A-0009C_Hot Rock Memo_NCDWR

Stantec Memo
To: Wanda Austin, PE CPM From: Amy Sackaroff, AICP
NCDOT Division 14 Stantec
File: NCDOT STIP A-0009C Date: March 9, 2020
Pyritic Rock (Hot Rock) Information
Reference: A-0009C— Responses to questions received from NC Division of Water Resources regarding
pyritic rock (hot rock)within the detailed study alternatives' construction limits
This memo is in response to an e-mail from NCDWR dated February 4, 2020 inquiring about acid rock; requesting a
map showing hot rock with the design alternatives; an estimate of hot rock material to be removed; an acid rock
mitigation plan; and, the location of waste placement.
The below table includes approximate hot rock quantities within cut slopes of the current design options. These
calculations conservatively assume the entire ZWE formation (see attached mapping) is hot rock, and the rock
stratification in the ZWE formation is solely composed of hot rock.
Alternatives Hot Rock(cubic yards)
Alternative 1(Improve Existing US 129/Improve Existing NC 143/Improve Existing NC 28) 27,564
Alternative 2(Improve Existing US 129/Improve Existing NC 143/S-2) 1,251,276
Alternative 3(Improve Existing US 129/Improve Existing NC 143/SW-1A/Improve Existing NC 28) 27,564
Alternative 4(R-1E Intersection/Improve Existing NC 143/Improve Existing NC 28) 27,564
Alternative 5(R-1E Intersection/Improve Existing NC 143/S-2) 1,251,276
Alternative 6(R-1E Intersection/Improve Existing NC 143/SW-1A/Improve Existing NC 28) 27,564
Alternative 7(R-1E Roundabout/Improve Existing NC 143/Improve Existing NC 28) 27,564
Alternative 8(R-1E Roundabout/Improve Existing NC 143/S-2) 1,251,276
Alternative 9(R-1E Roundabout/Improve Existing NC 143/SW-1A/Improve Existing NC 28) 27,564
A report was prepared in April 2004 for the project identifying potential earthwork waste sites. According to the report
attached, there are 14 potential viable waste sites for earthwork waste. These sites are along NC 143 and NC 28
between Robbinsville and Stecoah. These sites have a total volume of approximately 8,678,990 cubic yards.
Although additional studies will be conducted for the Preferred Alternative during final design, best-available
information is being provided now to demonstrate that there are many potential waste sites within close proximity to
the project area.
According to a February 2009 memo from the Western Regional Geological Engineer Jody Kuhne, several mitigation
strategies were presented, as included in the below paragraph. For additional details, see the full memo as attached.
Where principal streams and r.‘ater sources exit the project corridor a system of water
quality monitoring,including pH,acidity,alkalinity,conductivity and sulfate content
should be implemented. This regimen should be conducted monthly starting 1 year
before construction,during construction,and for 1 year after the completion of blasting,
grading and material placement during construction. The first year of pre-construction
sampling will determine the baseline values for these streams and the acceptable
variations for these values that may cause concern should be agreed upon by NCDOT and
the contributing Agencies just prior to construction by Special Provision. »
Attachment: Geologic Hot Rock map
US 74 Relocation Fill Site Search for Earthwork Waste Material,April 2004
Memo from Jody Kuhne to Stacy Oberhausen,February 24,2009 on acid producing(hot rock)investigations and mitigation options along the
A-0009B/C study corridors
Design with community in mind

-tc+ti' - - . ./..•
` 4) • / -J ` ,
i ,91
INS IV •
•
r ., . Stecoah
•
•
•
i. r .. .. ` •.- 1r, . f�
_ � — •
` ,; _
- Stecoah41 . - • f • , ;�•- . - ,- - -
� c
_
L.
,y
N
U
3 6
N Legend 0 1,370 2,740 .1% NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
E IL .Feet DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
9 Appalachian Trail Select Existing Pipes/Bridges/Culverts (At original document size of11x17) Ti r
- �•tf.11, L-��# DIVISION 14
S /\/ NC Route Potential Jurisdictional Intermittent Stream 1:16,440
!• Project Location Prepared by ALK on 2020-02-11
r 1 ` ~ Improve Existing Prop EOT Potential Jurisdictional Perennial Stream N TR by ECL on 2020-02-11
129 ® I. �; /�/ SW-1A Prop EOT Potential Jurisdictional Open Water Graham County,NC
ClientPPro'ect
• NCDbT-Division 14
�• _- /%/ S-2 Prop EOT Potential Jurisdictional Wetland Corridor K Improvements
1+ te /'/ Prop Retaining Wall Geologic Map Unit Zwe STIP Project No.A-0009C
t"r�p
+y1��witior. • f:�_ /N/ Prop Roadway Bridge FigureNo.
- • ` in /' Prop SS Cut Line Title -
� /.,, it /\' Prop SS Fill Line Geologic Hot Rock
v
Disclaimer:This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section.Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result.Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format,and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data.

US 74 RELOCATION FILL SITE SEARCH
FOR EARTHWORK WASTE MATERIAL
US 129 at Robbinsville to NC 28 at Stecoah
Graham County, North Carolina
State Project No. 8.T930201
TIP No. A-9 B&C
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
(----
NORTH cqR
co 7
a
7��4F eo��P
HT OF TRANS
April 2004

Prepared by:
LLB
Stantec
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
April 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 METHODOLOGY 2-1
2.1 BACKGROUND DATA COLLECTION 2-1
2.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION 2-8
3.0 FINDINGS 3-1
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. POTENTIALLY VIABLE FILL SITES FOR EARTHWORK WASTE MATERIAL
Al SITE A— Description with Fill Area and Contours, Calculations, and Photograph
A2 SITE B — Description with Fill Area and Contours, Calculations, and Photograph
A3 SITE C — Description with Fill Area and Contours, Calculations, and Photograph
A4 SITES I & II — Description with Fill Area and Contours, Calculations, and
Photograph
A5 SITE J — Description with Fill Area and Contours, Calculations, and Photograph
A6 SITE N — Description with Fill Area and Contours, Calculations, and Photograph
A7 SITE Q — Description with Fill Area and Contours, Calculations, and Photograph
A8 SITE U — Description with Fill Area and Contours, Calculations, and Photograph
A9 SITE V— Description with Fill Area and Contours, Calculations, and Photograph
Al SITE W— Description with Fill Area and Contours, Calculations, and Photograph
All SITE X— Description with Fill Area and Contours, Calculations, and Photograph
Al2 SITE Z— Description with Fill Area and Contours, Calculations, and Photograph
A13 SITE ZZ— Description with Fill Area and Contours, Calculations, and Photograph
TABLES PAGE
Table 2.1 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 2-8
Table 2.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION RESULTS 2-9
Table 2.3 NON-VIABLE SITE SUMMARY 2-10
Table 3.1 SUMMARY OF POTENTIALLY VIABLE SITES 3-2
Table 3.2 SUMMARY OF WASTE VS. POTENTIALLY VIABLE SITES
IN RELATION TO LOCATION 3-2
EXHIBITS PAGE
Exhibit 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP 2-2
Exhibit 2.2 POTENTIAL SITE INDEX MAP 1 2-4
Exhibit 2.2 POTENTIAL SITE INDEX MAP 2 2-6
i

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The objective of this study was to identify potential fill sites for earthwork waste material
generated during the construction of the US 74 Relocation from Robbinsville to Stecoah in
Graham County, North Carolina (TIP No. A-9 B&C). The recommended alternative is
Alternative YX. The study is based on the preliminary designs of this alternative.
The construction of the US 74 Relocation is anticipated, based on preliminary design, to yield
approximately 7,364,562 cubic meters (9,647,576 cubic yards) of waste material. The scope of
this study was to identify potential waste sites adjacent to or within 1.6 kilometers (one mile) of
the A-9 B&C project limits. Originally, the cubic volume estimate for the project was 3,692,777
cubic meters (4,830,000 cubic yards), and this was the goal of the study. However, after
preliminary design slope revisions by the Soils and Foundations Unit, and a lowered estimate of
useable undercut of alluvium/colluvium for fill material from 90% to 50% by the Roadway Design
Unit, the volume was almost doubled.
The purpose of this report is to summarize the findings of this investigation and to provide
information for further investigation of viable sites. This report describes preliminary
identification and environmental screening of potential fill sites for the generated waste material.
1-1

