20231130_Partial_Response_36-35

P I E D/�/�O N T Piedmont Lithium Carolina, Inc.
42 E Catawba St.
LITHIUM Belmont, NC 28012
November 16, 2023
Mr. Adam Parr, PE
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
Subject: Piedmont Lithium Carolinas, Inc.
Carolina Lithium Project
Partial Response to Additional Information Request#3 (dated May 30, 2023)
Dear Mr. Parr:
Piedmont Lithium Carolinas, Inc. (PLCI)submitted a North Carolina Mine Permit Application on August 30,
2021, to the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources (DEMLR). DEMLR issued an Additional
Information request on October 29, 2021 (ADI#1) and PLCI responded to ADI#1 on December 15, 2021.
DEMLR issued an ADI#2 on January 14, 2022, and PLCI responded to ADI#2 on April 27, 2023. DEMLR
issued ADI#3 on May 30, 2023, and PLCI has been working diligently to provide a response.
Please see the following responses to the items from ADI#3 which we have been able to complete to date.
As noted in the extension request, a full response will be provided, warranted an extension is granted,
based on new extension submittal date. The agency comments are in bold text and responses are provided
in regular text. Should you have any questions or require additional information following your review of the
enclosed materials, please contact me, Monique Parker at (704) 813-2301 or
mparker(@piedmontlithium.com.
Yours truly,
Monique Parker, CSP
Senior Vice President, Safety, Environment& Health
Piedmont Lithium Carolinas, Inc.
1

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas, Inc. I Carolina Lithium Project
Response to Mine Permit Additional Information Request#3
November 16, 2023
Attachments:
Appendix A—Monitoring Well Construction Plan (dated 10/20/2023)
Appendix B— Email from DEMLR
Appendix C—Technical Memorandum—Groundwater Model Update (dated 11/16/2023)
2

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas, Inc. I Carolina Lithium Project
Response to Mine Permit Additional Information Request#3
November 16, 2023
1. At this time, representatives from the Division of Water Resources have recommended to
DEMLR that a liner be required under the pile to protect water quality, and representatives from
the Division of Waste Management have concurred that it would be most protective to employ
a composite liner system.
Based on the above,the Division of Energy, Mineral,and Land Resources(DEMLR),per N.C.G.S.
fi74-51(f), is requiring an engineered liner under the Above-Ground Waste Rock Pile.
Please provide sealed documentation demonstrating that an Above-Ground Waste Rock Pile
liner system will be utilized, including technical details, drawings, engineer specifications, and
maintenance planned.
Response to be provided pending approval of requested extension.
2. In Appendix G of the response dated April 2023 you propose a monitoring plan (5.2.2) where
only depth and pH will be tested monthly. Please provide additional details as to what other
testing will be done on a monthly basis (i.e., Radiological,Total Dissolved Metals, Microbiology,
Nutrients, Wet Chemistry, Bacteria, Specific Conductivity and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons)
and why monthly testing will be sufficient instead of utilizing a continuous monitoring system.
Response to be provided pending approval of requested extension.
3. In Appendix G of the response dated April 2023 you propose a mitigation plan (5.2.3) where
testing for aluminum and vanadium will be conducted only if pH values are consistently outside
of the expected range (--7.5 to 8.5, with consideration of baseline monitoring). Please provide
additional details on how the potential leaching of arsenic will be monitored during this time
period.
Response to be provided pending approval of requested extension.
4. If pH values are consistently outside of the expected range (-7.5 to 8.5, with consideration of
baseline monitoring), please provide additional details as to how you propose to mitigate any
long-term potential adverse effects. Please clarify the monitoring and testing, in addition to pH,
that will be conducted on the proposed newly designed and constructed surface pond before
water is discharged to surface waters.
Response to be provided pending approval of requested extension.
5. Please clarify if Appendix G of the response dated April 2023 will only apply to the Above-
Ground Waste Rock Pile or if it will also apply to the in-Pit waste rock disposal and the
groundwater monitoring well network as a whole.
The active life of the above ground waste rock pile will be approximately 21 months prior to
commencement of in-pit waste rock disposal operations. For the initial 12 months, PLCI would like to
evaluate the real time operational monitoring data of the water generated from the above ground waste
rock pile to inform decisions for the in-pit waste rock system.
Therefore, PLCI requests that the determination of how the in-pit waste rock system will function,
including monitoring and treatment, be based on 12 months of real data collected from the above
ground waste rock pile. Given that the above ground waste rock pile will be active for 21 months, there
is time for review of this data by DEMLR and other agencies. PLCI envisions a collaboration with
reviewing parties to help determine the long-term needs of the in-pit waste rock system at that time.
3

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas, Inc. I Carolina Lithium Project
Response to Mine Permit Additional Information Request#3
November 16, 2023
6. Please clarify if the hydrogeological expert referenced in 5.2.3 will be a professional geologist
licensed in North Carolina.
The hydrogeological expert referenced in 5.2.3 of the Proposed Mitigation Plan for Above-Ground
Waste Rock Pile with Supporting Information (April 2023)that will be consulted to assess real time data
with no decreasing trend will be a professional geologist licensed in North Carolina.
7. Please provide details including depth of well, screen interval, pumping rate, etc. for all of the
wells shown on Appendix J of the December 17, 2021, response, or Appendix A of the June 21,
2022. Please clarify which wells will be utilized for the monitoring in 5.2.1 of Appendix G of the
most recent submission. A sample reporting form GW-59 can be used for reference.
A Monitoring Well Construction Plan is included as Appendix A. Construction details were estimated
using lithologic/hydrogeologic data and planned pit depths; final well construction details will vary
depending on site-specific geologic and hydrogeologic conditions encountered at the time of well
installation.
Wells 013-18S, OB-21 S, 013-22S, 013-29S, 013-30S, OB-31 S, and OB-32S (shallow wells)are the wells
that will be utilized for monitoring groundwater quality in the vicinity of the waste rock pile. These wells
will be installed around the waste rock pile and within 250 feet of the pile extent.
Note: Wells 013-18D, OB-21 D, OB-22D (deep wells) are paired with shallow wells (noted above) in the
vicinity of the waste rock pile.
8. Please provide a tabular document library to outline the most recent submissions for each piece
of the application (Mine Maps,Groundwater Study and Mitigation Plan, Blast Plan,etc.)to clarify
which pieces of the application have been updated.
Response to be provided pending approval of requested extension as all documents for this response
have not been finalized.
9. Please address the following issues that the Mooresville Regional Office (MRO) has identified
with the E&SC Plan. Please contact Joseph Hoy of the MRO for guidance [phone].
a. Please clarify the discharge from Culvert C-19(Sheet 02CO-D001),which originates from
within the LOD. It appears to bypass the basin and discharge potentially sediment-laden
waters directly off-site.
Response to be provided pending approval of requested extension.
b. Please provide additional details on the Temporary Diversions located East and West of
Stream Crossing#2,which appear to bypass the nearby basins, discharging potentially
sediment-laden waters directly off-site.
Response to be provided pending approval of requested extension.
4

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas, Inc. I Carolina Lithium Project
Response to Mine Permit Additional Information Request#3
November 16, 2023
c. Skimmer sizes and manufacturer-specific calculations were asked for in MRO
Comments. Skimmer sizes are provided; however, calculations do not appear to have
been provided. Please provide manufacturer-specific calculation. Also, please explain
the reason for using skimmer sizes significantly greater than the orifice sizes, for
example, an 8-inch skimmer with a 1-inch orifice.
Response to be provided pending approval of requested extension.
d. Please provide additional details on the construction sequence related to the Whiteside
Road Tunnel. It is not clear that the current construction sequence will ensure that the
drainage area to the north will flow to the downgradient basin.
Response to be provided pending approval of requested extension.
e. Please clarify the potential stream impacts for the proposed utilities (e.g., FM, S, P, G,
and Conveyor System) on the Western Disposal Area, as follows:
L Sheet 02CO-D002:This sheet shows the conveyor system being installed across
the stream on the Northeast side of Basin SK-20. Will any support piers for the
proposed conveyor system be installed within the stream buffer or will the
proposed conveyor system be installed so that any supports are located outside
of the stream buffer? If support piers are needed within the stream buffer,these
areas need to be shown on the plans with measures around the support piers.
How will access be obtained to install support piers if in the stream buffer? If the
support piers will be installed outside of the stream buffer, please provide a note
on the plans stating that support piers will not be located within the stream
buffer. The Limits of Disturbance (LOD) legend will need to be adjusted as
necessary to show access and/or proposed disturbed areas within the LOD.
Response to be provided pending approval of requested extension.
ii. Sheet 02CO-D003: This sheet shows the Force Main (FM), Sewer (S), Electrical
(E) and Gas (G) being installed across the stream on the Northeast side of Basin
SK-20. How will these proposed utilities be installed across the stream? If these
proposed utilities will be installed by jack & bore method, the bore pits should
be shown upstream of the stream buffer. Please provide note on the plans to
indicate the proposed utilities will be installed by a trenchless method. The
Limits of Disturbance (LOD) legend will need to be adjusted as necessary to
show access and/or proposed disturbed areas for utility line installation within
the LOD. Please ensure adequate measures (e.g., silt fence, etc.) are provided
below the LOD for the utility line installations.
Response to be provided pending approval of requested extension.
iii. Sheet 02CO-D003: What will happen with the utilities that were installed in the
prior sheets noted above? If the lines are installed in an encasement pipe (e.g.,
for jack & bore), clarify how will this be abandoned.
Response to be provided pending approval of requested extension.
5

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas, Inc. I Carolina Lithium Project
Response to Mine Permit Additional Information Request#3
November 16, 2023
10. The letters in the April 27, 2023, submittal, under Appendix C — Attachment 2, "PLCI letter to
Two Rivers Utilities (April 11,2023) and Two River Utilities Response (April 26, 2023),"show the
company and the sewer authority are working in good faith to establish a working relationship.
The letters do not meet the requirement to "Submit copies of agreements between PLCI and
publicly owned sewer operations concerning the liquid waste being discharged into the sewer
system." as required by the January 14, 2022 (corrected to reflect actual year) Additional
Information Request.
DEMLR has informed PLCI that they accept the two letters that were supplied in the ADI #2
response, dated April 27, 2023, as having fulfilled the intent of the ADI #2 request (dated January 14,
2022).
See Appendix B for an email from DEMLR explaining the rationale.
Additional Information Provided (not requested as part of ADI#3)
Groundwater Modeling
A base groundwater model was developed by HDR for PLCI and documented in the Technical
Memorandum Groundwater Model dated July 2, 2019.
The 2019 model was updated in 2021 and provided in the mine permit application submitted on August 30,
2021 (Technical Memorandum Groundwater Model, dated 8/30/2021). During the initial mine permit
application review, the 2019 Technical Memorandum was provided via email per request by NCDEQ's
Division of Water Resources, Groundwater Resources Section.
Subsequent to submittal of the Mine Permit Application, Gaston County contracted a third-party
hydrogeological expert to review the 2021 groundwater model. Based on evolution of the mining plan and
review comments received by the County's third-party expert reviewer, HDR revised the 2021 groundwater
model to include a refined model grid, revised pit excavation geometries, and transient simulations of pit
dewatering.A March 2023 model draft report was issued for review to Gaston County's independent review,
and through this review, an updated and finalized groundwater model report is provided in this ADI #3
response.
Technical Memorandum — Groundwater Model Update (dated 11/16/2023) is provided in Appendix C.
Within this document, Table 1 (of Appendix C) summarizes the evolution of the groundwater modeling
effort from 2019 to 2023.
6

Appendix A — Monitoring
Well Construction Plan
(dated 10/20/2023)

Page intentionally left blank.

Monitoring Well
Construction Plan
Carolina Lithium Project
Piedmont Lithium Carolinas, Inc.
Gaston County, North Carolina
October 20, 2023

This page intentionally left blank.

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc. I Monitoring Well Construction Plan ���
Contents
Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1
WellLocations............................................................................................................................ 1
Proposed Well Construction....................................................................................................... 2
Closing....................................................................................................................................... 2
Tables
Table 1. Summary of Monitoring Well Construction Details........................................................ 4
Figures
Figure1. Monitoring Wells ......................................................................................................... 3

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc. I Monitoring Well Construction Plan ���
Contents
This page intentionally left blank.

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc. I Monitoring Well Construction Plan ���
Introduction
Introduction
On August 30, 2021, Piedmont Lithium Carolinas, Inc. (PLCI) applied for a Mining Permit to the
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Energy, Mineral, and
Land Resources (DEMLR) for the proposed Carolina Lithium Project in Gaston County, North
Carolina. As part of the application, PLCI identified 18 locations around the perimeter of the pit
excavation areas to monitor groundwater levels during mine operation (see Mine Permit
Application, Appendix A, Sheet 1).
Subsequent to review of the Mine Permit Application by the NCDEQ Division of Water
Resources — Groundwater Management Branch, PLCI proposed 10 additional monitoring well
locations based on perceived spatial gaps in the originally proposed monitoring network (ADI
#1, Appendix J, dated December 17, 2021). Well locations were selected based on permitted
area, planned pit extents, proximity to known or suspected residential water supply wells, and
frequency of coverage. The same 28 monitoring well locations were also provided in the Water
Supply Well Mitigation Plan in response to ADI #2 (ADI #2, Appendix A, dated June 21, 2022).
On May 30, 2023, PLCI received ADI #3 from the DEMLR, which resulted in the addition of four
well locations for monitoring of the Waste Rock Pile, thus resulting in a total of 32 proposed
monitoring well locations. Item 7 of ADI #3 requested "details including depth of well, screen
interval, pumping rate, etc. for all of the wells shown on Appendix J of the December 17, 2021,
response, or Appendix A of the June 21, 2022. Please clarify which wells will be utilized for the
monitoring in 5.2.1 of Appendix G of the most recent submission."The 32 monitoring well
locations are shown on Figure 1. Note that locations shown on this figure supersede the well
locations shown on Appendix J of the December 17, 2021, response (ADI #1 response) and
Appendix A of the June 21, 2022 response (ADI #2 response).
On behalf of PLCI, HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas (HDR) is providing proposed
construction details for wells planned at the 32 monitoring well locations, as shown on Figure 1.
Well Locations
Monitoring wells are proposed to enable measurement of water levels and water quality in the
surficial and bedrock aquifer systems during dewatering of the north, south, east, and west
pits, and/or to monitor groundwater quality in the vicinity of the Waste Rock Pile. As previously
mentioned, permitted area, planned pit extents, proximity to known or suspected residential
water supply wells, and frequency of coverage were used as criteria for selection of locations.
Shallow, deep, or paired shallow and deep wells are proposed at locations to align with the
anticipated extent of drawdown estimated by the three-dimensional groundwater model.
1

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc. i Monitoring Well Construction Plan ���
Proposed Well Construction
Proposed Well Construction
Proposed well construction details were estimated using lithologic and hydrogeologic data
previously obtained during resource drilling, geotechnical drilling, and hydrogeologic
investigations. Note that final well construction details will vary depending on site-specific
geology and hydrogeology encountered during well installation.
In general, HDR used surveyed elevations or approximate elevations from topographic mapping
to establish a ground surface elevation at each proposed well location. Casing depth for deep
wells and termination depth for shallow wells were estimated using bedrock depth from nearby
previous resource investigation boring(s). Total well depths for deep wells were set to the total
planned depth of the pit nearest a given well.
Wells will be installed by a North Carolina certified well driller using hollow stem auger or air
hammer drilling techniques in accordance with the NCDEQ Well Construction Standards
specified in T15A NCAC 2C. Given that the primary purpose of shallow wells is to monitor
potential lowering of the water table during mine pit dewatering, shallow wells will be
constructed with 30-feet of 2-inch diameter 0.010-slot polyvinyl chloride (PVC) well screen
generally set on top of refusal, unless location-specific geology dictates the need for a different
screen length (e.g., depth to bedrock is less than 30 feet). Deep wells will be constructed with 6-
inch diameter PVC casing from the ground surface to approximately 2 to 3 feet into bedrock,
then completed as open hole to the prescribed depth. A summary of proposed wells and
construction details is provided in Table 1.
Closing
Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at 704.338.6787 or mark.filardi(cD-hdrinc.com if
you have questions or comments regarding the proposed well locations or construction details.
Sincerely, }'
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinaso
�^f
®sy
o �
SEAL
n M
Mark Filardi, LG #1886
Sr. Geologist/Southeast Remediation Lead
2

(( Ne hz� • -
� ,
yePh�ahCh;rChRd
i
Iva
m 0 - ° ��♦�♦�♦�O • - 1
.�1 ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦�♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦1 ♦♦♦ �.♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦1
�-fir ♦�♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦� ♦ ''� ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦1
.90
Twill
00 as
��♦�♦�♦�♦� •- -• • • • • ' • • •• ' • • • •
.e
• • I • • • • • • •• •• I • 'it
1 • 1 •

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc. I Groundwater Well Construction Plan ���
Closing
Table 1. Summary of Monitoring Well Construction Details
Well ID Latitude Longitude Monitoring Location Well Estimated Estimated Total Proposed Proposed
Diameter Ground Elevation at Proposed Screen Casing Interval
(inches) Surface Base of Pit Depth Interval (ft bgs)
Elevation (elev.) (ft bgs) (ft bgs)
(ft)
OB-1 D 35.3759922252 -81.2868538984 East Pit 6 865 274 591 N/A 0 - 50
OBAS *35.3759922252 *-81.2868538984 East Pit 2 865 274 50 20 - 50 N/A
OB-2D 35.3750124116 -81.2839367467 East Pit 6 888 274 614 N/A 0 - 50
OB-2S *35.3750124116 *-81.2839367467 East Pit 2 888 274 50 20 - 50 N/A
OB-3D 35.3763418443 -81.2816097594 East Pit 6 893 274 619 N/A 0 - 50
OB-3S *35.3763418443 *-81.2816097594 East Pit 2 893 274 50 20 - 50 N/A
OB-4D 35.3780930986 -81.2807777534 East Pit 6 846 274 572 N/A 0 - 40
OB-4S *35.3780930986 *-81.2807777534 East Pit 2 846 274 50 10 - 40 N/A
OB-5D 35.3802513731 -81.2805934159 East Pit 6 842 274 568 N/A 0 - 50
OB-5S *35.3802513731 *-81.2805934159 East Pit 2 842 274 50 20 - 50 N/A
OB-6D 35.3838302545 -81.2798773941 East Pit 6 841 274 567 N/A 0 - 50
OB-6S *35.3838302545 *-81.2798773941 East Pit 2 841 274 50 20 - 50 N/A
OB-7D 35.3866301127 -81.2779332896 East Pit 6 778 274 504 N/A 0 - 60
013-813 35.3888242541 -81.2782023922 East Pit 6 764 274 490 N/A 0 - 25
OB-9D 35.3924340053 -81.2787242518 North Permit Boundary 6 774 348 426 N/A 0 - 35
OB-9S *35.3924340053 *-81.2787242518 North Permit Boundary 2 774 348 35 5 - 35 N/A
OB-10D 35.3957227943 -81.2833669075 North Pit 6 814 348 466 N/A 0 - 20
OB-10S *35.3957227943 *-81.2833669075 North Pit 2 814 348 20 5 - 20 N/A
OB-11 D 35.3973522170 -81.2854986082 North Pit 6 877 348 529 N/A 0 - 20
OB-11S 35.3973522170 -81.2854986082 North Pit 2 877 348 20 5 - 20 N/A
OB-12D *35.3990826149 *-81.292376679 North Permit Boundary 6 868 348 520 N/A 0 - 65
OB-13D 35.4028488868 -81.2960179669 North Permit Boundary 6 893 348 545 N/A 0 - 65
4

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc. I Monitoring Well Construction Plan ���
Closing
Well ID Latitude Longitude Monitoring Location Well Estimated Estimated Total Proposed Proposed
Diameter Ground Elevation at Proposed Screen Casing Interval
(inches) Surface Base of Pit Depth Interval (ft bgs)
Elevation (elev.) (ft bgs) (ft bgs)
(ft)
OB-14D 35.3944339336 -81.2903694800 West Pit 6 840 312 528 N/A 0 - 50
OB-14S *35.3944339336 *-81.29036948 West Pit 2 840 312 50 20 - 50 N/A
OB-15D 35.3932404266 -81.2921713357 West Pit 6 868 312 556 N/A 0 - 100
OB-15S *35.3932404266 *-81.2921713357 West Pit 2 868 312 100 70 - 100 N/A
OB-16D 35.3980612444 -81.2974564467 North Permit Boundary 6 870 312 558 N/A 0 - 90
OB-17D 35.3955396286 -81.3018636516 North Permit Boundary 6 820 312 508 N/A 0 - 70
OB-18D 35.3930929623 -81.3074757074 North Permit Boundary 6 820 312 508 N/A 0 - 70
OB-18S *35.3930929623 *-81.3074757074 North Permit Boundary/ 2 820 312 70 40 - 70 N/A
Waste Rock Pile
OB-19D 35.3991102867 -81.3207376669 West Permit Boundary 6 857 312 545 N/A 0 - 50
OB-20D 35.3909855318 -81.3193707143 West Permit Boundary 6 862 312 550 N/A 0 - 30
OB-21 D 35.3858101465 -81.3139686679 South Permit Boundary 6 884 546 338 N/A 0 — 95
OB-21S *35.3858101465 *-81.3139686679 South Permit Boundary/ 2 884 546 95 65 - 95 N/A
Waste Rock Pile
OB-22D 35.3883028995 -81.3022052854 South Permit Boundary 6 837 546 291 N/A 0 - 120
OB-22S *35.3883028995 *-81.3022052854 South Permit Boundary/ 2 837 546 120 90 - 120 N/A
Waste Rock Pile
OB-23D 35.3903535620 -81.2990027401 West Pit 6 809 312 497 N/A 0 - 75
OB-23S *35.390353562 *-81.2990027401 West Pit 2 809 312 75 45 - 75 N/A
OB-24D 35.3870725608 -81.2973172744 South Pit 6 796 546 250 N/A 0 - 30
OB-24S *35.3870725608 *-81.2973172744 South Pit 2 796 546 30 5 - 30 N/A
OB-25D 35.3850368692 -81.2961183280 South Pit 6 854 546 308 N/A 0 - 30
OB-26D 35.3823214791 -81.2923526916 South Pit 6 808 546 262 N/A 0 - 30
OB-26S *35.3823214791 *-81.2923526916 South Pit 2 808 546 30 5 - 30 N/A
OB-27D 35.3797115388 -81.2887902406 East Pit 6 870 274 596 N/A 0 - 50
OB-27S *35.3797115388 *-81.2887902406 East Pit 2 870 274 50 20 - 50 N/A
5

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc. I Monitoring Well Construction Plan ���
Closing
Well ID Latitude Longitude Monitoring Location Well Estimated Estimated Total Proposed Proposed
Diameter Ground Elevation at Proposed Screen Casing Interval
(inches) Surface Base of Pit Depth Interval (ft bgs)
Elevation (elev.) (ft bgs) (ft bgs)
(ft)
OB-28D 35.3784008221 -81.2881935094 East Pit 6 878 274 604 N/A 0 - 50
OB-29S 35.3888911103 -81.3122205484 Waste Rock Pile 2 858 N/A 98 68 - 98 N/A
OB-30S 35.391671 -81.310409 Waste Rock Pile 2 802 N/A 30 5 - 30 N/A
OB-31S 35.39208 -81.303207 Waste Rock Pile 2 830 N/A 60 30 - 60 N/A
OB-32S 35.3856 -81.30704 Waste Rock Pile 2 852 N/A 144 114 N/A
1. ft. = feet
2. bgs = below ground surface
3. elev. = elevation above mean sea level
4. D = deep (bedrock) well; S = shallow (overburden)well
5. N/A = not applicable
6. * = Used known proposed deep well latitude and longitude for proposed paired shallow wells.
7. All well construction details are proposed and will be finalized based on site-specific geologic and hydrogeologic conditions.
8. Shallow well screen intervals are estimated and will be finalized in the field using field measured depth to water.
9. Details from historic borings located in the vicinity of the proposed wells were used to calculate bottom screen depths and proposed casing depths.
6

This page intentionally left blank.

FN
440 S Church Street, Suite 1200
Charlotte, NC 28202-2075
704.338.6700
hdrinc.com
©2023 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved

Appendix B — Email
from DEMLR

Page intentionally left blank.

Reply to: "copies of agreements between PLCI and the publicly owned sewer operation concerning the liquid waste being discharged into the sewer system."
0 Miller,David<david.millerCwdeq.nc.gov> Q E� Reply <E] Reply All Forward ® E
To O Monique Parker 111 Wed B/2/2023 10:36 AM
Cc Parr,Adam
OThis sender david.m Narodeq.ncgov is from outside,our organization.
0 You forwarded this message on 8/2/2623 4:35 PM.
Ms. Parker,
At the June 28, 2023, "Check In Teams meeting"you requested the Mining Program explain why the two letters supplied by Piedmont were not adequate to
meet the December 16, 2021 request to: "Submit copies of agreements between PLCI and the publicly owned sewer operation concerning the liquid waste being
discharged into the sewer system."
Given that the letters supplied did not constitute a binding agreement, staff felt that the request had not been met. However, Mining Program staff were not
aware that these types of letters were normally accepted by DWR's NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit, as was pointed out by Mr. McGee at that same meeting.
Following the meeting,the Mining Program reached out to Mr. McGee for clarification from his unit as to what it specifically required and was informed by Mr.
McGee that the letters, as submitted, were acceptable to the NPDES Municipal Unit for its needs.
Since the purpose of this information request was to ensure that needs of the NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit—Pretreatment were met,the Mining Program
accepts the two letters that were supplied as having fulfilled the intent of December 16, 2021, Item 2 (a & b) request.
Be advised that if a Mining Permit is issued,that the permit will be conditioned such that active mining cannot commence until:
1. Two Rivers Utilities issues the required pretreatment permit.
2. NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit, DWR, reviews the permit and approves the Two River's permit.
3. NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit, DWR, issues the Collection System permit.
Please note: the construction of the sewer line within the requested permitted area may not commence until a Mining Permit is issued for that area.
David Miller
NC State Mining Engineer
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized state official.

Appendix C — Technical
Memorandum —
Groundwater Model Update
(dated 11/16/2023)

Page intentionally left blank.

•
. V
000
O p Q
00
�F.
A�
r'
Technical
f Memorandum
PIEDMONT UM Groundwater Model Update
Piedmont Lithium Carolinas, Inc.
Gaston County, North Carolina
November 16, 2023

This page intentionally left blank.

