Appendix N - Visual Impact Assessment - Permit Version_20240823

E R M
PREPARED O.
A\\
Visual Impact
DATE
KingsAssessment Report 23 August 2024
REFERENCE
�' � Y�-_ A�' ` gall •~'� Y �� �_ 'R l+`� � �� `�����. \: �� - 6t ' '.' yq�,
'�i-t.� `y�_�k�,..�\* �+. ``�� 1• �-+S_z Rom, � ��.X-�- '�.ti. � ,tt 'i\. k � ;��R t��`"��� �_,r.� �1�TTT ■
7V.
'+ y }
NA,
�_ . �;; �._. .�-'Cps A' s ^y .R `t,'� - - �- •��w Nj431
211
� 4 V

DOCUMENT DETAILS
The details entered below are automatically shown on the cover and the main page footer. PLEASE
NOTE: This table must NOT b1Wmoved from this document.
DOCUMENT TITLE Visual Impact Assessment Report
DOCUMENT SUBTITLE Kings Mountain Lithium Mine
PROJECT NUMBER 0723977
Date 23 August 2024
Version 01
Authors Sergio Capozzi, Robin Lium
Client name Albemarle
DOCUMENT HISTORY
ERM APPROVAL TO ISSUE
RSION REVISION JIUTHOR REVIEWED BY NAME DATE COMMENTS
Version 001 Sergio Zachary Zachary 08.26.2024
Capozzi Michalk Michalk
CLIENT:
rl,
xp
ERM PROJECTANO 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01

SIGNATURE PAGE
Visual Impact Assessment Report
Kings Mountain Lithium Mine
0723977
[Double click to insert signature]
Sergio Capozzi Robin Lium
Technical Consulting Director Senior Consultant
ERM NC, Inc.
300 West Summit Avenue
Suite 330
Charlotte, North Carolina
28203
T [phone]
©Copyright 2024 by The ERM International Group Limited and/or its affiliates('ERM').All Rights Reserved.
No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,without prior written permission of ERM.
CLIENT: Albemarle
/�i\\ E R M PROJECT NO: 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1. LOCATION 3
1.2. EXISTING FACILITIES/FACILITY INFRASTRUCTURE 3
1.3. PROPOSED FACILITIES/FACILITY INFRASTRUCTURE 3
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1. VIEWSHED ANALYSIS 4
2.2. KEY OBSERVATION POINTS 5
2.3. DOCUMENT EXISTING CONDITIONS 6
2.3.1. Field photography 6
2.3.2. Existing Landscape Conditions (Inventory) 7
2.4. VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 7
2.4.1. Simulations 7
2.4.2. Assessment 8
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 8
3.1. VIEWSHED ANALYSIS 11
3.2. KEY OBSERVATION POINTS 18
■
4.0 ;SSESSMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 33
4.1. SIMULATIONS 33
4.2. CHANGES IN LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISTICS AND VIEWER SENSITIVITY 34
4.3. CHANGES IN VISUAL RESOURCE CONDITIONS 37
5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES
5.1. SCREENING 38
5.2. RECLAMATION 41
LIST OF TABLES -A
TABLE 3-1: VIEWSHED ANALYSIS: FOREGROUND, MIDDLEGROUND, AND BACKGROUND PROJECT
VISIBILITY 11
TABLE 3-2: VISIBILITY OF PROJECT FACILITIES AND STRUCTURES FROM KEY OBSERVATION POINTS
BASED ON THE VIEWSHED ANALYSIS 18
TABLE 3-3: KEY OBSERVATION POINTS—EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PRIMARY VIEWER
GROUPS 22
TABLE 4-1. PROJECT VISIBILITY BASED ON PHOTO SIMULATIONS FROM EACH KOP. 33
TABLE 4-2. LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISTICS WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT 35
I/"
CLIENT: Albemarle
JI\\ PROJECT NO: 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page i

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 3-1: REGIONAL RECREATION AND TOURISM SITES 10
FIGURE 3-2: VIEWSHED ANALYSIS-ROCK STORAGE FACILITIES 13
FIGURE 3-3: VIEWSHED ANALYSIS-ROM PAD 14
FIGURE 3-4: VIEWSHED ANALYSIS-BUILDINGS 15
FIGURE 3-5: VIEWSHED ANALYSIS-MINE PIT 16
FIGURE 3-6: VIEWSHED ANALYSIS-OVERBURDEN STOCKPILE FACILITIES 17
FIGURE 3-7: KEY OBSERVATION POINTS 21
FIGURE 5-1. PLANNED VEGETATED BERM AND VEGETATIVE SCREENING LOCATIONS. 40
FIGURE 5-2. PHOTOGRAPHIC SIMULATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT FROM KOP 25 41
FIGURE 5-3. PHOTOGRAPHIC SIMULATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT WITH INITIAL BERM AND
VEGETATIVE SCREENING FROM KOP 25 41
FIGURE 5-4. PHOTOGRAPHIC SIMULATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT WITH BERM AND MATURE
VEGETATIVE SCREENING FROM KOP 25 41
FIGURE 5-5: VIEW OF PROJECT FROM KOP 16 WITHOUT MITIGATION 42
FIGURE 5-6: VIEW OF PROJECT FROM KOP 16 WITH MITIGATION-RECLAMATION 43
CLIENT: Albemarle
*jl\\ PROJECT NO: 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page ii

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Albemarle Albemarle U.S., Inc.
ERM ERM NC, Inc.
GIS Geographic information system
KOP Key observation point
OSF Overburden Stockpile Facility
Project Kings Mountain Lithium Mine Project
ROM Run-of-mine
RSF Rock Storage Facility
VIA Visual Impact Assessment
\/ ERM CLIENT: Albemarle
/II\� PROJECT NO: 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page iii

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Albemarle U.S., Inc. (Albemarle) proposes to restart and expand the Kings Mountain Lithium Mine
(Project). ERM NC, Inc. (ERM) prepared this Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) to identify existing
visual resource conditions and evaluate potential changes from the construction and operation of
the mine to the aesthetic character of the landscape. The VIA is specific to the 10-year operational
period of Albemarle's proposed mining operations and is based on the currently available project
description, engineering, and other planning elements available at the time of the assessment.
The goal of the VIA process is to evaluate existing landscape characteristics and potential changes
or contrasts of proposed surface-disturbing activities from the Project using standardized
landscape planning and design strategies. ERM visual resource specialists applied their knowledge
and experience using established visual resource inventory and assessment processes to this
effort. Specifically, this assessment used similar inventory processes, photographic simulations,
and assessment techniques as commonly applied federal systems, including the Bureau of Land
Management's Visual Resource Management system, the U.S. Forest Service's Scenery
Management System, and the Federal Highway Administration's Visual Impact Assessment for
Highway Projects, among others. The results of the assessment address public visibility, changes
to the current landscape elements (e.g., form, line, color, texture), and estimated viewer
sensitivity to scenic changes from the proposed Project. In addition, the assessment also identifies
mitigation strategies for minimizing project visibility and changes in landscape character.
Overall, the proposed Project would be visible from locations adjacent to or at an elevation that
provides views of the proposed Project over vegetation and other screening elements (e.g.,
topography, buildings). The most commonly visible Project facilities would be the rock storage
facilities (RSF). These facilities would be the tallest structures an the Project site at full buildout,
so it is reasonable to expect them to also be the most visible. The Project structures (e.g., run-of-
mine [ROM] pad, concentrator facility, support buildings) that are near existing roads would also
be partially visible. The mine pit would only be visible from locations near Cardio Hill (part of the
Kings Mountain Gateway Trail system).
The existing mix of developed and natural areas in the vicinity of the Project site creates a
diversity of forms, lines, colors, and textures. The proposed Project would add similar elements
but would also increase the diversity of forms on the landscape. Most of these changes would be
compatible with the existing landscape elements that characterize the region.
Viewer sensitivity to the Project and its changes to the landscape would range from low to high
depending on location. For most locations, viewer sensitivity to landscape changes from the
proposed Project would be low since viewer exposure and awareness would be limited. Viewer
sensitivity would be greatest (high) from those areas with a high degree of visibility (higher levels
of viewer exposure) and that are in areas that are more visually sensitive (higher levels of viewer
awareness), such as residential areas and parks and other public use areas with a scenic focus.
These viewers are likely to be most concerned with the visual impacts of the Project on the
landscape. These concerns could potentially be mitigated through the use of berms and/or other
CLIENT:I ERM PROJECTA NO: 723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 1

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
screening vegetation that would limit the visibility of Project facilities while also contributing visual
elements that are compatible with the existing landscape elements in the area.
The proposed Project would primarily be visible from roads adjacent to the mine properties, as
well as from elevated viewpoints that provide panoramic views of the region. While the landscape
characteristics in these areas would change, Albemarle may consider mitigation measures that
would reduce the magnitude and potential viewer sensitivity to change in these areas. In
particular, new screening would help minimize Project visibility from adjacent roads, while post-
operations reclamation efforts would help the Project facilities blend better into the regional
landscape.
E R M CLIENT: Albemarle
jl\\ PROJECT NO: 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 2

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
1 .0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Albemarle proposes to restart and expand the Kings Mountain Lithium Mine. ERM prepared this
VIA Report to identify existing visual resource conditions and evaluate potential changes from the
construction and operation of the mine to the aesthetic character of the landscape. The VIA is
specific to the 10-year operational period of Albemarle's proposed mining operations (herein
referred to as Phase I) and is based on the currently available project description, engineering,
and other planning elements available at the time of the assessment (June 2024).
1.1. LOCATION
The Kings Mountain Lithium Mine is located within the municipal boundary of Kings Mountain in
Cleveland County, North Carolina. The mine site, including the proposed new facilities and
operations areas, is on the southern side of Kings Mountain between State Route 29 (South
Battleground Avenue) and Interstate 85 (I-85). It is approximately 5 miles north of the state
boundary with South Carolina and about 30 miles west of Charlotte, North Carolina.
1.2. EXISTING FACILITIES/FACILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
Albemarle currently operates a 5,000 metric ton battery-grade lithium hydroxide plant and a
state-of-the-art Technical Center for Global Research and Development within a former lithium
mine site. The former mine was in operation from the 1940s to the mid-1980s. Today, this former
mine site contains a pit lake, a rock stockpile, a rail line, waterbodies, rock storage areas, and
other infrastructure. These facilities and other infrastructure are visible to the public from various
locations, primarily along the periphery of the site. Specifically, the public has views of the former
mine site and associated facilities from adjacent roads and the Kings Mountain Trail system, as
well as other regional vantage points with panoramic views of the area (e.g., Pinnacle Peak in
Crowders Mountain State Park).
1.3. PROPOSED FACILITIES/FACILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
Albemarle proposes to re-initiate lithium mining at the site. This would involve dewatering the pit
lake, mining the Kings Mountain lithium deposit (currently covered by the lake), and constructing
and operating associated buildings and other structures. The 10-year Phase I project period
includes mining in the existing pit, expanding the pit to the southwest and hauling waste rock to
one of two waste rock stockpile areas (Rock Storage Facilities A and X). Other new Project
facilities would include:
• Fencing and site access roads;
• Re-routed power lines and new substation;
• Site bridges and Interstate crossings;
• Laydown yards, warehouses, storage facilities, and other operations and administrative
buildings;
• ROM Pad (approximately 60 feet tall) and associated facilities;
• Concentrator Facilities (approximately 120 feet tall);
• Mining pit;
CLIENT//� E R M PROJECT ANO: 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 3

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
• Rock Storage Facilities (RSF, 2: Rock Storage Facility A-360 feet tall; Rock Storage Facility X-
220 feet tall);
• Overburden Stockpile Facilities (OSF, 3: OSF 1-95 feet tall; OSF 2-115 feet tall; OSF 3-75
feet tall)
Similar to existing site elements, the public visibility of these proposed facilities would likely be
most apparent from adjacent roads and other elevated vantage points with panoramic views of
the landscape. However, the height and mass of the new rock storage facilities and other project
structures (e.g., concentrator facilities, ROM pad, OSFs) would potentially result in greater, more
noticeable changes to the landscape. While some of the Project's proposed mitigation strategies
(Section 5) would occur during the planned 10-year timeframe of Phase I, other mitigation
strategies that would help minimize changes in visual resource conditions would occur after this
10-year operational period. The exact schedule of such strategies would be determined pending
future review and planning by Albemarle.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
Neither the State of North Carolina nor Cleveland County have established guidelines or
procedures for conducting VIAs. In the absence of a local regulatory framework for assessing
visual resources, ERM visual resource specialists based this assessment on commonly used federal
systems and best practices, including the Bureau of Land Management's Visual Resource
Management system (BLM 1984), the U.S. Forest Service's Scenery Management System (USFS
1995), and the Federal Highway Administration's Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects
(FHWA 1995), among others. These established processes evaluate existing landscape
characteristics and the potential changes or contrasts of proposed surface-disturbing activities
using standardized landscape planning and design strategies. While these systems are specifically
applicable to federal projects and lands, their inventory and evaluation techniques are adaptable
and applicable to other areas. Specifically, this assessment uses inventory processes,
photographic simulations, and assessment techniques similar to these federal systems. Ultimately,
the results of the assessment address public visibility, changes to the current landscape, and
estimated viewer sensitivity to scenic changes from the proposed Project. In addition, the
assessment also identifies mitigation strategies for minimizing project visibility and changes in
landscape character.
2.1. VIEWSHED ANALYSIS
ERM visual resource specialists completed a viewshed analysis. A viewshed analysis uses a
geographic information system (GIS) to show areas from which a proposed project may be visible.
The viewshed analysis for the proposed Project identified areas from which the proposed Project's
aboveground updates and changes may be visible, based on an assumed average viewer eye
height of 5.5 feet, considering:
• Regional topography;
• The screening effects of trees and other vegetation; and
• Existing elements of the landscape that screen or limit views.
n A/� CLIENT: Albemarle
1�\ C K M PROJECT NO: 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 4