2.0 METHODOLOGY
The study area (Exhibit 2.1) is found on the Robbinsville, Hewitt, and Tuskeegee Quadrangles
of North Carolina (7.5 Minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps). The search area
corresponds to the recommended alternative, as identified in the Preliminary Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Potential fill sites adjacent to or within 1.6
kilometers (one mile) of the project limits were identified, field-reviewed, and evaluated.
Environmentally sensitive areas were located and avoided in the search. These areas were
identified during the analysis of Natural Heritage occurrences, National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) sites, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping, and hazardous
material sites. Based on the evaluation of the topography and environmental constraints,
potential sites were identified on a base map. Stantec personnel then field-verified each
potential site. Exhibit 2.2 shows the investigated fill site locations and indicates whether viable
or non-viable.
2.1 BACKGROUND DATA COLLECTION
Stantec reviewed existing information sources to identify potential waste sites. The information
reviewed included:
• Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) from the A-9 EIS Re-evaluation, including
detailed stream/wetland delineations and Threatened and Endangered Species survey
results;
• Geographic information system (GIS) data including hydrography, NPDES sites, Natural
Heritage element occurrences, and hazardous waste sites;
• USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle topographic maps;
• aerial photography;
• NWI mapping; and
• Graham County soil survey data.
During the initial selection process, sites were chosen based on one or more of the following
criteria: topography and adequate volume potential, lack of an onsite stream (according to the
topographic map) or wetland, environmental sensitivity, non-residential land use and access to
the site. Twenty-eight (28) potential waste sites were identified during the background data
collection.
Each potential site was given a unique identifier as shown on the index map (Exhibit 2.2).
Environmental constraints investigated included potential or endangered species habitat,
presence of streams or wetlands, and current land use practiced.
2-1

�I
a
Oak Ridge hr+�, "i �. ilr *
velierlifr)LKnoxville � _ _
� Douglas Lake
401 It'll
0
1 �
i Pigeon Forge4ILL
IIIIP
At, Maryville
Gatlinburg 116 Lake )11Ashe ille
4Hiwassee
e�`res5 of o�`,. r �� '�
is
., ,,,,, mai co
G , F1
ip
ot� Cherokee / 1
Fontana Lake Bryson City � � � � � _�
Wayne vale i
Tellic• 'lains � 6 �/`P40
� ►� r
1) Santeela ✓'"� a �'
u
rohoici
Skyway Lake Almond Sylva P o
Irir I
Robbinsville
ToptonIS es Brevard
/�,, T24 Franklin
sn Andrews Nantahala rr ` .
1016,
Lakees lio
4Lake Hiwassee •
Cashiers i
1�24
Murphy GoCalir°
i North Carolina
..0,:, ,9 Highlands Norkh Corolino Department of Transportation
729
ti �h4 Project Development and
11 9 4 Chatuge Lake North Carolina _` Sou
or-- � � Environmental Analysis Branch
4,Georgia Lake Jocasee
Earthwork Waste Site Search
••� a min9 e--I '�' R US 74 Relocation
�1040,....1.10
sou , 4•�' 44 Project Vicinity Graham County, North Carolina
ass 'o W*'��4'� �"0 TIP No. A-9
Graham County *kill 1' -
*07
Project Location Map
) Scale: NTS Exhibit 2.1i

‘. { T A 'I �N S `} `; - 4.
t f1 o
Eirawwri F rk -
•avi, Gaff ', ��..- Sweetn4i r iz.,5)
Legend o Ara ,, .
rJ 4 i✓,1,1� `�h
Non—Viable Site ^, 'CV.'
'31
O Viable Site 0
•
go
._ f tv./
' •
'� rrr i,s tip: 0.
rr•
Stecoe''Gee> 3165
i ' i. �
b ; N
Ks•.
4
, , .. _, 5 ", , . , ' ',, 'c" CI) ','''' _
3 r•a H tir + "—` `• � rYr r f ASS-KSiObi.` /' `,` .,. r ,~ r.. I, ,' L: i ! i'
},,,,�• - � �.� I / 'f• r� 'j' e• - Sirup ,.rp'.
i 1. _ t, !,- F•� ., •`.., I ,\( } - ..f..�. ' , (. !
ti f- '<'hrrWlr
_ I s a
• �' I �r�cf „s tFi79C t I
•�F- ., 3f,�',r� .fir '• ,. • '-'� --�.1 r ! �r I>• ' 0 `, . l s 1P >4? �. .. - 1 � $ -
r ' 1 0 ''i ~ f, n' � -_ c ruse Cev�
irrr•.ac4e yt r ter^ •.,.x {
Turkoe Scala -knob i
\ -xis
, • i - I (• `-
i" •.ROBBINSVIL , • ;- /�j+ r/
' J'.' 190,G,. f 7} ►,pI ••� .RAIL S R¢E--Q/ ; 4,..f.1 -� 1' 1� North Carolina
. ,., er" v- 1 .'—� y !• , .1 • - Department of Transportation
p ; • ti . .. /�,'rr Ixir 1 m�lr Project Development and
,,:4,i _ ; r �� �"1 t Environmental Analysis Branch
•
r .- . r �+ - - Earthwork Waste Site Search
te„, A rr' y e/ f
}l r j rIs7T) e 4 ib �� C r rn'�!+1 { ) - •
a r vc s �[,% 4 r
pow 1 +. - µ-; US 74 Relocation
`�� _ .G..- 3` k k' j. .,kfrie,O6+.G ys.•0� r: ,:rL9 5,,,. ,•!
Graham County, North Carolina
TIP No. A-9
Potential Site Index Map 1
J Scale: NTS Exhibit 2.1

1
t- .,_,
-.--„_,
.Z." • ,,,- .,,c"- - - -....,-,,,,,:,‘
''',!'-'-r-7.-:-*•-";"„yf-----),',('-
- ....
es'
, ..
0 ,
,,. .
45
• t,
. ,
17%14 r•1,1.n.'' •,.4 1(
' ...
,,./ ' Legend
, •...
LA '.-• NATIONAL ' FOREST
• _ _ /
Non—Viable Site
•_
,
'.1...„„: "..'
C) Viable Site
-,„
,....' ,c • N',f(-- ..)( "`
,...,,
Se, i I'r. , •:, -- i ;
, , )
k` • ,
La4.6..... .,.," .tv ,
ve,„;•‘" e
I.• - c,''''riAnag,:ev.pe t•
' -
,,, • • ,,
Brtges Cuit:and t_sai.: r
.
/ ....
$ -
- • I
- ,
:4.‘-F. i'l • tAll) ., _ _ , •
:,?, -'''\I •,.._ ' . 1.‘.i''- ,--' /
ft C.able.3.;..-.P
-
i 1 —, - i----, r, •C4ula C.'1; i-,... r. r., ,t
..' '21 ' .
'
,.. .
Ecv• rn,.....C) ..,f
F 'C..,
.
Ar
4 .
) Cg_ i
•... ...:,... j4-1,7`...,.,c/ ,..„„0-.....
0 -
...t-.`"—'41-'1•I--•' ''.1X.;.---F)._, ,,-1-17.;-''''''''.----,7r 7'li,c,ro.,%, ',..
. -.,ft„--e 4- 7:-,2.777e-4; ) •;,,,,,:r.;__., , ,
...'''..,,6 ,i•AF' :z..•:•04•:+...:g .4E... ,s illii. •••- .'
C) ,
, •
. .
• , • -/ - - -; —;..'''-.`"— -.-2' 14*'"---------' . .-:, •••• -,••,--..-..11
...
.:.•
- ,, ...,,,',;\
. - .. -•,. 1'
X
..A
North Carolina
0 _ •
c .
_ , Department of Transportation
C
.,
,
-„_...A;
) -0 •
y
Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement -I
MT,.....±-,-,-.•-,--......i, y- •C. -4.
- --".4--r../. ,-'i.`",:•'‘..:.40
v_ , ----
.-.,_._.:!„.......,,,,%,,„:„.
T
:;,: ;-.^ - •
Earthwork Waste Site Search
0
.r :). s.'""r - •
7:. US 74 Relocation
e,..
(„.. .... ,
Graham County, North Carolina
- ...,
. _
TIP No. A-9
Potential Site Index Map 2
.... ) Scale: NTS Exhibit 2.3,,,,_/)