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc. I Groundwater Model Update
Contents
Contents
Certification.................................................................................................................................. III
1 Introduction............................................................................................................................1
2 Conceptual Site Model/Groundwater Model Setup................................................................3
2.1 Modeling Software..........................................................................................................3
2.2 Model Grid Discretization ...............................................................................................3
2.3 Aquifer Parameters.........................................................................................................7
2.3.1 Aquifer Testing ........................................................................................................7
2.3.2 Specific Capacity Testing......................................................................................12
2.3.3 Packer Testing ......................................................................................................12
2.3.4 RQD ......................................................................................................................13
2.4 Steady State Model Calibration/Sensitivity...................................................................16
2.4.1 Calibration to Measured Groundwater Levels.......................................................16
2.4.2 Calibration to Stream Flow....................................................................................19
3 Transient Model Setup.........................................................................................................21
3.1 Temporal Constraints ...................................................................................................21
3.2 Mine Pits.......................................................................................................................21
3.2.1 Pit Extents .............................................................................................................21
3.2.2 Time Variant Materials ..........................................................................................22
3.3 Dewatering and Water Handling...................................................................................23
4 Dewatering Simulations.......................................................................................................24
4.1 Model-Simulated Effects to Wells.................................................................................25
4.2 Analytically-Derived Effects..........................................................................................25
4.3 Model-Simulated Effects to Wetlands...........................................................................33
4.4 Model-Simulated Effects to Streams ............................................................................39
5 Model Limitations.................................................................................................................42
6 Summary and Conclusions..................................................................................................43
7 References ..........................................................................................................................44

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.I Groundwater Model Update ���
Contents
Tables
Table 1. Groundwater Model Evolution.........................................................................................2
Table 2. Well Construction Details for Aquifer Pumping Test Wells .............................................8
Table 3. Aquifer Properties Obtained from Pumping Test..........................................................12
Table 4. Aquifer Properties Obtained from Specific Capacity Testing ........................................12
Table 5. Hydraulic Conductivity by Stratigraphic Interval Obtained from Packer Testing...........13
Table 6. RQD Bin Quality Designation with Assigned K.............................................................14
Table 7. Materials with Hydraulic Conductivities.........................................................................15
Table 8. Hydraulic Conductivity from RQD .................................................................................15
Table 9. Hydraulic Properties of Modeled Layers.......................................................................16
Table 10. Observed and Predicted Water Levels .......................................................................16
Table 11. Simulated Base Flow and Base Flow Reported by Daniel, Smith, and Eimers (1997)
....................................................................................................................................................20
Table 12. Simulated Base Flow and Base Flow Measured on May 2019 and August 2022.......20
Table 13. Transient Model Sequence of Mine Pits .....................................................................21
Table 14. Hydraulic Conductivity of Time Variant Materials .......................................................23
Table 15. Model Predicted Dewatering (Pumping) Rates...........................................................24
Table 16. Model Predicted Maximum Drawdown in Local Wells ................................................25
Table 17. Potential Radial Distance to Zero Drawdown .............................................................27
Table 18. Model Predicted Changes in Groundwater Flow to Wetlands (gpm)..........................35
Table 19. Changes in Base Flow to Streams Crossing the Site .................................................39
Figures
Figure 1. Site and Receptor Well Location Map ...........................................................................4
Figure 2. Groundwater Model Domain and Boundary Conditions ................................................5
Figure 3. Groundwater Model Grid ...............................................................................................6
Figure 4. Monitoring Well Location Map .......................................................................................9
Figure 5. Box and whisker plots for the RQD datasets...............................................................14
Figure 6. Cross Section Location................................................................................................17
Figure 7. Cross Sections A-A' and B-B' ......................................................................................18
Figure 8. Computed Heads vs. Measured Heads.......................................................................19
Figure 9. Model Predicted Drawdown from Dewatering Year 2 Quarter 3..................................29
Figure 10. Model Predicted from Dewatering Year 6..................................................................30
Figure 11. Model Predicted Drawdown from Dewatering Year 8................................................31
Figure 12. Model Predicted Drawdown from Dewatering Year 12 Quarter 1 ..............................32
Figure 13. HDR Delineated Wetlands.........................................................................................34
Figure 14. Location of Stream Reaches .....................................................................................41
Appendices
Appendix A-Water Supply Well Mitigation Plan

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.I Groundwater Model Update ���
Certification
Certification
I, Mark P. Filardi, a Licensed Geologist in the State of North Carolina, do certify that the
information contained in this report is correct and accurate to the best of my knowledge. HDR
Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas is a professional corporation licensed to practice geology in
the State of North Carolina (License No. C-503).
I, Shane D. McDonald, a Certified Professional Geologist certified by the American Institute of
Professional Geologists and working in conjunction with Mark Filardi, PG (NC), do certify that
the information contained in this report is a correct and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
SEArn
Shane McDonald, CPG Mark P. Filardi, LG #1886 BRIM
Sr. Technical Leader— Senior Geologist
Hydrogeology/ Modeling
iii

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.I Groundwater Model Update ���
Certification
This page intentionally left blank.
iv

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc. I Groundwater Model Update
Introduction
1 Introduction
Piedmont Lithium Carolinas, Inc. (PLCI) plans to develop an open pit lithium mine in the
Carolina Tin-Spodumene Belt of the Piedmont physiographic province where lithium-bearing
pegmatites occur. The approximately 1500-acre mine site (Site) is in unincorporated Gaston
County, on private land surrounding Hephzibah Church Road, east of Whitesides Road, and
west of Aderholdt Road, approximately 2.7 miles east of Cherryville, North Carolina (Figure 1).
Mining will occur through open pit excavations which will require dewatering. On behalf of PLCI,
HDR Engineering Inc. of the Carolinas (HDR) conducted hydrogeologic field investigations and
performed groundwater modeling to estimate the rate of water withdrawal during pit dewatering
and evaluate possible effects of pit dewatering on local water resources and water users. The
base groundwater model was developed by HDR for PLCI and documented in the Technical
Memorandum Groundwater Model dated July 2, 2019 (HDR, 2019). The 2019 model was
updated on August 30, 2021 (HDR, 2021) and March 23, 2023 with a refined model grid,
revised pit excavation geometries, and transient simulations of pit dewatering.
Based on comments received from Gaston County's independent reviewer, PLCI has revised
the March 2023 model and presents that model herein. A summary of model revisions is
presented below in Table 1.
1

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.I Groundwater Model Update ���
Introduction
Table 1. Groundwater Model Evolution
Date Summary/Change
July 2019 MODFLOW NWT: Used for simulating and predicting groundwater conditions and
groundwater/surface water interactions. NWT (Newton-Raphson formation) is a version
of MODFLOW that is intended for solving problems involving drying and rewetting
nonlinearities of the unconfined groundwater flow equation.
Initial steady-state 3D groundwater model.
Calibrated to mean measured water levels in wells (MW-1 through MW-5) installed
within the initial mine permit boundary and stream flows from USGS paper(Daniel,
Smith, and Elmers, 1997)and USGS stream gauging stations at Long Creek near
Bessemer City, South Fork Catawba River at Lowell, and Duharts Creek at SR 2439
near Cramerton.
August 2021 MODFLOW NWT.
Revised pit shell geometries to align with current(at the time)engineering/design
plans.
Refined model grid to incorporate the updated pit shells.
Changed from steady-state to transient simulation of pit dewatering.
March 2023 MODFLOW USG: Used for simulating and predicting groundwater conditions and
groundwater/surface water interactions. USG (Unstructured Grid)was developed to
support a wide variety of structured and unstructured grid types, including nested grids
and grids based on prismatic triangles, rectangles, hexagons, and other cell shapes.
Expanded model grid from 6 layers to 20 layers.
Changed rectangular grid to a quadtree with refinement around pits and main surface
water features to decrease the overall number of grid cells while retaining detail.
Adjusted aquifer properties to align with data obtained during 2022 aquifer pumping
test, packer testing, and specific capacity testing in southeast portion of mine permit
area.
Recalibrated to newly acquired data.
Refined transient pit excavation runs using TVM to simulate the mining and filling of
each pit based on the mine sequencing plan developed by Marshall Miller and
Associates.
August 2023 Revised modeled drawdown figures to show 0-1-foot drawdown contour.
Added transverse and longitudinal model cross sections to show modeled hydraulic
properties for overburden, bedrock, and combined overburden and bedrock model
layers.
Compared modeled drawdown to theoretical cone of depression using Theis equation.
Attached Well Mitigation Plan.
2

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.I Groundwater Model Update ���
Conceptual Site Model/Groundwater Model Setup
2 Conceptual Site Model/Groundwater Model Setup
The 32.5 square mile groundwater model domain included the southern portion of Indian Creek
Watershed, Beaver Creek Watershed, and a reach of South Fork Catawba River (Figure 2).
The conceptual model is discussed in the 2019 Technical Memorandum (HDR, 2019).
2.1 Modeling Software
Transient groundwater modeling was performed with the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) groundwater modeling software MODFLOW-USG Transport (Panday, 2018).
MODFLOW-USG is a version of MODFLOW-2005 (Harbaugh, 2005) and MODFLOW-NWT
(Niswonger et al., 2011)that supports unstructured grids (USG) and uses a control volume finite
difference formulation for irregular grid-cell geometries and a Sparse Matrix Solver (SMS)
(Panday et al., 2013). MODFLOW-USG Transport is a modification of the USGS MODFLOW-
USG code that allows for hydraulic parameters to be specified between stress periods in
transient simulations using the Time Variant Materials (TVM) package (Merrick, 2018).
Aquaveo's Groundwater Modeling System, GMS 10.6, (Aquaveo, 2022)was used to manage
data to develop the groundwater flow models and to evaluate model simulations. GMS's graphic
interface and data handling functions were used to develop and update the base conceptual
model and the hydrogeologic framework described in previous groundwater modeling reports
(HDR, 2019, 2021). GMS was used to display and evaluate transient model results.
2.2 Model Grid Discretization
The model grid was refined from a 6-layer rectangular grid (HDR, 2019, 2021) to a 20-layer
quadtree grid for increased vertical resolution (Figure 3). The vertical discretization was
increased from 3 to 17 layers in the model layers representing bedrock. The lowest 11 layers
(layers 10-20) are flat and uniformly thick (35 feet). The upper rock layers (layers 4-9) have
variable top and bottom elevations and thickness.
3

�1 ---- -
Vr
Figure 1
ources: Esri, HERE,Garmin',
Intermap, increment P Corp.,
GEBCO, USGS, FAO,NPS,
1021 He zibah C ch Rd NRCAN,GeoBase, IGN,
®1029 ephz ah urch Rd
LEGEND
North Model Domain
901 Whi i d 663 Aderholdt
® 9 esi s (9 = Mine Permit Boundary
�7 3 Aderholdt Rd ® Receptor Wells
% West ® Possible Domestic Well
19 White
moo` r/7A Planned Pits
Apo 66 He r Rd Dewatering Discharge Locations
7 s'
South
East DATA SOURCES:State Plane Coordinate System,
S4j�/k v Zone:North Carolina(FIPS 3200)NAD 19832011,feet
>n
eew R 129 Ge e
am Rd Gr po r
® H tings R®
Little 13eat,.. <eev.
53�Wti9{esides Rd534 Whiteside SITE MAP
O 0 0.5 1
MILES
Sources: Esri, HERE,Garmin, Intermap,increment P Corp.,GEBCO, PIEDMONT
01
USGS, FAO,NPS,NRCAN,GeoBase, IGN,Kadaster NL;Ordnance LIT 6I u16
Survey, Esri Japan, METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),(c)OpenStreetMap
contributors,and the GIS User Community ?' FIGURE 1
PATH:\\CLTSMAWGIS DATAIGIS\PROJECTS\71135 PIEDMONTLITHIUM110263685 PLI INTEGRATED PROJECTM2 WORK IN PROGRESS\MAP DOCSIM%DITASK21 AOTEST GWUPDATES\FIGURESISITE AND RECEPTOR WELL LOCATION.M%D-USER:KTHAMES-DATE:1111S12023

emus., I.
U
a � `�
,Pk o w 150�
;G
South Fork Ir dI.
: Crouse Ra 3 Catawba River
�Ctee+
. Crouse rouse �de�
C 4a n
1Pl04 C�4rch
AGM f° _ — — - _ _ - _ Sourf s�Esri, HERE,Garmin,
_ Intermap, increment P Corp,
GEBCO, USGS, FAO,NPS,
NRCAN,GeoBase, IGN,
4
Romer Ra 6� Gaston-WeberWest G a
�re¢k LEGEND
North
No Flow Boundary
ko
_ r C he
_ _ o G° nd ;;� _ �, Mine Permit Boundary
�,..
I Cl. Receptor Wells
C
E-chur°h's ® Planned Pits
South Fork Catawaba River
hl rrvville un beam r J F
Rd South East
Dewater Discharge Location
� eTd,1�`y 'r,
National Hydrology Dataset Flowlines
r �30
w"
0
T yGr y°gyp DATA SOURCES:State Plane Coordinate System,
a
Zone:North Carolina(PIPS 3200)NAD 1983 2011,feet
/�R, r Oa/ias 227R
Crryv C 1
WY o
GROUNDWATER MODEL DOMAIN
"• .��' �t Rao/,. AND BOUNDARY CONDITION
h � Sho
A 01 ,ee4
a o
cc
0 1.5 3
MILES
01
/ io -
Aea// Sources: Esri, HERE,Garmin, Intermap,increment P Corp.,GEBCO, PIEDMONT
ea USGS, FAO,NPS,NRCAN,GeoBase, IGN,Kadaster NL',Ordnance LIT41YM
sunny54e Shady Kest Ra Survey, Esri Japan, METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),(cf'OpenStreetMap FIGURE 2
contributors,and the GIS User Community <F t
PATH:IICLTSMAINIGIS DATAIGIS\PROJECTSI]1135 PIEDMONTLITHIUM110263685 PLI INTEGRATED PROJECT\7.2 WORK IN PROGRESSIMAP DOCSIM%DITASK21 AOTEST GWUPDATES\FIGURES102 GROUNDWATER DOMAIN BOUNDARY CONDITIONS.M%D-USER:KTHAMES-DATE:i1I162023

GAS
Hig
�.■■■■■■■■■■■►■ ■• ■■11
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Zw■ PRO00
n■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■f■ Garmi
. .
ntermal
ncrement
�']
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■:'::■■■■: ':■■:':■■■■■■■■■■EM
'I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■mommommo■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■::■■■■■■■■■■::o 0 ::.'::■■::'::■: :::::....::■■■■■■■■�� LEGEND
No MENNEN
N. 66A
ms
........
MOMMOMMOM
:::...; .
..
no
..
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■: :■■■■■■::':::.°:■■:::::■■■:::':: MEN ::.::MENNom
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■: ::'•.:"::::::::::::::: ::■:::■■■■::'.::■■■■■■■■:' "::■■■:lillA
DATA SOURCES:State Plane Coordinate System,
Zone:North Carolina(FIPS 3200)NAD 1983 2011,feet
MENEM
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■:: i'iiiii, ■■■:::■:':■■■ MAN
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■: 0 mom
MOMOMMOMMOM :■■■■■■■■■FibMODEL
II■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ :::::■■■■�����
\�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■el
c:1■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�I
II■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■"M
■I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I,
lri■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I
• 11■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
�I■■■P■■■■■■■I
i■■■rld\■■■■■r
■0MM MILES
one
• 10 •

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.I Groundwater Model Update ���
Conceptual Site Model/Groundwater Model Setup
2.3 Aquifer Parameters
Aquifer parameters used in the model were obtained via hydrogeologic investigations conducted
between 2018 and 2020 and updated following an aquifer pumping test, specific capacity
testing, and packer testing conducted in 2022. Aquifer properties calculated from pumping tests
and specific capacity tests represent average values over the saturated thickness. Packer
testing was used to calculate hydraulic conductivity (K) for stratigraphic intervals based on
packer placement.
Rock quality designation (RQD, the percentage of a rock core run that is comprised of pieces
greater than 4 inches in length between natural fractures in the rock) data from resource borings
were used to supplement data obtained from aquifer testing and to identify bedrock zones that
are more fractured and hence more transmissive.
Collectively, the RQD and aquifer test data were evaluated to assign K values to the updated
model layers.
2.3.1 Aquifer Testing
From May 18 to 23, 2022, PLCI conducted an aquifer pumping test in the southeast portion of
the permitted boundary to evaluate aquifer characteristics near the largest proposed pit (East
pit)for the following reasons:
• PLCI owns or controls property at this location,
• The geologic and hydrogeologic conditions observed during the test will be
representative of conditions observed during mining of the largest proposed pit (East
Pit),
• Three residential water supply wells of varying depths in close proximity to this location
were available to be monitored,
• Flow in an adjacent unnamed tributary to Beaverdam Creek was monitored to assess
potential pumping effects on surface water (see Inset 2, Figure 4) and,
• Several private supply wells and other groundwater users (e.g., tree farm) are
concentrated south and east of the East Pit.
Prior to testing, HDR installed 12 testing/observation wells (OW-3S, OW-31D, OW-4S, OW-41D,
OW-5S, OW-51D, OW-6S, OW-7S, OW-71D, OW-81D, and PW-2) to monitor during the test. Well
locations were selected such that pumping effects could be measured along, and perpendicular
to, the dominant fabric of underlying bedrock, which trends in a northeast/southwest orientation
beneath this portion of the Site. Thus, HDR installed wells OW-5S/D, PW-2, OW-6S/D. and OW-
7S/D along strike, and wells OW-3S/D, OW-4S/D, and OW-81D perpendicular to the rock fabric.
The purpose of this orientation was to evaluate if heterogeneity of the rock fabric will influence
the cone of depression generated from dewatering of the pits. Initially, HDR planned to use PW-
2 as the pumping well for the test; however, the boring produced approximately 12 gallons per
minute (gpm) during well installation, which was deemed less than ideal for the planned 72-hour
pumping test. Therefore, well OW-61D was used as the pumping well since it produced
approximately 40 gpm during well installation. Well locations are shown on Figure 4. Well
construction details for the observation wells and pumping well are presented in Table 2.

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.I Groundwater Model Update ���
Conceptual Site Model/Groundwater Model Setup
Table 2.Well Construction Details for Aquifer Pumping Test Wells
Well ID Northing Easting Well Total Screened TOC Date of Water DTW GW Fracture Depths (ft bgs)/
(feet) (feet) Diameter Depth Interval Elevation Level (ft bTOC) Elevation Yield (gpm)
(inches) (ft bgs) (ft bgs) (feet) Measurement (ft msl)
MW-1 605465.44 1319945.98 6 110 Open Hole 762.49 2/25/2020 18.48 744.01 68/2
(60-110)
MW-2 605494.22 1316921.05 6 110 Open Hole 864.12 2/25/2020 40.80 823.32 68/NA
(60-110)
MW-3 603244.86 1315463.54 6 170 Open Hole 840.39 2/25/2020 49.08 791.31 140-142/NA; 150/10
(117-170)
MW-4 601127.17 1319231.62 6 153 Open Hole 884.97 2/25/2020 33.83 851.14 106/NA; 133-138/NA
(102-153)
MW-5 604902.01 1320278.96 6 152 Open Hole 756.75 2/25/2020 10.76 745.99 120/NA; 138/NA; 149/NA
(98-152)
OW-1 D 604385.48 1319872.37 6 302 Open Hole 761.14 4/25/2022 9.52 751.62 110/10; total flow-25-30gpm
(84-302)
OW-1S 604391.89 1319877.09 2 60 39-59 760.63 4/25/2022 9.28 751.35 --
OW-2D 604663.02 1320026.20 6 300 Open Hole 755.05 4/25/2022 7.71 747.34 109-160/no discrete fractures,
(109-300) but flow-40-50 gpm; 106-170/20
OW-2S 604670.02 1320033.14 2 30 5-25 755.87 4/25/2022 8.97 746.90 --
PW-1 604475.71 1319935.86 6 500 Open Hole 756.75 4/25/2022 5.84 750.91 136/DRY; 280/<0.5; 345/5;
(105-500) 410/60;total flow-125 gpm
OW-3S 600446.96 1319981.14 2 37 17-37 870.34 4/25/2022 18.06 852.28 --
OW-3D 600441.45 1319978.97 6 500 Open Hole 870.75 4/25/2022 17.34 853.41 56/2; 125/3.5; 286/8.5; 292/1
(38.5-500)
OW-4S 600543.41 1319812.49 2 44 8-44 871.33 4/25/2022 15.08 856.25 --
OW-41D 600537.29 1319810.75 6 500 Open Hole 871.86 4/25/2022 16.44 855.42 65-66/0.5; 83/0.5; 97/11; 241/13;
(48.5-500) 391/3-4
OW-5S 600558.26 1319955.78 2 41.4 6-41.4 863.15 4/25/2022 9.76 853.39
OW-51D 600555.65 1319960.59 6 500 Open Hole 863.65 4/25/2022 9.59 854.06 46/1.5; 50/0.5; 80/2; 105/2;
(40.0-500) 177/0.5; 236/2
OW-6S 600386.88 1319791.54 2 47.6 12.5-47.6 876.13 4/25/2022 18.67 857.46 --
OW-6D 600390.32 1319785.58 6 500 Open Hole 878.67 4/25/2022 20.53 858.14 85/25;410/15
(61.2-500)
OW-7S 600259.74 1319686.58 2 62 7.0-62.0 876.65 4/25/2022 14.76 861.89
OW-7D 600262.92 1319681.37 6 500 Open Hole 876.86 4/25/2022 20.45 856.41 78/0.25-0.5; 115/0.25-0.5; 123/2;
(68.6-500) 127/45;413/27.5
OW-81D 600193.73 1320222.79 6 495 Open Hole 850.12 4/25/2022 0.00 850.12 51/8; 87/1; 94/1; 158/2; 253/8-13;
(33.5-495) 490/20-50
PW-2 600493.23 1319893.87 6 500 Open Hole NM 4/25/2022 17.02 NM 57/0.5; 95-96/1.5; 216/4; 348/2;
(45.2-500) 350/4;
8

71,
G�:' , All 9
AA
Aw
LN
►'♦'♦'♦'♦'� bi n g I n set 1
Ai
.♦♦♦i♦i�... .�♦:�♦ ..
.�i♦iddi♦i♦i♦i♦i
O♦♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i0 . `
♦d♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦,.
♦♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i�. � •
.♦i�i�♦�i�i�i�i�i�iZ♦♦�♦�i�i�i�i���
c ♦♦♦ d♦♦ ♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ . D
�' ♦♦�♦r.♦e ♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦�♦i♦i♦i� .
�� ♦��� �1♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦� i�♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦�►♦♦♦g♦� o• o D
gnmO'Y Grove R \� * case d♦♦ ♦♦♦♦d♦♦♦♦t ♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦.�♦♦♦♦♦
�,+ a ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦1�, �d♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦,♦♦d♦♦♦♦♦1ell o D \
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ d �♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ \ St
♦♦♦♦� ♦♦ ♦♦►�♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ N�,• Ra
uncr °rPenters.54`�are ♦♦♦♦ice
A4I MA
+�'s ♦♦.d♦ ♦♦♦d♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦d♦♦♦i♦� qk
♦♦♦♦�i' i♦♦♦♦♦ ♦ ♦♦�
♦♦♦♦♦�.♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦i♦ ♦♦♦♦��
- ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ � ♦♦♦i♦ifs' - - .. -
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ c "
•Otto R, ,�,�.�,�.�.. ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦�, - - � � . . . . � Inset 2
• • - $ p . rngec
�_ _• a M� A :t .Rd • 11 111
e
JIFJ
o�Rd f°ry o ale
•••• a Fst.RN ,

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.I Groundwater Model Update
Conceptual Site Model/Groundwater Model Setup
This page intentionally left blank.
10

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.I Groundwater Model Update ���
Conceptual Site Model/Groundwater Model Setup
Between May 2 and 3, 2022, data logging transducers were installed in each of the observation
wells, former residential water supply wells (WSW-1, -2, and -3), and aquifer test pumping well
(OW-6D). Background monitoring was conducted to collect baseline hydrostatic conditions to
identify potential influences such as recharge from precipitation, atmospheric pressure changes,
or regional water level trends prior to commencement of the aquifer pumping test. The
transducers were suspended in the water column in each well and set to record data every 15
minutes (Note that the data logger in OW-8D was installed on May 10, 2022, approximately
eight days prior to the pumping test). Data was downloaded from each transducer prior to the
start of the pumping test and was used to compare hydrostatic conditions with the observed
drawdown from the pumping test and correct pumping test data for regional trends.
Prior to conducting the aquifer pumping test, a step-drawdown test was performed on OW-6D to
estimate hydraulic properties and determine an appropriate discharge rate for the pumping test.
Transducers were re-programmed to collect data at 1-minute intervals for the step-drawdown
test, constant rate test, and subsequent recovery period. A sequence of pumping intervals using
progressively higher pumping rates was used for the step testing based on the well yield data
(-40 gpm) obtained during the well installation. Each pumping interval (15 gpm, 25 gpm, 40
gpm, and 53 gpm) step test was run for 60 minutes. Depth to water was constantly monitored
during the step tests to identify an efficient rate at which drawdown could be measured over a
longer, 72-hour pumping test. After the step tests were completed, recovery of the water column
was measured to ensure at least 95% recovery in the pumping well prior to conducting the
aquifer pumping test. After approximately 36 minutes, the pumping well reached 84% recovery;
however, the well was allowed to recharge overnight and had achieved greater than 95%
recovery by the following morning prior to commencement of the aquifer pumping test. Based
on the results of the step tests, a pumping rate of 40 gpm was selected for the constant rate 72-
hour pumping test.
The aquifer pumping test began at 11:00 on May 18, 2022. Well OW-6D was pumped at a
constant rate of 40 gpm (+/- 3 gpm) until 15:00 on May 20, 2022. Water levels were measured
in OW-3S, OW-3D, OW-4S, OW-4D, OW-5S, OW-5D, OW-6S, OW-7S, OW-7D, OW-8D, PW-2,
WSW-1, WSW-2, and WSW-3 throughout the pumping test via transducers. To supplement and
back up the transducer data, depth to water was measured manually at each location
approximately every 10 minutes for the first hour of the pumping test, at least every hour for the
first 12 hours of the pumping test, and every two hours thereafter until the end of the test. Water
levels were also measured manually at a similar frequency during recovery, after the pump was
switched off. Stream flow measurements were also taken at a consistent subsection of the
stream located approximately 390 feet east-southeast of the pumping well using a surface water
flow meter. Although originally planned for 72 hours, the pumping test was terminated after 52
hours because drawdown had stabilized in the pumping well and observations wells at less than
0.2 feet of drawdown over a 6-hour period. At the conclusion of pumping, the water level in well
OW-6D was measured approximately 26.6 feet lower than the level measured in the well prior to
commencement of the pumping test.
Subsequent to the pumping test, drawdown data were analyzed and adjusted for a regional
trend of 0.1 foot of drawdown per day leading up to the constant rate test. Trend-adjusted water
11

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.I Groundwater Model Update ���
Conceptual Site Model/Groundwater Model Setup
level data were analyzed using the Theis method (Theis, 1935) and Cooper-Jacob straight line
method (Cooper, Jacob, 1946), and the aquifer properties of saturated thickness (b),
transmissivity (T), hydraulic conductivity (K), and storativity (S) are shown in Table 3.
Table 3.Aquifer Properties Obtained from Pumping Test
Well b Theis Method Cooper-Jacob Method
(ft) T(ft2/d) K(ft/d) S T (ft2/d) K (ft/d) S
OW-31D 600 456.6 0.76 2.61 E-04 490 0.82 1.50E-04
OW-41D 600 310.2 0.52 9.99E-05 280 0.47 7.20E-05
OW-51D 600 433.2 0.72 1.10E-04 420 0.70 7.70E-05
OW-61D' 600 256.9 0.43 5.32E-01 200 0.33 --
OW-71D 600 225 0.38 3.58E-05 210 0.35 2.90E-05
OW-81D 600 599.9 1.00 2.03E-04 670 1.12 1.40E-04
PW-2 600 304.6 0.57 2.31 E-04 330 0.55 1.60E-04
Geometric Mean 356 0.59 4.26E-04 341 0.57 9.02E-05
Pumping Well
2.3.2 Specific Capacity Testing
Given that the aquifer testing was conducted in metasedimentary rocks in the southeast portion
of the permit boundary, and meta-crystalline (amphibolite and granite) rocks with igneous
intrusions (pegmatites) are present throughout much of the permit boundary west of the aquifer
test location, specific capacity testing was conducted to evaluate potential variability in hydraulic
conductivity across the site.
Specific capacity testing was performed on existing wells PW-1, OW-21D, OW-61D, OW-81D, MW-
2, MW-3, and MW-4 from September 1, 2022, through September 7, 2022. Wells were selected
based on location throughout the site, elevation, depth, and fracture frequency/observed yield.
Test data was analyzed with the Walton Method (Walton, 1962) and Cooper-Jacob straight line
method (Cooper, Jacob, 1946) with the results shown in Table 4.
Table 4.Aquifer Properties Obtained from Specific Capacity Testing
Well b Walton Cooper-Jacob Method
(ft) Method
K(ft/d) K(ft/d) S
PW-1 493.7 0.42 0.08 19.17
OW-21D 291.1 1.80 1.25 0.29
OW61D 473.3 1.27 0.49 4.21
PW-81D 494.2 0.86 0.26 0.04
MW-2' -- -- -- --
MW-3 120.0 0.17 0.03 1.52
MW-4 114.7 0.64 0.02 1.30
Data was not useable.
2.3.3 Packer Testing
Packer testing was conducted in wells PW-1, OW-21D, OW-61D, OW-81D, MW-2, MW-3, and MW-
4 from September 27, 2022, through October 5, 2022. The packer test analyses were performed
using the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) Chapter 10 method for packer test
12