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
The viewshed analysis is based on available Project engineering and planning at the time of the
analysis and provides a general understanding of the site's visibility from the surrounding area.
For the proposed Project, ERM conducted multiple viewshed analyses to identify where specific
Project features may be visible. Project facilities were generally grouped by their height, as
follows:
• RSF
• OSF
• ROM Pad
• Concentrator Facilities
• Mine Pit
The viewshed analysis categorized the visibility of these groups of Project facilities and structures
and considered areas up to 10 miles from the proposed Project. The results of the viewshed
analysis categorize the visibility of these groups of facilities into four general tiers:
• No visibility—none of the Project structures would be visible.
• Limited visibility-25 percent or less of a Project structure's height would be visible.
• Moderate visibility—between 25 and 75 percent of a Project structure's height would be
visible.
• High visibility-75 percent or more of a Project structure's height would be visible.
2.2. KEY OBSERVATION POINTS
A key observation point (KOP) is a viewpoint from which the public may view a project. While each
KOP is a specific location—and some KOPs are selected to specifically represent that location—
most KOPs are identified as representative of the broader types of views or viewing opportunities
available on the landscape. KOPs are a common element of VIAs and are used to evaluate existing
landscape conditions and potential changes to existing conditions from a proposed project. To
identify KOPs, ERM visual resource specialists reviewed Google Earth and other existing mapping
of the Project region and selected locations from which the public would potentially have views of
the proposed Project. These preliminary areas included residential areas, school, parks and other
recreation areas, and major travel corridors.
ERM visual resource specialists refined the locations of the KOPs to best represent areas where
existing and proposed mining activities may be seen, based on the viewshed analysis (Section
2.1). This included areas where some or all project features are screened by topography or
vegetation. The updated KOPs capture a range of locations, distances from the proposed Project,
perspectives, and vantage points. They provide individual and aggregate context for inventorying
existing visual conditions in the Project area and assessing potential visual resource changes
under the proposed Project. ERM visual resource specialists identified KOPs within all four visibility
tiers (no, limited, moderate, and high visibility) to verify and support the viewshed analysis.
In conjunction with the selection of KOPs, ERM visual resource specialists also identified the
primary viewer groups who would potentially have views of the proposed Project at each location.
These viewer groups capture the types of people most likely to engage with and be exposed to
CLIENT:I ERM PROJECTA NO: 723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 5

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
views of the Project area. Factors associated with viewer groups include viewing distances, the
angle of view, the extent to which views are open or screened, and the duration of views, among
other variables. Taken in aggregate, these factors allow for the identification of viewer groups and
their sensitivity level to potential changes on a landscape. Individual viewers may have varied
concerns and expectations that influence their sensitivity to changes in a landscape; however,
general viewer sensitivity is a function of exposure and awareness. That is, the sensitivity of
specific types of viewers (e.g., residents, motorists) is based on exposure (e.g., number of people
that may be exposed to views of the change, proximity to the change, how long viewers view the
change) and awareness (e.g., focal point or points in the existing landscape relative to the
change, unique properties of the landscape that may be effected by the change, special land use
designations or protections).
For the proposed Project, the primary viewer groups in the region are listed below.
• Area residents: These viewers are more likely to be highly sensitive to potential changes in
landscape characteristics, because they tend to value the scenic integrity of the landscape and
may have more frequent and longer duration views from their residences. In addition, area
residents tend to be most familiar with the area landscape and are therefore more perceptive
of changes over time.
• Recreation ists/tourists: These viewers select area parks, recreation areas, and other
tourist attractions in part based on the scenic setting and quality of these areas. As such, they
also tend to be more sensitive to changes in the scenic characteristics of a landscape.
• Area workers: These viewers work in the proposed Project region and thus have a higher
degree of awareness of the landscape compared to some other viewing groups (e.g.,
motorists). While more aware (based on time spent in the project region), the sensitivity of
workers is variable depending on the type and location of work being done (e.g., office
workers may be less sensitive to landscape change than employees who primarily work
outdoors).
• Motorists, commuters, and other travelers: These viewers have multiple opportunities to
view the area landscape as they travel along the primary travel corridors in the study area.
This means that their potential exposure to views of the proposed Project changes based on
speed, direction of travel, and length of trip, as well as viewing angles and screening, among
other factors. Given this variability, these viewers are typically less sensitive to changes in
scenic conditions.
Viewer groups capture the primary types of viewers who will be exposed to views of and may be
sensitive to the landscape changes resulting from the Project. In some cases, only one type of
viewer may be present at a KOP, while multiple viewer groups may be present at others.
2.3. DOCUMENT EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.3.1. FIELD PHOTOGRAPHY
ERM field staff captured photographs with the clearest, most unobstructed view toward the
proposed Project from each KOP during four trips to the Project region on the following dates:
• Trip 1-2/28/2023 through 3/02/2023 (leaf off)
r�A/� CLIENT: Albemarle
C K M PROJECT NO: 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 6

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
• Trip 2-4/24/2023 through 4/27/2023 (leaf on)
• Trip 3-7/26/2023 through 7/28/2023 (leaf on)
• Trip 4-3/5/2024 through 3/6/2024 (leaf off)
These field dates included seasonal variation so that both leaf-on and leaf-off conditions for
deciduous vegetation could be captured. In general, the screening characteristics of deciduous
vegetation is reduced during leaf-off conditions and so the potential visibility of project features
tends to increase. Field staff recorded the precise location of each KOP and corresponding
photograph, as well as other pertinent information (e.g., center bearing, angle of view, altitude,
and camera lens height) with a mobile tablet device connected to a sub-meter accurate Global
Navigation Satellite System receiver (a Trimble R1).
For the KOP photographs, ERM field photographers placed the camera (Nikon D800 professional
specification digital SLR outfitted with a Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8 prime lens) on the panoramic head
of a tripod in a landscape orientation where its lens height was confirmed and set at 5.5 feet. The
photographers then leveled the tripod head and camera combination. With the camera's viewfinder
aimed at the proposed Project's center, photographers recorded the exposure and focus settings
and fixed those settings manually in the camera so that they could not be inadvertently altered.
Photographers then rotated the panoramic head 90 degrees to the left, where the first frame of
the 180-degree photograph sequence was then taken. Each subsequent frame was taken using a
50 percent overlap of the previous frame (rotating approximately 10 degrees between frames)
until the full 180-degree sequence was captured. After the photos were complete, ERM
visualization experts combined the individual frames in PTGui Pro version 12.11 professional
photographic stitching software using cylindrical projection settings to compile a single panorama
from each KOR Each panorama documents existing conditions and serves as the basis for the
photo simulations of the proposed Project described in Section 2.4.1.
2.3.2. EXISTING LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS (INVENTORY)
Based on the panoramic photography described in Section 2.3.1, as well as notes from in-person
site visits, ERM visual resource specialists identified and described the landscape character
elements at each KOP, including the forms, lines, colors, and textures present in the landscape.
These basic landscape design elements are used across the federal scenic management systems
described in Section 2.0, and are common in other methods and processes for assessing
landscapes and designing projects to minimize their contrast with the existing landscape.
2.4. VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
2.4.1. SIMULATIONS
ERM visualization specialists developed photographic simulations of the proposed Project from
each KOP based on the panoramas (Section 2.3.1) and digital engineering drawings provided by
Albemarle. To create the simulations, ERM specialists first plotted each KOP camera location in
Global Mapper version 23.1, created digital models of the proposed Project in Autodesk 3DS Max
2021, and then rendered the proposed Project's structures in Vray version 5.2 from each KOP
camera location. The renderings used a simulated physical camera and a sun and sky simulation
CLIENT//� E R M PROJECT ANO: 723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 7

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
lighting model in the computer software, consistent with conditions shown in the original KOP
photography. This resulted in 3D imagery that was exported for use as an overlay on the
panoramas for each KOP.
ERM visualization specialists produced the photographic simulations by overlaying the rendered
images on the existing photograph for each KOP using known control points. ERM specialists then
adjusted the brightness and contrast of the rendered images to match the existing photograph and
made other minor changes (e.g., adding or removing vegetation to reflect future conditions) to the
images where necessary using Adobe Photoshop CC 2022. As a final step, ERM visualization
specialists cropped the final images to the proper proportions and exported the images to a PDF
format.
2.4.2. ASSESSMENT
ERM visual resource specialists compared the existing visual conditions (panoramic images and
field notes) against the photographic simulations of the proposed Project at each KOP from which
the Project is visible (based on the viewshed analysis). This allowed ERM's specialists to identify
noticeable changes in visual conditions (form, line, color, and texture) in the landscape. In
addition, ERM also estimated how sensitive the viewer groups at each KOP would likely be to the
identified changes in the landscape's visual conditions.
The visual assessment focuses mainly on existing conditions and the changes anticipated at full
buildout of the Project. ERM understands that Project operations are anticipated to occur over a
10-year timeframe with several years of site preparation before and several years of reclamation
activities after this 10-year operational period. As such, the area within the Project boundary will
be a working landscape with structures and facilities that will change over time. From a visual
standpoint, this means that visual changes from each KOP will occur gradually, with a general
increase in visible disturbance over time (between existing conditions and full buildout), followed
by a gradual reduction in noticeable disturbance. Where applicable, ERM visual resource
specialists have included these considerations in the assessment.
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The area around Kings Mountain, North Carolina, is characterized by open valleys, rolling hills, and
taller mountains that frame the landscape. Forested areas are common and provide contrast,
verticality, and texture while providing a buffer or screen between other common lands uses (e.g.,
agriculture, residential, commercial). Due to the prevalence of trees and other deciduous
vegetation, the landscape appearance and colors change throughout the year depending on the
season. This creates variation and interest that contributes to the overall scenic value of the
regional landscape. The rolling topography, forested areas, and current development (e.g.,
buildings and other structures) limit wider landscape views in many locations, but elevated areas
(e.g., hilltops, peaks) often provide open vistas from which to view the regional landscape.
Residential development is centered in Kings Mountain, but there are pockets of rural residential
development throughout the region. Interstate 85 and U.S. Route 74 are major transportation
corridors with many state and local roads also providing access throughout the region. There are
multiple public parks, open space areas, and other tourist destinations near the Project. The
CLIENT:I ERM PROJECTA NO: 723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 8

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
scenic quality of these areas is likely one of the defining or contributing attributes of their setting
and designation. The Crowders Mountain Drive Scenic Byway and Kings Mountain Gateway Trail
are particularly close to and may be most sensitive to changes in the visual setting from the
proposed Project (Figure 3-1).
err►�
.E R M Albemarle PROJECTNO 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 9

� Ae fferS° �e�ia C � o- ge°Marshall y
CID Arthur Rauch Project Location ation
ShelbyGastonia
u) 0 I 0
co'/oE n Rd e61 North
Carolina 0Charlotte
°eta Z F' South Carolina
I
� � I
Kings Mountain a°O Ra
&untry Club I
Davidson Park 9 Mount View
I
l __
Deal Park �Dmor,I' Permit Boundary- KMM
��e, Kings Mountain E Kinp St I Areas of Interest
by Kings Mountain
Ra W Gold St ®Historical Museum Gateway Trail Trailhead
� PatrioYPark Kings Mountain Historical Museum
White Plains 6
9 North Carolina Welcome Center
m Gateway/ } aeP�rJy ° Crowders Mountain Drive Scenic Byway
ice ` Trailhead °oat Regional Trail
°G z o Gateway Trail
0 216
o Other Regional Trail
m ° c°i y
3 Y �� Surface Water with BIMS Class
a s ���..�!� ♦♦ �I o Y /A B: Primary Contact Recreation, Fresh Water
♦'��'�; !,tip ♦ i �I� Crowders-Mountain
Note 5 ♦a ♦ ♦ Cl C R C:Aquatic Life, SecondaryContact Recreation,
��•• �— ♦ �� ; M o State'Park Fresh Water
> n3
`"%'' ♦ 85 ^ 161 �I� Managed Areas
% ♦♦ I Dedicated Nature Preserve
�� ♦♦ Conservation Easement
° ♦
e FLa ♦�_ ♦ � 'Q-a
Qa �a iz ♦♦ °r [/-2 State Ownership
r�cr �a�°j �� ♦♦mod !6 Gateway Trailhead
G ale \� T � Local Government Ownership
r� G Q{ ooao USA Parks
I
National Park or Forest
Archdale °' Ra a State Park or Forest
Rd Local Park
o1\
Waterbodies
Lake or Pond
a
�r 29 K
o North Carolina d Notes:
ot a 1:Permit Boundary updated by ERM on August 21 2024.
Welcome Center I Note 2:Existing Trails and Managed Areas from
NC Natural Heritage Program,Auggust 2023
Note 3:USA Parks from ESRI 2023
Note 4:BIMS Classification for Surface Waters from NC DEQ.
Note 5:Area excluded from the permit boundary,existing
Hagans Forest facilities are not related to mining activity in North Carolina.
N
0 0.8 1.6
Miles
a North Carolina Love -2� A
C"'e'l South Carolina — - - — _ _ Valley }
I a 1 inch = 0.8 mile when printed at 11"x17"
— _ — J—
�o
Figure 3-1: Regional Recreation
ed�f d,, and Tourism Sites
°9 eL a Kings Mountain Lithium Mine
Albemarle _
Kings Mountain Kings Mountain r�° Kings Mountain `
National Military Park State Park s` Cleveland County, `�1
Antioch A
Houser Rd North Carolina