Prior to conducting the field investigation, a review of those species listed as threatened or
endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the NC Natural
Heritage Program was completed. As of May 31, 2002, a total of six species are listed as either
threatened or endangered for Graham County by the USFWS and an additional seven species
are listed with a state status of threatened or endangered by the Natural Heritage Program as of
July 2002. Table 2.1 lists those species.
TABLE 2.1
Threatened and Endangered Species
Species Current/ Federal Status State Status
Historic
Vertebrates
Bog turtle Current Threatened due to Threatened
similarity of appearance
Carolina northern flying squirrel Current Endangered Endangered
Indiana Bat Current Endangered Endangered
Junaluska salamander Current Species of Concern Threatened
Southern Appalachian saw-whet owl Current Species of Concern Threatened
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Current Species of Concern Threatened
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe Historic Endangered Endangered
Vascular Plants
Dwarf filmy-fern Historic -- Threatened
Smoky Mountain manna grass Current Species of Concern Threatened
Tennessee bladder-fern Historic Endangered/
Species of Concern
Virginia spiraea Current Threatened Endangered
Nonvascular Plants
Highlands moss Historic -- Threatened
Rock gnome lichen Current Endangered Threatened
2.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION
Stantec conducted a field investigation of the potential waste sites on January 16-18 and August
27-28, 2002. During this investigation, Stantec made general surveys and recorded
observations that included current land use, existence of and proximity to wetlands and
streams, topography, access for construction and equipment, presence of hydric soils, and
potential fatal flaws. Photographs were also taken to document the features of each site.
Field investigations were performed at 28 sites. Fourteen (14) sites were removed from further
consideration after the field review due to a variety of reasons, including the presence of an
intermittent or ephemeral stream that was not located on the USGS topographic map, the
2-8

proximity to nearby wetlands or wetland mitigation sites, access issues, and topography issues.
Tables 2.2 and 2.3 show the results of the field investigation of the 28 sites.
TABLE 2.2
Field Investigation Results
Volume
Site Latitude (N) Longitude (W) Viable?
cm cy
—
A 35° 19' 45" 83°46' 52" Yes 246,336 322,195
B 35°20' 15" 83°47' 01" Yes 938,266 1,227,206
C 35°20' 13" 83°46'49" Yes 593,699 776,529
D 35° 19' 21" 83°46' 17" No -- --
E 35° 19' 26" 83°46' 51" No -- --
F 35° 19' 39" 83°46' 04" No -- --
G 35°20' 14" 83°46' 11" No -- --
H 35°20'45" 83°44' 05" No -- --
35°20' 36" 83°44' 37" Yes 426,023 557,217
II 35°21' 13" 83°43' 56" Yes 63,553 83,124
J 35°20' 59" 83°43'47" Yes 162,848 212,997
K 35°21' 06" 83°44' 05" No -- --
L 35°21' 22" 83°43' 46" No -- --
M 35°21' 56" 83°43' 08" No -- --
N 35°21' 28" 83°42' 04" Yes 260,948 341,307
O 35°21' 37" 83°42' 18" No -- --
P 35°21' 44" 83°41' 55" No -- --
Q 35°21' 34" 83°41' 39" Yes 437,045 571,633
R 35°22' 50" 83°40' 27" No -- --
S 35°22' 30" 83°40' 25" No -- --
T 35°22'47" 83°40' 06" No -- --
U 35° 19' 38" 83°46' 25" Yes 258,003 337,455
✓ 35°20' 06" 83°45'44" Yes 439,715 575,126
W 35°21' 21" 83°43'45" Yes 1,084,874 1,418,962
X 35°22' 04" 83°40'47" Yes 490,723 641,842
Y 35°22' 14" 83°40' 23" No -- --
Z 35°22' 23" 83°40' 11" Yes 666,255 871,429
ZZ 35°22' 24" 83°40' 18" Yes 567,275 741,968
2-9

TABLE 2.3
Non-viable Site Summary
Non-viable Site Location Reason for Non-viability
Site
Site D S of intersection with SR 1211, Stream on site
across Sweetwater Creek floodplain
Site E W of intersection with SR 1211, Wetlands in center of area
Huel Milsaps property
Site F W of intersection with SR 1211, Access Problems—too small to be worth access
near Edward Sellers property costs.
Site G N of Station 48+00, W of England Impacts to Wetland Mitigation Site H1* and
Branch Rd. homeowners on England Branch Road
Site H N of Station 48+00, W of England Small fill quantity for size of area affected
Branch Rd.
Site K W of Station 96+00; near J. A. Two streams located on site
Calhoun property
Site L S of Station 100+00 Stream on site
Site M N of western portal of Stecoah Gap Steep slope required and would be difficult to
Tunnel construct
Site 0 E of eastern portal of Stecoah Gap Steep slope required and would be difficult to
Tunnel construct
Site P E of-L- line south of eastern portal Two streams located on site
of Stecoah Gap Tunnel
Eastern ridge along Stecoah Creek
Site R valley where it turns north, N of east Forest Service Land —access issues
end of project
Site S N of east end of project; Icie & Ken Impacts to nearby homeowners
Green property
Site T North side of hill at east end of Stream on site
project
Site Y S of Station 166+00 Stream on site
*Refer to"Mitigation Site Study,Sites Adjacent to the Proposed US 74 Relocation,TIP No.A-9WM."
2-10

3.0 FINDINGS
Of the 28 sites investigated during the waste site search, 14 sites were found to be potentially
viable. Descriptions of the viable sites are located in Appendix A with detailed summaries,
photographs, potential capacities and location maps of each site. Volume calculations for each
viable site are also shown in Appendix A and are based on a contour-slice method where the
average area between the proposed and preliminary design contours for two consecutive
contours (APC-DC) times the difference in contour height (HC) equals volume for contour (VC).
The individual contour volumes were then summed for total potential volume at the site (VS).
The calculated volumes where the proposed slope is less steep than the design slope are
conservative and marked with "+," "=" where the slopes are approximately equal, and "-" where
the proposed slopes are steeper and therefore maybe higher than actual.
Alluvium/Colluvium material is to be undercut prior to placing the roadway and fill material on
top of certain areas. Earthwork quantity calculations were prepared with the assumption that
50% of the undercut material could be reused as fill material. It was also assumed that material
would not be hauled across the tunnel site for use in embankments. As a result, the volume of
waste material and the volume of potentially viable waste sites were separated into two
sections, east and west of the tunnel.
The potential fill sites identified within the 1.6-kilometer (one-mile) radius of the A-9BC project
limits total approximately 6,635,563 cubic meters (8,678,990 cubic yards) of potential waste
material storage. The potential capacity breakdown for each viable waste site is listed in
Table 3.1. The project is anticipated to yield approximately 7,364,562 cubic meters (9,647,576
cubic yards) of waste material. However, Table 3.2 provides a breakdown of waste material
and volume of potentially viable waste sites east and west of the tunnel for the recommended
alternative. West of the tunnel, from US 129 in Robbinsville to the tunnel at Stecoah Gap, it was
estimated there would be 4,980,815 cubic meters (6,514,662 cubic yards) of waste material and
4,213,317 cubic meters (5,510,812 cubic yards) of potentially viable waste sites within 1.6
kilometers (one mile) of the proposed roadway. As a result, there is an overflow of waste
material where additional waste sites outside of the study parameters will need to be found for a
volume of 767,498 cubic meters (1,003,850 cubic yards).
East of the tunnel, from Stecoah Gap to NC 28 at Wolf Creek, estimates resulted in 2,383,747
cubic meters (3,117,824 cubic yards) of waste material and 2,422,246 cubic meters (3,168,179
cubic yards) of potentially viable waste sites. Therefore, an adequate volume within the viable
sites was found to handle the estimated earthwork waste material east of the tunnel.
3-1

