SW1180402_Stormwater Management Report_20180504

DESIGN REPORT
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

Jo Ellen Ammons Fieldhouse for Mars Hill University
Mars Hill, North Carolina
April 2018

_________________________________________
Brad Johnson, PE
NC Professional Engineer No. 031675

McGill Associates, P.A.
License Number C-0459

i 

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
JO ELLEN AMMONS FIELDHOUSE FOR MARS HILL UNIVERSITY
PREPARED FOR THE NORTH CAROLIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
NARRATIVE ....................................................................................................................................... PAGE 1
APPLICATION .................................................................................................................................... ITEM 1
SITE LOCATION MAP ........................................................................................................................ ITEM 2
DEED(S) .............................................................................................................................................. ITEM 3
ADDITIONAL CALCULATIONS .......................................................................................................... ITEM 4
SITE PLANS (SEE DRAWING PLAN SET) ........................................................................................ ITEM 5
SCM PLANS (SEE DRAWING PLAN SET) ........................................................................................ ITEM 6
SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS ......................................................................................... ITEM 8
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT ........................................................................... ITEM 9

1 

Narrative
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project consists of constructing a two-story fieldhouse, a parking area, and a
concession building for Mars Hill University. The university’s athletic department will occupy the fieldhouse
while the concessions building will be operated during athletic events at the stadium adjacent to the site.
The project site is located at the corner of Athletic Street and N.C. 213 (Cascade Street), Mars Hill, NC
28754. Based on the project’s location and design the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ) post construction stormwater requirements are applicable to this project. The stormwater
management at the site will consist of treating a portion of the runoff from the site in a bioretention cell with
an underdrain system. Stormwater will be collected in catch basins and roof leaders at the locations shown
on the plan sheets and a portion will routed to the bioretention cell while the remainder will be discharged
over energy dissipaters and flow to Gabriel Creek. Approximately 1.76 acres will be disturbed. The primary
contact for Mars Hill University is Donald Edwards, Director of Facilities Management. He can be reached
at (828)-689-1172 or on his cell at (828)-206-8310.
1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION

The site currently is cleared and grubbed with functioning erosion control measures installed
around the project site. In the fall of 2017 an early site package was completed which included the site
being cleared, grubbed, and rough graded by a North Carolina-licensed contractor to begin progressing on
the project. The site, prior to completion of the early site package, was described as a well-established
grassed area with multiple trees and a gravel drive and parking area. The site is bounded on the southwest
by N.C. 213 (Cascade Street), to the southeast by Athletic Street, to the northwest by Gabriel Creek, and
to the northeast by Meares Stadium (a Mars Hill University athletic facility). The majority of the site drains
to Gabriel Creek via overland flow. Proposed drainage patterns at the completion of the final stage of
construction will collect runoff via multiple catch basins and send the runoff to a proposed bioretention cell
or Gabriel Creek. The average slope varies from 1% to 20% but tends to be relatively flat due previous
residential development (since demolished) on the site.
1.3 ADJACENT PROPERTY

Land use in the vicinity of the site is best described as a mixture of institutional and residential use.
Most of the land surrounding the site is in use by Mars Hill University. The site is bounded by Gabriel Creek
to the northwest whose floodplain consists of dense underbrush and multiple large-diameter trees.
1.4 SOILS

The three soil classifications found on-site are: Udorthents, loamy, Udorthents-urban land complex
0-5% slopes occasionally flooded, and Udorthents-urban land complex 2-50% slopes. The majority of soil
is described as Udorthents-urban land complex, which is described as a sandy loam at 2% – 50% slope.
The soil is assigned to hydrologic soil group A. The soil has a Unified Soil Classification symbol of Uhe.
The soil factor, K, is 0.15.
2 

1.5 STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES

Table 1 –Stormwater Design Factors

Impervious Fraction at
Predevelopment
Conditions (%)
Impervious Fraction at
Post Construction
Conditions (%)
Stormwater Runoff
from the First Inch of
Rainfall (CF)
Design Volume of
Bioretention Cell
(CF)
21.7 59.2 366 425

A bioretention cell with an underdrain was selected as the primary stormwater control measure at
the project site. Based on post construction conditions there are four (4) drainage areas located within the
boundaries of the project. The site layout prevents the installation of stormwater system that would collect
the runoff from all built-upon areas and route said runoff to the bioretention cell. The bioretention cell will
overtreat the runoff from drainage area 1, as shown in the permit drawing set, in exchange for undertreating
the remaining three (3) drainage areas. However, the bioretention cell was sized to treat the runoff from the
design storm (currently one-inch) from all built-upon areas associated with the project. Table 1 summarizes
multiple sizing factors for the primary stormwater control measure at the project site.

ITEM 1
APPLICATION

ITEM 2
SITE LOCATION MAP

1MADISON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINAJO ELLEN AMMONS FIELDHOUSEMARS HILL UNIVERSITY-16.00164MARCH 2018ZPRTOPOGRAPHIC SITE LOCATION MAP16.00164-MHU Field House FinalConstruction Drawings-Design.dwgE N G I N E E R I N G · P L A N N I N G · F I N A N C EA S S O C I A T E SMcGlilI:\Drawings\2016\16.00164\Design\Civil\Drawings\03.19.2018 Final Construction Drawings\16.00164-MHU Field House Final Construction Drawings-Design.dwg 3/21/2018 11:30 AM ZACHARY ROMAN
SHEETDESIGN REVIEW: ____DESIGNED BY:JOB NO.:DATE:CADD BY:CONST. REVIEW: ____FILE NAME:55 BROAD STREETPH. [phone]ASHEVILLE, NC 28801FIRM LICENSE # C-0459PLAN500025050010005001 INCH = FEETGRAPHIC SCALE

ITEM 3
DEED(S)