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.I Groundwater Model Update ���
Conceptual Site Model/Groundwater Model Setup
analysis (USBR, 1995) with the results and associated lithology (geologic bedrock map provided
by PLL) shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Hydraulic Conductivity by Stratigraphic Interval Obtained from Packer Testing
Well Test K Boring Log Material Geologic Bedrock Model
Zone (ft/d) Map Layer Layers
(ft bgs)
PW-1 104-236 Amphibolite Amphibolite
236-368 Amphibolite Amphibolite
368-500 4.00 Amphibolite Amphibolite
OW- 112-172 218.46 Weathered Rock Amphibolite 4-8
2D
172-236 0 Amphibolite Amphibolite 8-10
236-300 0 Amphibolite Amphibolite 10-12
OW- 65-210 Mica Schist Meta Sediment 4
6D
210-300 0.31 Metasiltstone Meta Sediment 4-9
300-500 0.21 Mica Schist Meta Sediment 14-9
OW- 36-338 7.44 Mica Schist Meta Sediment 4
8D
186-338 Metasiltstone Meta Sediment 10-4
338-495 2.33 Metasiltstone Meta Sediment 15-10
MW- 64-76 3.83 Amphibolite Amphibolite 4-6
2
76-93 0 Amphibolite Amphibolite 4-6
93-110 0 Pegmatite Amphibolite 4-6
MW- 122-131 1.33 Amphibolite Amphibolite 4-6
3
131-146 0.07 Amphibolite Amphibolite 4-6
146-170 0.04 Amphibolite Amphibolite 4-6
MW- 120-136 Biotite Gneiss Amphibolite 4-6
4
136-153 0 Biotite Gneiss Amphibolite 4-6
2.3.4 RQD
RQD data was collected from more than 300 resource borings across the site. RQD is a rough
measure of the degree of jointing or fracture in a rock mass, measured as a percentage of the
rock core in lengths of 10 cm or more. RQD data was provided in quality bins as shown in
Table 6.
13

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc. I Groundwater Model Update
Conceptual Site Model/Groundwater Model Setup
Table 6. RQD Bin Quality Designation with Assigned K
RQD Bin Percent Competency Quality Description K (ft/d)
1 81 — 100 Good to Excellent 0.0075
2 51 —80 Fair 0.075
3 21 —50 Poor 1.125
4 1 —20 Very Poor 2
The distribution of RQD in the subsurface shows that deeper bedrock is less fractured than
shallow bedrock, as is typical in the Piedmont Physiographic Province of North Carolina. Box
and whisker plots of the RQD dataset are shown in Figure 5. As seen in the figure, deeper rock
is more likely to have a higher RQD and generally, low RQD is found in the shallowest bedrock.
RQD V Elevation
aoo
700
600
a
O
500 =
4
aaa
100
t '
1
100 '
e
u
2 3
ROD Rf N(1-100-81%,2=80-51%,3=50-21%,4=20-1%�
Figure 5. Box and whisker plots for the RQD datasets
The RQD dataset was divided into bins for the stratigraphic intervals represented in model
layers 4 through 20, representing the bedrock layers in the model. Hydraulic conductivity values
were assigned to each RQD quality bin based on values observed during aquifer testing
(Table 5 and Table 6). New materials were established for the updated model with more
variability in hydraulic conductivities (Table 7). The RQD bin values for the data points located
in each model stratigraphic interval were averaged (Table 8). The material for average K for the
stratigraphic bins were either classified as competent slightly fractured or competent fractured
rock.
14

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.I Groundwater Model Update ���
Conceptual Site Model/Groundwater Model Setup
Table 7. Materials with Hydraulic Conductivities
Material Name Symbol K(ft/d) RQD Bin
Competent C 0.0025 --
Competent Slightly Fractured CSF 0.0075 1
Competent Fractured CF 0.075 2
Slightly Weathered Fractured SWF 0.175 --
Weathered Fractured WF 1.125 3
Highly Weathered Fractured HWF 2 4
Transition Zone TZ 2 --
Saprolite S 1 --
Overburden O 1.5 --
Table 8. Hydraulic Conductivity from RQD
Model Average Average Material
Layer RQD K (ft/d)
Bin
1 - - O
2 - - S
3 - - TZ
4 1.51 0.16 CF
5 1.27 0.04 CSF
6 1.23 0.04 CSF
7 1.28 0.05 CSF
8 1.28 0.05 CSF
9 1.23 0.04 CSF
10 1.24 0.04 CSF
11 1.26 0.05 CSF
12 1.23 0.04 CSF
13 1.22 0.03 CSF
14 1.25 0.05 CSF
15 1.27 0.05 CSF
16 1.29 0.06 CSF
17 1.33 0.07 CSF
18 1.45 0.08 CF
19 1.44 0.08 CF
20 1.38 0.05 CSF
Dash indicates that there was no RQD data for that bin.
Transverse (A-A') and longitudinal (B-B') cross-sections (Figure 6 and Figure 7) were
developed to show hydraulic properties assigned to the overburden and bedrock model layers,
respectively, based on data obtained during hydrogeologic testing and analysis of RQD data.
These data are also presented in Table 9 below.
15

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.I Groundwater Model Update ���
Conceptual Site Model/Groundwater Model Setup
Table 9. Hydraulic Properties of Modeled Layers
Model Layer Modeled Hydraulic Vertical Specific Specific
Material Conductivity Anisotropy Storage Yield
(K)(ft/day)
1 O 15 2 0.001 0.2
2 S 1 2 0.001 0.15
3 TZ 2.5 2 0.001 0.2
4-20 CSF/CF 0.0075/0.075 1 / 1 0.0004 0.1
These aquifer parameters were applied to the materials and were based off the aquifer tests
described in the previous sections.
2.4 Steady State Model Calibration/Sensitivity
Calibration was accomplished by comparing groundwater model results to mean observed
water levels from 10 monitoring wells at the site (HDR, 2019), base flow estimates for streams
in the Indian Creek watershed (Daniel, Smith, and Eimers, 1997), and stream flows measured in
May 2019 (HDR, 2019) and August 2022.
2.4.1 Calibration to Measured Groundwater Levels
Observed mean water levels and the range of variability was evaluated for groundwater levels
measured in the 10 monitoring wells (HDR 2019) listed in Figure 8.
Table 10. Water levels simulated by the steady state base model were compared to the
observed mean water levels. Water levels in MW-1 were simulated approximately 23 feet higher
than observed water levels, and water levels in MW-4 and MW-2 were simulated approximately
21 and 9 feet lower than measured water levels, respectively. The measured water levels in
MW-1, MW-2, and MW-4 could be affected by local features, such as fractures or springs that
are not represented in the groundwater model. Model alterations that improve the water levels
at these three wells resulted in loss of calibration at the other wells. Computed heads compared
to measured heads are shown in Figure 8.
Table 10. Observed and Predicted Water Levels
Well Top of Bottom of Mean One Predicted Difference in
Screen Screen Observed Standard Head (feet) Observed vs
Elevation Elevation Head (feet) Deviation Predicted Head
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
MW-1 702.49 652.49 743.65 1.56 767.00 -23.35
MW-4 782.97 731.97 847.48 2.95 825.99 21.49
MW-2 764.12 714.12 817.57 1.46 808.80 8.77
MW-3 725.39 673.39 787.07 2.40 780.39 6.68
ow-is 721.63 701.63 751.84 2.39 749.16 2.68
OW-1 D 636.14 418.14 752.20 2.34 750.27 1.93
OW-2S 750.87 730.87 747.6 1.85 747.10 0.26
PW-1 631.75 236.75 750.18 2.33 750.29 -0.11
OW-2D 630.05 439.05 747.81 1.91 748.35 -0.54
MW-5 696.75 642.75 745.38 1.63 745.72 -0.34
16

■■■■■■■■■■\�■■ NOON■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ NOON■■■
No. MENOMONEE MEN
BEEN
■■■■■■■■■■■■■::':■:€ €::■■■■■■■■■::€"::■■■\■:`.,:■■:€;:;:.::..:::";:;;:":':■:€€:■" €::::■::■■: €'::■::NOON■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■: :: :::: ::■■■■■■::"::::€:'-::■■■1\:'=.'- :■■::: ::""_:: :: :: ::€.':... ::'-:::NOON■■: FF ::■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■:...::::■.N ':■■■■■■::';:::::€ '':::::■:' :;;:''::■■:::;":::::::■■: :;;'..•..,;U.. :::'::■■■■■■■::::::■NONE
■■■■■■■■■■■:': �::■■::;;;::■■■■■■:: ;€:■:;.;;..;:;:.::■`: ! :::":::;::;•::NOON■': ■::'-: :: '.::■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■: :NOON■::;, ::•;;_•:::;;:;...: :::■■■::,.;: . ... . _ :■:::. :....:.:NOON:'-'.::■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■NOON■■::••.::::■::'•'::::::•-'• .. ;.,._._..,:;�..: : :_'::`:•::■■■■:' .,,;,,,,,;,,;, _.':•.::■■■: ':':•::■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■:::: p ,; ="::::NOON■::::::::::■::•_' ;:; . :. . :■: :■■■:�_- ■■■■■■ ■■■■■
. ... . ..;:
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■:'":::::::::::::NOON■MEIN■■■: r =,€ ::■:: ,:..::■■::::■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■::::::::::€'::■MINIM■■::€;":::::":`::'_:::;.. 6::.:::": ":: :.: ".'::■■■:`..: :::::'."::■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■::::NOON■■■: :::": :::::::: :. :::::::: €::..;: . . :■■■:: : :■:: ::: ■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■: €'::NOON■■■:" : ::■■::" ;::`: ::: ::::::■■■:":€::■■:::::€::■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■: €::NOON■■::'::'-.':■■::€:'-::■■■::'-: :: :■��■■■■:'-:'-:NOON::'-: ::■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■:: €::■:::::::.. L :: ::■:€';';:::■■■::€;:':€:■■■■►1■■■::€°:; :■■■■■::■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�■■:":;.::::::NOON■■:'m NEON.
::NOON■: . ,:::: ■■::NOON
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■NOON■■■►■■::::'::::::■■■■■■■■:' ::::::■■■■■■■■::: :e=.':::.:.'::■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■��■■■■■:i:: ii':■■■■■:: ::::■■■■■■■■■■■:i:i;:::■E::: i; ::EE
MEMEMEMEMEMEM
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■►.�■■■■■:: ����:■::'€€........:NOON■ ■■■■■■■■■1\■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■��■■■■:: :"::':':NOON:":::■:"•-:NOON ■■■OMEN■■
MEMMEMENANEEME
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■
NONE NONE No
' NOON■■■

Flill 11
- on's Iiii
IN
mill p"i,
Or!
Mill ■ ''dilummill illIT1111:-III'llin - IN
011111111111 . ■■i 1 rd r:
IN■
I IN
ME NOR 1,1811,111111111, fl;
MINE MENEM 1111 111 HI■RE I!111111i IIII
11-11111111111 11 0 1111 11 .......... ....
Ham 1■Mmilesim on I.
NOMMEMEMEM MENEM 0
own
'illoommomilill 11 NINON
lIll lil 11 Il lIll Ill Ilk IN 11 lil 11 Ill lild 11!Ill Ill 11 il P1 l: 111111111.11111
IIIIII
............
....... Ill Illill 1,"!I!PTI 11 1!110111111 iiiiinnommmmii 111111111111 iiiimmmmmmm
'11111111 Ml ITI 11111111 Ill 11111111111 Ill Ill I Ill 11111111 Ill 11111111111111111111111111111111111111110,10,100,111111111 Ill II I III
on
a M
Flf • pWIN il, 1114011DR1111,
M IN I
I I ME I......... !!g!ill 11111 Ilill MEN ME ME
1111 -11,111111111111111 1 MEN
,1111m EMMEIMIMMI MIMMEMMIME mmmoommmmml �m��m �m� m��m�llllll!mllllll!ll!
11
SEEMED
■
•
PIEDIAONT • 0 0
LPTHIUJA FN

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.I Groundwater Model Update ���
Conceptual Site Model/Groundwater Model Setup
Computed vs.Observed Heads
840
830
•
820
810 •
d
y 800
V
f0
d
= 790
9
d
7
a
C 780 •
U
770
•
750
750 •
•
•
7-0
720 7-0 750 780 800 820 81-0 850
Observed Head(feet)
Figure 8. Computed Heads vs. Measured Heads
Simulated water levels in six wells were within two standard deviations of the observed mean
water level for the well, and simulated water levels in five wells were within one standard
deviation of measured water levels. The root mean squared error for the steady state base
simulation was 4.08 feet, which is less than the mean square of 2 times the standard deviation
of 4.11 feet of the measured water levels. The mean error between the observed and simulated
water levels was 1.75 feet and the absolute mean error was 6.62 feet.
2.4.2 Calibration to Stream Flow
Total flow in a stream is a combination of runoff from a rainfall event, lateral flow through the
soil, and base flow. The base flow of a stream is the portion of stream flow that is water
discharged from the underlying aquifer. Daniel, Smith, and Eimers (1997) determined base
flows for four locations on Indian Creek within the northern portion of the model domain. The
base flow simulated by the steady state base model was compared to the base flow at these
four locations as presented in Table 11.
19

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.i Groundwater Model Update ���
Conceptual Site Model/Groundwater Model Setup
Table 11. Simulated Base Flow and Base Flow Reported by Daniel,Smith,and Eimers(1997)
Stream Reported Flow(1997) Modeled Flow Percent
Number (ft3/s) (ft3/s) Difference
81 0.16 0.04 72.3
79 0.75 0.56 25.9
82 1.79 1.74 2.9
75 0.28 0.17 40.9
Stream flows at the site were measured on May 13 and 15, 2019 and August 20, 29, and 30,
2022 (Table 11). The 2019 stream flows represent a period of elevated total flow in response to
a rainfall event. A USGS gage in the Indian Creek Watershed, an adjacent watershed north of
the site, recorded 95th and 85th percentile flows on May 13 and 15, 2019, respectively (HDR,
2019). Stream flows measured in August 2022 are representative of low base flows. Stream
flows computed by the model fall between the high stream flows observed in 2019 and the low
stream flows observed in 2022 and are closer to the observed base flow values measured in
2022 (Table 12). This comparison of observed and modeled base flows is qualitative but shows
that the computed base flows are approaching mean base flow conditions.
Table 12. Simulated Base Flow and Base Flow Measured on May 2019 and August 2022
Stream Measured Measured Modeled Percent Percent
Number Stream Flow Stream Flow Base Flow Difference Difference
(May 2019) (August 2022) 2019 2022
(ft3/s) (ft3/s) (ft3/s)
FM1 24.1 2.31 9.20 61.8 298.2
FM6 9.1 0.71 4.38 51.9 40.3
FM3 8 0.78 4.69 41.4 48.9
FM4 12.2 1.17 4.36 64.2 26.2
FM2 20.9 2.02 9.01 56.9 33.5
Weir 5 0.22 0.00 0.02 92.2 7.8
Weir 6 0.83 0.22 0.07 92.4 18.9
Weir 2 0.60 0.11 0.003 99.5 17.8
Weir 4 0.42 0.04 0.02 94.3 3.8
20

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.I Groundwater Model Update ���
Transient Model Setup
3 Transient Model Setup
3.1 Temporal Constraints
Natural conditions represented in the calibrated steady-state model provide the initial
hydrogeologic conditions for the transient modeling simulations of pit dewatering and backfill,
and groundwater recovery after dewatering ceases. A series of transient models simulated
dewatering operations that varied with time. The transient models consider planned mine pit
geometries (lateral and vertical) throughout the life of mine with excavation and/or backfilling of
portions of different pits occurring simultaneously. The greatest drawdown due to dewatering
occurs when mine pits are excavated to the deepest extent. The backfilled material is
represented as a low conductivity material. After dewatering ceases, a recovery period of 15
years was simulated.
3.2 Mine Pits
3.2.1 Pit Extents
The extent of pit excavation simulated in the transient models are based on a mine sequencing
plan developed by Marshall Miller &Associates (MMA). MMA provided HDR with DXF files that
were brought into GMS and converted to map coverages that could intersect the model grid at
the assigned elevations. As modeled, the North and West Pits were merged into one pit', thus
representing an overestimation when compared to the planned mine pits submitted in the
mining permit application. For these reasons, the model predicted effects of dewatering are
overestimated and conservative. Mine pit geometries were simulated in the model quarterly for
years 1 through 5 and annually for years 6 through 11 as model stress periods. The TVM and
dewatering sequence for predictive simulations is shown in Table 132. Mine pit extents for
model layers were assigned from contours of the pit geometries intersecting model layer
elevations. Model elevations were adjusted when needed to match the flat elevations given for
the pit geometry. In the model, the open mine pits were simulated as water-filled, high-K cells,
and backfill is simulated as fine-grained, compacted, low-K material.
Table 13.Transient Model Sequence of Mine Pits
Pits with Dewatering
Model Year Quarter South Pit East Pit West and
North Pits
Steady State
1 1 Mining
2 Mining
3 Mining
4 Mining
' The West and North Pits were simulated as one pit with an undifferentiated excavation sequence as presented in
the tables.
2 Pit filling is only simulated in the model when the filling occurred below the projected water table. Filling will continue
above that depth during some years where it is not simulated by the model.
21

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.I Groundwater Model Update ���
Transient Model Setup
Pits with Dewatering
Model Year Quarter South Pit East Pit West and
North Pits
2 1 Mining Mining
2 Mining Mining
3 Mining Mining
4 Filling Mining
3 1 Filling Mining
2 Mining
3 Mining
4 Mining
4 1 Mining
2 Mining
3 Mining
4 Mining
5 1 Mining
2 Mining
3 Mining
4 Mining
Filling
6 1-4 Mining
7 1-4 Mining Mining
Filling
8 1-4 Filling Mining
9 1-4 Mining
10 1-4 Filling Mining
11 1-4 Mining
12 1 Mining
3.2.2 Time Variant Materials
Pit excavation in the model is simulated with the TVM package, which specifies K for material
changes resulting from excavation and backfilling. Materials represented in the model include
the native surficial materials and bedrock, open pit area, and backfill material as shown in
Table 14. Pit composition was specified for each model year and stress period in which
excavation or backfill occurs (Table 13).
22

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc. I Groundwater Model Update
Transient Model Setup
Table 14. Hydraulic Conductivity of Time Variant Materials
Material Name K(ft/d)
Overburden 15
Saprolite 1
Transition Zone 2
Competent Fractured 0.075
Competent Slightly Fractured 0.0075
Open Pit 1000
Backfill 0.0134
3.3 Dewatering and Water Handling
For each stress period, seepage of groundwater into the cells is removed with MODFLOW drain
cells set one foot above the bottom of the lowest model layer of the excavated mine pits in the
active cells just inside the pit. The model drains simulate seepage of water through the face of
the pit or flow in through a lower layer. Water levels are controlled by the drain cell conductance
value and elevation.
Water collected by the drains is returned to the model through the well package at discharge
locations provided by PLCI, as shown in Figure 1. The flows returned to the model may
percolate to groundwater or exit the model via discharge to wetlands or streams. Drains are
maintained under the backfill in model years 1 through 5 during the quarter in which fill
placement occurs. Water from dewatering operations returned to the model simulates the
groundwater system during dewatering and of aquifer recovery after dewatering ceases. Note
that PLCI intends to use water removed from the pit excavations as make-up water in the
Concentrator Plant; however, this scenario was not modeled as plant water needs are still being
evaluated.
23

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.i Groundwater Model Update ���
Dewatering Simulations
4 Dewatering Simulations
The calibrated steady-state model representing conditions prior to mine development was used
as the base for transient dewatering simulations for mine pit operations. A series of transient
simulations were developed to represent mine pit operations through time. The following years
of mine operations were grouped into separate transient models:
• Years 1 and 2 (8 quarterly stress periods per year)
• Years 3 and 4 (8 quarterly stress periods per year)
• Year 5 (4 quarterly stress periods per year)
• Year 6 (1 stress period of 365 days)
• Year 7 (1 stress period of 365 days)
• Years 8 and 9 (2 stress periods each per year)
• Years 10, 11, and quarter 1 of year 12 (2 stress periods each per year and 1 stress
period per quarter year in year 12)
• Recovery for 15 years
Mine pit dewatering was simulated by altering the K of the model cells within the vertical and
horizontal extent of the pit to a high-K material. The TVM package was used to alter the K to
represent open pit conditions beginning in the stress period in which excavation occurs and
continuing through the stress period prior to backfilling. K was adjusted to represent backfill in
the stress period in which backfill is placed. In the model simulations for years 1 through 5,
dewatering is maintained under the backfill for the quarter (stress period) when backfilling
occurs.
Drain cells were placed at the base of the lowest layers and adjusted to one foot above the
bottom elevation of the pits, coincident with the simulated time period. Water removed by drains
simulating dewatering was quantified to estimate dewatering volumes and rates necessary to
dewater the pits. The estimated withdrawal rates are shown in Table 15.
Table 15. Model Predicted Dewatering (Pumping) Rates
Pumping Rate (gpm)
Model Year- South Pit East Pit West and North Total
Quarter Pits
1-1 131 131
1-2 158 158
1-3 97 97
1-4 117 117
2-1 113 113
2-2 97 97
2-3 39 327 366
2-4 39 167 206
3-1 16 289 305
3-2 N/A' 320 320
3-3 N/Al 355 355
3-4 N/A' 307 307
4-1 N/Al 165 165
4-2 N/A' 400 400
24

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.i Groundwater Model Update ���
Dewatering Simulations
Pumping Rate (gpm)
Model Year- South Pit East Pit West and North Total
Quarter Pits
4-3 N/A' 319 319
4-4 N/A' 327 327
5-1 N/Al 471 471
5-2 N/A' 462 462
5-3 N/Al 402 402
5-4 N/A' 263 263
6 N/A' 383 383
7 N/A' 232 608 841
8 N/A' N/A' 376 376
9 N/A' N/A' 304 304
10 N/A' N/A' 432 432
11 N/A' N/A' 306 306
122 N/Al N/A' 230 230
No dewatering modeled because pit is excavated and backfilled.
z Only 90 days modeled.
4.1 Model-Simulated Effects to Wells
Predicted drawdown in wells within the Site boundary ranged from 0 feet to 5.9 feet and
drawdown in wells outside the site boundary ranged from 0 feet to 0.9 feet. Estimated
drawdown in nearby wells registered with Gaston County are presented in Table 16 and shown
on Figure 9 through 12. The contour lines show the model-predicted amount of drawdown in
feet and the shaded light grey areas show the 0 ft- 1 ft drawdown area. The predicted
drawdown in Table 15 represents the maximum model-predicted drawdown through each pit
dewatering period. Wells without depth and water level information and wells within a proposed
excavation area (well at 210 Hastings Road) are not presented in the table.
Table 16. Model Predicted Maximum Drawdown in Local Wells
Well Address Well Reported South Pit East Pit West Pit
Depth DTW Drawdown Drawdown Drawdown
921 Whitesides Rd 150 30 0.00 0.02 0.05
732 Whiteside Rd 166 20 0.18 0.06 0.00
1121 Hephzibah Church Rd 300 40 0.00 0.28 0.59
1021 Hephzibah Church Rd 45 35 0.00 0.03 0.16
129 George Payseur Rd 63 33 0.00 0.06 0.06
534 Whitesides Rd 550 40 0.00 0.00 0.00
663 Aderholdt 62 40 0.00 0.00 0.95
1523 R W McLamb Dr 185 15 5.92 3.20 1.29
901 Whitesides Rd 56 24 0.00 0.00 0.01
1266 Hephzibah Church Rd 300 40 0.25 1.15 1.38
819 Whitesides Rd 180 34 0.00 0.05 0.06
4.2 Analytically-Derived Effects
To further evaluate potential effects to surrounding private water supply wells, HDR calculated
the radial distance (Ro) to zero drawdown using the Theis equation and physical properties of
25

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.I Groundwater Model Update ���
Dewatering Simulations
the aquifer (i.e., transmissivity (T) and storativity (S)) measured during the 2022 aquifer testing
at the site. Where:
2693r2S
u =
Tt
/ U2 u3 / u4 1l5
W(u) = -0.5772 - 1n(u) + (u) — I I + � ) — I + � � ...
2x2! 3x3! 4x4! 5x5!
114.6Q
s =
T[W(u)]
Assuming a mean T of 2,606 gpd/ft and an aquifer test rate of 30 gpm, the radial distance for
zero drawdown was calculated for S values of 2.08x1-4 and 4.26x10-4 at one day, 3 days, 1
month and 6 months (t in minutes below) of pumping. Given this simplified approach where the
gradient is assumed to be 0 and no recharge is considered, the radius of influence will continue
to expand with an increase of pumping duration and time. Therefore, the radial distance to 1.0
foot of drawdown was also calculated using the Theis equation and same parameters as the
zero drawdown radial distance estimates (Table 17).
Note that if an off-site supply well is adversely impacted due to declining groundwater levels
resulting from mine operations, PLCI has developed a Water Supply Well Mitigation Plan
(Mitigation Plan) to provide details regarding PLCI's commitment to protecting water resources
in the vicinity of the proposed mine site. Details regarding how adverse impacts are identified,
evaluated, and mitigated are included in the Mitigation Plan (Appendix A).
26

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.I Groundwater Model Update ���
Dewatering Simulations
Table 17. Potential Radial Distance to Zero Drawdown
Input Parameters Output Parameters
Radial Storativity Transmissivity Time Discharge Well Drawdown
Distance Function
r S T t Q u W(u) s
(feet) (gpd/ft) (minutes) (gpm) (feet)
5200 0.000208 2,606 1,440 30 4.04E+00 0.0036 0.00
9000 0.000208 2,606 4,320 30 4.03E+00 0.0037 0.00
28400 0.000208 2,606 43,200 30 4.01 E+00 0.0037 0.00
70000 0.000208 2,606 260,000 30 4.05E+00 0.0036 0.00
1575 0.000208 2,606 1,440 30 3.70E-01 0.7549 1.00
2752 0.000208 2,606 4,320 30 3.69E-01 0.7565 1.00
8630 0.000208 2,606 43,200 30 3.71 E-01 0.7544 1.00
21100 0.000208 2,606 260,000 30 3.68E-01 0.7591 1.00
3700 0.000426 2,606 1,440 30 4.19E+00 0.0030 0.00
6300 0.000426 2,606 4,320 30 4.04E+00 0.0036 0.00
19900 0.000426 2,606 43,200 30 4.04E+00 0.0036 0.00
48800 0.000426 2,606 260,000 30 4.03E+00 0.0037 0.00
1100 0.000426 2,606 1,440 30 3.70E-01 0.7556 1.00
1900 0.000426 2,606 4,320 30 3.68E-01 0.7594 1.00
6000 0.000426 2,606 43,200 30 3.67E-01 0.7614 1.00
14750 0.000426 2,606 260,000 30 3.68E-01 0.7585 1.00
27

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.I Groundwater Model Update ���
Dewatering Simulations
Considering the variability in storativity, after 3 days of pumping at 30 gpm, the radius of
influence for zero feet of drawdown was calculated to be between 6,300 and 9,000 feet whereas
the radius for 1.0 foot of drawdown was calculated to be between 1,900 and 2,725 feet. After 1
month of pumping, the radius to 1.0 foot of drawdown was calculated to be between 14,750 and
21,100 feet. However, the actual drawdown that may occur at these distances will be
substantially reduced by hydrologic boundaries that will be encountered by the cone of influence
as it extends outward. Major hydrologic boundaries that may be encountered include streams,
recharge areas, and differing rock characteristics (such as diabase dikes). Due to inevitable
recharge from surface and groundwater outside of the radius of influence and recharge from
precipitation, along with the heterogeneous nature of fractured rock, any measured radius of
influences would be expected to be less than calculated.
28