TABLE 3.1
Summary of Potentially Viable Waste Sites
Site East or West Volume
of Tunnel cm Cy
A West 246,336 322,195
B West 938,266 1,227,206
C West 593,699 776,529
West 426,023 557,217
II West 63,553 83,124
J West 162,848 212,997
N East 260,948 341,307
(� East 437,045 571,633
U West 258,003 337,455
✓ West 439,715 575,126
W West 1,084,874 1,418,962
X East 490,723 641,842
Z East 666,255 871,429
ZZ East 567,275 741,968
TOTAL 6,635,563 8,678,990
TABLE 3.2
Summary of Waste vs. Potentially Viable
Sites in Relation to Location
Recommended Alternative West of Tunnel
Section B—Alt Y 3,649,224 cm 4,773,006 cy
Section C-Alt. X Before Tunnel 1,331,591 cm 1,741,656 cy
Total Waste 4,980,815 cm 6,514,662 cy
Potentially Viable Sites 4,213,317 cm 5,510,812 cy
Overflow 767,498 cm 1,003,850 cy
Recommended Alternative East of Tunnel
Section C-Alt X After Tunnel 2,383,747 cm 3,117,824 cy
Potentially Viable Sites 2,422,246 cm 3,168,179 cy
-38,499 cm -50,355 cy
3-2

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
POTENTIAL VIABLE FILL SITES FOR
EARTHWORK WASTE MATERIAL

SITE A
Site A is located east of Robbinsville, off NC 143. The site is situated at the northern terminus
of SR 1213, behind a small farm and on the southern side of Pinnacle Knob. Exhibit 2.2 shows
the site location. The area can be characterized as pasture and forested land. The pasture
portion of the site is actively grazed by a small herd of cattle that the landowner maintains.
There is one small pond located within the pasture area, which appears to be spring fed. The
water is piped from the spring to the pond. Upslope of the pasture, the site contains a
significant stand of timber. No potential habitat for listed species appeared to exist on the site.
Site A has the potential to hold approximately 246,336 cubic meters (322,195 cubic yards) of
waste. Exhibit A1.1 shows the proposed fill area.
Upon field investigation, the site was determined to have low priority as a potential waste site
due to access problems that would be experienced. The potential volume may not justify the
damage to the property, loss of current land use, and right-of-way costs.
Exhibit A1.1. Proposed Fill Area and Contours, Site A*
—
J Site A ���l
1 ti �� s�
•
•
Northern Terminus / 1
ofSR-1213
) ...4� rrM rrrr rr rr■...
* Site located outside of project mapping;contours based on USGS topographic mapping and location of features approximate

Exhibit A1.2. Volume Calculations (cubic meters), Site A
Site A Estimate Quality
Location Northwest of intersection with SR 1211(-Y3-),south side of Pinnacle Knob +
H0(m) 648 654 660 672 678 684 690 703
Aac-oc(m) 8301 8761 6211 5792 2853 3036 2403 0
V0(m') 52005 45635 73170 26350 17950 16578 14649
Vs(m3) 246,336
Exhibit A1.3. Site Photograph, Site A
•
•
_... 1 C
L t �
f , ,

SITE B
Site B is located east of Robbinsville, off SR 1214. It lies east of SR 1214 and northwest of
Pinnacle Knob. Exhibit 2.2 shows the site location. The area can be characterized as pasture,
forest and residential. Two homes are located near the base of the hillside. A stream was
noted on the southern edge of the property, outside the fill area. This stream seemed to
originate on the northwest face of Pinnacle Knob, flowing north towards SR 1214 and then
south along SR 1214. A second stream appears to be draining the northern face of this area.
No potential habitat for listed species appeared to exist on the site. Site B has the potential to
hold approximately 938,266 cubic meters (1,227,206 cubic yards) of waste. Exhibit A2.1 shows
the proposed fill area.
Exhibit A2.1. Proposed Fill Area and Contours, Site B
W AD , •• „, ,,, --N,_ -_____:,:-./-
I E _
) ..,) 1 '• '% --'---...,.. . 4,...,.
1.
,1 .
. ,
, . ,
. ,
. ._ - )N---- \ '',..\ \,„,
Site B
l
•
HTR
O FrrR •
• • •
•
•
-e
p
n
I tf°o
a" 1 / / I
•
* Site located outside of project mapping;contours based on USGS topographic mapping and location of features approximate

Exhibit A2.2. Volume Calculations (cubic meters), Site B
Site B Estimate Quality
Location North-northwest of intersection with SR 1211(-Y3-),northwest ode of Pinnacle Knob
He(m)
629 642 648 654 660 672 678 684 690 703
Avc-oc(m') 2579 13564 17805 18368 17772 21608 16843 10669 5490 0
V0(m') 98408 95613 110255 110155 240060 117199 83857 49253 33467
Vs(m') 938,266
Exhibit A2.3. Site Photograph, Site B
t ra
-+ • x!r
f. r
1 1.:.. .:`�-"..F: -7� 4 • .:.y •!. gyp. �".�..� .
•
'::y ti'`•.P. + f Vqy ,1R ! � �} �i it `
Ky' !k :. y;,igo• _ .... Ir'!' ^. tF .i;• �;ru y.. i,.._.• r;'� ,.4�[ .
.r.
"`tik. L- ! 4 )' _,. { `` • 'w ' ' ' 1•; gip
= ,l i� _ ;' �;; _• ti�is z _.
fj- ���' - tikesv.
" ,�aL- O ."•'..� ._ � ... •n-�'B• - - '"
i}�• � •
oe• p.ra a'f .iF.'e* 1 .J - �,?i'.• "t`r V-r.. �!•.ti •
h!'Sa� �{}�,�, 'r.
' .-mi. \ �.r_r �,.y. . :.'. 1•
•�,•'.. �.�:
•
.';R"-- �, ir
1,.
- _,,_[^'-�?Cr,v _ i. "'r, '� _-_ ''1* �i�5..`• _ "gip-r::. 41 �
.e- - `` °s�7¢!!;•., ': `s,i ,',r. .n'1$1*--I.,.-., rJ • 's f .' :*14".' c f".A.- c'...='.`'•i ''qi1.
fir_������.r�, ?:- ' - „.s, •:Rr:S�f�z�' � `!r•'`�. ,'. E•.y r',':.: ti .;•':.
f.` -. �' . :::-:.'et+•^r K+{y.,, i., _ • k y` �i1''P:1�y,. ••
.'•,F+1i'-•- ',_ .R �. ' - (q ".-ti Yl '.S :t—�yYj.. `••••' ?..fib � �3..•.�,• i.:_,.....1.,
. •i !-'4t c. �4 i
•,�;�' # RR " L:T- ,.._ 'O sW:, �'y.'. pn - ;o .fie•,,.;
i'ik:-=!I' i15j:._ . ��N;* ."t. Y ,`-'i � c'$i' .F,�lr•-r- ..` r t•�
&Y. :JJr$I��A, i tt.,.' irt,.oaf L+•a i 4r.i

SITE C
Site C is located at the northern terminus of Slay Bacon Road. A narrow, one-lane path
continues past the end of Slay Bacon Road. Exhibit 2.2 shows the site location. The
Robbinsville Quadrangle Topographic Map depicts two streams draining south from Eagle
Knob, east of the fill area. Discussions with the property owner revealed that there is no stream
located on the potential site. A spring-fed stream is located in the area, but below the area that
would be affected. Site C has the potential to hold approximately 593,699 cubic meters
(776,529 cubic yards) of waste. Exhibit A3.1 shows the proposed fill area.
Exhibit A3.1. Proposed Fill Area and Contours, Site C
,,:----i,.,..-.1....1 ......ii.. :- .
lipe
�ATI::
• SFD
2SFD f f
� 11f
1 1 1
Potential fill site j
to build-up ridge
•
Site located outside of project mapping;contours based on USGS topographic mapping and location of features approximate

Exhibit A3.2. Volume Calculations(cubic meters), Site C
Site C Estimate Quality
Location North-northwest of intersection with SR 1211(-Y3-),northeast side of Pinnacle Knob
If build-up ridge
H0(m) 660 672 678 684 690 703 703 709 715 721 733
Awc-o5(rn) 4852 17685 19802 19936 17516 0 26019 13833 4233 569 0
Vc(m3) 137386 114260 121121 114154 106778 265389 121469 55065 14636 3469
Vs(m') 593,699
946,950
Exhibit A3.3. Site Photograph, Site C
-,:3
4000
•
,l,o4 - '- _ cad ' ., °ri! 6 •
•
•
• .