ITEM 4
ADDITIONAL CALCULATIONS

QuantityInfiltration SystemBioretention Cell 1Wet PondStormwater WetlandPermeable PavementSand FilterRainwater HarvestingGreen RoofLevel Spreader-Filter StripDisconnected Impervious SurfaceTreatment SwaleDry PondApplicant:Name and Title:Organization:Street address:City, State, Zip:Phone number(s):Email:DesignerCertification Statement:Signature of DesignerDatePlease indicate the types, quantities and locations of SCMs that will be used on this project:[e-mail] number(s):Brad Johnson, P.E., Project ManagerMcGill Associates55 Broad StreetAsheville, NC [e-mail] Ellen Ammons Fieldhouse at Mars Hill UniversitySUPPLEMENT-EZ FORM COVER PAGESealviolations as well as a report being made to my professional board. - that the information provided in the form is, to the best of my knowledge - that the engineering plans, specifications, operation and maintenancethe information provided here.I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting falseinformation including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing and belief, true, accurate, and complete; andagreements and other supporting information are consistent with I certify, under penalty of law: that this Supplement-EZ form and all supportinginformation were prepared under my direction or supervision; Designer information for this project:Location(s)Project Name:AddressCity / TownMars Hill UniversityNeil TilleyJo Ellen Ammons Fieldhouse at Mars Hill UniversityMars Hill100 Athletic StreetEmail:100 Athletic StreetMars Hill, NC 28754828.689.1238Company:Contact:Mailing Address:City, State, Zip:Cover Page19:39 AM 4/23/2018
BIORETENTION CELL1Drainage area number1,2,3,4Total coastal wetlands area (sq ft)N/A - Parking / driveway (sq ft)17700 sfTotal surface water area (sq ft)N/A - Sidewalk (sq ft)12197 sfTotal drainage area (sq ft)76665 sf - Roof (sq ft)11715 sfBUA associated with existing development (sq ft) 16644 sf - Roadway (sq ft) sfProposed new BUA (sq ft)45429 sf - Other, please specify in the comment box below (sq ft) 3817 sfPercent BUA of drainage area59 percentTotal BUA (sq ft)45429 sfDesign rainfall depth (in)1.0 inMinimum volume required (cu ft)366 cfDesign volume of SCM (cu ft)425 cf#1 Is the SCM sized to treat the SW from all surfaces at build-out? Yes#7 If applicable, with the SCM be cleaned out after construction?Yes#2 Is the SCM located on or near contaminated soils? No#8 Does the mainetenance access comply with General MDC (8)?Yes#3 What are the side slopes of the SCM (H:V)? 4:1#9 Does the drainage easement comply with General MDC (9)?No#3 Does the SCM have retaining walls, gabion walls or other engineered side slopes? No#10 If the SCM is on a single family lot, does the plat comply with General MDC (10)?#4 Are the inlets, outlets, and receiving stream protected from erosion (10-year storm)? Yes#11 Is there an O&M Agreement that complies with General MDC (11)?Yes#5 Is there a a bypass for flows in excess of the design flow?Yes#12 Is there an O&M Plan that complies with General MDC (12)?Yes#6 What is the method for dewatering the SCM for maintenance?Other#13 Was the SCM designed by an NC licensed professional?Yes#1 SHWT elevation (fmsl)< 2220.5 ft. #6 Percentage of medium to coarse washed sand by volume 75-85%#1 Bottom of the bioretention cell (fmsl) 2225.33 ft. #6 Percentage of fines (silt and clay) by volume 8-15%#1 Distance from bottom to SHWT (feet) > 2 ft. #6 Percentage of organic matter by volume 5-10%#2 Surface area of the bioretention cell (square feet) 850 sf#6 Type of organic materialPine bark fines#2 Design volume of the bioretention cell (cubic feet) 425 cf#7 Phosphorus Index (P-Index) of media (unitless) <50#2 Ponding depth of the design storm (inches) 6 in#8 Will compaction be avoided during construction?Yes#3 Is the bioretention cell used for peak attenuation? No#9 Will cell be maintained to a one inch/hour standard? Yes#3 Depth of peak attenuation over planting surface (in)6 in #10 Describe the planting plan:#3 Height of peak attenuation outlet above the planting surface (in)6 in#4 Infiltration rate of the in situ soil (inch/hour)See Note Below#4 Diameter of the underdrain pipes (if applicable)6 in#4 Does the design include Internal Water Storage (IWS)? Yes #11 Depth of mulch, if applicable (inches) N/A#4 if so, elevation of the top of the IWS (fmsl) 2227 ft #11 Type of mulch, if applicableN/A#4 Elevation of the planting surface (fmsl) 2228.5 ft #12 How many clean out pipes are being installed? 1#5 Will the cell contain trees and shrubs? No#12 Briefly describe the pretreatment that will be used:#5 Media depth (inches)30 inJo Ellen Ammons Fieldhouse at Mars Hill UniversityTHE DRAINAGE AREABIORETENTION CELL MDC FROM 02H .1052Per the USGS Soil Survey the in-situ soils are categorized as somewhat excessively drained.Break down of BUA in the drainage area (both new and existing):COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE STORMWATER PROGRAMStormwater program(s) that apply (please specify):NCDEQ Phase II MSI or UA Post Construction StormwaterGENERAL MDC FROM 02H .1050ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONPlease use this space to provide any additional information about this bioretention cell that you think is relevant to the review:The bioretention cell will be soded with a non-clumping, deep rooted species that is NOT grown from a soil with an impenetrable layer (like clay).No pretreatment devices were designed as part of this bioretention cellBioretention19:39 AM 4/23/2018
2 inches per hour
q = K * dH/L 2 = K = hydraulic conductivity of media (inch per hour)
3 = dH = change in head (height of water) (ft)
q = 2.4 inch per hour per unit area 2.5 = L = thickness of soil layer (ft)
Q = q * A/12 inches per foot/3600 seconds Q = flow rate (cfs)
850 = A = surface area
Q = 0.047222
N * D = 16 * (Q * n / (s^0.5))^(3/8)N = number of pipes
D =  diameter of pipes (inches)
N * D = 2.618551 0.047222 = Q = flow rate (cfs)
0.012 = n = manning coefficient
D = 6 inches 0.005 = s = slope of pipe (assume 0.5%)
N = 0.436425 minimum
reference:http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/stormwater/PublicationFiles/DesigningRainGardens2001.pdf
Infiltration Rate of Media (1‐6 inches per hour required, 1‐2
inches per hour preferred)
EX-1 70 EX-S1 S14 2225.00 2223.50 18 9.4 2.14% DW-HDPE
EX-1.1 10 S14 FES 2223.45 2223.25 18 9.1 2.00% DW-HDPE
2 90 Building FES 2233.14 2229.00 6 6.6 4.60% SW-HDPE
3 91 S2 FES 2229.05 2228.50 12 3.8 0.60% DW-HDPE
4 60 Building Inserta Tee® 2233.14 2229.00 6 8.1 6.90% SW-HDPE
5 66 S3 S2 2229.71 2229.05 12 4.9 1.00% DW-HDPE
6 38 S4 S3 2230.25 2229.71 12 5.9 1.42% DW-HDPE
7 36 S5 S4 2230.64 2230.25 12 5.1 1.08% DW-HDPE
8 75 S10 S5 2233.02 2230.64 12 8.8 3.17% DW-HDPE
9 40 S11 S5 2231.80 2231.61 12 3.4 0.48% DW-HDPE
10 95 Elbow S11 2232.85 2231.80 6 3.3 1.11% SW-HDPE
11 21 S12 S11 2233.10 2232.85 6 3.4 1.19% SW-HDPE
12 92 Fitting S12 2233.60 2233.10 6 2.3 0.54% SW-HDPE
13 34 S13 S12 2233.60 2233.20 6 3.4 1.18% SW-HDPE
14 10 Elbow Elbow 2233.20 2232.95 6 4.9 2.50% SW-HDPE
15 46 Elbow Fitting 2232.95 2231.80 6 4.9 2.50% SW-HDPE
16 51 Elbow Fitting 2233.75 2233.22 6 3.2 1.04% SW-HDPE
17 18 Building Inserta Tee® 2233.52 2233.09 6 4.8 2.39% SW-HDPE
18 16 Elbow Inserta Tee® 2233.48 2233.15 6 4.4 2.06% SW-HDPE
19 15 Elbow Elbow 2233.65 2233.48 6 3.3 1.13% SW-HDPE
20 26 Building Inserta Tee® 2233.80 2233.50 6 3.3 1.15% SW-HDPE
21 4 S9 FES 2233.48 2233.00 8 13.0 12.00% SW-HDPE
22 29 Fitting S9 2233.00 2232.90 8 2.2 0.34% SW-HDPE
23 53 S6 S7 2230.60 2230.05 12 5.0 1.04% DW-HDPE
24 23 S7 S8 2229.95 2229.65 12 5.6 1.30% DW-HDPE
25 16 Building Inserta Tee® 2233.14 2232.82 6 4.4 2.00% SW-HDPE
26 3 Building Inserta Tee® 2233.14 2232.46 6 14.7 22.67% SW-HDPE
27 3 Building Elbow 2233.80 2233.75 6 4.0 1.67% SW-HDPE
28 3 Building Elbow 2233.69 2233.65 6 3.6 1.33% SW-HDPE
29 3 Building Inserta Tee® 2233.58 2233.53 6 4.0 1.67% SW-HDPE
30 3 Building Inserta Tee® 2233.52 2233.48 6 3.6 1.33% SW-HDPE
31 3 Building Elbow 2233.52 2233.48 6 3.6 1.33% SW-HDPE
32 5 Building Elbow 2233.14 2233.05 6 4.2 1.80% SW-HDPE
33 8 Elbow Inserta Tee® 2233.05 2230.50 6 17.5 31.88% SW-HDPE
34 5 Building Elbow 2233.14 2233.00 6 5.2 2.80% SW-HDPE
35 5 Building Inserta Tee® 2233.14 2228.60 6 29.5 90.80% SW-HDPE
36 72 Elbow Fitting 2233.00 2228.00 8 9.9 6.94% DW-HDPE
37 3 Building Inserta Tee® 2228.00 2227.20 4 12.2 26.67% DW-HDPE
38 3 Building Inserta Tee® 2233.67 2232.35 4 15.7 44.00% SW-HDPE
39 3 Building Inserta Tee® 2233.67 2232.92 4 11.8 25.00% SW-HDPE
40 3 Building Inserta Tee® 2233.67 2233.13 4 10.0 18.00% SW-HDPE
41 3 Building Fitting 2233.67 2233.60 4 3.6 2.33% SW-HDPE
42 3 Building Elbow 2233.67 2233.60 4 3.6 2.33% SW-HDPE
43 3 Building Fitting 2233.67 2233.26 4 8.7 13.67% SW-HDPE
44 4 S8 FES 2229.55 2229.50 12 5.5 1.25% DW-HDPE
Pipe Characteristics
Pipe ID Length
(FT)Inv. In
STORM DRAIN PIPE SCHEDULE
"*" - SW-HDPE refers to ADS® Single Wall corrugated HDPE Pipe or approved equal
Inv. Out Diameter
(IN)
Full Flow
Velocity
DW-HDPE refers to ADS® N-12® pipe or approved equal
Upstream
Node
Downstream
Node Material*Pipe
Slope
EX-S1 2229.00 2225.00 Open Throat Inlet 4.00
S2 2233.00 2229.05 Nyoplast® Drainage Basin 3.95
S3 2234.10 2229.71 Nyoplast® Drainage Basin 4.39
S4 2233.40 2230.25 Nyoplast® Drainage Basin 3.15
S5 2232.90 2230.64 Nyoplast® Drainage Basin 2.26
S6 2234.10 2230.60 Nyoplast® Drainage Basin 3.50
S7 2233.80 2229.65 Nyoplast® Drainage Basin 4.15
S8 2232.33 2229.55 Curb Inlet 2.78
S9 2231.27 2227.10 Curb Inlet 4.17
S10 2234.52 - Trench Drain -
S11 2235.09 2231.00 Nyoplast® Drainage Basin 4.09
S12 2234.65 2231.20 Nyoplast® Drainage Basin 3.45
S13 2233.70 2231.50 Nyoplast® Drainage Basin 2.20
S14 2228.48 2223.45 Curb Inlet 5.03
Structure
Depth
STORM DRAIN STRUCTURE SCHEDULE
Structure
ID
Rim/
Grate
Elevation
Bottom Elev. Type
Structure Characteristics

ITEM 8
SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS

Geotechnical Engineering
Exploration and Analysis

Proposed Mars Hill University Field House
Cascade Street and Athletic Drive
Mars Hill, North Carolina Prepared for: Mars Hill University Mars Hill, North Carolina Prepared by: Gentry Geotechnical Engineering, PLLC. Asheville, North Carolina July 19, 2017 Gentry Project Number 17G-0109-01

TABLE OF CONTENTS
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EXPLORATION AND ANALYSES

PROPOSED MARS HILL UNIVERSITY FIELD HOUSE
CASCADE STREET AND ATHLETIC DRIVE
MARS HILL, NORTH CAROLINA
GENTRY PROJECT NUMBER 17G-0109-01