• A p3Jeldam CreeX
North dl.
Figure,
v West Sources Esri, HERE,Garmin,
Intermap, increment P Corp:;
GEBCO, USGS, FAO,NPS,
F NRCAN,GeoBase, IGN,
LEGEND
Q Domain Drawdown(ft) —12
Q Mine Permit Boundary —0 —13
Planned Pits —1 _1b
South C 1 Receptor Wells —2 —16
CarPe nle rs Sam I� _hi O s✓ � EBS;t f `1 Possible Domestic Well 4
Delineated Streams —1
_5 —18
0 Delineated Wetlands _19
Oft-1 ft Drawdown 8
_7 —20
® / i _8 —21
/i \ —22
—9
—10 —23
'hln Rb Ut le Beaver —24
c eek
Z y ® a O a Zone:North Carolina(FIPS 3200)NAD 1983 2011,feet
DATA SOURCES:State Plane Coordinate System,
� c
The model portrays potential limited effects of pumping in the area between the
�a Y55� 0-foot and 1-foot drawdown contours that extend greater than one mile from the
permit boundary.However,other hard rock mine sites within the Piedmont of
North Carolina typically show a maximum cone of depression of approximately
� 0 2,500 to 3,000 feet from the point of groundwater withdrawal.
U C. MODEL PREDICTED DRAWDOWN
FROM DEWATERING YEAR 2
QUARTER 3
N
�a
Rio. o Rayfx:ld r'I ,�
� Q � 0 0.25 0.5
MILES
s
yak Ran Cf ���
� �d Sources: Esri, HERE,Garmin, Intermap,increment P Corp.,GEBCq, PIEDMONT
V 0SGS, FAO,NPS,NRCAN,GeoBase,IGN,Kadaster NL,Ordnance LITHi+1M
Survey, Esri Japa, METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),(c)OpenStreetMap
°albs con'tr Nutors,an�d'the GIS User Community FIGURE 9
rn -�4errYvr! -
PATH:\\CLTSMAIN\GIS DATAKHMPROJECTSM135 PIEDMONTLITHIUM110283885 PLI INTEGRATED PROJECT\7.2 WORK IN PROGRESS\MAP DOCSNXDITASK21 AQTEST GWUPDATESTIGURESZ"WDOWN Y2 QT3 REDO.MXD-USER:KTHAMES-DATE:11/1 512 0 2 3

® A p3Jeldam CrpeX
North dl.
Figure,l0
West Sources Esri, HERE,Garmin,
ntermap, increment P Corp:;
GEBCO, USGS, FAO,NPS
rIIINRCAN,
GeoBase, IGN,
LEGEND
b Q Domain Drawdown(ft)—12
Q Mine Permit Boundary —0 —13
® ®Planned Pits —1 —14
South Receptor Wells —2 —15
Pe me rs SQ
Car Pe Ie Possible Domestic Well Rd East —3 —16
-4
u —17
Oi
�, die • —Delineated Streams —18
0 Delineated Wetlands —5
—6 —19
O ft-1 ft Drawdown —7 —20
0 —8 —21
—9 —22
O —10 —23
n Rb Ut le Beaver O —11 —24
Z �g • O Zone:North Carolina(FIPS 3200)NAD 1983 2011,feet
tb DATA SOURCES:State Plane Coordinate System,
The model portrays potential limited effects of pumping in the area between the
�a Y55� 0-foot and 1-foot drawdown contours that extend greater than one mile from the
permit boundary.However,other hard rock mine sites within the Piedmont of
North Carolina typically show a maximum cone of depression of approximately
O 2,500 to 3,000 feet from the point of groundwater withdrawal.
_ �� .�' • MODEL PREDICTED DRAWDOWN
4 O FROM DEWATERING YEAR 6
N
0 0.25 0.5
rya n r
MILES
s
Sources: Esri, HERE,Garmin, Intermap,increment P Corp.,GEBCq, PIEDMONT
USGS, FAO,NPS,NRCAN,GeoBase,IGN,Kadaster NL,Ordnance 0T4I1VM
Survey Esri Japa, METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),(c)OpenStreetMap
'con'tr Nutors,an�d�the GIS User Community FIGURE 10
y rvllx•
PATH:\\CLTSMAIN\GIS DATAKIMPROJECTM71135 PIEDMONTLITHIUM110283885 PLI INTEGRATED PROJECn7.2 WORK IN PROGRESS\MAP DOCSNXMTASK21 AOTEST GWUPDATESTIGURESIDRAWDOWN VS REDO.MXD-USER:KTHAMES-DATE:1111W2023

Gayw
�a
O 1
Figurel.44,__
O Sources: Esri, HERE,Garmin,
Intermap, increment P Corp:;
GEBCO, USGS, FAO,NPS,
NRCAN,GeoBase, IGN,
North LEGEND
's
Domain Drawdown(ft) —12
t F i9 Q Mine Permit Boundary —0 —13
- G
n "P ®Planned Pits —1 —14
West Receptor Wells —2 —15
— —16
Possible Domestic Well 3 —17
—Delineated Streams —4
} —5 —18
Delineated Wetlands —6 —19
0 ft-1 ft Drawdown —7 —20
® —8 —21
East —9 —22
South —10 —23
O —11 —24
Zone:North Carolina(FIPS 3200)NAD 1983 2011,feet
O DATA SOURCES:State Plane Coordinate System,
«
VAOC e O
- eat edam Cie The model portrays potential limited effects of pumping in the area between the
0-foot and 1-foot drawdown contours that extend greater than one mile from the
` permit boundary.However,other hard rock mine sites within the Piedmont of
r� ( North Carolina typically show a maximum cone of depression of approximately
2,500 to 3,000 feet from the point of groundwater withdrawal.
O R
• MODEL PREDICTED DRAWDOWN
• • ' �¢ FROM DEWATERING YEAR 8
O
N
x
0 0.25 0.5
MILES
Sources: Esri, HERE,Garmin, Intermap,increment P Corp.,GEBCO, PIEDMONT
DQoobS.GS, FAO,NPS,NRCAN,GeoBase, IG1N7Kadaasster j4L,Ordnance'
Survey, Esri Japan, METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),(c)OpenStreetMap
contributors,and the GIS User Co�unity FIGURE 11
PATH:\\CLTSMAIN\GIS DATAKHMPROJECTSM135 PIEDMONTLITHIUM110253585 PLI INTEGRATED PROJECT17.2 WORK IN PROGRESSWAP DOCSWXDITASK21 AOTEST GWUPDATEWIGURESIDRAWDOWN YS REDO.MXD-USER:KTHAMES-DATE:1111W2023

® A p3Jetdam CreeX
North dl.
Figure,l2
West ® Sources Esri, HERE,Garmin,
Intermap, increment P Corp.,
GEBCO, USGS, FAO,NPS,
NRCAN,GeoBase, IGN,
I
LEGEND
® Q Domain Drawdown(ft)—12
QMine Permit Boundary —0 —13
r_ ®Planned Pits —1 —14
South Receptor Wells —2 —1
Pe 5
Ca SQ ,ttd O 4 East Possible Domestic Well —3
nters G� fat -
17
aye O —Delineated Streams —18
—5
0 Delineated Wetlands —6 —19
f moo, Oft-1 ft Drawdown —7 —20
—8 —21
�\ 0 —9 —22
—10 —23
nRp Lit le O —11 —24
Beaver
C eek
Z y • • O \ Zone:North Carolina(FIPS 3200)NAD 1983 2011,feet
c DATA SOURCES:State Plane Coordinate System,
yhi
Rd ° The model portrays potential limited effects of pumping in the area between the
0-foot and 1-foot drawdown contours that extend greater than one mile from the
permit boundary.However,other hard rock mine sites within the Piedmont of
North Carolina typically show a maximum cone of depression of approximately
n • • O 2,500 to 3,000 feet from the point of groundwater withdrawal.
� MODEL PREDICTED DRAWDOWN
O FROM DEWATERING YEAR 12
�P
N
ry
�a
", 0 0.25 0.5
MILES
s
`i`' Sources: Esri, HERE,Garmin, Intermap,increment P Corp.,GEBCq, PIEDMONT
01
USGS, FAO,NPS,NRCAN,GeoBase,IGN,Kadaster NL,Ordnance 0T4i1VM
S`urrvvey, Esri Japa, METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),(c)OpenStreetMap
cohtrib�utors,an�d'the GIS User Community FIGURE 12
PATH:\\CLTSMAIN\GIS DATAKHMPROJECTS171135 PIEDMONTLITHIUMH0253555 PLI INTEGRATED PROJECn7.2 WORK IN PROGRESSWAP DOCSNXMTASK21 AOTEST GWUPDATESTIGURESZ"WDOWN Y12 REDO.MXD-USER:KTHAMES-DATE:11/15/2023

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.i Groundwater Model Update ���
Dewatering Simulations
4.3 Model-Simulated Effects to Wetlands
Wetlands in the vicinity of the Site are shown in Figure 13. Changes to discharge to the
wetlands due to dewatering operations were quantified by comparing flows into the wetlands in
the steady-state model with the dewatering simulations. Changes to predicted groundwater
flows into wetlands are shown in Table 18. The model simulated the following effects to
wetlands during mining:
• Wetlands are simulated to be most affected by dewatering during model year 7 when
dewatering is occurring in the East Pit and the North Pit simultaneously.
• Wetland 4 dried up in year 7 with reduced flows from groundwater occurring from model
year 3 through model year 9.
• Most of the 37 wetlands are not negatively affected by dewatering or additional
groundwater flows into the wetlands due to discharge from pit dewatering to sediment
basins. Water in sediment basins can percolate to groundwater, thus raising
groundwater levels which can raise water tables in wetlands.
• The number of wetlands benefiting from additional groundwater inflows range from 8
wetlands in model years 8 and 9 when dewatering is occurring in the West Pit, to 24
wetlands in model year 1 when dewatering is occurring in the South Pit.
33

� o
Cf 089Jetdam Creek
'
3 4'a
U� _ly sail.-
;d ill y Rd
�. Figure 13
Sources: Esri, HERE,Garmin,
Wetl 8 Intermap, increment P Corp"
Wetland Wetland 15 GEBCO, USGS, FAO,NPS,
atWetland 2 NRCAN,GeoBase, IGN,
W d19
etlan 19 Wetl /We nd 9 North LEGEND
Wetland -
Wetl d 22� a 0 Domain
Wetl d 17
Wetl nd 23 Wetla 9 - �Mine Permit Boundary
0 Delineated Wetlands
Wetland 25 West ® Planned Pits
yc Wetland 28" ` � tland 1 � Wetla d 3
Wetland 24 Wetl
gyp° Wetland dW etland 3
etl d 11 nd 5
and 27 -
Wetland 2 b VWetland 33 = 8 / DATA SOURCES:State Plane Coordinate System,
-_ 1 etland 2 Zone:North Carolina(PIPS 3200)NAD 1983 2011,feet
s4'� t' South land 7�
\V
CIO* f arm R11 U� I� o East
Little sea
Lerdam C`eF� HDR DELINEATED WETLANDS
77 Wetland 34 etland 32
Wetland 37 Wetland 34
0
Wetland 3&Wetland 36 N
0 0.25 0.5
MILES
Sources: Esri, HERE,Garmin, Intermap,increment P Corp.,GEBCO, PIEDMONT 01
USGS, FAO,NPS,NRCAN,GeoBase, IGN,Kadaster NL,Ordnance kIT41UM
Survey, Esri Japan, METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),(c)OpenStreetMap
contributors,and the GIS User Community FIGURE 13
PATH:IICLTSMAINIGIS DATAIGISIPROJECTSI71135 PIEDMONTLITHIUM110263685 PLI INTEGRATED PROJECTM2 WORK IN PROGRESS\MAP DOCSIMXDITASK21 AOTEST GWUPDATES\FIGURES\HDR DELINEATED WETLANDS.MXD-USER:KTHAMES-DATE:1111512023

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc. I Groundwater Model Update ���
Dewatering Simulations
Table 18. Model Predicted Changes in Groundwater Flow to Wetlands(gpm)
Model Year 1 Model Year 1 Model Year 1 Model Year 1 Model Year 2 Model Year 2 Model Year 2 Model Year 2 Model Year 3 Model Year 3
Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Quarter 1 Quarter 2
Pits Dewatering S S S S S, E S, E S, E S, E S, E E
Wetland Wetland Size Steady State Flow Percent Flow Percent Flow Percent Flow Percent Flow Percent Flow Percent Flow Percent Flow Percent Flow Percent Flow Percent
(Acres) Flow(ft3/d) (ft3/d) Change' (ft3/d) Change' (ft3/d) Change' (ft3/d) Change' (ft3/d) Change' (ft3/d) Change' (ft3/d) Change' (ft3/d) Change' (ft3/d) Change' (ft3/d) Change'
Wetland 1 0.28 -9,164 -9,164 0.00 -9,163 0.00 -9,163 0.01 -9,162 0.02 -9,162 0.02 -9,161 0.03 -9,162 0.02 -9,160 0.04 -9159 0.05 -9159 0.05
Wetland 2 0.15 -8,166 -8,149 0.21 -8,128 0.46 -8,110 0.69 -8,093 0.89 -8,080 1.05 -8,111 0.68 -8,120 0.56 -8,084 1.00 -6739 17.47 -6205 24.02
Wetland 3 3.30 -22,780 -22,783 -0.01 -22,800 -0.09 -22,821 -0.18 -22,839 -0.2f _ -22,852 -0.32 -22,861 -0.35 -22,867 -0.38 -22,871 -0.40 _22890 -0.48 -22959 -0.79
Wetland 4 0.66 -694 -695 -0.08 -740 -6.66 -757 -9.07 -765 -10.26 -769 -10.82 -772 -11.20 -774 -11.50 -772 -11.23 -403 41.86 -419 39.56
Wetland 5 2.21 -14,697 -14,586 V 0.75 9 -14,338Vr 2.44 0 -14,314 2.6019 -14,462 -14,559 0.94 -14,837 �16,781 -14.18 -15,856�' -36462 L-148.0 40.68A
Wetland 6 0.09 -4,118 -3,855 6.40 -3,927 4.63 -3,930 4.57 -4,062 1.36 -4,131 -0.30 -6,322 -53.51 -24,638 -498.25 -13,214 -220.85 -12148 -194.98 -16131 -291.69
Wetland 7 0.38 -10,216 -41,327 -304.54 -38,323 -275.13 -30,855 -202.03 -25,260 -147.27 -33,160 -224.59 -51,603 -405.13 -21,916 -114.53 -14,982W.66 -11825�M`r -1450
Wetland 8 0.23 -8,112 -12,038 -48.41 -12,578 -55.07 -11,728 -44.58 -12,734 -56.99 -12,982 -60.05 -14,126 -74.14 -25,646 -216.17 -18,171 -124.02 -16346 -101.51 -22003 -171.25
Wetland 9 0.18 -266 -266 0.00 -266 W 0.00 Is -266 i -266 0.0011 -266 W0.0W -266 -266 -266� -266 266 �0.03IN
Wetland 10 0.12 -8,281 -8,281 0.00 -8,281 0.00 -8,281 0.00 -8,281 0.00 -8,281 0.00 -8,281 0.00 -8,281 0.00 -8,281 0.00 -8281 0.00 -8281 0.00
Wetland 11 0.04 -7,378 -7,147 3.13 -6,904 6.42 -6,757 8.41 -6,806 7.75 -6,854 7.10 -6,904 6.42 -6,927 6.10 -6,940 5.93 -6945 5.87 -6930 6.07
Wetland 12 0.06 -7,297 -7,279 0.25 -7,231 0.90 -7,185 1.54 -7,158 1.91 -7,146 2.08 -7,141 2.14 -7,140 2.16 -7,130 2.30 -7123 2.39 -7109 2.58
Wetland 13 0.09 -9,437 -9,436 0.01 -9,427 0.11 -9,412 0.27 -9,397 0.42 -9,387 0.54 -9,380 0.61 -9,375 0.65 -9,370 0.71 -9364 0.77 -9356 0.86
Wetland 14 0.39 -13,027 -13,027 0.00 -13,027 0.00 -13,027 0.00 -13,027 0.01 -13,026 0.01 -13,026 0.01 -13,025 0.02 -13,025 0.02 -13024 0.03 -13024 0.03
Wetland 15 0.04 -11,152 -11,152 0.00 -11,152 0.00 -11,152 0.00 -11,151 0.00 -11,151 0.00 -11,151 0.01 -11,150 0.01 -11,150 0.02 -11149 0.02 -11148 0.03
Wetland 16 0.08 -11,300 -11,300 0.00 -11,300 0.00 -11,300 0.00 -11,300 0.00 -11,300 0.00 -11,300 0.00 -11,300 0.00 -11,300 0.00 -11300 0.00 -11300 0.00
Wetland 17 1.13 -20,142 -20,142 0.00 -20,142 0.00 -20,142 0.00 -20,142 0.00 -20,142 0.00 -20,142 0.00 -20,142 0.00 -20,142 0.00 -20142 0.00 -20142 0.00
Wetland 18 0.01 -10 -10 0.00 -10 -0.01 -10 -0.06 -10 -0.22 -10 -0.56 -10 -1.10 -10 -1.79 -10 -2.58 -10 -3.37 -10 -4.12
Wetland 19 1.04 -259 -259 0.00 -259 -259 -0.01 -259 -0.02 -260 -0.06 -260 -0.13 -260 -260 .33 -261 -261 , .5A
Wetland 20 0.09 -4,871 -4,871 0.00 -4,871 0.00 -4,871 0.00 -4,871 0.00 -4,871 0.00 -4,871 0.00 -4,871 0.00 -4,871 0.00 -4871 0.00 -4871 0.00
Wetland 21 0.06 -4,309 -13,934 13,934 -223.39 -13,934 -223.39 -13,934 -223.39 -13,934 -223.39 -13,934 IF223.39 -13,934 -223.39'0 -13,934�l -4309 � -4309 0.000
Wetland 22 0.11 -13,934 -13,934 0.00 -13,934 0.00 -13,934 0.00 -13,934 0.00 -13,934 0.00 -13,934 0.00 -13,934 0.00 -13,934 0.00 -13934 0.00 -13933 0.00
Wetland 23 1.53 -29,378 -29,404 -29,428 -29,416 -0.13 -29,404 -0.09 -29,393 -0.05 -29,383 �-29,376� -29370* 0.03 -29365 0.04■
Wetland 24 0.22 -361 -361 0.00 -361 -0.02 -361 -0.04 -361 -0.06 -362 -0.08 -362 -0.08 -362 -0.09 -362 -0.09 -362 -0.08 -362 -0.08
Wetland 25 6.69 -33,527 -34,290 _ -34,22�4 -34,084 .66 -33,984 -1.36 -33,916 -1.16 -33,868 -1.02 -33,833 -0.91 -33,807 -0.84 -3378 -33774 -0.74
Wetland 26 0.05 -1,208 -1,223 -1.25 -1,215 -0.56 -1,206 0.21 -1,200 0.67 -1,197 0.94 -1,195 1.12 -1,193 1.24 -1,192 1.33 -1219 -0.93 -1219 -0.88
Wetland 27 0.16 -7,051 -7,051 -7,053 -7,053 -0.03 -7,053 -0.03 -7,053 -0.03 -7,053 -0.03 -7,053 -0.02 -7,052 -0.02 -7052 -0.02 -7052 -0.02
Wetland 28 0.08 -7,836 -7,836 0.00 -7,836 0.00 -7,836 0.00 -7,836 0.00 -7,836 0.00 -7,836 0.00 -7,836 0.00 -7,836 0.00 -7836 0.00 -7836 0.00
Wetland 29 1.38 -33,715 -49,441 -46.65 -51,084 -51.52 -51,248 -52.01 -50,797 -50.67 -50,124 -48.67 -49,359 -46.40 -48,494 -43.84 -47,389 -40.56 -33713 0.01 -33709 0.02
Wetland 30 2.68 -17,176 -17,176 0.00 -17,175 0.01 -17,171 0.03 -17,166 0.06 -17,161 0.09 -17,158 0.11 -17,155 0.12 -17,153 0.14 -17149 0.16 -17144 0.19
Wetland 31 0.21 -4,306 -4,257 1.16 -4,252 1.26 -4,264 0.99 -4,273 0.78 -4,278 a,_ -4,280 0.62 -2,735 36.50 -2,705 LL8 -2701 37.27 -2666 38.09
Wetland 32 0.05 -1,026 -1,010 1.58 -991 3.40 -986 3.93 -985 4.01 -984 4.13 -850 17.13 -661 35.61 -569 44.53 -548 46.58 -556 45.83
Wetland 33 0.04 -1,272 -1,272 0.00 -1,272 -0.01 -1,272 -0.01 -1,273 -0.02 -1,273 -0.OAL -1,273 -0.03 -1,273 -0.03 -1,273 -1273 -0.04 -1273 -0.04
Wetland 34 0.26 -7,765 -7,769 -0.04 -7,778 -0.17 -7,789 -0.31 -7,802 -0.47 -7,815 -0.64 -7,829 -0.82 -7,842 -0.99 -7,854 -1.15 -7865 -1.28 -7874 -1.39
Wetland 35 0.05 -3,675 -4,355 -18.50 -4,333 -4,232 -15.14 .�-4,187 13.92 -4,174 -13.56 -4,173 -4,177 -4,182� -4186 -13.89� -4190A -13.9A
Wetland 36 0.09 -229 -310 -35.55 -344 -50.32 -342 -49.49 -341 -48.75 -342 -49.15 -344 -50.12 -346 -51.24 -349 -52.32 -351 -53.23 -353 -54.01
Wetland 37 2.45 -25,016 -25,235 -0.87 r -25,294 -25,341 -1.30 -25,376 -25,401 1.54 JL-25,420 -1.62 -25,435 -25,446 -25455
Negative indicates an increase in flow to the wetland from groundwater.Positive indicates a decrease in flow to the wetland from groundwater.
35

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.I Groundwater Model Update ���
Dewatering Simulations
Model Year 3 Model Year 3 Model Year 4 Model Year 4 Model Year 4 Model Year 4 Model Year 5 Model Year 5 Model Year 5 Model Year 5
Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4
Pits Dewatering E E E E E E E E E E
Wetland Wetland Size Steady State Flow Percent Flow Percent Flow Percent Flow Percent Flow Percent Flow Percent Flow Percent Flow Percent Flow Percent Flow Percent
(Acres) Flow(ft3/d) (ft3/d) Change' (ft3/d) Change' (ft3/d) Change' (ft3/d) Change' (ft3/d) Change' (ft3/d) Change' (ft3/d) Change' (ft3/d) Change' (ft3/d) Change' (ft3/d) Change'
Wetland 1 0.28 -9,164 -9158 0.06 -9156 0.08 -9154 0.11 -9153 0.12 -9154 0.11 -9153 0.11 -9154 0.11 -9154 0.11 -9153 0.12 -9154 0.11
Wetland 2 0.15 -8,166 -5817 28.76 -5991 26.63 -6073 25.63 -6130 24.94 -5966 26.94 -6130 24.93 -6290 22.98 -6163 24.53 -6270 23.22 -6338 22.39
Wetland 3 3.30 -22,780 -22928 -0.65 -22717 0.28 -22498 1.24 -22367 1.81 -22293 2.14 -22237 2.38 -22204 2.53 -22187 2.61 -22175 2.66 -22168 2.69
Wetland 4 0.66 -694 -162 76.66 -40 94.25 -55 92.02 -115 83.41 -110 84.09 -99 85.70 -127 81.69 -135 80.50 -156 77.54 -159 77.08
Wetland 5 2.21 -14,697 -20655 -40.54 -40517 -175.68 -22379 -52.27 -82643 -462.32 -13772 6.30 -30291 -106.11 -10847 26.19 -14755 -0.40 -52588 -257.82 -14779 -0.56
Wetland 6 0.09 -4,118 -13178 -219.98 -7671 -86.26 -7002 -70.02 -1120 72.80 -20832 -405.85 -15337 -272.41 -34232 -731.21 -32822 -696.99 -13960 -238.97 -18383 -346.36
Wetland 7 0.38 -10,216 -14024 -37.28 -11009 -7.77 -10338 -1.20 -8453 17.26 -13653 -33.65 -13104 -28.27 -18921 -85.21 -19038 -86.36 -13159 -28.81 -13961 -36.66
Wetland 8 0.23 -8,112 -20262 -149.79 -13888 -71.21 -12276 -51.34 -7054 13.04 -21412 -163.97 -18543 -128.59 -29839 -267.85 -29366 -262.03 -17656 -117.66 -20054 -147.23
Wetland 9 0.18 -266 -266 -0.03 -266 -0.04 -266 -0.04 -266 -0.03 -266 -0.03 -266 -0.02 -266 -0.01 -266 0.01 -266 0.03 -266 0.05
Wetland 10 0.12 -8,281 -8281 -0.01 -8281 -0.01 -8282 -0.01 -8282 -0.01 -8282 -0.01 -8282 -0.01 -8282 -0.01 -8282 -0.01 -8282 -0.01 -8282 -0.01
Wetland 11 0.04 -7,378 -6935 6.00 -6947 5.84 -6957 5.70 -6964 5.60 -6974 5.48 -6983 5.34 -7009 5.00 -7017 4.88 -7028 4.75 -7038 4.60
Wetland 12 0.06 -7,297 -7098 2.73 -7092 2.81 -7092 2.81 -7095 2.78 -7099 2.72 -7105 2.64 -7113 2.53 -7121 2.41 -7130 2.29 -7138 2.18
Wetland 13 0.09 -9,437 -9348 0.95 -9342 1.01 -9339 1.04 -9338 1.05 -9339 1.04 -9341 1.01 -9344 0.98 -9348 0.94 -9353 0.89 -9357 0.85
Wetland 14 0.39 -13,027 -13023 0.03 -13023 0.04 -13022 0.04 -13022 0.04 -13021 0.05 -13021 0.05 -13021 0.05 -13021 0.05 -13021 0.05 -13021 0.05
Wetland 15 0.04 -11,152 -11147 0.04 -11146 0.05 -11145 0.06 -11144 0.07 -11143 0.08 -11142 0.09 -11141 0.10 -11140 0.11 -11139 0.12 -11138 0.12
Wetland 16 0.08 -11,300 -11300 0.00 -11300 0.00 -11300 0.01 -11300 0.01 -11299 0.01 -11299 0.01 -11299 0.01 -11299 0.01 -11299 0.01 -11299 0.01
Wetland 17 1.13 -20,142 -20142 0.00 -20142 0.00 -20142 0.00 -20142 0.00 -20142 0.00 -20142 0.00 -20142 0.00 -20142 0.00 -20142 0.00 -20142 0.00
Wetland 18 0.01 -10 -10 -4.78 -11 -5.31 -11 -5.69 -11 -5.93 -11 -6.02 -11 -5.96 -11 -5.79 -11 -5.50 -11 -5.11 -10 -4.64
Wetland 19 1.04 -259 -261 -0.71 -262 -0.82 -262 -0.92 -262 -0.99 -262 -1.04 -262 -1.07 -262 -1.08 -262 -1.07 -262 -1.03 -262 -0.98
Wetland 20 0.09 -4,871 -4871 0.00 -4871 0.00 -4871 0.00 -4871 -0.01 -4871 -0.01 -4871 -0.01 -4871 -0.01 -4871 -0.01 -4871 -0.01 -4871 -0.01
Wetland 21 0.06 -4,309 -4309 0.00 -4309 0.00 -4309 0.00 -4309 0.00 -4309 0.00 -4308 0.00 -4308 0.01 -4308 0.01 -4308 0.01 -4308 0.01
Wetland 22 0.11 -13,934 -13933 0.01 -13933 0.01 -13933 0.01 -13933 0.01 -13933 0.01 -13933 0.01 -13932 0.01 -13932 0.01 -13932 0.01 -13932 0.01
Wetland 23 1.53 -29,378 -29361 0.06 -29358 0.07 -29355 0.08 -29353 0.09 -29350 0.10 -29348 0.10 -29347 0.11 -29345 0.11 -29344 0.12 -29343 0.12
Wetland 24 0.22 -361 -362 -0.08 -362 -0.07 -362 -0.07 -361 -0.06 -361 -0.06 -361 -0.05 -361 -0.05 -361 -0.04 -361 -0.04 -361 -0.04
Wetland 25 6.69 -33,527 -33763 -0.71 -33754 -0.68 -33747 -0.66 -33742 -0.64 -33737 -0.63 -33733 -0.61 -33729 -0.60 -33726 -0.60 -33724 -0.59 -33722 -0.58
Wetland 26 0.05 -1,208 -1218 -0.84 -1218 -0.81 -1218 -0.79 -1217 -0.77 -1217 -0.75 -1217 -0.73 -1217 -0.72 -1217 -0.71 -1217 -0.70 -1216 -0.69
Wetland 27 0.16 -7,051 -7052 -0.02 -7052 -0.02 -7052 -0.02 -7052 -0.02 -7052 -0.01 -7052 -0.01 -7052 -0.01 -7051 -0.01 -7051 -0.01 -7051 -0.01
Wetland 28 0.08 -7,836 -7836 0.00 -7836 0.00 -7836 0.00 -7836 0.00 -7836 0.00 -7836 0.00 -7836 0.01 -7836 0.01 -7836 0.01 -7836 0.01
Wetland 29 1.38 -33,715 -33706 0.03 -33703 0.03 -33701 0.04 -33699 0.05 -33697 0.05 -33695 0.06 -33694 0.06 -33692 0.07 -33691 0.07 -33690 0.07
Wetland 30 2.68 -17,176 -17137 0.23 -17130 0.27 -17125 0.30 -17121 0.32 -17119 0.33 -17118 0.34 -17118 0.34 -17119 0.33 -17121 0.32 -17124 0.31
Wetland 31 0.21 -4,306 -2844 33.97 -2991 30.54 -2964 31.17 -3223 25.15 -3266 24.16 -3390 21.28 -3384 21.41 -3070 28.72 -3208 25.52 -3318 22.94
Wetland 32 0.05 -1,026 -575 43.97 -610 40.59 -631 38.56 -647 36.94 -623 39.28 -639 37.74 -675 34.24 -696 32.20 -714 30.45 -736 28.27
Wetland 33 0.04 -1,272 -1273 -0.03 -1272 -0.01 -1272 0.02 -1272 0.06 -1271 0.09 -1271 0.13 -1270 0.16 -1270 0.18 -1270 0.20 -1270 0.21
Wetland 34 0.26 -7,765 -7881 -1.49 -7886 -1.56 -7891 -1.61 -7894 -1.66 -7897 -1.69 -7899 -1.72 -7901 -1.75 -7903 -1.77 -7904 -1.79 -7906 -1.81
Wetland 35 0.05 -3,675 -4193 -14.08 -4196 -14.16 -4198 -14.23 -4201 -14.29 -4202 -14.33 -4203 -14.35 -4204 -14.37 -4204 -14.37 -4203 -14.37 -4203 -14.35
Wetland 36 0.09 -229 -354 -54.67 -356 -55.23 -357 -55.70 -358 -56.09 -358 -56.40 -359 -56.65 -359 -56.83 -359 -56.95 -360 -57.03 -360 -57.06
Wetland 37 2.45 -25,016 -25466 -1.80 -25469 -1.81 -25471 -1.82 -25472 -1.82 -25472 -1.82 -25472 -1.82 -25473 -1.82 -25472 -1.82 -25472 -1.82 -25473 -1.82
Negative indicates an increase in flow to the wetland from groundwater. Positive indicates a decrease in flow to the wetland from groundwater.
36