SITES I & II
Site I is located north of NC 143, approximately 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mile) east of Cheoah. The
area can be characterized as pasture and wooded draw. Exhibit 2.2 shows the site location. A
stream is located on the western side of the site and appears to be piped underground for a
considerable distance before discharging into Sweetwater Creek. The small draw on the
eastern side of the site did not have a stream. Access to this site is very good. No potential
habitat for listed species appeared to exist on the site. Site I has the potential to hold
approximately 426,023 cubic meters (557,217 cubic yards) of waste.
Site II is located just east of Site I, located between the proposed alignment of US 74 and
NC 143. Most of the area will be affected by construction and nearby structures will most likely
be acquired in the right-of-way process. The site will not extend further south to fill the entire
area between future US 74 and the realigned NC 143. Filling this area would affect the stream
and adjacent wetlands. Site II has the potential to hold approximately 63,553 cubic meters
(83,124 cubic yards) of waste. Exhibit A4.1 shows both proposed fill areas.
Exhibit A4.1. Proposed Fill Area and Contours, Sites I and II
rye' � � ► � ��►i,
Site I I - ►,;
��� y y
rrr..

Exhibit A4.2. Volume Calculations (cubic meters), Sites I and II
Site I Estimate Quality
Location North of intersection of-L-line and-Y9-;Thomas Carpenter,Claude Carpenter,and Daryl!Phillips properties +
He 690 695 700 705 710 715 720 725 730 735 740 745 750 755 760 765
Aacac(mt) 2039 3905 5504 7071 8041 8116 7681 7582 6727 6210 5332 4764 5266 3982 4004 0
Vc(m3) 14860 23522.5 31437.5 37780 40392.5 39492.5 38157.5 35772.5 32342.5 28855 25240 25075 23120 19965 10010
Vs(m) 426,023
Site II Estimate Quality
Location Small area between-L-line and-Y9-
Hs(m) 685 690 695 700 705 710
Apczc(M2) 673 2897 3368 3082 3027 0
Vc(m3) 8925 15662.5 16125 15272.5 7567.5
Vs(ms) 63,553
Exhibit A4.3. Site Photograph, Site I
f>,
y 4.
., �4, .l: .' • I. 1 i y���-
+s�1i •y •- i `',44 -
:i off111 1. lIif,1r...Jo,r i',:.}14:V17' i !y } 't •'r;4,',i1.I..1.fj
- - .:... , vn t� t
Jf 4 1
,.,:,.,i
.1 it,•,...'ri.,:1.•....„1,
:.,. s ..,.,,\„..,.„,.r...,I.. ,
f fit ' f1i r G !:' 1 ;:
r

SITE J
Site J is located south of NC 143, approximately 1.6 kilometers (one mile) east of Cheoah, and
will straddle the proposed roadway. Exhibit 2.2 shows the site location. The area can be
characterized as a spring fed wetland. A wetland delineation was performed on this site for the
Natural Resources Technical Report. This wetland is located in the right-of-way of the project
and will be impacted by construction of the roadway itself. Therefore, the waste site was
deemed viable. Near the top of the draw, the streambed becomes dry. No potential habitat for
listed species appeared to exist on the site. Site J has the potential to hold approximately
162,848 cubic meters (212,997 cubic yards) of waste. Exhibit A5.1 shows the proposed fill
area.
Exhibiit—A5..1. Proposed Fill Area and Contours, Site J
-.-.11/ ''.k'''''-----'- ' --- • ..n---; ni-1'-'n-r:'----_-1/4..:L:11'I)11::41', 11111 ..r:t:( : : ..___. ("7::::.5.,._.4 _ —___ .. / ...,..,,i„._ 4 4, 17 1 1 ,,..„.77,.. ....
s ry
Site J �� �' ;,
\, ----- - _-
---,:f4-------- 40- - ir ; .' r • ,.-— - - -- --1 —4r'_,.----:'..,7 -:' —_. .'
ir"EltiSti!g.714%CA:-4.—3 ,,-..---- crza 41:Figiu!,..._,HI ...:ipsitiAial21041. ..........,..:____ __ r!,.:,;d..':' . i .i .n. .5:-'' ''-'I ' n'I''' '-
160,
Exhibit A5.2. Volume Calculations (cubic meters), Site J
Site J Estimate Quality
Location Both sides of-L-line at Station 93+00;near Jerry Carringer property =
H0(m) 710 715 720 725 730 735 740 745 750 755 760 765 770
Apo-oc(m2) 1227 1960 2580 2968 3063 2897 2410 2559 2310 4547 3760 2902 0
V0(m') 7967.5 11350 13870 15077.5 14900 13267.5 12422.5 12172.5 17142.5 20767.5 16655 7255
Vs(nos) 162,848

Exhibit A5.3. Site Photograph, Site J
i -
•
•
y'
.
"
rites _ Yr , _._i.r '
' -, .Y cam. a .. r " , _ ' •
QF f F i "b°'Y. +Ta f :T•K k " ' `_�c p
• . 'J F a.W11
a
tt
.-_ ,_ ,44, y '_ ''7t,. y w
-�/ �f .rt may A. 'r.. , s. .v
_Er a L •;t ' !i ,fix*. {�.' T _ .i• 1:J
`
k, -•: Cp•', ! `— 'ill :-',/ .!n -i. 40,:

SITE N
Site N is located off from SR 1227, approximately 1.6 kilometers (one mile) south of Stecoah.
Exhibit 2.2 shows the site location. A cemetery is located near the site. This site consists of
two draws. The small draw is located off the dirt road leading to the cemetery and the large
draw is located downhill from the cemetery, and must be accessed from SR 1226. The area
can be characterized as a hardwood forest. No potential habitat for listed species appeared to
exist on the site. Site N has the potential to hold approximately 331,320 cubic meters (433,350
cubic yards) of waste. Exhibit A6.1 shows the proposed fill area.
Exhibit A6.1. Proposed Fill Area and Contours, Site N* r
. � @a Paz (�---�� �✓
� �;:��'��•, �.�,,`-
G-p•� "1l% � � �-mil � li\-
n_..i_i___i_._,.. c : r. t 1,-, ' .::.:.'.. -...-..4.,,,,..-.A.::', ' '.... Ili ,
1-';-,— ..,,,1--,.0 1 1 l' '4'1.''.14-- 1 II •. ‘-',:P.' ,• . A "... ' -.------,,
4;:p, . „,,,,,
__1::::-.-:::;,... . i-7qt---• 477 ,,tiv:!-----77.4-_-__.L----Li'.,:_:.----_-_-__- :._-. ...,e, 1,k ;-.4''''. 1-64 1 ..,!..„--,- "1 --- .e
-.t 441 v•-•-:-.-- -''r, .--- .--'' : . ' i: -;'i.'•=-71.,=t 1!iftikiiiiiibk: ' I. ..°I.fi. I---- I JP:,.1.-.1)- . 'A'
Note: The location of the cemetery is approximate.
Exhibit A6.2. Volume Calculations (cubic meters), Site N
Site N Estimate Quality
Location West of-Lime at Station 139+00;near Jerry Carringer property +
H0(m) 685 690 695 700 705 710 715 720 725 730 735 740 745 750 755 760
Avc-oc(rn) 912 2259 3286 5675 6196 6750 7009 6035 6831 5821 4918 4533 4230 1990 275 0
V0(m') 7927.5 13862.5 22402.5 29677.5 32365 34397.5 32610 32165 31630 26847.5 23627.5 21907.5 15550 5662.5 687.5
Vs(m) 331,320

Exhibit A6.3. Site Photograph, Site N
-11 ___\iri,1:4-, , .0, .4,4 t',:. ,h J.4 . • 1 ' i' L'• gi p. -,i : : . .
. .-1 a'•-.% , ,,,I , ...41 45'; ' ;',illi ' . '`,... }"
tit( •�T r'7�, - '�{ ' tp I., 1:• .i I 'i 4. F..
n
, \I.
s i ! , ` F
6._,.. ,1t-4* :t. .i, ,,, . , .._ , ., •.0,. . ,_--:_. _ . .„1:4. _ , _ __ ... .
iii,
gevso,.. . '. t'41''''' ' ' ...' r :: ri,-0.,r,1,:'•;';`, f,,...:--,- -7-Z::, ..,..': ! ..-,Y•i..,1'.,..z,F.-,_. i.,,,_,-,.: .7,,.."1",,-...k:z.h_ _ , .
el
10 ;x`,: 'y.' is .r-1;, .,y .:~.ar'. • .f'+. : •
%1 :T4
t. e'r• "• i t k.- .y r .b a:'6�`.: j�� 'r, ti- ;.'3 ...y. .•£ ..r ,,µ�`-
re
� i:i'i•�f ^+��?.i.. r .•:y�.'" �,' ••� 'i{`wrr+�;++ ��i� 6i.. 'e. '. ', �} r,F t 4 ;
;,;" _•T.:';,,-' ram;y ' • 14: ��**�,� � �'• :•'
' w �:.'.���� -—5.• _ :: •i' ,mac � -'^�'' �` " :�

SITE Q
Site Q is located east of SR 1227, approximately 1.3 kilometers (0.8 mile) south of Stecoah.
Exhibit 2.2 shows the site location. A Christmas tree farm is located at the base of the forked
draw. The area can be characterized as hardwood forest, pastureland, and residential.
Residences shown within the fill area and the right-of-way will be relocated as a result of the
proposed roadway regardless of the fill site. Site Q has the potential to hold approximately
437,045 cubic meters (571,633 cubic yards) of waste. Exhibit A7.1 shows the proposed fill
area.
Exhibit A7.1. Proposed Fill Area and Contours, Site Q
:111-", �. `'re:,
/ J. ♦, - ' �,` v5 , -., 6 C\mot
.°,,,,Vv==:- 4.'' iie7,= =-4'...", ige..,°/../.../.'„ I, 1 "7:::-.------kL,'") .F. ...,-- -‘;.-...",,\,\A..,:A:. , 1..,
4Jl vri hh S li : 1\�
• Site Q j
Exhibit A7.2. Volume Calculations (cubic meters), Site Q
Site Q Estimate Quality
Location West of-L-line at Station 142+00;Vernon Barnes and properties +
1-10(m) 665 670 675 680 685 690 695 700 705 710 715 720 725
APc-oc(m2) 0 4294 7360 10927 12270 12229 11738 8838 7031 6164 4392 2166 0
Vo(m') 10735 29135 45717.5 57992.5 61247.5 59917.5 51440 39672.5 32987.5 26390 16395 5415
Vs(m') 437,045

Exhibit A7.3. Site Photograph, Site Q
-fig g�' �!qys,,� -•';•':'.
tialt'.6,--P:',6,..11i,...' ..:P.i.•'''.'-;1'. `
•
•
:1 • • 1 Ir : !'v ' •'. r:.`, � ^!•p.%Fa _. . _ . 1. �yJ . P M j : �r i., v- •",; r
• 0-I.:. .,.,..,.. .. 1 .r-k..1...,...;.:,-..1. .1 , .1 rrov .t,..., I j,..•.: Arp...-1. .., .., vrti.'J, ,..,.:-./....r.• •..,...•.,%;.,,,...lvi ;•
r riff
+��.:;id, i ,�jiiii s •
i.ja.i J s s,'- ��i� . `� 'I a i .j:ri.�s+i•m.�.i i��' W7f1
-.•:4,..: §, ''..'•. 41'.11fIt'
J.
. .' '!•• ;L. 'i i.•,� - i '� :g • , llr1.
i

SITE U
Site U is located on the north side of NC 143, just west of the intersection with SR 1212 and
northeast of the proposed intersection with the proposed relocation of US 74. Exhibit 2.2 shows
the site location. The site is cleared and graded with a thin line of trees running along the
approximate center of the site (see Exhibit A8.3). Field inspection yielded no streams,
wetlands, or potential habitat on this site. Site U has the potential to hold approximately
258,003 cubic meters (337,455 cubic yards) of waste. Exhibit A8.1 shows the proposed fill
area.
Exhibit A8.1. Proposed Fill Area and Contours, Site U / /
—Sg. f
0
1 Site U ,'' SUM. :.
-- ' -�� 7 .��--• ' ' --_
4,---- m { .= f }C + ,r,•::-. y eve
/.." ."-- 1 \ \ \ V.___-- ----_ .•-,.. \ 1 Pr. q;" fl--... I .... •'" ..0`
--.4e -e+� / sea
•
„ �4 `,�r 1f� / , ii 0.1
l mil°'' , `/
177
.•ism iie' S. l'-i-... , •�`t ; 4
0.
E9S
1/ ( `
Exhibit A8.2. Volume Calculations (cubic meters), Site U
Site U Estimate Quality
Location Directly norhtwest of intersection with SR 1211(-Y3-),Leonard Phillips property +
Hc(m) 640 645 650 655 660 665 670 675 680 685 690 695
Avccc(m2) 14767 12273 8771 5980 4847 3788 3120 2563 2181 96 598 0
Vc(m3) 67600 52610 36877.5 27067.5 21587.5 17270 14207.5 11860 5692.5 1735 1495
Vs(rnr) 258,003

Exhibit A8.3. Site Photograph, Site U
, .. rid •..�•ti
•
1� : • ,may:,AYE .'..-• .1rAr, ti
•
` �• „ .
•
A
f S;

SITE V
Site V is located north of NC 143 and Sweetwater Creek, approximately 2.4 kilometers (1.5
miles) east of Robbinsville. Exhibit 2.2 shows the site location. With the exception of a small
cleared area where a residential satellite dish is located, the entire site is heavily forested. The
site would need to be timbered, but the ridges on the site could be built up to accommodate
additional volume. The site would require a temporary structure across Sweetwater Creek for
access. No potential habitat for listed species appeared to exist on the site. Site V has the
potential to hold approximately 439,715 cubic meters (575,126 cubic yards) of waste material.
Exhibit A9.1 shows the proposed fill area.
Exhibit A9.1. Proposed Fill Area and Contours, Site V
og -�, :j IL' 7 f
VV �f J r/ _ _ /�
/ ' 1 � .- — r/ Site V
./ )$'' I i _"---;-----1 ' _ ::•-:.."-----iii:-----:-.*--iii041171111 .1101IlalliCompi.::-..::::::... ,,,.,,...,..., ... .. ,.,,,,...r...--:..:::."i, ?,.,u1,1 ir,4;---riii..1....1:.
;:.,1 "._-----_- ------i__' _ __-, .-_----;..-,',,',,, ,12/BegeSair2ffigitiswilt"':'1.'-..., ''.-.. .."-11:;-----1.), '''.)-1-"Ii.-}'..) 1 j, I r".
IN%
�[i5� � ►
. . , '',.. ':., -m------, './ 6:': slitr .---- .-:' /1 ft
S
1
J
, I 6
J � +.
G
'" " F43 ` L IIOBR
{-,r•t '�'-:y . r ;. �� it........_ C.E.. , ,
Exhibit A9.2. Volume Calculations (cubic meters), Site V
Site V Estimate Quality
Location North of Station 56+00;Near J.W.Haywood Heirs property +
H5(m) 665 670 675 680 685 690 695 700 705 710 715 720 725
Apc-oc(m2) 1068 4294 7360 10927 12270 12229 11738 8838 7031 6164 4392 2166 0
Vs(m3) 13405 29135 45717.5 57992.5 61247.5 59917.5 51440 39672.5 32987.5 26390 16395 5415
Vs(m') 439,715

Exhibit A9.3. Site Photograph, Site V
,. -
0� *^ '
. .-•s>.•.-. '-;- . :.ems -
„ear
.....vi
f'.•'
.ter _q n
• . .5 YD :M1 T•! ' +? I :4.�^' .
•
N
:1 ' ";; n `�s r ;Y - , yes.
,,,.. ., .r.'4-, ,,,,--.1...t.,.-'.-4-iiii.::4!::: ' -.. -..,... - -..'7".• _ :::• :;-..r,-,-•, - ,:q _..:-. •Ei-'''' . .,. •. -
Vic. ,-51.: 4 ': • f'i' = '(':
vir
• n.. _ X. .,r r ter.
- - y••.'�.; -, _-p - -s =:, irli". •.+ ► - - • . , ,-. is. r .•M
a
r i. R ?Y.a ti � Ad;—rws w `21
,'► ; '. t ,,gam` --f : a

SITE W
Site W is located east of NC 143 and Sweetwater Creek on the western side of Stecoah Gap,
near Cheoah. Exhibit 2.2 shows the site location. Approximately half of the site is within the
proposed right-of-way. The stream on the northern side of the site will be impacted at its
headwaters by the slopes from the roadway. The site is heavily forested and would need to be
timbered. Site W has the potential to hold approximately 1,352,933 cubic meters (1,769,570
cubic yards) of waste. Exhibit A10.1 shows the proposed fill area.
Exhibit A10.1. Proposed Fill Area and Contours, Site W
iti
.i 1 . :,..1,,\7, '-'ji4"-er
-�_ hat aneni-------"Cl!r"::7:17-7\. \ w•-:.
'tiV
-Gigoi4c, r , Z, . ) _,, ., ,,, ,k,__:..0, ?
__-.66„,„ ,
.i11 - �, \&\ r 9 ,JS af `
i ". 1 I(I r---- .74110011"; . 4111 A 4" ..=- hii-,:::'_.0 ,-,"L.,--/--.R.:7• :: 7-,‘__„';'------- , .._.--7-!r_71)1.212,.-,-,=:--
4,,
Ader
_ � Site W
?:_,,::::•:1::: ."- -077:77:/:j'.011i y./..:::- :-:, ..•,,,.r=7:_-_:—.=.: :-:_.,./ :',..,/(1:077::::-.::: ":.,..7: I'11 r,i/:--"::„-It— ..__-g.1,R,..,„-::- ,"" ,' ,.,--------- --____,i,
/#0000,
Exhibit A10.2. Volume Calculations (cubic meters), Site W
Site W Estimate Quality
Location North side of-L-line at Station 100+00 =
1-I0(m) 730 735 740 745 750 755 760 765 770 775 780 785 790 795 800 805 810 815
Apc-os(m2) 1578 6713 11051 13025 14478 16788 19419 21569 23680 21598 19089 16220 13154 10185 6650 2371 196 0
V0(m3) 20726.25 44408 60189.5 68758.75 78165.75 90516 102469.5 113124 113195.3 101716.8 88273 73435.5 58346.25 42087.5 22552.75 6417.75 491
Vs(m3) 1,084,874

Exhibit A10.3. Site Photograph, Site W
Se
- »: - r.
40
are •
•
+sr
•
' a .-
: ri.: .
yew•yi:,i• rf 4, s,- ,f•++^k. y, , •
• iF S' ar
• y• ••'. x • . a.;� i. .:i^ v it r isa
. •lF• , I.:-1 �Try.J ti .4 v.' ._ w—.-- 1i .- •• J•
sfottiet
' - .. 4 �. Jam•. - r,_
..j•. -{�.�• 'I s.• Lam., - .;i'. 'i.�. F .e• 'rT •

SITE X
Site X is located south of the intersection of NC 28 and SR 1230 near Stecoah. Exhibit 2.2
shows the site location. There is a short stream reach within this site, however the reach will be
impacted by the proposed roadway. Therefore, no additional stream impacts result from this
site. The site is heavily forested and will need to be timbered. No other streams, wetlands, or
potential habitat for listed species appeared to exist on the site. Site X has the potential to hold
approximately 490,723 cubic meters (641,842 cubic yards) of waste. Exhibit A11.1 shows the
proposed fill area.
Exhibit A11.1. Proposed Fill Area and Contours, Site X
say ys� 99
If
.1'� ■ t ®sue r.- • yy :
00:04
Z {
� � _ �?� �� •;--ter � � � �
No.
I
Site X
Exhibit A11.2. Volume Calculations (cubic meters), Site X
Site X Estimate Quality
Location South of-L-line at Station 162+00;Richard Wike,Harley Hyde,and Donald Wellford properties =
H0(m) 640 645 650 655 660 665 670 675 680 685 690 695 700 705 710 715 720 725
Aac-oc(m) 0 506 3011 6654 9084 10167 9034 9503 9923 9403 8993 7850 5412 3515 1640 688 368 0
Vc(m') 1265 8792.5 24162.5 39345 48127.5 48002.5 46342.5 48565 48315 45990 42107.5 33155 22317.5 17575 8200 5820 2640
Vs(m) 490,723

Exhibit A11.3. Site Photograph, Site X
'4 1 - vP d-,•-': ' .''Ar:iatt gr,/ ' ; -" ••-a. 7 • i
Irt .1i.,,
le
• :y'
.„ • - - ---- 01 F i F • 1 -
c ;?
•
+ r
r _ Fes• '� '" •

SITE Z
Site Z is located south of NC 28 and Wolf Creek Road near Edwards Gap. Exhibit 2.2 shows
the site location. This site is immediately adjacent to the proposed roadway. Approximately half
of the site is forested, the remainder has been cleared. No potential habitat for listed species
appeared to exist on the site. Site Z has the potential to hold approximately 666,255 cubic
meters (871,429 cubic yards) of waste. Exhibit Al2.1 shows the proposed fill area.
Exhibit Al2.1. Proposed Fill Area and Contours, Site Z
-ram ►.• ' I 'I �� . . I"- � u�'— .:, ,--a::3'a" /
_--- -:___,:::,-,._A.,6-_____.--71..0 ii %___-,-jle,__--- -- , .: 4
___ _____ __,,,,,,v,,. ______ 4....,t 1..00-0' - -mg • 4 • 441 4, ..---- _- 1----_, -- .. ,-
L'f! ,..... ..1. .. . , .- a bilik ,-- q -. -SP,-
.-,: :,..',-:- 'Ir7... ..".-. , ' : 4::_,. Pr -
)010,..i. . - .
IV 14"grAggir
� Site Z r �
f /
\�� � 68 0 g�
Exhibit Al2.2. Volume Calculations (cubic meters), Site Z
Site Z Estimate Quality
Location South of intersection of NC 88(-V11-)and-L-line -
H0(m) 610 615 620 625 630 635 640 645 650 655
Avcoc(m2) 192 550 15251 19555 18086 20740 20315 19837 18821 0
Vc(m3) 1855 39502.5 87015 94102.5 97065 102637.5 100380 96645 47052.5
Vs(m3) 666,255

Exhibit Al2.3. Site Photograph, Site Z
to
z r
n_
M, - x• -kr
It
i' :_ a sv •.cS: • i .' .;:1 ./ •s_
•
t,• •
.E 0 .�.dF: fi ' ._
.�4 was!"s • 0'401- ` '. :- -

SITE ZZ
Site ZZ is located south of NC 28 and Wolf Creek Road near Edwards Gap. Exhibit 2.2 shows
the site location. The area to be filled is between NC 28 and the proposed roadway. Wolf
Creek is located on the site but will be impacted by the proposed roadway. Therefore, no
additional stream impacts result from this site. Most of the area is forested and will need to be
timbered. No potential habitat for listed species appeared to exist on the site. Site ZZ has the
potential to hold approximately 567,275 cubic meters (741,968 cubic yards) of waste.
Exhibit A13.1 shows the proposed fill area.
Exhibit A13.1. Proposed Fill Area and Contours, Site ZZ
I1r(`/ ti
oL9`-' ' ]I 1'
s ��e ��( fff • ��
. \\N
�� • Site ZZ -s � �`.1.�
_? sue-C '`: v ."°"' .4�� '1' -� f2'.
-i4:14:----.---7:4\iii,\••- t'Ir:4-1;:--;''Al lf 2----1- -- ---- '- =,-<: ..--- . -' .e' ---------,-,---- - .-----ffi',""' ''------ --"Ar"'", '''''- t:r __
4
1 ,
. . ._
Exhibit A13.2. Volume Calculations (cubic meters), Site ZZ
Site ZZ Estimate Quality
Location At intersection of NC 88(-Y11-)and-L-line;north side,east and west sides =
West side
H0(m) 600 605 610 615 620 625 630 635 640 645
Arc..(.2) 0 3808 9220 15987 23304 25112 17000 8712 1638 0
V0(m) 9520 32570 63017.5 98227.5 121040 105280 64280 25875 4095
He 595 600 605 610 615 620
Avc-ocOM) 0 132 804 1887 5851 0
V5(m3) 330 2340 6727.5 19345 14627.5
Vs(m) 567,275