Section No. Description Page No. 1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES .................................................................................................. 1 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................... 1 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 1 4.0 GEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM ............................ 2 5.0 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY SERVICES .......................................................... 2 6.0 SITE GEOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 3 7.0 MATERIAL CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 3
7.1. Surface Materials ............................................................................................... 3
7.2. Fill Soil .................................................................................................................. 4
7.3. Residual Soil and Partially Weathered Rock .............................................. 4 8.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS .................................................................................. 4 9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 5 9.1. Seismic Design Considerations ..................................................................... 5
9.2. General Foundation Recommendations ...................................................... 5
9.3. Shallow Foundation Design – Lightly Loaded Columns and Wall Footings . 5
9.4. Shallow Foundation Design – Moderate Loaded Column Footings .... 7
9.5. Intermediate or Deep Foundation Considerations .................................... 8
9.6. Floor Slab Recommendations ........................................................................ 9
9.7. Generalized Site Preparation Recommendations ..................................... 9
9.8. Generalized Construction Considerations ................................................ 11
9.9. Recommended Construction Materials Testing Services .................... 12
9.10. Basis of Report ................................................................................................. 12

ATTACHMENTS:

Boring Location Plan and Records of Subsurface Exploration (7)

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EXPLORATION AND ANALYSES

PROPOSED MARS HILL UNIVERSITY FIELD HOUSE
CASCADE STREET AND ATHLETIC DRIVE
MARS HILL, NORTH CAROLINA
GENTRY PROJECT NUMBER 17G-0109-01

1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

This report provides the results of the Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analyses that
Gentry Geotechnical Engineering, PLLC (“Gentry”) conducted regarding the proposed
development. The Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analyses included several
separate, but related, service areas referenced hereafter as the Geotechnical Subsurface
Exploration Program, Geotechnical Laboratory Services, and Geotechnical Engineering
Services. The scope of each service area was narrow and limited, as directed by our client and in consideration of the proposed project. The scope of each service area is briefly explained
later.

Geotechnical-related recommendations for design and construction of the foundation for the
proposed structures are provided in this report. Site preparation recommendations are also
given; however, those recommendations are only preliminary since the means and methods of site preparation will largely depend on factors that were unknown when this report was
prepared. Those factors include the weather before and during construction, subsurface
conditions that are exposed during construction, and finalized details of the proposed
development.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

Our Mr. Brandon Governo visited the site on May 26, 2017 to evaluate site access. We were
provided with a preliminary grading plan (C-102), soil boring location plan (SK-1), Survey,
Overall Aerial Photograph (Attachment A) and a general project description (Attachment B).

The site plan shows the location of the proposed Phase I building, Phase II building, restroom
and concession building, Bio Cell, driveway and parking areas. The site currently consists of
relatively flat, grass covered property with some trees at the west end of the existing football
field. The site is bordered by the existing tennis courts and grass covered property to the north,
by Athletic Drive to the south, by the existing football field to the east and by Cascade Street to
the west.

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The initial Phase I development includes construction of a 2-story building of approximately
19,000 square feet of heated space for offices, locker rooms, storage, common space and
restrooms and elevator associated with the athletics with an exterior covered balcony and two
fire stairs and the open monumental stair down to the first floor. The Phase II development
includes a 2-story addition of approximately 6,400 square feet for office, locker rooms, storage
and rest rooms for athletics.

Proposed Mars Hill University Field House Gentry Project No. 17G-0109-01
Cascade Street and Athletic Drive July 19, 2017
Mars Hill, North Carolina Page 2

The major building structural system will be a steel frame with non-load-bearing metal stud infill
wall framing, concrete slab on grade, composite metal deck and concrete 2nd floor, and pre-
engineered roof trusses. The maximum structural loads of the proposed Phase I building is
reported as 2,760 pounds per lineal foot for walls and 65 kips for columns. The floor is
expected to support a maximum 100 pounds per square foot live load.

The finished floor elevation is reported as 2,234.8 feet. The existing site elevations within the
footprint of the Phase I Building range from about 2,233 feet to 2,234 feet. Therefore, minimal
grading on the order of 1 foot is anticipated.

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM

The scope of the Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Program was to evaluate subsurface
conditions by performing seven soil test borings with a drill rig. The soil test borings (B-1, B-2,
B-3, B-4 and B-7) within the footprint of the planned Phase I and Phase II Field House
development and concession stand were drilled to depths of 15 to 50 feet and the parking area
and bio cell soil test borings (B-5 and B-6) were drilled to depths of 10 feet. The test boring
locations were positioned from the intersecting roads or other site features. The approximate
test boring locations are shown on the attached Test Boring Location Plan.

The ground elevations at the test borings were estimated as part of the Geotechnical
Subsurface Exploration Program using survey methods related to the topographic information
on the survey provided to us by the client. The test boring elevations are noted on the attached
Records of Subsurface Exploration, which are logs of the test borings. The test boring
elevations are considered accurate within about one foot.

Samples were collected from the test borings, at certain depths, using a split-barrel sampler
during Standard Penetration Testing (SPT). Immediately after sampling, select portions of the
SPT samples were transferred from the sampler to zip lock bags that were labeled at the site for
identification. The retained samples were transported to Gentry’s geotechnical laboratory as
part of the Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Program.

Geotechnical laboratory testing was performed on select retained samples as part of the
Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Program.

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY SERVICES

Samples that were retained at the site were classified by a geotechnical engineer using the
descriptive terms and particle-size criteria, and by using the Unified Soil Classification System
(ASTM D 2488-75) as a general guide. The classifications are shown on the Records of
Subsurface Exploration, along with horizontal lines that show supposed depths of material
change. Field-related information pertaining to the test borings is also shown on the Records of
Subsurface Exploration. The natural moisture content and percent fines were performed on
select soil samples to aid in soil classification and estimating engineering properties of the site
soils. The laboratory test results are shown in Table 1 below.

Proposed Mars Hill University Field House Gentry Project No. 17G-0109-01
Cascade Street and Athletic Drive July 19, 2017
Mars Hill, North Carolina Page 3

TABLE 1 - LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Test Boring No. Depth
(ft)
Percent Finer
than No. 200
Sieve (%)
Moisture
Content (%)
USCS Soil
Classification
B-1 3.5-5 39.5 26.7 SM
B-2 8.5-10 27.0 44.1 SM
B-3 6-7.5 31.45 38.8 SM

6.0 SITE GEOLOGY

The project site is located in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province. The bedrock in this region is
a complex crystalline formation that has been faulted and contorted by past tectonic movements.
The rock has weathered to residual soils which form the mantle for the hillsides and hilltops. The
typical residual soil profile in areas not disturbed by erosion or the activities of man consists of
clayey soils near the surface where weathering is more advanced, underlain by sandy silts and
silty sands. There may be colluvial (old landslide) material on the slopes.

The boundary between soil and rock is not sharply defined, and there often is a transitional zone,
termed "partially weathered rock," overlying the parent bedrock. Partially weathered rock is
defined, for engineering purposes, as residual material with standard penetration resistances in
excess of 100 blows per foot (bpf). Weathering is facilitated by fractures, joints, and the presence
of less resistant rock types. Consequently, the profile of the partially weathered rock and hard
rock is quite irregular and erratic, even over short horizontal distances. Also, it is not unusual to
find lenses and boulders of hard rock and/or zones of partially weathered rock within the soil
mantle well above the general bedrock level.

7.0 MATERIAL CONDITIONS

Since material sampling at the test borings was discontinuous, it was necessary for Gentry to
suppose conditions between sample intervals. The supposed conditions at the test borings are
briefly discussed in this section and are described in detail on the Records of Subsurface
Exploration. Also, the conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on the
supposed conditions.

7.1. Surface Materials

The surface materials consisted of silty sand topsoil and grass at the surface of soil test borings
B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 and B-5. The topsoil was measured to be about 4 inches thick. Soil test
borings B-6 and B-7 encountered approximately 1 to 3 inches of crushed stone at the surface.

Proposed Mars Hill University Field House Gentry Project No. 17G-0109-01
Cascade Street and Athletic Drive July 19, 2017
Mars Hill, North Carolina Page 4

7.2. Fill Soil

Very loose to loose, moist, reddish brown, micaceous, clayey, silty, fine to medium sand that we
classified as fill soils were present in all of the soil test borings to depths of 3 to 6 feet deep.
The fill soils contained rock fragments at variable depths.

7.3. Residual Soil and Partially Weathered Rock

Below the fill soils, very loose to loose, brown and gray, gray and tan, reddish brown, moist to
very moist, micaceous, silty fine to medium sand that we classified as residual soils were
encountered to depths of about 15 to 20 feet. Firm to very dense, brown, brown and green,
reddish brown, green white and brown, moist to very moist, micaceous, silty fine to medium
sand was encountered to 48 feet in B-2. Partially weathered rock was encountered below the
residual soils of B-2 and extended to at least 50 feet, the maximum depth explored.

8.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

Groundwater was encountered in the borings at the depths indicated in the following table 2. It
should be noted that the groundwater levels may fluctuate several feet with seasonal and
rainfall variations and with changes in the water level in adjacent drainage features and creek to
the north/northwest. Normally, the highest groundwater levels occur in late winter and spring
and the lowest levels occur in late summer and fall.

