SE Shallow Transmissive fracture, 

inferred from fluid logs 

95.46 29.09 220 130 37 SW Moderate Transmissive fracture, 

inferred from fluid logs 

104.39 31.82 337 247 74 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

107.85 32.87 316 226 24 NW Shallow Minor fracture 

112.36 34.25 171 81 55 S Steep Transmissive fracture, 

inferred from fluid logs 

130.18 39.68 326 236 83 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

176.06 53.66 176 86 52 S Steep Transmissive fracture, 

inferred from fluid logs 

202.86 61.83 182 92 20 S Shallow Transmissive fracture, 

inferred from fluid logs 

205.51 62.64 69 339 31 E Moderate Fracture 

209.67 63.90 178 88 49 S Moderate Lithologic feature 

219.62 66.94 90 360 13 E Shallow Minor fracture 
 

 

WY-3B Howard Mountain Air Force Radar Tracking Station, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

ATV ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

140 

150 

160 

170 

180 

190 

200 

210 

220 

0° 

180° 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 2B-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole WY-3B, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

TT Amp

Acoustic Televiewer Caliper 

5 9inch

Acou Caliper

0 20inch 

Temp Amb

50 52 deg F

Fl Cond Amb

200 300 uS/cm 

O2ppm 

0 2 ppm

pH 

6 8 

HPFM Amb

-0.6 0.6 gal/min

HPFM Pump

-0.6 0.6 gal/min 

EMI Cond 

0 50 mmho/m 

R32 

0 Ohm-m2e+008 

R64 

0 Ohm-m2e+008 

SP 

0 2000 mV 

ATV WY-4

Gamma 

0 300 CPS 

SPR 

0 7000 Ohm 

Temp PP 

50 52 deg F

Fl Cond PP

200 300 uS/cm 

Eh 

0 300 mV 

ATV Amp 

0 3000mV 

bottom of casing 

R8 & R16

Off-Scale

Bottom

of

Casing 

10203040506070 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 2C-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole WY-4, near Machiasport, Maine. 
80

90

100110120130140150 

Figure 2C-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole WY-4, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

 

 160 170 180 

Figure 2C-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole WY-4, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
True North 

0° 

30° 

60° 

120° 

210° 150°

240° 

300° 

330° 

-1.0 -0.5 0.5 1.0

0.5 

1.0 

-1.0 

FEET 270°
 

180°
 

Projection Along N160°E
 

90° 

Depth along borehole in 10-ft 

increments between circles 

10 ft ATV 

10
 

20
 

30
 

40
 

50
 

60
 

70
 

80
 

90
 

100
 

110
 

120
 

130
 

140
 

150
 

160
 

170
 

180
 

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.43 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
 

Figure 2C-2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole WY-4, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 2C–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole WY-4, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 0.7 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

52.49 16.00 207 117 1 SW Nearly horizontal Joint in casing 

53.87 16.42 178 88 64 S Steep Fracture intersecting base of 

casing - possibly transmissive 

53.88 16.42 355 265 2 N Nearly horizontal Bottom of casing 

56.95 17.36 94 4 83 E Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

60.74 18.51 92 2 80 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

64.84 19.76 63 333 68 NE Steep Minor fracture 

68.20 20.79 284 194 83 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

71.17 21.69 176 86 26 S Shallow Lithologic feature 

76.71 23.38 149 59 50 SE Moderate Minor fracture 

77.04 23.48 338 248 71 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

79.80 24.32 293 203 70 NW Steep Minor fracture 

83.07 25.32 312 222 57 NW Steep Minor fracture 

90.69 27.64 113 23 82 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

93.23 28.42 91 1 82 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

97.54 29.73 141 51 70 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

98.89 30.14 96 6 50 E Moderate Minor fracture 

104.32 31.80 360 270 45 N Moderate Minor fracture 

105.18 32.06 54 324 55 NE Steep Minor fracture 

105.84 32.26 222 132 74 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

112.23 34.21 112 22 35 E Moderate Possible transmissive fracture 

117.12 35.70 113 23 69 SE Steep Minor fracture 

130.28 39.71 263 173 72 W Nearly vertical Large fracture 

134.08 40.87 135 45 53 SE Steep Minor fracture 

139.43 42.50 130 40 72 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

171.98 52.42 316 226 28 NW Shallow Transmissive fracture 
 

 

WY-4 Howard Mountain Air Force Radar Tracking Station, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

ATV ATV-Tad 

0 90 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

140 

150 

160 

170 

0° 

180° 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 2C-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole WY-4, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

 

 

 

 MODELED OUTPUT RESULTS FROM FWRAP

 Elevation, ambient water level 163.97 feet
 

 Elevation, pumped water level 159.70 feet
 

Ambient flow Pumped Zone trans- Water Elevation of Percent Fracture Depth above flowabove missivity level water level trans­ number (ft) fracture fracture (ft2

/d) (ft) (ft) missivity (gal/min) (gal/min) 

2 55.0 0.00 0.55 1.0 9.30 161.40 5 

1 172.0 0.02 0.54 20.0 6.60 164.10 95 

 Totalborehole transmissivity 21.0 (ft 2

/d) 

Sum of squares error 0.00394 (gal/min)2 

 Rootmean square error 0.04439 (gal/min) 

 

 

 

INTERPRETATION OF FLOWMETER DATA AND INPUT VALUES FOR FWRAP

Elevation of measuring point 170.7 feet
 

Number of fractures 2
 

Well diameter 6 inches
 

Drawdown 4.27 feet
 

Depth to ambient water level 6.73 feet
 

Ambient flow Pumped 

Fracture Depth above flow above

number (ft) fracture fracture 

(gal/min) (gal/min) 

2 55.0 0.00 0.50 

1 172.0 0.02 0.50

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200 

-0.1 0 0.1 

DEPT H B EL O W T OP O F C ASI NG, IN FEET 

FLOW, IN GAL/MIN 

Ambient Flow Profile 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200 

-2 

DEPTH BELOW TOP OF CASING, IN FEET 

Pu

Dashed line indicates measured flow.

Solid line indicates modeled flow.

Points indicate measured heat-pulse flowmeter data.

Figure 2C–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole WY-4, near Machiasport, Maine.

[gal/min, gallon per minute; ft, feet; ft2/d, feet squared per day; positive values of flow are upward flow, negative values of flow are downward flow]
 

Depth t r 

33.95 ft 

o wate Bottom of

Casing 

R8 and R16

Off-Scale 

0

102030405060 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

EMI Cond 

0 2000 

Caliper 

4 12 inch

Acou Caliper

0 20 inch 

O2ppm 

0 5 ppm 

Temp Amb

49 52 deg F 

pH 

6 7 

Fl Cond Amb

100 250 uS/cm 

SP 

0 1000 mV 

ATV Amp HPFM amb

-0.15 0.15 gal/min

HPFM pump

-0.15 0.15 gal/min 

WY-15

Gamma 

0 300 cps 

R32 

0 Ohm-m1e+009 

R64 

0 Ohm-m1e+009 

Temp PP 

49 52 deg F

Fl Cond PP

100 250 uS/cm 

Eh 

400 480 mV 

SPR 

0 25000 ohm 

ATV 

ATV Amp 

0 2000mV 

 

 

 

Figure 2D-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole WY-15, near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

 

 708090 100

110120130140150 

Figure 2D-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole WY-15, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

 

 

150160170180190200210220230 

Figure 2D-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole WY-15, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

 

 240 250 260 270

280290300 

Figure 2D-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole WY-15, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

Projection along N330°E 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

200 

220 

240 

260 

280 

0.0 2 4 6

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 

 

 

True North 

0° 

30° 

60° 

90° 

120° 

150° 210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-2 -4 -6 2 4 6

-2 

-4 

-6 

2 

4 

6 

270° 

FEET 

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 180° 

increments between circles 

20 ft ATV 

Figure 2D-2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole WY-15, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2D–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole WY-15, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 4.4 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

33.69 10.27 314.38 224 0.85 NW Nearly horizontal Water level 

36.67 11.18 298.22 208 75.06 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

38.70 11.80 280.17 190 69.67 W Steep Minor fracture 

40.41 12.32 284.29 194 74.57 W Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

43.95 13.40 339.42 249 60.52 N Steep Possible fracture 

52.84 16.10 82.63 353 73.11 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

55.15 16.81 81.31 351 76.12 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

57.38 17.49 282.21 192 62.18 W Steep Minor fracture 

57.63 17.56 73.21 343 37.78 E Moderate Minor fracture 

59.10 18.01 340.01 250 67.30 N Steep Minor fracture 

61.16 18.64 329.21 239 60.56 NW Steep Minor fracture 

62.90 19.17 324.45 234 76.75 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

72.46 22.08 22.20 292 39.07 N Moderate Minor fracture 

81.17 24.74 306.44 216 79.64 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

86.59 26.39 324.36 234 69.54 NW Steep Minor fracture 

89.20 27.19 216.24 126 81.71 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

93.16 28.39 280.83 191 75.55 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

116.77 35.59 174.26 84 80.66 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

119.45 36.41 355.05 265 76.80 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

123.23 37.56 203.87 114 85.32 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

130.32 39.72 92.50 3 88.69 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

150.08 45.74 75.33 345 69.51 E Steep Minor fracture 

151.48 46.17 94.12 4 77.16 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

154.45 47.07 192.59 103 1.93 S Nearly horizontal Partial fracture 

160.88 49.03 333.47 243 82.08 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

169.97 51.80 4.14 274 85.70 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

185.07 56.41 123.76 34 75.73 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

187.26 57.07 96.51 7 75.95 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

194.89 59.40 101.01 11 76.94 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

197.74 60.27 207.89 118 48.95 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

202.30 61.66 221.73 132 39.11 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

212.22 64.68 109.62 20 84.47 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

216.98 66.13 105.39 15 83.12 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

226.35 68.99 79.65 350 73.62 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

230.21 70.16 114.35 24 62.98 SE Steep Minor fracture 

237.18 72.29 172.16 82 78.25 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

242.94 74.04 74.73 345 79.47 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

246.77 75.21 79.25 349 79.33 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

277.72 84.64 113.89 24 78.66 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

284.54 86.72 270.94 181 89.43 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

291.77 88.93 194.30 104 73.43 S Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

293.32 89.40 175.75 86 62.03 S Steep Transmissive fracture 
WY-15 Howard Mountain Air Force Radar Tracking Station, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV ATV- Tadpole 

0 90 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

140 

150 

160 

170 

180 

190 

0° 

180° 

Fracture 

Zone;

Enlarged 

Borehole 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 2D-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole WY-15, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
200 

210 

220 

230 

240 

250 

260 

270 

280 

290 

300 

Figure 2D-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole WY-15, 

near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

 

 

 

 

 

0

 

50

100

150

200

250

300

350 

-0.2 0 0.2 

DEPT H B EL O W T OP O F C ASI NG, IN FEET 

FLOW, IN GAL/MIN 

Ambient Flow Profile 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350 

-1 

DEPT H B EL O W T OP O F C ASI NG, IN FEET 

Pum

INTERPRETATION OF FLOWMETER DATA AND INPUT VALUES FOR FWRAP

Elevation of measuring point 193.88 feet
 

Number of fractures 3
 

Well diameter 6 inches
 

Drawdown 6.11 feet
 

Depth to ambient water level 33.9 feet
 

Ambient Pumped 

Fracture Depth flow above flow above

number (ft) fracture fracture 

(gal/min) (gal/min) 

3 44.0 0.000 0.100 

2 153.0 0.010 0.100 

1 291.0 0.027 0.050

t

y 

ercen

st vi

ran

12 

59 

29 

ssi

P

t

mi

ion 

er 

t

63 

63 

63 

at

av

w

evel

(ft) 

e

f 

l

l

o

157.

158.

163.

E er

evel

25 

25 

25 

at

(ft) 

W

l

36.

35.

30.

s- ran

ytvi

d) 

2 

4 

0 

0 

t

/

n) 

e 

0.

2.

1.

ssi

2

n)

(ft

i

i


 


 

n

d) 

m

m

eet

eet

mi

/

/

o

/

2

t 

f

f

Z

gal

gal

(f

(

(

e

d pe

P

in) 

98 

87 

bov

re u

m

121 

A

4 

001 

015 

ract

/

111 

153.

FWR

058 

159.

um

a

P

ow 

f

lga

3.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

(

l

M 

f e

O

nt

FR

e

bov

re 

in) 

u

LTS 

bi

m

000 

022 

evel 

evel 

a

m

ract

ow 

/l

006 

0.

0.

0.

y 

A

f

ga

ti

(

U

l

l

l

v

S

er 

er 

f

iss

r 

E

at

at

i

R

m

r 

w

h

T 

w

erro

t 

U

ep

(ft) 

44 

ed 

t

153 

291 

ns

en

a

erro

TP

are u

U

mp

D

rt

i

e 

O

u

sq

p

ares 

D 

amb

hol

u

, 

, 

r 

n

re 

e

sq

LE

noi

oi

u

be

E

bor

mean 

D

evat

evat

ract

f 

3 

1 

o

l 

t 

a

m 

lE

Tot

o

O

l

F

num

2 

u

o

M

E

S

R

Dashed line indicates measured flow.

Solid line indicates modeled flow.

Points indicate measured heat-pulse flowmeter data.

Figure 2D–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole WY-15, near Machiasport, Maine.

[gal/min, gallon per minute; ft, feet; ft2/d, feet squared per day; positive values of flow are upward flow, negative values of flow are downward flow]
 

 

 

Appendix 3. Borehole geophysical logs from 

boreholes near the Transmitter Site on Howard 

Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 3. 

Borehole geophysical logs from boreholes near the Transmitter Site on Howard 

Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine 

A. Borehole DW-6 

Figure 3A–1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid 

temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, reduction oxidation, 

multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, and heatpulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-6, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 3A–2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-6, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 3A–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-6, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 3A–3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole DW-6, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 3A–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole 

DW-6, near Machiasport, Maine. 

B. Borehole DW-10 

Figure 3B–1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid 

temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, reduction oxidation, 

multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, and heatpulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-10, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 3B–2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-10, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 3B–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-10, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 3B–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole DW-10, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 3B–3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole DW-10, near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

TT Amp 

Acoustic Televiewer Caliper 

4 8inch 

DW-6 Temp 

39 44 deg F 

Acou Caliper

4 15 inch 

HPFM Amb

-0.2 0.2 gal/min

HPFM Pump

-0.2 0.2 gal/min 

Gamma 

0 300 CPS 

ATV R32 

0 1e+009 Ohm-m

R64 

0 1e+009 Ohm-m

Fl Cond 

110 120 uS/cm

SP Cond Amb

180 220 uS/cm

SP Cond PP

180 220 uS/cm 

O2ppm 

0 2 ppm

pH 

6 8 

EMI Cond 

0 1000 mmho/m

SP 

600 1100 mV

SPR 

0 80000 Ohm 

Eh 

0 400 mV 

ATV Amp 

0 1500mV 

0

102030405060 

R8 & R16

Off-Scale 

Bottom

of

Casing 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

 

 

 

Figure 3A-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-6, near Machiasport, Maine. 
70

8090

100110120 

 

 

 

Figure 3A-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-6, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

Projection Along N110°E 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

0.0 1.0 2.0 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 

 

 

True North 

0°
 

FEET 

30° 

60° 

90° 

120° 

210° 150° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-1 1

-1 

1 

270° 

Depth along borehole in 16.4-ft 

180° increments between circles 

16.4 ft ATV 

Figure 3A-2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-6, near Machiasport, Main. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3A–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-6, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 1.8 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike;
 

--, no measurement]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

20.03 6.10 0 270 0 -­ Horizontal Bottom of casing 

22.03 6.71 305 215 79.53 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

23.53 7.17 89 359 39.11 E Moderate Transmissive fracture 

30.92 9.42 188 98 81.60 S Nearly vertical Possible fracture 

37.95 11.57 18 288 79.00 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

42.08 12.83 323 233 60.48 NW Steep Minor fracture 

44.17 13.46 349 259 76.50 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

52.01 15.85 220 130 46.26 SW Moderate Transmissive fracture 

56.68 17.28 354 264 77.66 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

68.04 20.74 321 231 37.75 NW Moderate Minor fracture 

76.55 23.33 4 274 77.22 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

78.45 23.91 201 111 70.59 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

81.68 24.89 196 106 59.58 S Steep Transmissive fracture 

82.53 25.15 203 113 70.75 SW Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

84.54 25.77 352 262 71.88 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

89.45 27.26 327 237 76.24 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

94.01 28.65 7 277 75.96 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

101.41 30.91 177 87 21.16 S Shallow Minor fracture 

103.67 31.60 332 242 60.07 NW Steep Minor fracture 

112.77 34.37 193 103 81.72 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

113.92 34.72 357 267 61.50 N Steep Minor fracture 

114.36 34.86 341 251 31.77 N Moderate Minor fracture 

118.21 36.03 176 86 80.01 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

122.77 37.42 2 272 86.47 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 
 

 

DW-6 Howard Mountain Transmitter site, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

ATV ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

0° 

180° 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 3A-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole DW-6, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
MODELED OUTPUT RESULTS FROM FWRAP

Elevation, ambient water level 191.14 feet 

Elevation, pumped water level 180.60 feet 

Ambient Pumped Elevation Zone trans- Percent Fracture Depth flow above flow above Water of water missivity trans­ number (ft) fracture fracture level (ft) level (ft2

/d) missivity (gal/min) (gal/min) (ft) 

3 23.5 0 0.156 1.75 8.86 191.14 74 

2 52.0 0 0.045 0.28 8.86 191.14 12 

1 82.0 0 0.025 0.35 8.86 191.14 15 

Total borehole transmissivity 2.4 (ft 2

/d) 

Sum of squares error 0.00007 (gal/min)2 

Root mean square error 0.00481 (gal/min) 

 

 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140 

-0.2 0 0.2 

D EPT H B ELOW T OP OF CASING, IN FEET 

FLOW, IN GAL/MIN 

Ambient Flow Profile 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

-0.25 0 

D EPT H B ELOW T OP OF CASING, IN FEET 

FLOW, IN 

Pumped Flow 

INTERPRETATION OF FLOWMETER DATA AND INPUT VALUES FOR FWRAP

Elevation of measuring point 200 feet
 

Number of fractures 3
 

Well diameter 6 inches
 

Drawdown 10.54 feet
 

Depth to ambient water level 8.86 feet
 

Ambient Pumped

Fracture Depth flow above flow above

number (ft) fracture fracture 

(gal/min) (gal/min) 

3 23.5 0 0.16 

2 52.0 0 0.04 

1 82.0 0 0.02

Dashed line indicates measured flow.

Solid line indicates modeled flow.

Points indicate measured heat-pulse flowmeter data.

Figure 3A–4. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-6, near Machiasport, Maine.

[gal/min, gallon per minute; ft, feet; ft2/d, feet squared per day; positive values of flow are upward flow, negative values of flow are downward flow]
 
 

OTV ATV Amp 

Televiewers DW-10 Caliper 

5 7inch 

EMI Cond 

0 300 mmho/m 

Acou Caliper

0 15 inch 

HPFM AMB

-0.3 0.3 gal/min

HPFM Recovery

-0.3 0.3 gal/min 

Gamma 

0 300 CPS 

OTV Temp Amb

40 47 deg F

Fl Cond Amb

40 100 uS/cm

Temp PP 

40 47 deg F

Fl Cond PP

40 100 uS/cm 

R32 

0 2e+009 Ohm-m

R64 

0 2e+009 Ohm-m

O2ppm 

0 4 ppm

pH 

5 8 

Eh 

200 500mV 

SP 

-1000 2000 mV

SPR 

0 250000 Ohm 

ATV amp 

0 3000mV 

0

102030405060 

Measured

Recovery

After

Pumping 

Bottom

of

Casing 

R8 & R16

Off-Scale 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 3B-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-10, near Machiasport, Maine. 
70

8090

100110120130140150 

 

 

 

Figure 3B-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-10, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

 

 

150160170180190200210220230 

Figure 3B-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-10, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
240

250260270280290300310 

 

 

 

Figure 3B-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-10, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

 

 320 330 340 350 360

370380 

Figure 3B-1. Caliper, acoustic caliper, gamma, electromagnetic conductivity, fluid temperature, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, reduction oxidation, multi-space resistivity, oriented acoustic and optical borehole images, 

and heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-10, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

 

20
 

40
 

60
 

80
 

100
 

120
 

140
 

160
 

180
 

200
 

220
 

240
 

260
 

280
 

300
 

320
 

340
 

360
 

380
 

400
 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
 

Projection Along N320°E 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 

0 5 10 15

 

 

True North 

0° 

270° 90° 

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

increments between circles 

20 ft ATV 

20 ft OTV 

FEET 

30° 

60° 

120° 

150° 

180° 

210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-10 -5 5 10 

-5 

-10 

5 

10 

Figure 3B-2. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-10, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer; OTV, optical televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3B–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-10, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 0.97 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

13.97 4.26 336 246 1 NW Nearly horizontal Top of cement? 