Exhibit A13.3. Site Photograph, Site ZZ
41,,i
—::a ,,. .. •,
:LY
r . ,.• ny t .ter .;;;f y.r :�...r a s. . '�
.- .
, it
•
.{ - �'`., �.-Z"'" ,•,IT "• .ilr y -.
:ram- •:Y I
r � Li " +`ice' ■ r sr

d„a 5T.47E•a l
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE EUGENE A. CONTI,JR.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
24 February, 2009
MEMO TO: Stacy Oberhausen, PE, CPM, Consultant Engineering Group, PDEA
FROM: Jody Kuhne, PG, PE, Project Engineering Geologist
PROJECT: 32574, A-9 B&C,NC 28/US 74 Graham County
RE: Acid producing (Hot rock) investigation and potential along proposed
corridor
The following attachments are original documents and summaries pertaining to acid
producing runoff potential along the project corridor.
I am providing a brief summary concerning acid producing geologic formations (Hot
rock) in general, and the use of these concerns in scoping the project corridor and specific
data, conclusions and their influence on the environment.
INTRODUCTION
Hot rock, or rock with geologic mineralization that produces acidic runoff when exposed
to air and water, is a noted concern in the mountain regions of North Carolina(and select
locations in the Coastal Plain). While obviously existing naturally, it becomes a
particular problem in roadbuilding once the rock is blasted, excavated and transported.
This creates a great increase in surface area and exposes this greater area to air and water
infiltration.
The mineralization responsible for this reaction is pyrite and chalcopyrite, both sulfate
containing. There are several ways to canvass for this problem when investigating a
project that involves blasting and excavation: field mapping with visual identification,
geophysical surveys (very general and non-specific) and direct testing; both of hand
samples collected at the surface and from drill cores. The first two of these are only
effective in generally identifying the presence, the testing is absolutely required to plan
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NCDOT WESTERN REGIONAL TELEPHONE:[phone] WESTERN REGIONAL
GEOTECHNICAL OFFICE FAX [phone] GEOTECHNICAL OFFICE
COURIER 05-13-09 5253 Z MAX BOULEVARD
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US HARRISBURG,NC 28075

for mitigation or actually determine if there is a problem at all. Rocks may contain
visible forms of these minerals without actually producing a runoff problem due to the
way they are disseminated through the rock.
The problems occur from fresh rock excavation. The reaction occurs quickly and the
most strongly immediately. The volatility of the reaction is such that no weathered rock
or soil samples have tested hot, at least in North Carolina. This particular reaction is not
responsible for acidic soils, as might be identified on soil conservation maps.
It is the nature of this mineralization to occur fairly evenly through a given rock unit and
sometimes individual rock units are defined by the presence of these minerals. The
problem can be nonexistent, can be minor throughout a rock unit, locally high in a rock
unit, very strong through a unit or a combination. The first three are easily dealt with, the
last two generally affect the selection of a corridor since they become physically and
financially untenable.
The Subject corridor has undergone all of these types of identification and testing.
The testing produces an industry standard result known as the value Net Neutralization
Potential (NNP). NNP results in a positive or negative value: if the number is positive
then the material produces neutral to alkaline runoff and a negative number produces
neutral to acidic runoff. Acidic runoff is noted in water testing in the values of pH,
acidity and sometimes direct sulfate content.
Over the past 25 years,NCDOT projects involving approximately 47 million cubic yards
of excavation have been constructed in which testing was performed before and during
construction, and water quality testing occurred throughout the life of the project and
after. These projects have shown that overall NNP values throughout a project of 0 to -10
averaged do not adversely affect water quality. Emerging literature suggests that values
as low as -25 are not detrimental but it is a general policy of the Geotechnical
Engineering Unit to address averages less than-10.
Acid producing rock is dealt with at several levels: minor amounts or low average
excavation can be placed in dry areas, either naturally or under the pavement surface;
stronger levels are treated with lime neutralizer layered in specific amounts and per
specific lifts in embankments or waste areas; and, truly caustic strengths can be placed in
encapsulation, similar to a landfill. The NNP value is directly related to treatment with
lime- this makes the calculation for treatment easy enough: the negative number equals
the tons of 90% CaCO3 lime treatment per 1,000 tons of excavation.
PROJECT GEOLOGY
A-9 as a corridor runs through an area of state geology identified as the Murphy Syncline.
The syncline has well delineated rock units, several of which are the hottest known units
in the State. The Zwe or Wehutty (aka Anakeesta) unit and Znt or Nantahala Unit are
known to be hot while the Zd (Dean) and Zhha(Horse Branch member of the Ammons
formation) are not. An early Induced Polarization study (1981 geophysical survey, see

attached) concluded that the Znt unit was likely to produce acid drainage. The Zwe unit
was already known to be sulfidic and is the key factor in routing the alignment along the
south rim of the Stecoah Valley as opposed to the north rim, where the grade is more
favorable.
TESTING RESULTS
The project is split into 4 sections, A-9 A through D. In the early 1990's the `D' section
was under active final design for construction. A-9 A through C were being mapped and
drilled for design and Draft EIS purposes. All sections of A-9 were tested for NNP from
hand samples and drill cores. A short section of A-9D went through the Znt rock unit but
the overall excavation was not a large amount (Results: attachments E & F). The A-9D
section tested neutral to alkaline and the complete water monitoring regimen determine
no ill effects to water chemistry (see attachment I).
A-9C was thoroughly drilled for design and preliminary tunnel investigation. A-9A&B
were field mapped and selectively drilled for testing and corridor recommendations. All
other NNP samples (attachments D, E, G1-3 & H) were taken from the A, B & C
sections.
Only in the A & B sections, in the Nantahala (Znt) rock unit were consistently hot
samples found (see attachments G, G/3 — samples: 342-347, NCT 18-24). This confirms
the IP survey done in 1981 identifying this section as acid producing.
CONCLUSIONS
NCDOT has long known that the A-9 corridor passes through geologic units that may
contain acid-producing mineralization. A decades-long process of mapping,testing and
construction shows that the corridor is best routed through the Horse Branch Member of
the Ammons Formation (Zam and Zamh). A-9D (already constructed) verified that the
testing and monitoring procedures verified no deleterious effects to surface water
chemistry. A-9C should be routed through the Horse Branch member as proposed and
special concern and mitigation may be necessary on the A-9A & B sections as the
corridor passes through the Nantahala Formation(Znt).
Where principal streams and water sources exit the project corridor a system of water
quality monitoring, including pH, acidity, alkalinity, conductivity and sulfate content
should be implemented. This regimen should be conducted monthly starting 1 year
before construction, during construction, and for 1 year after the completion of blasting,
grading and material placement during construction. The first year of pre-construction
sampling will determine the baseline values for these streams and the acceptable
variations for these values that may cause concern should be agreed upon by NCDOT and
the contributing Agencies just prior to construction by Special Provision.
Water chemistry values are for verification, there are no expected deleterious effects
expected along the A-9C corridor, as proposed. This report addresses water chemistry
only and does not apply to physical water quality issues such as turbidity.

Questions regarding this report may be posed to:
Jody C Kuhne
NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit
Asheville,NC
828-298-3874 [e-mail]
Attachments:
A—Geologic Map of NC, 1985
B —Quadrangle scale topo map of A-9C proposed alignment
C—Induced Polarization Survey results
E—G/3 —NNP test results
H— Sample locations, A-9A& B
I—Conlusion of sampling memo, A-9D