TABLE 2 – GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
Boring No.
and Location
Ground Water at
Time of Boring
Ground Water
After 6 Hours
Depth (ft) Elevation (ft) Depth (ft) Elevation (ft)
B-1 NW Phase I Building 13.1 2,219.9 5.5 2,227.5
B-2 Ctr of Phase I Building 13.1 2,219.9 10.5 2,223.0
B-3 SW Phase I Building 10.4 2,223.6 -- --
B-4 Ctr of Phase II Building 13.0 2,222.0 11.0 2,224
B-5 (Center of Bio Cell) Not
Encountered
_ _ _
B-6 (NW Parking Lot) Not
Encountered
_ -- --
B-7 (Concession Stand) 11.0 2,223.0 8.1 2,225.9

Proposed Mars Hill University Field House Gentry Project No. 17G-0109-01
Cascade Street and Athletic Drive July 19, 2017
Mars Hill, North Carolina Page 5

9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1. Seismic Design Considerations

A soil site class D is recommended for seismic design. By definition, site class is based on the
average properties of subsurface materials to a depth of 100 feet below the ground surface.
Since 100-foot test borings were not requested or authorized for the project, it was necessary to
estimate the site class based on the test borings, presumed area geology, and table 1613.5.2 of
the 2012 North Carolina building code.

9.2. General Foundation Recommendations

The subsurface soil conditions generally consisted of very loose to loose, silty sand fill followed
by very loose to loose silty sand residual soils within the upper 15 to 20 feet. The column loads
range from as low as 1 kip to as high as 65 kips. The perimeter wall load is reported as 2.76
kips per lineal foot. Due to the variable moderate to low strength and moderately compressible
fill and residual soils and variable structural loads, we are providing separate recommendations
for lightly loaded foundations and moderate loaded foundations due to potential for excessive
settlement especially differential settlement for conventional shallow foundations.

The lightly loaded columns and wall footings are based on a low allowable soil bearing pressure
and the moderately loaded columns are based on foundation improvement with over excavation
and replacement with compacted No. 57 stone. The foundation improvement method will result
in over excavations that may overlap with adjacent excavations depending upon column
spacing and column footing size. This could result in more of a mass excavation than individual
excavations. Therefore, we have also provided intermediate and deep foundation
considerations in lieu of foundation improvement.

9.3. Shallow Foundation Design – Lightly Loaded Columns and Wall Footings
The low to moderate strength and moderately compressible silty sand fill and residual soils
could support conventional shallow foundations for lightly loaded columns less than or equal to
30 kips and wall loads less than or equal to 2,760 pounds per lineal foot. A spread footing
foundation designed using a 1,000 psf maximum, net, allowable soil bearing capacity is
recommended. Strip footing pads are recommended to be a minimum of 18 inches wide and
maximum of 36 inches wide and isolated column pads are recommended to be a minimum of 2
feet wide and maximum 6 feet wide for geotechnical considerations, regardless of the calculated
foundation bearing stress. Foundation walls could be built of cast-in-place concrete or concrete
masonry units. It is recommended that a structural engineer or architect provide specific
foundation details including footing dimensions, reinforcing, etc.
It is understood that the North Carolina State Building Code requires a minimum 12-inch
foundation depth for frost protection. However, it is our opinion that foundations have a
minimum 24-inch foundation depth for stability and frost action concerns. Therefore, footings for
foundation walls or isolated column pads are recommended to bear at least 24 inches below the
Proposed Mars Hill University Field House Gentry Project No. 17G-0109-01
Cascade Street and Athletic Drive July 19, 2017
Mars Hill, North Carolina Page 6

finished ground grade. The foundation analysis was conducted assuming that the foundations
will bear at a minimum of about 24 inches below the exterior ground surface.

Foundation excavations are recommended to be dug with a smooth-edge backhoe bucket to
develop a relatively undisturbed bearing grade. A toothed bucket will likely disturb foundation-
bearing soil more than a smooth-edge bucket, thereby making soil at the excavation base more
susceptible to saturation and instability, especially during adverse weather. It is critical that
contractors protect foundation support soil and foundation construction materials (concrete,
reinforcing, etc.). In addition, engineered fill is recommended to be placed and compacted in
benched excavations along foundation walls immediately after the foundation walls are capable
of supporting lateral pressures from backfill, compaction, and compaction equipment. Earth-
formed footing construction techniques will likely be feasible considering that silty sand will be
above the estimated foundation bearing elevations.

Foundation Support Soil Requirements

Footing pads are recommended to be directly and entirely supported by suitable-bearing
existing silty sand fill, silty sand residual soils or new engineered fill. Based on the
recommended 1,000 psf bearing capacity, the average corrected N-value (determined from
SPTs and correlated from other in-situ tests) is recommended to be at least 4 based upon a
1,000 psf maximum bearing capacity. It is further recommended that the strength characteristics
of soil within the entire foundation influence zone (determined by Gentry during construction)
meet or exceed the recommended values, unless Gentry approves lesser values.

It is recommended that Gentry evaluate foundation support soil using appropriate means and
methods immediately before foundation construction. The purpose of the recommended
evaluation is to confirm that the foundation will be properly supported and confirm that the
support soil is similar to the conditions described on the Records of Subsurface Exploration. In
the event that another firm performs the recommended foundation elevation, Gentry must be
notified if the composition or strength characteristics of foundation support soil differ from those
shown on the Records of Subsurface Exploration.

Soil that is within a foundation influence zone but does not meet the recommended allowable
bearing capacity (described above), or is otherwise unsuitable, is recommended to be replaced.
Unsuitable bearing material could be replaced with engineered fill or No. 57 stone. Unsuitable
bearing existing fill soils may be encountered that require over excavation. It is recommended
that Gentry provide specific recommendations pertaining to soil over-excavation and
replacement at the time of construction including the need for wrapping the stone in a geotextile
fabric. As an option to soil replacement, strip footings could be stepped or thickened to extend
through unsuitable bearing materials. It is recommended that a structural engineer or architect
should provide specific details of stepped or thickened footings.

Proposed Mars Hill University Field House Gentry Project No. 17G-0109-01
Cascade Street and Athletic Drive July 19, 2017
Mars Hill, North Carolina Page 7

Estimated Foundation Settlement

The post-construction total and differential settlements of foundations designed and constructed
based on this report are estimated to be a maximum of about 1 and 1/2 inch, respectively. The
post-construction angular distortion is estimated to be a maximum of about 1/480 across a
distance of 20 feet or more.

9.4. Shallow Foundation Design – Moderate Loaded Column Footings

The low to moderate strength and moderately compressible silty sand fill and residual soils will
require foundation improvement to support moderate column loads greater than 30 kips and
less than 65 kips. We recommend the foundation soils exposed in the foundation excavation be
partially over excavated and replaced with compacted No. 57 stone to reduce foundation
settlement and improve bearing conditions. The prepared subgrade should then be suitable for
shallow foundation support of moderate loaded column footings.

We recommend that the foundation excavation be over excavated to a depth equal to at least 1
footing width below the foundation bearing level. For example, a 4 feet wide footing would be
over excavated 4 feet below the foundation bearing level. However, over excavation may extend
deeper in the vicinity of soil test boring B-3 where the lowest strength soils were encountered.
Over excavation should extend laterally beyond the foundation perimeter a distance equal to at
least one half the depth of over excavation beneath the footing bearing level. For example, the
over excavation would extend laterally 2 feet (one-half the depth of 4 feet) in each direction and
result in an 8 feet wide excavation. The over excavation should then be backfilled with No. 57
stone in maximum 1 foot lifts and compacted with a vibratory plate compactor until visibly
densified prior to subsequent lifts. The footing would then be formed to its design width such that
the No. 57 stone extends beyond the actual footing for lateral stability and stress distribution
purposes.

A spread footing foundation designed using a 2,000 psf maximum, net, allowable soil bearing
capacity is recommended for moderately loaded columns with compacted No. 57 stone below
the footing as described above. Strip footing pads are recommended to be a minimum of 18
inches wide and maximum of 36 inches wide and isolated column pads are recommended to be
a minimum of 2 feet wide and maximum 6 feet wide for geotechnical considerations, regardless
of the calculated foundation bearing stress. Foundation walls could be built of cast-in-place
concrete or concrete masonry units. It is recommended that a structural engineer or architect
provide specific foundation details including footing dimensions, reinforcing, etc.

It is understood that the North Carolina State Building Code requires a minimum 12-inch
foundation depth for frost protection. However, it is our opinion that foundations have a
minimum 24-inch foundation depth for stability and frost action concerns. Therefore, footings for
foundation walls or isolated column pads are recommended to bear at least 24 inches below the
finished ground grade. The foundation analysis was conducted assuming that the foundations
will bear at a minimum of about 24 inches below the exterior ground surface.

Foundation excavations are recommended to be dug with a smooth-edge backhoe bucket to
develop a relatively undisturbed bearing grade. A toothed bucket will likely disturb foundation-
Proposed Mars Hill University Field House Gentry Project No. 17G-0109-01
Cascade Street and Athletic Drive July 19, 2017
Mars Hill, North Carolina Page 8

bearing soil more than a smooth-edge bucket, thereby making soil at the excavation base more
susceptible to saturation and instability, especially during adverse weather. It is critical that
contractors protect foundation support soil and foundation construction materials (concrete,
reinforcing, etc.). In addition, engineered fill is recommended to be placed and compacted in
benched excavations along foundation walls immediately after the foundation walls are capable
of supporting lateral pressures from backfill, compaction, and compaction equipment. Earth-
formed footing construction techniques will likely be feasible considering that silty sand will be
above the estimated foundation bearing elevations.

Foundation Support Soil Requirements

Footing pads are recommended to be directly and entirely supported by compacted No. 57
stone. It is recommended that Gentry evaluate foundation support soil using appropriate means
and methods immediately before foundation construction. The purpose of the recommended
evaluation is to confirm that the foundation will be properly supported and confirm that the
support soil is similar to the conditions described on the Records of Subsurface Exploration. In
the event that another firm performs the recommended foundation elevation, Gentry must be
notified if the composition or strength characteristics of foundation support soil differ from those
shown on the Records of Subsurface Exploration.

It is recommended that Gentry provide specific recommendations pertaining to soil over-
excavation and replacement at the time of construction including the need for wrapping the
stone in a geotextile fabric.

Estimated Foundation Settlement

The post-construction total and differential settlements of foundations designed and constructed
based on this report are estimated to be a maximum of about 1 and 1/2 inch, respectively. The
post-construction angular distortion is estimated to be a maximum of about 1/480 across a
distance of 20 feet or more.

9.5. Intermediate or Deep Foundation Considerations

A variety of deep foundations could be used to support the field house columns and walls
ranging from drilled caissons, auger cast-in-place piles, rigid inclusion, helical piles or micropiles
extending through the low to moderate strength fill, low to moderate strength residual soils down
to suitable bearing residual soils or partially weathered rock. Partially weathered rock was
encountered at a depth of about 48 to 50 feet in soil test boring B-2. Rammed aggregate pier
intermediate foundation system could also be considered to improve the strength, density and
bearing capacity of the low to moderate strength fill and residual soils to allow for construction of
a shallow foundation system.

We recommend that intermediate and deep foundation design/build contractors be contacted to
evaluate access, mobilization and installation costs of the intermediate and deep foundations
listed above to determine the most economical intermediate or deep foundation system. The
intermediate and deep foundation design/build contractors typically design the pile type, size,
depth and capacity based on provided structural loading conditions. If desired, Gentry could
Proposed Mars Hill University Field House Gentry Project No. 17G-0109-01
Cascade Street and Athletic Drive July 19, 2017
Mars Hill, North Carolina Page 9

also provide soil and partially weathered rock design parameters and construction
considerations for intermediate and deep foundations.

9.6. Floor Slab Recommendations

It is understood that the floor of the field house will be a ground-bearing concrete slab with a
maximum floor load of 100 pounds per square foot. Based on the assumed sub-grade elevation
and with proper sub-grade preparation, it is expected that site soil will be suitable for floor slab
support. Over-excavation of unsuitable bearing soil might, however, be necessary to develop a
suitable floor slab sub-grade due to existing fill soils. Engineered fill that is selected, placed,
and compacted according to this report could also support a concrete slab.

We recommend that a modulus of subgrade reaction value of 125 psi/inch or less be used for
design of grade slabs on subgrades as recommended. It is recommended that a structural
engineer or architect specify the floor slab thickness, reinforcing, joint details and other
parameters.

A minimum 6-inch-thick base course is recommended to be directly below the floor slab to serve
as a capillary break and help develop uniform support. It is recommended that the base course
consist of free-draining aggregate. Also, it is recommended that Gentry test and approve base
course aggregate before it is placed.

A minimum 10-mil vapor retarder is recommended to be directly below the base course
throughout the entire floor area. The vapor retarder is recommended to be in accordance with
ASTM E 1745-97, which is entitled: Standard Specification for Plastic Water Vapor Retarders
Used in Contact with Soil or Granular Fill under Concrete Slabs. If the base course has sharp,
angular aggregate, protecting the retarder with a geotextile (or by other means) is
recommended. Also, it is recommended that a structural engineer or architect specify the vapor
retarder location with careful consideration of concrete curing and the effects of moisture on
future flooring materials.

Estimated Floor Slab Settlement

The post-construction total and differential settlements of an isolated floor slab constructed in
accordance with this report are estimated to be a maximum of about ½ and ⅓-inch,
respectively, over a distance of about 20 feet.

9.7. Generalized Site Preparation Recommendations

This section deals with site preparation including preparation of foundation and engineered fill
areas. The means and methods of site preparation will greatly depend on the weather
conditions before and during construction, the subsurface conditions that are exposed during
earthwork operations, and the finalized details of the proposed development. Therefore, only
generalized site preparation recommendations are given.

Proposed Mars Hill University Field House Gentry Project No. 17G-0109-01
Cascade Street and Athletic Drive July 19, 2017
Mars Hill, North Carolina Page 10

Clearing, Grubbing and Stripping

Surface vegetation, trees and bushes (including root-balls), topsoil with adverse organic
content, and otherwise unsuitable bearing materials are recommended to be removed from the
proposed building footprint and other structural areas. Clearing, grubbing and stripping should
extend at least several feet beyond proposed development areas, where feasible.

When the geotechnical soil test borings were performed, the topsoil at the test boring locations
was about 4 inches thick. Those topsoil thicknesses could be used on a preliminary basis to
estimate topsoil stripping quantities. However, since topsoil may be thinner or thicker away from
the test borings, the actual stripping quantity may be more or less than estimated. It might be
beneficial to stockpile stripped topsoil on the site for later use in landscape areas.

Proof-Rolling and Fill Placement

After the recommended clearing, grubbing, and stripping, and once the site is cut (lowered) as
needed, the sub-grade is recommended to be proof-rolled with a fully-loaded, tandem-axle
dump truck or other suitable construction equipment to help locate unstable soil based on sub-
grade deflection caused by the wheel loads of the proof-roll equipment. The entire site is
recommended to be proof-rolled and, where feasible, proof-rolling should extend at least several
feet beyond development areas. It is recommended that Gentry observe proof-roll operations
and evaluate the sub-grade stability based on those observations. The sub-grade is
recommended to be evaluated by visual observations and probing if site constraints will not
allow for typical proof-rolling to help locate unstable soil.

Soil that shows signs of instability is recommended to be replaced with engineered fill.
Unsuitable soil could also be mechanically stabilized with coarse aggregate and/or
geosynthetics (geogrids, geotextiles, etc.). It is recommended that Gentry provide specific soil
improvement recommendations based on the conditions during construction.

The site is recommended to be raised, where necessary, to the planned finished grade with engineered fill immediately after the sub-grade is confirmed to be stable and suitable to support
the proposed site improvements. Engineered fill should have a maximum liquid limit of 50,
maximum plasticity index of 25, a maximum fines content of 50 percent, a maximum organic
content of 5 percent and be fee of deleterious or otherwise unsuitable material. Engineered fill
is recommended to be placed in uniform, relatively thin layers (lifts). It is recommended that
engineered fill slopes be placed no steeper than 2H: 1V and be properly benched into the
existing soils. Each layer of engineered fill is recommended to be compacted to at least 95 percent of the fill material’s maximum dry density within 3 percent of the optimum moisture
content as determined by The Standard Proctor Compaction test (ASTM D698).

Engineered fill that does not meet the density and water content requirements is recommended
to be replaced or scarified to a sufficient depth (likely 6 to 12 inches, or more), moisture-
conditioned, and compacted to the required density. A subsequent lift of fill should only be placed after Gentry confirms that the previous lift was properly placed and compacted. Sub-
grade soil may need to be recompacted immediately before construction since equipment traffic
and adverse weather may reduce soil stability.

Proposed Mars Hill University Field House Gentry Project No. 17G-0109-01
Cascade Street and Athletic Drive July 19, 2017
Mars Hill, North Carolina Page 11

Use of Site Soil as Engineered Fill

Site soil that does not contain adverse organic content, construction or household debris or
other deleterious materials or fines content greater than 50 percent, could be used as
engineered fill. If construction is during adverse weather (discussed in the following section),
drying site soil will likely not be feasible. In that case, aggregate fill (or other fill material with a
low water-sensitivity) will likely need to be imported to the site.

9.8. Generalized Construction Considerations

Adverse Weather

Site soil is moisture sensitive and will become unstable when exposed to adverse weather such
as rain, snow, and freezing temperatures. Therefore, it might be necessary to remove or
stabilize the upper 6 to 12 inches (or more) of soil due to adverse weather, which commonly
occurs during late fall, winter, and early spring. At least some over-excavation and/or
stabilization of unstable soil should be expected if construction is during or after adverse
weather. Based on the test borings, extensive over-excavation (other than previously recommended for foundation improvement) is not expected to be needed if construction is
during and after favorable, dry weather. Because site preparation is weather dependant, bids for
site preparation, and other earthwork activities, are recommended to be based on the time of
year that construction will be conducted.

In an effort to protect soil from adverse weather, the site surface is recommended to be
smoothly graded and contoured during construction to divert surface water away from
construction areas. Foundation construction should begin immediately after suitable support is
confirmed.

Dewatering

Ground water was encountered at depths of 10 to 13 feet in soil test borings B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4
and B-7, but was not encountered in B-5 and B-6. Ground water depth was measured at 5 ½ to
11 feet after approximately 6 hours. Dewatering will likely be required for excavations deeper
than about 6 feet. Some dewatering might be needed during construction due to precipitation or
if perched water is encountered. Water that accumulates in construction areas is recommended
to be removed from excavations and other construction areas, along with unstable soil as soon
as possible. Filtered sump pumps, drawing water from sump pits excavated in the bottom of
construction trenches, will likely be adequate to remove water that collects in shallow
excavations. Excavated sump pits should be fully-lined with a geotextile and filled with open-
graded, free-draining aggregate.