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.I Groundwater Model Update ���
Dewatering Simulations
Model Year 6 Model Year 7 Model Year 8 Model Year 9 Model Year 10 Model Year 11 Model Year 12
Pits Dewatering E E,W, N E,W, N E,W, N W, N W, N W, N
Wetland Wetland Size Steady State Flow Percent Flow Percent Flow Percent Flow Percent Flow Percent Flow Percent Flow Percent
(Acres) Flow(ft3/d) (ft3/d) Change' (ft3/d) Change' (ft3/d) Change' (ft3/d) Change' (ft3/d) Change' (ft3/d) Change' (ft3/d) Change'
Wetland 1 0.28 -9,164 -9153 0.11 -14866 -62.22 -52227 -469.93 -6177 32.59 -45657 -398.24 -8549 6.71 -18655 -103.58
Wetland 2 0.15 -8,166 -9311 -14.01 -6373 21.96 -6378 21.89 -6403 21.59 -6435 21.20 -6407 21.54 -6409 21.52
Wetland 3 3.30 -22,780 -22272 2.23 -23447 -2.93 -22493 1.26 -22467 1.37 -22134 2.84 -22489 1.28 -22551 1.00
Wetland 4 0.66 -694 -81 88.35 0 Dry -147 78.89 -91 86.93 -263 62.07 -250 64.02 -233 66.36
Wetland 5 2.21 -14,697 -59597 -305.51 -20242 -37.73 -9268 36.94 -11771 19.91 -11959 18.63 -13980 4.88 -12550 14.61
Wetland 6 0.09 -4,118 -7067 -71.60 -13693 -232.48 -1275 69.05 -1641 60.16 -1624 60.57 -1953 52.59 -1792 56.49
Wetland 7 0.38 -10,216 -10872 -6.43 -12451 -21.88 -7928 22.39 -7884 22.83 -8223 19.51 -8543 16.37 -8594 15.88
Wetland 8 0.23 -8,112 -13123 -61.78 -17224 -112.34 -6702 17.38 -7483 7.75 -7538 7.08 -8294 -2.24 -7935 2.17
Wetland 9 0.18 -266 -266 0.15 -265 0.35 -262 1.54 -259 2.93 -260 2.30 -266 0.05 -268 -0.67
Wetland 10 0.12 -8,281 -8282 -0.01 -8281 -0.01 -8279 0.02 -8276 0.05 -8276 0.06 -8279 0.03 -8280 0.02
Wetland 11 0.04 -7,378 -7078 4.06 -5832 20.95 -6388 13.41 -6438 12.74 -6789 7.98 -7017 4.89 -7062 4.28
Wetland 12 0.06 -7,297 -7167 1.78 -6677 8.51 -6882 5.69 -6917 5.22 -7182 1.58 -7424 -1.73 -7473 -2.41
Wetland 13 0.09 -9,437 -9374 0.67 -9189 2.63 -9247 2.01 -9279 1.68 -9405 0.34 -9558 -1.28 -9591 -1.63
Wetland 14 0.39 -13,027 -13021 0.05 -13013 0.11 -13002 0.19 -13009 0.14 -13020 0.06 -13048 -0.16 -13058 -0.24
Wetland 15 0.04 -11,152 -11134 0.16 -10566 5.25 -10642 4.57 -10777 3.36 -10859 2.62 -10932 1.97 -10946 1.85
Wetland 16 0.08 -11,300 -11298 0.02 0 Dry 0 Dry 0 Dry -456 95.97 -559 95.05 -570 94.96
Wetland 17 1.13 -20,142 -20142 0.00 -20142 0.00 -20142 0.00 -20141 0.01 -20140 0.01 -20140 0.01 -20139 0.01
Wetland 18 0.01 -10 -10 -2.15 -10 0.77 -10 3.74 -9 6.54 -9 9.06 -9 11.29 -9 11.80
Wetland 19 1.04 -259 -261 -0.63 -260 -0.13 -258 0.42 -257 0.97 -256 1.45 -254 1.90 -254 2.00
Wetland 20 0.09 -4,871 -4871 0.00 -4870 0.01 -4870 0.02 -4869 0.04 -4868 0.05 -4867 0.07 -4867 0.07
Wetland 21 0.06 -4,309 -4308 0.01 -4308 0.02 -4307 0.04 -4307 0.05 -4306 0.06 -4305 0.08 -4305 0.08
Wetland 22 0.11 -13,934 -13932 0.02 -13931 0.02 -13931 0.02 -13930 0.03 -13930 0.03 -13929 0.04 -13929 0.04
Wetland 23 1.53 -29,378 -29339 0.13 -29336 0.14 -29334 0.15 -29333 0.15 -29332 0.16 -29331 0.16 -29330 0.16
Wetland 24 0.22 -361 -361 -0.02 -361 -0.01 -361 0.00 -361 0.01 -361 0.02 -361 0.02 -361 0.02
Wetland 25 6.69 -33,527 -33715 -0.56 -33711 -0.55 -33708 -0.54 -33705 -0.53 -33704 -0.53 -33702 -0.52 -33702 -0.52
Wetland 26 0.05 -1,208 -1216 -0.66 -1216 -0.64 -1216 -0.63 -1216 -0.62 -1215 -0.61 -1215 -0.61 -1215 -0.61
Wetland 27 0.16 -7,051 -7051 -0.01 -7051 -0.01 -7051 -0.01 -7052 -0.01 -7052 -0.02 -7052 -0.02 -7052 -0.02
Wetland 28 0.08 -7,836 -7836 0.01 -7836 0.01 -7051 10.02 -7052 10.01 -7835 0.01 -7837 0.00 -7837 -0.01
Wetland 29 1.38 -33,715 -33686 0.08 -33684 0.09 -33682 0.10 -33680 0.10 -33678 0.11 -33677 0.11 -33677 0.11
Wetland 30 2.68 -17,176 -17135 0.24 -17129 0.28 -17134 0.25 -17148 0.17 -17166 0.06 -17193 -0.10 -17200 -0.14
Wetland 31 0.21 -4,306 -3111 27.77 -3311 23.11 -3106 27.87 -3364 21.87 -3126 27.42 -3162 26.58 -3183 26.09
Wetland 32 0.05 -1,026 -546 46.77 -700 31.82 -641 37.50 -732 28.66 -723 29.53 -760 25.96 -772 24.78
Wetland 33 0.04 -1,272 -1270 0.21 -1270 0.15 -1272 0.06 -1273 -0.04 -1274 -0.15 -1276 -0.27 -1276 -0.30
Wetland 34 0.26 -7,765 -7911 -1.88 -7915 -1.92 -7916 -1.95 -7917 -1.96 -7918 -1.96 -7918 -1.97 -7918 -1.97
Wetland 35 0.05 -3,675 -4199 -14.23 -4192 -14.07 -4186 -13.88 -4179 -13.70 -4173 -13.53 -4167 -13.38 -4166 -13.34
Wetland 36 0.09 -229 -359 -56.91 -358 -56.48 -357 -55.91 -356 -55.31 -354 -54.72 -353 -54.16 -353 -54.03
Wetland 37 2.45 -25,016 -25473 -1.83 -25473 -1.83 -25472 -1.82 -25471 -1.82 -25471 -1.82 -25470 -1.82 -25470 -1.82
Negative indicates an increase in flow to the wetland from groundwater. Positive indicates a decrease in flow to the wetland from groundwater.
37

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.I Groundwater Model Update ���
Dewatering Simulations
This page intentionally left blank.
38

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.i Groundwater Model Update ���
Dewatering Simulations
4.4 Model-Simulated Effects to Streams
Dewatering operations can reduce the amount of groundwater contributing to stream baseflow,
while water generated during pit dewatering discharged to sediment basins can raise local
groundwater levels and increase stream baseflows. The change in baseflow was assessed by
comparing baseflow simulated in the steady-state base model with baseflows from predictive
dewatering simulations. The change in baseflow was assessed for three streams which cross
the Site (Figure 14), as follows:
• Simulated base flow changes to Beaverdam Creek ranged from a decrease of 2.5
percent in model year 1 quarter 2 when dewatering is occurring in the South Pit to an
increase of 55.7 percent in model year 7 when dewatering is occurring in the East and
West Pits. The increase in model year 7 is partially due to modeled discharge of pit
dewatering at 6 locations along Beaverdam Creek and Little Beaverdam Creek, as
shown on Figure 1. Note, the discharge locations will be subject to National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting.
• A small tributary to Beaverdam Creek crosses between the West Pit and the North Pit.
No discharge to the stream will occur as it passes between the pits when they are
dewatered. Water from upstream of the pits was added to the flow budget for
Beaverdam Creek. The baseflow of Little Beaverdam Creek exhibited baseflow changes
ranging from a decrease of 0.6 percent in model year 4 quarter 2 when dewatering is
occurring in the East Pit and model year 8 when dewatering is occurring in the West Pit
to an increase of 3.2 percent in model year 2 quarter 3 when dewatering is occurring in
the South Pit and East Pit, and is discharged at locations on both sides of the Little
Beaverdam Creek above the confluence and one location east of Beaverdam Creek just
below the confluence.
• Simulated baseflow changes in an unnamed tributary ranged from an increase of 0.2
percent in beginning model year 1 quarter 1 when dewatering begins in the South Pit to
an increase of 0.8 percent in model years 5, 7, 10, and 11 when dewatering discharge
occurs at multiple locations along Beaverdam Creek and Little Beaverdam Creek
upstream of the tributary. Model simulated changes in stream base flow are shown in
Table 19.
Table 19. Changes in Base Flow to Streams Crossing the Site
Beaverdam Creek Little Beaverdam Beaverdam Creek Unnamed Tributary
Above Confluence' Creek Below Confluence'
Model Year- Flow Percent Flow Percent Flow Percent Flow Percent
Quarter (Ft3/d) Change (Ft3/d) Change (Ft3/d) Change (Ft3/d) Change
Steady State 376,573 - 403,444 - 65,738 - 206,635 -
1-1 371,781 -1.3 407,005 0.9 65,759 0.0 207,060 0.2
1-2 367,284 -2.5 408,699 1.3 65,732 0.0 207,075 0.2
1-3 369,598 -1.9 407,432 1.0 65,707 0.0 207,110 0.2
1-4 370,268 -1.7 408,345 1.2 65,714 0.0 207,169 0.3
39

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.I Groundwater Model Update ���
Dewatering Simulations
Beaverdam Creek Little Beaverdam Beaverdam Creek Unnamed Tributary
Above Confluence' Creek Below Confluence'
Model Year- Flow Percent Flow Percent Flow Percent Flow Percent
Quarter (Ft3/d) Change (Ft3/d) Change (Ft3/d) Change (Ft3/d) Change
2-1 371,789 -1.3 408,536 1.3 65,718 0.0 207,249 0.3
2-2 372,803 -1.0 409,589 1.5 65,726 0.0 207,342 0.3
2-3 372,962 -1.0 416,290 3.2 65,722 0.0 207,443 0.4
2-4 373,341 -0.9 409,706 1.6 65,738 0.0 207,542 0.4
3-1 372,636 -1.0 407,906 1.1 65,820 0.1 207,637 0.5
3-2 372,857 -1.0 411,576 2.0 65,693 -0.1 207,727 0.5
3-3 373,125 -0.9 409,730 1.6 65,726 0.0 207,812 0.6
3-4 373,373 -0.8 404,612 0.3 65,806 0.1 207,887 0.6
4-1 373,332 -0.9 403,608 0.0 65,707 0.0 207,953 0.6
4-2 373,530 -0.8 401,150 -0.6 66,848 1.7 208,012 0.7
4-3 373,591 -0.8 409,820 1.6 65,632 -0.2 208,063 0.7
4-4 373,725 -0.8 407,399 1.0 65,683 -0.1 208,107 0.7
5-1 373,925 -0.7 415,853 3.1 65,571 -0.3 208,143 0.7
5-2 374,034 -0.7 415,453 3.0 65,580 -0.2 208,174 0.7
5-3 374,179 -0.6 406,835 0.8 65,842 0.2 208,198 0.8
5-4 374,219 -0.6 408,848 1.3 65,587 -0.2 208,218 0.8
6 374,615 -0.5 404,180 0.2 66,069 0.5 207,840 0.6
7 371,208 -1.4 406,869 0.8 102,328 55.7 208,292 0.8
8 368,631 -2.1 401,207 -0.6 81,828 13.2 208,255 0.8
9 383,724 1.9 401,692 -0.4 73,468 -1.7 208,222 0.8
10 382,392 1.5 401,624 -0.5 85,431 0.04 208,221 0.8
11 392,680 4.3 402,046 -0.3 83,885 11.7 208,186 0.8
122 382,400 15 401,781 -0.4 83,063 10.3 208,176 0.7
Confluence is with Little Beaverdam Creek.
2 Model year 12 was 90 days in length.
3 Positive value indicates an increase in base flow,and negative value indicates a decrease in base flow.
Water lost from stream baseflow by dewatering operations is returned to the streams. Water
pumped from the pits is released to sediment basins at the discharge locations shown in
Figure 1. Water flows from the sediment basins back into the streams or percolates to
groundwater.
40

A.
�C r ee-f i -n
cQ -
Jetda°Gee
vry Crouse Crouse CD 0e' k
E01I — —
Robe �CR� Sourf c s:Esri, HERE,Garmin,
r aston-Weber G ZGEBCO,
ntermap, increment P CorP?"� 1
USGS, FAO,NPS,
13 n �,� '5'z dam NRCAN,GeoBase, IGN,
Cr F
West North
o\��o LEGEND
le c he d
il
0. a ` C Got aClu v�0 ` 0 Domain
ry - Mine Permit Boundary
St� �� � Planned Pits
E.Church' oy R�
Total Flow Measurements
Ville E n unheam f), Beaverdam Creek Above Confluence (NHD)
Rd v B South Beaverdam Creek Below Confluence(NHD)
•,.i��� Little Beaverdam Creek(NHD)
Unnamed Tributary(NHD)
East
DATA SOURCES:State Plane Coordinate System,
y�i oC Zone:North Carolina(PIPS 3200)NAD 1983 2011,feet
CnG�� r O,�Ii
�P as'Cherryv
LOCATION OF STREAM REACHES
�.a o
N
<Q'1'O0
2 MILES
\ 01
n \ Sources: Esri, HERE,Garmin, Intermap,incremeht P Corp.,GEBCO, PIEDMONT
E DMON T
i�er Rd USGS, FAO,NPS,NRCAN,GeoBase, IGN,Kadaster NL,Ordnance LIT41UM
Survey, Esri Japan, METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),(c)OpenStreetMap
contributors,and the GIS,User Community FIGURE 14
PATH:IICLTSMAINIGIS DATAIGISIPROJECTSI71135 PIEDMONTLITHIUM110263685 PLI INTEGRATED PROJECTM2 WORK IN PROGRESSIMAP DOCSIM%DITASK21 AOTEST GWUPDATEWIGURM14 LOCATION OF STREAM REACHES.MXD-USER:KTHAMES-DATE:11I16=3

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.I Groundwater Model Update ���
Model Limitations
5 Model Limitations
Groundwater flow models are generalizations of complex groundwater flow systems that cannot
be reasonably simulated without extensive data, detailed inputs, and large computational
requirements. The complexity is contained in the generalization, but local effects may influence
real world outcomes. Other limitations of the groundwater model of the Site are described as
followed:
• Subsurface conditions are varied and complex. The model simulates fractured bedrock,
a highly complex network of conduits that as a whole can act like a porous media, but
on smaller scales can become almost independent systems. For example, an
unexpected amount of water could be produced where a large undetected fracture
intersects both a stream and a newly excavated pit. The current model cannot predict
such an outcome.
• The water budget is largely based on a study done in the adjacent Indian Creek
watershed. It is possible that conditions either in the subsurface or climatologically could
be different between the two watersheds, resulting in differing amounts of water being
available, thus causing some uncertainty in the overall water balance. Note the model
does not simulate evapotranspiration, which can significantly reduce stream flows
during certain times of the year.
42

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.i Groundwater Model Update ���
Summary and Conclusions
6 Summary and Conclusions
Transient groundwater flow modeling with TVMs was used to estimate groundwater withdrawal
rates required to dewater four planned mine pits and evaluate potential effects of dewatering on
adjacent water resources. The transient groundwater model was developed from the associated
calibrated steady-state model representing natural conditions. The 20-layer model was based
on previous models (HDR 2019; HDR 2021), site specific resource and hydrogeologic
investigations, and mine plan designs. Heads measured in on-site monitoring wells, on-site
stream flow readings, and published data were used to calibrate the natural conditions model.
• Model predicted dewatering rates range from 97 gpm during South Pit dewatering
operations to 841 gpm when dewatering is occurring in the East Pit and West Pit.
• Predicted drawdown in wells within the site boundary ranged from 0 to 5.9 feet. Model-
predicted drawdown in wells beyond the site boundary ranged from 0 to 0.9 feet. The
well at 210 Hastings Road lies within the footprint of East Pit requiring removal of the
well. Mathematical calculations indicate a larger cone of depression from pumping, but
do not account for inevitable recharge from surface water and groundwater outside of
the radius of influence, recharge from precipitation, or the heterogeneous nature of
fractured rock. Thus, the 3-D groundwater flow model presented herein is understood to
more accurately simulate potential drawdown when compared to the mathematical
calculations.
• Wetland 4 and Wetland 16 were affected during dewatering operations in the East Pit
and West Pit. Model predicted flows to Wetland 4 are reduced between model years 3
through 9 with Wetland 4 drying up in model year 7. Wetland 16 is predicted to dry up in
model year 7, but returns with reduced flow in year 10. Many wetlands benefit from the
release of pit dewatering discharge to sediment basins.
• Model predicted changes in baseflow in the three streams crossing the Site range from a
decrease of 2.5 percent to an increase of 55.7 percent. The greatest simulated increase
in baseflow occurs in Beaverdam Creek below the confluence with Little Beaverdam
Creek when dewatering is occurring in the East Pit and West Pit, and dewatering
discharge is released to sediment basins at 6 locations along Beaverdam Creek and
Little Beaverdam Creek.
43

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.I Groundwater Model Update ���
References
7 References
Aquaveo, 2021, Groundwater Modeling System (GMS).
Cooper, H.H., Jacob, C.E., 1946, A generalized graphical method for evaluating formation
constants and summarizing well-field history. Transactions, American Geophysical
Union. V. 27, p. 526-534.
Harbaugh, A.W., 2005, MODFLOW-2005, The U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water
model—the Ground-Water Flow Process: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and
Methods 6- Al 6, variously p.
HDR, 2019, Groundwater Model. Prepared for Piedmont Lithium Carolinas, Inc., July.
HDR, 2021, Groundwater Model. Prepared for Piedmont Lithium Carolinas, Inc., August.
Merrick, D., 2018. Time-Variant Materials Package, https://github.com/MODFLOW-
USGS/modflow6/files/3316442/TVM.v2 TransientTransport.pdf.
Niswonger, R.G., Panday, Sorab, and Ibaraki, Motomu, 2011, MODFLOW-NWT, A Newton
formulation for MODFLOW-2005: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 6—
A37, 44 p.
Panday, Sorab, Langevin, C.D., Niswonger, R.G., Ibaraki, Motomu, and Hughes, J.D., 2013,
MODFLOW—USG version 1: An unstructured grid version of MODFLOW for simulating
groundwater flow and tightly coupled processes using a control volume finite-difference
formulation: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 6, chap. A45, 66 p.
Panday, S., 2018; USG-Transport Version 1.2.1: The Block-Centered Transport Process for
MODFLOW-USG, GSI Environmental, http:// http://www.gsi-net.com/en/software/free-
software/USG-Transport.html
Theis, C.V., 1935, The lowering of the piezometer surface and the rate and discharge of a well
using ground-water storage. Transactions, American Geophysical Union. V.16, p. 519-
524.
United States Bureau, 1995, Ground Water Manual. A Water Resources Technical Publication,
Second Edition, 695 p. GndWater.pdf(usbr.gov)
Walton, W.C., 1962, Selected analytical methods for well and aquifer evaluation. Illinois State
Water Survey, Urbana, 91 p.
44

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc. I Groundwater Model Update
Appendix A—Water Supply Well Mitigation Plan
Appendix A — Water Supply
Well Mitigation Plan

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.I Groundwater Model Update ���
Appendix A—Water Supply Well Mitigation Plan
This page intentionally left blank.

Water Supply Well
Mitigation Plan
Carolina Lithium Project
Gaston County, North Carolina
November 16, 2023

This page intentionally left blank.

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc. I Water Supply Well Mitigation Plan ���
Contents
Contents
1 Introduction............................................................................................................................1
2 Water Well Inventory .............................................................................................................1
3 Voluntary Monitoring..............................................................................................................2
4 Response Plan ......................................................................................................................3
Figures
Figure 1. Mine Permit Boundary and Documented/Possible Domestic Water Supply Wells........9
Figure 2. Proposed Monitoring Wells..........................................................................................11
Figure 3. Modeled Potential Drawdown during Dewatering —Year 2 .........................................13
Figure 4. Modeled Potential Drawdown during Dewatering —Year 6 .........................................14
Figure 5. Modeled Potential Drawdown during Dewatering —Year 8 .........................................15
Figure 6. Modeled Potential Drawdown during Dewatering —Year 12 .......................................16
Tables
Table 1. Well Construction Details for Private Wells Registered with Gaston County..................5
Table 2. Summary of Well Construction Details ...........................................................................7
Attachments
Attachment A— Gaston ia-CherryviIle Water Interconnection Study

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc. I Water Supply Well Mitigation Plan ���
Contents
This page intentionally left blank.