20.01 6.10 40 310 1 NE Nearly horizontal Bottom of casing 

22.98 7.00 141 51 18 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

37.75 11.51 81 351 66 E Steep Minor fracture 

43.14 13.15 340 250 42 N Moderate Transmissive fracture 

43.42 13.23 29 299 16 NE Shallow Transmissive fracture 

67.49 20.57 272 182 81 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

96.95 29.55 282 192 9 W Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

101.36 30.89 255 165 79 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

106.45 32.44 333 243 85 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

112.11 34.17 181 91 22 S Shallow Minor fracture 

123.20 37.55 197 107 19 S Shallow Minor fracture 

134.96 41.13 242 152 78 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

156.92 47.83 79 349 13 E Shallow Transmissive fracture 

158.75 48.38 255 165 37 W Moderate Transmissive fracture 

160.61 48.95 247 157 78 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

163.78 49.92 236 146 43 SW Moderate Lithologic feature 

163.93 49.96 239 149 35 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

197.09 60.07 279 189 21 W Shallow Lithologic feature 

197.92 60.32 280 190 51 W Steep Minor fracture 

198.93 60.63 315 225 57 NW Steep Minor fracture 

203.40 61.99 248 158 75 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

210.94 64.29 282 192 42 W Moderate Minor fracture 

214.98 65.52 319 229 62 NW Steep Minor fracture 

236.60 72.11 132 42 71 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

260.39 79.36 277 187 66 W Steep Lithologic feature 

260.44 79.38 274 184 66 W Steep Lithologic feature 

285.56 87.03 100 10 71 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

286.43 87.30 342 252 80 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

292.66 89.20 267 177 72 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

310.37 94.60 182 92 76 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

315.76 96.24 260 170 57 W Steep Minor fracture 

326.02 99.37 76 346 75 E Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

326.73 99.58 54 324 27 NE Shallow Transmissive fracture 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3B–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole DW-10, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 0.97 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

13.97 4.26 336 246 1 NW Nearly horizontal Top of cement 

13.52 4.12 72 342 1 E Nearly horizontal Bottom of casing 

22.68 6.91 140 50 18 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

24.70 7.53 181 91 23 S Shallow Minor fracture 

31.37 9.56 19 289 79 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

33.57 10.23 30 300 79 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

36.73 11.19 24 294 78 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

43.21 13.17 268 178 20 W Shallow Lithologic feature 

43.41 13.23 229 139 15 SW Shallow Transmissive fracture 

46.05 14.04 293 203 65 NW Steep Minor fracture 

48.61 14.82 259 169 39 W Moderate Minor fracture 

76.27 23.25 256 166 76 W Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

84.05 25.62 104 14 88 E Nearly vertical Fabric or layering in rock 

87.76 26.75 162 72 81 S Nearly vertical Fabric or layering in rock 

88.73 27.04 289 199 75 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

106.43 32.44 342 252 86 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

119.96 36.56 281 191 84 W Nearly vertical Fabric or layering in rock 

130.68 39.83 255 165 68 W Steep Lithologic feature 

133.61 40.72 254 164 70 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

134.37 40.95 257 167 71 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

135.14 41.19 245 155 70 SW Steep Minor fracture 

140.61 42.86 242 152 75 SW Nearly vertical Fabric or layering in rock 

158.05 48.17 255 165 43 W Moderate Transmissive fracture 

158.28 48.24 253 163 39 W Moderate Lithologic feature 

163.52 49.84 230 140 43 SW Moderate Lithologic feature 

163.64 49.88 228 138 34 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

172.87 52.69 134 44 30 SE Shallow Fabric or layering in rock 

192.50 58.67 76 346 68 E Steep Fabric or layering in rock 

194.88 59.40 226 136 63 SW Steep Lithologic feature 

195.07 59.45 223 133 67 SW Steep Minor fracture 

197.66 60.24 277 187 51 W Steep Minor fracture 

198.73 60.57 308 218 56 NW Steep Minor fracture 

203.37 61.98 227 137 76 SW Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

203.45 62.01 235 145 75 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

207.94 63.38 239 149 62 SW Steep Lithologic feature 

220.77 67.29 241 151 53 SW Steep Fabric or layering in rock 

233.84 71.27 131 41 76 SE Nearly vertical Fabric or layering in rock 

256.37 78.14 108 18 24 E Shallow Fabric or layering in rock 

260.28 79.33 251 161 70 W Steep Lithologic feature 

263.53 80.32 59 329 69 NE Steep Minor fracture 

275.02 83.82 74 344 15 E Shallow Minor fracture 

285.20 86.92 93 3 71 E Nearly vertical Fracture 

286.39 87.29 336 246 77 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

292.33 89.10 259 169 73 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

310.17 94.54 166 76 78 S Nearly vertical Fabric or layering in rock 

315.59 96.19 247 157 60 SW Steep Minor fracture 

326.70 99.57 31 301 75 NE Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

327.84 99.92 36 306 74 NE Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

339.15 103.37 146 56 82 SE Nearly vertical Fabric or layering in rock 

344.10 104.88 141 51 73 SE Nearly vertical Fabric or layering in rock 

345.31 105.25 205 115 15 SW Shallow Fabric or layering in rock 

349.00 106.37 259 169 57 W Steep Fabric or layering in rock 

359.44 109.55 218 128 12 SW Shallow Fabric or layering in rock 

360.91 110.00 243 153 29 SW Shallow Fabric or layering in rock 

368.22 112.23 192 102 19 S Shallow Fabric or layering in rock 

368.41 112.29 204 114 25 SW Shallow Fabric or layering in rock 

369.92 112.75 262 172 35 W Moderate Fabric or layering in rock 
 

 

DW-10 Howard Mountain Transmitter site, Machiasport, Maine 

OTV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

OTV-Tadpole 

0 90 

ATV-Stereoplot OTV 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

ATV 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

140 

150 

160 

170 

180 

0° 

180° 

0° 

180° 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 3B-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole DW-10, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
190 

200 

210 

220 

230 

240 

250 

260 

270 

280 

290 

300 

310 

320 

330 

340 

350 

360 

Figure 3B-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole DW-10, 

near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
370 

380
 

Figure 3B-3. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole DW-10,
 

near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued
 
 

 

 

Appendix 4. Plots and interpretations of 

borehole geophysical logs collected by 

Geophysical Applications, Inc., for boreholes 

near Machiasport, Maine 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 4. 

Plots and interpretations of borehole geophysical logs collected by Geophysical 

Applications, Inc., near Machiasport, Maine 

A. Borehole MW-14 (near the Ground-to-Air Transmitter/Receiver Site on Miller Mountain) 

Figure 4A–1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-14, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 4A–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-14, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 4A–2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole MW-14, near Machiasport, Maine. 

B. Borehole MW-8 (in the Air Force Radar Tracking Station area on Howard Mountain) 

Figure 4B–1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-8, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 4B–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-8, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 4B–2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole MW-8, near Machiasport, Maine. 

C. Borehole MW-9 (in the Air Force Radar Tracking Station area on Howard Mountain) 

Figure 4C–1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-9, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 4C–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-9, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 4C–2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole MW-9, near Machiasport, Maine. 

D. Borehole MW-10 (in the Air Force Radar Tracking Station area on Howard Mountain) 

Figure 4D–1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-10, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 4D–1. Interpretation of combined acoustic and optical televiewer logs for 

borehole MW-10, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 4D–2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole MW-10, near Machiasport, Maine. 

E. Borehole MW-11 (in the Air Force Radar Tracking Station area on Howard Mountain) 

Figure 4E–1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-11, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 4E–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-11, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 4E–2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole MW-11, near Machiasport, Maine. 

F. Borehole MW-12 (in the Air Force Radar Tracking Station area on Howard Mountain) 

Figure 4F–1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-12, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 4F–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-12, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 4F–2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole MW-12, near Machiasport, Maine. 

G. Borehole WY-3 (in the Air Force Radar Tracking Station area on Howard Mountain) 

Figure 4G–1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole WY-3, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 4G–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole WY-3, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 4G–2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole WY-3, near Machiasport, Maine. 

H. Borehole DW-4 (in the Air Force Radar Tracking Station area on Howard Mountain) 

Figure 4H–1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-4, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 4H–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-4, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 4H–2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole DW-4, near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. Borehole MW-4 (near the Transmitter Site on Howard Mountain) 

Figure 4I–1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-4, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 4I–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-4, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 4I–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole MW-4, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 4I–2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data 

for borehole MW-4, near Machiasport, Maine. 

J. Borehole MW-5 (near the Transmitter Site on Howard Mountain) 

Figure 4J–1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-5, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 4J–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-5, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 4J–2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole MW-5, near Machiasport, Maine. 

K. Borehole MW-6 (near the Transmitter Site on Howard Mountain) 

Figure 4K–1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-6, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 4K–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-6, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 4K–2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole MW-6, near Machiasport, Maine. 

L. Borehole MW-7 (near the Transmitter Site on Howard Mountain) 

Figure 4L–1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-7, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 4L–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-7, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 4L–2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole MW-7, near Machiasport, Maine. 
True North 

0°
 

270° 90°

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

increments between circles 

20 ft ATV 

FEET 

30° 

60° 

120° 

150° 

180° 

210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.5 1.0 1.5

-0.5 

-1.0 

-1.5 

0.5 

1.0 

1.5 

Projection Along N100°E 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
 10
 

20
 

30
 

40
 

50
 

60
 

70
 

80
 

90
 

0 1 2 3
 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 


Figure 4A-1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-14, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 4A–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-14, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 4.10 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

25.42 7.75 203 113 86 SW Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

28.39 8.65 318 228 34 NW Moderate Minor fracture 

28.88 8.80 196 106 48 S Moderate Minor fracture 

29.22 8.91 332 242 61 NW Steep Transmissive fracture 

29.83 9.09 63 333 36 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

29.93 9.12 353 263 88 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

30.55 9.31 317 227 41 NW Moderate Minor fracture 

30.82 9.39 49 319 23 NE Shallow Minor fracture 

32.70 9.97 153 63 41 SE Moderate Fracture 

34.61 10.55 302 212 81 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

35.73 10.89 152 62 31 SE Moderate Minor fracture 

36.20 11.03 146 56 39 SE Moderate Minor fracture 

39.32 11.98 305 215 78 NW Nearly vertical Fracture 

40.46 12.33 139 49 75 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

42.26 12.88 192 102 84 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

44.12 13.45 309 219 79 NW Nearly vertical Fracture 

45.37 13.83 199 109 75 S Nearly vertical Fracture 

45.79 13.96 198 108 74 S Nearly vertical Fracture 

47.77 14.56 118 28 52 SE Steep Fracture 

48.93 14.91 219 129 26 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

50.27 15.32 77 347 27 E Shallow Minor fracture 

52.47 15.99 186 96 23 S Shallow Fracture 

53.38 16.27 115 25 33 SE Moderate Minor fracture 

54.11 16.49 214 124 24 SW Shallow Fracture 

55.35 16.87 330 240 78 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

57.59 17.55 22 292 39 N Moderate Minor fracture 

58.92 17.96 31 301 40 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

59.45 18.12 67 337 31 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

60.33 18.39 246 156 50 SW Moderate Fracture 

60.50 18.44 241 151 55 SW Steep Minor fracture 

61.01 18.59 239 149 58 SW Steep Fracture 

61.27 18.67 239 149 61 SW Steep Transmissive fracture 

61.90 18.87 249 159 60 W Steep Minor fracture 

62.37 19.01 235 145 63 SW Steep Transmissive fracture 

62.83 19.15 249 159 53 W Steep Transmissive fracture 

63.33 19.30 248 158 36 W Moderate Fracture 

63.36 19.31 242 152 36 SW Moderate Fracture 

63.63 19.39 191 101 42 S Moderate Minor fracture 

64.18 19.56 234 144 35 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

64.68 19.71 73 343 72 E Nearly vertical Fracture 

65.03 19.82 221 131 17 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

65.25 19.89 245 155 56 SW Steep Sealed feature 

66.59 20.30 69 339 68 E Steep Minor fracture 

66.90 20.39 229 139 58 SW Steep Minor fracture 

67.36 20.53 244 154 64 SW Steep Sealed feature 

68.49 20.87 81 351 25 E Shallow Minor fracture 

70.71 21.55 229 139 74 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

72.18 22.00 198 108 60 S Steep Minor fracture 

73.35 22.36 34 304 58 NE Steep Sealed feature 

74.10 22.58 233 143 71 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

75.90 23.13 213 123 78 SW Nearly vertical Fracture 

77.33 23.57 244 154 67 SW Steep Sealed feature 

78.05 23.79 233 143 72 SW Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

78.71 23.99 228 138 68 SW Steep Sealed feature 

79.91 24.36 250 160 65 W Steep Minor fracture 

80.65 24.58 280 190 23 W Shallow Minor fracture 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 4A–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-14, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below 

top of casing, which is 4.10 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike] 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

81.39 24.81 284 194 73 W Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

82.75 25.22 250 160 53 W Steep Lithologic feature 

85.14 25.95 359 269 13 N Shallow Fracture 

86.67 26.42 315 225 30 NW Moderate Minor fracture 

87.86 26.78 14 284 19 N Shallow Minor fracture 

88.15 26.87 115 25 17 SE Shallow Sealed feature 

88.29 26.91 30 300 80 NE Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

88.93 27.10 247 157 27 SW Shallow Sealed feature 

90.64 27.63 237 147 67 SW Steep Sealed feature 

95.81 29.20 36 306 24 NE Shallow Minor fracture 

98.05 29.88 229 139 65 SW Steep Minor fracture 

104.65 31.90 295 205 39 NW Moderate Transmissive fracture 

105.01 32.01 35 305 11 NE Shallow Transmissive fracture 
 

 

 

 

MW-14 Miller Mountain Ground/Air Transmitter Receiver site, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV & OTV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

ATV & OTV ATV & OTV-Tadpole 

0 90 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

0° 

180° 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 4A-2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole MW-14, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
Depth along borehole in 20-

60° 

90° 

120° 

1.5

FEET 

ft 

True North 

0° 

30° 

210° 150°

240° 

300° 

330° 

-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.5 1.0 

-0.5 

-1.0 

-1.5 

0.5 

1.0 

1.5 

270° 

180° 

increments between circles 

Projection Along N90°E 20 ft ATV 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
 5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

45 

50 

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 

Figure 4B-1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-8, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

Table 4B–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-8, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 3.42 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

12.09 3.68 172 82 17 S Shallow Fracture

12.50 3.81 146 56 43 SE Moderate Minor fracture

12.76 3.89 179 89 78 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture

12.97 3.95 124 34 52 SE Steep Minor fracture

13.47 4.11 274 184 13 W Shallow Minor fracture

13.98 4.26 101 11 28 E Shallow Minor fracture

14.24 4.34 120 30 30 SE Shallow Fracture

14.85 4.53 116 26 50 SE Moderate Fracture

14.97 4.56 286 196 33 W Moderate Minor fracture

15.27 4.65 114 24 84 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture

16.48 5.02 193 103 14 S Shallow Fracture

16.91 5.15 220 130 36 SW Moderate Fracture

17.43 5.31 196 106 16 S Shallow Fracture

17.75 5.41 282 192 6 W Nearly horizontal Minor fracture

18.16 5.53 179 89 8 S Nearly horizontal Minor fracture

18.83 5.74 21 291 17 N Shallow Minor fracture

19.14 5.83 47 317 9 NE Nearly horizontal Minor fracture

19.57 5.96 212 122 14 SW Shallow Fracture

19.78 6.03 202 112 9 S Nearly horizontal Minor fracture

20.48 6.24 251 161 21 W Shallow Minor fracture

20.64 6.29 215 125 20 SW Shallow Minor fracture

21.09 6.43 173 83 39 S Moderate Minor fracture

21.20 6.46 186 96 17 S Shallow Fracture

21.55 6.57 231 141 22 SW Shallow Minor fracture

21.74 6.63 116 26 12 SE Shallow Minor fracture

22.03 6.71 224 134 14 SW Shallow Transmissive fracture

23.25 7.09 116 26 14 SE Shallow Fracture

23.40 7.13 135 45 70 SE Steep Minor fracture

23.58 7.19 137 47 58 SE Steep Minor fracture

24.06 7.33 194 104 29 S Shallow Fracture

24.65 7.51 166 76 36 S Moderate Minor fracture

25.22 7.69 178 88 25 S Shallow Fracture

26.40 8.05 213 123 49 SW Moderate Fracture

27.08 8.25 174 84 21 S Shallow Minor fracture

27.61 8.42 165 75 22 S Shallow Minor fracture

28.74 8.76 145 55 62 SE Steep Minor fracture

28.75 8.76 285 195 22 W Shallow Transmissive fracture

28.88 8.80 192 102 18 S Shallow Transmissive fracture

30.51 9.30 170 80 45 S Moderate Transmissive fracture

30.92 9.42 153 63 75 SE Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture

31.89 9.72 215 125 23 SW Shallow Minor fracture

33.18 10.11 131 41 83 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture

33.98 10.36 149 59 23 SE Shallow Fracture

34.53 10.52 171 81 29 S Shallow Fracture

35.37 10.78 144 54 80 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture

35.47 10.81 133 43 20 SE Shallow Fracture

35.82 10.92 191 101 18 S Shallow Fracture

37.47 11.42 163 73 17 S Shallow Fracture

37.76 11.51 325 235 86 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture

39.21 11.95 150 60 18 SE Shallow Minor fracture

41.44 12.63 266 176 14 W Shallow Minor fracture

42.40 12.92 123 33 75 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture

43.90 13.38 151 61 76 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture

44.15 13.46 121 31 75 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture

45.29 13.80 12 282 18 N Shallow Minor fracture

46.18 14.07 153 63 77 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture
 

 

 

 

Table 4B–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-8, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below

top of casing, which is 3.42 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

47.03 14.33 150 60 83 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture

47.48 14.47 159 69 67 S Steep Fracture

47.53 14.49 236 146 19 SW Shallow Fracture

48.36 14.74 178 88 32 S Moderate Minor fracture

49.37 15.05 148 58 64 SE Steep Fracture

49.68 15.14 158 68 80 S Nearly vertical other

51.07 15.57 136 46 60 SE Steep Fracture

53.06 16.17 170 80 13 S Shallow Fracture
MW-8 Howard Mountain Air Force Radar Tracking Station, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

ATV 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

0° 

180°

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 4B-2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole MW-8, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

Projection Along N90°E 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
 

10
 

20
 

30
 

40
 

50
 

60
 

70
 

80
 

90
 

100
 

110
 

120
 

0 1 2 3 4 5
 6


DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL
 

 

 

True North 

0° 

30° 

60° 

120° 

150° 

180° 

210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-4 -2 2 4

-2 

-4 

2 

4 

FEET 270° 90° 

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

increments between circles 

20 ft ATV 

Figure 4C-1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-9, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

Table 4C–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-9, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 2.89 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

14.59 4.45 303 213 79 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

17.85 5.44 30 300 35 NE Moderate Transmissive fracture 

18.29 5.57 356 266 85 N Nearly vertical Partial trace - upper toe 

20.06 6.11 354 264 85 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

20.63 6.29 328 238 70 NW Steep Minor fracture 

24.78 7.55 317 227 86 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

26.57 8.10 25 295 79 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

27.82 8.48 319 229 83 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

30.68 9.35 324 234 84 NW Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

35.15 10.71 312 222 90 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

36.16 11.02 54 324 18 NE Shallow Minor fracture 

41.54 12.66 269 179 85 W Nearly vertical Fracture 

45.74 13.94 188 98 84 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

49.08 14.96 18 288 24 N Shallow Contact 

49.52 15.09 305 215 89 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

50.01 15.24 52 322 25 NE Shallow Contact 

53.13 16.19 191 101 68 S Steep Minor fracture 

57.44 17.51 150 60 79 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

60.38 18.40 141 51 81 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

61.86 18.85 170 80 84 S Nearly vertical Fracture 

62.73 19.12 179 89 84 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

63.19 19.26 161 71 81 S Nearly vertical Fracture 

67.69 20.63 181 91 83 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

68.25 20.80 11 281 86 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

75.93 23.14 280 190 37 W Moderate Contact 

76.01 23.17 65 335 22 NE Shallow Fracture 

76.71 23.38 43 313 31 NE Moderate Fracture 

77.33 23.57 241 151 18 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

77.81 23.72 260 170 75 W Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

78.58 23.95 273 183 79 W Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

78.85 24.03 266 176 68 W Steep Minor fracture 

80.22 24.45 10 280 35 N Moderate Minor fracture 

80.26 24.46 157 67 61 SE Steep Fracture 

81.33 24.79 360 270 38 N Moderate Fracture 

82.75 25.22 60 330 5 NE Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

83.21 25.36 358 268 53 N Steep Fracture 

84.52 25.76 157 67 46 SE Moderate Minor fracture 

84.94 25.89 101 11 23 E Shallow Minor fracture 

86.58 26.39 139 49 13 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

88.48 26.97 0 270 69 N Steep Fracture 

89.09 27.15 151 61 39 SE Moderate Minor fracture 

89.46 27.27 138 48 23 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

89.57 27.30 349 259 70 N Steep Fracture 

90.29 27.52 347 257 81 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

92.39 28.16 159 69 63 S Steep Minor fracture 

94.49 28.80 273 183 76 W Nearly vertical Fracture 

97.80 29.81 6 276 17 N Shallow Fracture 

99.22 30.24 303 213 7 NW Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

99.33 30.27 178 88 31 S Moderate Fracture 

103.96 31.69 258 168 84 W Nearly vertical Sealed fracture 

106.58 32.48 68 338 13 E Shallow Contact 

107.76 32.84 92 2 11 E Shallow Contact 

109.21 33.29 255 165 88 W Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

114.38 34.86 268 178 88 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

119.88 36.54 159 69 42 S Moderate Minor fracture 

120.43 36.71 160 70 54 S Steep Minor fracture 
 

 

MW-9 Howard Mountain Air Force Radar Tracking Station, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

ATV ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

0° 

180° 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 4C-2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole MW-9, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

 0
 

20
 

40
 

60
 

80
 

100
 

120
 

140
 

160
 

180
 

200
 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
 

Projection Along N100°E 

0 2 4 6 8 10
 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL
 

 

 

Depth along borehole in 20.0-ft 

increments between circles 

20.0 ft ATV 

True North 

270° 90° 

30° 

60° 

120° 

150° 

180° 

210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-8 -2 -4 -6 2 4 6

-2 

-4 

-6 

-8 

2 

4 

6 

8 

8 

FEET 

Figure 4D-1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-10, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

Table 4D–1. Interpretation of combined acoustic and optical televiewer logs for borehole MW-10, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 2.66 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

21.15 6.45 239 149 2 SW Nearly horizontal Bottom of casing 

24.63 7.51 80 350 30 E Moderate Minor fracture 

28.94 8.82 247 157 88 SW Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

40.34 12.30 256 166 80 W Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

53.06 16.17 57 327 57 NE Steep Minor fracture 

60.00 18.29 116 26 54 SE Steep Minor fracture 

64.88 19.77 296 206 84 NW Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

66.76 20.35 124 34 82 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

69.13 21.07 321 231 80 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

72.55 22.11 29 299 18 NE Shallow Minor fracture 

75.49 23.01 308 218 85 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

75.86 23.12 31 301 81 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

76.57 23.34 247 157 79 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

79.36 24.19 192 102 12 S Shallow Minor fracture 

80.29 24.47 300 210 82 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

82.92 25.27 5 275 83 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

84.49 25.75 185 95 48 S Moderate Minor fracture 

85.73 26.13 26 296 80 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

89.02 27.13 12 282 85 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

93.83 28.60 25 295 75 NE Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

95.08 28.98 48 318 76 NE Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

95.95 29.24 310 220 80 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

97.23 29.63 304 214 78 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

98.37 29.98 243 153 81 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

105.94 32.29 301 211 80 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

107.81 32.86 13 283 74 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

108.92 33.20 31 301 73 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

109.86 33.48 75 345 67 E Steep Minor fracture 

119.25 36.35 109 19 20 E Shallow Fracture 

121.47 37.02 340 250 87 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

123.69 37.70 287 197 2 W Nearly horizontal Other 

126.62 38.59 32 302 59 NE Steep Fracture 

129.78 39.56 73 343 54 E Steep Sealed fracture 

132.15 40.28 77 347 52 E Steep Sealed fracture 

132.55 40.40 219 129 42 SW Moderate Fracture 

134.08 40.87 73 343 65 E Steep Minor fracture 

140.66 42.87 155 65 48 SE Moderate Minor fracture 

142.81 43.53 119 29 69 SE Steep Possible fracture 

145.76 44.43 104 14 44 E Moderate Minor fracture 

150.05 45.73 273 183 57 W Steep Sealed fracture 

155.60 47.42 306 216 19 NW Shallow Transmissive fracture 

155.87 47.51 77 347 79 E Nearly vertical Sealed fracture 

156.42 47.67 331 241 64 NW Steep Sealed fracture 

157.02 47.86 126 36 31 SE Moderate Sealed fracture 

163.47 49.82 252 162 61 W Steep Minor fracture 

164.65 50.18 271 181 67 W Steep Possible fracture 

165.75 50.52 67 337 24 NE Shallow Contact 

168.17 51.26 157 67 56 SE Steep Sealed fracture 

168.49 51.35 295 205 72 NW Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

171.51 52.27 148 58 56 SE Steep Sealed fracture 

171.76 52.35 141 51 53 SE Steep Minor fracture 

173.22 52.79 176 86 31 S Moderate Sealed fracture 

175.01 53.34 91 1 59 E Steep Contact 

177.16 54.00 82 352 52 E Steep Contact 

180.17 54.91 92 2 37 E Moderate Minor fracture 

182.71 55.69 239 149 87 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

207.13 63.13 2 272 89 N Nearly vertical Partial fracture 
 

 

MW-10 Howard Mountain Air Force Radar Tracking Station, Machiasport, Maine 

OTV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

OTV OTV-Tadpole 

0 90 

ATV ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

140 

150 

160 

170 

0° 

180° 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 4D-2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole MW-10, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
180 

0° 

190
 

200
 

180° 

210
 

Figure 4D-2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole MW-10,
 

near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued
 
 

 

Projection Along N100°E 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
 10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

0.0 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 

 

 

True North 

0° 

30° 

60° 

120° 

150° 

180° 

210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 

-0.5 

-1.0 

-1.5 

0.5 

1.0 

1.5 

FEET 

270° 90° 

Depth along borehole in 10-ft 

increments between circles 

10 ft 

Figure 4E-1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-11, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 4E–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-11, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 2.21 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

101.03 30.79 218 128 7 SW Nearly horizontal Transmissive fracture 

106.98 32.61 272 182 78 W Nearly vertical Sealed fracture 

117.90 35.93 240 150 66 SW Steep Sealed fracture 

125.32 38.20 251 161 69 W Steep Sealed fracture 

128.84 39.27 188 98 62 S Steep Contact 

128.87 39.28 191 101 64 S Steep Minor fracture 

131.84 40.18 313 223 85 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

140.82 42.92 79 349 88 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

144.42 44.02 71 341 83 E Nearly vertical Sealed fracture 

152.16 46.38 197 107 75 S Nearly vertical Sealed fracture 

153.78 46.87 105 15 61 E Steep Contact 

153.98 46.93 100 10 59 E Steep Minor fracture 

154.86 47.20 99 9 54 E Steep Transmissive fracture 

155.73 47.46 120 30 61 SE Steep Transmissive fracture 

158.67 48.36 81 351 67 E Steep Minor fracture 

160.51 48.92 60 330 81 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

162.73 49.60 63 333 65 NE Steep Sealed fracture 

164.71 50.20 271 181 28 W Shallow Transmissive fracture 

167.99 51.20 322 232 73 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

168.77 51.44 36 306 78 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

169.75 51.74 107 17 55 E Steep Minor fracture 

179.76 54.79 346 256 31 N Moderate Transmissive fracture 

187.39 57.11 321 231 81 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

190.88 58.18 287 197 55 W Steep Sealed fracture 

193.78 59.06 260 170 73 W Nearly vertical Contact 

193.84 59.08 246 156 69 SW Steep Transmissive fracture 

197.57 60.22 335 245 77 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 
MW-11 Howard Mountain Air Force Radar Tracking Station, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

100 

110 

120 

130 

140 

150 

160 

170 

180 

190 

200 

0° 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

180°

Figure 4E-2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole MW-11, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

Projection Along N165°E 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
 20
 

40
 

60
 

80
 

100
 

120
 

140
 

160
 

180
 

200
 

220
 

240
 

0 4 8 12
 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL
 

 

 

True North 

0° 

30° 

60° 

120° 

150° 

180° 

210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-8 -4 4 8

-4 

-8 

4 

8 

FEET 

270° 90° 

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

increments between circles 

20 ft ATV 

Figure 4F-1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-12, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 4F–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-12, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 1.44 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

20.34 6.20 156 66 1 SE Nearly horizontal Bottom of casing 

21.44 6.53 160 70 1 S Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

23.89 7.28 111 21 40 E Moderate Fracture 

24.71 7.53 111 21 31 E Moderate Fracture 

26.00 7.92 241 151 77 SW Nearly vertical Contact 

28.64 8.73 168 78 81 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

34.46 10.50 180 90 79 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

40.42 12.32 170 80 77 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

45.60 13.90 170 80 76 S Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

48.39 14.75 190 100 78 S Nearly vertical Fracture 

59.84 18.24 135 45 75 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

61.21 18.66 138 48 74 SE Nearly vertical Fracture 

77.62 23.66 168 78 25 S Shallow Minor fracture 

79.78 24.32 171 81 74 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

83.35 25.40 164 74 72 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

87.49 26.67 186 96 71 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

97.53 29.73 182 92 77 S Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

111.61 34.02 289 199 77 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

112.27 34.22 285 195 81 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

160.08 48.79 228 138 69 SW Steep Minor fracture 

164.47 50.13 85 355 81 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

171.43 52.25 284 194 81 W Nearly vertical Contact 

171.76 52.35 290 200 83 W Nearly vertical Fracture 

175.45 53.47 247 157 70 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

183.73 56.00 64 334 37 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

207.02 63.10 258 168 73 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

209.34 63.80 239 149 57 SW Steep Contact 

219.55 66.92 256 166 72 W Nearly vertical Fracture 

219.56 66.92 264 174 73 W Nearly vertical Possible fracture 

220.44 67.19 242 152 68 SW Steep Contact 

235.30 71.72 340 250 79 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 
 

 

MW-12 Howard Mountain Air Force Radar Tracking Station, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

ATV ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

140 

150 

160 

170 

180 

0° 

180° 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 4F-2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole MW-12, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
190 

200 

210 

220 

230 

240 

Figure 4F-2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole MW-12, 

near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

increments between circles 

20 ft ATV 

30° 

60° 

120° 

150° 

180° 

210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-4 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4

-1 

-2 

-3 

-4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

FEET 

True North 

0° 

270° 90° TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
 100
 

120
 

140
 

160
 

180
 

200
 

220
 

240
 

260
 

280
 

300
 

Projection Along N70°E 

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 


Figure 4G-1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole WY-3, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

Table 4G–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole WY-3, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 0.91 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

83.78 8.65 352 262 7 N Nearly horizontal Bottom of casing 

84.90 8.65 127 37 71 SE Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture, 

inferred from fluid logs 

88.07 8.65 237 147 68 SW Steep Minor fracture 

90.54 8.65 304 214 14 NW Shallow Transmissive fracture, 

inferred from fluid logs 

96.30 8.65 26 296 68 NE Steep Minor fracture 

97.82 8.65 34 304 58 NE Steep Sealed feature 

100.66 8.65 17 287 75 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

106.41 8.65 52 322 69 NE Steep Lithologic feature 

109.84 8.65 359 269 72 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

116.48 8.65 254 164 17 W Shallow Minor fracture 

120.63 8.65 220 130 65 SW Steep Fracture 

123.97 8.65 6 276 69 N Steep Minor fracture 

125.27 8.65 50 320 43 NE Moderate Lithologic feature 

127.25 8.65 151 61 34 SE Moderate Minor fracture 

130.52 8.65 9 279 74 N Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

131.31 8.65 74 344 30 E Moderate Partial fracture 

131.55 8.65 253 163 70 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

132.15 8.65 16 286 75 N Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

132.44 8.65 226 136 43 SW Moderate Lithologic feature 

132.84 8.65 225 135 34 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

138.68 8.65 220 130 83 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

139.84 8.65 7 277 82 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

143.23 8.65 68 338 55 E Steep sealed feature 

144.48 8.65 52 322 38 NE Moderate Lithologic feature 

147.45 8.65 90 0 21 E Shallow Fracture 

152.55 8.65 147 57 12 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

159.34 8.65 243 153 11 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

167.20 8.65 229 139 17 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

172.53 8.65 75 345 85 E Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

174.97 8.65 149 59 18 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

179.53 8.65 85 355 82 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

180.39 8.65 171 81 7 S Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

181.72 8.65 291 201 18 W Shallow Minor fracture 

183.78 8.65 337 247 26 NW Shallow Minor fracture 

184.58 8.65 143 53 50 SE Steep Lithologic feature 

190.25 8.65 31 301 12 NE Shallow Minor fracture 

193.82 8.65 246 156 27 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

194.45 8.65 317 227 73 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

196.28 8.65 41 311 31 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

199.65 8.65 54 324 24 NE Shallow Lithologic feature 

206.13 8.65 220 130 85 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

220.73 8.65 258 168 75 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

227.34 8.65 142 52 54 SE Steep Minor fracture 

232.63 8.65 143 53 68 SE Steep Minor fracture 

238.44 8.65 168 78 9 S Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

240.01 8.65 147 57 65 SE Steep Minor fracture 

240.40 8.65 19 289 48 N Moderate Lithologic feature 

247.75 8.65 264 174 76 W Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture, 

inferred from fluid logs 

255.86 8.65 11 281 81 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

255.94 8.65 79 349 54 E Steep Minor fracture 

257.36 8.65 106 16 66 E Steep Minor fracture 

263.83 8.65 22 292 83 N Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture, 

inferred from fluid logs 
 

 

 

 

Table 4G–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole WY-3, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below 

top of casing, which is 0.91 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike] 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

269.00 8.65 357 267 82 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

275.81 8.65 152 62 43 SE Moderate Minor fracture 

277.00 8.65 142 52 62 SE Steep Minor fracture 

279.10 8.65 139 49 71 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

280.94 8.65 177 87 69 S Steep Minor fracture 

283.31 8.65 141 51 71 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

284.21 8.65 138 48 61 SE Steep Minor fracture 

285.12 8.65 133 43 64 SE Steep Minor fracture 

287.49 8.65 307 217 40 NW Moderate Minor fracture 

289.17 8.65 69 339 63 E Steep Minor fracture 

289.22 8.65 249 159 55 W Steep Minor fracture 

298.18 8.65 59 329 75 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 
WY-3 Howard Mountain Air Force Radar Tracking Station, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

140 

150 

160 

170 

180 

190 

200 

210 

220 

230 

240 

0° 

180° 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 4G-2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole WY-3, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
250 

260 

270 

280 

290 

300 

Figure 4G-2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole WY-3, 

near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

200 

220 

240 

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Projection Along N280°E 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

120° 

20 ft ATV 

ncrements between circles 

True North 

0° 

30° 

60° 

90° 

150° 210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 

-0.5 

-1.0 

-1.5 

0.5 

1.0 

1.5 

270° FEET 

180° 

i

Figure 4H-1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-4, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 [ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

Table 4H–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-4, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 1.06 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

25.05 7.63 333 243 78 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

26.99 8.23 323 233 73 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

28.88 8.80 313 223 78 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

34.83 10.62 335 245 70 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

38.77 11.82 316 226 73 NW Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

42.86 13.06 333 243 80 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

45.49 13.86 323 233 75 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

46.54 14.18 316 226 78 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

48.50 14.78 321 231 77 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

50.06 15.26 324 234 71 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

51.67 15.75 251 161 14 W Shallow Transmissive fracture 

52.02 15.85 326 236 78 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

52.83 16.10 327 237 77 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

53.36 16.26 329 239 76 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

54.13 16.50 329 239 73 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

56.08 17.09 329 239 71 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

64.75 19.73 302 212 65 NW Steep Minor fracture 

70.88 21.60 308 218 78 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

81.40 24.81 346 256 74 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

82.11 25.03 340 250 68 N Steep Minor fracture 

82.76 25.22 340 250 70 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

104.70 31.91 75 345 82 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

109.41 33.35 73 343 84 E Nearly vertical Fracture 

109.48 33.37 69 339 84 E Nearly vertical Contact 

112.37 34.25 144 54 75 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

115.03 35.06 159 69 69 S Steep Minor fracture 

116.25 35.43 153 63 52 SE Steep Minor fracture 

117.42 35.79 46 316 75 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

119.37 36.38 66 336 80 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

119.49 36.42 218 128 75 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

119.63 36.46 76 346 59 E Steep Contact 

125.68 38.31 255 165 85 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

132.14 40.27 259 169 82 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

144.31 43.98 252 162 77 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

148.02 45.11 245 155 76 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

166.51 50.75 116 26 69 SE Steep Minor fracture 

167.30 50.99 111 21 73 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

167.81 51.15 118 28 73 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

187.78 57.23 229 139 70 SW Steep Transmissive fracture 

193.36 58.93 265 175 45 W Moderate Contact 

194.81 59.38 119 29 21 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

194.94 59.41 330 240 80 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

195.31 59.53 101 11 18 E Shallow Minor fracture 

195.72 59.65 97 7 49 E Moderate Minor fracture 

196.45 59.88 177 87 72 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

197.41 60.17 229 139 59 SW Steep Minor fracture 

197.50 60.20 132 42 68 SE Steep Minor fracture 

198.57 60.52 256 166 72 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

201.76 61.49 201 111 57 S Steep Minor fracture 

203.29 61.96 211 121 71 SW Nearly vertical Fracture 

203.40 61.99 119 29 50 SE Moderate Minor fracture 

204.32 62.27 247 157 64 SW Steep Contact 

209.15 63.75 283 193 11 W Shallow Fracture 

209.43 63.83 239 149 80 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

214.42 65.35 281 191 81 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

224.21 68.34 239 149 72 SW Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

225.23 68.65 242 152 65 SW Steep Minor fracture 

227.11 69.22 244 154 69 SW Steep Minor fracture 
 

 

DW-4 Howard Mountain Air Force Radar Tracking Station, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

140 

150 

160 

170 

180 

0° 

180° 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 4H-2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole DW-4, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
190 

200
 

210
 

220
 

230
 

240
 

Figure 4H-2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole DW-4,
 

near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued
 
Projection Along N180°E 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
 10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

2.1 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 

-0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 

True North 

0° 

30° 

60° 

120° 

150° 

180° 

210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -.5 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0

-1 

-1.5 

-2.0 

.5 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

FEET 

90° 270° 

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

increments between circles 

20 ft ATV 

Figure 4I-1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-4, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top) 


is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

Table 4I–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-4, near Machiasport, Maine.
	

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
	

top of casing, which is 3.31 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
	

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

18.21 5.55 122 32 33 SE Moderate Fracture 

18.83 5.74 158 68 49 S Moderate Fracture 

19.27 5.87 117 27 33 SE Moderate Fracture 

19.44 5.93 172 82 42 S Moderate Fracture 

19.49 5.94 273 183 85 W Nearly vertical Fracture 

20.32 6.19 324 234 73 NW Nearly vertical Fracture 

21.47 6.54 352 262 53 N Steep Minor fracture 

21.53 6.56 172 82 48 S Moderate Minor fracture 

22.08 6.73 154 64 57 SE Steep Minor fracture 

22.86 6.97 155 65 44 SE Moderate Fracture 

23.18 7.06 7 277 38 N Moderate Fracture 

23.41 7.14 166 76 42 S Moderate Minor fracture 

23.65 7.21 338 248 73 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

23.73 7.23 188 98 33 S Moderate Fracture 

24.25 7.39 22 292 49 N Moderate Minor fracture 

24.93 7.60 335 245 79 NW Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

25.21 7.68 301 211 71 NW Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

25.61 7.81 313 223 80 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

26.49 8.07 145 55 35 SE Moderate Minor fracture 

26.57 8.10 325 235 76 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

27.06 8.25 172 82 35 S Moderate Minor fracture 

27.90 8.50 144 54 43 SE Moderate Minor fracture 

29.05 8.85 299 209 73 NW Nearly vertical Fracture 

29.70 9.05 295 205 81 NW Nearly vertical Fracture 

30.40 9.27 266 176 79 W Nearly vertical Fracture 

30.90 9.42 160 70 48 S Moderate Fracture 

31.82 9.70 278 188 78 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

32.57 9.93 342 252 74 N Nearly vertical Fracture 

33.14 10.10 254 164 67 W Steep Minor fracture 

33.46 10.20 265 175 50 W Moderate Fracture 

33.88 10.33 297 207 51 NW Steep Lithologic feature 

35.57 10.84 314 224 77 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

43.45 13.24 154 64 67 SE Steep Fracture 

43.67 13.31 280 190 75 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

45.60 13.90 177 87 42 S Moderate Fracture 

46.66 14.22 168 78 56 S Steep Fracture 

53.57 16.33 162 72 88 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

53.78 16.39 335 245 85 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

54.43 16.59 150 60 71 SE Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

55.18 16.82 147 57 74 SE Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

61.20 18.65 249 159 42 W Moderate Lithologic feature 

70.21 21.40 214 124 68 SW Steep Minor fracture 

83.73 25.52 139 49 60 SE Steep Transmissive fracture 

83.97 25.59 150 60 60 SE Steep Fracture 

96.94 29.55 166 76 74 S Nearly vertical Sealed feature 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 4I–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole MW-4, near Machiasport, Maine.
	

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
	

top of casing, which is 3.31 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
	

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

18.76 5.72 154 64 28 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

20.30 6.19 320 230 69 NW Steep Minor fracture 

21.41 6.53 353 263 34 N Moderate Minor fracture 

23.09 7.04 353 263 30 N Shallow Fracture 

23.67 7.21 126 36 25 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

24.86 7.58 290 200 71 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

25.22 7.69 273 183 55 W Steep Transmissive fracture 

26.45 8.06 95 5 23 E Shallow Minor fracture 

26.53 8.09 287 197 69 W Steep Sealed feature 

27.03 8.24 128 38 22 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

27.89 8.50 99 9 30 E Moderate Minor fracture 

29.66 9.04 274 184 76 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

29.92 9.12 11 281 43 N Moderate Fracture 

32.48 9.90 297 207 65 NW Steep Minor fracture 

33.17 10.11 265 175 59 W Steep Minor fracture 

33.36 10.17 264 174 46 W Moderate Fracture 

34.50 10.52 256 166 29 W Shallow Lithologic feature 

35.18 10.72 247 157 51 SW Steep Sealed feature 

54.65 16.66 118 28 49 SE Moderate Transmissive fracture 

55.99 17.06 123 33 53 SE Steep Fracture 

70.06 21.35 290 200 52 W Steep Minor fracture 

70.27 21.42 291 201 64 W Steep Minor fracture 

76.65 23.36 262 172 65 W Steep Sealed feature 

83.85 25.56 128 38 49 SE Moderate Fracture 

85.16 25.96 116 26 60 SE Steep Sealed feature 

87.23 26.59 90 360 31 E Moderate Sealed feature 

92.20 28.10 302 212 63 NW Steep Sealed feature 

94.55 28.82 257 167 73 W Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

95.41 29.08 252 162 74 W Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

98.99 30.17 105 15 61 E Steep Minor fracture 

100.76 30.71 119 29 52 SE Steep Minor fracture 
MW-4 Howard Mountain Transmitter site, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

ATV ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

OTV OTV Tadpole 

0 90 

OTV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

ATV#1 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

0° 

180° 

0° 

180°

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 4I-2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole MW-4, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

 

True North 

0° 

FEET 

30° 

60° 

90° 

120° 

150° 

180° 

210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-8 -6 -2 2 4 6 8

-2 

-4 

-6 

-8 

2 

4 

6 

8 

270° 

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

increments between circles 

20 ft ATV 

 

 

 

 

 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 100 

Projection Along N275°E 0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

0 -2 -4 -6 -10 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL
 

Figure 4J-1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-5, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

Table 4J–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-5, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[tTeleviewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 3.50 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

14.13 4.31 217 127 37 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

14.75 4.50 179 89 65 S Steep Minor fracture 

16.31 4.97 148 58 65 SE Steep Minor fracture 

16.39 5.00 274 184 89 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

18.66 5.69 292 202 84 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

19.18 5.85 83 353 30 E Moderate Minor fracture 

22.78 6.94 110 20 45 E Moderate Minor fracture 

22.90 6.98 265 175 21 W Shallow Minor fracture 

23.16 7.06 291 201 83 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

25.15 7.67 302 212 80 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

27.26 8.31 320 230 84 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

29.20 8.90 208 118 62 SW Steep Transmissive fracture 

29.22 8.91 183 93 8 S Nearly horizontal Transmissive fracture 

30.26 9.22 229 139 53 SW Steep Minor fracture 

31.91 9.73 200 110 54 S Steep Minor fracture 

33.16 10.11 198 108 62 S Steep Minor fracture 

43.26 13.19 189 99 50 S Moderate Minor fracture 

45.84 13.97 196 106 46 S Moderate Minor fracture 

46.65 14.22 183 93 50 S Moderate Minor fracture 

49.49 15.08 260 170 23 W Shallow Minor fracture 

50.57 15.41 290 200 21 W Shallow Minor fracture 

57.84 17.63 311 221 83 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

64.46 19.65 147 57 37 SE Moderate Transmissive fracture 

69.67 21.23 160 70 28 S Shallow Minor fracture 

71.88 21.91 328 238 80 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

77.61 23.65 305 215 84 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

77.64 23.66 142 52 61 SE Steep Minor fracture 

82.29 25.08 212 122 6 SW Nearly horizontal Transmissive fracture 

82.90 25.27 191 101 15 S Shallow Minor fracture 

83.87 25.56 318 228 85 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

88.64 27.02 314 224 87 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

100.64 30.67 325 235 63 NW Steep Minor fracture 

101.65 30.98 332 242 65 NW Steep Minor fracture 
 

 

 

MW-5 Howard Mountain Transmitter site, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

ATV 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

0° 

180° 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 4J-2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole MW-5, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

Projection Along N260°E 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 

 

 

True North 

0° 

270° 90° 

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

increments between circles 

20 ft ATV 

FEET 

30° 

60° 

120° 

150° 

180° 

210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-4 -2 2 4

-2 

-4 

2 

4 

Figure 4K-1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-6, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

Table 4K–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-6, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 3.21 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

13.44 4.10 96 6 19 E Shallow Transmissive fracture 

17.73 5.40 311 221 84 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

20.45 6.23 110 20 36 E Moderate Minor fracture 

24.48 7.46 325 235 78 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

36.50 11.12 328 238 79 NW Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

59.11 18.02 232 142 27 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

66.78 20.35 156 66 72 SE Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

67.27 20.50 351 261 80 N Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

68.15 20.77 352 262 60 N Steep Transmissive fracture 

69.70 21.24 358 268 80 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

87.65 26.71 11 281 85 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

90.55 27.60 16 286 83 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

91.90 28.01 131 41 67 SE Steep Fracture 

93.73 28.57 31 301 84 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

96.88 29.53 21 291 87 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

99.88 30.44 319 229 78 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

101.99 31.09 325 235 83 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

103.39 31.51 310 220 81 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

105.88 32.27 315 225 79 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

108.16 32.97 311 221 69 NW Steep Minor fracture 

109.83 33.47 319 229 75 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

112.12 34.17 325 235 79 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

119.03 36.28 325 235 73 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

119.29 36.36 20 290 82 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 
 

 

 

MW-6 Howard Mountain Transmitter site, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

ATV ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

0° 

180° 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 4K-2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole MW-6, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

Projection Along N255°E 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 

20 ft ATV 

 

 

True North 

0° 

270° 90° 

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

increments between circles 

FEET 

30° 

60° 

120° 

150° 

180° 

210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-6 -4 -2 2 4 6

-2 

-4 

-6 

2 

4 

6 

Figure 4L-1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-7 , near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 4L–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-7, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 2.41 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

7.74 2.36 181 91 87 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

9.25 2.82 276 186 2 W Nearly horizontal Water level 

9.36 2.85 292 202 2 W Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

13.15 4.01 121 31 63 SE Steep Minor fracture 

15.18 4.63 115 25 13 SE Shallow Transmissive fracture 

15.24 4.64 116 26 79 SE Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

17.82 5.43 166 76 82 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

18.34 5.59 155 65 81 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

21.28 6.49 157 67 83 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

22.83 6.96 154 64 80 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

24.53 7.48 149 59 76 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

27.07 8.25 125 35 59 SE Steep Minor fracture 

27.26 8.31 142 52 59 SE Steep Minor fracture 

29.76 9.07 138 48 74 SE Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

34.26 10.44 144 54 66 SE Steep Lithologic feature 

39.23 11.96 1 271 81 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

39.87 12.15 9 279 80 N Nearly vertical Fracture 

41.63 12.69 360 270 85 N Nearly vertical Fracture 

44.63 13.60 319 229 82 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

50.35 15.35 73 343 25 E Shallow Transmissive fracture 

51.98 15.84 356 266 85 N Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

55.82 17.01 3 273 83 N Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

57.50 17.53 4 274 84 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

62.01 18.90 314 224 78 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

74.09 22.58 171 81 83 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

75.48 23.01 168 78 55 S Steep Minor fracture 

79.00 24.08 295 205 71 NW Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

83.52 25.46 115 25 76 SE Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

88.11 26.85 128 38 63 SE Steep Transmissive fracture 

90.71 27.65 124 34 68 SE Steep Transmissive fracture 

96.58 29.44 155 65 78 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

105.91 32.28 337 247 75 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

115.25 35.13 307 217 73 NW Nearly vertical Fracture 

121.12 36.92 314 224 75 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 
 

 

 

MW-7 Howard Mountain Transmitter site, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

ATV ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

0° 

180° 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 4L-2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole MW-7, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

 

 

Appendix 5. Plots and interpretations of 

borehole geophysical logs collected by HagerRichter Geoscience, Inc., for boreholes near 

Machiasport, Maine 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 5. 

Plots and interpretations of borehole geophysical logs collected by Hager-Richter 

Geoscience, Inc., for boreholes near Machiasport, Maine 

A. Borehole DW-29 (near the Ground-to-Air Transmitter/Receiver Site on Miller Mountain) 

Figure 5A–1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-29, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 5A–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-29, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 5A–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole DW-29, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 5A–2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole DW-29, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 5A–3. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole 

DW-29, near Machiasport, Maine. 

B. Borehole MW-15 (in the Air Force Radar Tracking Station area on Howard Mountain) 

Figure 5B–1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-15, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 5B–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-15, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 5B–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole MW-15, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 5B–2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole MW-15, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 5B–3. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole 

MW-15, near Machiasport, Maine. 

C. Borehole MW-16 (in the Air Force Radar Tracking Station area on Howard Mountain) 

Figure 5C–1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-16, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 5C–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-16, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 5C–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole MW-16, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 5C–2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole MW-16, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 5C–3. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole 

MW-16, near Machiasport, Maine. 

D. Borehole MW-17 (in the Air Force Radar Tracking Station area on Howard Mountain) 

Figure 5D–1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-17, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 5D–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-17, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 5D–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole MW-17, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 5D–2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole MW-17, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 5D–3. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole 

MW-17, near Machiasport, Maine. 

E. Borehole WY-3C (in the Air Force Radar Tracking Station area on Howard Mountain) 

Figure 5E–1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole WY-3C, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 5E–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole WY-3C, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 5E–2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole WY-3C, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 5E–3. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole 

WY-3C, near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F. Borehole C-114 (in the Air Force Radar Tracking Station area on Howard Mountain) 

Figure 5F–1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole C-114, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 5F–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole C-114, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 5F–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole C-114, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 5F–2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole C-114, near Machiasport, Maine. 

G. Borehole C-501 (in the Air Force Radar Tracking Station area on Howard Mountain) 

Figure 5G–1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole C-501, near Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 5G–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole C-501, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Table 5G–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole C-501, near 

Machiasport, Maine. 

Figure 5G–2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image 

data for borehole C-501, near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

Projection Along N110°E
 

10
 

20
 

30
 

40
 

50
 

60
 

70
 

80
 

90
 

100
 

110
 

120
 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
 

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 

 

 

Depth along borehole in 10-ft 

increments between circles 

10 ft ATV 

True North 

0°
 

FEET 

30° 

60° 

120° 

150° 

180° 

210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 

-0.5 

-1.0 

-1.5 

0.5 

1.0 

1.5 

270° 90° 

10 ft OTV 

Figure 5A-1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole DW-29, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer; OTV, optical televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 5A–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole DW-29, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 2.54 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

13.37 4.07 222.79 133 57.66 SW Steep Minor fracture 

16.70 5.09 241.12 151 69.48 SW Steep Minor fracture 

17.14 5.22 41.83 312 57.61 NE Steep Minor fracture 

18.48 5.63 219.69 130 73.96 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

21.39 6.52 312.84 223 72.02 NW Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

22.73 6.93 204.68 115 56.92 SW Steep Transmissive fracture 

22.96 7.00 202.87 113 36 SW Moderate Lithologic feature 

24.83 7.57 91.3 1 24.68 E Shallow Minor fracture 

26.43 8.06 256.31 166 33.61 W Moderate Minor fracture 

29.21 8.90 326.78 237 81.3 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

30.75 9.37 61.09 331 56.87 NE Steep Minor fracture 

31.55 9.62 318.38 228 74.52 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

32.29 9.84 164.46 74 72.31 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

33.20 10.12 258.51 169 72.35 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

36.37 11.09 237.96 148 84.08 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

38.01 11.58 8.46 278 70.96 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

38.03 11.59 90.12 0 81.47 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

39.17 11.94 329.52 240 80.69 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

40.41 12.32 329.94 240 82.85 NW Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

42.78 13.04 170.39 80 27.33 S Shallow Minor fracture 

43.38 13.22 330.18 240 79.36 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

43.88 13.37 190.47 100 71.69 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

45.62 13.90 150.68 61 39.37 SE Moderate Minor fracture 

48.54 14.79 221.25 131 75.78 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

49.28 15.02 194.79 105 65.51 S Steep Minor fracture 

51.73 15.77 157.22 67 78.97 SE Nearly vertical Fracture 

55.39 16.88 261.16 171 81.08 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

56.18 17.12 160.57 71 31.95 S Moderate Minor fracture 

57.76 17.60 172.65 83 45.58 S Moderate Minor fracture 

57.78 17.61 356.64 267 82.57 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

59.72 18.20 326.3 236 73.13 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

60.31 18.38 282.31 192 78.41 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

66.42 20.24 259.72 170 85.54 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

67.35 20.53 227.91 138 25.53 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

69.34 21.13 256.03 166 82.91 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

76.96 23.46 191.47 101 14.14 S Shallow Lithologic feature 

77.67 23.67 217.74 128 27.93 SW Shallow Lithologic feature 

78.86 24.04 219.27 129 49.54 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

81.66 24.89 204.36 114 44.26 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

83.22 25.36 203.45 113 9.63 SW Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

87.23 26.59 239.37 149 73.5 SW Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

95.37 29.07 346.69 257 76.56 N Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

98.50 30.02 7.98 278 12.7 N Shallow Minor fracture 

99.78 30.41 308.13 218 67.47 NW Steep Minor fracture 

101.06 30.80 327.7 238 72.85 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

106.27 32.39 252.93 163 79.62 W Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

106.62 32.50 86.07 356 21.45 E Shallow Transmissive fracture 

107.98 32.91 338.18 248 68.02 N Steep Minor fracture 

108.64 33.11 353.85 264 70.67 N Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

115.93 35.33 212.05 122 14.41 SW Shallow Minor fracture 
 

 

 

 

Table 5A–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole DW-29, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 2.54 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

7.87 2.40 293 203 3 NW Nearly horizontal Bottom of casing 

8.08 2.46 56 326 4 NE Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

10.26 3.13 263 173 59 W Steep Minor fracture 

10.26 3.13 290 200 1 W Nearly horizontal Water level 

11.16 3.40 221 131 38 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

11.59 3.53 225 135 59 SW Steep Minor fracture 

12.76 3.89 232 142 69 SW Steep Transmissive fracture 

13.09 3.99 219 129 68 SW Steep Minor fracture 

13.27 4.04 30 300 14 NE Shallow Lithologic feature 

13.55 4.13 259 169 87 W Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

14.75 4.50 270 180 76 W Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

16.21 4.94 231 141 74 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

16.55 5.04 226 136 76 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

17.16 5.23 22 292 55 N Steep Minor fracture 

18.33 5.59 208 118 71 SW Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

18.55 5.65 40 310 75 NE Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

18.93 5.77 329 239 27 NW Shallow Minor fracture 

19.22 5.86 226 136 72 SW Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

20.40 6.22 236 146 53 SW Steep Minor fracture 

22.00 6.71 318 228 78 NW Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

22.08 6.73 327 237 18 NW Shallow Sealed feature 

22.17 6.76 216 126 45 SW Moderate Transmissive fracture 

22.88 6.97 275 185 23 W Shallow Lithologic feature 

23.73 7.23 35 305 34 NE Moderate Sealed feature 

24.62 7.50 7 277 55 N Steep Minor fracture 

25.71 7.84 35 305 61 NE Steep Minor fracture 

26.25 8.00 336 246 25 NW Shallow Minor fracture 

26.66 8.13 156 66 6 SE Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

26.77 8.16 50 320 69 NE Steep Sealed feature 

27.10 8.26 100 10 20 E Shallow Lithologic feature 

27.50 8.38 80 350 79 E Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

28.98 8.83 12 282 30 N Moderate Lithologic feature 

29.29 8.93 324 234 81 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

29.38 8.95 69 339 16 E Shallow Lithologic feature 

30.51 9.30 272 182 80 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

30.64 9.34 81 351 46 E Moderate Minor fracture 

30.77 9.38 88 358 24 E Shallow Minor fracture 

32.01 9.76 144 54 53 SE Steep Minor fracture 

32.06 9.77 360 270 25 N Shallow Minor fracture 

33.50 10.21 313 223 73 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

34.57 10.54 122 32 10 SE Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

35.46 10.81 77 347 15 E Shallow Minor fracture 

36.40 11.09 234 144 84 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

37.52 11.44 334 244 75 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

38.22 11.65 76 346 82 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

39.52 12.05 326 236 81 NW Nearly vertical Fracture 

41.06 12.51 325 235 78 NW Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

42.64 13.00 171 81 31 S Moderate Partial fracture 

42.74 13.03 358 268 73 N Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

43.58 13.28 328 238 80 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

43.84 13.36 189 99 71 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

44.19 13.47 47 317 26 NE Shallow Sealed feature 

45.41 13.84 131 41 45 SE Moderate Minor fracture 

46.64 14.22 253 163 77 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

49.06 14.95 68 338 64 E Steep Minor fracture 

49.24 15.01 233 143 83 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

49.28 15.02 264 174 77 W Nearly vertical Partial fracture 
 

 

 

 

Table 5A–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole DW-29, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below 

top of casing, which is 2.54 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike] 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

50.18 15.29 67 337 78 NE Nearly vertical Fracture 

51.88 15.81 152 62 77 SE Nearly vertical Fracture 

53.45 16.29 150 60 71 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

53.68 16.36 135 45 25 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

54.20 16.52 145 55 21 SE Shallow Sealed feature 

54.93 16.74 116 26 49 SE Moderate Sealed feature 

55.53 16.92 256 166 81 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

56.18 17.12 114 24 19 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

56.75 17.30 151 61 52 SE Steep Minor fracture 

57.04 17.38 148 58 46 SE Moderate Lithologic feature 

57.75 17.60 166 76 47 S Moderate Minor fracture 

58.31 17.77 329 239 81 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

59.41 18.11 226 136 69 SW Steep Fracture 

59.76 18.21 316 226 73 NW Nearly vertical Fracture 

60.91 18.56 176 86 15 S Shallow Minor fracture 

61.15 18.64 352 262 77 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

61.60 18.77 82 352 69 E Steep Minor fracture 

62.83 19.15 76 346 62 E Steep Sealed feature 

62.84 19.15 211 121 30 SW Moderate Lithologic feature 

63.18 19.26 243 153 31 SW Moderate Lithologic feature 

64.71 19.72 169 79 24 S Shallow Lithologic feature 

66.40 20.24 257 167 85 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

66.51 20.27 107 17 21 E Shallow Minor fracture 

66.79 20.36 257 167 83 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

67.36 20.53 215 125 20 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

69.45 21.17 252 162 83 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

71.40 21.76 301 211 76 NW Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

74.95 22.84 351 261 73 N Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

77.01 23.47 237 147 25 SW Shallow Lithologic feature 

77.38 23.58 263 173 83 W Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

77.69 23.68 224 134 24 SW Shallow Lithologic feature 

78.75 24.00 256 166 85 W Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

78.86 24.04 215 125 50 SW Moderate Sealed feature 

81.38 24.80 234 144 21 SW Shallow Lithologic feature 

81.95 24.98 73 343 69 E Steep Minor fracture 

82.04 25.00 251 161 64 W Steep Minor fracture 

83.21 25.36 197 107 9 S Nearly horizontal Sealed feature 

84.23 25.67 153 63 55 SE Steep Minor fracture 

84.59 25.78 246 156 70 SW Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

85.14 25.95 206 116 8 SW Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

87.28 26.60 227 137 71 SW Nearly vertical Fracture 

88.90 27.10 234 144 69 SW Steep Partial fracture 

91.49 27.88 315 225 73 NW Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

93.83 28.60 310 220 75 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

95.10 28.99 334 244 74 NW Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

98.50 30.02 344 254 14 N Shallow Transmissive fracture 

99.64 30.37 298 208 69 NW Steep Lithologic feature 

101.79 31.02 258 168 82 W Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

105.17 32.05 319 229 64 NW Steep Sealed feature 

106.46 32.45 87 357 37 E Moderate Transmissive fracture 

106.64 32.50 252 162 83 W Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

108.18 32.97 310 220 73 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

108.65 33.11 58 328 54 NE Steep Transmissive fracture 

109.08 33.25 315 225 68 NW Steep Sealed feature 

110.98 33.83 321 231 68 NW Steep Sealed feature 

115.90 35.32 242 152 11 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

115.93 35.33 96 6 75 E Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

116.88 35.62 205 115 8 SW Nearly horizontal Sealed feature 
 

 

 

DW-29 Miller Mountain Ground/Air Transmitter Receiver site, Machiasport, Maine 

OTV OTV-Tadpole 

0 90 

OTV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

ATV 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

0° 

180° 

0° 

180° 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 5A-2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole DW-29, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

 

 

 MODELED OUTPUT RESULTS FROM FWRAP

 Elevation, ambient water level 89.14 feet 

 Elevation, pumped water level 84.42 feet 

Ambient Pumped Elevation Zone trans- Percent Fracture Depth flowabove flowabove Water of water missivity trans­ number (ft) fracture fracture level(ft) level (ft2

/d) missivity (gal/min) (gal/min) (ft) 

4 20.0 0.000 0.116 2.75 7.04 92.82 56 

3 40.8 -0.055 0.002 0.60 -3.96 103.82 12 

2 95.1 -0.109 -0.068 1.05 17.04 82.82 21 

1 108.0 -0.073 -0.059 0.55 33.04 66.82 11 

 Totalborehole transmissivity 4.9 (ft 2

/d) 

Sum of squares error 0.00094 (gal/min)2 

 Rootmean square error 0.01529687 (gal/min) 

 

 

 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140 

-0.5 0.0 0.5 

DEPT H BELOW T O P OF CASI N G , IN FEET 

FLOW, IN GAL/MIN 

Ambient Flow Profile 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140 

-0.5 

DEPT H BELOW T O P OF CASI N G , IN FEET 

F

Pumpe

INTERPRETATION OF FLOWMETER DATA AND INPUT VALUES FOR FWRAP

Elevation of measuring point 99.86 feet
 

Number of fractures 4
 

Well diameter 6 inches
 

Drawdown 4.72 feet
 

Depth to ambient water level 10.72 feet
 

Ambient Pumped 

Fracture Depth flow above flow above

number (ft) fracture fracture 

(gal/min) (gal/min) 

4 20.0 0.000 0.13 

3 40.8 -0.04 -0.01 

2 95.1 -0.10 -0.08 

1 108.0 -0.08 -0.07

Dashed line indicates measured flow.

Solid line indicates modeled flow.

Points indicate measured heat-pulse flowmeter data.

Figure 5A-3. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole DW-29, near Machiasport, Maine.

[gal/min, gallon per minute; ft, feet; ft2/d, feet squared per day; positive values of flow are upward flow, negative values of flow are downward flow]
 

Projection Along N80°E 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
 10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

0.75 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 

0.00 0.25 0.50 

 

 

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

increments between circles 

20 ft ATV 

20 ft OTV 

True North 

0° 

90° 

30° 

60° 

120° 

150° 

180° 

210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-0.5 -0.3 0.3 0.5 

-0.3 

-0.5 

0.3 

0.5 

FEET 

Figure 5B-1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-15, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer; OTV, optical televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5B–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-15, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 2.8 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, Depth, Dip Strike, Dip Dip Dip descriptor Comment in feet in meters azimuth in RHR direction 

17.75 5.41 235.7 146 0.6 N Nearly horizontal Bottom of casing 

18.44 5.62 230.49 140 24.44 NE Shallow Minor fracture 

19.28 5.88 42.14 312 54.48 NE Steep Transmissive fracture 

20.23 6.17 63.59 334 32.75 NE Moderate Transmissive fracture 

23.25 7.09 25.06 295 46.18 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

26.85 8.18 40.42 310 88.09 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

28.46 8.67 46.65 317 82.83 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

29.03 8.85 39.5 310 80.09 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

32.79 9.99 208.76 119 44.52 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

33.39 10.18 215.94 126 42.49 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

34.63 10.55 109.53 20 23.41 NE Shallow Minor fracture 

50.69 15.45 149.92 60 57.78 NE Steep Minor fracture 

Table 5B–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole MW-15, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 2.8 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

17.68 5.39 245 155 1 SW Nearly horizontal Bottom of casing 

19.37 5.90 16 286 31 N Moderate Transmissive fracture 

20.11 6.13 70 340 24 E Shallow Transmissive fracture 

21.41 6.53 159 69 56 S Steep Minor fracture 

22.95 6.99 60 330 18 NE Shallow Minor fracture 

24.45 7.45 249 159 83 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

24.86 7.58 270 180 48 W Moderate Minor fracture 

26.34 8.03 160 70 51 S Steep Minor fracture 

26.86 8.19 151 61 57 SE Steep Minor fracture 

28.28 8.62 172 82 74 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

28.92 8.81 36 306 80 NE Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

32.86 10.02 234 144 39 SW Moderate Lithologic feature 

33.50 10.21 234 144 41 SW Moderate Lithologic feature 

34.15 10.41 182 92 60 S Steep Minor fracture 

38.30 11.67 160 70 51 S Steep Minor fracture 

40.52 12.35 137 47 34 SE Moderate Minor fracture 

40.67 12.40 142 52 39 SE Moderate Minor fracture 

41.25 12.57 115 25 50 SE Steep Minor fracture 

42.64 13.00 142 52 29 SE Shallow Lithologic feature 

44.85 13.67 142 52 66 SE Steep Minor fracture 

50.86 15.50 158 68 55 S Steep Minor fracture 
 

 

 

MW-15 Howard Mountain Air Force Radar Tracking Station, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

OTV OTV-Tadpole 

0 90 

OTV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

20 

30 

40 

50 

0° 

180° 

0° 

180° 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 5B-2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole MW-15, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTERPRETATION OF FLOWMETER DATA AND INPUT VALUES FOR FWRAP

Elevation of measuring point 243.7 feet
 

Number of fractures 1
 

Well diameter 6 inches
 

Drawdown -0.23 feet
 

Depth to ambient water level 14.57 feet
 

Ambient Injected

Fracture Depth flow above flow above

number (ft) fracture fracture 

(gal/min) (gal/min) 

1 20.1 0.00001 -0.16

MODELED OUTPUT RESULTS FROM FWRAP

Elevation, ambient water level 229.13 feet 

Elevation, injected water level 229.36 feet 

Ambient Injected Elevation Zone trans- Water Percent Fracture Depth flow above flow above of water missivity level trans­ number (ft) fracture fracture level (ft2

/d) (ft) missivity (gal/min) (gal/min) (ft) 

1 20.1 0.000 -0.162 140 14.57 229.13 100 

Total borehole transmissivity 140.0 (ft 2

/d) 

Sum of squares error 0.00000 (gal/min)2 

Root mean square error 0.00209 (gal/min) 

0

10

20

30

40

-0.2 

DEPT H BELOW T O P O F CASING , IN FEET 

F

Injecte

50 

0

10

20

30

40

-0.2 0 0.2 

DEPT H BELOW T O P O F CASING , IN FEET 

FLOW, IN GAL/MIN 

Ambient Flow Profile 

50

Dashed line indicates measured flow.

Solid line indicates modeled flow.

Points indicate measured heat-pulse flowmeter data.

Figure 5B–3. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole MW-15, near Machiasport, Maine.

[gal/min, gallon per minute; ft, feet; ft2/d, feet squared per day; positive values of flow are upward flow, negative values of flow are downward flow]
 

 

Projection Along N90°E 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
 10
 

20
 

30
 

40
 

50
 

60
 

70
 

80
 

90
 

100
 

110
 

120
 

130
 

140
 

150
 

160
 

170
 

0 1 2 3 4
 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL
 

 

 

30° 

60° 

120° 

150° 

180° 

210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-1 -2 -3 1 2 3

-1 

-2 

-3 

1 

2 

3 

FEET 

True North 

0° 

270° 90° 

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

increments between circles 

20 ft ATV 

20 ft OTV 

Figure 5C-1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-16, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer; OTV, optical televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

Table 5C–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-16, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 2.5 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

22.82 6.96 264 174 2 W Nearly horizontal Water level 

23.05 7.03 216 126 2 SW Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

23.86 7.27 195 105 23 S Shallow Minor fracture 

30.08 9.17 172 82 15 S Shallow Minor fracture 

30.86 9.41 246 156 57 SW Steep Minor fracture 

32.76 9.98 357 267 31 N Moderate Minor fracture 

34.25 10.44 18 288 54 N Steep Minor fracture 

35.27 10.75 346 256 50 N Moderate Minor fracture 

35.53 10.83 280 190 81 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

37.94 11.56 257 167 81 W Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

38.05 11.60 276 186 63 W Steep Minor fracture 

39.12 11.92 241 151 78 SW Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

39.83 12.14 2 272 55 N Steep Minor fracture 

42.59 12.98 286 196 66 W Steep Minor fracture 

43.16 13.15 283 193 56 W Steep Minor fracture 

43.82 13.36 276 186 73 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

45.69 13.93 349 259 56 N Steep Minor fracture 

47.67 14.53 328 238 81 NW Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

54.86 16.72 314 224 74 NW Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

61.67 18.80 143 53 78 SE Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

65.23 19.88 272 182 76 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

76.11 23.20 71 341 73 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

83.51 25.45 338 248 75 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

85.71 26.12 341 251 85 N Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

85.95 26.20 355 265 82 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

86.84 26.47 7 277 83 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

92.54 28.20 340 250 74 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

107.50 32.76 358 268 87 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

114.46 34.89 0 270 84 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

114.62 34.93 254 164 29 W Shallow Minor fracture 

117.69 35.87 360 270 76 N Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

119.83 36.52 351 261 48 N Moderate Minor fracture 

130.41 39.75 0 270 78 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

131.80 40.17 0 270 77 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

131.91 40.20 7 277 82 N Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

132.37 40.34 8 278 65 N Steep Minor fracture 

133.00 40.54 7 277 83 N Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

134.33 40.94 355 265 84 N Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

136.46 41.59 355 265 78 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

142.50 43.43 358 268 78 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

143.89 43.86 5 275 75 N Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

146.77 44.73 351 261 73 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

147.37 44.92 166 76 24 S Shallow Transmissive fracture 

153.39 46.75 355 265 77 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

155.18 47.30 1 271 74 N Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

159.83 48.71 351 261 76 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

160.85 49.02 7 277 71 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

162.38 49.49 359 269 72 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

167.89 51.17 347 257 69 N Steep Minor fracture 
 

 

 

 

Table 5C–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole MW-16, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 2.5 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

22.77 6.94 268 178 2 W Nearly horizontal Water level 

26.30 8.02 146 56 32 SE Moderate Lithologic feature 

30.03 9.15 168 78 15 S Shallow Minor fracture 

30.61 9.33 155 65 61 SE Steep Lithologic feature 

32.14 9.80 152 62 53 SE Steep Minor fracture 

34.60 10.55 151 61 51 SE Steep Minor fracture 

37.89 11.55 261 171 81 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

38.80 11.83 151 61 56 SE Steep Minor fracture 

39.81 12.13 358 268 56 N Steep Minor fracture 

42.31 12.90 171 81 63 S Steep Minor fracture 

50.85 15.50 154 64 68 SE Steep Minor fracture 

52.11 15.88 264 174 68 W Steep Lithologic feature 

55.78 17.00 137 47 68 SE Steep Minor fracture 

61.17 18.64 161 71 55 S Steep Minor fracture 

62.01 18.90 177 87 60 S Steep Minor fracture 

66.07 20.14 151 61 44 SE Moderate Minor fracture 

69.94 21.32 152 62 50 SE Steep Minor fracture 

72.50 22.10 193 103 23 S Shallow Minor fracture 

72.93 22.23 173 83 17 S Shallow Minor fracture 

74.11 22.59 178 88 19 S Shallow Minor fracture 

75.82 23.11 73 343 79 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

76.31 23.26 65 335 68 NE Steep Minor fracture 

79.13 24.12 141 51 21 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

83.49 25.45 358 268 13 N Shallow Sealed feature 

83.59 25.48 234 144 11 SW Shallow Sealed feature 

85.23 25.98 347 257 78 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

89.48 27.27 164 74 55 S Steep Lithologic feature 

89.87 27.39 168 78 18 S Shallow Minor fracture 

99.14 30.22 7 277 69 N Steep Minor fracture 

101.12 30.82 188 98 47 S Moderate Minor fracture 

103.58 31.57 244 154 35 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

104.16 31.75 293 203 48 NW Moderate Minor fracture 

105.53 32.16 360 270 36 N Moderate Minor fracture 

108.13 32.96 161 71 72 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

114.12 34.78 258 168 55 W Steep Minor fracture 

114.87 35.01 254 164 55 W Steep Minor fracture 

117.43 35.79 193 103 56 S Steep Minor fracture 

119.84 36.53 342 252 49 N Moderate Sealed feature 

121.78 37.12 208 118 45 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

122.52 37.34 192 102 61 S Steep Minor fracture 

123.64 37.68 188 98 69 S Steep Sealed feature 

126.11 38.44 167 77 41 S Moderate Lithologic feature 

130.71 39.84 181 91 64 S Steep Lithologic feature 

132.33 40.33 182 92 60 S Steep Minor fracture 

132.68 40.44 355 265 75 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

134.39 40.96 175 85 52 S Steep Minor fracture 

136.32 41.55 355 265 77 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

141.51 43.13 177 87 66 S Steep Lithologic feature 

144.82 44.14 241 151 65 SW Steep Lithologic feature 

146.53 44.66 203 113 34 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

147.39 44.92 136 46 17 SE Shallow Minor fracture 
 

 

 

MW-16 Howard Mountain Air Force Radar Tracking Station, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

OTV OTV Tadpole 

0 90 

OTV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

ATV#1 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

140 

150 

160 

170 

0° 

180° 

0° 

180° 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 5C-2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole MW-16, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

 

 

 MODELED OUTPUT RESULTS FROM FWRAP

 Elevation, ambient water level 123.40 feet 

 Elevation, injected water level 127.40 feet 

Ambient Injected Elevation Zone trans- Water Percent Fracture Depth flowabove flowabove of water missivity level trans­ number (ft) fracture fracture level (ft2

/d) (ft) missivity (gal/min) (gal/min) (ft) 

1 147 0 -0.201 10 117.00 123.40 100 

 Totalborehole transmissivity 10.0 (ft 2

/d) 

Sum of squares error 0.00000 (gal/min)2 

 Rootmean square error 0.00135 (gal/min) 

 

 

 

 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

-0.25 0.00 0.25 

D EPT H BEL OW T OP O F C ASI NG, IN FEET 

FLOW, IN GAL/MIN 

Ambient Flow Profile 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

-0.25 

DEPT H BELO W T O P OF CASI N G , IN FEET 

F

Injecte

Water level at 118 ft below top of casin

INTERPRETATION OF FLOWMETER DATA AND INPUT VALUES FOR FWRAP

Elevation of measuring point 240.4 feet
 

Number of fractures 1
 

Well diameter 6 inches
 

Drawdown -4 feet
 

Depth to ambient water level 117 feet
 

Ambient Injected

Fracture Depth flow above flow above

number (ft) fracture fracture 

(gal/min) (gal/min) 

1 147 0.00001 -0.2

Dashed line indicates measured flow.

Solid line indicates modeled flow.

Points indicate measured heat-pulse flowmeter data.

Figure 5C–3. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole MW-16, near Machiasport, Maine.

[gal/min, gallon per minute; ft, feet; ft2/d, feet squared per day; positive values of flow are upward flow, negative values of flow are downward flow]
30° 

60° 

120° 

150° 210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-3 -2 -1 1 2 3

-1 

-2 

-3 

1 

2 

3 

FEET 

True North 

0° 

270°
 

180°
 

90° 

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

increments between circles 

20 ft ATV 

20 ft OTV 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
 

Projection Along N315°E
 

20
 

40
 

60
 

80
 

100
 

120
 

140
 

160
 

180
 

200
 

220
 

240
 

260
 

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 


 

Figure 5D-1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole MW-17, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer; OTV, optical televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

Table 5D–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole MW-17, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 2.3 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

66.78 20.35 101 11 1 E Nearly horizontal Bottom of casing 

72.16 21.99 270 180 78 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

75.29 22.95 323 233 78 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

77.62 23.66 279 189 63 W Steep Minor fracture 

89.19 27.18 317 227 82 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

91.16 27.78 322 232 78 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

93.99 28.65 319 229 72 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

96.28 29.34 321 231 54 NW Steep Minor fracture 

100.17 30.53 164 74 67 S Steep Transmissive fracture 

105.24 32.08 349 259 77 N Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

105.88 32.27 101 11 84 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

109.12 33.26 320 230 67 NW Steep Lithologic feature 

110.17 33.58 87 357 70 E Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

114.91 35.02 282 192 74 W Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

116.59 35.53 295 205 66 NW Steep Minor fracture 

143.17 43.64 92 2 72 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

144.59 44.07 108 18 81 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

177.04 53.96 230 140 80 SW Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

179.76 54.79 277 187 76 W Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

198.94 60.63 244 154 82 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

209.17 63.75 52 322 71 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

223.06 67.99 76 346 60 E Steep Minor fracture 

225.77 68.81 304 214 42 NW Moderate Minor fracture 

230.84 70.36 47 317 65 NE Steep Minor fracture 

237.81 72.48 67 337 83 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

243.99 74.36 115 25 76 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 
 

 

 

 

Table 5D–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole MW-17, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 2.3 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

66.55 20.28 247 157 76 SW Nearly vertical Fracture intersects boc 

66.56 20.29 248 158 61 W Steep Fracture intersects boc 

66.81 20.36 133 43 1 SE Nearly horizontal Bottom of casing 

68.00 20.73 242 152 77 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

68.30 20.82 49 319 74 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

70.27 21.42 57 327 79 NE Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

71.65 21.84 134 44 39 SE Moderate Transmissive fracture 

73.04 22.26 306 216 80 NW Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

79.71 24.29 244 154 86 SW Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

80.65 24.58 262 172 70 W Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

85.50 26.06 75 345 73 E Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

85.54 26.07 153 63 69 SE Steep Sealed feature 

88.88 27.09 307 217 82 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

89.17 27.18 305 215 82 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

90.97 27.73 315 225 76 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

92.15 28.09 159 69 66 S Steep Sealed feature 

93.90 28.62 321 231 67 NW Steep Minor fracture 

95.71 29.17 325 235 65 NW Steep Lithologic feature 

96.11 29.29 312 222 57 NW Steep Minor fracture 

97.53 29.73 345 255 48 N Moderate Minor fracture 

100.28 30.56 146 56 65 SE Steep Transmissive fracture 

105.52 32.16 140 50 77 SE Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

105.60 32.19 2 272 75 N Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

105.71 32.22 78 348 83 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

109.91 33.50 82 352 64 E Steep Lithologic feature 

110.36 33.64 82 352 66 E Steep Transmissive fracture 

114.94 35.03 276 186 80 W Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

116.40 35.48 279 189 69 W Steep Lithologic feature 

116.50 35.51 280 190 70 W Steep Fracture 

118.25 36.04 62 332 77 NE Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

120.72 36.79 59 329 65 NE Steep Sealed feature 

124.73 38.02 114 24 53 SE Steep Sealed feature 

128.68 39.22 147 57 31 SE Moderate Minor fracture 

132.32 40.33 178 88 50 S Steep Minor fracture 

132.59 40.41 44 314 67 NE Steep Sealed feature 

135.19 41.20 48 318 72 NE Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

137.59 41.94 39 309 72 NE Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

142.78 43.52 64 334 84 NE Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

146.54 44.66 222 132 73 SW Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

147.27 44.89 174 84 55 S Steep Lithologic feature 

149.68 45.62 50 320 72 NE Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

154.38 47.05 89 359 79 E Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

155.86 47.50 87 357 75 E Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

163.33 49.78 81 351 66 E Steep Minor fracture 

163.40 49.80 82 352 67 E Steep Lithologic feature 

165.77 50.52 280 190 52 W Steep Lithologic feature 

167.79 51.14 69 339 59 E Steep Transmissive fracture 

169.35 51.62 63 333 74 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

170.21 51.88 54 324 77 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

179.66 54.76 255 165 75 W Nearly vertical Transmissive fracture 

180.62 55.05 93 3 28 E Shallow Minor fracture 

189.96 57.90 40 310 67 NE Steep Minor fracture 

193.96 59.12 69 339 74 E Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

195.22 59.50 63 333 56 NE Steep Minor fracture 

195.42 59.56 38 308 58 NE Steep Minor fracture 
 

 

 

 

Table 5D–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole MW-17, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below 

top of casing, which is 2.3 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike] 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

196.58 59.91 57 327 69 NE Steep Minor fracture 

205.54 62.65 283 193 63 W Steep Sealed feature 

206.88 63.05 181 91 26 S Shallow Sealed feature 

208.98 63.69 58 328 70 NE Steep Minor fracture 

211.04 64.32 335 245 74 NW Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

222.99 67.96 59 329 61 NE Steep Lithologic feature 

225.73 68.80 317 227 55 NW Steep Sealed feature 

230.85 70.36 47 317 68 NE Steep Lithologic feature 

237.28 72.32 60 330 75 NE Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

243.79 74.30 125 35 75 SE Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

246.83 75.23 221 131 30 SW Shallow Sealed feature 
 

 

 

 

MW-17 Howard Mountain Air Force Radar Tracking Station, Machiasport, Maine 

OTV OTV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

OTV-Tadpole 

0 90 

ATV ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

140 

150 

160 

170 

180 

190 

200 

210 

0° 

180° 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

0° 

180° 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 5D-2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole MW-17, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
220 

230
 

240
 

250
 

Figure 5D-2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole MW-17,
 

near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300 

-0.1 0 0.1 

D EPT H BELOW T OP O F CASING , IN FEET 

FLOW, IN GAL/MIN 

Ambient Flow Profile 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300 

-0.3 

DEPTH BELOW TOP OF CASING, I N F EET 

FL

Injectio

PUM

Pum

Norm

Pum

INTERPRETATION OF FLOWMETER DATA AND INPUT VALUES FOR FWRAP

Elevation of measuring point 74.93 feet
 

Number of fractures 4
 

Well diameter 6 inches
 

Drawdown -9.26 feet
 

Depth to ambient water level 14.57 feet
 

Ambient Injected

Fracture Depth flow above flow above

number (ft) fracture fracture 

(gal/min) (gal/min) 

4 70 0.00 -0.25 

3 110 0.00 -0.12 

2 168 -0.04 -0.12 

1 180 -0.02 -0.04

 MODELED OUTPUT RESULTS FROM FWRAP

 Elevation, ambient water level 36.67 feet 

 Elevation, injected water level 45.93 feet 

Ambient Injected Elevation Zone trans- Water Percent Fracture Depth flowabove flowabove of water missivity level trans­ number (ft) fracture fracture level (ft2

/d) (ft) missivity (gal/min) (gal/min) (ft) 

4 70 0.000 -0.226 1.5 38.57 36.36 38 

3 110 0.002 -0.142 1.25 32.57 42.36 31 

2 168 -0.041 -0.115 0.75 43.57 31.36 19 

1 180 -0.017 -0.047 0.5 43.57 31.36 0 

 Totalborehole transmissivity 4.0 (ft 2

/d) 

Sum of squares error 0.00112 (gal/min)2 

 Rootmean square error 0.01676 (gal/min) 

Dashed line indicates measured flow.

Solid line indicates modeled flow.

Points indicate measured heat-pulse flowmeter data.

Figure 5D–3. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole MW-17, near Machiasport, Maine.

[gal/min, gallon per minute; ft, feet; ft2/d, feet squared per day; positive values of flow are upward flow, negative values of flow are downward flow]
True North 

0° 

30° 

60° 

90° 

120° 

210° 150°

240° 

300° 

330° 

-6 -4 -2 2 4 6

-2 

-4 

-6 

2 

4 

6 

270° FEET 

Depth along borehole in 10-ft 

increments between circles 

180° 10 ft ATV 

Projection Along N230°E 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING


20
 

40
 

60
 

80
 

100
 

120
 

140
 

160
 

180
 

200
 

220
 

240
 

260
 

280
 

300
 

320
 

340
 

0 2 4 6 8 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 

Figure 5E-1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole WY-3C, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 5E–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole WY-3C, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below
 

top of casing, which is 1.5 feet above land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in 

right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

104.40 31.82 157 67 1 SE Nearly horizontal Bottom of casing 

105.67 32.21 137 47 30 SE Shallow Transmissive fracture 

107.26 32.69 351 261 38 N Moderate Minor fracture 

108.11 32.95 333 243 20 NW Shallow Transmissive fracture 

109.87 33.49 273 183 46 W Moderate Minor fracture 

116.74 35.58 267 177 71 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

117.45 35.80 286 196 41 W Moderate Minor fracture 

123.31 37.58 41 311 71 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

154.18 46.99 103 13 81 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

154.68 47.14 164 74 16 S Shallow Minor fracture 

164.44 50.12 212 122 60 SW Steep Transmissive fracture 

165.28 50.37 98 8 73 E Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

166.88 50.86 90 360 82 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

179.94 54.84 322 232 45 NW Moderate Lithologic feature 

183.86 56.04 337 247 71 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

194.83 59.38 347 257 75 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

207.36 63.20 280 190 42 W Moderate Minor fracture 

208.29 63.48 158 68 64 S Steep Minor fracture 

219.70 66.96 240 150 49 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

231.13 70.44 275 185 40 W Moderate Minor fracture 

247.93 75.57 303 213 75 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

261.80 79.79 121 31 67 SE Steep Minor fracture 

270.27 82.37 89 359 82 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

274.09 83.54 138 48 57 SE Steep Minor fracture 

277.18 84.48 318 228 77 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

280.49 85.49 300 210 79 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

284.30 86.65 107 17 30 E Moderate Sealed feature 

286.90 87.44 307 217 57 NW Steep Minor fracture 

293.37 89.41 9 279 67 N Steep Minor fracture 

297.64 90.72 28 298 47 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

299.67 91.33 33 303 53 NE Steep Minor fracture 

305.35 93.07 109 19 59 E Steep Partial fracture 

307.79 93.81 321 231 80 NW Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

311.57 94.96 326 236 82 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

316.94 96.60 328 238 83 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

317.25 96.69 317 227 88 NW Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

321.13 97.88 354 264 71 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

325.58 99.23 111 21 51 E Steep Lithologic feature 

327.47 99.81 113 23 64 SE Steep Minor fracture 

350.29 106.76 93 3 47 E Moderate Lithologic feature 

352.79 107.53 30 300 72 NE Nearly vertical Partial fracture 
 

 

 

WY-3C Howard Mountain Air Force Radar Tracking Station, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

ATV ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

140 

150 

160 

170 

180 

190 

200 

210 

220 

230 

240 

250 

260 

0° 

180° 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 5E-2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole WY-3C, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

270 

280 

290 

300 

310 

320 

330 

340 

350 

Figure 5E-2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole WY-3C, 

near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued 
 

 

 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

-0.05 0.00 0.05 

DEPT H BELO W T O P OF CASI NG , I N FEET 

FLOW, IN GAL/MIN 

Ambient Flow Profile 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

340 

-0.5 

DEPT H BEL OW T OP OF C ASI NG , IN FEET 

FLOW

Injected 

Water level at 65 ft below top of casing 

Bottom of casing at 104.2 ft 

INTERPRETATION OF FLOWMETER DATA AND INPUT VALUES FOR FWRAP

Elevation of measuring point 69.8 feet
 

Number of fractures 4
 

Well diameter 8 inches
 

Drawdown -7.55 feet
 

Depth to ambient water level 65.5 feet
 

Ambient Injected

Fracture Depth flow above flow above

number (ft) fracture fracture 

(gal/min) (gal/min) 

4 108 0.00 -0.35 

3 117.4 0.00 -0.16 

2 164.5 0.00 -0.08 

1 327 0.01 0.01

MODELED OUTPUT RESULTS FROM FWRAP

Elevation, ambient water level 4.30 feet 

Elevation, injected water level 11.85 feet 

Ambient Injected Elevation Zone trans- Water Percent Fracture Depth flow above flow above of water missivity level trans- number (ft) fracture fracture level (ft2

/d) (ft) missivity (gal/min) (gal/min) (ft) 

4 108.0 0.000 -0.355 5.28 65.48 4.32 67 

3 117.4 0.002 -0.127 1.20 65.48 4.32 15 

2 164.5 0.001 -0.068 1.20 66.68 3.12 15 

1 327.0 0.010 0.001 0.16 57.48 12.32 2 

Total borehole transmissivity 7.8 (ft2

/d) 

Sum of squares error 0.00139 (gal/min)2 

Root mean square error 0.01864 (gal/min) 

Dashed line indicates measured flow.

Solid line indicates modeled flow.

Points indicate measured heat-pulse flowmeter data.

Figure 5E–3. Interpretation and modeling of heat-pulse flowmeter logs for borehole WY-3C, near Machiasport, Maine.

[gal/min, gallon per minute; ft, feet; ft2/d, feet squared per day; positive values of flow are upward flow, negative values of flow are downward flow]
 
 

 

30° 

45° 

60° 

120° 

135° 

150° 

165° 180° 195° 

210° 

225° 

240° 

285° 

300° 

315° 

330° 

-40 -30 -20 -10 10 20 30 40 

-10 

-20 

-30 

-40 

10 

20 

30 

40 

FEET 

True North 

0° 345° 15° 

75° 

255° 90° 

105° 255° 

Depth along borehole in 20-ft 

increments between circles 

20 ft ATV 

20 ft OTV 

 

 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 10
 

20
 

30
 

40
 

50
 

60
 

50
 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 

Projection Along N25°E 

0 10 20 30 40
 

Figure 5F-1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole C-114, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 

[ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer; OTV, optical televiewer]
 
 

Table 5F–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole C-114, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[The borehole is inclined at 45° from vertical in a direction of N25°E. Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination,
 

so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below top of casing, which is 2.3 feet above land surface; TVD, true vertical depth;
 

LS, land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of
 

true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

TVD, in feet 

below LS 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

15.43 4.70 9.44 64 334 65 NE Steep Minor fracture 

16.22 4.94 10.01 191 101 16 S Shallow Water level-should have 0 dip 

16.35 4.98 10.11 162 72 89 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

16.90 5.15 10.50 111 21 33 E Moderate Minor fracture 

17.55 5.35 10.97 67 337 5 NE Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

17.63 5.37 11.03 36 306 70 NE Steep Minor fracture 

17.92 5.46 11.24 104 14 19 E Shallow Minor fracture 

17.94 5.47 11.25 277 187 76 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

18.44 5.62 11.61 39 309 79 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

19.48 5.94 12.36 60 330 73 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

19.57 5.96 12.42 239 149 57 SW Steep Minor fracture 

19.60 5.97 12.44 49 319 33 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

19.75 6.02 12.55 259 169 70 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

19.89 6.06 12.65 265 175 64 W Steep Minor fracture 

20.03 6.10 12.75 258 168 74 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

20.24 6.17 12.90 237 147 65 SW Steep Fracture 

20.36 6.21 12.99 234 144 64 SW Steep Fracture 

20.48 6.24 13.08 239 149 61 SW Steep Minor fracture 

20.82 6.35 13.32 240 150 65 SW Steep Minor fracture 

21.20 6.46 13.60 243 153 61 SW Steep Minor fracture 

21.50 6.55 13.81 251 161 62 W Steep Minor fracture 

21.64 6.60 13.91 251 161 71 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

21.66 6.60 13.93 8 278 78 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

21.93 6.68 14.12 246 156 59 SW Steep Minor fracture 

22.15 6.75 14.28 184 94 89 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

22.55 6.87 14.57 353 263 89 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

22.57 6.88 14.58 250 160 69 W Steep Minor fracture 

22.91 6.98 14.83 4 274 83 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

23.04 7.02 14.92 267 177 62 W Steep Minor fracture 

23.24 7.08 15.06 7 277 87 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

23.67 7.21 15.37 1 271 89 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

23.91 7.29 15.54 301 211 47 NW Moderate Partial fracture 

24.04 7.33 15.64 352 262 87 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

24.08 7.34 15.67 185 95 90 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

24.47 7.46 15.95 359 269 80 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

24.71 7.53 16.12 260 170 75 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

24.76 7.55 16.16 352 262 77 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

24.92 7.60 16.27 261 171 72 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

24.97 7.61 16.31 1 271 82 N Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

25.24 7.69 16.50 186 96 90 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

25.34 7.72 16.57 6 276 84 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

25.45 7.76 16.65 356 266 84 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

25.70 7.83 16.83 8 278 83 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

25.98 7.92 17.03 1 271 84 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

26.15 7.97 17.16 4 274 89 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

26.41 8.05 17.34 351 261 85 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

26.78 8.16 17.61 353 263 85 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

27.38 8.35 18.04 227 137 76 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

27.44 8.36 18.08 166 76 87 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

27.49 8.38 18.12 116 26 21 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

27.57 8.40 18.18 134 44 34 SE Moderate Minor fracture 

28.10 8.56 18.56 316 226 87 NW Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

28.20 8.59 18.63 4 274 85 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

28.50 8.69 18.85 185 95 89 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

28.97 8.83 19.18 185 95 11 S Shallow Fracture 

29.04 8.85 19.24 155 65 21 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

29.16 8.89 19.32 156 66 89 SE Nearly vertical Partial fracture 
 

Table 5F–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole C-114, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued
 

[The borehole is inclined at 45° from vertical in a direction of N25°E. Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination,
 

so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below top of casing, which is 2.3 feet above land surface; TVD, true vertical depth;
 

LS, land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of
 

true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

TVD, in feet 

below LS 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

29.36 8.95 19.47 49 319 65 NE Steep Partial fracture 

29.56 9.01 19.61 227 137 74 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

29.62 9.03 19.65 1 271 85 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

29.86 9.10 19.83 183 93 90 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

30.19 9.20 20.06 356 266 82 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

30.40 9.27 20.21 4 274 84 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

30.71 9.36 20.44 360 270 84 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

30.88 9.41 20.56 231 141 66 SW Steep Minor fracture 

31.05 9.46 20.68 358 268 83 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

31.50 9.60 21.00 1 271 83 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

31.51 9.60 21.01 240 150 61 SW Steep Minor fracture 

31.87 9.71 21.27 8 278 85 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

32.08 9.78 21.42 141 51 29 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

32.09 9.78 21.43 182 92 87 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

32.55 9.92 21.76 179 89 87 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

32.64 9.95 21.82 352 262 88 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

32.81 10.00 21.95 301 211 65 NW Steep Minor fracture 

32.81 10.00 21.95 91 1 13 E Shallow Minor fracture 

33.09 10.09 22.15 359 269 84 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

33.17 10.11 22.21 350 260 86 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

33.36 10.17 22.34 183 93 90 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

33.58 10.23 22.50 172 82 88 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

34.23 10.43 22.97 262 172 34 W Moderate Fracture 

34.33 10.46 23.04 358 268 86 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

34.42 10.49 23.11 353 263 87 N Nearly vertical Fracture 

34.86 10.62 23.42 355 265 87 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

35.13 10.71 23.62 2 272 83 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

35.25 10.74 23.70 225 135 67 SW Steep Minor fracture 

35.36 10.78 23.78 358 268 86 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

36.90 11.25 24.89 140 50 18 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

37.10 11.31 25.03 1 271 86 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

37.28 11.36 25.16 355 265 87 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

37.75 11.51 25.50 359 269 83 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

37.84 11.53 25.57 352 262 88 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

38.00 11.58 25.68 107 17 27 E Shallow Partial fracture 

38.05 11.60 25.72 172 82 89 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

38.19 11.64 25.82 248 158 49 W Moderate Minor fracture 

38.24 11.65 25.85 1 271 86 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

38.36 11.69 25.94 0 270 86 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

38.52 11.74 26.05 171 81 90 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

38.84 11.84 26.28 5 275 88 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

39.04 11.90 26.43 2 272 87 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

39.21 11.95 26.55 277 187 60 W Steep Minor fracture 

39.23 11.96 26.57 356 266 88 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

40.03 12.20 27.14 242 152 76 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

40.31 12.29 27.34 239 149 69 SW Steep Minor fracture 

40.43 12.32 27.43 185 95 89 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

40.75 12.42 27.66 358 268 89 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

40.85 12.45 27.73 243 153 48 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

41.53 12.66 28.22 355 265 86 N Nearly vertical Fracture 

41.84 12.75 28.44 1 271 85 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

42.28 12.89 28.76 178 88 83 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

42.35 12.91 28.81 80 350 89 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

42.49 12.95 28.91 12 282 87 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

42.50 12.95 28.92 325 235 88 NW Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

42.75 13.03 29.10 5 275 87 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

43.02 13.11 29.29 190 100 88 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 
 

Table 5F–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole C-114, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued
 

[The borehole is inclined at 45° from vertical in a direction of N25°E. Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination,
 

so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below top of casing, which is 2.3 feet above land surface; TVD, true vertical depth;
 

LS, land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of
 

true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

TVD, in feet 

below LS 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

43.11 13.14 29.36 112 22 18 E Shallow Partial fracture 

43.11 13.14 29.36 7 277 90 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

43.33 13.21 29.51 187 97 84 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

43.54 13.27 29.67 44 314 72 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

43.58 13.28 29.69 105 15 16 E Shallow Minor fracture 

43.61 13.29 29.72 194 104 81 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

43.70 13.32 29.78 112 22 22 E Shallow Minor fracture 

43.91 13.38 29.93 121 31 21 SE Shallow Partial fracture 

44.17 13.46 30.12 197 107 78 S Nearly vertical Fracture 

44.24 13.48 30.17 244 154 54 SW Steep Minor fracture 

44.27 13.49 30.19 161 71 14 S Shallow Fracture 

44.47 13.55 30.33 141 51 11 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

44.62 13.60 30.44 203 113 75 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

45.16 13.76 30.83 178 88 88 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

45.31 13.81 30.94 182 92 87 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

45.39 13.83 31.00 340 250 18 N Shallow Partial fracture 

45.67 13.92 31.20 176 86 87 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

46.14 14.06 31.54 114 24 16 SE Shallow Partial fracture 

46.50 14.17 31.79 66 336 86 NE Nearly vertical Fracture 

46.53 14.18 31.82 351 261 72 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

46.83 14.27 32.03 27 297 36 NE Moderate Partial fracture 

46.88 14.29 32.07 263 173 82 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

48.00 14.63 32.87 185 95 90 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

48.28 14.72 33.08 294 204 35 NW Moderate Partial fracture 

48.34 14.73 33.12 14 284 73 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

48.39 14.75 33.15 251 161 86 W Nearly vertical Fracture 

48.44 14.76 33.19 358 268 90 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

48.51 14.79 33.24 240 150 77 SW Nearly vertical Fracture 

48.53 14.79 33.26 103 13 16 E Shallow Minor fracture 

48.95 14.92 33.56 121 31 22 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

49.03 14.94 33.61 5 275 86 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

49.16 14.98 33.71 102 12 20 E Shallow Fracture 

49.25 15.01 33.77 185 95 79 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

49.31 15.03 33.82 1 271 86 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

49.56 15.11 34.00 165 75 48 S Moderate Partial fracture 

49.57 15.11 34.00 14 284 79 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

49.65 15.13 34.06 93 3 15 E Shallow Minor fracture 

50.25 15.32 34.49 66 336 88 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

50.37 15.35 34.58 185 95 89 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

50.91 15.52 34.97 231 141 89 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

51.45 15.68 35.36 187 97 87 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

51.71 15.76 35.54 279 189 65 W Steep Minor fracture 

51.74 15.77 35.56 192 102 88 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

51.85 15.80 35.64 120 30 15 SE Shallow Partial fracture 

51.92 15.82 35.69 216 126 83 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

51.97 15.84 35.73 123 33 13 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

52.09 15.88 35.82 204 114 72 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

52.55 16.02 36.15 216 126 83 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

52.66 16.05 36.23 41 311 87 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

52.70 16.06 36.25 17 287 90 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

52.89 16.12 36.39 39 309 84 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

53.19 16.21 36.61 233 143 76 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

53.37 16.27 36.74 224 134 72 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

53.76 16.39 37.02 255 165 71 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

54.34 16.56 37.43 7 277 89 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

54.45 16.60 37.51 182 92 90 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

54.52 16.62 37.56 279 189 66 W Steep Fracture 
 

Table 5F–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole C-114, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued
 

[The borehole is inclined at 45° from vertical in a direction of N25°E. Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination,
 

so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below top of casing, which is 2.3 feet above land surface; TVD, true vertical depth;
 

LS, land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of
 

true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

TVD, in feet 

below LS 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

55.25 16.84 38.09 13 283 89 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

55.30 16.85 38.13 178 88 90 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

55.62 16.95 38.36 232 142 76 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

56.18 17.12 38.76 75 345 85 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

56.27 17.15 38.82 1 271 85 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

56.54 17.23 39.02 232 142 67 SW Steep Minor fracture 

56.66 17.27 39.10 232 142 80 SW Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

56.75 17.30 39.17 152 62 15 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

56.89 17.34 39.27 238 148 83 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

57.32 17.47 39.58 164 74 74 S Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

57.94 17.66 40.02 238 148 72 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

58.11 17.71 40.15 248 158 86 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

58.83 17.93 40.66 183 93 90 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

58.93 17.96 40.74 183 93 89 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

59.22 18.05 40.94 242 152 66 SW Steep Minor fracture 

59.28 18.07 40.99 262 172 74 W Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

59.66 18.18 41.26 3 273 87 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

60.39 18.41 41.79 246 156 63 SW Steep Minor fracture 

60.67 18.49 41.99 247 157 64 SW Steep Minor fracture 

60.82 18.54 42.10 229 139 49 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

61.14 18.63 42.33 5 275 81 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

61.42 18.72 42.53 3 273 86 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

61.60 18.77 42.66 255 165 74 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

61.68 18.80 42.71 360 270 84 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

61.83 18.84 42.82 3 273 89 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

62.05 18.91 42.98 1 271 89 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

62.40 19.02 43.23 264 174 67 W Steep Minor fracture 

62.54 19.06 43.33 258 168 61 W Steep Minor fracture 

62.59 19.08 43.37 9 279 88 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

62.80 19.14 43.52 357 267 86 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

63.01 19.20 43.67 6 276 86 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

63.06 19.22 43.71 192 102 86 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

63.35 19.31 43.92 7 277 86 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

63.64 19.40 44.12 1 271 89 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

63.72 19.42 44.18 8 278 90 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

63.85 19.46 44.28 263 173 59 W Steep Minor fracture 

64.00 19.51 44.38 6 276 85 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

64.18 19.56 44.51 7 277 88 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

64.33 19.61 44.62 7 277 86 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

64.80 19.75 44.96 7 277 85 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

65.30 19.90 45.32 120 30 19 SE Shallow Partial fracture 

65.57 19.98 45.51 340 250 6 N Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

65.62 20.00 45.55 183 93 88 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

65.92 20.09 45.76 359 269 85 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

66.35 20.22 46.07 1 271 85 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

66.51 20.27 46.19 247 157 63 SW Steep Minor fracture 

66.70 20.33 46.33 279 189 25 W Shallow Minor fracture 

66.99 20.42 46.53 102 12 15 E Shallow Minor fracture 

67.11 20.45 46.62 1 271 79 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

67.12 20.46 46.63 253 163 64 W Steep Minor fracture 

67.27 20.50 46.74 349 259 82 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

67.36 20.53 46.80 89 359 14 E Shallow Partial fracture 

67.58 20.60 46.96 261 171 88 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

68.11 20.76 47.34 244 154 68 SW Steep Minor fracture 

68.11 20.76 47.34 275 185 62 W Steep Partial fracture 

68.12 20.76 47.35 355 265 81 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

68.19 20.78 47.40 147 57 16 SE Shallow Minor fracture 
 

Table 5F–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole C-114, near Machiasport, Maine.—Continued
 

[The borehole is inclined at 45° from vertical in a direction of N25°E. Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination,
 

so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below top of casing, which is 2.3 feet above land surface; TVD, true vertical depth;
 

LS, land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of
 

true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

TVD, in feet 

below LS 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

68.74 20.95 47.79 358 268 80 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

68.95 21.01 47.94 256 166 64 W Steep Minor fracture 

68.95 21.01 47.94 102 12 21 E Shallow Minor fracture 

69.00 21.03 47.98 356 266 79 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

69.09 21.06 48.04 274 184 59 W Steep Minor fracture 

69.11 21.06 48.06 35 305 63 NE Steep Partial fracture 

69.79 21.27 48.55 265 175 74 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

69.89 21.30 48.62 335 245 82 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

69.97 21.33 48.68 85 355 19 E Shallow Minor fracture 

70.02 21.34 48.71 275 185 72 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

70.17 21.39 48.82 280 190 88 W Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

70.59 21.51 49.12 233 143 52 SW Steep Fracture 

70.63 21.53 49.15 0 270 85 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

71.08 21.66 49.48 86 356 20 E Shallow Minor fracture 

71.79 21.88 49.99 144 54 25 SE Shallow Fracture 

72.28 22.03 50.34 200 110 62 S Steep Minor fracture 

72.49 22.09 50.49 359 269 82 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

72.54 22.11 50.53 153 63 72 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

73.34 22.35 51.10 168 78 82 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

74.00 22.55 51.58 138 48 87 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

74.62 22.74 52.02 145 55 86 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

74.98 22.85 52.28 208 118 43 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

75.17 22.91 52.42 165 75 89 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

75.29 22.95 52.50 207 117 40 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

75.38 22.97 52.57 3 273 84 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

76.53 23.33 53.40 358 268 85 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

76.89 23.43 53.66 179 89 21 S Shallow Minor fracture 

78.55 23.94 54.85 210 120 43 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

78.74 24.00 54.99 203 113 46 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

78.95 24.06 55.14 276 186 87 W Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

79.27 24.16 55.37 61 331 76 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

80.66 24.58 56.37 91 1 87 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 5F–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole C-114, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[The borehole is inclined at 45° from vertical in a direction of N25°E. Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination,
 

so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below top of casing, which is 2.3 feet above land surface; TVD, true vertical depth;
 

LS, land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of
 

true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

TVD, in feet 

below LS 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

13.46 4.10 8.01 343 253 0 N Horizontal Minor fracture 

14.12 4.30 8.53 335 245 90 NW Vertical Lithologic feature 

15.69 4.78 9.76 149 59 82 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

16.00 4.88 10.01 207 117 20 SW Shallow water level 

16.43 5.01 10.35 105 15 58 E Steep Minor fracture 

16.90 5.15 10.72 105 15 24 E Shallow Minor fracture 

19.61 5.98 12.85 226 136 55 SW Steep Minor fracture 

19.78 6.03 12.99 245 155 61 SW Steep Minor fracture 

20.46 6.24 13.52 236 146 47 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

20.62 6.28 13.65 136 46 78 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

21.26 6.48 14.15 157 67 61 SE Steep Lithologic feature 

21.67 6.60 14.48 241 151 74 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

27.58 8.41 19.13 135 45 39 SE Moderate Fracture 

29.00 8.84 20.25 178 88 12 S Shallow Fracture 

30.87 9.41 21.73 214 124 81 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

34.24 10.44 24.38 256 166 35 W Moderate Fracture 

35.26 10.75 25.18 231 141 61 SW Steep Minor fracture 

37.12 11.31 26.65 355 265 87 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

37.46 11.42 26.92 158 68 79 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

37.82 11.53 27.20 155 65 75 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

38.06 11.60 27.39 349 259 88 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

44.16 13.46 32.20 197 107 38 S Moderate Minor fracture 

44.29 13.50 32.30 132 42 16 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

45.31 13.81 33.10 181 91 86 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

46.52 14.18 34.06 59 329 82 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

46.76 14.25 34.25 27 297 36 NE Moderate Minor fracture 

48.30 14.72 35.46 290 200 36 W Moderate Minor fracture 

48.88 14.90 35.92 85 355 22 E Shallow Minor fracture 

49.15 14.98 36.13 112 22 16 E Shallow Minor fracture 

55.24 16.84 40.93 174 84 85 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

61.07 18.61 45.52 57 327 24 NE Shallow Lithologic feature 

70.19 21.39 52.71 142 52 35 SE Moderate Lithologic feature 

70.92 21.62 53.29 243 153 24 SW Shallow Lithologic feature 

71.76 21.87 53.95 123 33 22 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

72.10 21.98 54.22 163 73 74 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

79.96 24.37 60.41 190 100 51 S Steep Lithologic feature 

80.36 24.49 60.72 209 119 74 SW Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 
 

 

 

C-114 Howard Mountain Air Force Radar Tracking Station, Machiasport, Maine 

ATV ATV-Tadpole ATV-Stereoplot OTV OTV-Tadpole OTV-Stereoplot 

0 90 Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 0 90 Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

0 

10
 

20
 

30
 

40
 

50
 

60
 

70
 

80
 

90
 

0° 0° 

180° 180° 

Figure 5F-2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole C-114,
 

near Machiasport, Maine.
 
 

 

TRUE VERTICAL DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
 

Projection Along N75°E 

10 

20 

30 

40 

0 5 10 15 20 

DISTANCE, IN FEET FROM VERTICAL 

 

 

True North 

0° 

30° 

60° 

90° 

120° 

150° 

180° 

210° 

240° 

300° 

330° 

-15 -10 -5 5 10 15 

-5 

-10 

-15 

5 

10 

15 

270° 

Depth along borehole in 10-ft 

FEET 

increments between circles 

10 ft ATV 

10 ft OTV 

Figure 5G-1. Borehole deviation logs for borehole C-501, near Machiasport, Maine. Blue line on radial plot (top)
 

is line of projection for vertical plot (bottom).
 [ft, foot; ATV, acoustic televiewer; OTV, optical televiewer]
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5G–1. Interpretation of acoustic televiewer logs for borehole C-501, near Machiasport, Maine.
 

[The borehole is inclined at 38° from vertical in a direction of N77°E. Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination,
 

so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below top of casing, which is 3.3 feet above land surface; TVD, true vertical depth;
 

LS, land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of
 

true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]
 

Depth, 

in feet 

Depth, 

in meters 

TVD, in feet 

below LS 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

17.02 5.19 10.81 253 163 38 W Moderate Bottom of casing? 

17.16 5.23 10.92 172 82 13 S Shallow Minor fracture 

17.39 5.30 11.10 184 94 23 S Shallow Fracture 

17.69 5.39 11.34 207 117 8 SW Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

18.55 5.65 12.02 178 88 44 S Moderate Minor fracture 

18.86 5.75 12.26 126 36 81 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

20.85 6.35 13.83 332 242 86 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

21.30 6.49 14.18 331 241 82 NW Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

21.70 6.61 14.50 31 301 88 NE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

22.19 6.76 14.89 192 102 18 S Shallow Minor fracture 

23.41 7.14 15.85 337 247 6 NW Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

23.99 7.31 16.30 332 242 80 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

24.26 7.39 16.52 295 205 27 NW Shallow Minor fracture 

24.89 7.59 17.01 326 236 90 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

25.15 7.67 17.22 147 57 87 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

25.76 7.85 17.70 149 59 90 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

26.63 8.12 18.38 67 337 10 NE Shallow Minor fracture 

26.77 8.16 18.49 154 64 90 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

26.78 8.16 18.50 76 346 78 E Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

26.94 8.21 18.63 197 107 33 S Moderate Minor fracture 

27.08 8.25 18.74 149 59 88 SE Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

27.35 8.34 18.95 218 128 21 SW Shallow Partial fracture 

28.73 8.76 20.04 146 56 82 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

30.48 9.29 21.42 142 52 79 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

32.46 9.89 22.98 151 61 86 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

32.84 10.01 23.28 146 56 89 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

33.70 10.27 23.96 312 222 86 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

34.23 10.43 24.37 137 47 83 SE Nearly vertical Fracture 

35.66 10.87 25.50 315 225 89 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

36.05 10.99 25.81 42 312 11 NE Shallow Minor fracture 

36.67 11.18 26.30 236 146 6 SW Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

38.43 11.71 27.68 133 43 84 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

39.08 11.91 28.20 327 237 85 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

39.29 11.98 28.36 123 33 85 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

39.49 12.04 28.52 213 123 31 SW Moderate Minor fracture 

43.13 13.15 31.39 124 34 82 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

44.08 13.43 32.14 133 43 86 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

44.46 13.55 32.43 313 223 86 NW Nearly vertical Fracture 

44.52 13.57 32.48 255 165 37 W Moderate Minor fracture 

45.42 13.84 33.19 114 24 26 SE Shallow Fracture 

45.48 13.86 33.24 132 42 31 SE Moderate Minor fracture 

46.37 14.13 33.94 186 96 26 S Shallow Minor fracture 

46.43 14.15 33.99 124 34 16 SE Shallow Minor fracture 

46.89 14.29 34.35 129 39 87 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

47.01 14.33 34.44 142 52 68 SE Steep Partial fracture 

48.42 14.76 35.56 309 219 80 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

48.81 14.88 35.86 160 70 70 S Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

49.48 15.08 36.39 313 223 76 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

49.67 15.14 36.54 316 226 88 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

49.91 15.21 36.73 312 222 87 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

50.36 15.35 37.08 313 223 87 NW Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

50.62 15.43 37.29 319 229 61 NW Steep Partial fracture 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5G–2. Interpretation of optical televiewer logs for borehole C-501, near Machiasport, Maine. 

[The borehole is inclined at 38° from vertical in a direction of N77°E. Televiewer data are corrected for deviation and magnetic declination, 

so orientations are relative to true north; depths are below top of casing, which is 3.3 feet above land surface; TVD, true vertical depth; 

LS, land surface; dip azimuth is given in degrees east of true north; strike is reported in right-hand-rule (RHR)-azimuthal degrees east of 

true north and where the direction of dip is 90 degrees to the right of strike]

 Depth, 

in feet 

 Depth, 

in meters 

 TVD, in feet 

below LS 

Dip 

azimuth 

Strike, 

in RHR Dip Dip 

direction Dip descriptor Comment 

17.02 5.19 10.81 254 164 38 W Moderate Bottom of casing? 

17.21 5.25 10.96 16 286 10 N Shallow Fracture 

17.45 5.32 11.15 175 85 6 S Nearly horizontal Lithologic feature 

17.69 5.39 11.34 227 137 10 SW Nearly horizontal Lithologic feature 

18.60 5.67 12.06 213 123 19 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

18.96 5.78 12.34 252 162 87 W Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

20.83 6.35 13.81 146 56 87 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

22.18 6.76 14.88 236 146 8 SW Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

22.27 6.79 14.95 254 164 80 W Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

22.94 6.99 15.48 102 12 89 E Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

23.41 7.14 15.85 332 242 6 NW Nearly horizontal Minor fracture 

24.28 7.40 16.53 294 204 42 NW Moderate Minor fracture 

24.60 7.50 16.78 343 253 88 N Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

25.77 7.85 17.71 340 250 83 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

26.62 8.11 18.38 45 315 12 NE Shallow Minor fracture 

26.88 8.19 18.58 332 242 90 NW Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

26.88 8.19 18.58 324 234 11 NW Shallow Minor fracture 

27.35 8.34 18.95 222 132 16 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

28.77 8.77 20.07 132 42 74 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

30.40 9.27 21.36 342 252 86 N Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

31.85 9.71 22.50 335 245 80 NW Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

33.36 10.17 23.69 224 134 80 SW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

33.83 10.31 24.06 309 219 88 NW Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

34.11 10.40 24.28 295 205 17 NW Shallow Minor fracture 

34.21 10.43 24.36 121 31 86 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

35.08 10.69 25.04 126 36 85 SE Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

35.82 10.92 25.63 116 26 75 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

36.07 10.99 25.82 13 283 16 N Shallow Sealed feature 

36.58 11.15 26.22 140 50 87 SE Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

36.67 11.18 26.30 289 199 11 W Shallow Minor fracture 

39.06 11.90 28.18 142 52 89 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

39.52 12.05 28.54 224 134 26 SW Shallow Minor fracture 

41.92 12.78 30.43 300 210 78 NW Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

43.33 13.21 31.54 314 224 87 NW Nearly vertical Sealed feature 

43.83 13.36 31.94 125 35 89 SE Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

44.23 13.48 32.25 121 31 89 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

44.45 13.55 32.43 125 35 89 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

45.42 13.84 33.19 115 25 26 SE Shallow Fracture 

45.47 13.86 33.23 121 31 87 SE Nearly vertical Lithologic feature 

46.39 14.14 33.96 153 63 16 SE Shallow Fracture 

46.90 14.29 34.36 127 37 85 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

49.76 15.17 36.61 119 29 79 SE Nearly vertical Minor fracture 

50.38 15.36 37.10 127 37 86 SE Nearly vertical Partial fracture 

50.60 15.42 37.27 311 221 79 NW Nearly vertical Partial fracture 
 

 

C-501 Howard Mountain Air Force Radar Tracking Station, Machiasport, Maine 

OTV OTV-Tadpole 

0 90 

OTV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

ATV ATV-Tadpole 

0 90 

ATV-Stereoplot 

Schmidt Plot - LH - Type 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

0° 

180° 

0° 

180° 

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING 

Figure 5G-2. Projection, tadpole, and stereoplots of interpretation of borehole image data for borehole C-501, 

near Machiasport, Maine. 
 

 

Appendix 6. Summary of structure interpreted 

from geophysical logs for boreholes near 

Machiasport, Maine 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 6. 

Summary of structure interpreted from geophysical logs for boreholes near 

Machiasport, Maine 

A. Summary of structure interpreted from geophysical logs of boreholes on or near Miller 

Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine – WY-GATR, MW-13, MW-14, DW-29, DW-22, 

DW-23, DW-24, DW-25, DW-31, DW-32, DW-33, DW-34, DW-39, and DW-40 

Figure 6A–1. In depth below land surface-projection and tadpole plots for all features; 

fracture density plots at 10-foot intervals; stereoplots for all features in the 

boreholes; rose diagram of dip directions for all features in the boreholes. 

Figure 6A–2. In depth below land surface-projection and tadpole plots for all features; 

fracture density plots; stereoplots for all features the entire boreholes; rose 

diagrams for the entire boreholes, all at 100-foot intervals. 

Figure 6A–3. In elevation above NAVD 88-projection and tadpole plots for all features 

at 100-foot intervals; fracture density plots (all fractures and transmissive 

fractures) at 10-foot intervals; rose diagrams of dip direction at 100-foot 

intervals. 

Figure 6A–4.	 Fracture density plots at 10-foot intervals for borehole WY-GATR, the 

deepest borehole in the group. 

B.	 Summary of structure interpreted from geophysical logs of boreholes near the Air 

Force Radar Tracking Station on Howard Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine – DW-2, 

DW-4, WY-3, WY-3B, WY-3C, WY-4, WY-15, MW-8, MW-9, MW-10, MW-11, MW12, MW-15, MW-16, MW-17, C-114, and C-501 

Figure 6B–1. In depth below land surface-projection and tadpole plots for all features; 

fracture density plots at 10-foot intervals; stereoplots for all features in the 

boreholes; rose diagram of dip directions for all features in the boreholes. 

Figure 6B–2. In depth below land surface-projection and tadpole plots for all features; 

fracture density plots; stereoplots for all features the entire boreholes; rose 

diagrams for the entire boreholes, all at 100-foot intervals. 

Figure 6B–3. In elevation above NAVD 88-projection and tadpole plots for all features 

at 100-foot intervals; fracture density plots (all fractures and transmissive 

fractures) at 10-foot intervals; rose diagrams of dip direction at 100-foot 

intervals. 

Figure 6B–4.	 Fracture density plots at 10-foot intervals for boreholes WY-3, WY-3B, 

and WY-15, the deepest boreholes in the group. 

C. Summary of structure interpreted from geophysical logs of boreholes near the 

Transmitter Site on Howard Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine – DW-6, DW-10, 

MW-4, MW-5, MW-6, and MW-7 

Figure 6C–1. In depth below land surface-projection and tadpole plots for all features; 

fracture density plots at 10-foot intervals; stereoplots for all features in the 

boreholes; rose diagram of dip directions for all features in the boreholes. 

Figure 6C–2. In depth below land surface-projection and tadpole plots for all features; 

fracture density plots; stereoplots for all features the entire boreholes; rose 

diagrams for the entire boreholes, all at 100-foot intervals. 

Figure 6C–3. In elevation above mean sea level-projection and tadpole plots for all 

features at 100-foot intervals; fracture density plots (all fractures and 

transmissive fractures) at 10-foot intervals; rose diagrams of dip direction at 100­

foot intervals. 

Figure 6C–4.	 Fracture density plots at 10-foot intervals for borehole DW-10, the only 

borehole near the Transmitter Site on Howard Mountain that exceeds a depth of 

120 feet. 
Miller Miller Tadpole

0 9 0

Miller Mtn Site -all features 

Schmidt Plot - Lower Hemisphere

Lithologic features and sealed fractures

Schmidt Plot - Lower Hemisphere

Transmissive fractures

Schmidt Plot - Lower Hemisphere

Dip Azimuth

Azimuth Count - Absolute

All Fractures

0 counts 60

T-Frax

0 counts 60

5 0

1 0 0

1 5 0

2 0 0

2 5 0

3 0 0

3 5 0

4 0 0

0°

180°

Schmidt Plot - Lower Hemisphere

Mean

Counts

836

Dip[deg]

53.43

Azi[deg]

226.06

81 56.71 249.39

56 55.88 214.77

52 48.40 314.43

574 54.41 216.51

14 23.78 207.82

12 74.52 121.74

38 34.30 240.70

9 72.94 211.03

0°

180°

Schmidt Plot - Lower Hemisphere

Mean

Counts

119

Dip[deg]

49.55

Azi[deg]

245.96

81 56.71 249.39

38 34.30 240.70

0°

180°

Schmidt Plot - Lower Hemisphere

Mean

Counts

61

Dip[deg]

52.14

Azi[deg]

240.56

52 48.40 314.43

9 72.94 211.03

0°

270° 90°

180°

20

20

40

40

60

60

Azimuth Count - Absolute

Depth: 0.28 [ft] to 600.00 [ft]

Counts: 834

Mean: 226.41

Std.Dev.: 111.41

Min: 0.00

Max: 359.00

Stereoplots for selected

 features in the 14 boreholes 

at the Milller Mtn Site.

Stereoplot and rose diagram 

of dip direction

for all features in the 14

boreholes at the Miller Mtn Site.

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE

Figure 6A-1. Summary of structure interpreted from geophysical logs of boreholes on or near Miller Mountain, 

near Machiasport, Maine. In depth below land surface-projection and tadpole plots for all features; fracture density 

plots at 10-foot intervals; stereoplots for all features in the boreholes; rose diagram of dip directions for all features 

in the boreholes. 

[Mtn, Mountain; T-Frax, transmissive fracture; deg, degrees; ft, feet; Std. Dev., standard deviation; Min, minimum; Max, maximum]
Miller Miller Tadpole

0 90

Miller Mtn Site-all features 

Schmidt Plot - Lower Hemisphere

Dip Azimuth - all fractures

Azimuth Count - Absolute

Dip Azimuth - tx fracture

Azimuth Count - Absolute

All features

All Frax

Tx frax

0 counts/foot 5

5 0

1 0 0

1 5 0

2 0 0

2 5 0

3 0 0

3 5 0

4 0 0

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

10

10

20

20

30

30

0°

180°

10

10

20

20

30

30

0°

180°

10

10

20

20

30

30

0°

180°

10

10

20

20

30

30

0°

180°

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

0°

180°

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

0°

180°

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

0°

180°

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE

Figure 6A-2. Summary of structure interpreted from geophysical logs of boreholes on or near Miller Mountain, 

near Machiasport, Maine. In depth below land surface-projection and tadpole plots for all features; fracture density 

plots; stereoplots for all features in the entire boreholes; rose diagrams for the entire boreholes, all at 100-foot 

intervals.

[Tx, transmissive; Frax, fracture]
Elevation -MILLER MTN. SITE, MACHIASPORT ME

miller

dip azimuth- all frax

Azimuth Count - Absolute

trans frax

Azimuth Count - Absolute

lith and sealed

Azimuth Count - Absolute Stereo-all features

Schmidt Plot - Lower Hemisphere

Miller tadpole

0 90

All features

All Frax

Tx Frax

0 60counts

0°

180°

5

5

10

10

15

15

20

20

Counts: 77

Mean: 187.83

Std.Dev.: 103.49

Min: 5.86

Max: 351.48

0°

180°

5

5

10

10

15

15

20

20

Counts: 275

Mean: 202.76

Std.Dev.: 110.03

Min: 0.00

Max: 359.23

0°

180°

5

5

10

10

15

15

20

20

Counts: 325

Mean: 232.67

Std.Dev.: 106.26

Min: 5.00

Max: 359.00

0°

180°

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

Counts: 4

Mean: 206.46

Std.Dev.: 9.02

Min: 200.00

Max: 222.00

0°

180°

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

Counts: 25

Mean: 225.06

Std.Dev.: 97.81

Min: 40.00

Max: 349.00

0°

180°

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

Counts: 23

Mean: 299.92

Std.Dev.: 93.16

Min: 24.00

Max: 353.85

0°

180°

2

2

4

4

6

6

8

8

Counts: 0

Mean: 299.92

Std.Dev.: 93.16

Min: 24.00

Max: 353.85

0°

180°

2

2

4

4

6

6

8

8

Counts: 25

Mean: 161.03

Std.Dev.: 104.32

Min: 12.00

Max: 327.00

0°

180°

2

2

4

4

6

6

8

8

Counts: 75

Mean: 244.89

Std.Dev.: 73.07

Min: 14.23

Max: 351.00

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

200

150

100

50

 0

-50

PSEUDO-ELEVATION, IN FEET ABOVE NAVD 88

Figure 6A-3. Summary of structure interpreted from geophysical logs of boreholes on or near Miller Mountain, 

near Machiasport, Maine. In elevation above NAVD 88-projection and tadpole plots for all features at 100-foot 

intervals; fracture density plots (all fractures and transmissive fractures) at 10-foot intervals; rose diagrams of 

dip direction at 100-foot intervals.

[Frax, fracture; Tx, transmissive; Std. Dev., standard deviation; Min, minimum; Max, maximum]
ATV ATV - Tad

0 90

ATV-Stereo Bucks Harbor - WY-GATR

OTV-Stereo

OTV OTV - Tad

0 90

All frax

0 7counts

ALL-otv

all otv frax

open frax

Total Counts

0 7counts

 0

5 0

1 0 0

1 5 0

2 0 0

2 5 0

3 0 0

3 5 0

4 0 0

0°

180°

0°

180°

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE

Figure 6A-4. Summary of structure interpreted from geophysical logs of boreholes on or near Miller Mountain, 

near Machiasport, Maine. Fracture density plots at 10-foot intervals for borehole WY-GATR, the deepest borehole 

in the group.

[frax, fracture]
HOWARD HOWARD Tadpole

0 9 0

Howard fractures from land surface

Schmidt Plot - Lower Hemisphere

lithologic features and sealed frax

Transmissive fractures

Total Counts

ALL FRAX

Open Frax

Tx-Frax

0 counts 110

Dip Azimuth 

Azimuth Count - Absolute

5 0

1 0 0

1 5 0

2 0 0

2 5 0

3 0 0

3 5 0

0°

180°

Schmidt Plot - Lower Hemisphere

Mean

Counts

898

Dip[deg]

62.49

Azi[deg]

181.90

44 60.46 97.36

74 47.84 173.08

50 54.91 247.19

666 64.84 189.21

3 69.67 242.95

50 63.83 5.45

11 50.89 174.77

0°

180°

Schmidt Plot - Lower Hemisphere

Mean

Counts

107

Dip[deg]

57.02

Azi[deg]

109.48

44 60.46 97.36

63 54.60 122.55

0°

180°

Mean

Counts

61

Dip[deg]

54.18

Azi[deg]

235.12

50 54.91 247.19

11 50.89 174.77

0°

180°

20

20

40

40

60

60

80

80

Azimuth Count - Absolute

Counts: 962

Mean: 175.25

Std.Dev.: 139.71

Min: 0.00

M 359 00

All features from 17 boreholes

at the Howard Mountain Site

Selected features from 

17 boreholes at the 

Howard Mountain Site

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE

Figure 6B-1. Summary of structure interpreted from geophysical logs of boreholes near the Air Force Radar 

Tracking Station on Howard Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine. In depth below land surface-projection and 

tadpole plots for all features; fracture density plots at 10-foot intervals; stereoplots for all features in the boreholes;

rose diagram of dip directions for all features in the boreholes. 

[Frax, fracture; Tx, transmissive; deg, degrees; Std. Dev., standard deviation]
Howard Mtn Site-all features 

Schmidt Plot - Lower Hemisphere

Dip Azimuth - all fractures

Azimuth Count - Absolute

Dip Azimuth - tx fracture

Azimuth Count - Absolute

Howard HOWARD Tadpole All Features

0 90 All Fractures

Tx Frx

0 counts/foot 7

5 0

1 0 0

1 5 0

2 0 0

2 5 0

3 0 0

3 5 0

4 0 0

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

10

10

20

20

30

30

0°

180°

10

10

20

20

30

30

0°

180°

10

10

20

20

30

30

0°

180°

10

10

20

20

30

30

0°

180°

1

1

2

2

3

3

0°

180°

1

1

2

2

3

3

0°

180°

1

1

2

2

3

3

0°

180°

1

1

2

2

3

3

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE

Figure 6B-2. Summary of structure interpreted from geophysical logs of boreholes near the Air Force Radar 

Tracking Station on Howard Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine. In depth below land surface-projection and 

tadpole plots for all features; fracture density plots; stereoplots for all features the entire boreholes; rose diagrams 

for the entire boreholes, all at 100-foot intervals.

[Tx, transmissive; Frax, fracture]
Elevation -HOWARD MTN SITE, MACHIASPORT ME

Howard

dip azimuth

Azimuth Count - Absolute

trans frax

Azimuth Count - Absolute

lith and sealed

Azimuth Count - Absolute stereo

Schmidt Plot - Lower Hemisphere

Tadpole

0 90

ALL

FRAX

Open Frx

Total Counts

0 100

0°

180°

10

10

20

20

30

30

Counts: 583

Mean: 213.97

Std.Dev.: 131.18

Min: 0.00

Max: 359.00

0°

180°

10

10

20

20

30

30

Counts: 170

Mean: 36.07

Std.Dev.: 148.80

Min: 0.00

Max: 359.00

0°

180°

10

10

20

20

30

30

Counts: 147

Mean: 67.06

Std.Dev.: 141.32

Min: 2.00

Max: 359.00

0°

180°

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

Counts: 12

Mean: 23.82

Std.Dev.: 122.98

Min: 16.00

Max: 324.00

0°

180°

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

Counts: 12

Mean: 264.39

Std.Dev.: 77.33

Min: 94.00

Max: 333.47

0°

180°

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

Counts: 23

Mean: 195.95

Std.Dev.: 110.16

Min: 57.00

Max: 333.00

0°

180°

2

2

4

4

6

6

8

8

Counts: 35

Mean: 197.38

Std.Dev.: 109.49

Min: 13.00

Max: 358.00

0°

180°

2

2

4

4

6

6

8

8

Counts: 24

Mean: 138.95

Std.Dev.: 83.31

Min: 67.00

Max: 342.00

0°

180°

2

2

4

4

6

6

8

8

Counts: 29

Mean: 36.42

Std.Dev.: 91.00

Min: 2.00

Max: 349.00

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

-0

-20

-40

-60

-80

PSEUDO-ELEVATION, IN FEET ABOVE NAVD88

Figure 6B-3. Summary of structure interpreted from geophysical logs of boreholes near the Air Force Radar 

Tracking Station on Howard Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine. In elevation above NAVD 88-projection 

and tadpole plots for all features at 100-foot intervals; fracture density plots (all fractures and transmissive 

fractures) at 10-foot intervals; rose diagrams of dip direction at 100-foot intervals.

[Frax, fracture; Std. Dev., standard deviation; Min, minimum; Max, maximum]
0°

180°

10

10

20

20

30

30

Counts: 160

Mean: 176.65

Std.Dev.: 143.17

Min: 6.00

Max: 348.98

0°

180°

10

10

20

20

30

30

Counts: 52

Mean: 88.58

Std.Dev.: 125.28

Min: 9.00

Max: 357.00

0°

180°

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

Counts: 16

Mean: 206.82

Std.Dev.: 69.62

Min: 69.00

Max: 346.00

0°

180°

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

Counts: 2

Mean: 323.00

Std.Dev.: 66.00

Min: 22.00

Max: 264.00

0°

180°

2

2

4

4

6

6

8

8

Counts: 36

Mean: 60.00

Std.Dev.: 134.40

Min: 47.00

Max: 335.00

0°

180°

2

2

4

4

6

6

8

8

Counts: 7

Mean: 139.20

Std.Dev.: 80.37

Min: 19.00

Max: 242.00

0°

180°

0°

180°

-100

-120

-140

-160

-180

-200

-220

-240

-260

-280

-300

Figure 6B-3. Summary of structure interpreted from geophysical logs of boreholes near the Air Force Radar 

Tracking Station on Howard Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine. In elevation above NAVD 88-projection 

and tadpole plots for all features at 100-foot intervals; fracture density plots (all fractures and transmissive 

fractures) at 10-foot intervals; rose diagrams of dip direction at 100-foot intervals.—Continued

[Frax, fracture; Std. Dev., standard deviation; Min, minimum; Max, maximum]
Amplitude 1 V-A2T toATV-A2T to TN-Tad

0 90

Stereo ATV-w dev to TN

Schmidt Plot - Lower Hemisphere

Total Counts

All Frax

T-frax

0 counts 8

1 0 0

1 2 0

1 4 0

1 6 0

1 8 0

2 0 0

2 2 0

2 4 0

2 6 0

2 8 0

3 0 0

83.72

0°

180°

Figure 6B-4. Summary of structure interpreted from geophysical logs of boreholes near the Air Force Radar 

Tracking Station on Howard Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine. Fracture density plots at 10-foot intervals for 

boreholes WY-3, WY-3B, and WY-15, the deepest boreholes in the group.

[T-frax, transmissive fracture; Tx, transmissive; TN, true north; dev, deviation]

WY-3 DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE
Gamma#1 ATV-tt

0 CPS 200

ATV-Stereo Open Frax

0 counts 3

ATV-TAD w dev

0 90

Total Counts

0 counts 3

 0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

1 0 0

1 1 0

1 2 0

1 3 0

1 4 0

1 5 0

1 6 0

1 7 0

1 8 0

1 9 0

2 0 0

2 1 0

2 2 0

2 3

Figure 6B-4. Summary of structure interpreted from geophysical logs of boreholes near the Air Force Radar 

Tracking Station on Howard Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine. Fracture density plots at 10-foot intervals for 

boreholes WY-3, WY-3B, and WY-15, the deepest boreholes in the group.—Continued

[T-frax, transmissive fracture; Tx, transmissive; TN, true north; dev, deviation]

0

58

Bottom of casing

66.0

Depth to water

0°

180°

WY-3B DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
ATV ATV- Tad

0 90

ATV-Stereo All Frax

T-frax

0 counts 4

 0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

1 0 0

1 2 0

1 4 0

1 6 0

1 8 0

2 0 0

2 2 0

2 4 0

2 6 0

2 8 0

3 0 0

28.0

Bottom of casing

33.8

Water level

0°

180°

Enlarged borehole -

fracture zone? -

orientation could not

be determined 

Figure 6B-4. Summary of structure interpreted from geophysical logs of boreholes near the Air Force Radar 

Tracking Station on Howard Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine. Fracture density plots at 10-foot intervals for 

boreholes WY-3, WY-3B, and WY-15, the deepest boreholes in the group.—Continued

[T-frax, transmissive fracture; Tx, transmissive; TN, true north; dev, deviation]

WY-15 DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING
TRANSMITTER SITE, MACHIASPORT MAINE

All features

Transmitter Site-all features Lithologic and sealed features

Transmissive fractures

Schmidt Plot - Lower Hemisphere

Dip Azimuth

Azimuth Count - Absolute

Tx Site Tadpole 

0 90

all Counts

0 50

Counts

0 10

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

1 0 0

1 2 0

1 4 0

1 6 0

1 8 0

2 0 0

2 2 0

2 4 0

2 6 0

2 8 0

3 0 0

3 2 0

3 4 0

3 6 0

3 8 0

0°

180°

Schmidt Plot - Lower Hemisphere

Mean

Counts

275

Dip[deg]

60.10

Azi[deg]

255.82

28 56.21 201.23

29 57.11 174.16

35 50.90 129.19

160 63.35 284.70

3 66.33 198.20

1 79.00 328.00

19 57.45 257.43

0°

180°

Schmidt Plot - Lower Hemisphere

Mean

Counts

47

Dip[deg]

56.72

Azi[deg]

230.22

28 56.21 201.23

19 57.45 257.43

0°

180°

Schmidt Plot - Lower Hemisphere

Mean

Counts

35

Dip[deg]

50.90

Azi[deg]

129.19

35 50.90 129.19

0°

270° 90°

180°

5

5

10

10

15

15

20

20

Azimuth Count - Absolute

Depth: 0.28 [ft] to 600.00 [ft]

Counts: 275

Mean: 255.82

Std.Dev.: 102.99

Min: 0.00

Max: 358.00

Rose diagram of dip direction

for all features in the 6 boreholes

at the Tx Site.

Rose diagram of dip direction

for selected features in the 

6 boreholes at the Tx Site.

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE

Figure 6C-1. Summary of structure interpreted from geophysical logs of boreholes near the Transmitter Site on 

Howard Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine. In depth below land surface-projection and tadpole plots for all 

features; fracture density plots at 10-foot intervals; stereoplots for all features in the boreholes; rose diagram of dip 

directions for all features in the boreholes.

[Tx, transmissive; deg, degree; Std. Dev., standard deviation; Min, minimum; Max, maximum]
TRANSMITTER SITE

Tx Site

Transmitter Site-all features 

Schmidt Plot - Lower Hemisphere

Dip Azimuth - all fractures

Azimuth Count - Absolute Tx Site Tadpole 

0 90

ALL frax

Open Frax

Tx Frx

0 2cpft

Dip Azimuth - tx fracture

Azimuth Count - Absolute

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

1 0 0

1 2 0

1 4 0

1 6 0

1 8 0

2 0 0

2 2 0

2 4 0

2 6 0

2 8 0

3 0 0

3 2 0

3 4 0

3 6 0

3 8 0

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

5

5

10

10

0°

180°

5

5

10

10

0°

180°

5

5

10

10

0°

180°

5

5

10

10

0°

180°

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

0°

180°

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

0°

180°

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

0°

180°

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

Counts per ft for interval

Dip direction Dip direction

DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW LAND SURFACE

none

Figure 6C-2. Summary of structure interpreted from geophysical logs of boreholes near the Transmitter Site on 

Howard Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine. In depth below land surface-projection and tadpole plots for all 

features; fracture density plots; stereoplots for all features the entire boreholes; rose diagrams for the entire 

boreholes, all at 100-foot intervals.

[Tx, transmissive; Frax, fracture]
Elevation -TRANSMITTER SITE, MACHIASPORT ME

Tx

dip azimuth trans frax lith and sealed

Tad stereo

0 90

ALL

TX-frx

0 50

0°

180°

2

2

4

4

6

6

8

8

Counts: 162

Mean: 233.11

Std.Dev.: 118.71

Min: 0.00

Max: 358.00

0°

180°

2

2

4

4

6

6

8

8

Counts: 69

Mean: 281.03

Std.Dev.: 80.92

Min: 1.87

Max: 356.65

0°

180°

2

2

4

4

6

6

8

8

Counts: 24

Mean: 255.93

Std.Dev.: 81.79

Min: 59.00

Max: 319.00

0°

180°

2

2

4

4

6

6

8

8

Counts: 22

Mean: 220.17

Std.Dev.: 92.50

Min: 31.00

Max: 342.00

0°

180°

1

1

2

2

3

3

Counts: 23

Mean: 121.71

Std.Dev.: 102.23

Min: 29.00

Max: 356.00

0°

180°

1

1

2

2

3

3

Counts: 9

Mean: 176.57

Std.Dev.: 66.54

Min: 79.00

Max: 255.00

0°

180°

1

1

2

2

3

3

Counts: 0

Mean: 176.57

Std.Dev.: 66.54

Min: 79.00

Max: 255.00

0°

180°

1

1

2

2

3

3

Counts: 3

Mean: 55.31

Std.Dev.: 16.44

Min: 36.00

Max: 76.00

0°

180°

2

2

4

4

Counts: 12

Mean: 243.96

Std.Dev.: 89.88

Min: 3.00

Max: 287.00

0°

180°

2

2

4

4

Counts: 13

Mean: 241.51

Std.Dev.: 50.13

Min: 134.00

Max: 302.00

0°

180°

2

2

4

4

Counts: 11

Mean: 235.21

Std.Dev.: 68.40

Min: 76.00

Max: 279.00

0°

180°

2

2

4

4

Counts: 11

Mean: 202.89

Std.Dev.: 57.83

Min: 31.00

Max: 262.00

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

0°

180°

200

150

100

50

 0

-50

-100

-150

-150

PSEUDO-ELEVATION, IN FEET ABOVE NAVD 88

Figure 6C-3. Summary of structure interpreted from geophysical logs of boreholes near the Transmitter Site on 

Howard Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine. In elevation above mean sea level-projection and tadpole plots for all 

features at 100-foot intervals; fracture density plots (all fractures and transmissive fractures) at 10-foot intervals; 

rose diagrams of dip direction at 100-foot intervals.

[Tx, transmissive; Tad, tadpole; trans frax, transmissive fracture; lith, lithologic feature; Std. Dev., standard deviation; Min, 

minimum; Max, maximum]
GAM-fluid DW-10 Transmitter Site

0 API-GR 300

EMI-COND

0 MMHO/M 100

CALIPER

5 7INCH OTV MN

ATV amp - mean

0 3000

A CAL E-W

0 20INCH

A. CAL-N-S

20 0INCH

R32

-1e+009 1e+010

SPR

30 300000 ohm

ATV amp

350 2700

OTV ATV OTV-ALL FRX ATV-ALL FRX

OPEN FRX Tx-Frx

OTV-TX-Frx

0 counts 5

 0

5 0

1 0 0

1 5 0

2 0 0

2 5 0

3 0 0

3 5 0

4 0 0 DEPTH, IN FEET BELOW TOP OF CASING, which is 0.97 ft above land surface

Figure 6C-4. Summary of structure interpreted from geophysical logs of boreholes near the Transmitter Site on 

Howard Mountain, near Machiasport, Maine. Fracture density plots at 10-foot intervals for borehole DW-10, the 

only borehole near the Transmitter Site on Howard Mountain that exceeds a depth of 120 feet.

[Tx, transmissive; Frax, fracture]
Prepared by the Pembroke and West Trenton Publishing 

Service Centers.

For more information concerning this report, contact:

Chief

U.S. Geological Survey

Office of Groundwater, Branch of Geophysics

11 Sherman Place, Unit 5015

Storrs, CT 06269

GS-W_OGW_BG_Chief@usgs.gov

or visit our Web site at:

http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/bgas
Johnson and others—Borehole Geophysical Investigation of a Formerly Used Defense Site, Machiasport, Maine, 2003–2006—Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5120