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
The Crowders Mountain Drive Scenic Byway in Crowders Mountain State Park is a designated
North Carolina Scenic Byway. The State's scenic byways program highlights the unique history,
geography, and scenic landscapes across the State. Specifically, the Crowders Mountain Drive
Scenic Byway focuses on the revolutionary war history of the area, as well as the mountains from
which the byway derives its name. The weathered granite caps and forested mountainsides
contribute to the overall scenic quality along the byway. While some areas along the byway
provide open vistas, most of the roadway is lined on both sides by tall trees that limit more
distant views.
The Kings Mountain Gateway Trail connects the community of Kings Mountain with Crowders
Mountain State Park and other regional recreation sites. The trail provides opportunities for
recreation and for visitors to learn about and experience the area's mining history. This history is
on display along the trail segment that runs along the exterior of the existing mining site, as well
as from the scenic vista at the top of Cardio Hill (a reclaimed tailings pile). The scenic setting is an
important characteristic of the entire trail system, including the part along the mine's exterior. In
addition to potential visual impacts, the proposed Project will require realignment of the trail in
the vicinity of the pedestrian bridge over Interstate 85 (note: Kings Mountain Gateway Trail Inc.,
the trail system's non-profit managing entity, has not yet identified the final route of this
realignment).
3.1. VIEWSHED ANALYSIS
Figures 3-2 through 3-6 display the results of the viewshed analysis for each group of facilities
and structures identified in Section 2.1 (RSF, OSF, ROM Pad, Condenser Facilities, Mine Pit). Table
3-1 lists the area (as a percentage) in the foreground, middleground and background from which
each proposed Project facility would be visible. Viewing distances were calculated as a radius from
each proposed Project facility. For purposes of this analysis, the foreground radius includes an
area up to 0.5 mile, the middleground radius includes an area from 0.5 miles to 5 miles, and the
background radius includes an area from 5 to 10 miles from a specific Project facility. In general,
in the fore and middleground, viewers tend to be able to discern landscape details, scale, and
context and more easily recognize changes to these characteristics. In many environments,
screening elements in the fore and middleground typically obscure all or a portion of the
background views. Where background views are available, viewers tend to distinguish broad
forms, large-scale patterns, and general color palettes, but are less able to perceive specific
landscape details.
TABLE 3-1: VIEWSHED ANALYSIS: FOREGROUND, MIDDLEGROUND, AND BACKGROUND
PROJECT VISIBILITY
Viewing Distance/Percent of Areal
Project Facility Not Visible Low Visibility Moderate High Visibility
Visibility
Foreground (0-0.5 miles)
RSF 85.81% 4.24% 5.42% 4.54%
.E R M Albemarle PROJECTNO 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 11

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Viewing Distance/Percent of Areal
OSF 93.20% 5.19% 1.59% 0.02%
ROM Pad 95.04% 0.96% 1.12% 2.88%
Buildings 89.99% 7.72% 2.23% 0.07%
Mine Pit 94.64% 5.35% 0.000/0 0.000/0
Middleground (0.5-5 miles)
RSF 97.82% 1.43% 0.60% 0.14%
T-
OSF 99.79% 0.14% 0.06% 0.00%
r
ROM Pad 99.95% 0.01% 0.01% 0.02%
T-
Buildings 99.85% 0.14% 0.01% 0.00%
Mine Pit 99.93% 0.07% 0.000/0 0.000/0
Background (5-10 miles)
RSF 98.14% 1.21% 0.50% 0.16%
OSF 99.76% 0.18% 0.06% 0.00%
ROM Pad 99.87% 0.03% 0.03% 0.07%
Buildings 99.71% 0.23% 0.06% 0.00%
Mine Pit 99.85% 0.15% 0.000/0 0.000/0
'The percentage represents the area within the viewing distance radius for each visibility category (not, low,
moderate, and high visibility).
Based on the viewshed analysis, the proposed Project would not be visible from most locations in
the region at the three established viewing distances (Table 3-1). The proposed Project facilities
would be most visible in areas of the foreground. In particular, the RSF would be visible from
about 18 percent of the area in the foreground, respectively. The RSFs have the greatest
percentage of foreground areas from which they would be highly visible, but even this area is
small (under 5 percent of the total foreground area). Into the middleground and background, the
proposed Project's facilities are generally not visible with less than 1 percent of the total area of
each of these zones having some level of visibility. Even the RSF, the tallest of the proposed
Project facilities, would only be visible from about 2-3 percent of middleground and background
areas.
CLIENT/��I E R M PROJECT ANO: 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 12

1 A ',
KOP02 G / v !o 2 E Iowa
• °o, 1 >9 Creek Rd Ave
Kings o �hR I Project Location
o
IShelby
Mountain I Bess zEa r City o 0Gastonia Charlotte
Reservoir Woodbridge Golf s t * North Carolina o
KOP 01 Links � t South Carolina
�kgrove \ CO
Sandy Plains s Permit BoundaryKMM
Q�
N P%a \ g °� Mine Design Feature
v. ( \j Rock Storage Facility Contour
atsball Arthur Raul 0 Rock Storage Facility
d alter Oix I../! -0 I
F 74 .,,,. SOn Rd °nei� � { a a 5e° KOP with Visibility Rating
x - a I0 High
O Moderate
Kings M ain 1` U I ?'� 29
Countryrjub 1 O Limited
I Mountain View
• None
ill e aKOP07 r j ,- �F Dixon Btvd W Visibility Level
0a`� tCings{Mountaln.:
High Visibility
W oIrKOP08� I" �.
Carr Moderate Visibility
White Plains KOP06 KOP05 • KOP09 216 y' e^6G \
• KOP03 `'* c 161 ry I f Limited Visibility
m KOPO4 ' �y a IeP" �
c • �•KOP 10 r• }
KOP 11 K,P 22 ao
Crowders
a0 KOP 27 •KOP 12 s
�o wh9eRa <u g KOP KOP26,�� fKOP13 i" l Mountain
Y •
�i
Qc o KOP 25' ;' KOP 24 ,"r `rsr� X OR
• a for A �� KO2 &29 KOP 14 Y e I O W
3
Note �40�.► I0. ' Ridge
x "� I i-
sl KOP 30&31 a= `M l o
S KOP 20�4 KOP 34 `V Raw > M i$
N
' Crowders
KOP 32&33 A., rk"' Mountain State
�- - w5 ♦��` 41 Park
KOP.21
wilt
KOP 45;$ ®� i1 KOP,17Gr1 fr •KOP 16
�o e� K6P19 3 c KOP,15
\er �K 46 ! 4. °
OP " �o r
6e�r r K ;r e Rd Notes:
r . � Note 1:Permit Boundary updated by ERM on August 21 2024.
�AYchdale �� r,r, a t - Note 2 Pro ect Features are based on Draft Site x
Layout RevIK provided by Hatch on July 18 2024.
h / Note 3 Viewshed Analysis completed in July 2024.
+ r`110 ° h? ' Note 4 Area excluded from the permit boundary,existing
=: s facilities are not related to mining activity in North Carolina.
m ,v :�Z 1
4►0, liof
1 K i-n-g_s: N0 0.9 1.8zzs29 a� � M oun t a i nMiles
Grover Crowders 1 inch = 0.9 mile when printed at 11"x17"ountain State 1
Park 1�
Figure 3-2: Viewshed Analysis - g
C; Rock Storage Facilities
— a a
Kings Mountain Lithium Mine
Love Albemarle
ov
e�y — -m—� — _ _ _ _North Carolina_ V a I I e y a Kings Mountain ` g
South Carolina — — — — — — _ _ I Cleveland County, `��
J f Q s ,' \IA North Carolina
)))11

1 A ',
KOP02 G / v !° 2 E Iowa
• °o, 1 >9 Creek Rd Ave
o /hR I Project Location
Kings
o
Mountain I Bess zEa r City o Shelby
0Gastonia Charlotte
Reservoir Woodbridge Golf s I North Carolina O
KOP 01 Links 0 I South Carolina
Oakgrove cn
� n
� d
� � a
Sandy Plains \ \
-� Permit Boundary - KMM
Q
N P \ o Ga ROM Pad
KOP with Visibility Rating
atsball Arthur Raul • High
F �E 7a a�/erSOn Rd o1+61.1 In N Q 5e°� O Moderate
�40 = �a aw I O Limited
%Q e z j I
�e �a° 1 • None
Kings Mountain °Rd 1 Zg
Country Club I Mountain View Visibility Level
I
High Visibility
KOP07 iF Dixon Blvd W
ill Ra • ;;." I Moderate Visibility
0ac� Kings Mcs;tktitai.n I
KOP08' ::' Limited Visibility
W Gold St •
Cant
. ...
White Plains KOP 6 KO�5 •KOP03 KOP09 216 r h. e64r
161 y
m KOP 04 KOP 10 o �e P��� °
a p e`r� O _KOP 11 KOP 27 ' KOP 12 y\O° Crowders
w� f#KOP22_7" ,[ • Mountain
ya° 9e Rq <u Y g KOP 23 y' OOP 28 .V' , KOP�
Q c 0) n KOP24CD
a
3 5.W4 KOP 25 �* ' KOP,14 D i C: 7
�o A��♦��cKyOP28&29' ��j 0 :3 Ye�IOW
Poe4 �I0 Ridge
41
� KOP 30&31 ♦11 o
•♦ N
KOP 34 ;
KOP20 ,r.� Crowders
r` KOP32&33 r U I� Mountain State
a KO 5 Park
,tea (I i
��6 Qa taGe tis o� ems♦ KOP,17tr I\ KOP16
KOP 45 % A'�-� ♦ r•� I
�Gr m�sl
o e KOP 19
KOP 15
tips KOP46• • \ O°i,e
Be KOP 18 ;0r� Notes:
. e Q �� _ d Note 1:Permit Boundary updated by ERM on August 21 2024.
Archdale U�� Note 2:Project Features are based on Draft Site
Layout Rev K pprovided by Hatch on July 18 2024.
o�Ra / Note 3:Viewshed Analysis completed in July 2024.
Note 4:Area excluded from the permit boundary,existing
I facilities are not related to mining activity in North Carolina.
m I
I N
,e 60 l I
Kings/ 1 0 0.9 1.8
cr hc, Mountain
zzs Miles
6a p
Grover °\+o Crowders fl� 1 inch = 0.9 mi when printed at 11"x17"
Mountain State 1
Park 1�
Figure 3-3: Viewshed Analysis -
a EC Rom Pad
- - - - - - -tea - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ Kings Mountain Lithium Mine
o
Love Y Albemarle
_North gar0lina_ Valley a Kings Mountain `
South Carolina — I Cleveland County, J��7 )))11
I
a ,' °� ga`�\e�`o North Carolina

I A ',
KOP02 G / v !° 2 E Iowa
>9 Creek Rd Ave
o /hR I Project Location
Kings
o
Mountain I Bess zEa r City o Shelby
0Gastonia Charlotte
Reservoir Woodbridge Golf s I North Carolina O
KOP 01 Links 0 I South Carolina
Oakgrove cn
� n
� � a
Sandy Plains \ \
-� Permit Boundary - KMM
Q
IV P,Qa \ E ] Proposed Buildings
KOP with Visibility Rating
atsball Arthur Raul High
F �E 7a aI/ersOn Rd o/xO e In N Q 5e°� O Moderate
m /I a
�40 = �a aw I O Limited
%Q \\a°°e z j I
�e �a° 1 • None
Kings Mountain °Rd 1 Zg
Country Club I Mountain View Visibility Level
I
E High Visibility
ill d KOP07 iF Dixon Blvd W
ac�e�tiR Kings IAairfai`n Moderate Visibility
KOP08'"+}; ' " Limited Visibility
w Gold St•; .T-
F I Cann
White Plains KOP06 KOP05 KOP091`• 216 j: e64
KOP 03
m KOP 04 KOP 10 Q o
°e`r "KOP 27 KOP 12q° Crowders° r KOP 11 a c S
o MKOv27 KOP13 l Mountain
�0 9e Ra �� <u Y g KOP 23 y KOP 2! y I t
? o5.71 .<.5 I 1
Q m U ' al� KOP 24 3 w5,
3 Y KOP 25 + KOP 14 c i
�o ��w '� &-KOP28&29 �♦j' 0I� Yellow
�� 'Note4♦ ♦ ♦ UIo.
a �..;o.. � ' ♦ �.c�- Ridge
m KOP 30831 e ' c I c
� ♦ a' m °
KOP 20 KOP 34( J R�p!�. CO
+ �. ♦ C�7=^ -`S Crowders
KOP,32&33 _ Uri✓ Mountain State
85 ♦ (I Park
Rd KOP 21 w
�6d rya `a°e ` ; s, KOP,7Gr l 40
KOP 16
o J�o � KOP 45 * �� ♦ �s' ��
�o e� KOP 19 I
j KOP 15 \
e° .0
tips KOP46 °i,e
6e KOP18 r� Notes:
_ d Note 1:Permit Boundary updated by ERM on August 21 2024.
Archdale �� Note 2:Project Features are based on Draft Site
d U gr Layout Rev K provided by Hatch on July 18 2024.
�Fz h s✓ Note 3:Viewshed Analysis completed in July 2024.o c° * Note 4:Area excluded from the permit boundary,existing
facilities are not related to mining activity in North Carolina.
m I
I N
d P,e 6o�h,° '/J� K l n-g_s 0 0.9 1.8
tti 29 0r `ar hc,�R M o u n t a i In \� Miles
zz6 6a p
Grover °\+° Crowders fl� 1 inch = 0.9 mi when printed at 11"x17"
Mountain State 1
Park 1�
Figure 3-4: Viewshed Analysis -
a EC Buildings
- - - - - - -tea - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ Kings Mountain Lithium Mine
o
Love Y Albemarle
_North Carolina_ V a I I e y a Kings Mountain `
South Car olina — I Cleveland County, J��' 7 )))11
I
aga`�\IAO North Carolina

1 A ,
KOP02 G / v !° 2 E Iowa
>9 Creek Rd Ave
o /hR I Project Location
Kings
o
Mountain I Bess z7a r City o Shelby
0Gastonia Charlotte
Reservoir Woodbridge Golf s t North Carolina O
KOP 01 Links 0 t South Carolina
Oakgrove cn
� n
� � a
Sandy Plains \ \
-� Permit Boundary - KMM
Q
IV P,Qa \ g Mine Design Feature
v Pit Contour
atsball Arthur Raul O Pit
F �E 74 aI/erson Rd O,xOne In N Q 1 C-)WI KOP with Visibility Rating
m /1, a 1
�40 ea aw I O Limited
%Q e z j I
�e � 1 • None
Kings Mountain aCO Rq U 1 2
Country Club I �Mountain View Visibility Level
I
Limited Visibility
KOP07 IE Dixon Blvd W
ill �ac�etiRd Kings
Mountain
KOP W Gold St a.
Can(
White Plains Kl 6 K�5 •P03 KOP-09 216 e6G
161 ry
a > KOP 04 ` KOP 10 a r o
>-
d�a
a ph e o KOP 11 KOP 27 KOP 12 y4°° Crowder s
xr o ° r
w q*KOP 22')' • M o u n t
ego° 9e Ra �� <u Y g KOP 23 "KOP 26 v KOP 13
5 °
Qh KOP 24CD
3 Y 04 KOP 25 ,.. KOP 14 c i
�► I,'�.
KOP28&29 ��� 01� Yellow
'No 4i _
r \ i4**-� 0U, . Ridge
+ KOP 30&31 I C *-
KOP 34
KOP20� .�� - Crowders
r KOP32&33 i UJ Mountain State
5
(I Park
Rd KOP 21 ♦+ IQ I u
°e �„• �� ,�s, KOP,17c- I O KOP 16
�o KOP 45 0-
e ;.
�o ere KOP 19
(� < KOP 15
getip� KOP 46 °i,L Notes:
KOP 18 et Q N�� a Note 1:Permit Boundary updated by ERM on August 21 2024.
Archdale f Note 2:Project Features are based on Draft Site
d v Layout Rev K pprovided by Hatch on July 18 2024.
R e Note 3:Viewshed Analysis completed in July 2024.
o� �� y Note 4:Area excluded from the permit boundary,existing
facilities are not related to mining activity in North Carolina.
m
1
-\e 6o Zain
N
� /� K I-n-g-s. t) 0.9 1.8
ti290r `ar h,� MountainMiles
zz6 Grover � wders l 1 inch = 0.9 mi when printed at 11"x17"
State 1
a Park 1�
Figure 3-5: Viewshed Analysis -
a EC Mine Pit
- - - - - - -tea - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ Kings Mountain Lithium Mine
o
Love Y Albemarle
_North garolin Kings Mountain
a_ V a I I e y a `
South Carolina — I Cleveland County, J��7 )))11
1
0
ga`�\IAO North Carolina

1 A ',
KOP02 G / v !° 2 E Iowa
>9 Creek Rd Ave
o /hR I Project Location
Kings
o
Mountain I Bess zEa r City o Shelby
0Gastonia Charlotte
Reservoir Woodbridge Golf s t North Carolina O
KOP 01 Links 0 t South Carolina
Oakgrove cn
� n
� � a
Sandy Plains \ \
-� Permit Boundary - KMM
Q
IV P,Qa \ g Mine Design Feature
Overburden Storage Facility Contour
Shall Arthur Raul 0 Overburden Storage Facility
F �E 7a aIt."on Rd �o'xo'e �,W i 5e° a< KOP with Visibility Rating
m /� s a
�40 ea aw ! I O Moderate
n% ao°e z ) I
O Limited
Kings Mountain °Rd H , 1 99
Country Club I V • None
I Mountain View
Visibility Level
ill Rd KOP 07 IE Dixon Blvd W High Visibility
�ac�e�ti Kings.IvTtnfain i r
KOP as'' Moderate Visibility
W Gold St.,.
cant, \� Limited Visibility
White Plains KOP� s KOP• 5 KOP09'''
•P03 64r I
L
> KOP 04 KOP 10 pf. o
KOP 11 K 'KOP12`y1o° A Crowders
. ,P,22- KOP 27 c S
o KOP 23 aO�►! `� KOP 13 • M o u n t a i•n
eya Rq Y g KOP 26
c m o m KOP 25 I r
Q i KOP 24 85
3 Y is 7
KOP48&29� KOP 01� Yellow
�Note4� �Iv; )FR\,i)dge
30&31 o
KOP 20;;7.. KOP 34 Rep. > m
.• CO�-: �\ Crowders
#' �jKOP32&33 �.., U I' Mountain State
o - _ KOP 21:*
r � ♦iv ♦ �I Park
e
d � �; ,� a: \
�6 Q I;p `ao ,j►. !s, �aox�. 0KOP16 �� /
J�cr e�� KOP 45 * �.�0 KOP 17
�o e� KOP 19
r j _ KOP 15
0
tir�e KOP 46 �`sl \ Doi,,
ge 85 KOP 18 b ( r Qo Notes:
>, _ Note 1:Permit Boundary updated by ERM on August 21 2024.
Archdale r'` ;' , Ci x/ ' Note 2:Project Features are based on Draft Site
Layout Rev K pprovided by Hatch on July 18 2024.
Note 3:Viewshed Analysis completed in July 2024.
o� Note 4:Area excluded from the permit boundary,existing
h facilities are not related to mining activity in North Carolina.
40
1
z,• /) 1 N
d Pie 6ofh,° K I n g 0 0.9 1.8
tti z9 �r `a�°r hc,�R �^ o u n t a i In \� Miles
zz6 6a � p
Grover �1 Crowders fl 1 inch = 0.9 mi when printed at 11"x17"
j Mountain State 1 it Park 1�
1 " l Figure 3-6: Viewshed Analysis -
a EC Overburden Stockpile Facilities
o /
Kings Mountain Lithium Mine
Love Y a Albemarle _
_North Carolina_ Valley a Kings Mountain `
South Carolina — I Cleveland County, J��7 )))11
I
a ,' °� ga`�\e�`° North Carolina

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
3.2. KEY OBSERVATION POINTS
Based on the viewshed analysis and typical viewer groups, ERM visual resource specialists
selected 34 KOPs with views oriented toward the mine. Table 3-2 summarizes visibility based on
the viewshed analysis (Section 3.1) for each KOR The KOPs and their locations are displayed on
Figure 3-7. and Table 3-3 provides additional information and context regarding the visual setting
at each KOP including descriptions of existing landscape character elements, and the primary
viewer groups. Appendix A includes panoramic photographs of the existing conditions at each KOP.
TABLE 3-2: VISIBILITY OF PROJECT FACILITIES AND STRUCTURES FROM KEY OBSERVATION
POINTS BASED ON THE VIEWSHED ANALYSIS
KOP RSF OSF ROM Pad Buildings Mine Pit
Al
KOP 01 None None None None None
KOP 02 None None None None None
KOP 03 None None None None None
KOP 04 None None None None None
KOP 05 None None None None None
KOP 06 None None None None None
KOP 07 None None None None None
KOP 08 Moderate None None None None
KOP 09 None None None None None
KOP 10 None None None None None
KOP 11 None None None None None
KOP 12 None None None Limited None
KOP 13 None None None Limited None
KOP 14 Visible None None None None
KOP 15 None None None None None
KOP 16 High Moderate High High Limited
KOP 17 None None None None None
KOP 18 Moderate None None None None
KOP 19 Limited None None None None
.E R M Albemarle PROJECTNO 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 18

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
KOP RSF OSF ROM Pad Buildings Mine Pit
KOP 20 Limited None None None None
KOP 21 Moderate None None None None
KOP 22 None None None None None
KOP 23 None None None None None
KOP 24 Limited Limited None Limited None
KOP 25 Moderate Limited None Limited None
KOP 26 Moderate Limited Moderate Limited Limited
KOP 27 Limited Limited Limited Moderate Limited
KOP 28 None None Moderate Moderate None
KOP 29 None None None Moderate None
KOP 30 High None None Moderate None
KOP 31 None None None Moderate None
KOP 32 Moderate None None None None
KOP 33 None None None Moderate None
KOP 34 None None None Limited None
1 Visibility Levels based on the Viewshed Analysis (Section 3.1): NV = no visibility (none of the proposed
Project's structures and/or facilities would be visible), LV = low visibility (25 percent or less of the proposed
Project's structures and/or facilities would be visible), MV = moderate visibility (between 25 to 75 percent of
the proposed Project's structures and/or facilities would be visible), HV = high visibility (more than 75
percent of the proposed Project's structures and/or facilities would be visible).
The visibility results are based upon the screening effects of the surrounding topography (bare
earth) and vegetation. Overall, the proposed Project would not be visible from most locations in
the region (10-mile radius). As shown on Figures 3-2 through 3-6, most views of the Project's
facilities and structures would be entirely blocked by viewing perspectives and existing screening
conditions including topography, trees, buildings, and other landscape features. The RSF would be
the most visible project facility based on the viewshed analysis. As the tallest of the proposed
Project's facilities, the RSF would be visible from about 33 percent of the KOPs. One or more of
the Project's buildings, including the concentrator facilities, would be visible from about 22 percent
of the KOPs. The remaining Project facilities would only be visible from a handful of the KOPs.
In total, there would be at least low visibility of one or more of the proposed Project's facilities
from about 54 percent of the KOPs based on the results of the viewshed analysis. Visibility would
be moderate to high at only about 35 percent of the KOPs. These locations tend to be close to the
r
.E R M Albemarle PROJECTNO 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 19

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Project (foreground) in areas with limited screening features (e.g., views of the RSF from KOPs
18, 21, 25, and 26). The locations with the highest levels of visibility also tend to be adjacent to
the Project (e.g., along an adjacent road) or are from more distant but elevated locations. KOP 16
is located at an overlook in Crowders Mountain State Park and provides an elevated view about 2
to 2.5 miles from most of the proposed Project's structures and facilities. Actual Project visibility
from these KOPs is addressed separately in Section 4.
\ E R M CLIENT: Albemarle
jl\` PROJECT NO: 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 20

I A w
KOP02 G / v l°
9 �n 2 E towa
• °�`o,. I � Creek Rd Ave
o /hR I Project Location
Kings
o
zE
Mountain I Bess a r City o Shelby
0Gastonia Charlotte
Reservoir Woodbridge Golf 6 North Carolina O
KOP 01 Links 0 t South Carolina
Oakgrove rn
� n
� � a
Sandy Plains \ \
-� Permit Boundary - KMM
Q
At P,Qa \ o °a KOP Focus
• Mine Site KOP
at ball Arthur Raul
El TSF KOP
u d a�/er O/xo a I �0
74 SOn Rd �% � N a I 5e
� CU
40 Fta a IIr U C I
%Q e z j I
Kings Mountain aCo Rd U 1 2
Country Club I
I Mountain View
KOP 07 IF Dixon Blvd W
i I I Rd •
�ac�e�ti Kings Mountain
W Gold St KOP 08
\-
216 Cant, I
White Plains KOPP06 KOP 05 •KOP 03 KOP09 161 64r
•
a m KOP 04 KOP 10
c • •
�exr� KOP 11 KOP 27 KOP 12 �\°° Crowders
a ��7
�0 9e Ra �f Y K • MounanKOj*22�
g KOP 23qP .♦OP 26 KOP 13
4 52 mnKOP 24
3
Y El 25 ,� �� KOP 14 C i
�a J, 'Note2*-"KOP
OP28&29 ��-� U�o Yellow
e o
may,, 1 .. o U Ridge
cic
ors KOP 34&'KOP 30&31
KOP20� Crowders
r♦• 4KOP 32&33 0 U I� Mountain State
Rd KOP#21 5„ �♦�a (\� Park
8 /f
6 Qa �a°e %• ♦� !s♦ KOP417; I\ •KOP 16
°'o r a�� KOP 45 �'Q d ♦ �� I
Gr KOP 19
KOP 46 (D KOP 15
Be KOP 18
Archdale �
v Notes:
oand / Note 1:Permit Boundary updated by ERM on August 21 2024.
Note 2:Area excluded from the permit boundary,existing
facilities are not related to mining activity in North Carolina.
m � I
I N
-\e 60 I
rdP fh,� K i.n-g-s I 0 0.9 1.8
tti 29 `a�°r Mountain Miles
zzs 6a 0 a p
Grover °\�° Crowders fl� 1 inch = 0.9 mi when printed at 11"x17"
Mountain State I
Park Figure 3-7: Key Observation
- _ a EC Points
Kings Mountain Lithium Mine
o
Q) Love Y Albemarle _
_North Carolina_ Valle y a Kings Mountain `
South Carolina — - I Cleveland County, J��7 0 )))11
I
,' °� ga`�\e�`° North Carolina

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
TABLE 3-3: KEY OBSERVATION POINTS—EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PRIMARY VIEWER GROUPS
KOP Location Existing Visual Characteristics Primary Viewer
Group(s)
KOP 01 Moss Lake • Parking lot and other park buildings in foreground leading to views of Recreation ists/To u ri sts
Recreation Park Moss Lake and the surrounding mature forest
• Tall trees in foreground provide vertical lines and scale; poles and
distribution lines create additional vertical lines and bowed horizontal
lines
• Low, contiguous blocks of trees in midground that frame the landscape
• Colors variable from gray, white, dark red, and brown in developed
features to blues, greens, and browns in natural features (lake, forest)
• Generally smooth texture that is interrupted by clumped patches of
vegetation and buildings
KOP 02 Moss Lake • Residential area in foreground with tall trees and homes screening more Area Residents
Residences distant views
• Trees, light poles, signs, distribution lines, and buildings provide
verticality and screening
• Flat, smooth, linear road in foreground
• Lines of developed features are primarily geometric and straight while
lines in natural features tend to be weaker and more irregular
• Grays and greens are dominant colors, with some pops of other colors
(yellow, red, white—primarily in developed features)
• Smooth to rough textures in various landscape components (both natural
and developed)
KOP 03 Kings Mountain High • Road, buildings, distribution lines, and other developed features in the • Area Residents
School foreground; trees and buildings screen more distant views except along • Area Workers
road (more distant views to the southwest along Phifer Road)
• Trees, light poles, signs, distribution lines, and buildings provide
verticality and screening
• Flat, smooth, linear road in foreground
• Lines of developed features are primarily geometric and straight while
lines in natural features tend to be weaker and more irregular
• Grays and greens are dominant colors; other typical colors for this type of
landscape (yellow, red, white—primarily in developed features)
• Smooth to rough textures in various landscape components (both natural
and developed)
/ . A E R M PROJECTNO: 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 22

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
KOP Location Existing Visual Characteristics Primary Viewer
INME Group(s)
KOP 04 Kings Mountain • Residential area in foreground with tall trees and homes screening more • Area Residents
Middle School distant views • Area Workers
• Viewing position and height of vegetation generally screens more distant
views
• Trees and distribution lines provide verticality and screening (trees)
• Flat, smooth, linear road in foreground
• Lines of developed features are primarily geometric and straight while
lines in natural features tend to be weaker and more irregular
• Dark gray of pavement and greens of the trees and other vegetation are
dominant colors, but some white, yellow, light tan, silver/metallic, and
other colors present
• Smooth to rough textures in various landscape components (both natural
and developed)
KOP 05 Stadium Bleachers • Athletic field/complex, school grounds, parking lots, and school buildings • Area Residents
in the foreground • Area Workers
• Contiguous block of trees/vegetation frames the landscape and generally
screens more distance views
• Low, block buildings and flat, geometric forms in the field/track and
parking lots
• Flat, smooth, geometric lines on the field and track and other straight,
bold, and geometric lines on the buildings, field goals, and light posts
• Vertical height and context provided by the light poles
• School and athletic facilities are primarily black, yellow, green, white, and
light brown while the framing trees are various shades of lighter to darker
greens
• Developed features tend to be smooth with sparse but stippled features
(lights, field goal posts) that provide periodic contrast
• Softly textured treetops provide contrast to other smooth landscape
features
CLIENT
lbemarle
L 1 \� 1 PROJECT ANO: 723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 23
�rrl��

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
KOP Location Existing Visual Characteristics Primary Viewer
10=0 Group(s)
KOP 06 Kings Mountain • Large, open grassy field with scattered trees in the foreground; paved • Area Residents
Intermediate School roads, distribution lines, light poles, and buildings also in foreground • Area Workers
• Rolling topography and dense tree cover generally frames and screens
more distance views except along road (Kings Mountain Boulevard)
• Developed landscape elements tend to be flat (roads) or rectangular
(buildings) with some curves (roads) and angles (triangular roof lines)
adding contrast; natural elements (trees) are more amorphous in the
foreground and transition into solid blocks from the fore to the middle
ground
• Some bold vertical (light poles, distribution line poles) and horizontal
lines (roads, distribution lines); treetops provide a nearly continuous
undulating line across the landscape
• Various shades of green (lawn, trees); gray, red, white, brown, tan
• Smooth (lawn, roads) to medium (treetops) textures with several
discontinuous features (light poles, distribution line poles)
KOP 07 Kings Mountain • Residential area in foreground with multiple developed features (homes, • Area Residents
Country Club roads, distribution lines, streetlights, landscape areas, etc.) • Recreation ists/Tou rists
• Flat, smooth, linear road in foreground with trees, light poles, distribution
lines, and buildings that provide verticality and screening (trees)
• Geometric (buildings, roads) to amorphous (trees) shapes
• Multiple vertical and horizontal lines crisscrossing the landscape
• Gray, red, white, brown, yellow, and various shades of green
• Smooth to coarse textures depending on elevation
KOP 08 Kings Mountain • Park and associated facilities (buildings, sidewalks, signs, flag poles, light • Recreationists/Tourists
Patriot Park poles, and lawns) in foreground • Area Residents
• Flat, smooth forms in the foreground; solid block of trees and buildings
generally limit more distance views
• Primarily horizontal lines with period vertical lines (flag poles, light
poles); prominent vertical line of cell tower visible in the fore- to middle
ground
• Gray, tan, black, red, brown, white, tan, yellow, blue, and green (multiple
shades)
\4j r n/� CLIENT: Albemarle
rrl�` C R M PROJECT NO: 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 24

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
KOP Location Existing Visual Characteristics Primary Viewer
INME Group(s)
KOP 09 North Neighborhood • Similar landscape features to other residential areas (see KOPs 2, 3, and Area Residents
7)
• Road, single-story homes, distribution lines, and other developed features
in the foreground; trees and buildings screen more distant views
• Trees and distribution lines provide taller vertical elements and screening
• Flat, smooth, linear road and lawns in foreground
• Lines of developed features are primarily geometric and straight with
weaker and more irregular lines formed by the trees
• Gray, green, white, red, brown
• Smooth to rough textures in various landscape components
KOP 10 Gateway Trailhead • Park and associated facilities (picnic shelter, picnic tables, barbecues, Recreation ists/To u ri sts
(Quarry Road) signs, benches, parking area, sidewalk, lawns and other maintained
vegetation) in foreground
• View is enclosed by tall trees that screen more distance views
• Prominent forms in park facilities surrounded by flat areas and a solid wall
of trees and other vegetation
• Mix of horizontal and vertical lines primarily created by developed
features, but also tree trunks (stronger vertical lines)
• Brown, gray, green, rust, white, tan
• Contrasting textures between smooth and medium to coarse features
KOP 11 Cornerstone Church • Road and railroad tracks in foreground with trees and other vegetation • Area Residents
& Residences framing and generally screening more distance views; distribution lines • Area Workers
and cell phone tower present on the landscape
• Flat form of road transitions to more indistinct forms in the trees and
other vegetation
• Strong horizontal lines associated with the road and railroad tracks;
vertical lines in poles and signs; jagged line along treetops
• Green, gray, yellow, white, brown
• Smooth to coarse textures provided in mix of developed and natural
elements
KOP 12 McDonalds • Multi-lane, paved road with adjacent commercial buildings and other • Area Workers
associated development (parking lots, lights, signs, distribution lines) in • Motorists, Commuters
the foreground and Other Travelers
• Flat (road) and low, block (buildings) forms framed by amorphous,
irregular shapes of vegetation and trees
• Simple straight horizontal and vertical lines
• Gray, black, green, white, yellow, red, white, brown
• Mostly smooth with contrasting patchy, medium textures
n/� CLIENT: Albemarle
rrl�` C R M PROJECT NO: 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 25

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
KOP Location Existing Visual Characteristics Primary Viewer
Group(s)
KOP 13 Interstate • Frontage road in the foreground bounded by vegetation on both sides • Area Workers
85/Frontage Road • Linear, flat form curves from foreground into the distance; irregular, • Motorists, Commuters
asymmetrical blocks of vegetation and Other Travelers
• Bold, curved line in road and barrier; tree tops form jagged line between
vegetation and sky
• Gray, yellow, white, various shades of green
• Smooth to medium textures
KOP 14 Lake Montonia Road • Foreground comprising multiple cultural modifications including road, • Area Residents
Intersection buildings, distribution poles and lines, streetlights, and transmission lines • Area Workers
• Simple, geometric forms contrasting with amorphous, asymmetrical forms
• Straight, continuous, vertical, horizontal, and diagonal lines in multiple
directions
• Gray, yellow, white, brown, silver/metallic, green
• Multi-layered textures from smooth to coarse
KOP 15 Lake Montonia • Enclosed view of lakeside residences and park in the foreground • Area Residents
Docks • Amorphous, tall forms interspersed with geometric, angular, rectangular • Recreation ists/Tou rists
forms; solid strip of regular vegetation framing the curved, oval shoreline
• Weak horizontal lines
• Green, red, gray, white, yellow, blue, brown, orange
• Smooth to coarse, clumped
KOP 16 Pinnacle Peak • Panoramic view of region—landscape dominated by forest cover (fore to Recreation ists/To u ri sts
background) with lakes, developed/disturbed areas, and mountains in the
distance (middle to background)
• Wide, open landscape with few distinct forms; flattened with periodic
domed features
• Soft, weak lines; distinct, curving line at skyline
• Various shades of green, gray, tan, brown, white
• Continuous, fine, smooth with little variation
\�I//j r n/� CLIENT: Albemarle
rrl�` C R M PROJECT NO: 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 26

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
KOP Location Existing Visual Characteristics Primary Viewer
Group(s)
KOP 17 Gateway Trailhead • Similar landscape features to other roadside locations (KOP 11) Recreation ists/To u ri sts
(Galilee Church • Road in foreground with trees and other vegetation screening more
Road) distance views
• Flat form of road transitions to more indistinct forms in the trees and
other vegetation
• Strong horizontal lines associated with the road; jagged line along tree
tops
• Green, gray, yellow, white, brown
• Smooth to coarse textures provided in mix of developed and natural
elements
KOP 18 Exit off I-85 at • Panoramic view of area; highway and related infrastructure (guard rails, • Area Workers
Dixon School Road lighting, signs) is dominant in the foreground; mix of cultural • Motorists, Commuters
modifications (foremost the Catawba casino area) and treed areas in the and Other Travelers
middle- to background
• Flat to rolling, geometric, directional; regular but sparse, tall linear;
simple forms
• Strong vertical, straight horizontal and diagonal lines
• Gray, silver/metallic, red, white, yellow, tan, and various shades of green
• Smooth interspersed with stippled features; patches of medium textures
(trees, vegetation)
KOP MM- Catawba Two Kings • Generally enclosed view of a parking lot with planted berm, road, and • Recreation ists/To u ri sts
19 Casino trees in foreground (trees limit more distance views in this direction) • Area Workers
• Gentle, smooth, flat to rounded, jagged
• Horizontal lines interspersed with vertical lines; undulating, jagged line
along tree tops
• Gray, tan, yellow, green, brown, red, white
• Mostly smooth with scattered interruptions; medium texture in vegetation
KOP 20 Mt Olive Church and • Gravel parking area, paved road, residential, fenced/signed area, and • Area Residents
residences dense forest screen in foreground • Area Workers
• Large mass of trees and other vegetation surrounded by flat, solid,
geometric forms
• Straight but weak horizontal lines with some vertical lines
• Gray, tan, green, red, yellow, white
• Smooth to medium textures with several stippled features
/V�/j r n A/� CLIENT: Albemarle
rrl�` C K� � PROJECT NO: 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 27

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
KOP Location Existing Visual Characteristics Primary Viewer
11=0 Group(s)
KOP 21 Dixon School Road • Large, open lawn area in front of house with trees and other vegetation Area Residents
Residences enclosing the property; driveway and distribution lines (from road to
house) are visible
• Geometric forms (rectangular, triangular, trapezoid); flattened, linear
form; contrasting patches of domed, amorphous, irregular forms
• Distinct but soft horizontal and diagonal lines separating flat, smooth area
from perpendicular vertical lines
• Various shades of green, yellow, tan, brown, dark gray, black, red, white
• Uniform, smooth, continuous texture bordered by contrasting rough,
patchy, stippled textures
KOP 22 Cornerstone Church • Similar landscape features to other roadside locations (KOPs 11, 17, 21) Area Residents
• Horizontal road across foreground with curved road leading into trees;
distribution lines parallel curved road and some other cultural
modifications on periphery; large, open grassy field leading to trees and
other vegetation that screen more distance views
• Horizontal, flat form of road transitions to more vertical block of trees and
other vegetation
• Strong horizontal lines associated with the road; soft but jagged line
along tree tops
• Green, gray, yellow, white, brown
• Smooth to medium textures provided in mix of developed and natural
elements
KOP 23 Margrace Road • Remnants of light industrial area including buildings, fence, and trees in • Area Residents
foreground; similar to other locations, trees generally frame the view and • Area Workers
limit views of more distance areas
• Definite, geometric forms in buildings and other structures with
amorphous, irregularly shaped forms (trees, shrubs, and other clumps of
vegetation)
• Bold, horizontal line at road edge; other weaker, straight, vertical and
horizontal lines throughout view
• Gray, green, red, brown, white, yellow, silver/metallic
• Smooth texture in immediate foreground (road) with medium to coarse
textures interspersed across the landscape
n/� CLIENT: Albemarle
rrl�` C R M PROJECT NO: 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 28

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
KOP Location Existing Visual Characteristics Primary Viewer
Group(s)
KOP 24 Battleground Ave • Drive-in movie theater in foreground • Area Residents
(Drive-In Movie • Multiple prominent, geometric, simple, linear forms • Area Workers
Theatre) • Bold, straight, continuous horizontal lines; some contrasting vertical lines
• Gray, yellow, white, silver/metallic, tan, black
• Smooth, continuous to contrasting medium, rough, patchy, discontinuous
textures
KOP 25 Battleground Ave • Private residence with large lawn enclosed by surrounding trees and other Area Residents
(Residences) vegetation in foreground
• Simple, smooth, flat; soft, rolling, irregular, and geometric forms
• Primarily diagonal lines (given orientation) with strong, straight, regular
and soft horizontal lines
• Gray, yellow, white, green, brown, black, red
• Fine, smooth, directional; patchy, medium, clumped textures
KOP 26 Gateway Trail at • Fence prominent in view with existing mining pit and surrounding areas • Recreation ists/To u ri sts
base of Cardio Hill visible through the fence; some cleared areas, trees and other vegetation,
and a small section of water are visible
• Transparent, linear, block in foreground; rolling, domed, simple forms;
variety of indistinct, rolling, simple, amorphous, low forms from middle to
background
• Weak, straight, horizontal, vertical, soft, undulating, curvilinear
• Green, brown, black, gray, white, reflective
• Medium to fine, patchy, matte, clumped, discontinuous textures
KOP 27 Gateway Trail near • View from overlook at Cardio Hill/Gateway Trail; view to the south into • Recreation ists/Tou rists
top of Cardio Hill the mining pit (filled with water) and beyond (views extend to the
background)
• Smooth, irregular, amorphous; indistinct, small geometric, asymmetrical,
patch
• Weak, soft, horizontal, smooth, few vertical
• Green, brown, tan, white, gray-green
• Smooth, fine, matte, glossy (lake surface), subtle
KOP 28 Industrial • I-85 prominent in foreground with trees and other vegetation paralleling • Motorists, Commuters,
Drive/Quality Lane the highway and limiting more distance views and Other Travelers
• Flat, linear, smooth, regular, horizontal; contrasting, vertical, wide, strip • Area Workers
• Bold, simple, straight, horizontal, parallel; weak, repeating vertical
• Gray, white, green, brown, metallic
• Smooth, directional, continuous; medium, discontinuous, contrasting
\�l/V�/j r n/� CLIENT: Albemarle
rrl�` C R M PROJECT NO: 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 29

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
KOP Location Existing Visual Characteristics Primary Viewer
10=0 Group(s)
KOP 29 Industrial • Roadside view toward cleared area that is overgrown with vegetation; • Motorists, Commuters,
Drive/Quality Lane taller trees prominent around the periphery of the cleared area and and Other Travelers
transmission line partially visible above tree line • Area Workers
• Flat, linear, serrated, contrasting, amorphous, irregular, rectangular
• Weak to bold, horizontal, vertical, simple, soft, continuous
• Gray, green, brown, silver/metallic, yellow, white, red
• Smooth, medium, patchy, contrasting, matte, clumped
KOP 30 Industrial Drive • Similar view as KOP 28 with I-85 prominent in the foreground; trees and • Motorists, Commuters,
other vegetation parallel the highway with distribution lines crossing the and Other Travelers
highway in this location • Area Workers
• Flat, linear, smooth, regular, horizontal; contrasting, vertical, transparent,
strip
• Bold, parallel, simple, straight, horizontal; weak, repeating vertical; thin
diagonal
• Gray, white, metallic, various shades of green, tan, brown
• Smooth, direction, continuous, ordered; medium, patchy, contrasting
KOP 31 Industrial Drive • View to the east looking at a private residence (boarded up, roof partially • Motorists, Commuters,
collapsed) in the foreground surrounded by taller trees and other and Other Travelers
vegetation; distribution lines cross the property and are partially visible • Area Workers
through trees at back of property
• Flat, geometric, amorphous, contrasting, linear, vertical
• Straight, weak, simple, soft, diagonal
• Green, tan, brown, red, matte, subtle
• Fine, smooth, patchy, discontinuous, random, clumped
KOP 32 Gateway Trail • View to the south/southwest at eastern end of pedestrian bridge (Kings Recreation ists/To u ri sts
(bridge) - East Mountain Gateway Trail) over I-85; view dominated by forest cover with
linear corridor of cleared vegetation and I-85 visible
• Indistinct, rolling, amorphous, irregular, vertical, contrasting
• Weak, simple, vertical, diagonal, broken
• Green, gray, tan, brown
• Smooth to medium, discontinuous, contrasting
CLIENT
lbemarle
L 1 \� 1 PROJECT ANO: 723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 30
�rrl��

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
KOP Location Existing Visual Characteristics Primary Viewer
Group(s)
KOP 33 Gateway Trail • View to the north/northeast at eastern end of pedestrian bridge (Kings Recreation ists/To u ri sts
(bridge) - East Mountain Gateway Trail) over I-85; large, cleared, grassy area with
patches of forest; roads, buildings, and other cultural modifications
clearly visible
• Flat, smooth, geometric, amorphous, tall, diverse, contrasting
• Irregular, straight, horizontal, vertical, simple, soft, broken
• Tan, brown, green, gray, yellow, white, black
• Medium, fine, smooth, rough, nondirectional, contrasting, matte
KOP 34 Gateway Trail • View to the south/southwest from the western end of the pedestrian Recreation ists/To u ri sts
(bridge) - West bridge (Kings Mountain Gateway Trail) over I-85; dense vegetation limits
views, but some taller features (trees, transmission lines) visible
• Indistinct, amorphous, low, numerous, tall, regular, rolling, contrasting
• Straight, simple, diagonal, continuous; thin, continuous,
horizonal/diagonal; irregular, vertical
• Gray, brown, tan, green
• Coarse, stippled, patchy, random
n A/� CLIENT: Albemarle
rrl�` C K� � PROJECT NO: 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 31

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
The landscape character elements of form, line, color, and texture address the component parts
that contribute to the overall visual context of a landscape (i.e., the elements or pattern of
elements that form a distinct landscape). Landscapes with a greater variety in and across these
landscape character elements tend to be more interesting and visually appearing than landscapes
with less variability (BLM 1984, USFS 1995, FHWA 1995).
As noted in Section 2.2, viewer groups are commonly associated with different types of land uses,
particularly those that derive value from a setting's scenic quality (e.g., residential areas,
designated parks and recreation areas, travel corridors). For the proposed Project, the primary
viewer groups in the region include area residents, recreation ists/tou rists, area works, and
motorists, commuters, and other travelers. In the identification of existing landscape conditions,
ERM visual resource specialists have also identified the most likely viewer groups at each KOP
(Table 3-3).
In general, most of the KOPs for the mine are considered enclosed landscapes. Enclosed
landscapes are characterized by objects that limit more distant views; that is, built and/or natural
features function as a wall that screens or blocks views beyond the immediate area from a typical
ground-based viewing perspective (average human height and viewing perspectives). These types
of landscapes are most vulnerable to visual changes within the enclosed area but are less sensitive
to changes that occur beyond the wall of objects that enclose the landscape.
In addition to primarily enclosed landscapes, the KOPs also share other similar characteristics or
landscape components. Most views include a mix of forested vegetation, manicured or maintained
vegetation (e.g., lawns, planting beds or areas, cleared/maintained rights-of-way), and cultural
modifications. These cultural modifications include private residences, commercial and industrial
buildings, highways and roads, and other public and private infrastructure (e.g., cell phone towers,
distribution lines, fencing, signs), among others. In aggregate, the KOPs present a regional
landscape that offers a mix of natural and developed elements that are most prominent in the
foreground from KOPs where distant views are limited by these same natural and development
elements.
The visual characteristics listed in Table 3-3 are primarily based on a review of both leaf-on and
leaf-off conditions (where available, leaf-on and leaf-off photographs are provided in Appendix A).
In general, areas dominated by deciduous vegetation types, similar to the proposed Project region,
are subject to seasonal changes in leaf coverage. Specifically, landscape characteristics (form, line,
color, texture) and visibility may differ depending on the leaf status (leaf-on and leaf-off) of the
deciduous vegetation. While the views from the established KOPs at the proposed Project are
subject to common seasonal changes in landscape characteristics (e.g., differences between a
summer and winter color palette, leaf on versus leaf off conditions), the enclosed nature and
density of existing vegetation and other built structures minimizes noticeable changes in visibility
beyond the enclosed view. Where possible, ERM created photographic simulations using leaf-off
conditions specifically to address the potential for greater visibility under these conditions (see
Section 4.1 and Appendix A).
.ERM Albemarle PROJECTNO 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 32

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
4.0 ASSESSMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1. SIMULATIONS
ERM visualization specialists created photorealistic simulations of the proposed Project (based on
the available engineering at the time of this assessment) for each KOP from which the Project
would be visible, per the results of the viewshed analysis (Section 3.1). The simulation process is
described in Section 2.4.1, while the simulations themselves are provided in Appendix A. The
simulations were reviewed and compared to existing conditions to determine if one or more of the
Project facilities was visible. Table 4-1 provides a summary of visibility from each KOP, including
the Project facilities that are visible at each location. The visibility characteristics listed in
Table 4-1 do not include any potential mitigation measures that may be used to help minimize the
presence of the proposed Project on the landscape. These mitigation measures and their impact
on reducing visual changes to the landscape are discussed in Section 5.0.
TABLE 4-1. PROJECT VISIBILITY BASED ON PHOTO SIMULATIONS FROM EACH KOP.
Visibility'
KOP (based on photo simulation) Visible Structures and Facilities
KOP01 None None
KOP 02 None None
KOP03 None None
KOPO4 None None
KOP 05 None None
KOP06 None None
KOP07 None None
KOP 08 Visible RSF
KOP09 None None
KOP 10 None None
KOP 11 None None
KOP 12 None None
KOP 13 Visible Buildings
KOP 14 Visible RSF
KOP 15 None None
KOP 16 Visible RSF, ROM Pad, buildings, and other
associated infrastructure
r
.E R M Albemarle PROJECTNO 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 33

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Visibility'
KOP (based on photo simulation) Visible Structures and Facilities
KOP 17 None None
KOP 18 Visible RSF
KOP 19 Visible RSF
KOP 20 Visible RSF
KOP 21 Visible RSF
KOP22 None None
KOP23 None None
KOP 24 Visible Project laydown areas (no facilities or
other structures)
KOP 25 Visible Buildings, RSF
KOP 26 Visible Mine pit, RSF, OSF, buildings
KOP 27 Visible Mine pit, RSF, OSF, buildings
KOP 282 - -
KOP 292 - -
KOP 302 - -
KOP 312 - -
KOP 323 NA NA
KOP 333 NA NA
KOP 343 NA NA
1 Photo simulations are not provided in Appendix A where visibility is "none,"except for those KOPs where
the viewshed analysis indicates some level of visibility.
2 The 3D design of the ROM pad, concentrator facilities, and other buildings was not completed as of
6/14/2024. As such, simulations could not be prepared for these KOPs. Given the location of these KOPs
along I-85 (Industrial Drive) and the size/mass of the proposed facilities, the proposed Project will likely be
visible from these locations.
3 NA = Not Applicable—public will no longer have access to/views from these locations.
4.2. CHANGES IN LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISTICS AND VIEWER
SENSITIVITY
Based on the simulations from each KOP and visibility of Project facilities, Table 4-2 provides a
summary of anticipated changes in landscape characteristics at each KOP from which the
proposed Project would be visible (as noted in Table 4-1). Table 4-2 does not include KOPs from
\\i//j r n A/� CLIENT: Albemarle
C K M PROJECT NO: 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 34
rrl��

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
which the Project would not be visible. The visual changes from the proposed Project are in
relation to the existing landscape characteristics (e.g., forms, lines, colors, and textures)
described in Table 3-3; consider full buildout of the Project (i.e., the 10-year operational lifespan
of the Project); and do not incorporate potential mitigation measures (Section 5.0).
Table 4-2 also indicates the degree of viewer sensitivity (based on typical viewer groups; see
Table 3-3) to these changes. Viewer sensitivity is characterized as high, moderate, or low
depending on the anticipated viewer reaction to the identified landscape changes. Viewer
sensitivity levels are defined as follows:
• High Sensitivity—viewers are very aware of changes in landscape characteristics and tend to
have strong reactions to these changes.
• Moderate Sensitivity—viewers are aware of changes in landscape characteristics and may be
more accepting of changes if justified and/or compatible with the existing visual character of
the landscape.
• Low Sensitivity—viewers may be aware of changes in landscape characteristics but generally
do not prioritize the scenic character of the landscape.
For KOPs not listed in Table 4-2, there would be no anticipated changes in the visual
characteristics of the landscape from these locations. As noted previously, the amount of existing
vegetative and other screening generally limits more distance views (beyond the foreground) and
creates limited opportunities for viewing the proposed Project.
TABLE 4-2. LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISTICS WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT
KOP Changes in Visual Characteristics Viewer Sensitivity
KOP 08 • Top of RSF visible above existing tree line Moderate to High
• Distinct, domed form that generally blends into
the existing landscape
• Slightly curved, weak line that follows
undulating horizontal line formed by other
topographic features and top of tree line
• No changes in colors or textures
KOP 13 • Buildings are visible adjacent to the road Low to Moderate
• Definite, geometric, regular, block, angular
• Straight, simple, horizontal, diagonal
• Brown, gray
• Smooth, matte
KOP 14 • RSF is visible above existing tree line Low to Moderate
• Distinct, domed form that generally blends into
the existing landscape and is partially hidden
by existing vegetation
• Curved, diagonal, horizontal
• Little to no change in colors or textures
CLIENTlbemarle
/��I E R M PROJECT ANO 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 35

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
LKOP Changes in Visual Characteristics Viewer Sensitivity
KOP 16 • RSF and other facilities (buildings) visible in the High
middle ground of the panoramic view of the
region
• Prominent (at focal point), rounded, definite
masses but similar to other forms on the
landscape; new, geometric blocks
• No changes in lines or textures
• Colors would be similar but dark gray of the
RSF and lighter gray/tan would be more
prominent and contrast with surrounding
vegetated areas
KOP 18 RSF clearly visible above existing tree line Low to Moderate
• Distinct, domed form
• Slightly curved, weak line that follows
undulating horizontal line formed by other
topographic features and top of tree line
• Dark gray, black
• Fine, striated, matte
KOP 19 RSF visible behind (during leaf off conditions) Low to Moderate
existing screening vegetation
• Large, rounded, domed form
• Curving/curvilinear line but similar to existing
undulating lines
• No changes in colors or textures
KOP 20 RSF visible behind (during leaf off conditions) Moderate to High
existing screening vegetation
• Large, rounded, domed form
• Sloping, curving/curvilinear line
• No changes in colors or textures
KOP 21 Rock storage clearly visible across large grassy Moderate to High
field
• Large, rounded, domed, distinct form
• Sloping, diagonal, curving lines
• Dark gray, black
• Fine, striated, matte
KOP 24 Removal of drive-in theater and associated Moderate to High
facilities from landscape
• Flat, short, wide, linear, block
• Weak, horizontal, simple, continuous
• Green, tan, brown, gray, silver/metallic, yellow,
white
• Smooth, fine, patchy, scattered
KOP 25 Buildings and RSF clearly visible from road Moderate to High
• Bold, definite, solid, simple, tall, geometric,
domed
• Vertical, horizontal, diagonal, curving, simple,
geometric
• White, dark gray, black (colors would be
dependent on final design of buildings and
other structures)
�• Fine, smooth, subtle
R CLIENT: Albemarle
jll\\ 1 \ PROJECT NO: 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 36

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
W_ Changes in Visual Characteristics Viewer Sensitivity
KOP 26 • Top of the mine pit is visible (the visual High
conditions of the pit will change over time); the
RSF and other buildings are also visible, but sit
low on the landscape from this perspective
• Rolling, geometric, rounded, smooth, low,
compatible
• Weak, curvilinear, undulating, simple
• Dark gray, brown, black
• Fine, smooth, contrasting, matte
KOP 27 Mine pit is visible (internal conditions of pit High
change over time) with RSF and other buildings
also visible
• Prominent, rugged, angular, steep, concave,
curving
• Bold, regular, curving, hard, continuous,
parallel
• Dark gray, black
• Coarse, uniform, directional, ordered, matte,
striated
4.3. CHANGES IN VISUAL RESOURCE CONDITIONS
Overall, the proposed Project would be visible from 14 KOPs based on the simulations (Section
4.1). These KOPs are either in areas that are adjacent to or are at an elevation that provides
views of the proposed Project over vegetation and other screening elements (e.g., topography,
buildings). The most commonly visible Project facilities from the KOPs will be the RSFs, primarily
because these facilities will be the tallest structures on the Project site at full buildout. The mine
pit will only be visible from locations on Cardio Hill.
Due to planned earth-disturbing activities, vegetation removal, and the construction of Project
buildings in the early phase of Project implementation, the changes in visual conditions from
adjacent KOPs and regional vistas would be substantial. That is, the level of visual contrast and
change from the proposed Project would be highly noticeable in the initial years of operation,
especially from adjacent KOPs. Mining activities, lighting, and general movement from equipment
and machines would also be visible and would attract visual attention during mining operations.
While the RSF would be visible from some of the established KOPs, the visibility would generally
be limited during the early operational phases of mining and would increase over time as rock is
added to the storage facilities.
Many of the changes in landscape elements from the proposed Project would repeat some of the
existing forms, lines, colors, and textures already present in the regional landscape. The existing
mix of cultural development and natural areas creates a diversity of forms (e.g., definite, flat to
rolling, rounded, solid, geometric to amorphous, contrasting), lines (e.g., bold to weak, straight to
curving, horizontal, vertical, diagonal, simple, continuous), colors (e.g., greens, grays, tan, brown,
black, yellow, white, red), and textures (e.g., fine to coarse, smooth to rough, random,
contrasting, matte, clumped). The proposed Project would add similar elements and would also
increase the diversity of forms on the landscape. In particular, the proposed Project would add
geometric, solid, flat, wide, block forms created by the additional buildings at the mine site, as
CLIENT
lbemarle
\ I�\ L 1 \1 ' 1 PROJECT ANO: 723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 37
�rh

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
well as new simple, domed, tall, prominent forms created by the RSF. Many of the lines, colors,
and textures created through development of the Project would be similar to or increase the
abundance of these elements compared to existing conditions but would not necessarily be new
types of features. Most of these changes would be compatible with the existing landscape
elements that characterize the region.
Viewer sensitivity to the Project and its changes to the landscape will range from low to high
depending on location. For most locations, viewer sensitivity to landscape changes from the
proposed Project will be low, due to the lack of visibility from many of the KOPs. Viewer sensitivity
will be greatest (high) at those KOPs with a higher degree of visibility and that are in areas that
are more visually sensitive, such as residential areas and parks and other public use areas with a
scenic focus. These viewers are likely to be most concerned with the visual impacts of the Project
on the landscape.
5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES
In general, and as noted previously, the proposed Project would primarily be visible from roads
adjacent to the mine, as well as from elevated viewpoints that provide panoramic views of the
region. Albemarle may consider mitigation measures that would reduce the magnitude and
potential viewer sensitivity to change in these areas. In particular, new screening would help
minimize Project visibility from adjacent roads, while post-operations reclamation efforts would
help the Project facilities blend better into the regional landscape.
5.1. SCREENING
Vegetative buffers and berms are two common screening techniques that can be used to soften or
minimize the visual changes associated with development on a landscape. Vegetative screening
provides a natural, aesthetically consistent solution that can effectively minimize views of a
modified landscape and provide other environmental benefits (e.g., wildlife habitat, noise
reduction). Berms can also effectively block undesired views. In combination, vegetative screening
and berms create a multi-layered and visually engaging mitigation strategy that can help alleviate
unwanted visual changes and minimize viewer sensitivity to these changes.
Vegetative screening and berms are particularly effective at blocking foreground views. These
strategies would be most effective along roads that parallel the Project site. Albemarle plans to
use vegetated berms, as well as existing vegetative screening in appropriate locations to both
meet current zoning requirements and minimize the degree of landscape changes that are visible
from adjacent roads and other nearby areas. Figure 5-1 displays Albemarle's planned vegetated
berm and vegetative screening strategies for the mine site. Albemarle would construct the berms
and add screening vegetation during development of the mine site to help minimize views from
adjacent areas during the operational phase of the mine.
These strategies would address the anticipated degree of visual change and viewer sensitivity in
locations similar to KOP 25. As noted in Table 4-2, the proposed Project would shift the views at
KOP 25 from a typical enclosed view to a panoramic view where many of the Project's buildings
and other facilities would be visible in the foreground and middle ground (Figure 5-2). A vegetated
berm would mitigate this change over time. As shown on Figure 5-3, when first installed and
CLIENT:I E R M PROJECTA NO: 723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 38

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
planted, a vegetated berm in this location would not immediately screen the proposed Project's
buildings and other facilities. However, over time and as the vegetation on the berm matures, the
buildings and other facilities would be effectively screened from public view (Figure 5-4). Similar
screening effects would be anticipated at all locations where Albemarle is proposing similar
vegetated berms (Figure 5-1).
\ E R M CLIENT: Albemarle
jl\` PROJECT NO: 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 39

Example of a naturally existing 50' ��� o 6 MP�N Example cross section diagram of a 50' wide,6' high vegetated berm permit Boundary KMM
forested buffer that satisfies zoning -'
requirements 'a �`a o4 PROPERTY LINE Property Setback
T �^ Battleground Ave.North 2' �� 50'BUFFER Linear Feet:985 0 Proposed Vegetated Berm (50 feet wide)
R
o Cubic Yards:5,958 d ® Naturally Vegetated Property Buffer(50 feet wide)
♦"� (15)SHADE TREE
0 ♦ . Mine Design Feature
* o ♦♦♦ ' Open Pit
°' 3� i
a) N s ♦ Overburden Stockpile Facility
+ pr ,♦� Rock Storage Facility
Battleground Ave.Mid `3•a (25)ORNAMENTAL TREE Mine Stockpile Area
Linear Feet:937
Cubic Yards:6,069 i ��� Run-of-Mine Pad
�
20 EVERGREEN TREE 9 e
Dewaterin Storage
9
(40)EVERGREEN SHRUB Growth Media Storage
Battleground Ave.South s o
Laytlown Area
Linear Feet:1,732
Cubic Yards:11,093 ♦♦ Infrastructure
ff] Proposed♦♦♦ 1 �� / so.o
Building
Pit
216 ♦ . / 0 Proposed Dam
o � � Ground Disturbance Areas and Pads
Transportation
Railroad
Northern
a P` I NPI`A ea , �a�Dr � Haul Road
�a°ems A � c n O ♦ ♦ ♦i',♦♦ ; � Site Road
a�� O ♦i ♦ � Hydrology
Parkdale Circle
P,,e Linear Feet:1,311 m`�� ♦♦ ♦ Drainage
♦ •�'
oa Cubic Yards:8,506 c%. % ♦♦ r Pond
��\e��°� t �` ���..—i' �°� ,♦♦ , ♦' ♦ ° Water Storage Basin 1
mms S ♦ O
G-� St • ° o ,' , ,' ♦ York Road North(Route 161) Example plan view diagram of a 50' wide,
ROM Pad �' �' Linear Feet:1,241 6' high vegetated berm with plantings
e ► ♦ ♦ ♦ Cubic Yards:7,413
Area
Dixon School Road ry oy ♦ 161 < •
Linear Feet:1,356 c , a�
Cubic Yards:8,249 �• 0 C� Concentrator �
•• 85 \ �/ ♦ 0 PLANT LEGEND
0 \ O// `101 Facilities ® (15)SHADE TREE
♦ York Road Mid(Route 161) ; 0
[C,
:nn Drive ♦' I Linear Feet:200 (20)EVERGREEN TREE
et:271 ♦ ♦' CubicYards:1,177 000 : ®t , (25)ORNAMENTAL TREE
s:1,508 • Rock Storage ,, ♦♦ ♦, yy�
Facility X �� ,' �� York Road South(Route 161) (40)EVERGREEN SHRUB E
♦i ♦♦ Linear Feet:906
♦♦ WS13-1 Cubic Yards:4,422 � ® Note:
• Tree is shown at mature height. o
Rock Storage E
s°h Facility A �.' ,�
i
Dixon School
of Road Field ,♦♦' ,♦♦ r M`tawg0< NNote 1:Project Features are provisional and incomplete at this time.
Note 2:Permit Boundaryupdated b ERM on April 29 2024.
Note 3:Project Features are based on Conceptual Site
Cubic Yards:1,026 �� ♦ ♦♦ Layout Rev B provided by Hatch on May 8 2024. -
ei 40P ti
♦ ♦ �, N
♦
0 0.2 0.4 -
Tin Mine Road ♦ o; Miles
Linear Feet:632 ♦'/� Gage Road $'`o
Cubic Yards:3,919 , 1 inch = 0.2 mi when printed at 11 x17
ale Rd Linear Feet:1,095 ,♦ a � • g
10,
Q, Figure 5-1: Planned Vegetated Berm
a m -
�� �� '• • • • i and Vegetative Screening Locations
1 I 61 • • •• Kings Mountain Lithium Mine
.� • ' • Albemarle E
r Kings Mountain ` g
o era City �` �` Cleveland County, J��
Gaa Lake *��• North Carolina

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Figure 5-2. Photographic Simulation of Proposed Project from KOP 25
r
Figure 5-3. Photographic Simulation of Proposed Project with Initial Berm and
Vegetative Screening from KOP 25
Figure 5-4. Photographic Simulation of Proposed Project with Berm and Mature
Vegetative Screening from KOP 25
3.2. RECLAMATION
Post-mining reclamation efforts are another effective strategy to minimize visual changes to a
landscape from mining activities. These efforts typically include reshaping and creating slopes
rr►�W
E R M PROJEC.TANO 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 41

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
within mining facilities that mimic or blend with the natural contours of the landscape, and
revegetating barren portions of the affected landscape, to the extent feasible. Cardio Hill, a
popular destination on the Kings Mountain Trail System, is an example of a reclaimed rock storage
facility.
Albemarle plans to reclaim the RSFs at the conclusion of mining activities. This reclamation effort
would involve recontouring and revegetating these facilities. This would help minimize the degree
of visual change to the landscape, particularly as viewed from elevated, panoramic viewpoints
such as KOP 16. While the general form and mass of these facilities is similar to other forms on
the landscape, their barren appearance would differentiate them from the surrounding landscape
(Figure 5-5). As shown on Figure 5-6, the planned reclamation efforts would help the rock storage
facilities better blend into the regional landscape by mimicking existing forms and colors. This
benefit would extend to those KOPs that are currently adjacent to the Project site and from which
the RSFs are visible. In addition to visual benefits, this reclamation effort would also provide
wildlife habitats and potentially add new recreational opportunities (e.g., trails) to the area.
Albemarle would pursue these reclamation efforts after the 10-year operational period of the
Project.
Figure 5-5: View of Project from KOP 16 without Mitigation
\� . A E R M PROJECTNO: 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 42
�rr��

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
s
Figure 5-6: View of Project from KOP 16 with Mitigation—Reclamation
err►�
.E R M Albemarle PROJECTNO 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 43

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
REFERENCES
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1984. Manual 8400—Visual Resource Management.
Washington, D.C.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1995. Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of
Highway Projects. FHWA-HEP-15-029. Washington, D.C.
USDA Forest Service (USDA FS). 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery
Management. Agricultural Handbook 701. Washington, D.C.
n A/� CLIENT: Albemarle
1�\ C K M PROJECT NO: 0723977 DATE: 23 August 2024 VERSION: 01 Page 44

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A KOP PHOTOGRAPHS AND SIMULATIONS
This appendix includes photographs and simulations for the established Project KOPs. One to two
existing photographs are provided for each KOP. These existing photographs primarily capture
leaf-off conditions (for deciduous vegetation) and, when possible, leaf-on conditions. At least one
photographic simulation was also prepared for each KOP for which the GIS-based viewshed
analysis (Sections 3.1 and 3.2) indicated that there would be some level of visibility of Project
facilities. These The KOPs with visibility per the viewshed analysis include the following (see Table
3-2), except as noted below:
• KOP 8 0 KOP 20 0 KOP 29
• KOP 12 0 KOP 21 0 KOP 30
• KOP 13 0 KOP 24 0 KOP 31
• KOP 14 0 KOP 25 0 KOP 32
• KOP 16 0 KOP 26 • KOP 33
• KOP 18 0 KOP 27 • KOP 34
• KOP 19 0 KOP 28
For KOPs 28 through 31, the 3D design of the ROM pad, concentrator facilities, and other buildings
was not completed or available as of 6/14/2024. As such, while the viewshed analysis indicated
some degree of visibility for these facilities, simulations were not prepared for these KOPs.
Per the viewshed analysis and Table 3-2, some Project facilities would likely be visible from KOPs
32, 33, and 34. However, these KOPs are located at the eastern and western ends of the Kings
Mountain Gateway Trail pedestrian bridge over I-85. This area of the trail that includes the bridge
is being re-routed and will no longer be available once Project development activities begin. As
such, the public will no longer have access to and there will not be publicly available views of the
Project from these locations.
For KOPs where project features are not visible in the simulation due to screening elements (e.g.,
trees and other vegetation, buildings, topography), the simulations include the "hidden" project
features, where applicable. That is, the project features are overlayed and shown in yellow on the
photography to show the approximate location of these features behind the screening elements.
These "hidden" versions of the simulation are provided for reference only.

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KO P 01
f ,-
KOP 01 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
KOP 01 Existing Conditions—Leaf-on
No simulation due to lack of visibility of Project facilities from this location.

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KOP 02
I
K
KOP 02 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
KOP 02 Existing Conditions—Leaf-on
No simulation due to lack of visibility of Project facilities from this location.

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KOP 03
KOP 03 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
.s 4.A
_J t t
KOP 03 Existing Conditions—Leaf-on
No simulation due to lack of visibility of Project facilities from this location.

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
• • • -
1rf � y
• • 04 Existing Cond iti. Leaf-
Rr
KOP 04 Existing Conditions—Leaf-on
No simulation due to lack of visibility of Project facilities from this location.
r
��" ./�`, :.d'c a..Kam •
�r

- _
1:SF
rA�.
•' 05 • Conditions—Leaf-o

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KOP 06
i
t-
KOP 06 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
KOP 06 Existing Conditions—Leaf-on
No simulation due to lack of visibility of Project facilities from this location.

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KOP 07
1 pill PI
KOP 07 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
KOP 07 Existing Conditions—Leaf-on
No simulation due to lack of visibility of Project facilities from this location.

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
• 0:
t i
KOP 08 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
- As
Yr
KOP
08 Existing Conditions—Leaf-o
- i
• ' 08 Simulation

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KOP 09
KOP 09 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
all
KOP 09 Existing Conditions—Leaf-on
No simulation due to lack of visibility of Project facilities from this location.

�rf
Ilk fid",
r�
IRA
' � .�j�r,/ ,• ��,M
A.a fWN/a, !
ilv
Al
-14
4 �!
A T�

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KOP 11
0 11!
KOP 11 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
+-r-
KOP 11 Existing Conditions—Leaf-on
No simulation due to lack of visibility of Project facilities from this location.

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KOP 12
KOP 12 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
r
r
KOP 12 Existing Conditions—Leaf-on
vp
V
KOP 12 Simulation (hidden features)

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
• ' 13 ExistingConclitions—Leaf-off
• • • • •
ti
r
•

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KOP 14
KOP 14 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
KOP 14 Existing Conditions—Leaf-on KOP 14 Simulation with Berm and Screening Vegetation (at installation)

OP 14 SimulationBerm and Mature Screening Vegetation

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KOP 15
KOP 15 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
k i ITS Tfr 1 ^"r..
1
KOP 15 Existing Conditions—Leaf-on
No simulation due to lack of visibility of Project facilities from this location.

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KOP 16
KOP 16 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
J •'
KOP 16 Existing Conditions—Leaf-on
�k
,Y
KOP 16 Simulation (no mitigation)

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
WR
KOP 16 Simulation with Reclamation Actions

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KOP 17
Ile
Y
KOP 17 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
KOP 17 Existing Conditions—Leaf-on
No simulation due to lack of visibility of Project facilities from this location.

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KOP IS
Aw
KOP 18 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
KOP 18 Simulation (no mitigation)
e
KOP 18 Simulation with mitigation (reclamation—mature vegetation)

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KOP 19
KOP 19 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
KOP 19 Existing Conditions—Leaf-on
z, r
A
KOP 19 Simulation (no mitigation)

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
i
V
KOP 19 Simulation with mitigation (reclamation—mature vegetation)

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KOP 20
}
k
KOP 20 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
=_
KOP 20 Existing Conditions—Leaf-on
r
1K j
KOP 20 Simulation

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KOP 21
KOP 21 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
s �
KOP 21 Simulation (no mitigation)

_ r � �ci'" � 'b:�-ram•. �}i'�b�!' w { •,��'�-
w 1
� ',� �a� ,�_ ,• � . fi _ " ,�.: �, .,�',, .a. + 'fir

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KOP 22
r
J /
KOP 22 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
y� •..fy[ a �;,' � � - _,
KOP 22 Existing Conditions—Leaf-on
No simulation due to lack of visibility of Project facilities from this location.

r �
VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
l
ExistingConclitions—Leaf-off
Existing Conditions—Leaf-o

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KOP 24
- f
KOP 24 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
A _
KOP 24 Existing Conditions—Leaf-on
r
KOP 24 Simulation (no mitigation)

a ,
i 1 per'- �... 'i �•�„�- ' * .ld_""l]9v^"i.� t
'f '•r w c �'0. ;,. v, r �, 'r u � � .� •aSa E ib�c
1 n 333
�F
y

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KOP 25
KOP 25 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
9
KOP 25 Existing Conditions—Leaf-on
k1 w
KOP 25 Simulation (no mitigation)

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KOP 25 Simulation with mitigation (berm and newly installed screening vegetation)
KOP 25 Simulation with mitigation (berm and mature screening vegetation)

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
, . 26
aq;
e ' 26 ExistingConclitions—Leaf-off
. , 6>
A . / �■ ��` � ��
� �� /$�:��/� �f,��.�aaaa���a__a��a�-�«#■*¢��_ .�, ����_�a
�� \ \ � s � m� � �������,���■��i�■�iiii�i����������� k�����■�
- fix.��$� i�k����������������«#������:� �►��z
e • 26 Simulation

^yc
1
VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
• ' 27 ExistingConclitions—Leaf-off
q..
KOP 27 Simulation (dewatered mining pit at the start of operations)
9
fT T
-- � x - .Try _. � •w�. .
t

• ' 27 Simulation • pit at year 10 of ••- •

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KOP 28
KOP 28 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
The 3D design of the ROM pad was not completed as of 6/14/2024. As such, a simulation could
not be prepared for this KOP.

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KOP 29
4
aaM
f
a
f
KOP 29 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
The 3D design of the concentrator facilities and other buildings was not completed as of
6/14/2024. As such, a simulation could not be prepared for this KOP.

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KOP 30
IN jlijl��
KOP 30 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
The 3D design of the ROM pad was not completed as of 6/14/2024. As such, a simulation could
not be prepared for this KOP.

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KO P 31
max^
KOP 31 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
The 3D design of the concentrator facilities and other buildings was not completed as of
6/14/2024. As such, a simulation could not be prepared for this KOP.

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KOP 32
Y,
KOP 32 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
Under the proposed conditions (Project development), this location will no longer be available to
public use. As such, the view of the proposed Project is not simulated (simulations were only
created for publicly accessible KOPs).

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KOP 33
k <�V
i
KOP 33 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
Under the proposed conditions (Project development), this location will no longer be available to
public use. As such, the view of the proposed Project is not simulated (simulations were only
created for publicly accessible KOPs).

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX A
KOP 34
y'
V,
Nk
i
T�
anf
7
i
KOP 34 Existing Conditions—Leaf-off
Under the proposed conditions (Project development), this location will no longer be available to
public use. As such, the view of the proposed Project is not simulated (simulations were only
created for publicly accessible KOPs).

E R M
ERM HAS OVER 160 OFFICES ACROSS THE FOLLOWING
COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES WORLDWIDE
Argentina The Netherlands ERM's Charlotte Office
Australia New Zealand 300 West Summit Avenue
Suite 330
Belgium Peru Charlotte, North Carolina
Brazil Poland 28203
Canada Portugal T: [phone]
China Puerto Rico
Colombia Romania
www.erm.com
France Senegal
Germany Singapore
Ghana South Africa
Guyana South Korea
Hong Kong Spain
India Switzerland
Indonesia Taiwan
Ireland Tanzania
Italy Thailand
Japan UAE
Kazakhstan UK
Kenya US
Malaysia Vietnam
Mexico
Mozambique