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc. I Water Supply Well Mitigation Plan ���
Introduction
1 Introduction
Piedmont Lithium Carolinas, Inc. (PLCI) is proposing to construct an open pit mine in the
Carolina Tin-Spodumene Belt (TSB) of North Carolina where lithium-bearing pegmatites have
been identified. The Concentrate Operations and the Lithium Hydroxide Conversion Plant (the
Site) is in the TSB of the Piedmont physiographic province in south-central North Carolina. The
approximately 1,548-acre Site is in an unincorporated area of Gaston County, on private land
surrounding portions of Hephzibah Church Road, Whitesides Road, and St. Mark's Church
Road, approximately one mile east of Cherryville, North Carolina.
The overall Concentrate Operations are composed of three components: the Piedmont Lithium
Carolinas Mine #1, a Concentrate Plant, and an Industrial Minerals Plant. The Piedmont Lithium
Carolinas Mine #1 will consist of four open pits of varying sizes, a waste rock stockpile area,
topsoil stockpiles areas, haul roads, and other mine support areas. Mining will occur through
open pit excavations which will require dewatering. On behalf of PLCI, HDR Engineering, Inc. of
the Carolinas (HDR) performed groundwater modeling to estimate the rate of water withdrawal
during pit dewatering and evaluate possible effects pit dewatering may have on local water
resources and water users. The base groundwater model was developed by HDR for PLCI and
documented in a Technical Memorandum Groundwater Model dated July 2, 2019 (HDR, 2019).
HDR subsequently updated the model in 2021 to a transient model to better evaluate potential
pumping effects with more than one pit in operation at a time and in 2023 to incorporate
additional hydrogeologic data obtained via an aquifer pumping test near the planned East Pit.
The results of the updated modeling were presented in technical memorandums dated August
27, 2021 and February 24, 2023, respectively.
Results of modeling indicate that dewatering, as currently proposed, may result in localized
lowering of the groundwater potentiometric surface in areas north of the North Pit, east of the
East Pit, and south of the South and East Pits. Based on data obtained from Gaston County,
private water supply wells registered with the County may be located in each area potentially
affected by mine dewatering.
Thus, PLCI has developed this Water Supply Well Mitigation Plan (Mitigation Plan) to provide
details regarding PLCI's commitment to take action if an off-site supply well is adversely
impacted due to declining groundwater levels resulting from mine operations. Adverse water
level declines are those that impact the usefulness of the well to provide water. A small water
level decline will not adversely impact the vast majority of wells. Strategies for mitigating the
effects of mine dewatering on surface and groundwater resources may be collectively or
individually administered for the protection of existing water supply wells.
2 Water Well Inventory
In 2018, HDR contacted the Gaston County Environmental Health Department to request
records of private water supply wells in the vicinity of the mine permit boundary. The County
provided spatial data for 15 private wells registered with the County; however, PLCI suspects
that additional private supply wells exist in the area based on the current lack of access to a
1

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc. I Water Supply Well Mitigation Plan ���
Voluntary Monitoring
municipal water supply. Additional wells were noted in field surveys conducted by Deep Earth
Logic in 2019 and 2020 within a 1,500-foot radius of the proposed open pit areas of the Site for
which property owner participation was voluntary; thus, wells noted during this survey were
located only with property owner permission. For the purpose of groundwater modeling, HDR
used locations and well construction data provided by the County for registered wells, and
added possible domestic wells observed during field surveys to evaluate potential effects of
drawdown resulting from dewatering activities. Well construction details for the 15 wells
registered with the County are provided in Table 1 and known or suspected well locations are
shown on Figure 1.
It is our understanding that the County plans to conduct a comprehensive water well inventory in
the vicinity of the proposed mine. PLCI will review and incorporate data obtained by the County
into well mitigation plans, as applicable upon completion of the inventory.
3 Voluntary Monitoring
As part of the August 30, 2021 Mining Permit Application submitted by PLCI to the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land
Resources (DEMLR), PLCI identified 18 locations around the perimeter of the mine pits to
monitor groundwater levels and quality in the surficial and bedrock aquifer systems. Subsequent
to review of the Mine Permit Application by the NCDEQ Division of Water Resources —
Groundwater Management Branch, PLCI proposed 10 additional well locations (for a total of 28
well locations) based on perceived spatial gaps in the originally proposed monitoring network
(ADI #1, Appendix J, dated December 17, 2021). Upon review of the previously proposed well
locations, in response to ADI #2 and #3, and in consideration of the waste rock pile area, five
additional well locations (for a total of 32 well locations) were added to the proposed monitoring
network, as shown on Figure 2.
Well locations were selected based on permitted area, planned pit extents, proximity to known
or suspected residential water supply wells, and frequency of coverage. Shallow, deep, or
paired shallow and deep wells are proposed at locations to align with anticipated extent of
drawdown estimated by the three-dimensional groundwater flow modeling. Proposed well
construction details were estimated using Iithologic and hydrogeologic data previously obtained
during resource drilling, geotechnical drilling, and hydrogeologic investigations. Note that final
well construction details will vary depending on site-specific geology.
In general, HDR used surveyed elevations or approximate elevations from 2-foot topographic
mapping to establish an estimated ground surface elevation at each proposed well location.
Casing depth for deep wells and termination depth for shallow wells were estimated using
bedrock depth from the nearest previous investigation boring(s). Total wells depths for deep
wells were set to the total planned depth of the pit nearest a given well. Please refer to Table 2
for proposed well construction details.
Water levels in monitoring wells will be monitored monthly to evaluate potential water level
decrease, as a result of dewatering. Monthly water level measurements in these wells shall be
used to document the impact of groundwater withdrawals on groundwater levels through time.
2

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc. I Water Supply Well Mitigation Plan ���
Response Plan
Graphs of these water level changes shall be used by PLCI and NCDEQ to evaluate if
groundwater withdrawals are the cause of problems that may arise in residential wells beyond
the permitted mine boundary, such that PLCI will implement the Response Plan detailed below
in a manner designed to mitigate impacts.
4 Response Plan
The groundwater modeling completed for the Project provides estimates of drawdown resulting
from dewatering through the life of the mine, and potential effects to residential water supply
wells may be predicted based on the model results (Figure 3 through Figure 6). While effects to
these wells are expected to be minimal, PLCI has developed the following response plan for
evaluation and mitigation of groundwater well effects that may require action. Note that an
actionable effect on a residential water supply well is considered to be an impact that results in
an inability of the well to produce an amount of water similar to pre-mining conditions in the
existing well using the existing well pump.
If an actionable effect occurs in a residential water supply well, the well owner should notify
PLCI of the water supply well issue. In lieu of notifying PLCI, the well owner may also notify the
NCDEQ DEMLR Mining Program at [phone]. PLCI will work with the well owner to
provide bottled water for consumption within 8 hours of a reported actionable effect.
Subsequent to notification, PLCI will work with DEMLR to conduct an assessment evaluate
whether or not the water supply well in question has failed due to a decline in groundwater level
caused by, or a direct result of, mining activities or dewatering of a pit. The proposed
procedures to address an inquiry are outlined below. PLCI and DEMLR shall:
1. Compare the well location to the location of ongoing mining activities and to predicted
groundwater level drawdown contours from the groundwater model, as well as
comparison to groundwater levels in nearby monitoring wells (Figure 2).
2. Conduct an investigation by a licensed well repair/installation specialist to evaluate the
condition of the water supply well to determine the cause of failure, and to document the
water level.
If a determination is made by PLCI and/or NCDEQ that the water supply well in question has
failed due to mechanical reasons not related to drawdown from dewatering activities, the
procedures outlined in this Mitigation Plan will not be applicable. The property owner will be
notified of the findings of this determination and will be responsible for any necessary repairs.
If a determination is made by PLCI and/or NCDEQ that the water supply well in question has
been affected by dewatering activities, and that the decline will result in an inability of the
existing well and pump to produce an amount of water similar to pre-mining conditions, PLCI will
initiate the following mitigation plan in successive order.
1. Where municipal water service has been brought to a practical distance from the
affected property, PLCI may assist the affected resident with connection to municipal
water supply. PLCI will pay for the cost of connection; however, ongoing utility expense
will be the responsibility of the affected property owner. PLCI is currently working with
3

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc. I Water Supply Well Mitigation Plan ���
Response Plan
local municipalities to evaluate options for bringing municipal water to the area
(Attachment A). The outcome of that study is pending. If a private well is affected by the
mining operation prior to availability of municipal water, PLCI will implement options 2
and/or 4, on a case-by-case basis and at their discretion.
2. Where municipal water service is not within a practical distance of the affected property,
PLCI may commission the licensed well repair/installation specialist to rehabilitate or
repair the existing well equipment, install a new well pump, or install a deeper residential
water supply well for normal household use. The selected option must be capable of
meeting the minimum volume used or needed by the property owner before the
disruption of water supply occurred.
3. If a deeper residential water supply well will not yield a reliable source of water, PLCI
may either:
a. Continue to work with municipal water providers to extend water service to the
area; or,
b. Negotiate in good faith to acquire the affected property.
4. Depending on the time required to mitigate the affected water supply concern, PLCI may
provide a short-term water supply replacement for potable/consumable purposes by the
user(s) of the affected well. Short-term water supply will be in the form of a clean water
tank or container that is refilled, as necessary, by delivery truck or some other means
(e.g. bottled water) and must be provided by a licensed water distributor.
The activities required to fulfill the requirements of mitigation will be completed at PLCI's
expense and PLCI will determine the outside vendors to be used for these tasks. This Mitigation
Plan relies on the use of qualified outside vendors to satisfy the needs of a temporary water
supply and to develop a permanent water source. As licensed reputable companies, they are
expected to accomplish and carry out their assigned duties in a manner that ensures that all
work is completed within a predetermined time period, as shown in the table below. If for any
reason, this work is not completed to an acceptable level of quality and/or within the time frame
agreed upon by all parties, the outside vendor will be replaced by another company designated
by PLCI. Once all activities have been completed and owner is satisfied with the outcome of the
mitigation, PLCI will notify NCDEQ that the complaint is resolved.
PLCI Response Plan
Mitigation Mitigation Measure Maximum Response
Step Timeframe (once notified)
1 Notification of Well Owner Concern to PLCI and DEMLR 24 hours
2 Interim Mitigation Provided to Potentially Affected Well 48 hours
Owner(e.g., provision of bottled water, water tank)
3 PLCl/DEMLR Assessment of Well Owner Concerns 7 days
4 New Supply Well Installation* 45 days
5 Connection to Municipal Water Line* 45 days
6 Notification of Completion of Mitigation 24 hours
* Results of PLCl/DEMLR assessment will determine the most appropriate permanent mitigation measure(s)on a
case-by-case basis, and as mitigation measures are available.
4

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc. I Water Supply Well Mitigation Plan ���
Response Plan
Table 1.Well Construction Details for Private Wells Registered with Gaston County
Well Owner Address* Latitude Longitude Construction Installation Well Well Total Static Well
Date Method Diameter Casing Well Water Yield
(in) Depth Depth Level (ft) (gpm)
(ft) (ft)
Denton,Anna Gail 921 Whitesides Rd.* 35.3933 -81.297682 1991 Drilled 6.25 70 150 30 8
Hastings, Calvin R. 210 Hastings Rd.* 35.379616 -81.282877 2017 Bored 24 50 50 25 10
and Terresa M.
Hyleman, Marvid D. 732 Whiteside Rd. 35.385206 -81.298376 1992 Drilled 6.25 125 166 20 25
and Cynthia M.
Jarrett, Brian Frank 1121 Hephzibah Church 35.394472 -81.292983 1995 Drilled 6.25 101 300 40 3
Rd.*
Knowles, Patrician 1029 Hephzibah Church 35.397076 -81.29344 1901 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
and Dallas Rd.*
Knowles, Doug 1021 Hephzibah Church 35.397794 -81.295147 1994 Bored 24 45 45 35 3
Rd.*
Leonhardt,Timothy 129 George Payseur 35.380405 -81.295369 1971 Bored 24 63 63 33 4
Dale Rd.
Locke, Bill 534 Whitesides Rd. 35.377052 -81.295019 1998 Drilled 6.25 30 550 40 4
35.377052 -81.295019 Unknown Drilled 6.25 69 690 Unknown 150
Lovelace, Freddie and 633 Aderholdt Rd. 35.391994 -81.279303 1999 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
Hal
Mauney, Ronald Jame 663 Aderholdt Rd. 35.393967 -81.27992 1996 Drilled 6.25 62 105 40 20
McLamb, Ransom W. 1523 R W McLamb Dr.* 35.386299 -81.296342 1998 Drilled 6.25 115 185 15 20
and Wendi S.
Payne,William E. 901 Whitesides Rd.* 35.393774 -81.299542 2012 Bored 24 56 56 25 5
Reynolds, Paul David 1266 Hephzibah Church 35.387603 -81.286978 2002 Drilled 6.25 126 300 Unknown 30
Rd.*
Starks, Paul 819 Whitesides Rd.* 35.389721 -81.299089 1998 Drilled 6.25 41 180 34 25
*Denotes wells that are located within the proposed Mine Boundary and would not be used as a drinking water source.
5

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc. I Water Supply Well Mitigation Plan ���
Response Plan
This page intentionally left blank.
6

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc.i Water Supply Well Mitigation Plan ���
Response Plan
Table 2.Summary of Well Construction Details
Well ID Latitude Longitude Monitoring Location Well Estimated Estimated Pit Total Proposed Depth (ft Proposed Screen Proposed Casing
Diameter Ground Surface Depth (elev.) bgs) Interval (ft bgs) Interval (ft bgs)
(inches) Elevation (ft)
35.3759922252 -81.2868538984 East Pit 6 865 591 AM 0 - 50
OB-1S *35.3759922252 *-81.2868538984 East Pit 2 865 274 50 20 -50 N/A
013-213 35.375012411W -81.2839367467 East Pit 6 888 274 614 N/A 0-50
013-2S *35.3750124116 *-81.2839367467 East Pit 2 888 274 50 20 - 50 N/A
D 35.37634184 .2816097594 IMit 6 J 274 0-50
013-3S *35.3763418443 *-81.2816097594 East Pit 2 893 274 50 20-50 N/A
013-413 .37809309 -81.2807777534 6 0-40
OB-4S *35.3780930986 *-81.2807777534 East Pit 2 846 274 50 10-40 N/A
�013-513V' 35.3802513731 -81.2805934159 East Pit 6 0 - 50
OB-5S *35.3802513731 *-81.2805934159 East Pit 2 842 274 50 20-50 N/A
013-61) 35.3838302545 -81.2798773941 0-50
OB-6S *35.3838302545 *-81.2798773941 East Pit 2 841 274 50 20-50 N/A
86630 2779332896 6
013-813 35.3888242541 -81.2782023922 East Pit 6 764 274 490 N/A 0-25
35.3924340059 -81.2787242518 North Permit� 6
013-9S *35.3924340053 *-81.2787242518 North Permit Boundary 2 774 348 35 5-35 N/A
013-10D 35.3957227943 -81.2833669075 h P 6 814 348 466 N/A 0-20
013-10S *35.3957227943 *-81.2833669075 North Pit 2 814 348 20 5-20 N/A
35.397352M -81.2854986082 6 529 �N/A jjjjK _ 0-20
OB-11 S 35.3973522170 -81.2854986082 North Pit 2 877 348 20 5-20 N/A
35.399082611�*-81.292376679-y North Permit Boundary 6 0 - 65
OB-13D 35.4028488868 -81.2960179669 North Permit Boundary 6 893 348 545 N/A 0 - 65
OB-14D 35.3944339336 -81.2903694800 West Pit 6 312 0 - 50
OB-14S *35.3944339336 *-81.2903694800 West Pit 2 840 312 50 20-50 N/A
OB-15D X. 35.3932404266_& -81.2921713357M West Pit V 6 OJMJQLO
OB-15S *35.3932404266 *-81.2921713357 West Pit 2 868 312 100 70- 100 N/A
3980612444 -81.2974564467 North Permit Boundary 6 N/A
OB-17D 35.3955396286 -81.3018636516 North Permit Boundary 6 820 312 508 N/A 0-70
35.3930929623 -81.3074757074 �aste Ro 6 , N/A
013-18S *35.3930929623 *-81.3074757074 Waste Rock Pile 2 820 312 70 40 - 70 N/A
- OBM 35.399110286& -81.3207376669 6 857 N/A
OB-20D 35.3909855318 -81.3193707143 West Permit Boundary 6 862 312 550 N/A 0-30
35.38591 1.31366 Waste Rock 6 N/A
OB-21S *35.385913 *-81.313661 Waste Rock Pile 2 880 546 95 65-95 N/A
35.3883028995 -81.3022052854 Waste Rock Pile 0'W- M

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc. I Water Supply Well Mitigation Plan ���
Response Plan
Well ID Latitude Longitude Monitoring Location Well Estimated Estimated Pit Total Proposed Depth (ft Proposed Screen Proposed Casing
Diameter Ground Surface Depth (elev.) bgs) Interval (ft bgs) Interval (ft bgs)
(inches) Elevation (ft)
OB-22S *35.3883028995 *-81.3022052854 Waste Rock Pile 2 837 546 120 90- 120 N/A
OB-23D 35.3903535620 -81.2990027401 West Pit/Waste Rock Pile 6 809 312 497 N/A 0 - 75
OB-23S *35.3903535620 *-81.2990027401 West Pit/Waste Rock Pile 2 809 312 75 45 - 75 N/A
OB-24D 35.3870725608 -81.2973172744 South Pit 6 796 546 250 N/A 0 - 30
OB-24S *35.3870725608 *-81.2973172744 South Pit 2 796 546 30 5-30 N/A
OB-25D 35.3850368692 -81.2961183280 South Pit 6 854 546 308 N/A 0 - 30
OB-26D 35.3823214791 -81.2923526916 South Pit 6 808 546 262 N/A 0 - 30
OB-26S *35.3823214791 *-81.2923526916 South Pit 2 808 546 30 5- 30 N/A
OB-27D 35.3797115388 -81.2887902406 East Pit 6 870 274 596 N/A 0 - 50
OB-27S *35.3797115388 *-81.2887902406 East Pit 2 870 274 50 20 - 50 N/A
OB-28D 35.3784008221 -81.2881935094 East Pit 6 878 274 604 N/A 0 - 50
OB-29S 35.3888911103 -81.3122205484 Waste Rock Pile 2 858 312 98 68 - 98 N/A
OB-30S 35.391671 -81.310409 Waste Rock Pile 2 802 312 30 5- 30 N/A
OB-31S 35.39208 -81.303207 Waste Rock Pile 2 830 312 60 30 - 60 N/A
OB-32S 35.3856 -81.30704 Waste Rock Pile 2 852 546 144 114 N/A
Notes:
1.ft.-feet
2. bgs-below ground surface
3. elev. =elevation above mean sea level
4. D =deep(bedrock)well; S =shallow(overburden)well
5. N/A-not applicable
6. *-Used known proposed deep well latitude and longitude for proposed paired shallow wells.
7.All well construction details are proposed and will be finalized based on site-specific geologic and hydrogeologic conditions.
8. Shallow well screen intervals are estimated and will be finalized in the field using field measured depth to water.
9. Details from historic borings located in the vicinity of the proposed wells were used to calculate bottom screen depths and proposed casing intervals.
8

�1 ---- -
Vr
Figure 1
ources: Esri, HERE,Garmin',
Intermap, increment P Corp.,
GEBCO, USGS, FAO,NPS,
1021 He zibah C ch Rd NRCAN,GeoBase, IGN,
®1029 ephz ah urch Rd
LEGEND
North Model Domain
901 Whi i d 663 Aderholdt
® 9 esi s (9 = Mine Permit Boundary
�7 3 Aderholdt Rd ® Receptor Wells
% West ® Possible Domestic Well
19 White
moo` r/7A Planned Pits
Apo 66 He r Rd Dewatering Discharge Locations
7 s'
South
East DATA SOURCES:State Plane Coordinate System,
S4j�/k v Zone:North Carolina(FIPS 3200)NAD 19832011,feet
>n
eew R 129 Ge e
am Rd Gr po r
® H tings R®
Little 13eat,.. <eev.
53�Wti9{esides Rd534 Whiteside SITE MAP
O 0 0.5 1
MILES
Sources: Esri, HERE,Garmin, Intermap,increment P Corp.,GEBCO, PIEDMONT
01
USGS, FAO,NPS,NRCAN,GeoBase, IGN,Kadaster NL;Ordnance LIT 6I u16
Survey, Esri Japan, METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),(c)OpenStreetMap
contributors,and the GIS User Community ?' FIGURE 1
PATH:\\CLTSMAWGIS DATAIGIS\PROJECTS\71135 PIEDMONTLITHIUM110263685 PLI INTEGRATED PROJECTM2 WORK IN PROGRESS\MAP DOCSIM%DITASK21 AOTEST GWUPDATES\FIGURESISITE AND RECEPTOR WELL LOCATION.M%D-USER:KTHAMES-DATE:1111S12023

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc. I Water Supply Well Mitigation Plan ���
Response Plan
This page intentionally left blank.
10

~ `SMeAR�ama�lii `�� �g _ �� �Id.(I'���� • � ,± .�" • y � .
TillNephzibah Church Rd o D y
�• � c � � /,.."'• 1 •yePh�ah Church Rd * �. .
tT
f '�• �� • ``fee
r - • • : D ♦�♦��♦
�� '� • ' '. Gov"- ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦�-
a a •: ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦N
•: fin! _,.:�'�• ��♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦'♦\ ��♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦�♦�,
• Q ®♦♦♦� 1♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦� i♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦��♦♦
Anthony drove ��♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦� ��♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦II
Rd • - • : D r♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦� ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
t ly�. '' CarPe Rd J r '��♦♦0 : .D ♦♦♦♦♦♦,.'�♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦��•
Sunbeam Farm ad cu' ' niers.59VareCh
♦,♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦
t a► off` �- - - - ♦♦♦ ♦♦♦�►♦♦♦♦♦♦♦�♦
jr
o - ♦.T ♦ ♦♦♦�I -
♦♦ ♦OR
♦♦♦1
• 7 a t �:�♦♦♦♦♦p♦♦♦♦♦♦All
♦♦♦� • . D • .
MaUneh'he R a 'Fo`i pair `•���♦♦♦.' a♦IUD•
• -• • • d. v4SP� •. _
♦�♦�♦�♦�� a a► J• +l Ui i'• ;� k-dy�rl
• ` � tea/
o`' e
64 •

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc. I Water Supply Well Mitigation Plan ���
Response Plan
This page intentionally left blank.
12

• A p3Jeldam CreeX
North dl.
Figure- p
v West Sources Esri, HERE,Garmin,
Intermap, increment P Corp:;
GEBCO, USGS, FAO,NPS,
F NRCAN,GeoBase, IGN,
LEGEND
Q Domain Drawdown(ft) —12
Q Mine Permit Boundary —0 —13
/ z' Planned Pits —1 —14
South Receptor Wells —2 —16
Carpenters`->`1`u I�hi : ✓y East 1 Possible Domestic Well _4 1
G�a,c oat —1/ O Delineated Streams _ — 8
5
0 Delineated Wetlands _19
Oft-1 ft Drawdown —7 —20
/
® ' O —8 —21
—22
—9
—10 —23
'hln Rb Ut le Beaver eek / —11 —24
c
, O
Zone:North Carolina(FIPS 3200)NAD 1983 2011,feet
DATA SOURCES:State Plane Coordinate System,
The model portrays potential limited effects of pumping in the area between the
w55° 0-foot and 1-foot drawdown contours that extend greater than one mile from the
�11 n permit boundary.However,other hard rock mine sites within the Piedmont of
North Carolina typically show a maximum cone of depression of approximately
O 2,500 to 3,000 feet from the point of groundwater withdrawal.
MODEL PREDICTED DRAWDOWN
FROM DEWATERING YEAR 2
QUARTER 3
N
�a
dip. o Rayfx:ld r'I ,� �yR
0 0.25 0.5
MILES
s
yak kin CI ���
\1�°e`�d Sources: Esri, HERE,Garmin, Intermap,increment P Corp.,GEBCO, PIEDMONT
V 0SGS, FAO,NPS,NRCAN,GeoBase,IGN,Kadaster NL,Ordnance LITHi+1M
Survey, Esri Japan, METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),(c)OpenStreetMap
°albs con'trib�utors,aufthe GIS User Community FIGURE 3
rn -CrrYvr!
PATH:\\CLTSMAIN\GIS DATAKHMPROJECTSM135 PIEDMONTLITHIUM110283885 PLI INTEGRATED PROJECTI7.2 WORK IN PROGRESS\MAP DOCSWXDITASK21 AQTEST GWUPDATESTIGURESIORAWDOWN V2 QT3 REDO.MXD-USER:KTHAMES-DATE:11/1 512 0 2 3

® A PaVeldom CrpeX
North dl.
Figure A p
West Sources Esri, HERE,Garm in,
Intermap, increment P Corp."
GEBCO, USGS, FAO,NPS,
NRCAN,GeoBase, IGN,
LEGEND
b Q Domain Drawdown(ft)—12
Mine Permit Boundary —0 —13
® ®Planned Pits —1 —14
South Receptor Wells —2 —15
East
�r, ,Ie RI,
u Possible Domestic Well—3 —15
—17
Pe me rs SQ G�die��� Oi -4
• —Delineated Streams —18
0 Delineated Wetlands —5
—6 —19
f moo, O ft-1 ft Drawdown —7 —20
O —8 —21
, —9 —22
—23
O
�hln Ra LUt 1,Beaver �� -10 -24-11
C eek
Z y • O Zone:North Carolina(FIPS 3200)NAD 1983 2011,feet
tb DATA SOURCES:State Plane Coordinate System,
The model portrays potential limited effects of pumping in the area between the
�G Y55� 0-foot and 1-foot drawdown contours that extend greater than one mile from the
permit boundary.However,other hard rock mine sites within the Piedmont of
North Carolina typically show a maximum cone of depression of approximately
O 2,500 to 3,000 feet from the point of groundwater withdrawal.
_ �� •�' • MODEL PREDICTED DRAWDOWN
4 O FROM DEWATERING YEAR 6
N
0.25 0.5
rya n r
MILES
,ys
Sources: Esri, HERE,Garmin, Intermap,increment P Corp.,GEBCO, PIEDMONT
USGS, FAO,NPS,NRCAN,GeoBase,IGN,Kadaster NL,Ordnance 0T4I1VM
Survey Esri Japan; METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),(c)OpenStreetMap
'con'tr Nutors,an�d�the GIS User Community FIGURE 4
y rvllx•
PATH:\\CLTSMAIN\GIS DATAKHMPROJECTSM135 PIEDMONTLITHIUM110283885 PLI INTEGRATED PROJECT17.2 WORK IN PROGRESS\MAP DOCSWXDITASK21 AOTEST GWUPDATESTIGURESIDRAWDOWN Y8 REDO.MXD-USER:KTHAMES-DATE:1111S12023

Gayw
�a
L dl,
CyTape
O l
Figurer._
O Sources: Esri, HERE,Garmin,
Intermap, increment P Corp:;
GEBCO, USGS, FAO,NPS,
NRCAN,GeoBase, IGN,
North LEGEND
's
Domain Drawdown(ft) —12
t F i9 Q Mine Permit Boundary —o —13
- G
n � ®Planned Pits —1 —14
West Receptor Wells —2 —15
— —16
Possible Domestic Well 3 —17
—Delineated Streams —4
} —5 —18
Delineated Wetlands —6 —19
0 ft-1 ft Drawdown —7 —20
® —8 —21
East —9 —22
FS
outh O/' —10 —23
O —11 —24
Zone:North Carolina(FIPS 3200)NAD 1983 2011,feet
V.iffle DATA SOURCES:State Plane Coordinate System,
!ie e �'
a� d ul»�� � � The model portrays potential limited effects of pumping in the area between the
0-foot and 1-foot drawdown contours that extend greater than one mile from the
permit boundary.However,other hard rock mine sites within the Piedmont of
North Carolina typically show a maximum cone of depression of approximately
2,500 to 3,000 feet from the point of groundwater withdrawal.
MODEL PREDICTED DRAWDOWN
O �
¢ FROM DEWATERING YEAR 8
N
x
0 0.25 0.5
11 MILES
I s h
°n Sources: Esri, HERE,Garmin, Intermap,increment P Corp.,GEBCO, PIEDMONT
E d�f 1��T
°� 000S�GS, FAO,NPS,NRCAN,GeoBase,IGiN'"aK da'sfer�NL,Ordnance ,,� _ ti
Survey, Esri Japan, METI,Esri China(I�long Kong),(c)OpenStreetMap 6
contributors,and the GIS User Co�unity FIGURE 5
PATH:\\CLTSMAIN\GIS DATAKIMPROJECTSM135 PIEDMONTLITHIUM\10253585 PLI INTEGRATED PROJECTIT.2 WORK IN PROGRESSIMAP DOCSWXDITASK21 AQTEST GWUPDATESTIGURESIDRAWDOWN YS REDO.MXD-USER:KTHAMES-DATE:1111W2023

® A PaVeldom CreeX
North dl.
Figure F p
West ® Sources Esri, HERE,Garmin,
Intermap, increment P Corp:;
GEBCO, USGS, FAO,NPS,
NRCAN,GeoBase, IGN,
I
LEGEND
Q Domain Drawdown(ft)—12
Mine Permit Boundary —0 —13
r_ ®Planned Pits —1 —14
South Receptor Wells —2 —1
Pe 5
ca ,
SQ Rd O East Possible Domestic Well —3
nters G fat -4
17
�
aye O —Delineated Streams 5 —18
—
0 Delineated Wetlands —19
—6
f moo, Oft-1 ft Drawdown —7 —20
—8 —21
�\ O —9 —22
/I —10 —23
n Rp Lit le —11 —24
Beaver
C eek
Zone:North Carolina(FIPS 3200)NAD 1983 2011,feet
DATA SOURCES:State Plane Coordinate System,
yhi
The model portrays potential limited effects of pumping in the area between the
0-foot and 1-foot drawdown contours that extend greater than one mile from the
permit boundary.However,other hard rock mine sites within the Piedmont of
North Carolina typically show a maximum cone of depression of approximately
2,500 to 3,000 feet from the point of groundwater withdrawal.
MODEL PREDICTED DRAWDOWN
O FROM DEWATERING YEAR 12
�A
o, N
ry
�a
- y
i yy3)2 U o �ayrl�+e I
0 0.25 0.5
MILES
s
Sources: Esri, HERE,Garmin, Intermap,increment P Corp.,GEBCQ, PIEDMONT
01
USGS, FAO,NPS,NRCAN,GeoBase,IGN,Kadaster NL,Ordnance LtTMQM
- ry Esri Japan METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),(c)OpenStreetMap
11 ` _ �contri ors,auf the GIS User Community FIGURE 6
PATH:\\CLTSMAIN\GIS DATAKHMPROJECTS171135 PIEDMONTLITHIUM110253585 PLI INTEGRATED PROJECT17.2 WORK IN PROGRESSWAP DOCSWXDITASK21 AOTEST GWUPDATESTIGURESIORAWDOWN Y12 REDO.MXD-USER:KTHAMES-DATE:11/15/2023

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas,Inc. I Water Supply Well Mitigation
Plan Attachment A—Gaston ia-CherryviIle Water Interconnection
Study
Attachment A — Gastonia-
Cherryville Water
Interconnection Study

Piedmont Lithium I Water Supply Well Mitigation Plan ���
Attachment A—Gastonia-Cherryville Water Interconnection Study
This page intentionally left blank.

SUMMARY OF GASTONIA— PREPARED BY:
CHERRYVILLE WATER
INTERCONNECTION STUDY K(C
LKC ENGINEERING,PLLC
ATTN:Adam Kiker,P.E.
140 Aqua Shed Court
for the Aberdeen,NC 28315
[phone]
License#P-1095
GASTON COUNTY email: [e-mail]
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CLIENT INFORMATION:
COMMISSION GASTON COUNTY ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
ATTN: Donny Hicks
620 N.Main Street
Belmont,NC 28012
Phone: [phone]
Email:[e-mail]
��.••�.�N CA
.
A
GASTON COUNTY, NC 38
'�NGINE��.
�If 20.)
ADAM P.KIKER, .E.