Excavation Stability

Excavations through residual silty sand soils should be no steeper than 1H:1V for short term
conditions and no steeper than 1.5H:1V for long term conditions. Excavations may cave during
construction, especially if granular soil or ground water is encountered. Excavations are
recommended to be made in accordance with current OSHA excavation and trench safety
Proposed Mars Hill University Field House Gentry Project No. 17G-0109-01
Cascade Street and Athletic Drive July 19, 2017
Mars Hill, North Carolina Page 12

standards, and other applicable requirements. Sides of excavations might need to be sloped or
braced to maintain or develop a safe work environment. Temporary shoring must be designed
according to applicable regulatory requirements. Contractors are responsible for excavation
safety.

9.9. Recommended Construction Materials Testing Services

This report was prepared assuming that Gentry will perform Construction Materials Testing
(“CMT”) services during construction of the proposed development. In general, CMT services
are recommended (and expected) to at least include observation and testing of: foundation, floor slab; concrete and other construction materials. It might be necessary for Gentry to
provide supplemental geotechnical recommendations based on the results of CMT services and
provided specific details of the project.

9.10. Basis of Report

This report is based on Gentry proposal No. 17P-083, which is dated May 26, 2017 and
authorized by you by signing our execution sheet dated June 9, 2017. The actual services for
the project varied somewhat from those described in the proposal because of the conditions that were encountered while performing the services and in consideration of the proposed project.

This report is strictly based on the project description given earlier in this report. Gentry must be
notified if any part of the project description is not accurate so that this report can be amended,
if needed. This report is based on the assumption that the structure will be designed and
constructed according to the building code that governs construction at the site.

The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on supposed subsurface
conditions as shown on the Records of Subsurface Exploration. Gentry must be notified if the
subsurface conditions that are encountered during construction of the proposed development
differ from those shown on the Records of Subsurface Exploration because this report will likely
need to be revised.
N
Date:
06/2017
Project No.:
17G-0109-01
Mars Hill University
Field House
Cascade St. & Athletic Dr.
Mars Hill, North Carolina
Test Boring Location Plan
Note 2: Not to scale
Approx. Boring Location
B-2
B-5
GENTRY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, PLLC.
B-1
Note 1: Grading Plan prepared by McGill Associates
B-6
B-4
B-3
B-7
Record of Subsurface Exploration
Boring:B-1
Project Name:Mars Hill University Field House, Cascade Street and Athletic Drive, Mars Hill, NC Elevation:2,233 feet June 20, 2017
Location:North West side of building, See Boring Location Plan Project No. 17G-0109-01
Driller:Baker Jordan, Jordan Environmental, LLC, Track Mounted Diedrich D50, 2 1/4" ID Hollow Stem Auger ASTM D1586
Description Depth Sample SPT
feet type N-Value
4 inches of silty sand topsoil and grass
Very loose, reddish brown, moist, micaceous, clayey, silty, fine to medium SAND (Fill) SS 4
5 SS 4
Loose, brown and black, moist, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND (Residual)SS 8
Loose, grey and tan, moist, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND (Residual)
10 SS 5
Loose, brown, moist, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND (Residual)
15 SS 7
-wet split spoon sample from 18 1/2 to 20 feet
20 SS 9
Boring terminated at 20 feet
Groundwater encountered at 13.1 feet
Groundwater encountered at 5.5 feet after 6 hours
Cave in at 14.8 feet after augers removed
GENTRY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, PLLC
Remarks
SS = Split Spoon Sample
Record of Subsurface Exploration
Boring:B-2
Project Name:Mars Hill University Field House, Cascade Street and Athletic Drive, Mars Hill, NC Elevation:2,233 feet June 20, 2017
Location:Center of building, See Boring Location Plan Project No. 17G-0109-01
Driller:Baker Jordan, Jordan Environmental, LLC, Track Mounted Diedrich D50, 2 1/4" ID Hollow Stem Auger ASTM D1586
Description Depth Sample SPT
feet type N-Value
4 inches of silty sand topsoil and grass
Loose, reddish brown, moist, micaceous, clayey, silty, fine to medium SAND (Possible Fill) SS 8
5 SS 9
Loose, brown and dark brown, moist, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND (Residual)
SS 7
10 SS 5
Loose, tan and green, moist, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND (Residual)
15 SS 5
20 SS 6
-wet split spoon samples from 23 1/2 to 28 1/2 feet
25 SS 7
Very firm, brown and green, moist, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND (Residual)
30 SS 25
-wet split spoon samples from 28 1/2 to 43 1/2 feet
35 SS 21
40 SS 25
Very dense, green, white and brown, moist, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND (Residual)
45 SS 81
-wet split spoon samples from 43 1/2 to 48 1/2 feet
Partially weathered rock sampled as:
brown and green, moist, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND 50 SS 38+50/5''
Boring terminated at 50 feet
Groundwater encountered at 13.1 feet
Groundwater encountered at 10.5 feet after 6 hours
Cave in at 15 feet after augers removed
GENTRY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, PLLC
Remarks
SS = Split Spoon Sample
Record of Subsurface Exploration
Boring:B-3
Project Name:Mars Hill University Field House, Cascade Street and Athletic Drive, Mars Hill, NC Elevation:2,234 feet June 20, 2017
Location:South West side of building, See Boring Location Plan Project No. 17G-0109-01
Driller:Baker Jordan, Jordan Environmental, LLC, Track Mounted Diedrich D50, 2 1/4" ID Hollow Stem Auger ASTM D1586
Description Depth Sample SPT
feet type N-Value
4 inches of silty sand topsoil and grass
Loose, reddish brown, moist, micaceous, clayey, silty, fine to medium SAND (Possible fill)SS 10
Very loose to loose, tan and brown, moist, micaceous, clayey, silty, fine to medium SAND
(Residual)5 SS 7
SS 3
Very loose, red and dark brown, moist, micaceous, clayey, silty, fine to medium SAND
(Residual)10 SS 3
15 SS 4
Firm, reddish brown and grey, moist, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND (Residual)
20 SS 14
Boring terminated at 20 feet
Groundwater encountered at 10.4 feet
Cave in at 14 feet after augers removed
GENTRY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, PLLC
Remarks
SS = Split Spoon Sample
Record of Subsurface Exploration
Boring:B-4
Project Name:Mars Hill University Field House, Cascade Street and Athletic Drive, Mars Hill, NC Elevation:2,235 feet June 20, 2017
Location:Phase 2 building, See Boring Location Plan Project No. 17G-0109-01
Driller:Baker Jordan, Jordan Environmental, LLC, Track Mounted Diedrich D50, 2 1/4" ID Hollow Stem Auger ASTM D1586
Description Depth Sample SPT
feet type N-Value
4 inches of silty sand topsoil and grass
Loose, brown and tan, silty, fine to medium SAND (Fill) and rock fragments SS 13+50/0''*
fragments
5 SS 41*
Firm to loose, tan and grey, moist, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND (Residual)
SS 12
10 SS 5
Very dense to dense, tan and grey, moist, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND (Residual)
15 SS 35
20 SS 51
Boring terminated at 20 feet
Groundwater encountered at 13 feet
Groundwater encountered at 11 feet after 6 hours
Cave in at 15.5 feet after augers removed
GENTRY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, PLLC
Remarks
SS = Split Spoon Sample
* N-Value elevated due to rock
Record of Subsurface Exploration
Boring:B-5
Project Name:Mars Hill University Field House, Cascade Street and Athletic Drive, Mars Hill, NC Elevation:2,230.5 feet June 20, 2017
Location:Center of Bio Cell, See Boring Location Plan Project No. 17G-0109-01
Driller:Baker Jordan, Jordan Environmental, LLC, Track Mounted Diedrich D50, 2 1/4" ID Hollow Stem Auger ASTM D1586
Description Depth Sample SPT
feet type N-Value
4 inches of silty sand topsoil and grass
Loose, reddish brown, moist, micaceous, clayey, silty, fine to medium SAND (Possible fill)SS 6
5 SS 9
Very loose to loose, tan and grey, micaceous, clayey, silty, fine to medium SAND (Residual)
SS 5
10 SS 2
Boring terminated at 10 feet
No groundwater encountered
Cave in at 7.6 feet after augers removed
GENTRY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, PLLC
Remarks
SS = Split Spoon Sample
Record of Subsurface Exploration
Boring:B-6
Project Name:Mars Hill University Field House, Cascade Street and Athletic Drive, Mars Hill, NC Elevation:2,228.5 feet June 20, 2017
Location:North West Parking Lot, See Boring Location Plan Project No. 17G-0109-01
Driller:Baker Jordan, Jordan Environmental, LLC, Track Mounted Diedrich D50, 2 1/4" ID Hollow Stem Auger ASTM D1586
Description Depth Sample SPT
feet type N-Value
2 to 3 inches of crushed stone
Loose, reddish brown, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND (Fill) with some rock fragments SS 9
Loose, grey and tan, moist, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND (Residual)5 SS 10
SS 9
10 SS 7
Boring terminated at 10 feet
No groundwater encountered
Cave in at 7.5 feet after augers removed
GENTRY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, PLLC
Remarks
SS = Split Spoon Sample
Record of Subsurface Exploration
Boring:B-7
Project Name:Mars Hill University Field House, Cascade Street and Athletic Drive, Mars Hill, NC Elevation:2,234 feet June 20, 2017
Location:Center of Concession Stand, See Boring Location Plan Project No. 17G-0109-01
Driller:Baker Jordan, Jordan Environmental, LLC, Track Mounted Diedrich D50, 2 1/4" ID Hollow Stem Auger ASTM D1586
Description Depth Sample SPT
feet type N-Value
1 to 2 inches of crushed stone
Loose, white and tan, moist, silty, fine to medium SAND (Possible fill) and quartz fragments SS 24*
fragments
Very loose to loose, brown and grey, moist, micaceous, silty, fine to medium SAND (Residual)5 SS 7
SS 4
10 SS 2
SS 5
15 SS 5
Boring terminated at 15 feet
Groundwater encountered at 11 feet
Groundwater encountered at 8.1 feet after 6 hours
Cave in at 11.9 feet after augers removed
GENTRY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, PLLC
Remarks
SS = Split Spoon Sample
*N-value elevated due to quartz
load device.
SPT-N Value Consistency
0-4 0-2 Very Soft
5-10 3-4 Soft
11-20 5-8 Firm
21-30 9-15 Stiff
31-50 16-30 Very Stiff
over 50 Very Dense 31-50 Hard
over 50 Very Hard
Major
Component
of Sample
Boulders
Cobbles
Gravel
Sand
Silt/Clay
ST-Shelby Tube Sampler
RC-Rock Core: NX, BX, AX
HSA-Hollow Stem Auger
Sample/Drilling:
Drilling and Sampling Abbreviations:
SS-Split Spoon Sampler
Correlation of Penetration Resistances to Soil Properties:
Gradation Description and Terminology:
2.00-4.00
Unconfined Compressive
Strength Qp tsf
under 0.25
0.25-0.50
0.50-1.00
1.00-2.00
Loose
Firm
Very Firm
Dense
More than 50% retained onto the No. 200 sieve
SPT-N Value Relative Density
Over 12 inches Trace
4.00-8.00
over 8.00
Consistency Cohesive Soils
More than 50% passing the No. 200 seive
Very Loose
Relative Density -Sands, Silts
Size Range
Description of
Minor Components
Percent of
Dry Weight
No. 10 seive to No. 40 sieve
No. 40 seive to No. 200 sieve
Passing No. 200 seive
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
12 inches to 3 inches
3 inches to 3/4 inches
3/4 inches to No. 4 sieve
No. 4 sieve to No. 200 sieve
No. 4 sieve to No. 10 sieve
REFERENCE NOTES FOR BORING LOGS
Little
Some
And
1-9
10-19
20-34
35-50
3 inches to No. 4 sieve
In-Situ Tests:
SPT-Standard Penetration Test
PMT-Pressuremeter Test
VS-Vane Shear
DCP-Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
Qp-Estimated Unconfined Compressive
Strength using Pocket Penetrometer
Qu-Estimated Unconfined Compressive
Strength using strain-controlled axial
Tables—Small Commercial Buildings (MHU Fieldhouse)
Small Commercial Buildings— Summary by Map Unit — Madison County, North Carolina (NC115)
Map unit
symbol
Map unit name Rating Component
name (percent)
Rating reasons
(numeric
values)
Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
CtC2 Clifton clay loam,
8 to 15 percent
slopes,
moderately
eroded
Very limited Clifton,
moderately
eroded (85%)
Slope (1.00)4.4 13.2%
Shrink-swell
(0.50)
CtD2 Clifton clay loam,
15 to 30
percent slopes,
moderately
eroded
Very limited Clifton,
moderately
eroded (80%)
Slope (1.00)9.9 29.7%
Shrink-swell
(0.50)
CxC Clifton-Urban
land complex,
2 to 15 percent
slopes
Very limited Clifton (50%)Slope (1.00)0.3 0.9%
Shrink-swell
(0.50)
FrA French loam, 0 to
3 percent
slopes,
occasionally
flooded
Very limited French,
occasionally
flooded (90%)
Flooding (1.00)1.5 4.5%
Depth to
saturated zone
(0.81)
Ela, undrained
(5%)
Ponding (1.00)
Flooding (1.00)
Depth to
saturated zone
(1.00)
Ud Udorthents,
loamy
Very limited Udorthents,
loamy (90%)
Slope (1.00)7.8 23.3%
UfB Udorthents-
Urban land
complex, 0 to 5
percent slopes,
occasionally
flooded
Very limited Udorthents,
occasionally
flooded (60%)
Flooding (1.00)4.8 14.3%
UhE Udorthents-
Urban land
complex, 2 to
50 percent
slopes
Very limited Udorthents (55%)Slope (1.00)4.7 14.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 33.4 100.0%
Small Commercial Buildings— Summary by Rating Value
Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
Very limited 33.4 100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 33.4 100.0%
Custom Soil Resource Report
25
Rating Options—Small Commercial Buildings (MHU Fieldhouse)
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Custom Soil Resource Report
26
Soil Properties and Qualities
The Soil Properties and Qualities section includes various soil properties and
qualities displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in
the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated
by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This
aggregation process is defined for each property or quality.
Soil Qualities and Features
Soil qualities are behavior and performance attributes that are not directly
measured, but are inferred from observations of dynamic conditions and from soil
properties. Example soil qualities include natural drainage, and frost action. Soil
features are attributes that are not directly part of the soil. Example soil features
include slope and depth to restrictive layer. These features can greatly impact the
use and management of the soil.
AASHTO Group Classification (Surface) (MHU
Fieldhouse)
AASHTO group classification is a system that classifies soils specifically for
geotechnical engineering purposes that are related to highway and airfield
construction. It is based on particle-size distribution and Atterberg limits, such as
liquid limit and plasticity index. This classification system is covered in AASHTO
Standard No. M 145-82. The classification is based on that portion of the soil that is
smaller than 3 inches in diameter.
The AASHTO classification system has two general classifications: (i) granular
materials having 35 percent or less, by weight, particles smaller than 0.074 mm in
diameter and (ii) silt-clay materials having more than 35 percent, by weight,
particles smaller than 0.074 mm in diameter. These two divisions are further
subdivided into seven main group classifications, plus eight subgroups, for a total of
fifteen for mineral soils. Another class for organic soils is used.
For each soil horizon in the database one or more AASHTO Group Classifications
may be listed. One is marked as the representative or most commonly occurring.
The representative classification is shown here for the surface layer of the soil.
Custom Soil Resource Report
27
28
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map—AASHTO Group Classification (Surface) (MHU Fieldhouse)39657703965860396595039660403966130396622039663103965770396586039659503966040396613039662203966310358990 359080 359170 359260 359350 359440 359530 359620 359710 359800 359890
358990 359080 359170 359260 359350 359440 359530 359620 359710 359800 359890
35° 49' 52'' N 82° 33' 40'' W35° 49' 52'' N82° 33' 3'' W35° 49' 32'' N
82° 33' 40'' W35° 49' 32'' N
82° 33' 3'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84
0 200 400 800 1200
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Meters
Map Scale: 1:4,200 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
A-1
A-1-a
A-1-b
A-2
A-2-4
A-2-5
A-2-6
A-2-7
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-7-5
A-7-6
A-8
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
A-1
A-1-a
A-1-b
A-2
A-2-4
A-2-5
A-2-6
A-2-7
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-7-5
A-7-6
A-8
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
A-1
A-1-a
A-1-b
A-2
A-2-4
A-2-5
A-2-6
A-2-7
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-7-5
A-7-6
A-8
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:12,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data
as of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Madison County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 13, Sep 20, 2016
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Oct 15, 2011—Dec
9, 2011
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
29
Table—AASHTO Group Classification (Surface) (MHU
Fieldhouse)
AASHTO Group Classification (Surface)— Summary by Map Unit — Madison County, North Carolina (NC115)
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
CtC2 Clifton clay loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes,
moderately eroded
A-7-6 4.4 13.2%
CtD2 Clifton clay loam, 15 to
30 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
A-7-6 9.9 29.7%
CxC Clifton-Urban land
complex, 2 to 15
percent slopes
A-7-6 0.3 0.9%
FrA French loam, 0 to 3
percent slopes,
occasionally flooded
A-6 1.5 4.5%
Ud Udorthents, loamy A-6 7.8 23.3%
UfB Udorthents-Urban land
complex, 0 to 5
percent slopes,
occasionally flooded
A-6 4.8 14.3%
UhE Udorthents-Urban land
complex, 2 to 50
percent slopes
A-2-6 4.7 14.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 33.4 100.0%
Rating Options—AASHTO Group Classification (Surface) (MHU
Fieldhouse)
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Lower
Layer Options (Horizon Aggregation Method): Surface Layer (Not applicable)
Hydrologic Soil Group (MHU Fieldhouse)
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are
assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the
soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation
from long-duration storms.
The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and
three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:
Custom Soil Resource Report
30
Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly
wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or
gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These
consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained
soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils
have a moderate rate of water transmission.
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist
chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or
soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water
transmission.
Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell
potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at
or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material.
These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is
for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their
natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.
Custom Soil Resource Report
31
32
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map—Hydrologic Soil Group (MHU Fieldhouse)39657703965860396595039660403966130396622039663103965770396586039659503966040396613039662203966310358990 359080 359170 359260 359350 359440 359530 359620 359710 359800 359890
358990 359080 359170 359260 359350 359440 359530 359620 359710 359800 359890
35° 49' 52'' N 82° 33' 40'' W35° 49' 52'' N82° 33' 3'' W35° 49' 32'' N
82° 33' 40'' W35° 49' 32'' N
82° 33' 3'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84
0 200 400 800 1200
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Meters
Map Scale: 1:4,200 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:12,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Madison County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 13, Sep 20, 2016
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Oct 15, 2011—Dec 9,
2011
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
33
Table—Hydrologic Soil Group (MHU Fieldhouse)
Hydrologic Soil Group— Summary by Map Unit — Madison County, North Carolina (NC115)
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
CtC2 Clifton clay loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes,
moderately eroded
B 4.4 13.2%
CtD2 Clifton clay loam, 15 to
30 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
B 9.9 29.7%
CxC Clifton-Urban land
complex, 2 to 15
percent slopes
B 0.3 0.9%
FrA French loam, 0 to 3
percent slopes,
occasionally flooded
B/D 1.5 4.5%
Ud Udorthents, loamy C 7.8 23.3%
UfB Udorthents-Urban land
complex, 0 to 5
percent slopes,
occasionally flooded
A 4.8 14.3%
UhE Udorthents-Urban land
complex, 2 to 50
percent slopes
A 4.7 14.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 33.4 100.0%
Rating Options—Hydrologic Soil Group (MHU Fieldhouse)
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Custom Soil Resource Report
34
Soil Reports
The Soil Reports section includes various formatted tabular and narrative reports
(tables) containing data for each selected soil map unit and each component of
each unit. No aggregation of data has occurred as is done in reports in the Soil
Properties and Qualities and Suitabilities and Limitations sections.
The reports contain soil interpretive information as well as basic soil properties and
qualities. A description of each report (table) is included.
Building Site Development
This folder contains a collection of tabular reports that present soil interpretations
related to building site development. The reports (tables) include all selected map
units and components for each map unit, limiting features and interpretive ratings.
Building site development interpretations are designed to be used as tools for
evaluating soil suitability and identifying soil limitations for various construction
purposes. As part of the interpretation process, the rating applies to each soil in its
described condition and does not consider present land use. Example
interpretations can include corrosion of concrete and steel, shallow excavations,
dwellings with and without basements, small commercial buildings, local roads and
streets, and lawns and landscaping.
Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings (MHU
Fieldhouse)
Soil properties influence the development of building sites, including the selection of
the site, the design of the structure, construction, performance after construction,
and maintenance. This table shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect
dwellings and small commercial buildings.
The ratings in the table are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate
the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect building
site development. Not limited indicates that the soil has features that are very
favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can
be expected. Somewhat limited indicates that the soil has features that are
moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or
minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and
moderate maintenance can be expected. Very limited indicates that the soil has one
or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally
cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive
installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.
Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The
ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate
gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative
impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation
(0.00).
Custom Soil Resource Report
35
Dwellings are single-family houses of three stories or less. For dwellings without
basements, the foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced
concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum
frost penetration, whichever is deeper. For dwellings with basements, the foundation
is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed
soil at a depth of about 7 feet. The ratings for dwellings are based on the soil
properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement
and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties
that affect the load-supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding,
flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential), and compressibility.
Compressibility is inferred from the Unified classification. The properties that affect
the ease and amount of excavation include depth to a water table, ponding,
flooding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a
cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments.
Small commercial buildings are structures that are less than three stories high and
do not have basements. The foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of
reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of
maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper. The ratings are based on the soil
properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement
and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties
that affect the load-supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding,
flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential), and compressibility
(which is inferred from the Unified classification). The properties that affect the ease
and amount of excavation include flooding, depth to a water table, ponding, slope,
depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and
the amount and size of rock fragments.
Information in this table is intended for land use planning, for evaluating land use
alternatives, and for planning site investigations prior to design and construction.
The information, however, has limitations. For example, estimates and other data
generally apply only to that part of the soil between the surface and a depth of 5 to 7
feet. Because of the map scale, small areas of different soils may be included within
the mapped areas of a specific soil.
The information is not site specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite
investigation of the soils or for testing and analysis by personnel experienced in the
design and construction of engineering works.
Government ordinances and regulations that restrict certain land uses or impose
specific design criteria were not considered in preparing the information in this table.
Local ordinances and regulations should be considered in planning, in site
selection, and in design.
Report—Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings (MHU
Fieldhouse)
[Onsite investigation may be needed to validate the interpretations in this table and
to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. The numbers in the value columns
range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation.
The table shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have
additional limitations]
Custom Soil Resource Report
36
Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings–Madison County, North Carolina
Map symbol and soil
name
Pct. of
map
unit
Dwellings without basements Dwellings with basements Small commercial buildings
Rating class and
limiting features
Value Rating class and
limiting features
Value Rating class and
limiting features
Value
CtC2—Clifton clay
loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes,
moderately eroded
Clifton, moderately
eroded
85 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Very limited
Slope 0.63 Slope 0.63 Slope 1.00
Shrink-swell 0.50 Shrink-swell 0.35 Shrink-swell 0.50
CtD2—Clifton clay
loam, 15 to 30
percent slopes,
moderately eroded
Clifton, moderately
eroded
80 Very limited Very limited Very limited
Slope 1.00 Slope 1.00 Slope 1.00
Shrink-swell 0.50 Shrink-swell 0.35 Shrink-swell 0.50
CxC—Clifton-Urban
land complex, 2 to
15 percent slopes
Clifton 50 Somewhat limited Somewhat limited Very limited
Slope 0.63 Slope 0.63 Slope 1.00
Shrink-swell 0.50 Shrink-swell 0.35 Shrink-swell 0.50
Urban land 40 Not rated Not rated Not rated
FrA—French loam, 0
to 3 percent slopes,
occasionally flooded
French, occasionally
flooded
90 Very limited Very limited Very limited
Flooding 1.00 Flooding 1.00 Flooding 1.00
Depth to saturated
zone
0.81 Depth to saturated
zone
1.00 Depth to saturated
zone
0.81
Ud—Udorthents,
loamy
Udorthents, loamy 90 Very limited Very limited Very limited
Slope 1.00 Slope 1.00 Slope 1.00
Custom Soil Resource Report
37
Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings–Madison County, North Carolina
Map symbol and soil
name
Pct. of
map
unit
Dwellings without basements Dwellings with basements Small commercial buildings
Rating class and
limiting features
Value Rating class and
limiting features
Value Rating class and
limiting features
Value
UfB—Udorthents-
Urban land complex,
0 to 5 percent
slopes, occasionally
flooded
Udorthents,
occasionally
flooded
60 Very limited Very limited Very limited
Flooding 1.00 Flooding 1.00 Flooding 1.00
Urban land,
occasionally
flooded
30 Not rated Not rated Not rated
UhE—Udorthents-
Urban land complex,
2 to 50 percent
slopes
Udorthents 55 Very limited Very limited Very limited
Slope 1.00 Slope 1.00 Slope 1.00
Urban land 35 Not rated Not rated Not rated
Water Features
This folder contains tabular reports that present soil hydrology information. The
reports (tables) include all selected map units and components for each map unit.
Water Features include ponding frequency, flooding frequency, and depth to water
table.
Hydrologic Soil Group and Surface Runoff (MHU
Fieldhouse)
This table gives estimates of various soil water features. The estimates are used in
land use planning that involves engineering considerations.
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are
assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the
soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation
from long-duration storms.
The four hydrologic soil groups are:
Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly
wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or
gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These
consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained
Custom Soil Resource Report
38
soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils
have a moderate rate of water transmission.
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist
chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or
soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water
transmission.
Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell
potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at
or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material.
These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is
for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas.
Surface runoff refers to the loss of water from an area by flow over the land surface.
Surface runoff classes are based on slope, climate, and vegetative cover. The
concept indicates relative runoff for very specific conditions. It is assumed that the
surface of the soil is bare and that the retention of surface water resulting from
irregularities in the ground surface is minimal. The classes are negligible, very low,
low, medium, high, and very high.
Report—Hydrologic Soil Group and Surface Runoff (MHU
Fieldhouse)
Absence of an entry indicates that the data were not estimated. The dash indicates
no documented presence.
Hydrologic Soil Group and Surface Runoff–Madison County, North Carolina
Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Surface Runoff Hydrologic Soil Group
CtC2—Clifton clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
Clifton, moderately eroded 85 Medium B
CtD2—Clifton clay loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
Clifton, moderately eroded 80 High B
CxC—Clifton-Urban land complex, 2 to 15 percent
slopes
Clifton 50 Medium B
Urban land 40 Very high —
FrA—French loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally
flooded
French, occasionally flooded 90 Low B/D
Ud—Udorthents, loamy
Udorthents, loamy 90 Medium C
Custom Soil Resource Report
39
Hydrologic Soil Group and Surface Runoff–Madison County, North Carolina
Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Surface Runoff Hydrologic Soil Group
UfB—Udorthents-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent
slopes, occasionally flooded
Udorthents, occasionally flooded 60 Low A
Urban land, occasionally flooded 30 Very high —
UhE—Udorthents-Urban land complex, 2 to 50 percent
slopes
Udorthents 55 Medium A
Urban land 35 Very high —
Custom Soil Resource Report
40
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling
and testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric
soils in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for
making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/
home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/
detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084
41
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States,
the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook
296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf
Custom Soil Resource Report
42

ITEM 9
OPERATION AND MAINTENCENCE
AGREEMENT