Gaston County Economic Development Commission LKC No. GCEDC-21.01
Summary of Gastonia-Cherryville Water Interconnection Study
Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Background ...................................................................................................................................1
2.0 EXISTING GASTONIA WATER SYSTEM..................................................................2
3.0 EXISTING CHERRYVILLE WATER SYSTEM..........................................................3
4.0 PROPOSED INTERCONNECTION PROJECT...........................................................4
4.1 Proposed Interconnection Waterline ...........................................................................................4
4.2 Proposed Booster Pump Station...................................................................................................4
4.3 White Jenkins Road Water Line....................................................................................................5
4.4 Cost Estimate................................................................................................................................5
5.0 PROPOSED RURAL WATER DISTRIBUTION PROJECT...................................... 5
5.1 Area to be Served..........................................................................................................................5
5.2 Cost Estimate ................................................................................................................................6
6.0 SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION.......................................................................6
Index of Tables
Table 1: Gastonia Water Sales (2019).........................................................................................3
Table2: Project Schedule............................................................................................................. 6
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A— PROJECT MAPS
APPENDIX B —INTERCONNECTION COST ESTIMATES
APPENDIX C —RURAL WATER SYSTEM COST ESTIMATES
APPENDIX D — GASTONIA 2019 LOCAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN
APPENDIX E — CHERRYVILLE 2020 LOCAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN
APPENDIX F — HYDRAULIC MODEL RESULTS
LKC LKC Engineering,PLLC
Aberdeen,NC

Gaston County Economic Development Commission LKC No.GCEDC-21.01
Summary of Gastonia-Cherryville Water Interconnection Study
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
This report is prepared on behalf of the Gaston County Economic Development
Commission(GCEDC) and is motivated by a potential investment by Piedmont Lithium
in northwestern Gaston County. The intention is two-fold: (1) evaluate and summarize
the infrastructure necessary to consummate a potable water interconnection between the
Cities of Gastonia and Cherryville to augment the drinking water supply for Cherryville,
and(2) summarize the infrastructure necessary to provide public water service to
residents in the area of the proposed industrial construction.
In summary, the conveyance of potable water from Gastonia to Cherryville is feasible via
construction of a 16"water line along Dallas-Cherryville Highway, a 16"water line
creating a hydraulic loop on White Jenkins Road, and a booster pump station at the
northwestern edge of Gastonia's existing system. The estimated total project budget for
these improvements is $18,514,000.
Furthermore,based on general assumptions of the proposed site of the Piedmont Lithium
mine and processing facility, service to the rural area around the site is feasible through a
combination of 12" and 6"water lines allowing those residents around the site to connect
to public water. The estimated total project budget for the rural water lines is
$10,350,000. Further refinement of the scope and cost of these water lines is important
once a more precise location of the Piedmont Lithium investment is available.
This report presents hydraulic evaluations,water line routing and sizing,preliminary
pump station sizing,preliminary cost estimates, and a schedule for implementation.
Background data and documentation are included in the Appendices.
1.2 Background
Based on information from Piedmont Lithium's website, a significant deposit of lithium
exists in Gaston County to the east of Cherryville,between St. Mark's Church Road and
Long Shoals Road. Piedmont Lithium has interest in developing the site as a mine and
potentially a processing facility. The development of a lithium mine could impact the
quality and quantity of the groundwater used as drinking water by residents and
businesses in the surrounding, rural area.
In addition, the potential mining and other industrial operations may require potable
water service from the City of Cherryville. The City of Cherryville currently relies on
Indian Creek as its primary source of drinking water. While it has been a sufficient
supply for Cherryville's needs in the past, Indian Creek is not as robust of a resource as
other surface waters in the region. Cherryville has an interconnection with the City of
Lincolnton that is currently used on an emergency basis. Based on the potential needs of
Piedmont Lithium, there is interest in a water supply interconnection between Gastonia
LKC LKC Engineering,PLLC
Aberdeen,NC P a g e l

Gaston County Economic Development Commission LKC No.GCEDC-21.01
Summary of Gastonia-Cherryville Water Interconnection Study
and Cherryville that would augment the available water supply to Cherryville, allowing
Cherryville to continue to grow beyond the Piedmont Lithium project.
The water infrastructure necessary to provide a supply interconnection between Gastonia
and Cherryville, and to provide water service to current and future residents located
around the Piedmont Lithium sites, consists of the following:
1) A 16"water line between Cherryville and the City of Gastonia along Dallas-
Cherryville Hwy.
2) A 16-inch water line along White Jenkins Road that is hydraulically necessary to
support the supply to Cherryville.
3) A booster pump station to deliver water to Cherryville through the
interconnection.
4) A rural water system, mostly 12" and 6"water lines, to serve the area within a 1-
mile radius of the potential Piedmont Lithium mine site.
2.0 EXISTING GASTONIA WATER SYSTEM
The City of Gastonia/Two Rivers Utilities (TRU) owns and operates a public water system
under PWS ID No. 01-36-010. According to Gastonia's 2019 Local Water Supply Plan, the
system consists of a water treatment plant, three elevated storage tanks, and approximately 631
miles of 1-inch through 42-inch water transmission and distribution lines.
Gastonia draws its water from Mountain Island Lake on a normal basis and the South Fork
Catawba River on an emergency basis. After drawing its water from Mountain Island Lake, TRU
treats the water at the City of Gastonia's water treatment plant prior to distributing it. The
original part of Gastonia's water treatment plant was built in the early 1920s and has been
expanded five times since then. Based on TRU's 2019 local water supply plan, the water
treatment plant's current permitted capacity is 27.3 MGD. There are 5.5 million gallons of
storage at the water treatment plant plus an additional 7 million gallons of storage in the storage
tanks located in different areas of the city. Based on conversations with TRU staff, the treatment
plant has adequate capacity to support its existing customers, the expected future growth of TRU,
and the potential interconnection with Cherryville.
According to the Local Water Suppl Plan, Gastonia's system had an average daily demand of
8.358 MGD across its residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional customers within the
City's system in 2019. In addition to the customers within the City, Gastonia has bulk-rate water
relationships with Belmont, Bessemer City, Clover(SC), Dallas/ Spencer Mt Village, Lowell,
McAdenville, and Ranlo. Gastonia's average bulk water sales are summarized in the following
table:
LKC LKC Engineering,PLLC
Aberdeen,NC P a g e 12

Gaston County Economic Development Commission LKC No.GCEDC-21.01
Summary of Gastonia-Cherryville Water Interconnection Study
Table 1: Gastonia Bulk Water Sales 2019
Average Contract Contract
Purchaser PWSID Daily Sold Amount Use Type
(MGD) (MGD) Expiration
Belmont 01-36-015 0.0000 - 2020 Emergency
Bessemer City 01-36-025 0.0000 1.7000 2028 Emergency
Clover, SC 46-10-005 0.7840 1.0170 2045 Regular
Dallas/Spencer 01-36-065 0.1250 1.0000 2028 Regular
Mt Village
Lowell 01-36-060 0.3610 0.6180 2029 Regular
McAdenville 01-36-045 0.2710 1.000 2030 Regular
Ranlo 01-36-034 0.3900 0.6000 2040 Regular
During preparation of this study, LKC evaluated the ability of Gastonia's water system to
provide a secondary supply source to Cherryville. The proposed point of connection is in the
northwest corner of the City's existing water system at Costner Elementary School. There are
two elevated tanks that provide service to the northern part of the City's system:
• East Tank, located on E. Ozark Avenue just south of I-85; and
• West Tank, located on Jenkins Dairy Road just east of NC274.
Both tanks operate at a high-water elevation of 976' MSL.
LKC used GIS mapping information provided by Gastonia to build a hydraulic model of the
primary water lines in the northern part of the City's system. For conservancy purposes, only
water lines over 12" in diameter were modeled.
The proposed connection point around Costner Elementary School historically has low operating
pressures and low available fire flows mostly due to the topography. The ground elevations in
this area are approximately 875', compared to the service tank elevations of 976'. This is
discussed in more detail later in the report.
A map of the existing Gastonia water system components relative to the connection with
Cherryville can be found in Appendix A.
3.0 EXISTING CHERRYVILLE WATER SYSTEM
The City of Cherryville owns and operates a public water system under PWS ID No. 01-36-030.
According to Cherryville's Local Water Supply Plan, the water supply system consists of a water
treatment plant and approximately 35 miles of 2-inch through 16-inch water transmission and
distribution lines. The City's primary water source is Indian Creek. Based on Cherryville's local
water supply plan, the average withdrawal from Indian Creek was 0.7500 MGD during 2020.
LKC LKC Engineering,PLLC
Aberdeen,NC P a g e 13

Gaston County Economic Development Commission LKC No.GCEDC-21.01
Summary of Gastonia-Cherryville Water Interconnection Study
Although the Local Water Supply Plan for Cherryville shows a 20-year safe yield of 3.200 MGD
for Indian Creek, it is recommended this figure be re-evaluated based on flows recorded during
the 2002 and 2007 droughts before it is relied upon for the full capacity.
From the City's website, the John M. McGinnis Water Treatment Facility was built in 1963.
Originally constructed as a 1.5 MGD plant, in 1974 it was expanded to treat up to 3.2 million
gallons per day.
The City maintains two elevated storage tanks with a combined capacity of 2 million gallons for
finished water storage and maintains a raw water reservoir with a storage capacity of 10 million
gallons. Cherryville's elevated storage tanks operate at a hydraulic grade of approximately 1,093
ft MSL.
4.0 PROPOSED INTERCONNECTION PROJECT
4.1 Proposed Interconnection Waterline
The proposed water line interconnection between Gastonia and Cherryville involves
approximately 42,500 linear feet of 16-inch waterline following Dallas-Cherryville Hwy
from the existing Gastonia 16-inch waterline near Costner Elementary School at the south
end to the intersection with Wallaby Road, where it would connect to the existing
Cherryville 12-inch waterline. A map of the proposed interconnection is included in
Appendix A.
4.2 Proposed Booster Pump Station
A booster pump station is necessary to overcome the different hydraulic grades of the two
systems and the headloss in the connecting pipes. For the purpose of the report a
maximum pumping rate of 700 gallons per minute (gpm) was used. This would provide a
maximum additional supply of approximately 1.0 MGD to Cherryville. Higher pumping
rates were modeled, and rates above 700 gpm negatively impact the existing Gastonia
customers, even with the White Jenkins Road water line discussed later.
The optimal location for the pump station is on the Gastonia side of Costner Elementary
School. This will transition the elementary school and surrounding customers to the
higher hydraulic gradient, improving the service pressure and available fire flow in this
region. The exact location of the pump station would be determined during preliminary
design.
The preliminary operating condition for the proposed pump station is approximately 700
gallons per minute at 160 feet of total dynamic head. The exact design point for the
station would be determined during preliminary design. Of the 160 feet of total dynamic
head, approximately 130' is static head and 30' is friction head. The proposed layout for
the station would feature two pumps with sufficient space for a third pump. For budget
purposes LKC assumed vertical turbine pumps installed in below-ground cans. Variable
frequent drives would be used to adjust the pump output based on system demand.
LKC LKC Engineering,PLLC
Aberdeen,NC P a g e 14

Gaston County Economic Development Commission LKC No.GCEDC-21.01
Summary of Gastonia-Cherryville Water Interconnection Study
Additional information on the proposed booster pump station operation can be found in
Appendix F.
4.3 White Jenkins Road Water Line
Gastonia's existing water system in the subject area features a single, dead-end 16"water
line extending through the Apple Creek Industrial Park, following NC279 and Old
NC277 Loop terminating just past Costner Elementary School at the proposed connection
point for the Cherryville connection. The single-feed line to this location is hydraulically
limiting and creates low suction pressures when pumping 700 gpm to Cherryville.
To alleviate this problem, a proposed 16"water line constructed along White Jenkins
Road creates a hydraulic loop in Gastonia's system on the northwest side. The proposed
White Jenkins Road water line consists of approximately 15,100 feet of 16"water line
from Fairway Drive on the south end to NC279 on the north end. This water line is a
necessary component for the booster pump station and Cherryville interconnection to
operate without noticeable, negative impacts to Gastonia's existing customers.
4.4 Cost Estimate
The total project budget for the three items discussed above is $18,514,000. This
includes construction, contingency, and budget figures for engineering, land/easement
acquisition, geotechnical reports, and legal services. A detailed breakdown for the
individual components of the proposed project can be found in Appendix B.
5.0 PROPOSED RURAL WATER DISTRIBUTION PROJECT
5.1 Area to be Served
The construction of a new mine has the potential to impact the water quantity and quality
of groundwater wells in the area. LKC studied the feasibility of constructing new water
lines along the roads in the region of the mine such that current and future residents and
businesses in the area could connect to public water.
The layout of the proposed mine and processing facilities was not provided to LKC
during development of this report. For evaluation purposes LKC assumed a general
location of the proposed mining pits based on maps and other information available from
Piedmont Lithium's website. LKC then off-set this boundary one mile in each direction
and modeled a water distribution system to serve all roads that crossed through the one
mile off-set. A map of the potential water lines can be found in Appendix A.
The rural water system would feature primarily 6"water lines, with some 4" or 2" lines
near the end of dead-end roads for water quality purposes. To support fire flow needs at
the new mining facilities, LKC assumed a 12" looped line would be needed from
LKC LKC Engineering,PLLC
Aberdeen,NC P a g e 15

Gaston County Economic Development Commission LKC No.GCEDC-21.01
Summary of Gastonia-Cherryville Water Interconnection Study
Cherryville's existing 12" line southward to the proposed 16" line on Dallas-Cherryville
Highway. The size of the proposed water lines would need to be re-evaluated when more
information is available about the fire flow requirements for the new facilities.
Based on GIS data collected from Gaston County, the rural water system evaluated in this
report will provide available public water service to approximately 600 existing
residential or business structures in the region. If all of those structures connected to the
water system, the resulting increase in average daily demand would be approximately
100,000 gallons per day.
5.2 Cost Estimate
The total project budget for the rural water system described above and shown in
Appendix A is $10,350,000. This includes construction, contingency, and budget figures
for engineering, land/easement acquisition, geotechnical reports, and legal services. A
detailed breakdown for the individual components of the proposed project can be found
in Appendix B.
LKC recommends the scope and budget for proposed rural water distribution lines be
updated as more information is available from Piedmont Lithium about the development.
The layout, size, normal water demand, and requisite fire flow of the Piedmont Lithium
site could have a noticeable impact on the scope and budget.
6.0 SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION
The table below provides an expectation on a reasonable timeframe for implementation of the
components described in Section 4 and 5 above. Interlocal agreements, funding opportunities,
land and easement acquisition, and other factors can impact the timeframes shown below.
Table 2: Project Schedule
Preliminary design documents 5 months
Final design documents 4 months
Staff review and regulatory permitting 3 months
Bidding, award, and pre-construction activities 4 months
Construction 12 months
System startup 2 months
TOTAL ESTIMATED TIMEFRAME 30 months
LKC LKC Engineering,PLLC
Aberdeen,NC P a g e 16

Appendix A
Project Maps

MAP 1 - EXISTING GASTONIA WATER SYSTEM
GASTON COUNTY, NC
�l • , `` • ' -r••••f::;'i%.. •��. �t ...... '-_O11 _I►,l.,
`� ����I� • � �I�� •��1���� �'�' � � iie 11� n.i 11 _ Ill::nr^
' • �- ,�i" I I .// �1��1,�'+, I 1 �•�/ 1�11�u7V�f�. ' ununl����+1�• -
�• t• � �- 1 ���� C Illl�1� \•'1 bpi• ■ �IL�V. �n��+iiiiu iiii F- ' �i�uu���,iu�_�'�I'�I�
�� � �' / � 1��r � 1 ��11►���,�' ���'' � ,��, �_nip:'llfi��.���_ _=..'.:�_=;:�LL��ii�l''� j��i�'i`
Irk � _� ;�j `��. �j'", .:� :.�j�`- ��►/' � •
I
■

• �...I�i ...� �,I
i ,� �.?.inn„• �. � i . ••�
MAP 2 - PROPOSED INTERCONNECTION MAP
GASTON COUNTY, NC
11 • �..
Will 11"A
, '�
I � � ♦ � � �IILI�-�� ♦' , `fit
i�
♦ '■ 11� i.
i
t� .l�iAglP v 1 w ♦ �_�% ...
L �� :�: �����,:�•I,, °- �.•`��.� ,•` � III►

.� i�� ;=.'��L � �� � "•\ III////I/ll C������'� �f)
i'
���� ���i'u"��' :.";. � ��i�♦aim • . ��
p_�1 vas� .� �i ♦ • ♦jll'_ �� .�
MAP 3 - PROPOSED RURAL WATER SYSTEM MAP
Bl GASTON COUNTY, NC
Connect to Existing Cherryvi RM
. r
•� � � =��w�� �g �
>\r1 � • � API � � •Y��♦ .� �.�� ��� / �, �: � ♦�i ��
�� o �� ,�i. •, :,• r� � �;�`; 1 ,•off � � � ��_Ih���.� .�cm/�\,
�f�..---.�J►/��a!\1.►.tea\I - `,�,, r � , � I�j�, �i Y � 1 Y�
XN
• ����►�I1� � ... -. . - - . - . - . , ,tom/` �•�. �� ���� ��\�1,�.`���

Appendix B
Proposed Interconnection Cost Estimate

GASTON COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
GASTONIA-CHERRYVILLE INTERCONNECTION
SUMMARY OF TOTAL PRELIMINARY BUDGET
Dallas Cherryville Hwy Waterline $9,974,000
Booster Pump Station $1,523,000
White Jenkins Road Waterline $3,134,000
Subtotal Construction Estimate $14,631,000
Contingencies @ 10% $1,463,000
Engineering, budgeted @ 15% $2,195,000
Easement Acquisition(budget) $150,000
Geotechnical Investigation $40,000
Legal Fees $30,000
Permit Fees/Advertisements /Misc. $5,000
Total Preliminary Project Budget $18,514,000

GASTON COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
GASTONIA-CHERRYVILLE INTERCONNECTION
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
16"Water Line along NC279 starting at the connection to Gastonia near Costner Elementary School and extending to
Cherryville to the Walaby Road intersection.
Item Description Quantities Units Unit Cost Extended Cost
1. 16" Class 250 DIP Water Main 42,000 LF $95.00 $3,990,000.00
2. 16"Restrained Joint Class 250 DIP Water Main 500 LF $140.00 $70,000.00
3. 32" Steel Casing Installed by Bore and Jack 1,400 LF $1,600.00 $2,240,000.00
4. 18"HDPE Installed by Directional Drill 2,500 LF $800.00 $2,000,000.00
5. Air Release Valve 15 LS $7,000.00 $105,000.00
6. Fire Hydrant Assembly 40 EA $4,400.00 $176,000.00
7. 16" Gate Valve 50 EA $5,500.00 $275,000.00
8. 8" Gate Valve 5 EA $1,800.00 $9,000.00
9. 6" Gate Valve 55 EA $1,300.00 $71,500.00
10. 16"x8" Tee 23 EA $1,600.00 $36,800.00
11. 16"x6" Tee 23 EA $1,400.00 $32,200.00
12. 16" 90-Degree Bend 8 EA $2,000.00 $16,000.00
13. 16"45-Degree Bend 15 EA $1,800.00 $27,000.00
14. 16"22.5-Degree Bend 15 EA $1,800.00 $27,000.00
15. 6"Plug 4 EA $400.00 $1,600.00
16. Connection to Existing Water Main 2 EA $8,000.00 $16,000.00
17. Rock Excavation 4,400 CY $85.00 $374,000.00
18. Select Backfill 3,300 CY $35.00 $115,500.00
19. Concrete Driveway Repair 500 SY $65.00 $32,500.00
20. Asphalt Replacement and Repair 500 SY $55.00 $27,500.00
21. Gravel Driveway Repair 500 TONS $45.00 $22,500.00
22. Pressure Testing and Disinfection 42,500 LF $3.50 $148,750.00
23. Erosion Control 1 LS $75,000.00 $75,000.00
24. Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00
25. Site Cleanup and Restoration 1 LS $60,000.00 $60,000.00
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE: $9,974,000

GASTON COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
GASTONIA-CHERRYVILLE INTERCONNECTION
WATER BOOSTER PUMP STATION
Preliminary Cost Estimate
Booster Pump Station $1,080,000
Clearing, grubbing, and grading $25,000
Gravel access road $15,000
Concrete $35,000
Pump station building $250,000
Equipment-pumps,motors, etc. $270,000
Installation and startup $140,000
Internal piping and valves $80,000
Coating systems $30,000
Electrical $160,000
Mechanical $75,000
Yard Piping $75,000
SCADA Systems $60,000
Site Restoration, Fence, and Landscaping $50,000
Generator and Automatic Transfer Switch $95,000
Contractor's Overhead and Profit(12.0%) $163,000
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE $1,523,000

GASTON COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
WHITE JENKINS LOOP
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
16" Water Line along White Jenkins Road starting at the NC275/Fairview Drive intersection and extending to the
White Jenkins Rd/NC279 intersection
Item Description Quantities Units Unit Cost Extended Cost
l. 16" Class 250 DIP Water Main 14,000 LF $105.00 $1,470,000.00
2. 16" Restrained Joint Class 250 DIP Water Main 500 LF $140.00 $70,000.00
3. 32" Steel Casing Installed by Bore and Jack 350 LF $1,600.00 $560,000.00
4. 18" HDPE Installed by Directional Drill 600 LF $800.00 $480,000.00
5. Air Release Valve 2 LS $7,000.00 $14,000.00
6. Fire Hydrant Assembly 12 EA $4,400.00 $52,800.00
7. 16" Gate Valve 12 EA $5,500.00 $66,000.00
8. 8" Gate Valve 0 EA $1,800.00 $0.00
9. 6" Gate Valve 12 EA $1,300.00 $15,600.00
10. 16"x8" Tee 0 EA $1,600.00 $0.00
11. 16"x6" Tee 12 EA $1,400.00 $16,800.00
12. 16" 90-Degree Bend 5 EA $2,000.00 $10,000.00
13. 16"45-Degree Bend 8 EA $1,800.00 $14,400.00
14. 16" 22.5-Degree Bend 8 EA $1,800.00 $14,400.00
15. 6" Plug 0 EA $400.00 $0.00
16. Connection to Existing Water Main 1 EA $8,000.00 $8,000.00
17. Rock Excavation 1,500 CY $85.00 $127,500.00
18. Select Backfill 1,125 CY $35.00 $39,375.00
19. Concrete Driveway Repair 300 SY $65.00 $19,500.00
20. Asphalt Replacement and Repair 300 SY $55.00 $16,500.00
21. Gravel Driveway Repair 300 TONS $45.00 $13,500.00
22. Pressure Testing and Disinfection 14,500 LF $3.50 $50,750.00
23. Erosion Control 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00
24. Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00
25. 1 Site Cleanup and Restoration 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE: $3,134,000

Appendix C
Proposed Rural Water System Cost Estimate

GASTON COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
RURAL WATER SYSTEM
SUMMARY OF TOTAL PRELIMINARYBUDGET
Subtotal Construction Estimate $8,092,000
Contingencies @ 10% $809,000
Engineering, budgeted @ 15% $1,214,000
Easement Acquisition(budget) $150,000
Geotechnical Investigation $50,000
Legal Fees $30,000
Permit Fees/Advertisements /Misc. $5,000
Total Preliminary Project Budget $10,350,000

GASTON COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
RURAL WATER SYSTEM AROUND PEIDMONT LITHIUM SITE
PROPOSED SCOPE
WM Route Description Length(ft) Total Houses Diameter Estimate
Hephzibah Church Road and Will Kiser
1 Road—From St Marks Church Road to 7,350 35 12 inch $870,850.00
Gaston-Webbs Chapel Road
2 Gaston-Webbs Chapel Road—From Will 1,350 2 12 inch $141,025.00
Kiser Road to Aderholdt Road
3 Aderholdt Road—From Gaston-Webbs 14,800 40 12 inch $1,544,500.00
Chapel Road to He hzibah Church Road
4 Mauney Road—From Hephzibah Church 5,900 59 12 inch $658,525.00
Road to Dallas-Cherryville Hwy
5 Gaston-Webbs Chapel Road—From 2,550 22 6 inch $163,425.00
Aderholdt Road to Landers Chapel Road
6 Hephzibah Church Road—From Will 15,250 50 6 inch $791,975.00
Kiser Road to Aderholdt Road
7 Whiteside Road—From Hephzibah Church 14,500 57 6 inch $729,350.00
Road to Dallas-Cherryville Hwy
8 Landers Chapel Road—From Gaston- 10,900 60 6 inch $687,275.00
Webbs Chapel Road to Long Shoals Road
9 Long Shoals Road—From Landers Chapel 13,100 84 6 inch $802,900.00
Road to Dallas-Cherryville Hwy
10 Country Way Drive—From Long Shoals 2,450 18 6 inch $157,675.00
Road to end
11 S J Crawford Road—From Landers Chapel 2,700 21 6 inch $168,675.00
Road to end
12 Deer Creek Drive and Swift Creek Court 2,300 17 6 inch $153,675.00
13 Flat Rock Drive and Butterfield Lane 2,100 32 6 inch $166,550.00
14 Marshall Allen Trail—From Hephzibah 1,500 3 6 inch $97,325.00
Church Road to end
15 Hastings Road—From Hephzibah Church 2,350 11 6 inch $183,000.00
Road to Aderholdt Road
16 Forest Dellinger Road and Forest Ride 5,700 62 6 inch $342,825.00
17 Rudisill Road—From Aderholdt Road to 7,900 34 6 inch $432,800.00
Lon Shoals Road
TOTAL LENGTH: 112,700
TOTAL WATER MAIN CONSTRUCTION: $8,092,000
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES: 607

Appendix D
City of Gastonia vocal Water Supply Plan

6/7/2021 DWR:: Local Water Supply Planning
Two Rivers Utilities/Gastonia 2019
The Division of Water Resources(DWR)provides the data contained within this Local Water Supply Plan(LWSP)as a courtesy and service to our customers.DWR staff does not field verify data.Neither DWR,nor any other party involved in
the preparation of this LWSP attests that the data is completely free of errors and omissions.Furthermore,data users are cautioned that LWSPs labeled PROVISIONAL have yet to be reviewed by DWR staff.Subsequent review may result in
significant revision.Questions regarding the accuracy or limitations of usage of this data should be directed to the water system and/or DWR.
1.System Information
Contact Information
Water System Name: Two Rivers Utilities/Gastonia PWSID: 01-36-010 Complete
Mailing Address: P.O.Box 1748
Gastonia,NC 28053 Ownership: Municipality
Contact Person: Kyle Butler Title: Utilities Engineer
Phone: [phone] Cell/Mobile: [phone]
Distribution System
Line Type Size Range(Inches) Estimated%of lines
Asbestos Cement 6-16 10.10%
Cast Iron 6-42 24.50%
Ductile Iron 6-36 34.10%
Galvanized Iron 1-2 1.90%
Polyvinyl Chloride 2-10 29.40%
What are the estimated total miles of distribution system lines? 631 Miles
How many feet of distribution lines were replaced during 2019? 1,443 Feet
How many feet of new water mains were added during 2019? 24,350 Feet
How many meters were replaced in 2019? 1,316
How old are the oldest meters in this system? 17 Year(s)
How many meters for outdoor water use,such as irrigation,are not billed for sewer services? 2,482
What is this system's finished water storage capacity? 13.7500 Million Gallons
Has water pressure been inadequate in any part of the system since last update?Line breaks that were repaired quickly should not be included. No
Does this system have a program to work or flush hydrants? Yes,As Needed
Does this system have a valve exercise program? Yes,2 Years or More
Does this system have a cross-connection program? Yes
Does this system have a program to replace meters? Yes
Does this system have a plumbing retrofit program? No
Does this system have an active water conservation public education program? Yes
Does this system have a leak detection program? Yes
® We purchased a valve operation trailer and formed a valve operation crew in 2016.We have located and verified the operation of 5,632 valves which includes GPS locating the valves to go in our GIS System.WTP staff flow hydrants on
an as needed basis for water quality.The fire department performs static pressure tests on hydrants throughout the year and reports any operational issues to our Utilities Maintenance Division for repairs.The valve crew also has leak
detection equipment available to locate unseen leaks.
Water Conservation
What type of rate structure is used? Fiat/Fixed,Increasing Block
How much reclaimed water does this system use? 0.0000 MGD For how many connections? 0
Does this system have an interconnection with another system capable of providing water in an emergency? Yes
® We have emergency water connections with the City of Belmont,the City of Bessemer City,and the Town of Dallas.Their system capacities and hydraulic gradient do not allow them to provide adequate supply to our system.
2.Water Use Information
Sub-Basin(s) %of Service Population County(s) %of Service Population
South Fork Catawba River(03-2) 70% Gaston 100%
Catawba River(03-1) 30%
What was the year-round population served in 2019? 85,556
Has this system acquired another system since last report? No
® Service area map will be submitted at a later date.
Water Use by Type
Type of Use Metered Metered Non-Metered Non-Metered
Connections Average Use(MGD) Connections Estimated Use(MGD)
Residential 27,971 4.1840 17 0.0020
Commercial 2,908 2.2230 45 0.0260
Industrial 114 0.7590 0 0.0000
Institutional 196 1.1920 0 0.0000
How much water was used for system processes(backwash,line cleaning,flushing,etc.)? 5.9850 MGD
® Non-metered connections are for permitted hydrant usage for filling pools or water for construction sites that are billed through miscellaneous invoice.
System Process Water includes 5.298 MGD water to Rankin Lake for water quality.Some of the raw water pumped from Mountain Island Lake into Rankin Lake which is our raw water reservoir is used to maintain water levels and water
quality.There is no other water supply to Rankin Lake.The remainder of the raw water is sent to the WTP for treatment.
https://www.ncwater.org/WUDC/app/LWSP/report.php?pwsid=Ol-36-010 1/4

6/7/2021 DWR:: Local Water Supply Planning
Regarding the high amount of unaccounted-for water(21%of total supply)--we continue to work to increase the accuracy of our internal reporting of filling and flushing new water lines and flushing for water quality.We also had several
large water main breaks in 2019 which would have increased the non-revenue water volumes.The water withdrawal volumes were higher due to refilling the raw water lines and Rankin Lake following the repair of a raw water line break.
We installed new distribution system meters as part of the recently completed water treatment plant renovation project.The valve operation crew continues to locate and verify the operation of the valves in our system as mentioned in
Sections 1 and 5 of the report.Verification of the location and operation of our valves will reduce the response time and shut down of water lines when we have main breaks.We will continue to use our leak detection equipment to find and
repair underground leaks.
Average Days Contract Required to Pipe Sue(s) Use
Purchaser PWSID Daily Sold comply with water
(MGD) Used MGD Expiration Recurring use restrictions? (Inches) Type
Belmont 01-36-015 0.0000 0 2020 Yes Yes 12 Emergency
Bessemer City 01-36-025 0.0000 0 1.7000 2028 Yes Yes 12 Emergency
Clover,SC 46-10-006 0.7840 365 1.0170 2045 Yes Yes 16 Regular
Dallas/Spencer Mt Village 01-36-065 0.1250 365 1.0000 2028 Yes Yes 12 Regular
Lowell 01-36-060 0.3610 365 0.6180 2029 Yes Yes 12,6 Regular
McAdenville 01-36-045 0.2710 365 1.0000 2030 Yes Yes 16 Regular
Ranlo 01-36-034 0.3900 365 0.6000 2040 Yes Yes 8 Regular
® We entered into a Supplemental Water Connection Sales Agreement with the City of Bessemer City on 6-26-2018 for a term of 10 years.No usage in 2019.We are currently working with Bessemer City on the project which includes the
construction of a booster pump station this project should be completed sometime in 2021.
We have a Supplemental Water Sale Agreement with the Town of Dallas to formalize emergency water sales.There are 2 metering points that are used for emergency water use.We also directly serve a small section of Spencer Mountain
Village which is in the Dallas City Limits.In 2019,the monthly average for Spencer Mountain Village was 763,050 gallons.Our billing records indicate that we billed Dallas for 36,418,400 gallons for a monthly average of 3,034,867 gallons
of emergency water use.These volumes were combined to arrive at the total ADF of 0.125 reported in our LWSP.
The sales to Dallas/Spencer Mountain Village include Emergency Sales on 59 days at a rate of 0.617 MGD and Regular Sales to Spencer Mountain Village at a rate of 0.025 MGD.
The difference in reported sales and purchase to/from Lowell in 2019 may be due to the monthly billing records.Our billing cycle does not start on the first of the month.Lowell's monthly readings may be different.
3.Water Supply Sources
Monthly Withdrawals&Purchases
Average Daily Max Day Average Daily Max Day Average Daily Max Day
Use(MGD) Use(MGD) Use(MGD) Use(MGD) Use(MGD) Use(MGD)
Jan 18.0000 18.0000 May 20.3100 27.7000 Sep 26.1600 27.7000
Feb 18.0000 18.0000 Jun 20.0300 27.7000 Oct 26.3300 27.6000
Mar 17.8900 18.0000 Jul 23.6500 27.6000 Nov 18.3300 23.2500
Apr 18.0000 18.0000 Aug 23.6600 27.7000 Dec 18.1600 23.0000
® High daily withdrawals were for catching up on off-peak days and hours during the water plant renovation project to minimize peak electric cost and to refill the raw water lines and Rankin Lake following a raw water line repair.
LOW
Surface Water Sources
Average Daily Withdrawal Available
Da
Available Raw Usable On-Stream
Stream Reservoir Withdrawal(MGD) Water Supply Raw
Storage
Water
MGD Days Used MGD 'Qualifier (MG)
Catawba River Mountain Island Lake 20.7430 365 36.0000 75.0000 C 8,601.0000
South Fork Catawba River 0.0000 0 0.0000 15.5000 F 0.0000
Qualifier:C=Contract Amount,SY20=20-year Safe Yield,SY50=50-year Safe Yield,F=20%of 7Q10 or other instream flow requirement,CUA=Capacity Use Area Permit
Surface Water Sources(continued)
Stream Reservoir Drainage Area Metered? Sub-Basin County Year Use
(sq mi) Offline Type
Catawba River Mountain Island Lake 1,819 Yes Catawba River(03-1) Gaston Regular
South Fork Catawba River 560 No South Fork Catawba River(03-2) Gaston Emergency
What is this system's off-stream raw water supply storage capacity? 180 Million gallons
Are surface water sources monitored? Yes,Daily
Are you required to maintain minimum flows downstream of its intake or dam? No
Does this system anticipate transferring surface water between river basins? Yes
® The sub-basin transfer between the South Fork Catawba and Catawba River will continue.
Water Purchases From Other Systems
Average Days Contact Required to pipe Size(s) Use
Seller PWSID Daily Purchased comply with water
(MGD) Used MGD Expiration Recurring use restrictions? (Inches) Type
Belmont 01-36-015 0.0000 0 0.0000 2020 Yes Yes 12 Emergency
Bessemer City 01-36-025 0.0000 0 0.0000 Yes Yes 12 Emergency
Dallas 01-36-065 0.0000 0 0.0000 Yes 12,10 Emergency
Water Treatment Plants
Plant Name PerminMGD)ed pacity Is Raw Water Metered? Is Finished Water Ouput Metered? Source
Gastonia WTP 27.3000 Yes Yes Mountain Island Lk(Primary)SF Catawba Riv(Sec.)
Did average daily water production exceed 80%of approved plant capacity for five consecutive days during 2019?No
If yes,was any water conservation implemented?No
Did average daily water production exceed 90%of approved plant capacity for five consecutive days during 2019?No
If yes,was any water conservation implemented?No
Are peak day demands expected to exceed the water treatment plant capacity in the next 10 years?No
4.Wastewater Information
Average Daily Average Daily Average Daily
Discharge(MGD) Discharge(MGD) Discharge(MGD)
14.6200 May 12.4400 Sep 11.5100
https://www.ncwater.org/WUDC/app/LWSP/report.php?pwsid=Ol-36-010 2/4

6/7/2021 DWR:: Local Water Supply Planning
Feb 16.3200 Jun 13.3100 Oct 12.1000
Mar 14.3200 Jul 11.6600 Nov 11.7600
Apr 14.3300 Aug 12.0300 Dec 13.4700
Two Rivers UtilitiesIGastonia's 2019 Monthly Discharges
17
in Avg Gaily
g 16 -
p 15
0 14
13
r7
12
Q
F 11
� e-0 mat PQt �,'°� ,mac 4�
How many sewer connections does this system have? 28,501
How many water service connections with septic systems does this system have? 2,695
Are there plans to build or expand wastewater treatment facilities in the next 10 years? No
Wastewater Permits
Annual
Permitted Capacity Design Capacity AverageMaximum Day Discharge
Permit Number (MGD) (MGD) Daily Discharge (MGD) Receiving Stream Receiving Basin
(MGD)
NC0006033 4.0000 4.0000 0.9100 2.6100 South Fork Catawba River South Fork Catawba River(03-2)
NCO020184 16.0000 16.0000 9.2000 25.7000 South Fork River South Fork Catawba River(03-2)
NCO040070 1.0000 0.7500 0.0000 0.0000 Unnamed Trib.to Long Creek South Fork Catawba River(03-2)
NCO074268 6.0000 6.0000 3.0300 10.9700 Crowders Creek Catawba River(03-1)
ND0084883 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Land Application(SC) Catawba River(03-1)
WQ0001793 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Land Application(NC) Catawba River(03-1)
® Land Application Permits-W00001793 applied 1617 dry tons over 133 days in NC.ND0084883 applied 176 dry tons over 15 days in SC.
There was no discharge to surface waters from NCO040070 in 2019.The wastewater from this facility was discharged to Long Creek WWTP for treatment and discharge.
Wastewater Interconnections
Water System PWSID Type Average Daily Amount Contract
MGD Days Used Maximum(MGD)
Belmont 01-36-015 Receiving 0.0580 365 2.0000
Bessemer City(Abernethy Creek) 01-36-025 Receiving 0.4770 365 1.0000
Bessemer City(Oates Rd) 01-36-025 Receiving 0.4920 365 1.0000
Clover 46-10-006 Receiving 0.7850 365 0.8670
Dallas-Spencer Mountain Village 01-36-065 Receiving 0.0250 365 0.6000
High Shoals 01-36-075 Receiving 0.0290 365 0.1000
Kings Mountain 01-23-020 Receiving 0.0200 365 1.0000
Lowell 01-36-060 Receiving 0.0500 365 0.0000
Ranlo 01-36-034 Receiving 0.2830 365 0.4000
Town of McAdenville 01-36-045 Receiving 0.0340 165 0.1800
Town of Stanley 01-36-035 Receiving 0.7270 365 1.0000
® There are 2 permitted sewer connections with Bessemer City with separate contracts:Oates Rd with a contract maximum of 1 MGD and an ADF of 0.492 and Abernethy Creek with a contract maximum of 0.608 MGD and a ADF of 0.477.
Bessemer City is reporting these as a total of 0.9630 MGD.
We have entered into an Emergency Sewer Connection with Dallas.Flow has not started.The project will be bid in 2020.However,we do presently serve a small section of Dallas called Spencer Mountain Village,and the now from that
development in 2019 is the 0.0250 MGD.
Kings Mountain has 2 metering points with very low flows.the ADF for 2019 was 0.02 MGD.
Stanley has 2 metering points with an ADF of 0.727 MGD.
5.Planning
2019 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Year-Round Population 85,556 86,513 95,763 107,931 122,820 141,575
Seasonal Population 0 0 0 0 I 0 0
Residential 4.1860 4.1526 4.5966 5.1807 5.8954 6.7956
Commercial 2.2490 2.2940 2.7420 3.3420 4.0740 4.9660
Industrial 0.7590 0.7740 0.9250 1.1280 1.3750 1.6760
Institutional 1.1920 1.2160 1.4530 1.7710 2.1590 2.6320
System Process 5.9850 4.7100 3.3370 3.2710 3.2440 3.5170
Unaccounted-for 4.4410 3.2500 2.5000 2.2500 2.0000 1.7500
® Regarding the significant reduction in projected system process water use--we recently completed a WTP renovation project and have installed a membrane filtration train at the WTP and will be recycling some of the system process
water.A future phase of the project will upgrade other trains to membrane filtration.The projections will be adjusted as we determine how much of the process water we can recycle.
Future Water Sales
Contract
Purchaser PWSID MGD Year Begin Year End Pipe Size(s)(Inches) Use Type
Bessemer City 01-36-025 1.7000 2020 2028 12 Regular
® The Bessemer City water interconnect project should be operational sometime in 2021.The connection will supply supplemental water to Bessemer City on an as needed basis.
https://www.ncwater.org/W U DC/app/LWSP/report.ph p?pwsid=01-36-010 3/4

6/7/2021 DWR::Local Water Supply Planning
Demand v1s Percent of Supply
2019 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Surface Water Supply 75.0000 75.0000 75.0000 75.0000 75.0000 75.0000
Ground Water Supply 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Purchases 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Future Supplies 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total Available Supply(MGD) 75.0000 75.0000 75.0000 75.0000 75.0000 75.0000
Service Area Demand 18.8120 16.3966 15.5536 16.9427 18.7474 21.3366
Sales 1.9310 4.2350 4.2350 4.2350 4.2350 4.2350
Future Sales 1.7000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total Demand(MGD) 20.7430 22.3316 19.7886 21.1777 22.9824 25.5716
Demand as Percent of Supply 28% 30% 26% 28% 31% 34
The purpose of the above chart is to show a general indication of how the long-term per capita water demand changes over time.The per capita water demand may actually be different than indicated due to seasonal populations and the accuracy of
data submitted.Water systems that have calculated long-term per capita water demand based on a methodology that produces different results may submit their information in the notes field.
Your long-term water demand is 49 gallons per capita per day.What demand management practices do you plan to implement to reduce the per capita water demand(i.e.conduct regular water audits,implement a plumbing retrofit program,employ
practices such as rainwater harvesting or reclaimed water)?If these practices are covered elsewhere in your plan,indicate where the practices are discussed here.
Are there other demand management practices you will implement to reduce your future supply needs? We will continue to use an increasing block rate for residential and irrigation water use to promote conservation.We will continue to use our leak
detection equipment to locate and repair leaks.We will continue to replace water meters in our meter change-out program to maintain accuracy of our small meters and test our larger meters as per our established meter testing policy.
What supplies other than the ones listed in future supplies are being considered to meet your future supply needs? The water supply at Mountain Island Lake will meet our needs into the future.Our current permit is for an average daily withdrawal of
75 MGD.
How does the water system intend to implement the demand management and supply planning components above? We will continue to use an increasing block rate structure and a full cost recovery rate structure.We will continue our leak detection
program and meter testing and change-out programs.We will monitor our per capita water use annually as we update the LWSP in order to work to reduce our per capita water use.
Additional Information
Has this system participated in regional water supply or water use planning?Yes,We participate in the Catawba Wateree Water Management Group and the Catawba Wateree Drought Management Group with other water purveyors in the Catawba
Wateree Basin.
What major water supply reports or studies were used for planning?We participated in the development of the Catawba Wateree Basin Master Plan.By participating in the Water Management Advisory Group and the DMAG,we have access to
reports showing the water Flow information and the available water supply in the Catawba River above our intake on Mountain Island Lake.We follow the Low Flow Protocol from the DMAG to determine what level of water conservation may be
needed.
Please describe any other needs or issues regarding your water supply sources,any water system deficiencies or needed improvements(storage,treatment,etc.)or your ability to meet present and future water needs.Include both quantity and
quality considerations,as well as financial,technical,managerial,permitting,and compliance issues: Protection of the water quality in our water supply on Mountain Island Lake.Funding assistance to allow further regionalization of the utility
systems in Gaston County.The possible impacts of inter-basin transfer regulations on our water supplies from the Catawba River Basin and Mountain Island Lake.Adequate funding sources to maintain and expand the water system to meet the
needs or our customers and the future needs of Gaston County.
The Division of Water Resources(DWR)provides the data contained within this Local Water Supply Plan(LWSP)as a courtesy and service to our customers.DWR staff does not field verify data.Neither DWR,nor any other party involved in
the preparation of this LWSP attests that the data is completely free of errors and omissions.Furthermore,data users are cautioned that LWSPs labeled PROVISIONAL have yet to be reviewed by DWR staff.Subsequent review may result in
significant revision.Questions regarding the accuracy or limitations of usage of this data should be directed to the water system and/or DWR.
https://www.ncwater.org/WUDC/app/LWSP/report.php?pwsid=Ol-36-010 4/4

Appendix E
City of Cherryville Locai Water Supply Plan

6/7/2021 DWR:: Local Water Supply Planning
Cherryville 2020-
The Division of Water Resources(DWR)provides the data contained within this Local Water Supply Plan(LWSP)as a courtesy and service to our customers.DWR staff does not field verify data.Neither DWR,nor any other party involved in
the preparation of this LWSP attests that the data is completely free of errors and omissions.Furthermore,data users are cautioned that LWSPs labeled PROVISIONAL have yet to be reviewed by DWR staff.Subsequent review may result in
significant revision.Questions regarding the accuracy or limitations of usage of this data should be directed to the water system and/or DWR.
1.System Information
Contact Information
Water System Name: Cherryville PWSID: 01-36-030 Complete
Mailing Address: 116 S.Mountain Street
Cherryville,NC 28021 Ownership: Municipality
Contact Person: Patty Hall Title: Water Plant Superintendent
Phone: [phone] Cell/Mobile: [phone]
Distribution System
Line Type Size Range(Inches) Estimated%of lines
Asbestos Cement 6-12 10.00%
Cast Iron 6-16 35.00%
Ductile Iron 6-12 15.00%
Galvanized Iron 1-3 2.00%
Polyvinyl Chloride 2-12 38.00%
What are the estimated total miles of distribution system lines? 35 Miles
How many feet of distribution lines were replaced during 2020? 0 Feet
How many feet of new water mains were added during 2020? 0 Feet
How many meters were replaced in 2020? 500
How old are the oldest meters in this system? 51 Year(s)
How many meters for outdoor water use,such as irrigation,are not billed for sewer services? 39
What is this system's finished water storage capacity? 2.0000 Million Gallons
Has water pressure been inadequate in any part of the system since last update?Line breaks that were repaired quickly should not be included. No
Does this system have a program to work or flush hydrants? Yes,Annually
Does this system have a valve exercise program? No
Does this system have a cross-connection program? Yes
Does this system have a program to replace meters? Yes
Does this system have a plumbing retrofit program? No
Does this system have an active water conservation public education program? Yes
Does this system have a leak detection program? No
Water Conservation
What type of rate structure is used? Uniform
How much reclaimed water does this system use? 0.0000 MGD For how many connections? 0
Does this system have an interconnection with another system capable of providing water in an emergency? Yes
2.Water Use Information
Sub-Basin(s) %of Service Population County(s) %of Service Population
South Fork Catawba River(03-2) 100% Gaston 100%
What was the year-round population served in 2020? 6,102
Has this system acquired another system since last report? No
Water Use by Type
Type of Use Metered Metered Non-Metered Non-Metered
Connections Average Use(MGD) Connections Estimated Use(MGD)
Residential 2,690 0.3040 0 0.0000
Commercial 274 0.0670 0 0.0000
Industrial 20 0.0300 0 0.0000
Institutional 31 10.0070 0 0.0000
How much water was used for system processes(backwash,line cleaning,flushing,etc.)? 0.3000 MGD
Average Days Contract Required to Pipe Size(s) Use
Purchaser PWSID Daily Sold comply with water
(MGD) Used MGD Expiration Recurring use restrictions? (Inches) Type
CITY OF LINCOLNTON 01-55-010 0.0000 0 1.2000 2024 Yes Yes 12 Emergency
3.Water Supply Sources
Monthly Withdrawals&Purchases
Average Daily Max Day Average Daily Max Day Average Daily Max Day
Use(MGD) Use(MGD) Use(MGD) Use(MGD) Use(MGD) Use(MGD)
Jan 0.6840 0.8960 May 0.7970 0.9110 Sep 0.7740 1.0570
https://www.ncwater.org/W U DC/app/LWSP/report.ph p?pwsid=01-36-030&year=2020 1/3

6/7/2021 DWR::Local Water Supply Planning
Feb 0.6730 1.0600 Jun 0.7970 0.9920 Oct 0.7530 0.9640
Mar 0.7420 0.8570 Jul 0.8330 0.9680 Nov 0.7270 0.9170
Apr 0.7930 0.9760 Aug 0.8040 1.0710 Dec 0.6360 0.8010
Ili
Ground Water Sources
Average Daily Withdrawal(MGD) MaxDay Withdrawal(MGD) 12-Hour Supply
Name or Number CUA Reduction Year Offline Use Type
MGD Days Used (MGD)
WP1 0.0000 0 0 0.3000 Emergency
Ground Water Sources(continued)
Name or Number Well Depth(Fee[) Casing Depth Screen Depth(Feet)
(Feet) Top Bottom Well Diameter(Inches) Pump Intake Depth(Feet) Metered?
WP1 No
Are ground water levels monitored? No,
Does this system have a wellhead protection program? No
Surface Water Sources
Average Daily Withdrawal AvailaMaximum Day Water leRaw Usable On-Stream
Stream Reservoir Withdrawal(MGD) Supply Raw Water Supply
MGD Days Used MGD "Qualifier Storage(MG)
Indian Creek off stream 0.7500 365 1.0710 3.2000 SY20 10.0000
"Qualifier:C=Contract Amount,SY20=20-year Safe Yield,SY50=50-year Safe Yield,F=20%of 7Q10 or other instream flow requirement,CUA=Capacity Use Area Permit
Surface Water Sources(continued)
Stream Reservoir Drainage Area Metered? Sub-Basin County Year Use
(sq mi) Offline Type
Indian Creek off stream 39 Yes South Fork Catawba River(03-2) Lincoln Regular
What is this system's off-stream raw water supply storage capacity? 10 Million gallons
Are surface water sources monitored? Yes,Daily
Are you required to maintain minimum flows downstream of its intake or dam? No
Does this system anticipate transferring surface water between river basins? No
Water Purchases From Other Systems
Average Days Contract Required to Pipe Size(s) Use
Seller PWSID Daily Purchased comply with water
(MGD) Used MGD Expiration Recurring use restrictions? (Inches) Type
City of Lincolnton 01-55-010 0.0005 1 1.2000 2024 Yes Yes 12 Emergency
Water Treatment Plants
Plant Name Permi(MGD)ed Capacity Is Raw Water Metered? Is Finished Water Oupul Metered? Source
Cherryville WTP 3.2000 Yes Yes Indian Creek
Did average daily water production exceed 80%of approved plant capacity for five consecutive days during 2020?No
If yes,was any water conservation implemented?No
Did average daily water production exceed 90%of approved plant capacity for five consecutive days during 2020?No
If yes,was any water conservation implemented?No
Are peak day demands expected to exceed the water treatment plant capacity in the next 10 years?No
4.Wastewater Information
Average Daily Average Daily Average Daily
Discharge(MGD) Discharge(MGD) Discharge(MGD)
Jan 0.4910 May 0.6190 Sep 0.5630
Feb 0.5010 Jun 0.5220 Oct 0.6620
Mar 0.5160 Jul 0.4530 Nov 0.7040
Apr 0.6430 Aug 0.5320 Dec 0.7080
Gherryville's 2020 Mcirthly Discharges
1
O � Avg Daily
a
O
v
0
m
r7
0
0
4, 4? Oat PQt �,�-� 4� �a F q 4Q
I-
How many sewer connections does this system have? 2,791
How many water service connections with septic systems does this system have? 247
Are there plans to build or expand wastewater treatment facilities in the next 10 years? No
Wastewater Permits
rage Permitted Capacity Design Capacity Avge Annual Maximum Day Discharge
Permit Number (MGD) (MGD) Daeily Discharge (MGD) Receiving Stream Receiving Basin
(MGD)
NCO044440 2.0000 2.0000 0.5720 1.2020 Indian Creek South Fork Catawba River(03-2)
5.Planning
https://www.ncwater.org/W U DC/app/LWSP/report.ph p?pwsid=01-36-030&year=2020 2/3

6/7/2021 DWR::Local Water Supply Planning
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Year-Round Population 6,102 7,322 8,787 10,544 12,653 15,184
Seasonal Population 0 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 0.3040 0.3808 0.4569 0.5483 0.6600 0.7900
Commercial 0.0670 0.0740 0.0888 0.1066 0.1279 0.1534
Industrial 0.0300 0.0550 0.0600 0.0650 0.0700 0.0750
Institutional 0.0070 0.0100 0.0110 0.0130 0.0140 0.0160
System Process 0.3000 0.2800 0.2828 0.2856 0.2885 0.2914
Unaccounted-for 0.0400 0.0447 0.0528 0.0630 0.0748 0.0892
Demand v1s Percent of Supply
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070
Surface Water Supply 3.2000 3.2000 3.2000 3.2000 3.2000 3.2000
Ground Water Supply 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Purchases 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Future Supplies 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total Available Supply(MGD) 3.2000 3.2000 3.2000 3.2000 3.2000 3.2000
Service Area Demand 0.7480 0.8445 0.9523 1.0815 1.2352 1.4150
Sales 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Future Sales 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total Demand(MGD) 0.7480 0.8445 0.9523 1.0815 1.2352 1.4150
Demand as Percent of Supply 23% 26% 30% 34% 39% 44
The purpose of the above chart is to show a general indication of how the long-term per capita water demand changes over time.The per capita water demand may actually be different than indicated due to seasonal populations and the accuracy of
data submitted.Water systems that have calculated long-term per capita water demand based on a methodology that produces different results may submit their information in the notes field.
Your long-term water demand is 50 gallons per capita per day.What demand management practices do you plan to implement to reduce the per capita water demand(i.e.conduct regular water audits,implement a plumbing retrofit program,employ
practices such as rainwater harvesting or reclaimed water)?If these practices are covered elsewhere in your plan,indicate where the practices are discussed here.
Are there other demand management practices you will implement to reduce your future supply needs? Require water conservation tools and appliances in new homes and business construction.
What supplies other than the ones listed in future supplies are being considered to meet your future supply needs?
How does the water system intend to implement the demand management and supply planning components above?
Additional Information
Has this system participated in regional water supply or water use planning?No
What major water supply reports or studies were used for planning?
Please describe any other needs or issues regarding your water supply sources,any water system deficiencies or needed improvements(storage,treatment,etc.)or your ability to meet present and future water needs.Include both quantity and
quality considerations,as well as financial,technical,managerial,permitting,and compliance issues:
The Division of Water Resources(DWR)provides the data contained within this Local Water Supply Plan(LWSP)as a courtesy and service to our customers.DWR staff does not field verify data.Neither DWR,nor any other party involved in
the preparation of this LWSP attests that the data is completely free of errors and omissions.Furthermore,data users are cautioned that LWSPs labeled PROVISIONAL have yet to be reviewed by DWR staff.Subsequent review may result in
significant revision.Questions regarding the accuracy or limitations of usage of this data should be directed to the water system and/or DWR.
https://www.ncwater.org/W U DC/app/LWSP/report.ph p?pwsid=01-36-030&year=2020 3/3

Appendix F
Hydraulic Model Results

Figure 1: Existing Gastonia Water System
�-
' Fnd—o—lExisting Line
� Q
�r psi
os ner > I
Elementary School
�® ®❑®®
® ®®®
®®
Cl
ressure. 8 psi
a

Figure 2: Gastonia System with 16"
Interconnection to Cherryville
ressure: 109 psi
Flow: 700 9pm
ressure: 116 psi Proposed Booster Pump Station
(Location Approximate)
ressure: 112 psi
LZ
sure: 4
In„-,
e
ressure. 2 psi
i L ..�

Figure 3: Proposed Interconnection with
16-inch White Jenkins Loop
ressure: 10g psi
pm
Flow' 700 9 Proposed Booster Pump Station
116 psi (Location Approximate)
ressure.
ressure: 112 psi
ressure: 56 psi
ress
ure. 11 psi

This page intentionally left blank.

FN
440 S Church Street, Suite 1200
Charlotte, NC 28202-2075
704.338.6700
NC License F0116
hdrinc.com
© 2023 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved