20190035 Ver 1_More Information Received_20190703

Staff Review
Does this application have all the attachments needed to accept it into the review process?
r Yes r No
ID#* Version* 1
20190035
Is this project a public transportation project?* r Yes
r No
Reviewer List:* Sue Homewood:eads\slhomevtood
Select Reviewing Office:* Winston-Salem Regional Office - [phone]
Submittal Type:*
Individual
Does this project require a request for payment to be sent?*
r
Yes
r
No

Project Submittal Form
Please note: fields marked with a red asterisk below are required. You will not be able to submit the form until all
mandatory questions are answered.
Project Type: r New Project
r Pre -Application Submittal
r More Information Response
r Other Agency Comments
r For the Record Only (Courtesy Copy)
r Stream or Buffer Appeal
New Project - Please check the new project type if you are trying to submit a new project that needs an official approval
decision.
Pre -Application Submittal - Please check the pre -application submittal if you just want feedback on your submittal and
do not have the expectation that your submittal will be considered a complete application requiring a formal decision.
More Information Response - Please check this type if you are responding to a request for information from staff and
you have and ID# and version for this response.
Other Agency Comments - Please check this if you are submitting comments on an existing project.
Is this supplemental information that needs to be sent to the Corps?*
r Yes r No
Project Contact Information
Name: Kelly Thames
Who is subrritting the inforrration?
Email Address: [e-mail]
Project Information
Existing ID #: Existing Version:
20190035 2
20170001 (no dashes)
Project Name: Piedmont Lithium
Is this a public transportation project?
r Yes
r No
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
r Yes r No r Unknown
County (ies)
Gaston
Please upload all files that need to be submited.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach docurrent
PLI_PN CommentResponse_20190530_rev20190... 37.48MB
Only pdf or Igrz files are accepted.
Describe the attachments:

Attached is a revision to the Public Notice Response to include the Groundwater Model technical memo.
This has already been submitted to the USACE, hence the 'no' checked above.
V By checking the box and signing box below, I certify that:
• I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
• I agree that submission of this form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the
"Uniform Electronic Transactions Act")
• I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes
(the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written
signature; AND
• I intend to electronically sign and submit the online form."
Signature: _
Submittal Date: Is filled in automatically.

hdrinc.com 440 S Church StreetSuite 1000Charlotte, NC 28202-2075
[phone]
Page | 1

May 31, 2019
rev July 3, 2019

Mr. David Shaeffer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory District
Charlotte Regulatory Field Office
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 611
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262

Subject: Piedmont Lithium Project (SAW-2018-01129)
Reponses to Individual Permit Comments – Revision 1

Dear Mr. Shaeffer,
On behalf of Piedmont Lithium, Inc. (“Piedmont”), HDR would like to thank you for your comments in response to
their Individual Department of the Army Permit application, submitted on December 30, 2018, for the proposed
construction of a hard rock lithium mine in Gaston County, North Carolina. Please see the following revised
responses inclusive of additional information which has become available since our original response dated May
31, 2019, organized by the requesting party. Comments are in bold text, responses are provided in regular text.
At this time we would also like to notify you of a small change in the permit boundary that eliminates
approximately 8 acres from the southwestern corner of the project area. The acreage of the site is now 963 acres.
This reduction of project area will result in minor changes to the buffer setbacks which affects the location of the
proposed crossing of Beaverdam Creek; however, the proposed crossing of Beaverdam Creek will still span the
creek and will not impact the floodplain (Figure 1).
Additionally, since the IP submittal in December 2018, advanced engineering of the mine layout necessitated an
enlargement of the pit extents, refined the internal access road design, and identified the need for additional
erosion control measures. The pit extents have become larger to account for enhanced stability in the pit wall
design and additional mineralization discovered. This required locational shifts to the internal road alignment and
magazine location. Moreover, further analysis of drainage and best management practices indicated a need for
additional erosion control structures in two areas that also increased impacts. These additional impacts are
discussed in Question 3 along with respective mitigation needs.
This response was originally submitted May 31, 2019, and at the time of that submittal the groundwater modeling
memorandum was not complete. This response is a revision to include the completed groundwater modeling
memorandum and update any responses associated with its completion.
We call to attention that groundwater modeling has demonstrated that there may be indirect impacts to wetlands
as a result of pit dewatering. Since the extent of potential indirect impacts to wetlands is unknown, Piedmont
proposes to mitigate for the potential indirect impacts by applying a 1:1 mitigation ratio for wetlands identified in
the groundwater model as potentially impacted by paying into the Division of Mitigation’s In-Lieu Fee program.
Details of Piedmont’s proposal are outlined in the response to Question 5, enclosed.
Piedmont Lithium | SAW-2018-01129
Responses to Individual Permit Comments
May 31, 2019; rev July 3, 2019

Page | 2

Figure 1. Optimized site layout

On behalf of Piedmont Lithium, Inc., HDR is submitting this response for the additional information request.
Should you have any questions or require additional information following your review of the enclosed materials,
please contact me at [phone] or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
HDR, Inc.

Kelly Thames, PWS Thomas Blackwell, PWS
Environmental Scientist Project Manager/Environmental Scientist

Attachments: Appendix A: Compiled Public Notice Comments
Appendix B: USACE PJD Verification
Appendix C: Design Drawings
Appendix D: Surface Water and Groundwater Monitoring Results
Appendix E: Groundwater Model Technical Memorandum
Appendix F: DMS Credit Acceptance Letter
Appendix G: SHPO Coordination

cc: Patrick Brindle, Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Kevin Andrews, Marshall Miller & Associates
Piedmont Lithium | SAW-2018-01129
Responses to Individual Permit Comments
May 31, 2019; rev July 3, 2019

Page | 3

USACE:
1. During the pre-application meetings on August 23, 2018 and November 8, 2018, you or your agent
stated that Piedmont Lithium has drilled extensively throughout the Carolina Tin Spodumene Belt.
Please disclose the location of this exploratory drilling activity and explain why these sites were not
selected as the applicant’s preferred alternative.
Piedmont has commenced exploratory drilling activities on two other parcels within the Carolina Tin-
Spodumene Belt (TSB) (Figure 2). These properties were not selected as the applicant’s preferred alternative
because neither of the properties were a minimum of the 120 acres needed to warrant the development of an
assemblage of parcels, as defined by Siting Criteria C of the IP application. These properties may or may not
become part of future mining endeavors within the TSB; however, it is unknown at this time whether they will
be developed as such and an assemblage of properties would be necessary. All of these properties occur in
the same region as the preferred alternative and given the heterogeneity and topography of the landscape in
the region, potential future impacts on these properties would most likely be similar to those of the preferred
alternative.

Figure 2. Piedmont Lithium's exploratory drilling locations
2. During the pre-application meetings on August 23, 2018, and November 8, 2018, you or your agent
stated that Piedmont Lithium has future plans for a lithium concentrate refinement facility 20 miles
away in Cleveland County. This facility would allow Piedmont Lithium to reduce the cost of the final
lithium product by avoiding shipment of lithium concentrate to China for refinement. Please disclose
any anticipated adverse impacts to waters of the United States associated with the development of
this facility and associated infrastructure (water, sewer, rail, gas, electricity, etc.).
The ability for Piedmont Lithium to construct their own conversion facility is dependent on a number of factors
Piedmont Lithium | SAW-2018-01129
Responses to Individual Permit Comments
May 31, 2019; rev July 3, 2019

Page | 4

including, but not limited to, investor funding, revenue success of producing lithium concentrate in the initial
years of the mine, and access to Class I rail infrastructure. After further investigation held subsequent to the
pre-application meeting, Piedmont has identified that the lithium conversion facility would most likely be
located in Gaston County, not Cleveland County, to maintain Piedmont Lithium’s projects under one set of
municipal development regulations. The intent would be to locate the facility with direct access to natural gas,
Class 1 rail infrastructure and associated, existing infrastructure, eliminating the need to develop new
infrastructure.
It is unknown if, and when, a conversion facility will come to fruition; however, if constructed, the facility would
be located in the same region as the preferred alternative. Given the heterogeneity and topography of the
landscape in the region, the impacts of a future conversion facility would likely be similar for any site selected.
Furthermore, a future conversion site would likely be a relatively small facility and may result in minimal or no
impacts to jurisdictional waters. As a site has not been selected for a conversion facility, potential impacts
associated with the future facility are unknown at this time.
3. Figure 11 of the plans (Impact 14-16) shows a small section of Wetland 9 remaining. It appears that
the proposed fill would severely degrade the function of the remaining wetland and potentially isolate
the wetland from downstream waters. Therefore, this area should also be considered a loss of waters.
The entire acreage of Wetland 9 (0.18 ac.) will be included as a permanent impact. This increases the
originally submitted wetland impacts (0.14 ac.) by 0.04 acre. Please note that the original impact amount for
Wetland 9 (0.14 ac.) at a 2:1 ratio would require 0.28 acre of mitigation, which rounded up to the next quarter
acre would necessitate the purchase of 0.5 wetland credits. Mitigation for the entire 0.18 acre Wetland 9 at a
2:1 ratio would require 0.36 acre of mitigation, which rounded up to the nearest quarter acre would not
change the 0.5 wetland credit proposed.
We have evaluated the conceptual compensatory mitigation proposal included in the permit
application. We have determined that, if a permit is issued for the applicant’s preferred alternative,
compensatory mitigation would be required at the following compensation ratios:
· 0.5:1 for Open Water (Wetland Credits)
· 2:1 for High Quality Wetlands (Wetland Credits)
· 1.75:1 for Medium Quality Wetlands (Wetland Credits)
· 1.5:1 for Low Quality Wetlands (Wetland Credits)
· 2:1 for High Quality Tributaries (Stream Credits)
· 1.75:1 for Medium Quality Tributaries (Stream Credits)
· 1.5:1 for Low Quality Tributaries (Stream Credits)
There is no change to wetland credits per the discussion above. There are two open water impacts (Impact
10 and Impact 15) that together total 0.16 acre of open water impacts. A 0.5:1 ratio as proposed by the Corps
would mitigate for 0.08 acre of open water that would be rounded up to a 0.25 acre wetland credit.
Perennial and intermittent channels provide different functions and ecosystems including biologic, hydrologic,
and geomorphologic characteristic differences. The stream function/quality indicators that are analyzed using
the NCSAM methodology are intended to be compared against a reference condition channel. Intermittent
channels are compared to a reference intermittent channel and perennial channels are compared to a
reference perennial channel. The distinction of flow regimes, not only in the scoring indicators of the
methodology but also in the fundamental basis of understanding how to rate a channel as a departure from a
reference condition, should be taken into account in determining mitigation ratios. Essentially, a high quality
perennial channel is not the same as a high quality intermittent channel nor is a low quality perennial channel
the same as a low quality intermittent channel. Therefore, we respectfully submit the following stream
mitigation ratios in response to the Corp’s proposed mitigation for this project:
Piedmont Lithium | SAW-2018-01129
Responses to Individual Permit Comments
May 31, 2019; rev July 3, 2019

Page | 5

· 2:1 for High Quality Perennial Tributaries (Stream Credits)
· 1.5:1 for High Quality Intermittent Tributaries (Stream Credits)
· 1:1 for Medium Quality Intermittent Tributaries (Stream Credits)
· 0.75:1 for Low Quality Intermittent Tributaries (Stream Credits)
We are proposing mitigation at a 1.5:1 ratio for High ratings for intermittent channels (Impacts 2, 6, 7, and 16),
a 1:1 ratio for a Medium rating for intermittent channels (Impacts 4-1, 4-2, 8-2, and 11), and 0.75:1 for a Low
rating for intermittent channels (Impacts 5 and 8-1). Table 1 (below) summarizes proposed mitigation.
Additional discussion and justification is also included below.
Table 1. Summary of proposed impacts and associated mitigation ratios.
Impact # Feature
NCSAM/
NCWAM
Score
Amount
of
Impact
Credit
Ratios
Proposed
in IP
Credit
Ratios
Proposed
by Corps
Credit Ratios
Proposed in
Response to
Corps
Impact 1 Perennial
Stream 2 High 178 lf 2:1 2:1 2:1
Impact 2 Intermittent
Stream 3 High 1,090 lf 1:1 2:1 1.5:1
Impact 3 Perennial
Stream 8 High 249 lf 2:1 2:1 2:1
Impact 4-1 Intermittent
Stream 8
Medium 337.5 lf 0.5:1 1.75:1 1:1
Impact 4-2 Medium 211 lf 0.5:1 1.75:1 1:1
Impact 5 Intermittent
Stream 9 Low 76.5 lf 0 1.5:1 0.75:1
Impact 6 Intermittent
Stream 10 High 520 lf 1:1 2:1 1.5
Impact 7 Intermittent
Stream 11 High 30 lf 1:1 2:1 1.5
Impact 8-1 Intermittent
Stream 15
Low 312 lf 0 1.5:1 0.75
Impact 8-2 Medium 813.5 lf 0.5:1 1.75:1 1:1
Impact 9 Perennial
Stream 15 High 81 lf 2:1 2:1 2:1
Impact 10 Pond 3 - 0.08 ac - 0.5:1 0.5:1
Impact 11 Intermittent
Stream 12 Medium 917 lf 1:1 1.75:1 1:1
Impact 12 Perennial
Stream 12 High 700 lf 2:1 2:1 2:1
Impact 13 Perennial
Stream 12 High 55 lf 2:1 2:1 2:1
Impact 14 ^ Wetland 9 High 0.18 ac 2:1 2:1 2:1
Impact 15 Pond 4 - 0.08 ac - 0.5:1 0.5:1
Impact 16 Intermittent
Stream 13 High 240 lf 1:1 2:1 1.5
^ Originally submitted impact amount for Impact 14 was 0.14 acre. Per comment from USACE, it was requested to include all of Wetland
9 in the impact calculations due to only a minor amount remaining after impact occurs. No change in credits proposed for this impact
were necessary as wetland credits are rounded up to the next quarter acre at a 2:1 ratio.
For example, Impacts 4-1 and 4-2 are channels that received Medium NCSAM ratings (Figure 3). These
impact locations have been degraded due to cattle influence, discharges to the channel, degraded adjacent
vegetation structure, and a narrow buffer. See Figure 3 and Photographs 1 and 2 for additional clarity on the
Medium rating. We originally submitted mitigation at a 0.5:1 ratio for these impacts and strongly believe that a
1.75:1 ratio is too high – we would like to request a 1:1 ratio for Medium NCSAM ratings of intermittent
channels.
Piedmont Lithium | SAW-2018-01129
Responses to Individual Permit Comments
May 31, 2019; rev July 3, 2019

Page | 6

Figure 3. Impacts 3-5.

Photograph 1. Representative depiction of impact 4-1 reach.
Piedmont Lithium | SAW-2018-01129
Responses to Individual Permit Comments
May 31, 2019; rev July 3, 2019

Page | 7

Photograph 2. Representative depiction of impact 4-2 reach.
Impact 5 is an example of a channel that scored a Low NCSAM rating that was originally proposed to not
receive any mitigation credit. This channel is paralleled on the left bank by a road devoid of vegetation for the
entire impact length, there is little habitat present, and no biology was observed. We would like to request a
0.75:1 mitigation ratio for Low NCSAM ratings of intermittent channels.

Photograph 3. Representative depiction of impact 5 reach.
Lastly, as described in the introduction, refined engineering of the mine layout including pit optimization for
stability, internal access roads, erosion control needs, and the elimination of five parcels from the project
boundary was necessary (Figure 4). The pit extents have become larger to account for additional
mineralization discovered and enhanced stability in the pit wall design, which caused locational shifts to the
internal road alignment and magazine location. These design changes have created additional stream
impacts to accommodate the larger pit extents, and additional stream impacts to accommodate an additional
internal road crossing to access the new magazine location. Moreover, further analysis of drainage and best
Piedmont Lithium | SAW-2018-01129
Responses to Individual Permit Comments
May 31, 2019; rev July 3, 2019

Page | 8

management practices indicated a need for additional erosion control structures in two areas that also
increase impacts.
Due to the greater pit extents subsequently causing the internal road realignment and location shift for the
magazine, an extension of Impact 2 by 56.5 linear feet will occur to account for the access road crossing to
the relocated magazine north of the north pit. A greater pit extent will extend Impact 6 stream impacts by
159.5 linear feet (Impact 6). An additional erosion control structure associated with the West Waste Rock area
will extend Impact 9 stream impacts by 253 linear feet. Lastly, a new impact area includes New Impact 18
(141 linear feet of impact), which is associated with a sediment pond for runoff from the concentrator plant
area.

Figure 4. Additional impacts overview
Piedmont Lithium | SAW-2018-01129
Responses to Individual Permit Comments
May 31, 2019; rev July 3, 2019

Page | 9

Figure 5. Impact 2 additional impacts

Figure 6. Impact 6 additional impacts
Piedmont Lithium | SAW-2018-01129
Responses to Individual Permit Comments
May 31, 2019; rev July 3, 2019

Page | 10

Figure 7. Impact 9 additional impacts

Figure 8. New Impact 18
Piedmont Lithium | SAW-2018-01129
Responses to Individual Permit Comments
May 31, 2019; rev July 3, 2019

Page | 11

Table 2 summarizes the revised total proposed mitigation credits for the project.
Table 2. Summary of credit totals
Feature
Original
Proposed
Impacts
Additional
Proposed
Impacts
Credits Proposed
in Original IP
Submittal
Revised Total
Credits
Proposed
Perennial Streams
Credits: 1,263 lf 218 lf 2,526 3,032
Intermittent Streams
Credits: 4,547.5 lf 357 lf 3,019.50 5,926
Stream Totals: 5,810.5 lf 575 lf 5,545.50 8,958
Open Water Totals: 0.16 ac. - - 0.25
Wetland Totals: 0.18 ac. - 0.5 0.50

Piedmont Lithium | SAW-2018-01129
Responses to Individual Permit Comments
May 31, 2019; rev July 3, 2019

Page | 12

Division of Water Resources:
1. If the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requests a response to any comments received as a result of the
Public Notice, please provide the Division with a copy of your response to the USACE. [15A NCAC
02H .0502(c)].
All comments received as a result of the Public Notice are provided herein along with responses. Please see
Appendix A for the complete comments package provided by the USACE.
2. A complete review of the project cannot be conducted until the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has
verified all stream and wetland locations for the entire project. [1SA NCAC 02H .0502(a)(7)].
Please see Appendix B for the USACE Preliminary Determination Verification of the site. HDR submitted a
package to Ms. Cathy Janiczak of the USACE on April 1, 2019, for the remaining areas to be verified. HDR
anticipates to receive the remainder of the verification the 1st week of June per email correspondence with
Ms. Janiczak. The remaining areas are illustrated on Figure 6A (dated 4/1/2019 (Appendix B).
3. DWR mitigation requirements cannot be determined until a site verification of intermittent and
perennial stream calls occurs. Please contact Alan Johnson at 704-235- 2200 to schedule a
verification. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(h) and S.L. 2017-10].
Please reference the USACE Preliminary Determination Verification (Attachment B). Additionally, on April 10,
2019, Mr. Alan Johnson of DWR and Ms. Kelly Thames of HDR conducted a site visit as requested.
4. Provide a site-specific detailed engineering plan, profile view, and cross-section of all proposed
impact areas. These drawings must include details regarding proposed final contours for fill/cut
areas, stream alignment in relation to pipe alignment, pipe slope, pipe burial, dissipater pad
requirements, temporary dewatering design and impacts, adjacent sediment and erosion control
measures, and plans for restoration of any temporarily impacted areas. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(b)].
Please find attached plan view, cross sections, sediment control maps and associated designs (ponds,
spillways, conveyance ditches, flumes, etc) for the West and East Waste Rock disposal areas (Appendix C).
Also included are maps and designs associated with the haul roads, mine pits, mine pit drainage control,
reclamation/regrade, plant site and subsequent drainage control. MM&A utilized Carlson Software –
SurvCADD version 2017 for all drainage design. All stream crossing culverts were designed to the 100-year
storm and all internal road culverts for drainage were designed for the 25-year storm per DEMLR.
5. Provide the results of the groundwater monitoring and modeling as mentioned in Section 6.4.3 to
document the statement “groundwater supply in the surrounding area is not expected to increase or
decrease due to activities at the proposed project site”. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(4)].
The groundwater monitoring is ongoing with the intent to provide baseline conditions until construction
commences. Surface water monitoring is also being conducted throughout the site to provide baseline
conditions. For surface water sampling, results through June 2019 are provide in Appendix D. For
groundwater sampling, the June sampling results have yet to be provided by the lab. Year-to-date data is
attached in Appendix D.
The Groundwater Model Technical Memorandum is attached in Appendix E. The groundwater model was
developed from empirically derived conductivity values, groundwater levels, and stream flow measurements
and was supplemented by published regional data. The intent of the model was to estimate the rate of water
withdrawal during pit dewatering, what effect the dewatering would have on groundwater levels, and to
assess potential impacts of pit dewatering on local water resources, such as groundwater-supplied wells.
Piedmont Lithium | SAW-2018-01129
Responses to Individual Permit Comments
May 31, 2019; rev July 3, 2019

Page | 13

There are 14 local wells known in the vicinity of the project; 8 of these wells are within the project boundary,
which the applicant will acquire through fee simple or long term lease. Therefore, any impacts to these wells
is informational only, as they will no longer be utilized as water supply wells.
The model demonstrated that while there would be only insignificant losses of water column in deep wells
during pit dewatering, three wells would experience significant water column loss. These three wells are
relatively shallow wells and were reported to be 63 feet deep or shallower (Groundwater Model Tech Memo,
Table 5 [Appendix E]). Of these three wells, one of them is within the project boundary while two of them are
beyond the boundary, but in close proximity. To mitigate for the significant loss of water column of the two
wells beyond the boundary, the applicant will acquire in fee simple the two properties where the affected wells
are located as part of the mine development. Beyond that, the effects of the pit dewatering on groundwater
levels are limited to the immediate vicinity of the project boundary.
As a preemptive action, the applicant will install sentinel monitoring wells inside and outside the perimeter of
the mine property to monitor water level fluctuations to help with early detection of potential drawdown effects
to off-site supply wells (Appendix C). Additionally, the applicant has offered residents proximal to the site
(within a 1,500 foot radius) the opportunity to participate in a well inventory program that will allow the
applicant to collect baseline conditions of nearby wells. This will allow the applicant to address impacts to
those wells on a case by case basis if they should occur. If the applicant is notified that wells beyond the
boundary are affected through loss of water column such that they cannot be used for residential water, the
applicant will remediate these effects by replacing existing wells with deeper wells.
The model also demonstrated that Wetlands 1-8, 11-13, and 16 may be indirectly impacted as a result of the
pit dewatering (Groundwater Model Tech Memo, Table 6 [Appendix E]). These wetlands will not be directly
impacted by the proposed activities, and actual indirect impacts to these wetlands are unknown, as they can
be influenced by a multitude of environmental variables not captured by the model. These wetlands are
naturally dynamic systems which have been observed to be both dry and wet on the surface by the
applicant’s consultant over the course of the past two years, depending on the time of year. It is also
important to note that the model does not take into account the continuous and existing input of water
resources from offsite, does not take into account an abnormally wet or dry precipitation year, and does not
simulate evapotranspiration, a naturally occurring process – all of which could naturally affect groundwater
influence on the wetlands. The potential indirect impact to these wetlands as a result of the pit dewatering
does not result in a loss of wetlands, rather it may result in potential adverse modifications to the wetland
hydrology. Also, any indirect impacts as a result of pit dewatering are temporary in nature – once dewatering
ceases, the groundwater will recharge.
Therefore, to mitigate for the potential indirect, but unknown, impacts to Wetlands 1-8, 11-13, and 16 as
predicted by the model, the applicant proposes to mitigate for the potential indirect impacts of 7.46 acres at a
1:1 ratio via payment to the Division of Mitigation’s In-Lieu Fee program. None of these wetlands overlap with
the wetland proposed to be directly impacted and already discussed. A credit acceptance letter for these
additional indirect impacts is attached in Appendix F, which is also inclusive of the revised impacts as
discussed in Question 3 in the USACE section. Table 3 (below) summarizes total direct impacts (discussed in
Question 3) and indirect impacts for the entire project.
Table 3. Summary of direct and indirect impact totals
Feature Direct
Impacts
Indirect
Impacts
Streams (lf): 6,385.5 -
Open Water Totals (ac.): 0.16 -
Wetland Totals (ac.) 0.18 7.46

Piedmont Lithium | SAW-2018-01129
Responses to Individual Permit Comments
May 31, 2019; rev July 3, 2019

Page | 14

6. Clarify how stormwater runoff will be managed throughout the mine, including but not limited to
stormwater from haul roads, concentrator facility, and waste rock areas.
Please find attached detailed sediment control designs and associated maps depicting waste rock disposal
area sediment ponds, spillways, conveyance ditches and flumes. In addition, mine pit ponds, haul road
ditches, plant site ponds are included for the proposed facility (Appendix C). MM&A utilized Carlson Software
– SurvCADD version 2017 for all drainage design.
7. Please explain how the rock spoil rock areas have been designed to protect downstream water quality
(e.g. total height and stability, total acreages proposed to be “unstable” at one time, etc.)
Sediment control for both the East and West Waste Rock Disposal sites will be installed prior to any
disturbance. The waste rock will be placed in a controlled manner in maximum of ten (10’) lifts. Final
configurations will have a fifty (50’) lift with outslopes of 2:1 (H:V) and a twenty (20’) wide bench. Total height
for West Waste Rock Disposal area is 1140’ and the East Waste Rock Disposal Area is 900’. The stability of
both waste rock sites will have minimum static and seismic factors of safety of at least 1.5 and 1.2,
respectively. For added stability, the Division of Mining has also requested that overburden soil will be placed
in the interior core of the waste disposal sites while waste stone will be placed near the outslopes.
8. Provide documentation and/or a detailed technical analysis that shows that there will be no
secondary hydrological impacts to any of the retained stream features as a result of pit development.
[15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(4)].
The groundwater model is a complex and detailed process requiring the analysis of empirically derived
conductivity values, groundwater levels, and stream flow measurements. The intent is to model the effects on
groundwater levels during pit dewatering and any subsequent secondary hydrological impacts. The
development of this model is ongoing and will be provided when complete.
As mentioned in Question 5’s response, the applicant will also commit to installing permanent groundwater
Observation Wells around the mine perimeter to monitor groundwater levels during operation. These wells will
be a different set than those used for baseline data collection; however, some existing groundwater
monitoring wells may be used for permanent Observation Wells if locality allows.
9. The application states that “the proposed discharge of dredge and fill material should not cause
increased chemical contamination levels within the aquatic ecosystem.” Please provide a technical
basis for this statement, specifically addressing potential changes that may occur to the material
through the excavation and/or concentration processes and whether they may increase the potential
for chemical releases into the environment from the waste rock. [ISA NCAC 02H .0506(b)(4)].
The applicant has designed and implemented a sampling and analysis program that includes both waste rock
(overburden) and process tailings. With regard to waste rock, the program includes the sampling and testing
of 101 composited rock core samples from 13 different core holes distributed throughout the four main pit
areas. Sampled hole locations and depth intervals in the holes were designed to provide an evenly distributed
assessment of the proposed mine area. The core samples were collected by both Marshall Miller &
Associates (MM&A) and Piedmont Lithium geologists. The program also includes 10 process tailings samples
collected from pilot testing. Tailings sample collection was conducted by the Minerals Research Laboratory at
NC State University in Asheville, North Carolina.
Analyses conducted on the waste rock and tailings samples includes Acid Base Accounting (ABA), “Whole
Rock” Elemental Determination and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). Where applicable,
the ABA analysis results were supplemented with Sulfur Fractionation (Sulfur Forms) analysis to better
determine the distribution of pyritic sulfur in select samples.
Piedmont Lithium | SAW-2018-01129
Responses to Individual Permit Comments
May 31, 2019; rev July 3, 2019

Page | 15

The results of the waste rock analysis indicate a low potential for the material to produce acidic conditions.
Paste pH values for the samples are typically between 9-10, with only shallower samples of saprolitic rock
exhibiting lower paste pH values in the 5-6 range. Total Sulfur for the waste rock samples is generally in the
range of 0.01 to 0.3-percent, with only three of the 101 samples having a total sulfur content greater than 0.5-
percent. Samples indicating a sulfur content greater than 0.2 percent were further analyzed using a sulfur
fractionation procedure. Results of the sulfur fractionation analysis indicate that the total pyritic sulfur (acid-
producing) present in the samples is very low. After consideration of the sulfur forms results, all waste rock
samples exhibit an excess alkalinity condition. Similarly, ABA analysis for the tailings samples indicate very
low Total Sulfur content (0.01-percent), high paste pH values (9.0-9.6), and excess neutralization potential for
all tailings samples.
Waste rock and tailings samples were also analyzed to determine their elemental constituents, as a means
for better understanding the “whole rock” components of the materials. The elemental analysis results were
compared against various regulatory guidelines to screen for potentially problematic components.
The ABA and elemental analysis results were used as a guide to select a representative set of waste rock
and tailings samples for further testing via TCLP analysis. The TCLP procedure is a somewhat aggressive
test for detecting contaminants that may leach from the samples. Results of the TCLP testing were compared
against the EPA’s “D” list, a list of regulatory levels for the “toxicity” characteristic as determined specifically
from the TCLP test. The TCLP results indicate that all of the samples yielded results well below D list levels.
In summary, the applicant has designed and implemented a sampling and analysis plan for both the waste
rock and tailings material expected to be produced from the proposed mining operation. Results of the testing
suggests that acidic drainage is not expected to be released from either the waste rock (overburden) or the
process tailings. In addition, consideration of whole rock elemental and TCLP test results does not indicate
the potential for leaching of contaminants, as defined by EPA’s D list.
Piedmont Lithium | SAW-2018-01129
Responses to Individual Permit Comments
May 31, 2019; rev July 3, 2019

Page | 16

NC Wildlife Resources Commission:
1. We recommend surveys for state-listed mussel and crayfish species within and downstream of the
site to determine if relocations are needed. Please contact W. Thomas Russ, the Foothills Aquatic
Wildlife Diversity Research Coordinator, at 828-659-3324 or [e-mail].
The proposed site layout not only avoids impacts to Beaverdam and Little Beaverdam Creeks, but also avoids
impacts within their floodplains. Therefore, Piedmont will respectfully not grant this request at this time.
2. We recommend a minimum 100-foot undisturbed buffer for perennial streams and a 50-foot
undisturbed buffer for intermittent streams and wetlands.
The applicant will adhere to the Gaston County Unified Development Ordinance1 that requires 30-foot
vegetative buffers streams for development activities that are non-residential and below 24% imperviousness
(open pits are considered pervious). This also complies with DWR’s Surface Water Classification Standards2
for the site which is located in a Watershed Supply IV (WS-IV) watershed.
Moreover, the applicant’s preferred alternative would avoid impacts to the entirety of Beaverdam Creek
(13,799 feet) and Little Beaverdam Creek (2,848 feet) and their FEMA floodplains. Impacts to Stream 2 have
been minimized through utilization of the footprint of an existing crossing for an access road, and impacts to
the majority of the stream have also been avoided (1,762 feet). Avoiding disturbance in the FEMA floodplain
will prevent impacts to the entirety of Wetlands 1, 3-8, and 11-14 (7.62 acres). Wetlands 2, 10, and 15-16
(0.40 acre) will also be avoided due to site design. Finally, adhering to the 300-foot mining buffer setback as
required by Gaston County Zoning Ordinance, the preferred alternative also avoids impacts to an additional
10,603 feet of stream that are within this setback.
3. The applicant should avoid the removal of large trees at the edges of construction corridors. Due to
the decline in bat populations, trees should not be removed during the maternity roosting season for
bats (May 15 – August 15). Also, clearing of vegetation should be avoided during the migratory bird
nesting season, roughly March to August.
There is a 300-foot setback buffer around the entire site in which the existing vegetation will not be disturbed
in the first 100 feet (0-100 feet). In the 100- to 300-foot setback width, vegetation will not be disturbed unless
an erosion control structure is needed and in some cases, screening berms will be constructed. Large trees
will be avoided as much as possible. The majority of the largest trees observed on the site are located within
the 100-Year FEMA floodplain, which will be avoided entirely.
Clearing trees would only occur as construction advances, which could potentially happen at any time of the
year; however, as discussed above there will be many areas where existing trees and vegetation will remain
in the 300-foot setback and FEMA floodplains, which together encompass over 300 acres.
4. Incorporate the following elements into erosion and sediment control plans: minimize clearing and
grading, protect waterways, phase construction for larger construction sites (>25 acres), stabilize
soils as rapidly as possible (<2 weeks), protect steep slopes, establish appropriate perimeter
controls, employ advanced settling devices, implement a certified contractors program, and regularly
inspect erosion control measures.
These best management practices will be employed.

1 http://cms3.revize.com/revize/gastoncounty/Documents/planning/UDO2019/0201Ch15_Watershed%201018.pdf
2 https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/document-library/NC_Guide_SurfaceWater_AUGUST1%202011_FINAL.pdf

Piedmont Lithium | SAW-2018-01129
Responses to Individual Permit Comments
May 31, 2019; rev July 3, 2019

Page | 17

5. Non-native plants should be removed from the seeding schedule. Avoid using Bermuda grass, redtop,
tall fescue, and lespedeza, which are invasive and/or non-native and provide little benefit to wildlife.
Consider an alternative mix of red clover, creeping red fescue, and a grain, such as oats, wheat, or
rye. Specifically, this project would be ideal for planting native, wildflower seed mixes that will create
pollinator habitat within the reclaimed areas. Pollinators are some insects (i.e., bees, moths, and
butterflies) and birds that play an important role in the reproduction of flowering plants, which
produce many fruits and vegetables. Habitat loss, disease, and other environmental changes have
caused a decline in pollinators. Please contact NCWRC for a list of suitable native plants for
reclamation.
For permanent cover, a native seed mix will be used that is heavy with leguminous species per the request of
Division of Mining. For temporary cover during the growing season (April 15-August 15) browntop millet will
be utilized. For temporary cover during the dormant season (August 15-April 15th) annual ryegrass will be
utilized.
The permanent cover will be used throughout the year with the respective mix of temporary cover at the
appropriate time. The permanent cover will be a mix of ERNMX-112 Flat Pea/Perennial Pea Mix (Naturalized)
and ERNMX-310 NC Steep Slope Mix. During reclamation a pollinator mix can be utilized. Table 4 (below) is
an example of a seeding schedule.

Table 4. Example of seeding schedule
Date Seed Planting Rate
Throughout Flat Pea/Perennial Pea Mix (Naturalized)
[ERNMX-112] 25 lbs/acre
Throughout NC Steep Slope Mix
[ERNMX-310] 45 lbs/acre
April 15-August 15 browntop millet 10 lbs/acre
August 15-April 15 Annual ryegrass 30 lbs/acre
6. Water discharges from the site should be proportional to the size of the receiving stream so the
hydrology of the stream is not altered, and all discharges should comply with NPDES permit
requirements. In particular, turbidity of the discharge should be maintained at or below the permit
requirement. High water discharge rates and turbidity can negatively impact aquatic resources within
and downstream of the site. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have numerous detrimental effects
on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of eggs, and clogging of
gills of aquatic species.
Comment noted and all discharges will comply with NPDES permit requirements.
7. Existing culverts should be evaluated for their function and allowance for aquatic life and fish
passage. Generally, the culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural
streambed (measured from the natural thalweg depth), or if culverts are less than 48 inches in
diameter, they should be buried to a depth equal to or greater than 20% of their size. If multiple
barrels are required, barrels other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream
bankfull or floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be reconnected to
floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by utilizing sills on the upstream and
downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to the base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be filled
with sediment so as not to entrap wildlife or support mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water
depth should be provided in the base flow barrel(s) during low flows to accommodate fish movement.
If culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be installed in a
Piedmont Lithium | SAW-2018-01129
Responses to Individual Permit Comments
May 31, 2019; rev July 3, 2019

Page | 18

manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance aquatic life passage: 1) by
depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by
providing resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms. In essence, base flow barrel(s) should
provide a continuum of water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity
conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided in the base flow barrel(s) during low flows to
accommodate fish movement. If culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched
baffles should be installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance
aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining channel depth and
flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms. In essence,
base flow barrel(s) should provide a continuum of water depth and channel width without substantial
modifications of velocity.
If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to remain dry during
normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever possible to avoid
channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided. Stream channel widening at the
inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that
requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner
that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be professionally
designed, sized, and installed.
Comments noted. See Appendix C for design drawings.
8. Sediment and erosion control measures should be installed prior to any land clearing or construction.
The use of biodegradable and wildlife-friendly sediment and erosion control devices is strongly
recommended. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products should have loose-weave netting that is
made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the vertical and horizontal twines. Silt
fencing that has been reinforced with plastic or metal mesh should be avoided as it impedes the
movement of terrestrial wildlife species. These measures should be routinely inspected and properly
maintained. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have numerous detrimental effects on aquatic
resources including destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of eggs, and clogging of gills of
aquatic species.
Comments noted. See Appendix C for design drawings. All erosion control measures will comply with
NPDES permit requirements.
9. We recommend reclaiming the relatively shallow sediment basins as wetlands, where practicable.
Piedmont will commit to reclaiming sediment basins, where practicable, as wetlands.
Piedmont Lithium | SAW-2018-01129
Responses to Individual Permit Comments
May 31, 2019; rev July 3, 2019

Page | 19

Public Citizen – Ms. Andrea Webb:
Per an email from citizen Ms. Andrea Webb dated February 12, 2019, “If these and other questions are not
addressed by Piedmont Lithium and USACE property owners will be left in the dark not knowing the
wisest course to take. Therefore, a public hearing would be in the best interest of property owners as
this project moves forward.”
It is the USACE’s decision whether to grant a public hearing per this request; however, Piedmont would like it
known that there will be two public involvement meetings and a public hearing as a requirement of the
rezoning process in Gaston County.
NC State Historic Preservation Office:
1. Prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activities within the project area, we recommend that a
comprehensive archaeological survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist. The purpose of
this survey will be to locate archaeological sites and make recommendations regarding the eligibility
status of each site in terms of the NRHP.
On behalf of Piedmont Lithium and prior to the Individual Permit submittal, HDR retained TRC of Columbia,
SC to provide cultural resource surveys for archaeological and architectural resources that may be present on
and/or near the proposed project site. Survey methodology was approved via a May 17, 2018 email between
Ms. Harriet Richardson Seacat of HDR and Ms. Lindsay Ferrante of the Office of State Archaeology
(Appendix E).
One paper copy and one digital copy (PDF) of all resulting archaeological reports, as well as one
paper copy and one digital copy (MS Word) of the North Carolina site form for each site recorded,
should be forwarded to the Office of State Archaeology through this office for review and comment as
soon as they are available and in advance of any construction or ground disturbance activities.
Attached (Appendix E) is TRC’s management summary of the site to date. When the remaining properties
are surveyed for cultural resources, the updated management summary and all reports as requested above
will be forwarded to the Office of State Archaeology as soon as they are completed. This is not an official
submittal to Office of State Archaeology.
NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Services:
“NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed the project described in the public
notice listed below. Based on the information in the public notice, the proposed project would NOT
occur in the vicinity of essential fish habitat (EFH) designated by the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, or the NMFS.”
No response necessary.
Cherokee Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office:
Via an email on January 27, 2019, Ms. Elizabeth Toombs of the Cherokee Nation Tribal Historic
Preservation Office, requested the cultural resources survey for the proposed project.
TRC forwarded the project management summary (dated March 20, 2019) to Ms. Elizabeth Toombs on April
2, 2019. When the remaining properties are surveyed, an updated project management summary will be
provided. See Appendix G.

Appendix A
Public Notice Comments









0DUFK
5HJXODWRU\'LYLVLRQ
$FWLRQ,'6$:




0U3DWULFN+%ULQGOH
3LHGPRQW/LWKLXP,QF
'DOODV&KHUU\YLOOH+LJKZD\
%HVVHPHU&LW\1RUWK&DUROLQD

'HDU0U%ULQGOH

3OHDVHUHIHUHQFHWKHDSSOLFDWLRQIRUDQ,QGLYLGXDO'HSDUWPHQWRIWKH$UP\3HUPLWVXEPLWWHG
RQ\RXUEHKDOIRQ'HFHPEHUE\0UV.HOO\7KDPHVRI+'5,QFWRGLVFKDUJHILOO
PDWHULDOLQWROLQHDUIHHWRIVWUHDPDFUHRILPSRXQGHGZDWHUVDQGDFUHRI
ZHWODQGVIRUWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQRIDKDUGURFNOLWKLXPPLQH7KHSURSRVHGSURMHFWLQFOXGHVWKH
FRQVWUXFWLRQRIDPLQHSLWZDVWHURFNDUHDURDGZD\VDFRQFHQWUDWRUSODQWDQGDWWHQGDQW
IHDWXUHV7KHSURMHFWDUHDLVFRPSRVHGRIDSSUR[LPDWHO\DFUHVDQGLVFHQWHUHGLQWKHYLFLQLW\
RI+HSK]LEDK&KXUFK5RDGLQ%HVVHPHU&LW\1RUWK&DUROLQD

7KHSURMHFWZDVDGYHUWLVHGE\SXEOLFQRWLFHRQ-DQXDU\&RPPHQWVLQUHVSRQVHWR
WKHQRWLFHZHUHUHFHLYHGIURPWKH1DWLRQDO0DULQH)LVKHULHV6HUYLFHWKH1RUWK&DUROLQD
'HSDUWPHQWRI&XOWXUDO5HVRXUFHVWKH&KHURNHH1DWLRQ7ULEDO+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ2IILFHWKH
1RUWK&DUROLQD:LOGOLIH5HVRXUFHV&RPPLVVLRQDQGWKH1RUWK&DUROLQD'LYLVLRQRI:DWHU
5HVRXUFHV7KHVHFRPPHQWVDUHHQFORVHGIRU\RXULQIRUPDWLRQ3OHDVHSURYLGHDGHWDLOHGZULWWHQ
UHVSRQVHWRWKHFRPPHQWV

,QDGGLWLRQWRFRQGXFWLQJDSXEOLFLQWHUHVWUHYLHZZKLFKEDODQFHVWKHUHDVRQDEO\H[SHFWHG
EHQHILWVDJDLQVWWKHUHDVRQDEO\IRUHVHHDEOHGHWULPHQWVDOO&OHDQ:DWHU$FW6HFWLRQSHUPLWV
PXVWPHHWJXLGHOLQHVIRUWKHVSHFLILFDWLRQRIGLVSRVDOVLWHVIRUGUHGJHGRUILOOPDWHULDOXQGHU
&OHDQ:DWHU$FW6HFWLRQE7KHVHFRPPHQWVDUHEHLQJVXEPLWWHGSXUVXDQWWRWKH&OHDQ
:DWHU$FW6HFWLRQEJXLGHOLQHV&)5

:HKDYHFRPSOHWHGRXULQLWLDOUHYLHZRIWKHDSSOLFDWLRQDQGGHWHUPLQHGWKDWWKHIROORZLQJ
DGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQLVQHFHVVDU\WRH[SHGLWLRXVO\FRPSOHWHRXUSHUPLWGHFLVLRQ

'XULQJWKHSUHDSSOLFDWLRQPHHWLQJVRQ$XJXVWDQG1RYHPEHU\RX
RU\RXUDJHQWVWDWHGWKDW3LHGPRQW/LWKLXPKDVGULOOHGH[WHQVLYHO\WKURXJKRXWWKH
&DUROLQD7LQ6SRGXPHQH%HOW3OHDVHGLVFORVHWKHORFDWLRQRIWKLVH[SORUDWRU\GULOOLQJ
DFWLYLW\DQGH[SODLQZK\WKHVHVLWHVZHUHQRWVHOHFWHGDVWKHDSSOLFDQWVSUHIHUUHG
DOWHUQDWLYH
'(3$570(172)7+($50<
:,/0,1*721',675,&7&25362)(1*,1((56
3$7721$9(18(
5220
$6+(9,//(1257+&$52/,1$





'XULQJWKHSUHDSSOLFDWLRQPHHWLQJVRQ$XJXVWDQG1RYHPEHU\RX
RU\RXUDJHQWVWDWHGWKDW3LHGPRQW/LWKLXPKDVIXWXUHSODQVIRUDOLWKLXPFRQFHQWUDWH
UHILQHPHQWIDFLOLW\PLOHVDZD\LQ&OHYHODQG&RXQW\7KLVIDFLOLW\ZRXOGDOORZ
3LHGPRQW/LWKLXPWRUHGXFHWKHFRVWRIWKHILQDOOLWKLXPSURGXFWE\DYRLGLQJ
VKLSPHQWRIOLWKLXPFRQFHQWUDWHWR&KLQDIRUUHILQHPHQW3OHDVHGLVFORVHDQ\
DQWLFLSDWHGDGYHUVHLPSDFWVWRZDWHUVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKH
GHYHORSPHQWRIWKLVIDFLOLW\DQGDVVRFLDWHGLQIUDVWUXFWXUHZDWHUVHZHUUDLOJDV
HOHFWULFLW\HWF
)LJXUHRIWKHSODQV,PSDFWVKRZVDVPDOOVHFWLRQRI:HWODQGUHPDLQLQJ
,WDSSHDUVWKDWWKHSURSRVHGILOOZRXOGVHYHUHO\GHJUDGHWKHIXQFWLRQRIWKHUHPDLQLQJ
ZHWODQGDQGSRWHQWLDOO\LVRODWHWKHZHWODQGIURPGRZQVWUHDPZDWHUV7KHUHIRUHWKLV
DUHDVKRXOGDOVREHFRQVLGHUHGDORVVRIZDWHUV

:HKDYHHYDOXDWHGWKHFRQFHSWXDOFRPSHQVDWRU\PLWLJDWLRQSURSRVDOLQFOXGHGLQWKHSHUPLW
DSSOLFDWLRQ:HKDYHGHWHUPLQHGWKDWLIDSHUPLWLVLVVXHGIRUWKHDSSOLFDQWVSUHIHUUHG
DOWHUQDWLYHFRPSHQVDWRU\PLWLJDWLRQZRXOGEHUHTXLUHGDWWKHIROORZLQJFRPSHQVDWLRQUDWLRV

IRU2SHQ:DWHU:HWODQG&UHGLWV
IRU+LJK4XDOLW\:HWODQGV:HWODQG&UHGLWV
IRU0HGLXP4XDOLW\:HWODQGV:HWODQG&UHGLWV
IRU/RZ4XDOLW\:HWODQGV:HWODQG&UHGLWV
IRU+LJK4XDOLW\7ULEXWDULHV6WUHDP&UHGLWV
IRU0HGLXP4XDOLW\7ULEXWDULHV6WUHDP&UHGLWV
IRU/RZ4XDOLW\7ULEXWDULHV6WUHDP&UHGLWV

7KHLQIRUPDWLRQUHTXHVWHGDERYHLVHVVHQWLDOWRWKHH[SHGLWLRXVSURFHVVLQJRIWKHDSSOLFDWLRQSOHDVH
VXEPLWRQHFRQVROLGDWHGUHVSRQVHWRDOOFRPPHQWVE\0D\7KLVLQIRUPDWLRQLVUHTXLUHG
SXUVXDQWWR&)5$SSHQGL[%DQG&)5,I\RXGRQRWVXEPLWWKLVLQIRUPDWLRQZLWKLQ
WKHJLYHQWLPHIUDPHWKHDSSOLFDWLRQZLOOEHDGPLQLVWUDWLYHO\ZLWKGUDZQ:LWKGUDZDORIWKHDSSOLFDWLRQ
GRHVQRWSUHFOXGH\RXIURPUHRSHQLQJWKHDSSOLFDWLRQDWDODWHUWLPHSURYLGHG\RXVXEPLWWKHUHTXLUHG
LQIRUPDWLRQ,I\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQVUHJDUGLQJWKHVHPDWWHUVSOHDVHFRQWDFWPHDWRU
'DYLG/6KDHIIHU#XVDFHDUP\PLO 

6LQFHUHO\ 
 



'DYLG/6KDHIIHU
3URMHFW0DQDJHU
&KDUORWWH)LHOG2IILFH

(QFORVXUH

Digitally signed by
SHAEFFER.DAVID.LEIGH.1260750573
DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD,
ou=PKI, ou=USA,
cn=SHAEFFER.DAVID.LEIGH.1260750573
Date: 2019.03.14 09:02:12 -04'00'
-3-

Copies Furnished:
Kelly Thames, HDR, Inc. (via e-mail - [e-mail])
Sue Homewood, NC Division of Water Resources (via email - [e-mail])

ROY COOPER
Gaud
MICHAEL S. REGAN
5ecerary
LINDA CULPEPPER
Dlrt[fir
a��.yy
�� `ate
NORTH CAROLINA
Enr4onmenral Quuury
February 19, 2019
D W R # 20190035
Gaston County
Piedmont Lithium Inc
Attn: Mr. Patrick Brindle
5706 Dallas-Cherryville Highway
Bessemer City NC 28016
Subject: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Piedmont Lithium Project
Dear Mr. Brindle:
On January 4, 2019, the Division of Water Resources — Water Quality Programs (Division)
received your application dated December 27, 2018, requesting a 401 Individual Water Quality
Certification from the Division for your project. The Division has determined that your
application is incomplete and cannot be processed. The application is on -hold until all of the
following Information is received:
1. If the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requests a response to any comments received as a
result of the Public Notice, please provide the Division with a copy of your response to
the USACE. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(c)]
2. A complete review of the project cannot be conducted until the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers has verified all stream and wetland locations for the entire project. (15A
NCAC 02H .05021a)(7)1
3. DWR mitigation requirements cannot be determined until a site verification of
intermittent and perennial stream calls occurs. Please contact Alan Johnson at 704-235-
2200 to schedule a verification. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(h) and S.L. 2017-10)
4. Provide a site-specific detailed engineering plan, profile view, and cross-section of all
proposed impact areas. These drawings must include details regarding proposed final
contours for fill/cut areas, stream alignment in relation to pipe alignment, pipe slope,
pipe burial, dissipater pad requirements, temporary dewatering design and impacts,
adjacent sediment and erosion control measures, and plans for restoration of any
temporarily impacted areas. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(b)]
North Camlhra Departr ero of vfrorunmtal Qua111y I DIMslunol Water Resources
DEQ,
512 North Salk ry street 11617 MAISerNce Curler I Rafe4h, North Grohra 276W 1617
e197w 9Wltt

Piedmont Lithium Inc
DWR# 20190035
Request for Additional Information
Page 2 of 3
5. Provide the results of the groundwater monitoring and modeling as mentioned in
Section 6.4.3 to document the statement "groundwater supply in the surrounding area
is not expected to increase or decrease due to activities at the proposed project site".
[15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(4)]
6. Clarify how stormwater runoff will be managed throughout the mine, including but not
limited to stormwater from haul roads, concentrator facility, and waste rock areas.
7. Please explain how the rock spoil rock areas have been designed to protect downstream
water quality (e.g. total height and stability, total acreages proposed to be "unstable" at
one time, etc.)
8. Provide documentation and/or a detailed technical analysis that shows that there will
be no secondary hydrological impacts to any of the retained stream features as a result
of pit development. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(6)(4)]
9. The application states that "the proposed discharge of dredge and fill material should
not cause increased chemical contamination levels within the aquatic ecosystem."
Please provide a technical basis for this statement, specifically addressing potential
changes that may occur to the material through the excavation and/or concentration
processes and whether they may increase the potential for chemical releases into the
environment from the waste rock. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(4)]
Pursuant to Title 15A NCAC 02H .0502(e), the applicant shall furnish all of the above requested
information for the proper consideration of the application. Please respond in writing within 30
calendar days of receipt of this letter by sending one (1) copy of all of the above requested
information to the 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, INC
27699-1617 -OR- by submitting all of the above requested information through this
link: https://edocs.deg.nc.gov/Forms/Supplemental-Information-Form (note the DWR#
requested on the link is referenced above).
If all of the requested information is not received within 30 calendar days of receipt of this
letter, the Division will be unable to approve the application and it will be returned. The return
of this project will necessitate reapplication to the Division for approval, including a complete
application package and the appropriate fee.
Please be aware that you have no authorization under the Water quality Certification Rules for
this activity and any work done within waters of the state may be a violation of North Carolina
General Statutes and Administrative Code.

Piedmont Lithium Inc
DWR# 20190035
Request for Additional Information
Page 3 of 3
Contact Sue Homewood at 336-776-9693 or Sue.HDmewooc1@)n[denr.Rov if you have any
questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Karen Higgins, Supervisor
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch
cc: Kelly Thames, HDR (via email)
David Shaeffer, USACE Charlotte Regulatory Field Office (via email)
Olivia Munzer, NCWRC (via email)
Byron Hamstead, USFS (via email)
DWR MRO 401 flies
DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
Filename: 20190035PiedmontLithium(Gaston)_401_IC_HOLD

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director

Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation Division • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

MEMORANDUM

TO: Kelly Thames
HDR, Inc.

FROM: Olivia Munzer, Western Piedmont Coordinator
Habitat Conservation

DATE: 18 February 2019

SUBJECT: Individual Permit Application for Piedmont Lithium Mine Project in Bessemer City,
Gaston County; USACE Action ID: SAW-2018-01129; DEQ Project No. 20190035.

Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the subject
document. Comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (as
amended) and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667e).

HDR, Inc., on behalf of Piedmont Lithium Inc., has submitted an Individual Permit (IP) application for
the proposed Piedmont Lithium Mine centered around 1501 Hephzibah Church Road in Bessemer City,
Gaston County, North Carolina. The approximately 971-acre (ac) hard rock lithium mine would include
the construction of a 200-ac open pit, a 145-ac waste rock area, a concentrator plant site, access roads, and
applicable National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System best management practices (BMP).

Little Beaverdam Creek, Beaverdam Creek, and their unnamed tributaries in the Catawba River basin
flow through the proposed site. The pit shell areas will impact 1,263 linear feet (lf) of perennial stream
channel, 4,547.5 lf of intermittent stream channel, 0.14 ac of wetlands, and 0.16 ac of ponds. Internal
access road stream crossing will impact 178 lf of perennial stream channel and a stormwater BMP will
impact 55 lf of perennial channel.

We have records for the dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora; Federal Threatened, State
Threatened), bigleaf magnolia (Magnolia macrophylla; State Threatened), bog turtle (Glyptemys
muhlenbergii; Federal Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance; State Threatened), Virginia
spiderwort (Tradescantia virginiana; State Threatened), dwarf threetooth (Triodopsis fulciden; State
Special Concern), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus; State Threatened), which is protected by the
federal Bald and Eagle Protection Act, in the vicinity of the site. State significantly rare species found in
the area include seagreen darter (Etheostoma thalassinum), Carolina foothills crayfish (Cambarus johni),
striate button (Mesomphix pilsbryi), glade milkvine (Matelea decipiends), and Georgia holly (Ilex
longipes). Additionally, an undescribed crayfish occurs in Beaverdam Creek downstream of the project,
Page 2

18 February 2019
Piedmont Lithium Mine IP
USACE Action ID: SAW-2018-01129

and several state-listed aquatic mussels may occur in or downstream of the site. HDR conducted surveys
for federally-protected species and none were observed within the proposed mine site. The lack of
records from the site does not imply or confirm the absence of state-listed species. An on-site survey is
the only definitive means to determine if the proposed project would impact rare, threatened, or
endangered species. Additionally, the Eaker Farm Catawba Land Conservancy Easement occurs adjacent
to the proposed site.

We have concerns on the impacts of this project on aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources. Based upon
the Pre-Application Agency Meeting and IP, we offer the following recommendations minimize impacts
to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.
1. We recommend surveys for state-listed mussel and crayfish species within and downstream of the
site to determine if relocations are needed. Please contact W. Thomas Russ, the Foothills Aquatic
Wildlife Diversity Research Coordinator, at 828-659-3324 or [e-mail].
2. We recommend a minimum 100-foot undisturbed buffer for perennial streams and a 50-foot
undisturbed buffer for intermittent streams and wetlands.
3. The applicant should avoid the removal of large trees at the edges of construction corridors. Due
to the decline in bat populations, tees should not be removed during the maternity roosting season
for bats (May 15 – August 15). Also, clearing of vegetation should be avoided during the
migratory bird nesting season, roughly March to August.
4. Incorporate the following elements into erosion and sediment control plans: minimize clearing
and grading, protect waterways, phase construction for larger construction sites (>25 acres),
stabilize soils as rapidly as possible (<2 weeks), protect steep slopes, establish appropriate
perimeter controls, employ advanced settling devices, implement a certified contractors program,
and regularly inspect erosion control measures.
5. Non-native plants should be removed from the seeding schedule. Avoid using Bermudagrass,
redtop, tall fescue, and lespedeza, which are invasive and/or non-native and provide little benefit
to wildlife. Consider an alternative mix of red clover, creeping red fescue, and a grain, such as
oats, wheat, or rye. Specifically, this project would be ideal for planting native, wildflower seed
mixes that will create pollinator habitat within the reclaimed areas. Pollinators are some insects
(i.e., bees, moths, and butterflies) and birds that play an important role in the reproduction of
flowering plants, which produce many fruits and vegetables. Habitat loss, disease, and other
environmental changes have caused a decline in pollinators. Please contact NCWRC for a list of
suitable native plants for reclamation.
6. Water discharges from the site should be proportional to the size of the receiving stream so the
hydrology of the stream is not altered, and all discharges should comply with NPDES permit
requirements. In particular, turbidity of the discharge should be maintained at or below the
permit requirement. High water discharge rates and turbidity can negatively impact aquatic
resources within and downstream of the site. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have
numerous detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning habitat,
suffocation of eggs, and clogging of gills of aquatic species.
7. Existing culverts should be evaluated for their function and allowance for aquatic life and fish
passage. Generally, the culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural
streambed (measured from the natural thalweg depth), or if culverts are less than 48 inches in
diameter, they should be buried to a depth equal to or greater than 20% of their size. If multiple
barrels are required, barrels other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream
bankfull or floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be
reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by utilizing sills on
the upstream and downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to the base flow barrel(s). Silled
barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to entrap wildlife or support mosquito breeding
Page 3

18 February 2019
Piedmont Lithium Mine IP
USACE Action ID: SAW-2018-01129
conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided in the base flow barrel(s) during low flows
to accommodate fish movement. If culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or
notched baffles should be installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should
enhance aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining channel
depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms.
In essence, base flow barrel(s) should provide a continuum of water depth and channel width
without substantial modifications of velocity.
If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to remain dry
during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever possible to
avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided. Stream channel
widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing
sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner
that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be
professionally designed, sized, and installed.
8. Sediment and erosion control measures should be installed prior to any land clearing or
construction. The use of biodegradable and wildlife-friendly sediment and erosion control
devices is strongly recommended. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other products should have
loose-weave netting that is made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the
vertical and horizontal twines. Silt fencing that has been reinforced with plastic or metal mesh
should be avoided as it impedes the movement of terrestrial wildlife species. These measures
should be routinely inspected and properly maintained. Excessive silt and sediment loads can
have numerous detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning
habitat, suffocation of eggs, and clogging of gills of aquatic species.
9. We recommend reclaiming the relatively shallow sediment basins as wetlands, where practicable.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this permit application. For questions or comments, please
contact me at [phone] or [e-mail].

ec: Sue Homewood, NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR)
Alan Johnson, NCDWR
Byron Hamstead, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
W. Thomas Russ, NCWRC
David Shaeffer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

1
Shaeffer, David Leigh (Dave) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From:Randy Webb <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, February 12, 2019 9:48 AM
To:Shaeffer, David Leigh (Dave) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject:[Non-DoD Source] Corps Action ID # SAW-2018-01129
Corps Action ID Number SAW‐2018‐01129 

Dear Mr. Shaeffer,  

Comments being elicited regarding the USACE's  findings seems pointless. Q & A is more advantageous to current 
property owners in the Piedmont Lithium proposed future mining and processing area. The possible environmental 
degradation with regard to Beaverdam Creek, Little Beaverdam Creek, and their tributaries has been addressed. 
However, the possible impact to underground aquifers and springs feeding our wells has not been addressed. The 
breakup of rocks may lead to the leaching of excesses of various minerals and nitrates into our wells. Blasting may effect 
the structural soundness and flow of wells.  

If these and other questions are not addressed by Piedmont Lithium and USACE property owners will be left in the dark 
not knowing the wisest course to take. Therefore, a public hearing would be in the best interest of property owners as 
this project moves forward.  

Respectfully, 

Andrea Webb  
PO Box 120 
1035 Hephzibah Church Rd. 
Crouse, NC 28033 

(Sent via Electronic Mail) January 28, 2019

Colonel Robert J. Clark, Commander
USACE Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-1398

Dear Colonel Clark:

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed the project described in the public
notice listed below. Based on the information in the public notice, the proposed project would
NOT occur in the vicinity of essential fish habitat (EFH) designated by the South Atlantic
Fishery Management Council, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, or the NMFS.
Present staffing levels preclude further analysis of the proposed work and no further action is
planned. This position is neither supportive of nor in opposition to authorization of the proposed
work.

Notice No. Applicant(s) Notice Date SAW -2018-00987 Promenade on the Lake LLC January 23, 2019 SAW -2016-02542 Person County; Mega Park January 23, 2019 SAW -2011-01812 Live Oak Bank January 22, 2019 SAW -2018-01129 Piedmont Lithium Inc January 17, 2019 SAW -2018-02343 NCDOT; NC 150 January 10, 2019 SAW -2008-03183 NCDOT; Winston-Salem Northern Beltway Eastern Section January, 8, 2019
SAW -2018-00170 Tinsel Town LLC December 21, 2018

Please note these comments do not satisfy consultation responsibilities under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. If an activity “may effect” listed species or critical
habitat under the purview of the NMFS, please initiate consultation with the Protected Resources
Division at the letterhead address.

Sincerely,

Pace Wilber for

Virginia M. Fay
Assistant Regional Administrator
Habitat Conservation Division

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599
May 10, 2018
Harriet Richardson Seacat
HDR, Inc.
440 South Church Street, Suites 800, 900, & 1000
Charlotte, NC 28202-2075
Re: Piedmont Lithium Mining, Hephzibah Church Road, Whitesides Road, & Aderholdt Road, Crouse,
Gaston County, ER 18-0800
Dear Ms. Seacat:
Thank you for your submission of April 16, 2018, concerning the above referenced project. We have reviewed
the information provided and offer the following comments.
Three archaeological resources were identified during the cultural resources background investigation, which
consisted of both a records check and a limited reconnaissance survey. None of these sites have yet been fully
investigated or evaluated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Based on topographic
conditions and the proximity to perennial streams, as well as the locations of structures on historic maps, there
is potential for additional archaeological sites to be present in the project area.
Prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activities within the project area, we recommend that a
comprehensive archaeological survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist. The purpose of this
survey will be to locate archaeological sites and make recommendations regarding the eligibility status of each
site in terms of the NRHP. Conditions may not warrant intensive survey with systematic shovel tests across the
entire project that the entire project area; however, all areas not intensively surveyed should still be investigated
with pedestrian reconnaissance. Please note that our office now requests consultation with the Office of State
Archaeology Review Archaeologist to discuss appropriate field methodologies prior to the archaeological field
investigation.
One paper copy and one digital copy (PDF) of all resulting archaeological reports, as well as one paper
copy and one digital copy (MS Word) of the North Carolina site form for each site recorded, should be
forwarded to the Office of State Archaeology through this office for review and comment as soon as
they are available and in advance of any construction or ground disturbance activities.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in
North Carolina is available at www.archaeology.ncdcr.gov/ncarch/resource/consultants.htm. The
archaeologists listed, or any other experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the
recommended survey.

We have determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on any historic structures.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.

Sincerely,

Ramona M. Bartos

1
Shaeffer, David Leigh (Dave) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
From:Elizabeth Toombs <[e-mail]>
Sent:Monday, January 28, 2019 9:37 AM
To:Shaeffer, David Leigh (Dave) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc:Wallace, Nancy L CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY CESAW
(US)
Subject:[Non-DoD Source] RE: PUBLIC NOTICE SAW-2018-01129 Piedmont Lithium
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Many  thanks for the update, Mr. Shaeffer. This Office will look forward to providing comments after reviewing the 
report. Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns in the meantime.  

Wado,  

Elizabeth Toombs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Cherokee Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office PO Box 948 
Tahlequah, OK  74465‐0948 
918.453.5389 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Shaeffer, David Leigh (Dave) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) [mailto:[e-mail]]  
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 8:27 AM 
To: Elizabeth Toombs <elizabeth‐[e-mail]> 
Cc: Wallace, Nancy L CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Beckwith, Loretta A CIV USARMY 
CESAW (US) <[e-mail]> 
Subject: <EXTERNAL> FW: PUBLIC NOTICE SAW‐2018‐01129 Piedmont Lithium (UNCLASSIFIED) 

Ms. Toombs, 

Please see below. Please let me know if you have any questions.  

Sincerely, 

David L. Shaeffer 
Project Manager/Geographer 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
Charlotte Regulatory Office 
Desk: 704‐510‐1437 

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public.  To help us ensure we 
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at 
Blockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Thames, Kelly [mailto:[e-mail]]  
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 9:25 AM 
To: Shaeffer, David Leigh (Dave) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]> 
Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] RE: PUBLIC NOTICE SAW‐2018‐01129 Piedmont Lithium (UNCLASSIFIED) 
2

Hi David, 

The cultural and architectural resources field work wrapped up just before the New Year and the results are still be 
written up. 

However, I spoke to the cultural resources program manager this morning and he said they will send the Cherokee 
Nation a courtesy copy of the report upon completion.  

Additionally, he also said that the field methodology and report was/is conducted in accordance with NC SHPO 
regulations/standards and the preliminary results are that no significant cultural resources were identified.  

Thanks, 
Kelly 

Kelly Thames, PWS 

D 704.338.6710 M 704.996.9986 

hdrinc.com/follow‐us <BlockedBlockedhttp://hdrinc.com/follow‐us>  

From: Shaeffer, David Leigh (Dave) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) [mailto:[e-mail]]  
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 8:18 AM 
To: Thames, Kelly <[e-mail]> 
Subject: FW: PUBLIC NOTICE SAW‐2018‐01129 Piedmont Lithium (UNCLASSIFIED) 

See below. Can you send me a separate pdf with just this information? I would pull it from the file but I am super busy 
today.  

Sincerely, 

David L. Shaeffer 

Project Manager/Geographer 
3

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Charlotte Regulatory Office 

Desk: 704‐510‐1437 

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public.  To help us ensure we 
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at 
BlockedBlockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0 

From: Elizabeth Toombs [mailto:elizabeth‐[e-mail]]  
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2019 4:39 PM 
To: Bates, Letticia D SP4 USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail] 
<mailto:[e-mail]> > 
Cc: Shaeffer, David Leigh (Dave) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail] 
<mailto:[e-mail]> > 
Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] RE: PUBLIC NOTICE SAW‐2018‐01129 Piedmont Lithium (UNCLASSIFIED) 

Many thanks for the review request, Ms. Bates. This email is to request the related cultural resources survey for this 
proposed project. 

Thank you for your time and any additional information.  

Wado,  

Elizabeth Toombs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Cherokee Nation  

Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

PO Box 948 

Tahlequah, OK  74465‐0948 

918.453.5389 

4
From: Bates, Letticia D SP4 USARMY CESAW (US) [mailto:[e-mail]]  
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 11:28 AM 
Cc: Shaeffer, David Leigh (Dave) CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail] 
<mailto:[e-mail]> >; Bates, Letticia D SP4 USARMY CESAW (US) 
<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > 
Subject: <EXTERNAL> PUBLIC NOTICE SAW‐2018‐01129 Piedmont Lithium (UNCLASSIFIED) 

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED 

As you requested, you are hereby notified that Wilmington District, United States Army Corps of Engineers has issued a 
Public Notice. The text of this document can be found on the Public Notices portion of the Regulatory Division Home 
Page. Each Public Notice is available in ADOBE ACROBAT (.pdf) format for viewing, printing or download at 
BlockedBlockedBlockedhttp://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory‐Permit‐Program/Public‐Notices/ 
<BlockedBlockedBlockedhttp://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory‐Permit‐Program/Public‐Notices/>   

As with anything you download from the internet, be sure to check for viruses prior to opening. The current notice 
involves: 

ACTION ID#:  SAW‐2018‐01129 

APPLICANT: Piedmont Lithium, Inc. 

Project Description: The Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps) received an application from Piedmont Lithium, 
Inc. seeking Department of the Army authorization to impact 5,810.5 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channel, 0.14 
5
acre of jurisdictional wetlands, and 0.16 acre of jurisdictional ponds/impoundments, associated with a lithium mine in 
Gaston County, North Carolina.   

Project Manager is: David L. Shaeffer (704) 510‐1437 

Issue Date:  January 17, 2019 

EXPIRATION DATE: 5:00 p.m., February 18, 2019 

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED 

Appendix B
PJD Verification

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT

Action Id. SAW-2018-01129 County: Gaston U.S.G.S. Quad: NC- Lincolnton West

NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION

Requestor: Piedmont Lithium, Inc
Patrick Brindle
Address: 5706 Dallas-Cherryville Highway
Bessemer City, NC 28016
Telephone Number: 412-818-0376
E-mail: [e-mail]

Size (acres) 537 Nearest Town Crouse
Nearest Waterway Beaverdam Creek River Basin Santee
USGS HUC 03050102 Coordinates Latitude: 35.387869
Longitude: -81.286758
Location description: The review area is located 0.5 miles South of the intersection of Hephzibah Church Road and Whitesides
Road in Gaston Co. PIN(s): 215731, 213460, 213461, 159240, 215730, 198928, 198472, 205287, 159640, 159641, 159642, 159638,
159639, 159637, 218192, 216007, 218191.

Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination

There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate
and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated 4/1/2019. Therefore
this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including determining compensatory
mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource protection
measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any
way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an
appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may
request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.

There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403).
However, since the waters, including wetlands have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination
may not be used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is
merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands at the project area, which
is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters,
including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination

There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.

There are waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.

We recommend you have the waters, including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.

SAW-2018-01129
The waters, including wetlands on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by
the Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once
verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided
there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
The waters, including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the
Corps Regulatory Official identified below on DATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to determine their
requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Catherine M. Janiczak at 704-510-1438 or
[e-mail].
C.Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the preliminary jurisdictional determination
form dated 6/20/2019.
D.Remarks: None.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps’ Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you
must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by Not applicable.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official: ______________________________________________________
Date of JD: 6/20/2019 Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable
mit an RFA form to the Division Office if yo
____________________________________
Eii D fJDNlibl
SAW-2018-01129
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0

Copy furnished:

Agent: HDR
Thomas Blackwell
Address: 440 S. Church Street, Suite 1000
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone Number: 704-338-6720
E-mail: [e-mail]

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Piedmont Lithium, Inc, Patrick Brindle File Number: SAW-2018-01129 Date: 6/20/2019
Attached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at or http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx
or the Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
x ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
x OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
x ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
x APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
x ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
x APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.

SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
appeal process you may contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Attn: Catherine M. Janiczak
Charlotte Regulatory Office
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 615
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262

If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
also contact:
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD-PDO
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.

________________________________________
Signature of appellant or agent.
Date: Telephone number:

For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:

District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Catherine M. Janiczak, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North
Carolina 28403

For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:

Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal
Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 6/20/2019

B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Piedmont Lithium, Inc, Patrick Brindle, 5706 Dallas-
Cherryville Highway,Bessemer City, NC 28016

C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Piedmont Lithium Project PJD,
SAW-2018-01129

D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The review area is located 0.5 miles South
of the intersection of Hephzibah Church Road and Whitesides Road in Gaston Co. PIN(s): 215731, 213460, 213461,
159240, 215730, 198928, 198472, 205287, 159640, 159641, 159642, 159638, 159639, 159637, 218192, 216007,
218191.
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County: Gaston City: Crouse
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 35.387869 Longitude: -81.286758
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Beaverdam Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date: Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.

Site Number Latitude (decimal
degrees)
Longitude (decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount of
aquatic resources in
review area (acreage
and linear feet, if
applicable
Type of aquatic
resources (i.e.,
wetland vs. non-
wetland waters)
Geographic authority to
which the aquatic resource
“may be” subject (i.e.,
Section 404 or Section
10/404)
Perennial
RPW Stream 1
(Beaverdam
Creek)
35.386835 -81.285924 13,799 linear feet
Non-wetland Sec. 404
Perennial
RPW Stream 2
35.393311 -81.258815 4,237 linear feet
Non-wetland
Sec. 404
Seasonal RPW
Stream 3
35.394279 -81.283198 1,403 linear feet
Non-wetland
Sec. 404
Perennial
RPW Stream 4
35.393179 -81.281303 2758 linear feet
Non-wetland
Sec. 404
Perennial
RPW Stream 5
35.38626 -81.277881 2,438 linear feet
Non-wetland
Sec. 404
Seasonal RPW
Stream 6
35.3884 -81.284461 465 linear feet
Non-wetland
Sec. 404
Perennial
RPW Stream 7
(Little
Beaverdam
35.383906 -81.28861 2,848 linear feet
Non-wetland
Sec. 404

Site Number Latitude (decimal
degrees)
Longitude (decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount of
aquatic resources in
review area (acreage
and linear feet, if
applicable
Type of aquatic
resources (i.e.,
wetland vs. non-
wetland waters)
Geographic authority to
which the aquatic resource
“may be” subject (i.e.,
Section 404 or Section
10/404)
Creek)
Perennial
RPW Stream 8
35.384698 -81.287308 583 linear feet
Non-wetland
Sec. 404
Seasonal RPW
Stream 8
35.383761 -81.285579 548 linear feet
Non-wetland
Sec. 404
Seasonal RPW
Stream 9
35.384005 -81.286911 252 linear feet
Non-wetland
Sec. 404
Seasonal RPW
Stream 10
35.388701 -81.291907 797 linear feet
Non-wetland
Sec. 404
Seasonal RPW
Stream 11
35.388608 -81.291743 30 linear feet
Non-wetland
Sec. 404
Seasonal RPW
Stream 12
35.394342 -81.296986 2444.5 linear feet
Non-wetland
Sec. 404
Seasonal RPW
Stream 13
35.396914 -81.300055 1,155 linear feet
Non-wetland
Sec. 404
Perennial
RPW Stream
14
35.395466 -81.30229 1,085 linear feet
Non-wetland
Sec. 404
Seasonal RPW
Stream 15
35.391424 -81.299202 1,126 linear feet
Non-wetland
Sec. 404
Seasonal RPW
Stream 16
35.391083 -81.294203 492 linear feet
Non-wetland
Sec. 404
Perennial
RPW Stream
16
35.389092 -81.295376 744 linear feet
Non-wetland
Sec. 404
Perennial
RPW Stream
17
35.375392 -81.287237 1,822 linear feet
Non-wetland
Sec. 404
Seasonal RPW
Stream 18
35.395133 -81.288709 141 linear feet
Non-wetland
Sec. 404
Wetland 1 35.391017 -81.285861 0
Wetland
Sec. 404
Wetland 2 35.384414 -81.278923 0.15
Wetland
Sec. 404
Wetland 3 35.38938 -81.279634 3.19
Wetland
Sec. 404
Wetland 4 35.388252 -81.283946 0.66
Wetland
Sec. 404

Site Number Latitude (decimal
degrees)
Longitude (decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount of
aquatic resources in
review area (acreage
and linear feet, if
applicable
Type of aquatic
resources (i.e.,
wetland vs. non-
wetland waters)
Geographic authority to
which the aquatic resource
“may be” subject (i.e.,
Section 404 or Section
10/404)
Wetland 5 35.386738 -81.285098
2.21 acres Wetland
Sec. 404
Wetland 6 35.384078 -81.287736
0.09 acres Wetland
Sec. 404
Wetland 7 35.382048 -81.289641
0.38 acres Wetland
Sec. 404
Wetland 8 35.384223 -81.288806
0.23 acres Wetland
Sec. 404
Wetland 9 35.397122 -81.297864
0.18 acres Wetland
Sec. 404
Wetland 10 35.396872 -81.299514
0.12 acres Wetland
Sec. 404
Wetland 11 35.387835 -81.295506
0.04 acres Wetland
Sec. 404
Wetland 12 35.388107 -81.296558
0.06 acres Wetland
Sec. 404
Wetland 13 35.38911400 -81.29803800
0.09 acres Wetland
Sec. 404
Wetland 14 35.39095000 -81.29925500
5.45 acres Wetland
Sec. 404
Wetland 15 35.39945900 -81.29168200
0.04 acres Wetland
Sec. 404
Wetland 16 35.39539700 -81.28823100
0.08 acres Wetland
Sec. 404
Pond 1 35.39146200 -81.28582500
0.14 acres Non-wetland
Sec. 404
Pond 2 35.38742400 -81.28427500
0.39 acres Non-wetland
Sec. 404
Pond 3 35.39561800 -81.29681900
0.08 acres Non-wetland
Sec. 404
Pond 4 35.39697900 -81.29836300
0.07 acres Non-wetland
Sec. 404

1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review
area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an
approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed decision after having discussed the
various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General
Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre- construction notification" (PCN), or
requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has
not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit
applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an official
determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AJD
before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit
authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or
different special conditions; (3) the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than
accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant
can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that
permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5)
undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting an AJD
constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g.,
signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area
affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such
jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any
administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD
or a PJD, the JD will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual
permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be
administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic jurisdiction exists over
aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic
resources in the review area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is
practicable. This PJD finds that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be"
navigable waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the
review area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources below where
indicated for all checked items:
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map: Figure 6A, Figure 6B, Figure 6C, Figure 6D, Figure 6E, Figure 6F, & Figure 6G (Dated
04/01/2019)
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
Officedoesnotconcurwithdatasheets/delineation report. Rationale:
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corpsnavigablewaters'study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
USGS NHD data.
USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S.Geological Survey map(s). Citescale&quadname:1:24,000’ Lincolnton West, NC (1993)
Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: NRCS Soils Survey of Gason Co. (2017)
Nationalwetlands inventorymap(s). Citename: USFWS NWI (2018)
State/localwetland inventorymap(s):
FEMA/FIRMmaps: FEMA FIRM Panels 3710361000J and 3710362000J
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs:Aerial (Name &Date):Bing Aerial Imagery, dated 2017
or Other (Name & Date):Site photographs, dated March 15 and 2; April 3-4,
2018; August 17, 2018; April 1, 2019.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Otherinformation(pleasespecify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been
verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional determinations.
Signature and date of Regulatory
staff member completing PJD
6/20/2019
Signature and date of person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is
impracticable) 1
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the
established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an
action.
Signature and date of Regulatory
t ff b lti PJD
PATH: \\CLTSMAIN\GIS_DATA\GIS\PROJECTS\71135_PIEDMONTLITHIUM\10089640_PIEDMONTLITHIUM\7.2_WORK_IN_PROGRESS\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\20190328_JDPKG_REMAININGAREAS\06A_PIEDMONTLITHIUM_JD.MXD - USER: KTHAMES - DATE: 4/1/2019PIEDMONT LITHIUM PROJECTFIGURE 6APOTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. - OVERVIEWPRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION VERIFICATION(CLIENT LOGO)01,200FeetOLEGENDIP Project Boundary (963 ac.)Previous Verification (614 ac.)CulvertsPotential Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.Delineated StreamsDelineated WetlandsDelineated PondsDesktop StreamsDesktop NWI WetlandName: Piedmont Lithium ProjectApplicant: Piedmont Lithium, Inc.Location: 2.8 miles north of the Hephzibah Church Road and Dallas Cherryville Highway intersection in Gaston County, NCDate: 4/1/2019Project Area: 614 acresCenter Coordinates: -81.286758°, 35.387869°SAW #: 2018-01129Figure 6BFigure 6CGPS POINTS WERE COLLECTED USING TRIMBLE GEO7X ANDPOST-PROCESSED DATA SOURCE: http://www.bing.com/mapsFigure 6DStream 2 Stream3BeaverdamCreekStream5Wetland3Pond1Wetland1Wetland2Wetland4
Wetland5Pond2Stream7BeaverdamCreekStream1Stream8Wetland6Wetland7Wetland8Stream9Stream11Stream6S tream1LittleBeaverdamCreekPond3Pond4Stream12Stream13Stream14S t r e a m 1
Figure 6FWetland10Wetland9S t re am1B e a v e r d am Creek Figure 6EFigure 6GStream4Stream12Stream16Stream15Stream17Stream18Stream 2
Wetland13Wetland 11Wetland 12Wetland14S t r e a m 10Wetland15Wetland 16Name: Piedmont Lithium ProjectApplicant: Piedmont Lithium, Inc.Location: 2.8 miles north of the Hephzibah Church Road and Dallas Cherryville Highway intersection in Gaston County, NCDate: 4/1/2019Project Area: 963 acresCenter Coordinates: -81.286758°, 35.387869°SAW #: 2018-01129Approximate Total Jurisdictional RPW Tributary: 39,167.5 linear feetApproximate Total Jurisdictional Wetlands: 13.25 acresApproximate Total Jurisdictional Pond: 0.68 acreApproximate Total Uplands: 936.96 acresApproximate Total Site Acreage: 963 acres
PATH: \\CLTSMAIN\GIS_DATA\GIS\PROJECTS\71135_PIEDMONTLITHIUM\10089640_PIEDMONTLITHIUM\7.2_WORK_IN_PROGRESS\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\20190328_JDPKG_REMAININGAREAS\06B_PIEDMONTLITHIUM_JD.MXD - USER: KTHAMES - DATE: 4/1/2019PIEDMONT LITHIUM PROJECTFIGURE 6BPOTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S.PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION VERIFICATION(CLIENT LOGO)0450FeetOGPS POINTS WERE COLLECTED USING TRIMBLE GEO7X ANDPOST-PROCESSED DATA SOURCE: http://www.bing.com/mapsLEGENDIP Project Boundary (963 ac.)Previous Verification (614 ac.)!!!(#Photographs#Upland Data Points#Wetland Data PointsCulvertsPotential Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.Delineated StreamsDelineated WetlandsDelineated PondsDesktop StreamsName: Piedmont Lithium ProjectApplicant: Piedmont Lithium, Inc.Location: 2.8 miles north of the Hephzibah Church Road and Dallas Cherryville Highway intersection in Gaston County, NCDate: 4/1/2019Project Area: 963 acresCenter Coordinates: -81.286758°, 35.387869°SAW #: 2018-01129Stream 1 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.13,799 linear feetBeaverdamCreekStream 4 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.2,758 linear feet(435 lf delineated; 2,323 lf desktop)Stream 3 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.1,403 linear feet(1,122 lf delineated; 284 lf desktop)Stream 2 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.4,237 linear feetPond 1 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.0.14 ac.Wetland 1 - Potential WetlandWaters of the U.S.0.28 ac.ÈHH
H
H
H H
HHHHStream 16see Figure 6GStream 12see Figure 6FApproximate Total Jurisdictional RPW Tributary: 39,167.5 linear feetApproximate Total Jurisdictional Wetlands: 8.19 acresApproximate Total Jurisdictional Pond: 0.68 acreApproximate Total Uplands: 943.02 acresApproximate Total Site Acreage: 963 acres!!!(!!!(44431918!!!(45Wetland 16 - Potential WetlandWaters of the U.S.0.07 ac.Wetland 15 - Potential WetlandWaters of the U.S.0.04 ac.Stream 18 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.141 linear feet0100FeetOStream 2ÈÈ050FeetOH1Stream 2!!!(!!!(32210250FeetO
PATH: \\CLTSMAIN\GIS_DATA\GIS\PROJECTS\71135_PIEDMONTLITHIUM\10089640_PIEDMONTLITHIUM\7.2_WORK_IN_PROGRESS\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\20190328_JDPKG_REMAININGAREAS\06C_PIEDMONTLITHIUM_JD.MXD - USER: KTHAMES - DATE: 4/1/2019PIEDMONT LITHIUM PROJECTFIGURE 6CPOTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S.PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION VERIFICATION(CLIENT LOGO)0300FeetOGPS POINTS WERE COLLECTED USING TRIMBLE GEO7X ANDPOST-PROCESSED DATA SOURCE: http://www.bing.com/mapsLEGENDIP Project Boundary (963 ac.)Previous Verification (614 ac.)!!!(#Photographs#Upland Data Points#Wetland Data PointsCulvertsPotential Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.Delineated StreamsDelineated WetlandsDelineated PondsPond 2 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.0.39 ac.Stream 5 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.2,438 linear feetWetland 3 - Potential WetlandWaters of the U.S.3.19 ac.Wetland 5 - Potential WetlandWaters of the U.S.2.21 ac.HHHHWetland 2 - Potential WetlandWaters of the U.S.0.15 ac.Wetland 4 - Potential WetlandWaters of the U.S.0.66 ac.HHLittleBeaverdamCreekBeaverdamCreekWetland 6 - Potential WetlandWaters of the U.S.0.09 ac.Wetland 8 - Potential WetlandWaters of the U.S.0.23 ac.Stream 8 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.1,131 linear feetStream 9 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.252 linear feetHHHHStream 7 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.2,848 linear feetStream 1 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.13,799 linear feetHHStream 6 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.465 linear feetWetland 5Name: Piedmont Lithium ProjectApplicant: Piedmont Lithium, Inc.Location: 2.8 miles north of the Hephzibah Church Road and Dallas Cherryville Highway intersection in Gaston County, NCDate: 4/1/2019Project Area: 963 acresCenter Coordinates: -81.286758°, 35.387869°SAW #: 2018-01129Approximate Total Jurisdictional RPW Tributary: 39,167.5 linear feetApproximate Total Jurisdictional Wetlands: 8.19 acresApproximate Total Jurisdictional Pond: 0.68 acreApproximate Total Uplands: 943.02 acresApproximate Total Site Acreage: 963 acres11
!!!(!!!(!!!(!!!(!!!(!!!(!!!(!!!(910111516181719202122PATH: \\CLTSMAIN\GIS_DATA\GIS\PROJECTS\71135_PIEDMONTLITHIUM\10089640_PIEDMONTLITHIUM\7.2_WORK_IN_PROGRESS\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\20190328_JDPKG_REMAININGAREAS\06D_PIEDMONTLITHIUM_JD.MXD - USER: KTHAMES - DATE: 4/1/2019PIEDMONT LITHIUM PROJECTFIGURE 6DPOTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S.PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION VERIFICATION(CLIENT LOGO)0300FeetOGPS POINTS WERE COLLECTED USING TRIMBLE GEO7X ANDPOST-PROCESSED DATA SOURCE: http://www.bing.com/mapsLEGENDIP Project Boundary (963 ac.)Previous Verification (614 ac.)!!!(#Photographs#Upland Data Points#Wetland Data PointsCulvertsPotential Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.Delineated StreamsDelineated WetlandsDelineated PondsStream 9 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.See Figure 6CStream 8 - Potential Non-See Figure 6CÈLittleBeaverdamCreekWetland 7 - Potential WetlandWaters of the U.S.0.23 ac.Wetland 8 - Potential WetlandWaters of the U.S.0.23 ac.È
È
Stream 7 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.2,848 linear feetWetland 5 - Potential WetlandWaters of the U.S.See Figure 6CWetland 6 - Potential WetlandWaters of the U.S.0.09 ac.Name: Piedmont Lithium ProjectApplicant: Piedmont Lithium, Inc.Location: 2.8 miles north of the Hephzibah Church Road and Dallas Cherryville Highway intersection in Gaston County, NCDate: 4/1/2019Project Area: 963 acresCenter Coordinates: -81.286758°, 35.387869°SAW #: 2018-01129Approximate Total Jurisdictional RPW Tributary: 39,167.5 linear feetApproximate Total Jurisdictional Wetlands: 8.19 acresApproximate Total Jurisdictional Pond: 0.68 acreApproximate Total Uplands: 943.02 acresApproximate Total Site Acreage: 963 acres
PATH: \\CLTSMAIN\GIS_DATA\GIS\PROJECTS\71135_PIEDMONTLITHIUM\10089640_PIEDMONTLITHIUM\7.2_WORK_IN_PROGRESS\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\20190328_JDPKG_REMAININGAREAS\06E_PIEDMONTLITHIUM_JD.MXD - USER: KTHAMES - DATE: 4/1/2019PIEDMONT LITHIUM PROJECTFIGURE 6EPOTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S.PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION VERIFICATION(CLIENT LOGO)0300FeetOGPS POINTS WERE COLLECTED USING TRIMBLE GEO7X ANDPOST-PROCESSED DATA SOURCE: http://www.bing.com/mapsLEGENDIP Project Boundary (963 ac.)Previous Verification (614 ac.)!!!(#Photographs#Upland Data Points#Wetland Data PointsCulvertsPotential Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.Delineated StreamsDelineated WetlandsDelineated PondsDesktop StreamsDesktop NWI WetlandÈÈÈ
BeaverdamCreekÈ!!!(!!!(24230200FeetOStream 1Stream 1 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.13,799 linear feetStream 11 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.30 linear feetStream 10 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.797 linear feetÈApproximate Total Jurisdictional RPW Tributary: 39,167.5 linear feetApproximate Total Jurisdictional Wetlands: 13.25 acresApproximate Total Jurisdictional Pond: 0.68 acreApproximate Total Uplands: 936.96 acresApproximate Total Site Acreage: 963 acresName: Piedmont Lithium ProjectApplicant: Piedmont Lithium, Inc.Location: 2.8 miles north of the Hephzibah Church Road and Dallas Cherryville Highway intersection in Gaston County, NCDate: 4/1/2019Project Area: 963 acresCenter Coordinates: -81.286758°, 35.387869°SAW #: 2018-01129Wetland 12 - Potential WetlandWaters of the U.S.0.06 ac.Wetland 13 - Potential WetlandWaters of the U.S.0.09 ac.Stream 15 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.1,870 linear feetSeasonal/Perennial BreakStream 16 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.492 linear feetStream 12 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.2,444.5 linear feet(1,2881 lf delineated; 1,164 lf desktop)B eaverdamCreekÈÈÈ!!!(371514Wetland 11 - Potential WetlandWaters of the U.S.0.04 ac.050FeetO1716Wetland 14 - Potential WetlandWaters of the U.S.5.45 ac(0.39 ac. delineated;5.06 ac. desktop NWI)050FeetO
PATH: \\CLTSMAIN\GIS_DATA\GIS\PROJECTS\71135_PIEDMONTLITHIUM\10089640_PIEDMONTLITHIUM\7.2_WORK_IN_PROGRESS\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\20190328_JDPKG_REMAININGAREAS\06F_PIEDMONTLITHIUM_JD.MXD - USER: KTHAMES - DATE: 4/1/2019PIEDMONT LITHIUM PROJECTFIGURE 6FPOTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S.PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION VERIFICATION(CLIENT LOGO)0300FeetOGPS POINTS WERE COLLECTED USING TRIMBLE GEO7X ANDPOST-PROCESSED DATA SOURCE: http://www.bing.com/mapsLEGENDIP Project Boundary (963 ac.)Previous Verification (614 ac.)!!!(#Photographs#Upland Data Points#Wetland Data PointsCulvertsPotential Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.Delineated StreamsDelineated WetlandsDelineated PondsDesktop StreamsDesktop NWI WetlandStream 1 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.13,799 linear feetB e a v e r d a m C reek
Stream 14 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.1,085 linear feetÈÈÈÈÈÈÈStream 13 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.1,155 linear feet!!!(!!!(!!!(!!!(313029281312Wetland 10 - PotentialWetland Waters of the U.S.0.12 ac.1Wetland 9 - PotentialWetland Waters of the U.S.0.18 ac.0200FeetOPond 3 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.0.08 ac.Stream 13Wetland 14 - Potential WetlandWaters of the U.S.see Figure 6EStream 12 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.2,444.5 linear feet(1,2881 lf delineated; 1,164 lf desktop)Stream 16 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.see Figure 6EApproximate Total Jurisdictional RPW Tributary: 39,167.5 linear feetApproximate Total Jurisdictional Wetlands: 13.25 acresApproximate Total Jurisdictional Pond: 0.68 acreApproximate Total Uplands: 936.96 acresApproximate Total Site Acreage: 963 acresName: Piedmont Lithium ProjectApplicant: Piedmont Lithium, Inc.Location: 2.8 miles north of the Hephzibah Church Road and Dallas Cherryville Highway intersection in Gaston County, NCDate: 4/1/2019Project Area: 963 acresCenter Coordinates: -81.286758°, 35.387869°SAW #: 2018-01129Stream 15 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.see Figure 6EPond 4 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.0.07 ac.
PATH: \\CLTSMAIN\GIS_DATA\GIS\PROJECTS\71135_PIEDMONTLITHIUM\10089640_PIEDMONTLITHIUM\7.2_WORK_IN_PROGRESS\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\20190328_JDPKG_REMAININGAREAS\06G_PIEDMONTLITHIUM_JD.MXD - USER: KTHAMES - DATE: 4/1/2019PIEDMONT LITHIUM PROJECTFIGURE 6GPOTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S.PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION VERIFICATION(CLIENT LOGO)0300FeetOGPS POINTS WERE COLLECTED USING TRIMBLE GEO7X ANDPOST-PROCESSED DATA SOURCE: http://www.bing.com/mapsLEGENDIP Project Boundary (963 ac.)Previous Verification (614 ac.)!!!(#Photographs#Upland Data Points#Wetland Data PointsCulvertsPotential Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.Delineated StreamsDelineated WetlandsDelineated PondsDesktop StreamsDesktop NWI WetlandÈÈÈStream 17 - Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S.1,822 linear feetApproximate Total Jurisdictional RPW Tributary: 39,167.5 linear feetApproximate Total Jurisdictional Wetlands: 13.25 acresApproximate Total Jurisdictional Pond: 0.68 acreApproximate Total Uplands: 936.96 acresApproximate Total Site Acreage: 963 acresName: Piedmont Lithium ProjectApplicant: Piedmont Lithium, Inc.Location: 2.8 miles north of the Hephzibah Church Road and Dallas Cherryville Highway intersection in Gaston County, NCDate: 4/1/2019Project Area: 963 acresCenter Coordinates: -81.286758°, 35.387869°SAW #: 2018-01129

Appendix C
Design Drawings

FLAT ROCK DR GASTON WEBBS CHAPEL RD
ADERHOLDT RDHEPHZIBAH CHURCH RD
RUDISILL R
D
H
A
S
T
I
N
G
S

R
D
FOR
E
S
T

D
E
L
L
I
N
G
E
R

R
D
WILL KISER RDHEPHZIBAH CHURCH RD
WHITE
SI
D
E
S
R
DHEPHZIBAH
CHURCH
RD100 FEET LOT LINE BUFFER100 F
E
E
T
L
O
T
LI
N
E
B
U
F
F
E
R
200 F
E
E
T
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
S
B
U
F
F
E
R
300 F
E
E
T
R
E
SI
D
E
N
TI
A
L
B
U
F
F
E
R
1
0
0

F
E
E
T

L
O
T

L
I
N
E

B
U
F
F
E
R
2
0
0

F
E
E
T

S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
S

B
U
F
F
E
R
3
0
0

F
E
E
T

R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

B
U
F
F
E
R
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y

L
I
N
E
PROP
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
PROPERTY LINENORTH ENTRANCE
ROADALTERNATE
FUTURE
ROAD
FUEL YARD
OFFICE
MIN
E

P
ERM
I
T

L
IN
EMIN
E

P
ERM
I
T

2
5
'
BU
F
F
ER
MIN
E P
E
R
MIT LI
N
E
MINE
P
E
R
MIT 25' B
UFF
E
R
MI
N
E

P
E
R
M
I
T

L
I
N
EMI
N
E

P
E
RM
I
T

2
5
'

B
U
F
F
E
R
FENCE
6 FEET HIGH
FENCE
6 FEET HIGH
FENCE
6 FEET HIGH
FENCE
6 FEET HIGH200 FEET STRUCTURES BUFFER300 FEET RESIDENTIAL BUFFER860870
910
900 890 880
910
900
890
900
890
880
850
860
870
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AREA
MINE PERMIT LINEMINE PERMIT 25' BUFFER100 FEET LOT LINE BUFFER200 FEET STRUCTURES BUFFER300 FEET RESIDENTIAL BUFFERPROPERTY LINEA
A'
NORTH
PIT
CENTRAL
PIT
SOUTH
PIT EAST
PIT
WEST WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL AREA
Little Beaverdam CreekBeaverdam CreekBe
a
v
e
r
d
am
C
r
e
e
k
Beave
r
d
a
m
C
r
e
e
k
11
4
0
11
3
0
10
9
0
10
4
0
10
8
0
9
9
0
94
0
89
0
84
0
840
890
9409901030108011201
14
0
1
1
30
1
09
01080 10401030990980 94094093093089088087687
0
880 890
930
940 980
1090
1080
1040
990
850
880
890
930
9
4
0
9
3
0
8
9
0
9
8
0
9
9
0
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 1
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 5
WWR DITCH NO. 1
WWR DITCH NO. 2
WWR DITCH NO. 3
WWR DITCH NO. 4
WWR DITCH NO. 5
WWR DITCH NO. 6
WWR DITCH NO. 7
WWR DITCH NO. 8
WWR DITCH NO. 9
WWR DITCH NO. 10
WWR FLUME NO. 1
WWR FLUME NO. 2
WWR FLUME NO. 3
WWR FLUME NO. 4
WWR FLUME NO. 5
WWR FLUME NO. 6
WWR FLUME NO. 7
WWR FLUME NO. 8
WWR FLUME NO. 9
WWR FLUME NO. 10
WWR FLUME NO. 11
WWR FLUME NO. 12
WWR FLUME NO. 13
WWR DITCH NO. 1
WWR DITCH NO. 1
POND ACCESS ROAD
POND ACCESS ROAD
POND ACCESS ROAD
POND ACCESS ROAD
WWR FLUME NO. 14
B
E
N
C
H

2%
B
E
N
C
H

2
%
B
E
N
C
H

2
%
B
E
N
C
H

2
%
B
E
N
C
H

2
%
B
E
N
C
H
BENCH 2%
BENCH 2%
BENCH 2%
BENCH 2%
BENCH
BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH
2%BENCH
2%
BEN
C
H 2
%BENCH 2
%
BENC
H
2
%
BENC
H
2
%
BENC
H
2
%
BEN
C
H
2
%
BEN
C
H
2
%
BEN
C
H
2
%
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 4
POND ACCESS ROAD
900
87
0
86
0
82
0
81
0
780
760770
810820860870900
790810820850
87
086
0
85
0
81
0
80
0
77
0810820830830820810770760790810820860870900
87
0
86
0
82
0
81
0
780
760770
810820860870900
790810820850
87
086
0
85
0
81
0
80
0
77
0810820830830820810770760790810820860870EWR DITCH NO. 1
EWR FLUME NO. 1
POND ACCESS ROAD
EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2
EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3
EWR DITCH NO. 2
EWR DITCH NO. 3
EWR DITCH NO. 4
EWR DITCH NO. 4
EWR DITCH NO. 5
EWR DITCH NO. 5
EWR DITCH NO. 6
EWR DITCH NO. 6
PROPOSED CMP
EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 1
EWR FLUME NO. 2
EWR FLUME NO. 3
EWR FLUME NO. 4
EWR FLUME NO. 5
EWR FLUME NO. 6
LOW WATER CROSSING
SCREENING BERM NO. 3
SCREENING BERM NO. 2
1+002+003+001+001+002+003+004+005+001+00
2+003+001
+
0
0
2+0
0 3+004+005+001+002+003+004+005+001+00
2+003+004+005+006+007+008+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+009+0010+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+0018+0019+0020+0021+0022+0023+0024+0025+0026+0027+0028+0029+0030+000+000+000+000+000+000+00 0+000
+
0
0
0+00
0+001+001+0
0
2
+
0
0 3+004+005+006+007+008+009+0010+0011+0012+0013+0014+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+00
9+00
1
+
0
0
2
+
0
0
3
+
0
0
4
+
0
0
5
+
0
0
6
+
0
0 7+008
+
0
0 9+0010+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+0018+00
19+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+000+000+000+001+002+
0
0
3+00
0+00 0+000
+
0
0
1+002+003+004+001+002+003+004+005+006+001+002+001+002+003+004+005+001+002+003+004+005+006+001+002+003+001+001+002+001+002+003+004+001+002+003+004+005+001+00
2+00
3+00
4+00
1+00
2+00
0+000+000+000+000+000+000+000+000+000+000+00
1+000+000+00
0+00
1+002+000+000+001+002+001
+
0
0
2
+
00
1+001+00
0+000+000
+
0
0
0+0079
9
79
981
0816
816
81
0
81
0
CREST /
A
C
C
E
S
S

-

1
0
'

W
I
D
E
790
790
790
775
775
780
775790
CREST / A
C
C
E
S
S - 1
0'
WIDE 790790800800786786788800CREST / ACCESS - 10' WIDE786
800
800
800 800
786
786
AC
C
E
S
S

-

1
0
'

W
I
D
E
CREST /840840826840840CREST / ACCESS ROAD - 10
' WIDE832840 840 829
829
840
CREST
/

A
C
C
E
S
S
R
O
A
D

-

1
0
'
W
I
D
E
LOW WATER CROSSING
EAST WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL AREA0+003+006+009+0012+0015+0018+0021+0024+0027+0030+0033+0036+0045+0048+0051+0054+0054+660+003+006+009+0012+0015+0018+000+003+006
+
0
0
9
+
0
0 12+0015+0018+0021+00HAUL ROAD
PLANT TO SOUTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
PLANT TO SOUTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
PLANT TO NORTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
CENTRAL PIT TO SOUTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
PLANT THRU CENTRAL PIT
HAUL ROAD
PLANT TO SOUTH PIT
77
6
77676
8 762PIT
DISCHARGE
PONDS
810
802
794
786
39+0042+000+003+006+009+
0
0
1
2
+
0
0 15+0018+0021+0024+0027+0028+6321+0024+0024+945
4
3
12
0
14
2
11
6
7
1
13
9
10
HEPHZIBAH CHURCH RD.
CLOSED TO THRU TRAFFIC
LOCAL USE ONLY
HEPHZIBAH CHURCH RD.
CLOSED
WHITESIDE RD.
CLOSED
HASTINGS RD.
CLOSED
SAG 3+03.89
-7
.
9
3
CREST 7+36.57
-2.01
SAG 11+37.27
-10.00-10.00
CREST 15+62.27 SAG 17+49.95-3.60 -10.00
CREST 22+03.01-4.51 -9.67 -7.49
CREST 5+35.44
-2.
0
0
-2
.
8
8
-2.
8
8
-9.78
CREST 0+58.72
-
1
.
9
6
-4
.
6
4
SAG 4+05.41
-
1
.
3
2
CREST 8+94.74
-
1
.
3
2
-3.
0
1
SAG 16+08.48
CREST 18+89.21-1.00-5.65-5.65-2.98SAG 34+64.35-2.98-8.00CREST 38+03.31
-8.00-8.00-8.00CREST 52+20.30-8.00-3.77
-0.
2
6
CREST 3+79.49-1.57 -6.91
-6.91
-1.
1
9
-10.00
SAG 21+18.17
-5.
9
9
-10.00 CREST 24+36.73-2.07
C7
C6
SB1
C5
ST1
SB5
ST8
ST9
ST10
ST12
ST13
C1
C2
C3
C4
ST11ST14ST15
ST16
ST17
ST18
ST19
ST20
ST21
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16
C17
ST22
ST23
ST24
ST25
C18
C19
SB2
CREST 1+30.60
-8.66
MAGAZINE RACK AREA
OB-1
OB-2
OB-3
OB-4
OB-5
OB-6
OB-7
OB-8
OB-9
OB-11
OB-12
OB-13
OB-10
PROPOSED BRIDGE
SEE NOTES
MINE PIT CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
SEE NOTES
235.5
241.8
100.4
106.4
63.2
326.6
330.6
117.0
133.9
488.6
218.5
97.8
213.1
58.5
128.8
423.4
LIMITS OF EXCAVATION
LIMITS OF EXCAVATION
LIMITS OF EXCAVATION
TYP.
216.0
TYP.
100.0 MAGAZINE 2MAGAZINE 1MAGAZINE 3C11
C10
RD1
D1
ST3
ST6
ST7
ST4
C8
D1
ST2
ST5
FENCE
6 FEET HIGH
EXISTING STREAM CROSSING
SB4
SB3 CONCRETE HEADWALL (BOTH ENDS)
CONCRETE FLUME TO SB1
C9
HEPHZIBAH CHURCH RD.
CLOSED
PIEDMONT LITHIUM, INC.
LINCOLNTON WEST QUADRANGLE
PIEDMONT LITHIUM
PLAN VIEW
SCALE 1"=300'
3000 600 900
SITE / MINE MAP
300 FT RESIDENTIAL BUFFER
200 FT STRUCTURES BUFFER
100 FT LOT BUFFER
MINE PERMIT LINE
PIEDMONT PROPERTY LINE
25 FT MINE PERMIT BUFFER
CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2 FEET
May, 2019 JP SM CS JABluefield, VA
LEGEND
100 YR. FLOOD PLAIN
DELINEATED WETLANDS
DELINEATED PONDS
DELINEATED STREAMS
PROPOSED DITCHES
PROPOSED FLUMES
BUILDING / STRUCTURE
EWR DISPOSAL AREA
WWR DISPOSAL AREA
EXTENTS OF MINE PITS
HAULROAD CULVERTS
HAULROAD SUMPS
RECEPTOR WELLS
ROAD CLOSURE
GASTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SUPER SILT FENCE
OBSERVATION WELL
AND EXCAVATION
NOTES:1.Sequence of pit clearing to include stripping of East Pit,South Pit, Central Pit, and North Pit. Sediment/Erosioncontrol for pit clearing stages to involve placement ofsuper silt fence (steel piles) in downslope areas of pits.2.Disturbed ground during bridge construction, through theuse of Best Management Practices (BMP) (e.g. sedimentfences, erosion control structures, diversion ditches, siltfence, and revegetation measures), runoff will beintercepted before it is able to reach the creek. Sedimentyield from disturbed areas will be managed by sediment
control structures and temporary and permanent
vegetation, such that any added sediment load to the
receiving stream is expected to be minimal during
construction activities. Drainage control structures, along
with the contemporaneous regrading and revegetation of
disturbed areas are expected to prevent or minimize the
contributions of suspended solids. All disturbed areas will
be seeded as quickly as possible. Once the bridge
construction is completed, disturbed areas will be
reclaimed to further minimize runoff.
ST10
7
6
8 77
6
7767
62
SEDIMENT POND SB5
HEPHZIBAH CHURCH
R
D
EWR FLUME NO. 2
SB3
2+00EWR DITCH NO. 11+003+000+00CREST 22+03.01 -9.67 -7.49
-2
.
8
8
-9.78
SB5ST9
ST12
ST11
C12
C13
C14
0+00
2+
0
0100 FEET LOT LINE BUFFER100 F
E
E
T
L
O
T
LI
N
E
B
U
F
F
E
R
200 F
E
E
T
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
S
B
U
F
F
E
R
300 F
E
E
T
R
E
SI
D
E
N
TI
A
L
B
U
F
F
E
R
PROP
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
PROPERTY LINENORTH ENTRANCE
ROAD
MIN
E P
E
R
MIT LI
NE
MIN
E P
E
R
MIT 25'
B
UFF
E
R
PLANT SITE
FENCE
6 FEET HIGH 200 FEET STRUCTURES BUFFER300 FEET RESIDENTIAL BUFFER860870
910
900 890 880
910
900
890
900
890
880
850
860
870
8
4
0
840 8858808
70880850
880
B
E
N
C
H
BENCH 2%
BENCH
BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2
%
BEN
C
H 2
%790810820860790810820860EWR FL
POND ACCESS ROAD
EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2
EWR DITCH NO. 1
EWR DITCH NO. 2
EWR DITCH NO. 3
EWR SEDIMENT PO
EWR FLUME NO. 31+002+003+001+001+002+003+004+005+001+00
2+003+001
+
0
0
2+
0
0 3+004+005+001+002+003+004+005+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+009+0010+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+0018+0019+0020+0021+0022+0023+0024+0025+0026+0027+0028+0029+0030+000+000+000+000+000+000+00 0+000+0
0
0+00
0+001+001+0
0
4+001
+
0
0
3+00 0+000
+
0
0
3+004+005+006+004+005+004+005+006+003+001+004+005+003+00
4+00
0+00PROPOSED WWR DISPOSAL AREA
WWR PLAN VIEW PHASE I.dwg
300200200
Scale in Feet
0
WWR PLAN VIEW - PHASE I
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 1
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 5
WWR DITCH NO. 1
WWR DITCH NO. 2
WWR DITCH NO. 3
WWR DITCH NO. 4
WWR DITCH NO. 5
WWR DITCH NO. 6
WWR DITCH NO. 7
WWR DITCH NO. 8
WWR DITCH NO. 9
WWR DITCH NO. 10
WWR FLUME NO. 1
WWR FLUME NO. 2
WWR FLUME NO. 5
WWR FLUME NO. 6
WWR FLUME NO. 7
WWR FLUME NO. 8
WWR FLUME NO. 9
WWR FLUME NO. 11
WWR DITCH NO. 1
WWR DITCH NO. 1
POND ACCESS ROAD
POND ACCESS ROAD
POND ACCESS ROAD
POND ACCESS ROAD
POND ACCESS ROAD
WWR FLUME NO. 14
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 4
POND ACCESS ROAD
SCREENING BERM NO. 3
SCREENING BERM NO. 2
PROPOSED WWR DISPOSAL AREA
WWR SECTION NO. 1
WWR SECTION NO. 2
PIT
PIT
NORTH
CENTRAL
LEGEND
100 YR. FLOOD PLAIN
DELINEATED WETLANDS
DELINEATED PONDS
DELINEATED STREAMS
PROPOSED DITCHES
PROPOSED FLUMES
BUILDING / STRUCTURE
7
9
9
7
9
9
8
1
0816
816
8
1
0
8
1
0
HAUL ROAD
PLANT TO SOUTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
PLANT TO NORTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
CENTRAL PIT TO SOUTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
PLANT THRU CENTRAL PIT
810
802
794
786
CREST

/

A
C
C
E
S
S

-

1
0'
W
I
D
E
790
790
790
775
775
780
775790
CREST / ACCESS - 10' WIDE790790800800786786800CREST / ACCESS - 10' WIDE786
800
800
800 800
78
6
78
6
A
C
C
E
S
S

-

1
0
'
W
I
D
E
CREST

/824840840826840840CREST / ACCESS ROAD - 10' WIDE832840 829
829
840
CRES
T
/
A
C
C
E
S
S
R
O
A
D
-
1
0'
WI
D
E
76278078076878
0
780CREST 10
'
W
IDE88588
5
885 885885APPROXIMATELY 3,250,820 MILLION METRIC TONNES OF
OVERBURDEN TO BE PLACED DURING THIS PHASE. NO
OVERBURDEN TO BE PLACED WITHIN 200' OF OUTER SHELL OF
WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL AREA. OVERBURDEN MATERIAL CAN
BE USED TO CONSTRUCT PONDS, BERMS OR OTHER
STRUCTURES. OVERBURDEN MATERIAL TO BE COMPACTED TO
95% OF STANDARD PROCTOR MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY WITH
±2% OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT.
WWR UNDERDRAIN NO. 1
WWR UNDERDRAIN NO. 2
WWR UNDERDRAIN NO. 3
8
8
5
SILT FENCE 885BENCHSAG 3+03.89
-
7
.
9
3
CREST 7+36.57
SAG 11+37.27
-10.00-10.0
0
CREST 15+62.27 SAG 17+49.95-3.60 -10.00 -4.51
CREST 5+35.44
-
2
.
0
0
-
2
.
8
8
CREST 0+58.72
-1
.96
-4
.64
SAG 4+05.41
-1
.32
CREST 8+94.74
-1
.32
-
3
.
0
1
SAG 16+08.48
CREST 18+89.21-1.00-5.65-5.65-2.98SAG 34+64.35-2.98-8.00CREST 38+03.31
-8.00-
0
.
2
6
CREST 3+79.49-1.57 -6.91-6.91
-1
.
1
9
-10.00
SAG 21+18.17
-5.
9
9
C7
C6
SB1
C5
ST1
ST8
C1
C2
C3
C4
ST14ST15
ST16
ST17
ST18
ST19
ST20
ST21
C15
C16
C18
C19
SB2
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
PIEDMONT LITHIUM MAGAZINE 2MAGAZINE 1D1
ST2
FENCE
6 FEET HIGH
EXISTING STREAM CROSSING
SB3
CONCRETE HEADWALL (BOTH ENDS)
CONCRETE FLUME TO SB1
TYPICAL PIT POND
ST10
C13
SB5ST9C12
7
6
8 77
6
7767
62
HEPHZIBAH CHURCH
R
D
EWR FLUME NO. 2
SB3
2+00EWR DITCH NO. 13+00CREST 22+03.01 -9.67 -7.49
-2
.
8
8
-9.78
ST12
ST11
C14
0+00SEDIMENT POND SB5
2+
0
0100 FEET LOT LINE BUFFER100 F
E
E
T
L
O
T
LI
N
E
B
U
F
F
E
R
200 F
E
E
T
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
S
B
U
F
F
E
R
300 F
E
E
T
R
E
SI
D
E
N
TI
A
L
B
U
F
F
E
R
PROP
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
PROPERTY LINENORTH ENTRANCE
ROAD
MIN
E P
E
R
MIT LI
NE
MIN
E P
E
R
MIT 25'
B
UFF
E
R
PLANT SITE
FENCE
6 FEET HIGH 200 FEET STRUCTURES BUFFER300 FEET RESIDENTIAL BUFFER860870
910
900 890 880
910
900
890
900
890
880
850
860
870
9
4
0
8
9
0
8
4
0
840
890
940 9409409309308908808768
70880890930940850
880
890
930
9
4
0
9
3
0
8
9
0
B
E
N
C
H

2
%
B
E
N
C
H

2
%
B
E
N
C
H
BENCH 2%
BENCH 2%
BENCH
BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2
%BENCH 2%BEN
C
H 2
%
BEN
C
H 2
%790810820860790810820860EWR FL
POND ACCESS ROAD
EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2
EWR DITCH NO. 1
EWR DITCH NO. 2
EWR DITCH NO. 3
EWR SEDIMENT PO
EWR FLUME NO. 31+002+003+001+001+002+003+004+005+001+00
2+003+001
+
0
0
2+
0
0 3+004+005+001+002+003+004+005+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+009+0010+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+0018+0019+0020+0021+0022+0023+0024+0025+0026+0027+0028+0029+0030+000+000+000+000+000+000+00 0+000+0
0
0+00
0+001+001+0
0
1+004+000+001
+
0
0
3+00 0+000
+
0
0
1+002+003+004+004+005+006+003+004+005+003+004+005+006+001+002+003+001+001+002+002+003+004+004+005+001+00
2+00
3+00
4+00
0+00PROPOSED WWR DISPOSAL AREA
WWR PLAN VIEW PHASE II.dwg
300200200
Scale in Feet
0
WWR PLAN VIEW - PHASE II
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 1
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 5
WWR DITCH NO. 1
WWR DITCH NO. 2
WWR DITCH NO. 3
WWR DITCH NO. 4
WWR DITCH NO. 5
WWR DITCH NO. 6
WWR DITCH NO. 7
WWR DITCH NO. 8
WWR DITCH NO. 9
WWR DITCH NO. 10
WWR FLUME NO. 1
WWR FLUME NO. 2
WWR FLUME NO. 3
WWR FLUME NO. 5
WWR FLUME NO. 6
WWR FLUME NO. 7
WWR FLUME NO. 9
WWR FLUME NO. 11
WWR DITCH NO. 1
WWR DITCH NO. 1
POND ACCESS ROAD
POND ACCESS ROAD
POND ACCESS ROAD
POND ACCESS ROAD
POND ACCESS ROAD
WWR FLUME NO. 14
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 4
POND ACCESS ROAD
LOW WATER CROSSING
SCREENING BERM NO. 3
SCREENING BERM NO. 2
PROPOSED WWR DISPOSAL AREA
WWR SECTION NO. 1
WWR SECTION NO. 2
PIT
PIT
NORTH
CENTRAL
LEGEND
100 YR. FLOOD PLAIN
DELINEATED WETLANDS
DELINEATED PONDS
DELINEATED STREAMS
PROPOSED DITCHES
PROPOSED FLUMES
BUILDING / STRUCTURE
7
9
9
7
9
9
8
1
0816
816
8
1
0
8
1
0
HAUL ROAD
PLANT TO SOUTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
PLANT TO NORTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
CENTRAL PIT TO SOUTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
PLANT THRU CENTRAL PIT
810
802
794
786
CREST

/

A
C
C
E
S
S

-

1
0'
W
I
D
E
790
790
790
775
775
780
775790
CREST / ACCESS - 10' WIDE790790800800786786800CREST / ACCESS - 10' WIDE786
800
800
800 800
78
6
78
6
A
C
C
E
S
S

-

1
0
'
W
I
D
E
CREST

/824840840826840840CREST / ACCESS ROAD - 10' WIDE832840 829
829
840
CRES
T
/
A
C
C
E
S
S
R
O
A
D
-
1
0'
WI
D
E
76278078076878
0
780CREST 10
'
W
IDE
WWR UNDERDRAIN NO. 1
WWR UNDERDRAIN NO. 2
WWR UNDERDRAIN NO. 3
SILT FENCE
WWR FLUME NO. 8
SAG 3+03.89
-
7
.
9
3
CREST 7+36.57
SAG 11+37.27
-10.00-10.0
0
CREST 15+62.27 SAG 17+49.95-3.60 -10.00 -4.51
CREST 5+35.44
-
2
.
0
0
-
2
.
8
8
CREST 0+58.72
-1
.96
-4
.64
SAG 4+05.41
-1
.32
CREST 8+94.74
-1
.32
-
3
.
0
1
SAG 16+08.48
CREST 18+89.21-1.00-5.65-5.65-2.98SAG 34+64.35-2.98-8.00CREST 38+03.31
-8.00-
0
.
2
6
CREST 3+79.49-1.57 -6.91-6.91
-1
.
1
9
-10.00
SAG 21+18.17
-5.
9
9
C7
C6
SB1
C5
ST1
ST8
C1
C2
C3
C4
ST14ST15
ST16
ST17
ST18
ST19
ST20
ST21
C15
C16
C18
C19
SB2
SB6
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
PIEDMONT LITHIUM MAGAZINE 2MAGAZINE 1D1
ST2
FENCE
6 FEET HIGH
EXISTING STREAM CROSSING
SB3
CONCRETE HEADWALL (BOTH ENDS)
CONCRETE FLUME TO SB1
TYPICAL PIT POND
7
6
8 77
6
7767
62
0+00SEDIMENT POND SB5
ST9 C12
ST10
HEPHZIBAH CHURCH
R
D
EWR FLUME NO. 2
SB3
2+00ST12
ST11
C13
C14
2+
0
0100 FEET LOT LINE BUFFER100 F
E
E
T
L
O
T
LI
N
E
B
U
F
F
E
R
200 F
E
E
T
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
S
B
U
F
F
E
R
300 F
E
E
T
R
E
SI
D
E
N
TI
A
L
B
U
F
F
E
R
PROP
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
PROPERTY LINENORTH ENTRANCE
ROAD
MIN
E P
E
R
MIT LI
NE
MIN
E P
E
R
MIT 25'
B
UFF
E
R
PLANT SITE
FENCE
6 FEET HIGH
FENCE
6 FEET HIGH 200 FEET STRUCTURES BUFFER300 FEET RESIDENTIAL BUFFER860870
910
900 890 880
910
900
890
900
890
880
850
860
870
1
1
4
0
1
1
3
0
1
0
9
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
8
0
9
9
0
9
4
0
8
9
0
8
4
0
840
890
9409901030108011201
1
4
011
30
10
901080 104010309909809409409309308908808768
708808909309409801090
1080
1040
990
850
880
890
930
9
4
0
9
3
0
8
9
0
9
8
0
9
9
0
B
E
N
C
H

2%
B
E
N
C
H

2%
B
E
N
C
H

2
%
B
E
N
C
H

2
%
B
E
N
C
H

2
%
B
E
N
C
H
BENCH 2%
BENCH 2%
BENCH 2%
BENCH 2%
BENCH
BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2
%BENCH 2%BEN
C
H
2
%
BENC
H
2
%
BEN
C
H
2
%
BEN
C
H 2
%
BEN
C
H 2
%
BEN
C
H 2
%790810820860790810820860EWR DITCH NO. 1
EWR FL
POND ACCESS ROAD
EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2
EWR DITCH NO. 1
EWR DITCH NO. 2
EWR DITCH NO. 3
EWR SEDIMENT PO
EWR FLUME NO. 31+002+003+001+001+002+003+004+005+001+00
2+003+001
+
0
0
2+
0
0 3+004+005+001+002+003+004+005+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+009+0010+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+0018+0019+0020+0021+0022+0023+0024+0025+0026+0027+0028+0029+0030+000+000+000+000+000+000+00 0+000+0
0
0+00
0+001+001+0
0
1+003+004+000+001
+
0
0
3+00 0+000
+
0
0
1+002+003+004+001+002+003+004+005+006+001+002+001+002+003+004+005+001+002+003+004+005+006+001+002+003+001+001+002+001+002+003+004+001+002+003+004+005+001+00
2+00
3+00
4+00
1+00
2+00
0+000+000+000+000+000+000+000+000+000+000+00
1+000+000+000+00
PROPOSED WWR DISPOSAL AREA
WWR PLAN VIEW.dwg
300200200
Scale in Feet
0
WWR PLAN VIEW - FINAL PHASE
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 1
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 5
WWR DITCH NO. 1
WWR DITCH NO. 2
WWR DITCH NO. 3
WWR DITCH NO. 4
WWR DITCH NO. 5
WWR DITCH NO. 6
WWR DITCH NO. 7
WWR DITCH NO. 8
WWR DITCH NO. 9
WWR DITCH NO. 10
WWR FLUME NO. 1
WWR FLUME NO. 2
WWR FLUME NO. 3
WWR FLUME NO. 4
WWR FLUME NO. 5
WWR FLUME NO. 6
WWR FLUME NO. 7
WWR FLUME NO. 8
WWR FLUME NO. 9
WWR FLUME NO. 10
WWR FLUME NO. 11
WWR FLUME NO. 12
WWR FLUME NO. 13
WWR DITCH NO. 1
WWR DITCH NO. 1
POND ACCESS ROAD
POND ACCESS ROAD
POND ACCESS ROAD
POND ACCESS ROAD
POND ACCESS ROAD
WWR FLUME NO. 14
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 4
POND ACCESS ROAD
LOW WATER CROSSING
SCREENING BERM NO. 3
SCREENING BERM NO. 2
PROPOSED WWR DISPOSAL AREA
WWR SECTION NO. 1
WWR SECTION NO. 2
PIT
PIT
NORTH
CENTRAL
LEGEND
100 YR. FLOOD PLAIN
DELINEATED WETLANDS
DELINEATED PONDS
DELINEATED STREAMS
PROPOSED DITCHES
PROPOSED FLUMES
BUILDING / STRUCTURE
C7
C6
C5
ST1
ST8
C1
C2
C3
C4
ST14ST15
ST16
ST17
ST18
ST19
ST20
ST21
C15
C16
C18
C19
7
9
9
7
9
9
8
1
0816
816
8
1
0
8
1
0
HAUL ROAD
PLANT TO SOUTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
PLANT TO NORTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
CENTRAL PIT TO SOUTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
PLANT THRU CENTRAL PIT
810
802
794
786
CREST

/

A
C
C
E
S
S

-

1
0'
W
I
D
E
790
790
790
775
775
780
775790
CREST / ACCESS - 10' WIDE790790800800786786800CREST / ACCESS - 10' WIDE786
800
800
800 800
78
6
78
6
A
C
C
E
S
S

-

1
0
'
W
I
D
E
CREST

/824840840826840840CREST / ACCESS ROAD - 10' WIDE832840 829
829
840
CRES
T
/
A
C
C
E
S
S
R
O
A
D
-
1
0'
WI
D
E
76278078076878
0
780CREST 10
'
W
IDE
WWR UNDERDRAIN NO. 1
WWR UNDERDRAIN NO. 2
WWR UNDERDRAIN NO. 3
SILT FENCE
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
PIEDMONT LITHIUM MAGAZINE 2MAGAZINE 1D1
ST2
EXISTING STREAM CROSSING
SB1
SB2
SB3
SB3
CONCRETE HEADWALL (BOTH ENDS)
CONCRETE FLUME TO SB1
TYPICAL PIT POND
PROPOSED WWR DISPOSAL AREA
Scale As Shown
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
SECTION NO. 1 AND NO. 2
WWR SECTION NO.1 AND 2.dwg
WWR SECTION NO. 1
SCALE: 1" = 100'
WWR SECTION NO. 2
SCALE: 1" = 100'
EXISTING GRADEAPPROXIMATE ROCKLINE
IN ELEVATION AND A CROSSING HAULROAD SYSTEM
SLOPE 2:1 WITH BENCHES EVERY 50' MAX.
1
2
BENCH / SLOPE DETAIL
N.T.S.
PROPOSED BERM2
N.T.S.
TYPICAL WSTE FILL HAULROAD DETAIL
4'
1
1
2'
1
1
HAULROAD
1/4" PER FOOT SLOPE
1 2
1
DRAINAGE DITCH
20' BENCH
1
2
WASTE ROCK
2
1
VEGETATED
2 % SLOPE(OR FLATTER)
(OR FLATTER)
1
2
WWR DITCH NO. 1
PROPOSED WWR DISPOSAL AREA
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
ELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONWWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 5
1
2
PROPOSED WWR DISPOSAL AREA
EXISTING GRADE APPROXIMATE ROCKLINE
HAULROAD
WWR DITCH NO. 1
WWR DITCH NO. 5
IN ELEVATION AND A CROSSING HAULROAD SYSTEM
SLOPE 2:1 WITH BENCHES EVERY 50' MAX.
PHASE I EL. 885
ROCK UNDERDRAIN DETAIL
PROPOSED
TO BE WRAPPED IN FILTER CLOTH
MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT
3" CUSHION OF
3"Ø (MAX.) ROCK
24"Ø MAX. ROCK
5'
10'
N.T.S.
60'
MIN. 2' OVERLAP
UNDERDRAIN NO. 1 UNDERDRAIN NO. 3
PHASE I I EL. 950
PHASE I EL. 885
PHASE I I EL. 950
FINAL PHASE
FINAL PHASE
1
2
PIEDMONT LITHIUM
PROPOSED WWR FLUME NO. 1 - NO. 8
Scale As Shown
WWR DISPOSAL AREA
WWR FLUMES.dwg
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50
0+50
3+00
1+00 1+50
3+50 4+00
2+00
4+50
850
850
900
900
950
950
1000
1000
850
1050
900
850
900
1000
950
1000
1050
0+00 2+50
950
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50
950
1000
1050
1100
950
1000
1050
1100
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00
800
850
900
800
850
900
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00
800
850
900
950
1000
800
850
900
950
1000
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
ELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONWWR FLUME NO. 1
SCALE: 1" = 50'
BOTTOM OF FLUME
TOP OF FLUME
OUTLETS TO WWR DITCH NO. 1BOTTOM OF FLUME
TOP OF FLUME
OUTLETS TO WWR DITCH NO. 1WWR FLUME NO. 2
SCALE: 1" = 50'
BOTTOM OF FLUME
TOP OF FLUME
OUTLETS TO BENCH DITCHWWR FLUME NO. 3
SCALE: 1" = 50'
BOTTOM OF FLUME
TOP OF FLUME
WWR FLUME NO. 4
SCALE: 1" = 50'
WWR FLUME NO. 5
SCALE: 1" = 50'OUTLETS TO BENCH DITCHBOTTOM OF FLUME
TOP OF FLUME
OUTLETS TO WWR DITCH NO. 1WWR FLUME NO. 6
SCALE: 1" = 50'OUTLETS TO WWR DITCH NO. 2BOTTOM OF FLUME
TOP OF FLUME
WWR FLUME NO. 7
SCALE: 1" = 50'OUTLETS TO WWR DITCH NO. 7BOTTOM OF FLUME
TOP OF FLUME
WWR FLUME NO. 8
SCALE: 1" = 50'OUTLETS TO WWR DITCH NO. 5BOTTOM OF FLUME
TOP OF FLUME
N.T.S.
TYPICAL FLUME DETAIL
Channel Lining: GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
2
1
2
1
5'
SEE CHART
NOTES :
WILL SLAKE IN WATER SHALL NOT BE USED .
ONE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER . SHALE OR ANY MATERIAL THAT
THEN BE SLUSH GROUTED WITH A STANDARD GROUT MIXTURE OR
MEDIAN DIAMETER OR SLIGHTLY LARGER . THE MATERIAL SHALL
WEIGHT OF THE ROCK WILL BE ONE AND ONE-HALF (1 1/2) TIMES THE
DIAMETER OF TWELVE (12) INCHES . TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT BY
ROCK WILL BE A DURABLE, WELL GRADED ROCK WITH A MEDIAN
THICK BLANKET ON THE BOTTOM AND SIDES OF THE CHANNEL . THE
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP - WHERE PLACED SHALL BE 1.5’ (MIN.)
FOR A LESSER CHANNEL PROTECTION SPECIFICATON
FOLLOWING METHOD. A GREATER PROTECTION CAN BE SUBSTITUTED
CHANNEL PROTECTION SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE
5.02.0
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP2.5
(FT.)(FT.)
CHANNEL PROTECTIONBOTTOM WIDTHDEPTH
WWR FLUME NO. 1
FLUME
5.02.0
2.0
5.02.5
2.0
5.02.0
2.5 5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
WWR FLUME NO. 2
WWR FLUME NO. 3
WWR FLUME NO. 4
WWR FLUME NO. 5
WWR FLUME NO. 6
WWR FLUME NO. 7
WWR FLUME NO. 8
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
PIEDMONT LITHIUM
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00
1000
1050
1100
1000
1050
1100
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50
800
850
900
950
1000
800
850
900
950
1000
0+00 0+50 1+00
950
1000
1050
950
1000
1050
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50
950
1000
1050
1100
950
1000
1050
1100
ELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONWWR FLUME NO. 9
SCALE: 1" = 50'OUTLETS TO WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3BOTTOM OF FLUME
TOP OF FLUME
WWR FLUME NO. 10
SCALE: 1" = 50'
BOTTOM OF FLUME
TOP OF FLUME
OUTLETS TO BENCH DITCHBOTTOM OF FLUME
TOP OF FLUME
OUTLETS TO WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 44+00
WWR FLUME NO. 11
SCALE: 1" = 50'OUTLETS TO BENCH DITCHBOTTOM OF FLUME
TOP OF FLUME
WWR FLUME NO. 12
SCALE: 1" = 50'
WWR FLUME NO. 13
SCALE: 1" = 50'
BOTTOM OF FLUME
TOP OF FLUME
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50
800
850
900
950
1000
800
850
900
950
1000
WWR FLUME NO. 14
SCALE: 1" = 50'
BOTTOM OF FLUME
TOP OF FLUME
ELEVATIONELEVATIONOUTLETS TO BENCH DITCHOUTLETS TO WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 5PROPOSED WWR FLUME NO. 9 - NO. 14
Scale As Shown
WWR DISPOSAL AREA
WWR FLUMES.dwg
N.T.S.
TYPICAL FLUME DETAIL
Channel Lining: GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
2
1
2
1
5'
SEE CHART
NOTES :
WILL SLAKE IN WATER SHALL NOT BE USED .
ONE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER . SHALE OR ANY MATERIAL THAT
THEN BE SLUSH GROUTED WITH A STANDARD GROUT MIXTURE OR
MEDIAN DIAMETER OR SLIGHTLY LARGER . THE MATERIAL SHALL
WEIGHT OF THE ROCK WILL BE ONE AND ONE-HALF (1 1/2) TIMES THE
DIAMETER OF TWELVE (12) INCHES . TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT BY
ROCK WILL BE A DURABLE, WELL GRADED ROCK WITH A MEDIAN
THICK BLANKET ON THE BOTTOM AND SIDES OF THE CHANNEL . THE
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP - WHERE PLACED SHALL BE 1.5’ (MIN.)
FOR A LESSER CHANNEL PROTECTION SPECIFICATON
FOLLOWING METHOD. A GREATER PROTECTION CAN BE SUBSTITUTED
CHANNEL PROTECTION SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE
5.02.0
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP2.5
(FT.)(FT.)
CHANNEL PROTECTIONBOTTOM WIDTHDEPTH
WWR FLUME NO. 9
FLUME
5.02.0
2.5
5.03.0
2.0 5.0
5.0
5.0
WWR FLUME NO. 10
WWR FLUME NO. 11
WWR FLUME NO. 12
WWR FLUME NO. 13
WWR FLUME NO. 14
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
PIEDMONT LITHIUM
5+00
0+00 2+00
800
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 6+00
700
800
900
700
800
900
1+00 3+00 4+00
700
800
700
900 900
5+00 11+00
700
800
900
0+00 2+001+00 3+00 8+004+00 6+00 7+00 10+009+00 12+00 14+0013+00 15+00 19+0016+00 17+00 18+00 23+0020+00 21+00 22+00 25+0024+00 26+00 28+0027+00 30+0029+00 31+00
700
900
800
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00
700
800
900
700
800
900
PROPOSED WWR DITCHES
Scale As Shown
WWR DISPOSAL AREA
WWR DITCHES.dwg
5.02.0
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP2.5
(FT.)(FT.)
CHANNEL PROTECTIONBOTTOM WIDTHDEPTH
WWR DITCH NO. 1
DITCH
5.02.0
2.5
5.03.0
2.0 5.0
5.0
5.0
WWR DITCH NO. 2
WWR DITCH NO. 3
WWR DITCH NO. 4
WWR DITCH NO. 5
WWR DITCH NO. 6
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
WWR DITCH NO. 1
SCALE: 1" = 100'
WWR DITCH NO. 2
SCALE: 1" = 100'
0+00 2+001+00
850
750
850
750ELEVATIONELEVATION ELEVATIONELEVATIONWWR DITCH NO. 3
SCALE: 1" = 100'
950 950
ELEVATIONELEVATIONWWR DITCH NO. 4
SCALE: 1" = 100'ELEVATIONELEVATION0+00 2+001+00
850
750
850
750
WWR DITCH NO. 5
SCALE: 1" = 100'
950 950
ELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONWWR DITCH NO. 6
SCALE: 1" = 100'
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00
700
800
900
700
800
900
ELEVATIONELEVATIONWWR DITCH NO. 7
SCALE: 1" = 100'
5+000+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 6+00
700
800
900
700
800
900
ELEVATIONELEVATIONWWR DITCH NO. 8
SCALE: 1" = 100'
5+000+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 6+00
700
800
900
700
800
900
ELEVATIONELEVATIONWWR DITCH NO. 9
SCALE: 1" = 100'
5+000+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 6+00
700
800
900
700
800
900
ELEVATIONELEVATIONWWR DITCH NO. 10
SCALE: 1" = 100'
8+007+00 9+00
N.T.S.
DEPTH VARIES
TYPICAL WWR DITCH NO. 1 - NO. 6 DETAILS
Channel Lining: 18" ROCK RIPRAP
2
1
2
1
NOTES :
AND MAINTAINED AS NECESSARY TO CONTAIN DESIGN FLOW .
3.) WORKING EDGE DITCHES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED
WILL SLAKE IN WATER SHALL NOT BE USED .
ONE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER . SHALE OR ANY MATERIAL THAT
THEN BE SLUSH GROUTED WITH A STANDARD GROUT MIXTURE OR
MEDIAN DIAMETER OR SLIGHTLY LARGER . THE MATERIAL SHALL
WEIGHT OF THE ROCK WILL BE ONE AND ONE-HALF (1 1/2) TIMES THE
DIAMETER OF TWELVE (12) INCHES . TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT BY
ROCK WILL BE A DURABLE, WELL GRADED ROCK WITH A MEDIAN
THICK BLANKET ON THE BOTTOM AND SIDES OF THE CHANNEL . THE
2.) GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP - WHERE PLACED SHALL BE 1.5’ (MIN.)
OR MATERIAL THAT WILL SLAKE IN WATER SHALL NOT BE USED .
ENOUGH TO FILL THE VOIDS BETWEEN THE LARGER ROCKS . SHALE
WELL-GRADED MATERIAL CONSISTING OF SUFFICIENT ROCK SMALL
LARGER . THE REMAINING SEVENTY-FIVE (75) PERCENT WILL BE
ONE-HALF (1 1/2) TIMES THE MEDIAN DIAMETER OR SLIGHTLY
TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT BY WEIGHT OF THE ROCK WILL BE ONE AND
DURABLE ROCK WITH A MEDIAN DIAMETER (D50) OF TWELVE (12) IN .
ON THE BOTTOM AND SIDES OF THE CHANNEL . THE ROCK WILL BE A
1.) ROCK RIPRAP - WHERE PLACED SHALL BE 1.5’ (MIN.) THICK BLANKET
SPECIFICATION . SEE CHARTS FOR SPECIFIED METHOD .
PROTECTION CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR A LESSER CHANNEL PROTECTION
FOLLOWING METHODS OR A COMBINATION THEREOF . A GREATER
CHANNEL PROTECTION SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY ONE OF THE OUTLETS TO WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 1BOTTOM OF DITCH
TOP OF DITCH
BOTTOM OF DITCH
TOP OF DITCH
OUTLETS TO WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 1OUTLETS TO WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2BOTTOM OF DITCH
TOP OF DITCH
OUTLETS TO WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2BOTTOM OF DITCH
TOP OF DITCH TOP OF DITCH
BOTTOM OF DITCH
OUTLETS TO WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3BOTTOM OF DITCH
TOP OF DITCH
OUTLETS TO WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3BOTTOM OF DITCH
TOP OF DITCH
OUTLETS TO WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 4BOTTOM OF DITCH
TOP OF DITCH
OUTLETS TO WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 4BOTTOM OF DITCH
TOP OF DITCH
OUTLETS TO WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 5OUTLETS TO WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 5BOTTOM OF DITCH
TOP OF DITCH
5.02.0
2.5
5.03.0
2.0 5.0
5.0WWR DITCH NO. 7
WWR DITCH NO. 8
WWR DITCH NO. 9
WWR DITCH NO. 10
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP0.06.0
ROCK RIPRAP0.06.5
(FT.)(FT.)
CHANNEL PROTECTIONBOTTOM WIDTHDEPTH
FROM TO
16+62 30+40
00+00 16+62
STATION
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP0.03.5
ROCK RIPRAP0.04.0
(FT.)(FT.)
CHANNEL PROTECTIONBOTTOM WIDTHDEPTH
FROM TO
06+46 07+48
00+00 06+46
STATION
ROCK RIPRAP0.03.0
(FT.)(FT.)
CHANNEL PROTECTIONBOTTOM WIDTHDEPTH
FROM TO
00+00 08+55
STATION
ROCK RIPRAP0.02.5
(FT.)(FT.)
CHANNEL PROTECTIONBOTTOM WIDTHDEPTH
FROM TO
00+00 01+20
STATION
ROCK RIPRAP0.03.5
(FT.)(FT.)
CHANNEL PROTECTIONBOTTOM WIDTHDEPTH
FROM TO
00+00 03+63
STATION
ROCK RIPRAP0.03.0
(FT.)(FT.)
CHANNEL PROTECTIONBOTTOM WIDTHDEPTH
FROM TO
00+00 01+72
STATION
ROCK RIPRAP0.02.5
(FT.)(FT.)
CHANNEL PROTECTIONBOTTOM WIDTHDEPTH
FROM TO
00+00 05+55
STATION
ROCK RIPRAP0.03.0
(FT.)(FT.)
CHANNEL PROTECTIONBOTTOM WIDTHDEPTH
FROM TO
00+00 03+10
STATION
ROCK RIPRAP0.02.5
(FT.)(FT.)
CHANNEL PROTECTIONBOTTOM WIDTHDEPTH
FROM TO
00+00 05+60
STATION
OR GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
ROCK RIPRAP0.02.5
(FT.)(FT.)
CHANNEL PROTECTIONBOTTOM WIDTHDEPTH
FROM TO
00+00 05+07
STATION
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
PIEDMONT LITHIUM
PLAN VIEW : PROPOSED WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 1
PROPOSED WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 1
Scale As Shown
WWR DISPOSAL AREA
PROPOSED WWR DITCH NO. 2
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 1
50% CLEANOUT EL. 782.04
NORMAL POOL EL. 787.0
PROPOSED EXIT CHANNEL
CRES
T /

A
C
C
E
S
S

-

1
0'
WI
D
E
1
:
1
SCALE: 1" = 50'
1
2
1
2
100.00 ft.
1.04 ft.
1.00ft. Freeboard
PROPOSED EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
N.T.S.
WWR SEDIMENT POND 1.dwg
Channel Design (Non-Erodible)
Channel Type: Trapezoidal, Equal Side Slopes
Dimensions: Left Side Slope 2.00:1
Right Side Slope 2.00:1
Base Dimension: 100.00
Wetted Perimeter: 106.45
Area of Wetted Cross Section: 148.27
Channel Slope: 0.1000
Manning's n of Channel: 0.0423
Discharge: 205.45 cfs
Depth of Flow: 1.04 feet
Velocity: 1.39 fps
Channel Lining: 18 inch Rock Rip-Rap
Freeboard: 1.00 feet
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
PRINCIPAL SPILLWAY (787.00)
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY (788.00)
TOP OF STRUCTURE(790.00)
Accumulative Storage (Acre-Ft)Elevation MSLSTAGE STORAGE CURVE
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 1
STORAGE VOLUME COMPUTATIONS
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 1
ELEV.
(ft)
Width
(ft)
LENGTH
(ft)
AREA
(ac)
AVG.
AREA
(ac)
INTERVAL
(ft)
STORAGE
(ac-ft)
ACC.
STORAGE
(ac-ft)
STAGE
INTERVAL
(ft)
775.00 N/A N/A 0.0003
775.50 N/A N/A 0.4897 0.2450 0.50 0.1225 0.1225 0.50
776.00 N/A N/A 0.5133 0.5015 0.50 0.2508 0.3733 1.00
776.50 N/A N/A 0.5326 0.5229 0.50 0.2615 0.6347 1.50
777.00 N/A N/A 0.5506 0.5416 0.50 0.2708 0.9055 2.00
777.50 N/A N/A 0.5677 0.5592 0.50 0.2796 1.1851 2.50
778.00 N/A N/A 0.5843 0.5760 0.50 0.2880 1.4731 3.00
778.50 N/A N/A 0.6003 0.5923 0.50 0.2962 1.7692 3.50
779.00 N/A N/A 0.6161 0.6082 0.50 0.3041 2.0733 4.00
779.50 N/A N/A 0.6325 0.6243 0.50 0.3122 2.3855 4.50
780.00 N/A N/A 0.6487 0.6406 0.50 0.3203 2.7058 5.00
780.50 N/A N/A 0.6651 0.6569 0.50 0.3285 3.0342 5.50
781.00 N/A N/A 0.6815 0.6733 0.50 0.3366 3.3709 6.00
781.50 N/A N/A 0.6976 0.6895 0.50 0.3448 3.7157 6.50
782.00 N/A N/A 0.7144 0.7060 0.50 0.3530 4.0687 7.00
782.50 N/A N/A 0.7318 0.7231 0.50 0.3615 4.4302 7.50
783.00 N/A N/A 0.7499 0.7408 0.50 0.3704 4.8006 8.00
783.50 N/A N/A 0.7678 0.7589 0.50 0.3794 5.1801 8.50
784.00 N/A N/A 0.7857 0.7767 0.50 0.3884 5.5684 9.00
784.50 N/A N/A 0.8034 0.7945 0.50 0.3973 5.9657 9.50
785.00 N/A N/A 0.8205 0.8120 0.50 0.4060 6.3717 10.00
785.50 N/A N/A 0.8380 0.8293 0.50 0.4146 6.7863 10.50
786.00 N/A N/A 0.8565 0.8472 0.50 0.4236 7.2099 11.00
786.50 N/A N/A 0.8749 0.8657 0.50 0.4329 7.6428 11.50
787.00 N/A N/A 0.8940 0.8844 0.50 0.4422 8.1850 12.00
787.50 N/A N/A 0.9151 0.9046 0.50 0.4523 8.5373 12.50
788.00 N/A N/A 0.9349 0.9250 0.50 0.4625 8.9998 13.00
788.50 N/A N/A 0.9570 0.9459 0.50 0.4730 9.4728 13.50
789.00 N/A N/A 0.9771 0.9670 0.50 0.4835 9.9563 14.00
789.50 N/A N/A 0.9875 0.9823 0.50 0.4912 10.4474 14.50
790.00 N/A N/A 0.9911 0.9893 0.50 0.4947 10.9421 15.00
CHAIN LINK FENCE5+006+007+0029+0030+00830
820
810
830
820
810
880
870
860
850
840
880
870
860
850
840
890890
800
790
790
790
775
775
780
775790
PROPOSED EMERGENCY
SPILLWAY
PROPOSED WWR DITCH NO. 1
BENCH 2% SLOPE
BENCH 2% SLOPE
PROPOSED WWR FLUME NO. 6
CREST / ACCESS - 10' WIDEPOND ACCESS ROAD
POND ACCESS ROAD
STONE ENERGY DISSIPATOR
PROPOSED PRINCIPAL
SPILLWAY - 15" CMP
50% CLEANOUT EL (782.04)
A
A'
B
B'
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00
750
800
850
750
800
850
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50
750
800
850
750
800
850
EXISTING GRADE
POOL EL. = 787.050% CLEANOUT EL. = 782.04
BOTTOM EL. 785.0
CREST EL. 790.0
10 FT. ACCESS ELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONPOOL EL. = 787.0
CREST EL. 790.0
10 FT. ACCESS
BOTTOM EL. 785.0 2:1
2:
1
2.5:
1
50% CLEANOUT EL. = 782.04
1:1 2:
1
1
:
1
SECTION A-A'
SCALE: 1" = 50'
SECTION B-B'
SCALE: 1" = 50'
CUTOFF TRENCH DETAIL
2'
SUITABLE EARTHEN MATERIAL
C CUTOFF TRENCH
2' MAXIMUM IF NOT CUT TO BEDROCK
CL
L
EXISTING GROUND (ABUTMENTS)
FILL MATERIAL
1
1
COMPACTED TO 95% OF STANDARD
PROCTOR MAX. DRY DENSITY
WITHIN ±2% OPTIMUM MOISTURE
N.T.S.
CONTENT790790CENTERLINE CUTOFF TRENCH
PROPOSED BAFFLES
EXISTING GRADE 3+004+00TYPICAL EMBANKMENT DETAIL
NORMAL POOL 787
84" DIA. RISER
TRASH RACK
EXISTING GRADE
BOTTOM OF POND
SLOPE
CREST EL. 790
CL
CENTERLINE CUTOFF TRENCH
TYPICAL DROP INLET DETAIL
BASE
54" DIA. BARREL PIPE
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
1' FREEBOARD
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY DEPTH
1' FREEBOARD
50% CLEANOUT EL 782.04
N.T.S.
Channel Design (Non-Erodible)
Channel Type: Trapezoidal, Equal Side Slopes
Dimensions: Left Side Slope 2.00:1
Right Side Slope 2.00:1
Base Dimension: 40.00
Wetted Perimeter: 41.85
Area of Wetted Cross Section: 16.92
Channel Slope: 40.0000
Manning's n of Channel: 0.0423
Discharge: 205.53 cfs
Depth of Flow: 0.41 feet
Velocity: 12.15 fps
Channel Lining: 18 inch Rock Rip-Rap
Freeboard: 1.00 feet
1
2
1
2
40.00 ft.
0.41 ft.
1.00ft. Freeboard
PROPOSED EXIT CHANNEL
N.T.S.
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
PIEDMONT LITHIUM
PLAN VIEW : PROPOSED WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2
PROPOSED WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2
Scale As Shown
WWR DISPOSAL AREA
SCALE: 1" = 50'
1
2
1
2
55.00 ft.
1.05 ft.
1.00ft. Freeboard
PROPOSED EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
N.T.S.
WWR SEDIMENT POND 2.dwg
SECTION A-A'
SCALE: 1" = 50'
SECTION B-B'
SCALE: 1" = 50'
CUTOFF TRENCH DETAIL
2'
SUITABLE EARTHEN MATERIAL
C CUTOFF TRENCH
2' MAXIMUM IF NOT CUT TO BEDROCK
CL
L
EXISTING GROUND (ABUTMENTS)
FILL MATERIAL
1
1
COMPACTED TO 95% OF STANDARD
PROCTOR MAX. DRY DENSITY
WITHIN ±2% OPTIMUM MOISTURE
N.T.S.
CONTENT830820810 880870860850840920910900890BENCH 2% SLOPEBENCH 2% SLOPE5+006+002+003+001+002+000+00
PROPOSED WWR DITCH NO. 3
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2
PROPOSED EXIT CHANNEL
PROPOSED EMERGENCY
SPILLWAY
STONE ENERGY DISSIPATOR
PROPOSED WWR DITCH NO. 4
CHAIN LINK FENCE
POND ACCESS ROAD 800800786786788800POND ACCESS ROAD
PROPOSED WWR FLUME NO. 7
50% CLEANOUT EL. 793.0
PROPOSED PRINCIPAL
SPILLWAY
NORMAL POOL EL. 797.0 CREST / ACCESS - 10' WIDECENTERLINE CUTOFF TRENCH
PROPOSED BAFFLES
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
0 1 2 3 4
PRINCIPAL SPILLWAY (797.00)
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY (798.00)
TOP OF STRUCTURE
(800.00)
Accumulative Storage (Acre-Ft)Elevation MSLSTAGE STORAGE CURVE
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2
STORAGE VOLUME COMPUTATIONS
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2
ELEV.
(ft)
Width
(ft)
LENGTH
(ft)
AREA
(ac)
AVG.
AREA
(ac)
INTERVAL
(ft)
STORAGE
(ac-ft)
ACC.
STORAGE
(ac-ft)
STAGE
INTERVAL
(ft)
786.00 N/A N/A 0.0914
787.00 N/A N/A 0.1059 0.0986 1.00 0.0985 0.0985 1.00
788.00 N/A N/A 0.1214 0.1136 1.00 0.1136 0.2121 2.00
789.00 N/A N/A 0.1375 0.1294 1.00 0.1294 0.3415 3.00
790.00 N/A N/A 0.1543 0.1459 1.00 0.1458 0.4873 4.00
791.00 N/A N/A 0.1718 0.1631 1.00 0.1630 0.6503 5.00
792.00 N/A N/A 0.1900 0.1809 1.00 0.1808 0.8311 6.00
793.00 N/A N/A 0.2089 0.1994 1.00 0.1994 1.0305 7.00
794.00 N/A N/A 0.2285 0.2187 1.00 0.2186 1.2491 8.00
795.00 N/A N/A 0.2488 0.2387 1.00 0.2386 1.4877 9.00
796.00 N/A N/A 0.2698 0.2593 1.00 0.2593 1.7470 10.00
797.00 N/A N/A 0.2915 0.2807 1.00 0.2806 2.0276 11.00
798.00 N/A N/A 0.3140 0.3028 1.00 0.3027 2.3303 12.00
799.00 N/A N/A 0.3371 0.3256 1.00 0.3254 2.6558 13.00
800.00 N/A N/A 0.3609 0.3490 1.00 0.3489 3.0047 14.00
Channel Design (Non-Erodible)
Channel Type: Trapezoidal, Equal Side Slopes
Dimensions: Left Side Slope 2.00:1
Right Side Slope 2.00:1
Base Dimension: 55.00
Wetted Perimeter: 59.71
Area of Wetted Cross Section: 60.10
Channel Slope: 0.1000
Manning's n of Channel: 0.0423
Discharge: 67.05 cfs
Depth of Flow: 1.05 feet
Velocity: 1.12 fps
Channel Lining: 18 inch Rock Rip-Rap
Freeboard: 1.00 feet 50% CLEANOUT EL (793.0)
A
A'
B
B'
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00
750
800
850
750
800
850
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00
750
800
850
750
800
850
POOL EL. = 797.0 EXISTING GRADECREST EL. 800.0
10 FT. ACCESS
50% CLEANOUT EL. = 793.0
BOTTOM EL. 786.0
BOTTOM EL. 786.0
CREST EL. 800.0
10 FT. ACCESS
1
:
1
2:
1 2:1 2:1 2:
1
2.5:1 1:150% CLEANOUT EL. = 793.0
POOL EL. = 797.0
ELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONTYPICAL EMBANKMENT DETAIL
CL
CENTERLINE CUTOFF TRENCH
CENTERLINE CUTOFF TRENCH
CL
NORMAL POOL 797
36" DIA. RISER
TRASH RACK
EXISTING GRADE
BOTTOM OF POND
SLOPE
CREST EL. 800
TYPICAL DROP INLET DETAIL
N.T.S.
BASE 18" DIA. BARREL PIPE
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
1' FREEBOARD
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY DEPTH
1' FREEBOARD
50% CLEANOUT EL 793
Channel Design (Non-Erodible)
Channel Type: Trapezoidal, Equal Side Slopes
Dimensions: Left Side Slope 2.00:1
Right Side Slope 2.00:1
Base Dimension: 20.00
Wetted Perimeter: 21.89
Area of Wetted Cross Section: 8.80
Channel Slope: 40.0000
Manning's n of Channel: 0.0423
Discharge: 106.47 cfs
Depth of Flow: 0.42 feet
Velocity: 12.10 fps
Channel Lining: 18 inch Rock Rip-Rap
Freeboard: 1.00 feet
1
2
1
2
20.00 ft.
0.42 ft.
1.00ft. Freeboard
PROPOSED EXIT CHANNEL
N.T.S.
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
PIEDMONT LITHIUM
PLAN VIEW : PROPOSED WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3
PROPOSED WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3
Scale As Shown
WWR DISPOSAL AREA
SCALE: 1" = 50'
1
2
1
2
55.00 ft.
1.02 ft.
1.00ft. Freeboard
PROPOSED EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
N.T.S.
WWR SEDIMENT POND 3.dwg
SECTION A-A'
SCALE: 1" = 50'
SECTION B-B'
SCALE: 1" = 50'
CUTOFF TRENCH DETAIL
2'
SUITABLE EARTHEN MATERIAL
C CUTOFF TRENCH
2' MAXIMUM IF NOT CUT TO BEDROCK
CL
L
EXISTING GROUND (ABUTMENTS)
FILL MATERIAL
1
1
COMPACTED TO 95% OF STANDARD
PROCTOR MAX. DRY DENSITY
WITHIN ±2% OPTIMUM MOISTURE
N.T.S.
CONTENT
50% CLEANOUT EL. = 792.66
TYPICAL EMBANKMENT DETAIL
B
E
N
C
H

2%

S
L
O
P
E
BENCH 2% SLOPE
1+001+003+004+005+004+005+005+006+008
3
0
8
2
0
8
1
0
8
8
0
8
7
0
8
6
0
8
5
0
8
4
0
9
2
0
9
1
0
9
0
0
8
9
0
9
1
0
9
0
0
8
9
0
82
0
81
0
83
0
B
E
N
C
H

2%

S
L
O
P
E
B
E
N
C
H

2%

S
L
O
P
E
BE
N
C
H

2
%

S
L
O
P
E
STONE ENERGY DISSIPATOR
POND ACCESS ROAD
CHAIN LINK FENCE
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3
PROPOSED WWR DITCH NO. 6
PROPOSED WWR FLUME NO. 9
786
800
800
800 800
7
8
6
7
8
6
PROPOSED WWR FLUME NO. 8
PROPOSED WWR DITCH NO. 5
PROPOSED EXIT CHANNEL
PROPOSED EMERGENCY
SPILLWAY
50% CLEANOUT EL. 792.66
PROPOSED PRINCIPAL
SPILLWAY
NORMAL POOL EL. 797.0
CENTERLINE CUTOFF TRENCH
PROPOSED BAFFLES
A
C
C
E
S
S

-

1
0
'
W
I
D
E
CRES
T

/
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
0 1 2 3
PRINCIPAL SPILLWAY (797.00)
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY (798.00)
TOP OF STRUCTURE(800.00)
Accumulative Storage (Acre-Ft)Elevation MSLSTAGE STORAGE CURVE
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3
STORAGE VOLUME COMPUTATIONS
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3
ELEV.
(ft)
Width
(ft)
LENGTH
(ft)
AREA
(ac)
AVG.
AREA
(ac)
INTERVAL
(ft)
STORAGE
(ac-ft)
ACC.
STORAGE
(ac-ft)
STAGE
INTERVAL
(ft)
786.00 N/A N/A 0.0837
787.00 N/A N/A 0.0980 0.0908 1.00 0.0908 0.0908 1.00
788.00 N/A N/A 0.1126 0.1053 1.00 0.1053 0.1961 2.00
789.00 N/A N/A 0.1272 0.1199 1.00 0.1199 0.3160 3.00
790.00 N/A N/A 0.1417 0.1344 1.00 0.1344 0.4504 4.00
791.00 N/A N/A 0.1564 0.1491 1.00 0.1491 0.5995 5.00
792.00 N/A N/A 0.1710 0.1637 1.00 0.1637 0.7632 6.00
793.00 N/A N/A 0.1857 0.1783 1.00 0.1783 0.9415 7.00
794.00 N/A N/A 0.2004 0.1931 1.00 0.1930 1.1345 8.00
795.00 N/A N/A 0.2151 0.2077 1.00 0.2077 1.3423 9.00
796.00 N/A N/A 0.2299 0.2225 1.00 0.2225 1.5648 10.00
797.00 N/A N/A 0.2446 0.2373 1.00 0.2372 1.8020 11.00
798.00 N/A N/A 0.2594 0.2520 1.00 0.2520 2.0540 12.00
799.00 N/A N/A 0.2743 0.2669 1.00 0.2668 2.3209 13.00
800.00 N/A N/A 0.2891 0.2817 1.00 0.2817 2.6025 14.00
Channel Design (Non-Erodible)
Channel Type: Trapezoidal, Equal Side Slopes
Dimensions: Left Side Slope 2.00:1
Right Side Slope 2.00:1
Base Dimension: 55.00
Wetted Perimeter: 59.56
Area of Wetted Cross Section: 58.16
Channel Slope: 0.1000
Manning's n of Channel: 0.0423
Discharge: 63.59 cfs
Depth of Flow: 1.02 feet
Velocity: 1.09 fps
Channel Lining: 18 inch Rock Rip-Rap
Freeboard: 1.00 feet
50% CLEANOUT EL (792.66)
B'
B
A
A'
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00
750
800
850
750
800
850
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50
750
800
850
750
800
850
BOTTOM EL. 786.0
BOTTOM EL. 786.0 2:1
2:1 2:
1 2.5:1
2.5:1
2:1
2:
1
ELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONCREST EL. 800.0
10 FT. ACCESS
CREST EL. 800.0
10 FT. ACCESS
POOL EL. = 797.0
POOL EL. = 797.0
EXISTING GRADE
CL
CL
CENTERLINE CUTOFF TRENCH
CENTERLINE CUTOFF TRENCH
EXISTING GRADE
50% CLEANOUT EL. = 792.66
ELEVATIONNORMAL POOL 797
30" DIA. RISER
TRASH RACK
EXISTING GRADE
BOTTOM OF POND
SLOPE
CREST EL. 800
TYPICAL DROP INLET DETAIL
N.T.S.
BASE
18" DIA. BARREL PIPE
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
1' FREEBOARD
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY DEPTH
1' FREEBOARD
50% CLEANOUT EL 792.66
Channel Design (Non-Erodible)
Channel Type: Trapezoidal, Equal Side Slopes
Dimensions: Left Side Slope 2.00:1
Right Side Slope 2.00:1
Base Dimension: 20.00
Wetted Perimeter: 21.39
Area of Wetted Cross Section: 6.40
Channel Slope: 40.0000
Manning's n of Channel: 0.0423
Discharge: 63.59 cfs
Depth of Flow: 0.31 feet
Velocity: 9.94 fps
Channel Lining: 18 inch Rock Rip-Rap
Freeboard: 1.00 feet
1
2
1
2
20.00 ft.
0.31 ft.
1.00ft. Freeboard
PROPOSED EXIT CHANNEL
N.T.S.
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
PIEDMONT LITHIUM
PLAN VIEW : PROPOSED WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 4
PROPOSED WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 4
Scale As Shown
WWR DISPOSAL AREA
SCALE: 1" = 50'
1
2
1
2
40.00 ft.
1.04 ft.
1.00ft. Freeboard
PROPOSED EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
N.T.S.
WWR SEDIMENT POND 4.dwg
SECTION A-A'
SCALE: 1" = 50'
SECTION B-B'
SCALE: 1" = 50'
CUTOFF TRENCH DETAIL
2'
SUITABLE EARTHEN MATERIAL
C CUTOFF TRENCH
2' MAXIMUM IF NOT CUT TO BEDROCK
CL
L
EXISTING GROUND (ABUTMENTS)
FILL MATERIAL
1
1
COMPACTED TO 95% OF STANDARD
PROCTOR MAX. DRY DENSITY
WITHIN ±2% OPTIMUM MOISTURE
N.T.S.
CONTENT
TYPICAL EMBANKMENT DETAIL
BEN
C
H 2
%
SL
O
P
E
BEN
C
H 2
%
SL
O
P
E
8708608509209108909008809609509408
5
0
8
6
0
8
7
0
9
0
0
8
9
0
9
1
0
9
2
0
2+003+004+005+001+002+003+00BENCH
2%
S
LOPE BENCH
2%
S
LOPE824840840826840840STONE ENERGY DISSIPATOR
POND ACCESS ROAD
CHAIN LINK FENCE
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 4
PROPOSED WWR DITCH NO. 8
PROPOSED WWR FLUME NO. 11
PROPOSED WWR DITCH NO. 7
PROPOSED EXIT CHANNEL
PROPOSED EMERGENCY
SPILLWAY
50% CLEANOUT EL. 833.37
PROPOSED PRINCIPAL
SPILLWAY
NORMAL POOL EL. 837.0
CENTERLINE CUTOFF TRENCH
PROPOSED BAFFLES
A
A'
B
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
0 1 2
PRINCIPAL SPILLWAY (837.00)
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY (838.00)
TOP OF STRUCTURE
(840.00)
Accumulative Storage (Acre-Ft)Elevation MSLSTAGE STORAGE CURVE
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 4
STORAGE VOLUME COMPUTATIONS
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 4
ELEV.
(ft)
Width
(ft)
LENGTH
(ft)
AREA
(ac)
AVG.
AREA
(ac)
INTERVAL
(ft)
STORAGE
(ac-ft)
ACC.
STORAGE
(ac-ft)
STAGE
INTERVAL
(ft)
826.00 N/A N/A 0.0287
827.00 N/A N/A 0.0422 0.0355 1.00 0.0353 0.0353 1.00
828.00 N/A N/A 0.0561 0.0492 1.00 0.0491 0.0844 2.00
829.00 N/A N/A 0.0703 0.0632 1.00 0.0632 0.1476 3.00
830.00 N/A N/A 0.0850 0.0777 1.00 0.0776 0.2252 4.00
831.00 N/A N/A 0.1000 0.0925 1.00 0.0924 0.3177 5.00
832.00 N/A N/A 0.1153 0.1076 1.00 0.1076 0.4252 6.00
833.00 N/A N/A 0.1310 0.1231 1.00 0.1231 0.5484 7.00
834.00 N/A N/A 0.1470 0.1390 1.00 0.1390 0.6873 8.00
835.00 N/A N/A 0.1635 0.1552 1.00 0.1552 0.8426 9.00
836.00 N/A N/A 0.1802 0.1718 1.00 0.1718 1.0144 10.00
837.00 N/A N/A 0.1974 0.1888 1.00 0.1888 1.2031 11.00
838.00 N/A N/A 0.2148 0.2061 1.00 0.2061 1.4092 12.00
839.00 N/A N/A 0.2327 0.2237 1.00 0.2237 1.6330 13.00
840.00 N/A N/A 0.2509 0.2418 1.00 0.2418 1.8747 14.00
Channel Design (Non-Erodible)
Channel Type: Trapezoidal, Equal Side Slopes
Dimensions: Left Side Slope 2.00:1
Right Side Slope 2.00:1
Base Dimension: 40.00
Wetted Perimeter: 44.64
Area of Wetted Cross Section: 43.64
Channel Slope: 0.1000
Manning's n of Channel: 0.0423
Discharge: 47.75 cfs
Depth of Flow: 1.04 feet
Velocity: 1.09 fps
Channel Lining: 18 inch Rock Rip-Rap
Freeboard: 1.00 feet
50% CLEANOUT EL (833.37)
B'
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00
800
850
800
850
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00
800
850
800
850
900 900
900 900
ELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONPOOL EL. = 837.0
CREST EL. 840.0
10 FT. ACCESS
CL
CENTERLINE CUTOFF TRENCH
BOTTOM EL. 826.0
BOTTOM EL. 826.0
CREST EL. 840.0
10 FT. ACCESS
CL
CENTERLINE CUTOFF TRENCH
50% CLEANOUT EL. = 833.37
POOL EL. = 837.0
50% CLEANOUT EL. = 833.37
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING GRADE 2:1
2.5:1
2.5:
1
2:1 2:
1
2:
1 CREST / ACCESS ROAD - 10' WIDENORMAL POOL 837
30" DIA. RISER
TRASH RACK
EXISTING GRADE
BOTTOM OF POND
SLOPE
CREST EL. 840
TYPICAL DROP INLET DETAIL
N.T.S.
BASE 18" DIA. BARREL PIPE
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
1' FREEBOARD
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY DEPTH
1' FREEBOARD
50% CLEANOUT EL 833.37
1
2
1
2
15.00 ft.
0.31 ft.
1.00ft. Freeboard
PROPOSED EXIT CHANNEL
N.T.S.
Channel Design (Non-Erodible)
Channel Type: Trapezoidal, Equal Side Slopes
Dimensions: Left Side Slope 2.00:1
Right Side Slope 2.00:1
Base Dimension: 15.00
Wetted Perimeter: 16.39
Area of Wetted Cross Section: 4.84
Channel Slope: 40.0000
Manning's n of Channel: 0.0423
Discharge: 47.76 cfs
Depth of Flow: 0.31 feet
Velocity: 9.86 fps
Channel Lining: 18 inch Rock Rip-Rap
Freeboard: 1.00 feet
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
PIEDMONT LITHIUM
PROPOSED WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 5
Scale As Shown
WWR DISPOSAL AREA
SCALE: 1" = 50'
1
2
1
2
90.00 ft.
1.02 ft.
1.00ft. Freeboard
PROPOSED EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
N.T.S.
WWR SEDIMENT POND 5.dwg
SECTION A-A'
SCALE: 1" = 50'
SECTION B-B'
SCALE: 1" = 50'
CUTOFF TRENCH DETAIL
2'
SUITABLE EARTHEN MATERIAL
C CUTOFF TRENCH
2' MAXIMUM IF NOT CUT TO BEDROCK
CL
L
EXISTING GROUND (ABUTMENTS)
FILL MATERIAL
1
1
COMPACTED TO 95% OF STANDARD
PROCTOR MAX. DRY DENSITY
WITHIN ±2% OPTIMUM MOISTURE
N.T.S.
CONTENT
TYPICAL EMBANKMENT DETAIL
STONE ENERGY DISSIPATOR
POND ACCESS ROAD
CHAIN LINK FENCE
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 5
PROPOSED WWR DITCH NO. 10
PROPOSED WWR FLUME NO. 14
PROPOSED EMERGENCY
SPILLWAY
50% CLEANOUT EL. 833.39
PROPOSED PRINCIPAL
SPILLWAY
NORMAL POOL EL. 837.0
CENTERLINE CUTOFF TRENCH
PROPOSED BAFFLES
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00
800
850
800
850
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00
800
850
800
850
900 900
900 900
ELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONPOOL EL. = 837.0
CREST EL. 840.0
10 FT. ACCESS
CL
CENTERLINE CUTOFF TRENCH
BOTTOM EL. 826.0
BOTTOM EL. 826.0
CREST EL. 840.0
10 FT. ACCESS
CL
CENTERLINE CUTOFF TRENCH
50% CLEANOUT EL. = 833.37
POOL EL. = 837.0
50% CLEANOUT EL. = 833.37
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING GRADE 2:1
2.5:1
2.5:
1
2:1 2:
1
2:
1
850
860
3+00
4+00
3+004+005+007+008+00920
910
900
890
870
860
850
842
880
870
860
850
880
930BENCH 2% SLOPE
BEN
C
H 2
%
SL
O
P
E
832840 840
829
829
840
CRES
T /
A
C
C
E
S
S
R
O
A
D -
1
0'
WI
D
E
SCREENING BERM NO. 3
POND ACCESS ROAD
PROPOSED WWR DITCH NO. 9 A
A'
B'
B
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
PRINCIPAL SPILLWAY (837.00)
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY (838.00)
TOP OF STRUCTURE
(840.00)
Accumulative Storage (Acre-Ft)Elevation MSLSTAGE STORAGE CURVE
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 5
STORAGE VOLUME COMPUTATIONS
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 5
ELEV.
(ft)
Width
(ft)
LENGTH
(ft)
AREA
(ac)
AVG.
AREA
(ac)
INTERVAL
(ft)
STORAGE
(ac-ft)
ACC.
STORAGE
(ac-ft)
STAGE
INTERVAL
(ft)
829.00 N/A N/A 0.3901
830.00 N/A N/A 0.4129 0.4015 1.00 0.4013 0.4013 1.00
831.00 N/A N/A 0.4363 0.4246 1.00 0.4246 0.8259 2.00
832.00 N/A N/A 0.4601 0.4482 1.00 0.4482 1.2741 3.00
833.00 N/A N/A 0.4842 0.4721 1.00 0.4721 1.7462 4.00
834.00 N/A N/A 0.5087 0.4964 1.00 0.4964 2.2426 5.00
835.00 N/A N/A 0.5336 0.5211 1.00 0.5211 2.7637 6.00
836.00 N/A N/A 0.5588 0.5462 1.00 0.5461 3.3098 7.00
837.00 N/A N/A 0.5843 0.5716 1.00 0.5715 3.8814 8.00
838.00 N/A N/A 0.6102 0.5972 1.00 0.5973 4.4786 9.00
839.00 N/A N/A 0.6365 0.6233 1.00 0.6234 5.1020 10.00
840.00 N/A N/A 0.6632 0.6499 1.00 0.6498 5.7518 11.00
Channel Design (Non-Erodible)
Channel Type: Trapezoidal, Equal Side Slopes
Dimensions: Left Side Slope 2.00:1
Right Side Slope 2.00:1
Base Dimension: 90.00
Wetted Perimeter: 94.57
Area of Wetted Cross Section: 94.11
Channel Slope: 0.1000
Manning's n of Channel: 0.0423
Discharge: 104.20 cfs
Depth of Flow: 1.02 feet
Velocity: 1.11 fps
Channel Lining: 18 inch Rock Rip-Rap
Freeboard: 1.00 feet
50% CLEANOUT EL. (833.39)
NORMAL POOL 837
48" DIA. RISER
TRASH RACK
EXISTING GRADE
BOTTOM OF POND
SLOPE
CREST EL. 840
TYPICAL DROP INLET DETAIL
N.T.S.
BASE 30" DIA. BARREL PIPE
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
1' FREEBOARD
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY DEPTH
1' FREEBOARD
50% CLEANOUT EL 833.39
PLAN VIEW : PROPOSED WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 5
SCALE: 1" = 50'
1
2
1
2
20.00 ft.
0.42 ft.
1.00ft. Freeboard
PROPOSED EXIT CHANNEL
N.T.S.
Channel Design (Non-Erodible)
Channel Type: Trapezoidal, Equal Side Slopes
Dimensions: Left Side Slope 2.00:1
Right Side Slope 2.00:1
Base Dimension: 20.00
Wetted Perimeter: 21.86
Area of Wetted Cross Section: 8.68
Channel Slope: 40.0000
Manning's n of Channel: 0.0423
Discharge: 104.20 cfs
Depth of Flow: 0.42 feet
Velocity: 12.00 fps
Channel Lining: 18 inch Rock Rip-Rap
Freeboard: 1.00 feet
PROPOSED EXIT CHANNEL
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
PIEDMONT LITHIUM
7
6
8 77
6
7767
62
0+00SEDIMENT POND SB5
ST9 C12
ST10
HEPHZIBAH CHURCH
R
D
EWR FLUME NO. 2
SB3
2+00ST12
ST11
C13
C14
2+
0
0100 FEET LOT LINE BUFFER100 F
E
E
T
L
O
T
LI
N
E
B
U
F
F
E
R
200 F
E
E
T
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
S
B
U
F
F
E
R
300 F
E
E
T
R
E
SI
D
E
N
TI
A
L
B
U
F
F
E
R
PROP
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
PROPERTY LINENORTH ENTRANCE
ROAD
MIN
E P
E
R
MIT LI
NE
MIN
E P
E
R
MIT 25'
B
UFF
E
R
PLANT SITE
FENCE
6 FEET HIGH 200 FEET STRUCTURES BUFFER300 FEET RESIDENTIAL BUFFER860870
910
900 890 880
910
900
890
900
890
880
850
860
870
1
1
4
0
1
1
3
0
1
0
9
0
1
0
4
0
1
0
8
0
9
9
0
9
4
0
8
9
0
8
4
0
840
890
9409901030108011201
1
4
011
30
10
901080 104010309909809409409309308908808768
708808909309409801090
1080
1040
990
850
880
890
930
9
4
0
9
3
0
8
9
0
9
8
0
9
9
0
B
E
N
C
H

2%
B
E
N
C
H

2%
B
E
N
C
H

2
%
B
E
N
C
H

2
%
B
E
N
C
H

2
%
B
E
N
C
H
BENCH 2%
BENCH 2%
BENCH 2%
BENCH 2%
BENCH
BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2
%BENCH 2%BEN
C
H
2
%
BENC
H
2
%
BEN
C
H
2
%
BEN
C
H 2
%
BEN
C
H 2
%
BEN
C
H 2
%790810820860790810820860EWR DITCH NO. 1
EWR FL
POND ACCESS ROAD
EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2
EWR DITCH NO. 1
EWR DITCH NO. 2
EWR DITCH NO. 3
EWR SEDIMENT PO
EWR FLUME NO. 31+002+003+001+001+002+003+004+005+001+00
2+003+001
+
0
0
2+
0
0 3+004+005+001+002+003+004+005+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+009+0010+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+0018+0019+0020+0021+0022+0023+0024+0025+0026+0027+0028+0029+0030+000+000+000+000+000+000+00 0+000+0
0
0+00
0+001+001+0
0
1+003+004+000+001
+
0
0
3+00 0+000
+
0
0
1+002+003+004+001+002+003+004+005+006+001+002+001+002+003+004+005+001+002+003+004+005+006+001+002+003+001+001+002+001+002+003+004+001+002+003+004+005+001+00
2+00
3+00
4+00
1+00
2+00
0+000+000+000+000+000+000+000+000+000+000+00
1+000+000+000+00
PROPOSED WWR DISPOSAL AREA
WWR DRAINAGE PATTERN MAP.dwg
300200200
Scale in Feet
0
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 1
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 5
WWR DITCH NO. 1
WWR DITCH NO. 2
WWR DITCH NO. 3
WWR DITCH NO. 4
WWR DITCH NO. 5
WWR DITCH NO. 6
WWR DITCH NO. 7
WWR DITCH NO. 8
WWR DITCH NO. 9
WWR DITCH NO. 10
WWR FLUME NO. 1
WWR FLUME NO. 2
WWR FLUME NO. 3
WWR FLUME NO. 4
WWR FLUME NO. 5
WWR FLUME NO. 6
WWR FLUME NO. 7
WWR FLUME NO. 8
WWR FLUME NO. 9
WWR FLUME NO. 10
WWR FLUME NO. 11
WWR FLUME NO. 12
WWR FLUME NO. 13
WWR DITCH NO. 1
WWR DITCH NO. 1
POND ACCESS ROAD
POND ACCESS ROAD
POND ACCESS ROAD
POND ACCESS ROAD
POND ACCESS ROAD
WWR FLUME NO. 14
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 4
POND ACCESS ROAD
LOW WATER CROSSING
SCREENING BERM NO. 3
SCREENING BERM NO. 2
PROPOSED WWR DISPOSAL AREA
PIT
PIT
NORTH
CENTRAL
C7
C6
C5
ST1
ST8
C1
C2
C3
C4
ST14ST15
ST16
ST17
ST18
ST19
ST20
ST21
C15
C16
C18
C19
7
9
9
7
9
9
8
1
0816
816
8
1
0
8
1
0
HAUL ROAD
PLANT TO SOUTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
PLANT TO NORTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
CENTRAL PIT TO SOUTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
PLANT THRU CENTRAL PIT
810
802
794
786
CREST

/

A
C
C
E
S
S

-

1
0'
W
I
D
E
790
790
790
775
775
780
775790
CREST / ACCESS - 10' WIDE790790800800786786800CREST / ACCESS - 10' WIDE786
800
800
800 800
78
6
78
6
A
C
C
E
S
S

-

1
0
'
W
I
D
E
CREST

/824840840826840840CREST / ACCESS ROAD - 10' WIDE832840 829
829
840
CRES
T
/
A
C
C
E
S
S
R
O
A
D
-
1
0'
WI
D
E
76278078076878
0
780CREST 10
'
W
IDE
A
C
B
D
F
H
GS1
K
J
L
I
N
O
M
P
Q
S
R
X
W
V
U
T
Y
R1
A1
Z
B1
C1
D1
E1
I 1
F1
G1
H1
K1
J1
L1
M1
O1
P1
Q1
DRAINAGE PATTERN MAP
P1
DISTURBED AREA
B
D
C
A
ACRES
2.2
1.8
2.3
0.8
F
H
G
E
1.3
1.1
14.2
-
I 3.3
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA = 121.6 ACRES
K
M
L
J
2.6
1.1
4.0
4.3
N 5.4
P
R
Q
O
0.7
0.6
0.1
9.3
S 0.8
U
W
V
T
0.4
0.1
0.1
14.0
X 0.1
Z
B1
A1
Y
0.1
0.4
8.9
3.8
C1 0.4
E1
G1
F1
D1
7.5
0.5
0.5
0.1
H1 0.8
J1
L1
K1
I1
1.3
0.6
5.3
1.1
M1 0.6
O1
P1
N1
2.4
6.6
2.1
LEGEND
100 YR. FLOOD PLAIN
DELINEATED WETLANDS
DELINEATED PONDS
DELINEATED STREAMS
PROPOSED DITCHES
PROPOSED FLUMES
BUILDING / STRUCTURE
DRAINAGE AREAS
DRAINAGE AREA LABEL6
N1
WWR UNDERDRAIN NO. 1
WWR UNDERDRAIN NO. 2
WWR UNDERDRAIN NO. 3
SILT FENCE
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
PIEDMONT LITHIUM MAGAZINE 2MAGAZINE 1D1
ST2
FENCE
6 FEET HIGH
EXISTING STREAM CROSSING
SB1
SB2
SB3
CONCRETE HEADWALL (BOTH ENDS)
CONCRETE FLUME TO SB1
TYPICAL PIT POND
ADERHOLDT RDHEPHZIBAH CHURCH R
D
100 FEET LOT LINE BUFFER200 FEET STRUCTURES BUFFER300 FEET RESIDENTIAL BUFFERPLANT SITE
FENCE
6 FEET HIGH
FENCE
6 FEET HIGH87
0
WWR DITCH NO. 1
90
0
87
0
86
0
82
0
81
0
78
0
760770810820860870900790810820850
87
0 86
0
85
0
81
0
80
0
77
081082083083082081077076079081082086087090
0
87
0
86
0
82
0
81
0
78
0
760770810820860870900790810820850
87
0 86
0
85
0
81
0
80
0
77
0810820830830820810770760790810820860870
EWR DITCH NO. 1
EWR FLUME NO. 1
POND ACCESS ROAD
EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2
EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3
EWR DITCH NO. 2
EWR DITCH NO. 3
EWR DITCH NO. 4
EWR DITCH NO. 4
EWR DITCH NO. 5
EWR DITCH NO. 5EWR DITCH NO. 6
EWR DITCH NO. 6
PROPOSED 30" CMP
EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 1
EWR FLUME NO. 2
EWR FLUME NO. 3
EWR FLUME NO. 4
EWR FLUME NO. 5
EWR FLUME NO. 6
K
J
M
P19+0010+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+0018+0019+0020+0021+0022+0023+0024+001+001+0
0
2
+
0
0 3+004+005+006+007+008+009+0010+0011+0012+0013+0014+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+00
9+00
1
+
0
0
2
+
0
0
3
+
0
0
4
+
0
0
5
+
0
0
6
+
0
0 7+0
0
8+
00 9+0010+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+0018+00
19+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+000+000+000+001
+
0
0
2+
0
0
3+00
0+00 0+000
+
0
01+002+002+003+004+001+002+000+000+001+002+001+0
0
2+
00
1+001+00
0+000+000
+
0
0
0+00PROPOSED EWR DISPOSAL AREA
EWR PLAN VIEW.dwg
300200200
Scale in Feet
0
PLAN VIEWBENCHBENCH 2%BE
N
C
H

2
%
BEN
C
H 2
%
B
E
N
C
H

2
%BENCH 2%BENCHBENCH

2
%
BEN
C
H 2
%BENCH 2%BENCHBE
N
C
H

2
%BENCHBENCHBENC
H

2
%
B
E
N
C
H
PROPOSED EWR DISPOSAL AREAEWR SECTION NO. 1
EWR SECTION NO. 2
PROPERTY LINEPIT
PIT
PIT
PIT
NORTH
CENTRAL
SOUTH
EAST
LOW WATER CROSSING
LEGEND
100 YR. FLOOD PLAIN
DELINEATED WETLANDS
DELINEATED PONDS
DELINEATED STREAMS
PROPOSED DITCHES
PROPOSED FLUMES
BUILDING / STRUCTURE
7
9
9
7
9
9
8
1
0816
816
8
1
0
8
1
0
HAUL ROAD
PLANT TO SOUTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
PLANT TO NORTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
CENTRAL PIT TO SOUTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
PLANT THRU CENTRAL PIT
776
77676
8
762
810802794786
SILT FENCE
780785785
7
71 771 785CREST /
ACCESS

-
10
'
W
IDE7627807807687
80
780CREST 10
'
W
IDE
760
CREST / ACCESS - 10' WIDE752760760
751751
751
CREST 7+36.57
-2.01
SAG 11+37.27
-10.00-10.0
0
CREST 15+62.27 SAG 17+49.95-3.60 -10.00
CREST 22+03.01-4.51 -9.67 -7.49
CREST 5+35.44
-
2
.
0
0
-
2
.
8
8
-2
.
8
8
-9.78
-
3
.
0
1
SAG 16+08.48
CREST 18+89.21-1.00-5.65-5.65-3.7
7
-0
.
2
6
CREST 3+79.49-1.57 -6.91 -6.91
-1.
1
9
-10.00
SAG 21+18.17
-5.
9
9
C7
C6
SB1
C5
ST1
SB5
ST8
ST9
ST10
ST12
ST13
C3
C4
ST11ST14ST15
ST16
ST17
ST18
ST19
ST20
ST21
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16
C17
C18
SB2
C20
SB6
820830840Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
PIEDMONT LITHIUM
C10
C9
ST3
ST4
C8
D1
ST2
ST5
FENCE
6 FEET HIGH
EXISTING STREAM CROSSING
MINE
PERM
IT
25
'
BUFFERMINE
PERM
IT
L
INE
C9
SB4
SB3
CONCRETE HEADWALL (BOTH ENDS)
CONCRETE FLUME TO SB1
TYPICAL PIT POND
PROPOSED EWR DISPOSAL AREA
Scale As Shown
SECTION NO. 1 AND NO. 2
EWR SECTION NO.1 AND 2.dwg
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00
700
800
900
700
800
900
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00
700
800
900
700
800
900
750
850
750
850
750
850
750
850ELEVATION
ELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONEWR SECTION NO. 1
SCALE: 1" = 50'
EWR SECTION NO. 2
SCALE: 1" = 50'
EXISTING GRADE
APPROXIMATE ROCKLINE
EXISTING GRADE
APPROXIMATE ROCKLINE
IN ELEVATION AND A CROSSING HAULROAD SYSTEM
SLOPE 2:1 WITH BENCHES EVERY 50' MAX.
1
2
BENCH / SLOPE DETAIL
N.T.S.
PROPOSED BERM2
N.T.S.
TYPICAL WASTE FILL HAULROAD DETAIL
4'
1
1
2'
1
1
HAULROAD
1/4" PER FOOT SLOPE
1 2
1
DRAINAGE DITCH
20' BENCH
1
2
WASTE ROCK
2
1
VEGETATED
2 % SLOPE(OR FLATTER)
(OR FLATTER)
EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3
EWR DITCH NO. 4
1
21
2
1
2
EWR DITCH NO. 4
EWR DITCH NO. 1
PROPOSED EWR DISPOSAL AREA
PROPOSED EWR DISPOSAL AREA
PROPOSED EWR DITCH NO. 6 3' MIN. COVER
3 % SLOPE
PROPOSED 1 - 30" DIA. CMP
60' HAULROAD
TYPICAL PIPE DETAIL
N.T.S.
1
PROPOSED LOW WATER CROSSING
(OR FLATTER TO MATCH ROAD GRADE)
2.0' MIN.
1
8 8
20' MIN.
Channel Lining: 18" ROCK RIPRAP
PROPOSED LOW WATER CROSSING
N.T.S.
PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD
( EL. 777.0 )
(OR FLATTER TO MATCH ROAD GRADE)
PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD
PROPOSED EWR DITCH NO. 6
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
PIEDMONT LITHIUM
0+00 0+50 1+00
750
800
850
750
800
850
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50
750
800
850
900
750
800
850
900
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50
750
800
850
900
750
800
850
900
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50
750
800
850
900
750
800
850
900
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00
750
800
850
750
800
850
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50
750
800
850
750
800
850ELEVATIONELEVATION ELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONPROPOSED EWR FLUME NO. 1 - NO. 6
Scale As Shown
EWR DISPOSAL AREA
EWR FLUMES.dwg
N.T.S.
TYPICAL FLUME DETAIL
Channel Lining: GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
2
1
2
1
5'
SEE CHART
NOTES :
WILL SLAKE IN WATER SHALL NOT BE USED .
ONE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER . SHALE OR ANY MATERIAL THAT
THEN BE SLUSH GROUTED WITH A STANDARD GROUT MIXTURE OR
MEDIAN DIAMETER OR SLIGHTLY LARGER . THE MATERIAL SHALL
WEIGHT OF THE ROCK WILL BE ONE AND ONE-HALF (1 1/2) TIMES THE
DIAMETER OF TWELVE (12) INCHES . TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT BY
ROCK WILL BE A DURABLE, WELL GRADED ROCK WITH A MEDIAN
THICK BLANKET ON THE BOTTOM AND SIDES OF THE CHANNEL . THE
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP - WHERE PLACED SHALL BE 1.5’ (MIN.)
FOR A LESSER CHANNEL PROTECTION SPECIFICATON
FOLLOWING METHOD. A GREATER PROTECTION CAN BE SUBSTITUTED
CHANNEL PROTECTION SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE
5.02.0
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP2.0
(FT.)(FT.)
CHANNEL PROTECTIONBOTTOM WIDTHDEPTH
EWR FLUME NO. 1
FLUME
5.02.0
2.0
5.02.0
2.0 5.0
5.0
5.0
EWR FLUME NO. 2
EWR FLUME NO. 3
EWR FLUME NO. 4
EWR FLUME NO. 5
EWR FLUME NO. 6
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
BOTTOM OF FLUME
TOP OF FLUME
OUTLETS TO EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 1EWR FLUME NO. 1
SCALE: 1" = 50'
EWR FLUME NO. 2
SCALE: 1" = 50'OUTLETS TO EWR DITCH NO. 1BOTTOM OF FLUME
TOP OF FLUME
EWR FLUME NO. 3
SCALE: 1" = 50'
BOTTOM OF FLUME
TOP OF FLUME
OUTLETS TO EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2EWR FLUME NO. 4
SCALE: 1" = 50'
BOTTOM OF FLUME
TOP OF FLUME
OUTLETS TO EWR DITCH NO. 2EWR FLUME NO. 5
SCALE: 1" = 50'
BOTTOM OF FLUME
TOP OF FLUME
EWR FLUME NO. 6
SCALE: 1" = 50'
BOTTOM OF FLUME
TOP OF FLUME
OUTLETS TO EWR DITCH NO. 4OUTLETS TO EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
PIEDMONT LITHIUM
PROPOSED EWR DITCHES
Scale As Shown
EWR DISPOSAL AREA
EWR DITCHES.dwg
N.T.S.
DEPTH VARIES
TYPICAL EWR DITCH NO. 1 - NO. 6 DETAILS
Channel Lining: 18" ROCK RIPRAP
2
1
2
1
NOTES :
AND MAINTAINED AS NECESSARY TO CONTAIN DESIGN FLOW .
3.) WORKING EDGE DITCHES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED
WILL SLAKE IN WATER SHALL NOT BE USED .
ONE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER . SHALE OR ANY MATERIAL THAT
THEN BE SLUSH GROUTED WITH A STANDARD GROUT MIXTURE OR
MEDIAN DIAMETER OR SLIGHTLY LARGER . THE MATERIAL SHALL
WEIGHT OF THE ROCK WILL BE ONE AND ONE-HALF (1 1/2) TIMES THE
DIAMETER OF TWELVE (12) INCHES . TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT BY
ROCK WILL BE A DURABLE, WELL GRADED ROCK WITH A MEDIAN
THICK BLANKET ON THE BOTTOM AND SIDES OF THE CHANNEL . THE
2.) GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP - WHERE PLACED SHALL BE 1.5’ (MIN.)
OR MATERIAL THAT WILL SLAKE IN WATER SHALL NOT BE USED .
ENOUGH TO FILL THE VOIDS BETWEEN THE LARGER ROCKS . SHALE
WELL-GRADED MATERIAL CONSISTING OF SUFFICIENT ROCK SMALL
LARGER . THE REMAINING SEVENTY-FIVE (75) PERCENT WILL BE
ONE-HALF (1 1/2) TIMES THE MEDIAN DIAMETER OR SLIGHTLY
TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT BY WEIGHT OF THE ROCK WILL BE ONE AND
DURABLE ROCK WITH A MEDIAN DIAMETER (D50) OF TWELVE (12) IN .
ON THE BOTTOM AND SIDES OF THE CHANNEL . THE ROCK WILL BE A
1.) ROCK RIPRAP - WHERE PLACED SHALL BE 1.5’ (MIN.) THICK BLANKET
SPECIFICATION . SEE CHARTS FOR SPECIFIED METHOD .
PROTECTION CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR A LESSER CHANNEL PROTECTION
FOLLOWING METHODS OR A COMBINATION THEREOF . A GREATER
CHANNEL PROTECTION SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY ONE OF THE
OR GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
EWR DITCH NO. 1
SCALE: 1" = 100'
ROCK RIPRAP0.04.0
(FT.)(FT.)
CHANNEL PROTECTIONBOTTOM WIDTHDEPTH
FROM TO
00+00 08+12
STATION
0+00 2+00
800
1+00 3+00 4+00
700
800
700
900 900
EWR DITCH NO. 2
SCALE: 1" = 100'ELEVATIONELEVATIONOUTLETS TO EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2BOTTOM OF DITCH
TOP OF DITCH
5+000+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 6+00
700
800
900
700
800
900
ELEVATIONELEVATION8+007+00 9+00OUTLETS TO EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 1BOTTOM OF DITCH
TOP OF DITCH
ROCK RIPRAP0.03.0
ROCK RIPRAP0.02.5
(FT.)(FT.)
CHANNEL PROTECTIONBOTTOM WIDTHDEPTH
FROM TO
02+65 02+84
00+00 02+65
STATION
0+00 2+001+00
800
700
800
700
EWR DITCH NO. 3
SCALE: 1" = 100'
900 900
ELEVATIONELEVATIONTOP OF DITCH
BOTTOM OF DITCH
OUTLETS TO EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2ROCK RIPRAP0.02.5
(FT.)(FT.)
CHANNEL PROTECTIONBOTTOM WIDTHDEPTH
FROM TO
00+00 01+62
STATION
EWR DITCH NO. 4
SCALE: 1" = 100'
5+000+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 6+00
700
800
900
700
800
900
ELEVATIONELEVATION8+007+00 9+00 OUTLETS TO EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3BOTTOM OF DITCH
TOP OF DITCH
11+0010+00 12+00 14+0013+00 15+00
0.04.5
ROCK RIPRAP0.03.0
(FT.)(FT.)
CHANNEL PROTECTIONBOTTOM WIDTHDEPTH
FROM TO
01+51 11+85
00+00 01+51
STATION
ROCK RIPRAP
0.03.0
ROCK RIPRAP0.03.0
12+43 13+00
11+85 12+43
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
ROCK RIPRAP0.03.513+00 14+20
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00
700
800
900
ELEVATION700
800
900
ELEVATIONEWR DITCH NO. 5
SCALE: 1" = 100'
BOTTOM OF DITCH
TOP OF DITCH
0.03.0
0.03.0
(FT.)(FT.)
CHANNEL PROTECTIONBOTTOM WIDTHDEPTH
FROM TO
01+35 08+91
00+00 01+35
STATION
ROCK RIPRAP
0.03.0
0.03.0
09+71 11+80
08+91 09+71
ROCK RIPRAP0.03.511+80 19+78 OUTLETS TO EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP
ROCK RIPRAP
EWR DITCH NO. 6
SCALE: 1" = 100'
5+000+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 6+00
700
800
900
700
800
900
ELEVATIONELEVATION8+007+00 9+00
OUTLETS TO EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 1BOTTOM OF DITCH
TOP OF DITCH
9+50
ROCK RIPRAP0.03.0
ROCK RIPRAP0.03.5
(FT.)(FT.)
CHANNEL PROTECTIONBOTTOM WIDTHDEPTH
FROM TO
01+75 09+57
00+00 01+75
STATION
30" DIA. CMP
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
PIEDMONT LITHIUM
PROPOSED EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 1
Scale As Shown
EWR DISPOSAL AREA
EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 1
50% CLEANOUT EL. 777.7
NORMAL POOL EL. 782.0
PROPOSED EXIT CHANNEL
2.5:1
1
2
1
2
30.00 ft.
0.97 ft.
1.00ft. Freeboard
PROPOSED EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
N.T.S.
EWR SEDIMENT POND 1.dwg
CHAIN LINK FENCE
PROPOSED EMERGENCY
SPILLWAY
POND ACCESS ROAD
STONE ENERGY DISSIPATOR
PROPOSED PRINCIPAL
SPILLWAY
A
B
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50
750
800
850
750
800
850
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50
750
800
850
750
800
850
EXISTING GRADE
ELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONPOOL EL. = 782.0
CREST EL. 777.7
10 FT. ACCESS
BOTTOM EL. 771.0 2:1 2:
1
50% CLEANOUT EL. = 782.04
SECTION A-A'
SCALE: 1" = 50'
SECTION B-B'
SCALE: 1" = 50'
CUTOFF TRENCH DETAIL
2'
SUITABLE EARTHEN MATERIAL
C CUTOFF TRENCH
2' MAXIMUM IF NOT CUT TO BEDROCK
CL
L
EXISTING GROUND (ABUTMENTS)
FILL MATERIAL
1
1
COMPACTED TO 95% OF STANDARD
PROCTOR MAX. DRY DENSITY
WITHIN ±2% OPTIMUM MOISTURE
N.T.S.
CONTENT
CENTERLINE CUTOFF TRENCH
PROPOSED BAFFLES
EXISTING GRADE
TYPICAL EMBANKMENT DETAIL
NORMAL POOL 782
24" DIA. RISER
TRASH RACK
EXISTING GRADE
BOTTOM OF POND
SLOPE
CREST EL. 785
CL
CENTERLINE CUTOFF TRENCH
TYPICAL DROP INLET DETAIL
N.T.S.
BASE
18" DIA. BARREL PIPE
1' FREEBOARD
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
1' FREEBOARD
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY DEPTH
50% CLEANOUT EL 777.76+007+008+00
9+005+006+007+008+002+000+000+00810
800
790
790800850820830840820810PROPOSED EWR FLUME NO. 2
PROPOSED EWR DITCH NO. 1
PROPOSED EWR DITCH NO. 6
PROPOSED EWR
780785785771771785FLUME NO. 1
PROPOSED LOW WATER CROSSING
Channel Design (Non-Erodible)
Channel Type: Trapezoidal, Equal Side Slopes
Dimensions: Left Side Slope 2.00:1
Right Side Slope 2.00:1
Base Dimension: 30.00
Wetted Perimeter: 34.32
Area of Wetted Cross Section: 30.83
Channel Slope: 0.1000
Manning's n of Channel: 0.0423
Discharge: 31.88 cfs
Depth of Flow: 0.97 feet
Velocity: 1.03 fps
Channel Lining: 18 inch Rock Rip-Rap
Freeboard: 1.00 feet
TOP OF STRUCTURE
(785.00)
EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 1
771
772
773
774
775
(ft)
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
773.00
783
784
785
0 1 2 3
PRINCIPAL SPILLWAY (782.00)
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY (783.00)
0.1826
N/A N/A
Accumulative Storage (Acre-Ft)Elevation MSLSTAGE STORAGE CURVE
EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 1
STORAGE VOLUME COMPUTATIONS
0.2242 1.00
ELEV.
(ft)
Width
(ft)
LENGTH
(ft)
AREA
(ac)
AVG.
AREA
(ac)
N/A
INTERVAL
(ft)
STORAGE
(ac-ft)
ACC.
STORAGE
(ac-ft)
STAGE
INTERVAL
N/A
771.00 N/A N/A 0.1065
772.00 N/A N/A 0.1187 0.1126 1.00 0.1125 0.1125 1.00
N/A N/A 0.1317 0.1252 1.00 0.1251 0.2376 2.00
774.00 N/A N/A 0.1454 0.1386 1.00 0.1384 0.3760 3.00
775.00 N/A N/A 0.1597 0.1525 1.00 0.1525 0.5285 4.00
776.00 N/A N/A 0.1748 0.1673 1.00 0.1672 0.6957 5.00
777.00 N/A N/A 0.1906 0.1827 1.00 0.8784
778.00
6.00
0.19880.2070 0.1988
779.00 N/A
1.00 1.0771
780.00
7.00
0.2156N/A 0.2156
N/A
1.2927 8.00
0.2331N/A N/A 0.2421
781.00
1.00
N/A
9.000.2331 1.5257
0.2606 1.000.2514 0.2513
782.00
1.7770 10.00
N/A N/A 0.2798 0.2702 2.04720.2702 11.001.00
783.00 N/A N/A 0.2998 1.00 2.33690.2898 0.2897 12.00
784.00 N/A 1.000.3204 0.3101 2.64690.3100 13.00
785.00 N/A 0.33100.3417 0.33101.00 2.9779 14.00
50% CLEANOUT EL (777.7)
B'
A'
POOL EL. = 782.0
BOTTOM EL. 771.0 2:1 2:
1
50% CLEANOUT EL. = 782.04
CREST EL. 777.7
10 FT. ACCESS
CL
CENTERLINE CUTOFF TRENCH
PLAN VIEW : PROPOSED EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 1
SCALE: 1" = 50'CREST
/
ACCESS

-
10
'
W
IDE
1
2
1
2
15.00 ft.
0.35 ft.
1.00ft. Freeboard
PROPOSED EXIT CHANNEL
N.T.S.
Channel Design (Non-Erodible)
Channel Type: Trapezoidal, Equal Side Slopes
Dimensions: Left Side Slope 2.00:1
Right Side Slope 2.00:1
Base Dimension: 15.00
Wetted Perimeter: 16.58
Area of Wetted Cross Section: 5.56
Channel Slope: 40.0000
Manning's n of Channel: 0.0423
Discharge: 59.63 cfs
Depth of Flow: 0.35 feet
Velocity: 10.72 fps
Channel Lining: 18 inch Rock Rip-Rap
Freeboard: 1.00 feet
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
PIEDMONT LITHIUM
PROPOSED EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2
Scale As Shown
EWR DISPOSAL AREA
EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2
50% CLEANOUT EL. 774.05
NORMAL POOL EL. 777.0
PROPOSED EXIT CHANNEL
2.5:1
1
2
1
2
10.00 ft.
0.95 ft.
1.00ft. Freeboard
PROPOSED EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
N.T.S.
EWR SEDIMENT POND 2.dwg
PROPOSED EMERGENCY
SPILLWAY
STONE ENERGY DISSIPATOR
PROPOSED PRINCIPAL
SPILLWAY
A
B
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50
750
800
850
750
800
850
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50
750
800
850
750
800
850
EXISTING GRADE
ELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONCREST EL. 780
10 FT. ACCESS 2:1
2:
1
SECTION A-A'
SCALE: 1" = 50'
SECTION B-B'
SCALE: 1" = 50'
CUTOFF TRENCH DETAIL
2'
SUITABLE EARTHEN MATERIAL
C CUTOFF TRENCH
2' MAXIMUM IF NOT CUT TO BEDROCK
CL
L
EXISTING GROUND (ABUTMENTS)
FILL MATERIAL
1
1
COMPACTED TO 95% OF STANDARD
PROCTOR MAX. DRY DENSITY
WITHIN ±2% OPTIMUM MOISTURE
N.T.S.
CONTENT
CENTERLINE CUTOFF TRENCH
PROPOSED BAFFLES
EXISTING GRADE
TYPICAL EMBANKMENT DETAIL
NORMAL POOL 777
15" DIA. RISER
TRASH RACK
EXISTING GRADE
BOTTOM OF POND
SLOPE
CREST EL. 780
CL
CENTERLINE CUTOFF TRENCH
TYPICAL DROP INLET DETAIL
N.T.S.
BASE
EMERGENCY SPILLWAYEMERGENCY SPILLWAY DEPTH
12" DIA. BARREL PIPE
1' FREEBOARD
1' FREEBOARD
50% CLEANOUT EL 774.05
PROPOSED EWR FLUME NO. 3
PROPOSED EWR DITCH NO. 3
50% CLEANOUT EL (774.05)
B'
A'
POOL EL. = 777.0
BOTTOM EL. 786.0 2:1
2:
1
50% CLEANOUT EL. = 774.05
CREST EL. 780
10 FT. ACCESS
CL
CENTERLINE CUTOFF TRENCH 1+001
+
0
0
2+
0
0 0+000
+
0
0
1+002+00768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
0 1 2
PRINCIPAL SPILLWAY (777.00)
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY (778.00)
TOP OF STRUCTURE
(780.00)
Accumulative Storage (Acre-Ft)Elevation MSLSTAGE STORAGE CURVE
EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2
STORAGE VOLUME COMPUTATIONS
EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2
ELEV.
(ft)
Width
(ft)
LENGTH
(ft)
AREA
(ac)
AVG.
AREA
(ac)
INTERVAL
(ft)
STORAGE
(ac-ft)
ACC.
STORAGE
(ac-ft)
STAGE
INTERVAL
(ft)
768.00 N/A N/A 0.0187
769.00 N/A N/A 0.0300 0.0243 1.00 0.0243 0.0243 1.00
770.00 N/A N/A 0.0418 0.0359 1.00 0.0359 0.0602 2.00
771.00 N/A N/A 0.0538 0.0478 1.00 0.0478 0.1080 3.00
772.00 N/A N/A 0.0662 0.0600 1.00 0.0600 0.1680 4.00
773.00 N/A N/A 0.0789 0.0725 1.00 0.0725 0.2405 5.00
774.00 N/A N/A 0.0920 0.0855 1.00 0.0854 0.3259 6.00
775.00 N/A N/A 0.1053 0.0987 1.00 0.0986 0.4245 7.00
776.00 N/A N/A 0.1190 0.1121 1.00 0.1121 0.5366 8.00
777.00 N/A N/A 0.1330 0.1260 1.00 0.1259 0.6626 9.00
778.00 N/A N/A 0.1473 0.1401 1.00 0.1401 0.8027 10.00
779.00 N/A N/A 0.1619 0.1546 1.00 0.1546 0.9572 11.00
780.00 N/A N/A 0.1769 0.1694 1.00 0.1694 1.1266 12.00
Channel Design (Non-Erodible)
Channel Type: Trapezoidal, Equal Side Slopes
Dimensions: Left Side Slope 2.00:1
Right Side Slope 2.00:1
Base Dimension: 10.00
Wetted Perimeter: 14.24
Area of Wetted Cross Section: 11.28
Channel Slope: 0.1000
Manning's n of Channel: 0.0423
Discharge: 10.73 cfs
Depth of Flow: 0.95 feet
Velocity: 0.95 fps
Channel Lining: 18 inch Rock Rip-Rap
Freeboard: 1.00 feet
PLAN VIEW : PROPOSED EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2
SCALE: 1" = 50'810800790860850840830820870900890880820830840850790800810850830820840810800790762780780768780780PROPOSED EWR DITCH NO. 4
1+0
0
CHAIN LINK FENCE
POND ACCESS ROAD
PROPOSED EWR DITCH NO. 2 BENCHBENCH 2%BENCH2.5:1
3+00
POOL EL. = 777.0
50% CLEANOUT EL. = 774.05
BOTTOM EL. 786.0 CREST 10
'
W
IDE
1
2
1
2
10.00 ft.
0.25 ft.
1.00ft. Freeboard
PROPOSED EXIT CHANNEL
N.T.S.
Channel Design (Non-Erodible)
Channel Type: Trapezoidal, Equal Side Slopes
Dimensions: Left Side Slope 2.00:1
Right Side Slope 2.00:1
Base Dimension: 10.00
Wetted Perimeter: 11.13
Area of Wetted Cross Section: 2.66
Channel Slope: 40.0000
Manning's n of Channel: 0.0423
Discharge: 22.70 cfs
Depth of Flow: 0.25 feet
Velocity: 8.55 fps
Channel Lining: 18 inch Rock Rip-Rap
Freeboard: 1.00 feet
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
PIEDMONT LITHIUM
PROPOSED EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3
Scale As Shown
EWR DISPOSAL AREA
EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3
50% CLEANOUT EL. 754.86
NORMAL POOL EL. 777.0
2.5:
1
1
2
1
2
45.00 ft.
1.05 ft.
1.00ft. Freeboard
PROPOSED EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
N.T.S.
EWR SEDIMENT POND 3.dwg
B
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50
700
750
800
700
750
800
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00
700
750
800
700
750
800
EXISTING GRADE
ELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONCREST EL. 760
10 FT. ACCESS 2:1
2:
1
SECTION A-A'
SCALE: 1" = 50'
SECTION B-B'
SCALE: 1" = 50'
CUTOFF TRENCH DETAIL
2'
SUITABLE EARTHEN MATERIAL
C CUTOFF TRENCH
2' MAXIMUM IF NOT CUT TO BEDROCK
CL
L
EXISTING GROUND (ABUTMENTS)
FILL MATERIAL
1
1
COMPACTED TO 95% OF STANDARD
PROCTOR MAX. DRY DENSITY
WITHIN ±2% OPTIMUM MOISTURE
N.T.S.
CONTENT
CENTERLINE CUTOFF TRENCH
PROPOSED BAFFLES
EXISTING GRADE
TYPICAL EMBANKMENT DETAIL
NORMAL POOL 757
30" DIA. RISER
TRASH RACK
EXISTING GRADE
BOTTOM OF POND
SLOPE
CREST EL. 760
CL
CENTERLINE CUTOFF TRENCH
TYPICAL DROP INLET DETAIL
N.T.S.
BASE
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY DEPTH EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
18" DIA. BARREL PIPE
1' FREEBOARD
1' FREEBOARD
50% CLEANOUT EL 754.86
PROPOSED EWR FLUME NO. 5
50% CLEANOUT EL (754.86)
B'
POOL EL. = 757.0
BOTTOM EL. 751.0
2:
1
50% CLEANOUT EL. = 754.86CREST EL. 760
10 FT. ACCESS
CL
CENTERLINE CUTOFF TRENCH
PLAN VIEW : PROPOSED EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3
SCALE: 1" = 50'
CHAIN LINK FENCE
2.5:1
3+00 13+0014+0015+0019+001+001+000+00751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
PRINCIPAL SPILLWAY (757.00)
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY (758.00)
TOP OF STRUCTURE
(760.00)
Accumulative Storage (Acre-Ft)Elevation MSLSTAGE STORAGE CURVE
EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3
STORAGE VOLUME COMPUTATIONS
EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3
ELEV.
(ft)
Width
(ft)
LENGTH
(ft)
AREA
(ac)
AVG.
AREA
(ac)
INTERVAL
(ft)
STORAGE
(ac-ft)
ACC.
STORAGE
(ac-ft)
STAGE
INTERVAL
(ft)
751.00 N/A N/A 0.4018
752.00 N/A N/A 0.4364 0.4191 1.00 0.4189 0.4189 1.00
753.00 N/A N/A 0.4714 0.4539 1.00 0.4539 0.8728 2.00
754.00 N/A N/A 0.5066 0.4890 1.00 0.4890 1.3618 3.00
755.00 N/A N/A 0.5420 0.5243 1.00 0.5243 1.8860 4.00
756.00 N/A N/A 0.5775 0.5597 1.00 0.5597 2.4458 5.00
757.00 N/A N/A 0.6131 0.5953 1.00 0.5953 3.0410 6.00
758.00 N/A N/A 0.6489 0.6310 1.00 0.6310 3.6720 7.00
759.00 N/A N/A 0.6848 0.6669 1.00 0.6668 4.3388 8.00
760.00 N/A N/A 0.7208 0.7028 1.00 0.7028 5.0416 9.00
Channel Design (Non-Erodible)
Channel Type: Trapezoidal, Equal Side Slopes
Dimensions: Left Side Slope 2.00:1
Right Side Slope 2.00:1
Base Dimension: 45.00
Wetted Perimeter: 49.70
Area of Wetted Cross Section: 49.52
Channel Slope: 0.1000
Manning's n of Channel: 0.0423
Discharge: 54.88 cfs
Depth of Flow: 1.05 feet
Velocity: 1.11 fps
Channel Lining: 18 inch Rock Rip-Rap
Freeboard: 1.00 feet
BEN
C
H 2
%
SL
O
P
E
BEN
C
H 2
%
SL
O
P
E
BENCH 2%
SLOPEBENCH 2%
SLOPEBENCH 2
% SL
OPE
770780790800810810800790780770768760860850840830820BENCH 2%
SLOPE
PROPOSED EWR DITCH NO. 4
PROPOSED EWR DITCH NO. 5
PROPOSED EXIT CHANNEL
PROPOSED EMERGENCY
SPILLWAY
PROPOSED PRINCIPAL
SPILLWAY
STONE ENERGY DISSIPATOR
A
A'CREST / ACCESS - 10' WIDE752760760751751751CL 2:1 2:
1
3+50 4+00 4+50
POOL EL. = 757.0
50% CLEANOUT EL. = 754.86
BOTTOM EL. 751.0
1
2
1
2
10.00 ft.
0.43 ft.
1.00ft. Freeboard
PROPOSED EXIT CHANNEL
N.T.S.
Channel Design (Non-Erodible)
Channel Type: Trapezoidal, Equal Side Slopes
Dimensions: Left Side Slope 2.00:1
Right Side Slope 2.00:1
Base Dimension: 10.00
Wetted Perimeter: 11.91
Area of Wetted Cross Section: 4.63
Channel Slope: 40.0000
Manning's n of Channel: 0.0423
Discharge: 54.87 cfs
Depth of Flow: 0.43 feet
Velocity: 11.84 fps
Channel Lining: 18 inch Rock Rip-Rap
Freeboard: 1.00 feet
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
PIEDMONT LITHIUM
ADERHOLDT RDHEPHZIBAH CHURCH R
D
PLANT SITE
FENCE
6 FEET HIGH
FENCE
6 FEET HIGH87
0
WWR DITCH NO. 1
90
0
87
0
86
0
82
0
81
0
78
0
760770810820860870900790810820850
87
0 86
0
85
0
81
0
80
0
77
081082083083082081077076079081082086087090
0
87
0
86
0
82
0
81
0
78
0
760770810820860870900790810820850
87
0 86
0
85
0
81
0
80
0
77
0810820830830820810770760790810820860870
EWR DITCH NO. 1
EWR FLUME NO. 1
POND ACCESS ROAD
EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2
EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3
EWR DITCH NO. 2
EWR DITCH NO. 3
EWR DITCH NO. 4
EWR DITCH NO. 4
EWR DITCH NO. 5
EWR DITCH NO. 5EWR DITCH NO. 6
EWR DITCH NO. 6
PROPOSED 30" CMP
EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 1
EWR FLUME NO. 2
EWR FLUME NO. 3
EWR FLUME NO. 4
EWR FLUME NO. 5
EWR FLUME NO. 6
K
J
M
P19+0010+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+0018+0019+0020+0021+0022+0023+0024+001+001+0
0
2
+
0
0 3+004+005+006+007+008+009+0010+0011+0012+0013+0014+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+00
9+00
1
+
0
0
2
+
0
0
3
+
0
0
4
+
0
0
5
+
0
0
6
+
0
0 7+0
0
8+
00 9+0010+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+0018+00
19+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+000+000+000+001
+
0
0
2+
0
0
3+00
0+00 0+000
+
0
01+002+002+003+004+001+002+000+000+001+002+001+0
0
2+
00
1+001+00
0+000+000
+
0
0
0+00PROPOSED EWR DISPOSAL AREA
EWR DRAINAGE PATTERN MAP.dwg
300200200
Scale in Feet
0BENCHBENCH 2%BE
N
C
H

2
%
BEN
C
H 2
%
B
E
N
C
H

2
%BENCH 2%BENCHBENCH

2
%
BEN
C
H 2
%BENCH 2%BENCHBE
N
C
H

2
%BENCHBENCHBENC
H

2
%
B
E
N
C
H
PROPOSED EWR DISPOSAL AREAEWR SECTION NO. 1
EWR SECTION NO. 2
PIT
PIT
PIT
PIT
NORTH
CENTRAL
SOUTH
EAST
LOW WATER CROSSING
7
9
9
7
9
9
8
1
0816
816
8
1
0
8
1
0
HAUL ROAD
PLANT TO SOUTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
PLANT TO NORTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
CENTRAL PIT TO SOUTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
PLANT THRU CENTRAL PIT
776
77676
8
762
810802794786
780785785
7
71 771 785CREST /
ACCESS

-
10
'
W
IDE7627807807687
80
780CREST 10
'
W
IDE
760
CREST / ACCESS - 10' WIDE752760760
751751
751
DRAINAGE PATTERN MAP
E
F
C
B
G
H
I
J
L
K
O
N
P
D
V
W
A
S
T
U
R
Q
COMPONENT DRAINAGE TABLE
DISTURBED AREA
B
D
C
A
ACRES
0.1
2.1
1.4
0.1
F
H
G
E
0.3
0.1
0.3
3.0
I 0.6
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA = 35.5 ACRES
K
M
L
J
3.6
-
1.6
0.1
N 0.04
P
R
Q
O
3.8
0.3
1.7
4.6
S 3.3
U
W
V
T
1.1
1.1
3.4
2.1
X 0.1
LEGEND
100 YR. FLOOD PLAIN
DELINEATED WETLANDS
DELINEATED PONDS
DELINEATED STREAMS
PROPOSED DITCHES
PROPOSED FLUMES
BUILDING / STRUCTURE
DRAINAGE AREAS
DRAINAGE AREA LABEL6
SILT FENCE
CREST 7+36.57
-2.01
SAG 11+37.27
-10.00-10.0
0
CREST 15+62.27 SAG 17+49.95-3.60 -10.00
CREST 22+03.01-4.51 -9.67 -7.49
CREST 5+35.44
-
2
.
0
0
-
2
.
8
8
-2
.
8
8
-9.78
-
3
.
0
1
SAG 16+08.48
CREST 18+89.21-1.00-5.65-5.65-3.7
7
-0
.
2
6
CREST 3+79.49-1.57 -6.91 -6.91
-1.
1
9
-10.00
SAG 21+18.17
-5.
9
9
C7
C6
SB1
C5
ST1
SB5
ST8
ST9
ST10
ST12
ST13
C3
C4
ST11
ST14ST15
ST16
ST17
ST18
ST19
ST20
ST21
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16
C17
C18
SB2
C20
SB6
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
PIEDMONT LITHIUM
C10
C9
ST3
ST4
C8
D1
ST2
ST5
FENCE
6 FEET HIGH
EXISTING STREAM CROSSING
100 FEET LOT LINE BUFFER200 FEET STRUCTURES BUFFER300 FEET RESIDENTIAL BUFFERPROPERTY LINEMINE
PERM
IT
25
'
BUFFERMINE
PERM
IT
L
INE
SB4
SB3
CONCRETE HEADWALL (BOTH ENDS)
CONCRETE FLUME TO SB1
TYPICAL PIT POND
PLAN VIEW : PROPOSED SEDIMENT POND NO. SB1
PROPOSED SEDIMENT POND SB1
Scale As Shown
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
SCALE: 1" = 50'
1
2
1
2
75'-4"
1'
1' Freeboard
PROPOSED EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
N.T.S.
PONDS FOR 401-404.dwg
CUTOFF TRENCH DETAIL
2'
SUITABLE EARTHEN MATERIAL
C CUTOFF TRENCH
2' MAXIMUM IF NOT CUT TO BEDROCK
CL
L
EXISTING GROUND (ABUTMENTS)
FILL MATERIAL
1
1
COMPACTED TO 95% OF STANDARD
PROCTOR MAX. DRY DENSITY
WITHIN ±2% OPTIMUM MOISTURE
N.T.S.
CONTENT
NORMAL POOL 807.00
RISER (90" x 92" CONCRETE BOX)
TRASH RACK
EXISTING GRADE
BOTTOM OF POND (EL. 798)
2.19% SLOPE
CREST EL. 810
TYPICAL DROP INLET DETAIL
N.T.S.
BASE 36" C.M.P. PIPE BARREL
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
1' FREEBOARD
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY DEPTH
1' FREEBOARD
50% CLEANOUT EL 803.48
PRELIMINARY
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
0.0
0.00
0.6
0.08
1.2
0.16
1.8
0.24
2.4
0.32
3.0
0.40
3.6
0.48
PRINCIPAL SPILLWAY (807.00)
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY (808.00)
TOP OF STRUCTURE(810.00)
Accumulative Storage (Acre-Ft)
AREA (ac.)Elevation MSLStage Storage Curve
SB1
Storage volume computations
SB1
ELEV.
(ft)
Width
(ft)
LENGTH
(ft)
AREA
(ac)
AVG.
AREA
(ac)
INTERVAL
(ft)
STORAGE
(ac-ft)
ACC.
STORAGE
(ac-ft)
STAGE
INTERVAL
(ft)
798.00 N/A N/A 0.1245
800.00 N/A N/A 0.1650 0.1448 2.00 0.2895 0.2895 2.00
802.00 N/A N/A 0.2091 0.1870 2.00 0.3741 0.6636 4.00
804.00 N/A N/A 0.2567 0.2329 2.00 0.4658 1.1294 6.00
806.00 N/A N/A 0.3081 0.2824 2.00 0.5648 1.6942 8.00
807.00 N/A N/A 0.3324 0.3202 1.00 0.3202 2.0145 9.00
808.00 N/A N/A 0.3630 0.3477 1.00 0.3477 2.3622 10.00
810.00 N/A N/A 0.4096 0.3863 2.00 0.7726 3.1348 12.00
50 % CLEAN-OUT EL. 803.48
Plant Site Flume to SB1 (outlet through berm)
Channel Type: Trapezoidal, Equal Side Slopes
Dimensions: Left Side Slope 2.00:1
Right Side Slope 2.00:1
Base Dimension: 10.00
Wetted Perimeter: 15.20
Area of Wetted Cross Section: 14.32
Channel Slope: 2.0000
Manning's n of Channel: 0.0135
Discharge: 214.27 cfs
Depth of Flow: 1.16 feet
Velocity: 14.96 fps
Channel Lining: Smooth Concrete
Freeboard: 1.00 feet
Plant Site Flume to SB1 (downslope section)
Channel Type: Trapezoidal, Equal Side Slopes
Dimensions: Left Side Slope 2.00:1
Right Side Slope 2.00:1
Base Dimension: 10.00
Wetted Perimeter: 12.04
Area of Wetted Cross Section: 4.97
Channel Slope: 50.0000
Manning's n of Channel: 0.0135
Discharge: 214.25 cfs
Depth of Flow: 0.46 feet
Velocity: 43.14 fps
Channel Lining: Smooth Concrete
Freeboard: 1.00 feet
SB1 Emergency Spillway Capacity
225.85 Required flow for 25-year storm (CFS)
Broad-crested Weir Equation:
Q=CLH
where:
Q=flow (cfs)
C=weir coefficient = 3.0
L=length of weir (ft)
H=head (ft)
Q 225.99 Design Flow (CFS)
C 3.0
L 75.33
H 1.00
3/2
2.5
1
CONCRETE FLUME DESIGN
N.T.S.
HAULROAD TO NORTH PIT
PLANT AREA PAD
SECTION A-A'
SCALE: 1" = 20'
SECTION B-B'
SCALE: 1" = 20'
50% CLEANOUT EL. = 803.48
POOL EL. = 807.00
C5
C4
SB1
CONCRETE FLUME TO SB1
80081082084083083084085
0
7
9
0
8
0
0
81
0
79
0
8
0
0
8
1
0
810
820
8308
4
0 830860850840860840850820860830820860800
810
820
8
1
0
A
A'B'
B
PROPOSED BAFFLES (TYP. OF 3 EA.)
36" DIA. C.M.P. PRINCIPAL SPILLWAY
W/ 92" X 90" CONCRETE RISER
STONE ENERGY DISSIPATOR
POOL EL. 807.00
50% C.O. EL. 803.48
SETTLED TOP OF EMBANKMENT EL. 810.00
SPILLWAY CREST EL. 808.00
BOTTOM EL. 798.00
BOTTOM EL. 798.00
2.5:
1
2.5:1
10'
2.5:
1
2.5:
1
2.5:1
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING GRADE
50% C.O. EL. 803.48
POOL EL. 807.00
PLAN VIEW : PROPOSED SEDIMENT POND NO. SB2
PROPOSED SEDIMENT POND SB2
Scale As Shown
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
SCALE: 1" = 30'
PROPOSED H.D.P.E. PIPE EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
N.T.S.
PONDS FOR 401-404.dwg
NORMAL POOL 793
18" C.M.P. RISER
TRASH RACK
EXISTING GRADE
BOTTOM OF POND (EL. 788)
2.8% SLOPE
CREST EL. 796
TYPICAL DROP INLET DETAIL
N.T.S.
BASE
15" C.M.P. PIPE BARREL
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
1' FREEBOARD
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY DEPTH
1' FREEBOARD
50% CLEANOUT EL 790.42
PRELIMINARY
2.5
1
HAULROAD TO NORTH PIT
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
0.0
0.00
0.1
0.02
0.2
0.04
0.3
0.06
0.4
0.08
PRINCIPAL SPILLWAY (792.00)
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY (793.00)
TOP OF STRUCTURE(796.00)
Accumulative Storage (Acre-Ft)
AREA (ac.)Elevation MSLStage Storage Curve
SB2
Storage volume computations
SB2
ELEV.
(ft)
Width
(ft)
LENGTH
(ft)
AREA
(ac)
AVG.
AREA
(ac)
INTERVAL
(ft)
STORAGE
(ac-ft)
ACC.
STORAGE
(ac-ft)
STAGE
INTERVAL
(ft)
788.00 N/A N/A 0.0120
790.00 N/A N/A 0.0244 0.0182 2.00 0.0363 0.0363 2.00
792.00 N/A N/A 0.0390 0.0317 2.00 0.0634 0.0997 4.00
793.00 N/A N/A 0.0475 0.0433 1.00 0.0433 0.1430 5.00
794.00 N/A N/A 0.0560 0.0475 1.00 0.0518 0.1948 6.00
796.00 N/A N/A 0.0753 0.0657 2.00 0.1314 0.3262 8.00
50 % CLEAN-OUT EL. 790.42
Shape: Circular
Material: HDPE
Diameter: 30.00 in
Manning's n: 0.0120
Number of Barrels: 1
Inlet
Inlet Type:
Ke: 0.40
Inverts
Inlet Invert Elevation: 793.000 ft
Outlet Invert Elevation: 784.000 ft
Length: 160.000 ft
Slope: 5.63 %
Culvert Calculation
Discharge: 21.3000 cfs
Headwater Elevation: 795.508 ft
Tailwater Elevation: 1.000 ft
Downstream Velocity: 16.80 ft/s
Downstream Flow Depth: 0.763 ft
Flow Control Type: Outlet Control, Gradually Varied Flow
PROFILE A-A'
SCALE: 1" = 20'
SECTION B-B'
SCALE: 1" = 20'
C6
SB2
97.0
30" H.D.P.E. EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
A
A'B
B'
15" C.M.P. PRINCIPAL
SPILLWAY
PROPOSED BAFFLES (TYP. OF 3 EA.)
B
STONE ENERGY DISSIPATORS
790
8
1
0
80
0
790
810820800810
800790810800790800
790
8
0
0
7
90790
POOL EL. 793.00 50% C.O. EL. 790.42
50% C.O. EL. 790.42
POOL EL. 793.00
HAULROAD TO NORTH PIT
HAULROAD TO NORTH PIT
2:1
2:1
2:1 2:1
PLAN VIEW : PROPOSED SEDIMENT POND NO. SB3
PROPOSED SEDIMENT POND SB3
Scale As Shown
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
SCALE: 1" = 20'
1
2
1
2
5'
1'
1' Freeboard
PROPOSED EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
N.T.S.
PONDS FOR 401-404.dwg
CUTOFF TRENCH DETAIL
2'
SUITABLE EARTHEN MATERIAL
C CUTOFF TRENCH
2' MAXIMUM IF NOT CUT TO BEDROCK
CL
L
EXISTING GROUND (ABUTMENTS)
FILL MATERIAL
1
1
COMPACTED TO 95% OF STANDARD
PROCTOR MAX. DRY DENSITY
WITHIN ±2% OPTIMUM MOISTURE
N.T.S.
CONTENT
NORMAL POOL 781
18" C.M.P. RISER
TRASH RACK
EXISTING GRADE
BOTTOM OF POND (EL. 777)
6.9% SLOPE
CREST EL. 784
TYPICAL DROP INLET DETAIL
N.T.S.
BASE
15" C.M.P. PIPE BARREL
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
1' FREEBOARD
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY DEPTH
1' FREEBOARD
50% CLEANOUT EL 779.34
PRELIMINARY
2.5
1
N.T.S.
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
0.0
0.00
0.1
0.02
0.2
0.04
0.3
0.06
PRINCIPAL SPILLWAY (781.00)
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY (782.00)
TOP OF STRUCTURE(784.00)
Accumulative Storage (Acre-Ft)
AREA (ac.)Elevation MSLStage Storage Curve
SB3
Storage volume computations
SB3
ELEV.
(ft)
Width
(ft)
LENGTH
(ft)
AREA
(ac)
AVG.
AREA
(ac)
INTERVAL
(ft)
STORAGE
(ac-ft)
ACC.
STORAGE
(ac-ft)
STAGE
INTERVAL
(ft)
777.00 N/A N/A 0.0147
778.00 N/A N/A 0.0197 0.0172 1.00 0.0172 0.0172 1.00
780.00 N/A N/A 0.0313 0.0255 2.00 0.0510 0.0682 3.00
781.00 N/A N/A 0.0380 0.0347 1.00 0.0347 0.1028 4.00
782.00 N/A N/A 0.0453 0.0416 1.00 0.0416 0.1445 5.00
784.00 N/A N/A 0.0615 0.0534 2.00 0.1068 0.2513 7.00
50 % CLEAN-OUT EL. 779.34
SB3 Emergency Spillway Capacity
15.07 CFS Required flow for 25-year storm
Broad-crested Weir Equation:
Q=CLH
where:
Q=flow (cfs)
C=weir coefficient = 3.0
L=length of weir (ft)
H=head (ft)
Q 15.09 Design Flow (CFS)
C 3.0
L 5.03
H 1.00
3/2
PROFILE A-A'
SCALE: 1" = 20'
SECTION B-B'
SCALE: 1" = 20'
HAULROAD TO NORTH PIT
C7
SB3
A
A'
B
B'STONE ENERGY DISSIPATOR
PROPOSED BAFFLES
(TYP. OF 3 EA.)80079078078079079
0
780
800
7807908008
1
0
82
0790 790
790
7
8
0
780
790 79079050% C.O. EL. 779.34
POOL EL. 781.00
50% C.O. EL. 779.34
POOL EL. 781.00
2:1
2:1
2:12:1
PLAN VIEW : PROPOSED SEDIMENT POND NO. SB4
PROPOSED SEDIMENT POND SB4
Scale As Shown
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
SCALE: 1" = 20'
1
2
1
2
18.7'
1'
1' Freeboard
PROPOSED EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
N.T.S.
PONDS FOR 401-404.dwg
CUTOFF TRENCH DETAIL
2'
SUITABLE EARTHEN MATERIAL
C CUTOFF TRENCH
2' MAXIMUM IF NOT CUT TO BEDROCK
CL
L
EXISTING GROUND (ABUTMENTS)
FILL MATERIAL
1
1
COMPACTED TO 95% OF STANDARD
PROCTOR MAX. DRY DENSITY
WITHIN ±2% OPTIMUM MOISTURE
N.T.S.
CONTENT
NORMAL POOL 763
30" C.M.P. RISER
TRASH RACK
EXISTING GRADE
BOTTOM OF POND (EL. 766)
2.0% SLOPE
CREST EL. 766
TYPICAL DROP INLET DETAIL
N.T.S.
BASE
24" C.M.P. PIPE BARREL
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
1' FREEBOARD
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY DEPTH
1' FREEBOARD
50% CLEANOUT EL 761.76
PRELIMINARY
2.5
1
N.T.S.
EXPLOSIVES MAGAZINE ROAD
SB4 Emergency Spillway Capacity
56.06 Required flow for 25-year storm
(CFS)
Broad-crested Weir Equation:
Q=CLH
where:
Q=flow (cfs)
C=weir coefficient = 3.0
L=length of weir (ft)
H=head (ft)
Q 56.10 Design Flow (CFS)
C 3.0
L 18.7
H 1.00
3/2
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
0.0
0.00
0.1
0.03
0.2
0.06
0.3
0.09
PRINCIPAL SPILLWAY (763.00)
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY (764.00)
TOP OF STRUCTURE(766.00)
Accumulative Storage (Acre-Ft)
AREA (ac.)Elevation MSLStage Storage Curve
SB4
Storage volume computations
SB4
ELEV.
(ft)
Width
(ft)
LENGTH
(ft)
AREA
(ac)
AVG.
AREA
(ac)
INTERVAL
(ft)
STORAGE
(ac-ft)
ACC.
STORAGE
(ac-ft)
STAGE
INTERVAL
(ft)
760.00 N/A N/A 0.0142
762.00 N/A N/A 0.0284 0.0213 2.00 0.0426 0.0426 2.00
763.00 N/A N/A 0.0363 0.0323 1.00 0.0323 0.0750 3.00
764.00 N/A N/A 0.0448 0.0405 1.00 0.0405 0.1155 4.00
766.00 N/A N/A 0.0551 0.0499 2.00 0.0999 0.2154 6.00
50 % CLEAN-OUT EL. 761.76
PROFILE A-A'
SCALE: 1" = 20'
SECTION B-B'
SCALE: 1" = 20'
C9
SB4
C8
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
0.0
0.00
0.1
0.03
0.2
0.06
0.3
0.09
PRINCIPAL SPILLWAY (763.00)
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY (764.00)
TOP OF STRUCTURE(766.00)
Accumulative Storage (Acre-Ft)
AREA (ac.)
Eleva
t
i
o
n

M
S
L
AP. Stage Storage CurveSB4 0.0
0
Storage volume computations
SB4
ELEV.(ft)Width(ft)LENGTH(ft)AREA(ac)AVG.AREA(ac)INTERVAL(ft)STORAGE(ac-ft)ACC.STORAGE(ac-ft)STAGEINTERVAL(ft)760.00 N/A N/A 0.0142762.00 N/A N/A 0.0284 0.0213 2.00 0.0426 0.0426 2.00763.00 N/A N/A 0.0363 0.0323 1.00 0.0323 0.0750 3.00764.00 N/A N/A 0.0448 0.0405 1.00 0.0405 0.1155 4.00766.00 N/A N/A 0.0551 0.0499 2.00 0.0999 0.2154 6.00
760770780770770770760
760PROPOSED BAFFLES
(TYP. OF 3 EA.)
A
B
B'
A'770STONE ENERGY DISSIPATOR
50% C.O. EL. 761.76
POOL EL. 763.00
50% C.O. EL. 761.76
POOL EL. 763.00
PLAN VIEW : PROPOSED SEDIMENT POND NO. SB5
PROPOSED SEDIMENT POND SB5
Scale As Shown
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
SCALE: 1" = 40'
1
2
1
2
21'
1'
1' Freeboard
PROPOSED EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
N.T.S.
PONDS FOR 401-404.dwg
CUTOFF TRENCH DETAIL
2'
SUITABLE EARTHEN MATERIAL
C CUTOFF TRENCH
2' MAXIMUM IF NOT CUT TO BEDROCK
CL
L
EXISTING GROUND (ABUTMENTS)
FILL MATERIAL
1
1
COMPACTED TO 95% OF STANDARD
PROCTOR MAX. DRY DENSITY
WITHIN ±2% OPTIMUM MOISTURE
N.T.S.
CONTENT
NORMAL POOL 773
30" C.M.P. RISER
TRASH RACK
EXISTING GRADE
BOTTOM OF POND (EL. 769)
6.9% SLOPE
CREST EL. 776
TYPICAL DROP INLET DETAIL
N.T.S.
BASE
24" C.M.P. PIPE BARREL
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
1' FREEBOARD
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY DEPTH
1' FREEBOARD
50% CLEANOUT EL 771.60
PRELIMINARY
2.5
1
N.T.S.
ROAD TO EAST PIT
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
0.0
0.00
0.2
0.05
0.4
0.10
0.6
0.15
0.8
0.20
1.0
0.25
PRINCIPAL SPILLWAY (773.00)
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY (774.00)
TOP OF STRUCTURE(776.00)
Accumulative Storage (Acre-Ft)
AREA (ac.)Elevation MSLStage Storage Curve
SB5
Storage volume computations
SB5
ELEV.
(ft)
Width
(ft)
LENGTH
(ft)
AREA
(ac)
AVG.
AREA
(ac)
INTERVAL
(ft)
STORAGE
(ac-ft)
ACC.
STORAGE
(ac-ft)
STAGE
INTERVAL
(ft)
769.00 N/A N/A 0.0000
770.00 N/A N/A 0.0635 0.0318 1.00 0.0318 0.0318 1.00
772.00 N/A N/A 0.1334 0.0984 2.00 0.1969 0.2286 3.00
773.00 N/A N/A 0.1650 0.1492 1.00 0.1492 0.3778 4.00
774.00 N/A N/A 0.1906 0.1778 1.00 0.1778 0.5555 5.00
776.00 N/A N/A 0.2482 0.2194 2.00 0.4388 0.9943 7.00
50 % CLEAN-OUT EL. 771.60
SB5 Emergency Spillway Capacity
63.19 CFS Required flow for 25-year storm
Broad-crested Weir Equation:
Q=CLH
where:
Q=flow (cfs)
C=weir coefficient = 3.0
L=length of weir (ft)
H=head (ft)
Q 63.21 Design Flow (CFS)
C 3.0
L 21.07
H 1.00
3/2
PROFILE A-A'
SCALE: 1" = 20'
SECTION B-B'
SCALE: 1" = 20'
SB5
C13
C14
A
A'
B'
B
STONE ENERGY DISSIPATOR
PROPOSED BAFFLES
(TYP. OF 3 EA.)
7
7
0
7
7
0
780
790800790800810790780770760 760770780
790
800
810
50% C.O. EL. 779.34
POOL EL. 781.00
50% C.O. EL. 779.34
POOL EL. 781.00
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY
EXIT CHANNEL
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00
760
780
800
760
780
800
A-A'
1'
INV. 782.0
H/W = 5.44'
PROPOSED NORTH
PIT HAULROAD
220'
BURIED (BOTH ENDS) FOR
AQUATIC LIFE PASSAGE
LENGTH OF IMPACT
INV. 774.0
(2)@ 180 L.F.
5' H X 10' W
CONCRETE
BOX CULVERTS
EXISTING
GRADE
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00
740
760
780
740
760
780
B-B'
EXISTING
GRADE
PROPOSED
MAGAZINE
ROAD
1'
BURIED (BOTH ENDS) FOR
AQUATIC LIFE PASSAGE
INV. 759.4
H/W = 5.51'
90 L.F.
5' H X 4'
CONCRETE
BOX CULVERT
INV. 755.4
110'
LENGTH OF IMPACT
C9
SB4
C7
C6
C8
SB2
SB3
D2
D1790810770780800
770
750
750
760
760
78
0
760780770810820800
8
3
0 800820810800810790770
770
790
800
780 780PROPOSED NORTH
PIT HAULROAD
PROPOSED
MAGAZINE
ROAD
SILT FENCE (TYP.)
CONCRETE HEADWALL (BOTH ENDS)
CONCRETE HEADWALL (BOTH ENDS)
PROPOSED STREAM CROSSINGS
Scale As Shown
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
C7 & C8 AT NORTH PIT AREA
C7-C8.dwg
PRELIMINARY
Flared ends and/or rip rap should be used to prevent scouring around the inlet and outlet of culverts.
Appropriate erosion and sediment controls, including silt fencing and/or straw bales, should be installed
parallel to the stream to prevent downstream impacts during installation.
Disturbance of the streambed and banks should be limited to that necessary to place the culvert.
Affected bank and bed areas should be restored to pre-project conditions following installation of the
culvert and the banks should be planted with native vegetation, consistent with that which existed prior
to the culvert installation. Seeded banks should be covered with mulch to accelerate plant growth.
PROFILES - HAUL ROADS
Scale As Shown
HAUL ROADS.dwg
HAUL ROAD - PLANT TO SOUTH PIT
V SCALE: 1" = 200'
0+00 5+00 10+00 15+00 20+00 25+00 30+00 35+00 40+00 45+00 50+00 55+00
600
800
1000
600
800
1000
1.96%-4.64%1.32%-3.01%1.00%
-5.65%
-2.98%8.00%-8.00%8.00%
-3.77%
0+00 5+00 10+00 15+00 20+00 25+00 30+00
600
800
1000
600
800
1000
-7.93%2.01%-10.00
%
10.00%
-3.60%10.00%
4.51%-9.67%
-7.49%
0+00 5+00 10+00 15+00 20+00 25+00 30+00
600
800
1000
600
800
1000
0.26%1.57%-6.91%
-1.19%-10.00
%
-5.99%10.00%
0+00 5+00 10+00 15+00 20+00 25+00
600
800
1000
600
800
1000
0.38%2.00%
-2.88%
-9.78%
0+00 5+00 10+00 15+00 20+00 25+00 30+00
600
800
1000
600
800
1000
-4.00%-10.00
%
-2.32%4.51%
9.54%
-2.00%7.50%0.00%
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GROUND
EXISTING GROUND
EXISTING GROUND
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE PROPOSED GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
H SCALE: 1" = 500'ELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONHAUL ROAD - CENTRAL PIT TO EAST PIT
V SCALE: 1" = 200'
H SCALE: 1" = 500'
HAUL ROAD - PLANT TO NORTH PIT
V SCALE: 1" = 200'
H SCALE: 1" = 500'
HAUL ROAD - PLANT THRU CENTRAL PIT
V SCALE: 1" = 200'
H SCALE: 1" = 500'
HAUL ROAD - MAGAZINE ROAD
V SCALE: 1" = 200'
H SCALE: 1" = 500'
MIN. SLOPE
MIN. SLOPE
DIA.
HAUL ROAD - TYPICAL
N.T.S.
SURFACE W/NON TOXIC
NON/ACID FORMING
CRUSHED STONE
SUMP
MIN. 12" DIA. ROCK RIPRAP MIN. COVER 1.0' OR
1
2 DIA. OF PIPE WHICHEVER
IS GREATER
MIN. 12" DIA. ROCK RIPRAP
MIN. SLOPE
CULVERT
W = 80'
W = 20' MAGAZINE ROAD
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
PIEDMONT LITHIUM
PLAN VIEW : PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BRIDGE TO SOUTH PIT
Scale As Shown
SCALE: 1" = 100'
Bridge Details.dwg
PROFILE A-A'
SCALE: 1" =20'
Prepared For:
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
Gaston County, NC
PIEDMONT LITHIUM
BRIDGE NOTES:
1.Through the use of Best Management Practices (BMP)
(e.g. sediment fences, erosion control structures,
diversion ditches, silt fence, and revegetation measures),
runoff from disturbed ground during bridge construction
will be intercepted before it is able to reach the creek.
Sediment yield from disturbed areas will be managed by
sediment control structures and temporary and
permanent vegetation, such that any added sediment
load to the receiving stream is expected to be minimal
during construction activities. Drainage control
structures, along with the contemporaneous regrading
and revegetation of disturbed areas are expected to
prevent or minimize the contributions of suspended
solids. All disturbed areas will be seeded as quickly as
possible. Once the bridge construction is completed,
disturbed areas will be reclaimed to further minimize
runoff.
100 YR. FLOOD PLAIN
LEGEND
DELINEATED PONDS
DELINEATED STREAMS
DELINEATED WETLANDS
HAUL ROAD CONTOURS
SILT FENCE
CULVERTS
SUMPS
ZONING FENCE
ST20
ST21
C17
ST22
ST23
ST24
ST25 830790810
840820780800
80
0
78
0
820
84
0
81
0
79
0
83
0
860860830
840
850 7908
1
0
820
780800
82
0
81
0
83
0
840
79
0
78079
0
81
0 78080
0
780 780790770A
A'
HAUL ROAD
PLANT TO SOUTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
PLANT TO SOUTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
CENTRAL PIT TO SOUTH PIT
PROPOSED BRIDGE Beaverdam Creek
CENTRAL
PIT
SOUTH
PIT
SILT FENCE
BOTH SIDES OF STREAM
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES (SEE NOTE)
0+00 0+20 0+40 0+60 0+80 1+00 1+20 1+40 1+60 1+80 2+00 2+20 2+40 2+60 2+80 3+00 3+20 3+40 3+60 3+80
760
780
800
820
840
760
780
800
820
840
100-YR FLOODPLAIN EL. 774
7.04% 6.91%
FLOODWAY
106'
FACE-TO-FACE OF BRIDGE ABUTMENTS
BRIDGE DECK EL. 790.0ELEVATION ELEVATIONEXISTING GROUND
HAUL ROAD
PLANT TO SOUTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
PLANT TO SOUTH PIT
EXISTING GROUND
FLAT ROCK DR GASTON WEBBS CHAPEL RD
ADERHOLDT RDHEPHZIBAH CHURCH RD
RUDISILL R
D
H
A
S
T
I
N
G
S

R
D
FOR
E
S
T

D
E
L
L
I
N
G
E
R

R
D
WILL KISER RDHEPHZIBAH CHURCH RD
WHITE
SI
D
E
S
R
DHEPHZIBAH
CHURCH
RD100 FEET LOT LINE BUFFER100 F
E
E
T
L
O
T
LI
N
E
B
U
F
F
E
R
200 F
E
E
T
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
S
B
U
F
F
E
R
300 F
E
E
T
R
E
SI
D
E
N
TI
A
L
B
U
F
F
E
R
1
0
0

F
E
E
T

L
O
T

L
I
N
E

B
U
F
F
E
R
2
0
0

F
E
E
T

S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
S

B
U
F
F
E
R
3
0
0

F
E
E
T

R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

B
U
F
F
E
R
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y

L
I
N
E
PROP
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
PROPERTY LINENORTH ENTRANCE
ROADALTERNATE
FUTURE
ROAD
FUEL YARD
OFFICE
NORTH
LAKE
CENTRAL
LAKE
PLANT SITE RECLAMATION:
STRUCTURES REMOVED,
REGRADED TO DRAIN,
RE-VEGETATED.
WASTE PILE RECLAMATION:
GRADED TO DRAIN,
STABILIZED WITH EXISTING ROCK
OR VEGETATED.
WASTE PILE RECLAMATION:
GRADED TO DRAIN,
STABILIZED WITH EXISTING ROCK
OR VEGETATED.MIN
E

P
ERM
I
T

L
IN
EMIN
E

P
ERM
I
T

2
5
'
BU
F
F
ER
MIN
E P
E
R
MIT LI
N
E
MINE
P
E
R
MIT 25' B
UFF
E
R
MI
N
E

P
E
R
M
I
T

L
I
N
EMI
N
E

P
E
RM
I
T

2
5
'

B
U
F
F
E
R
FENCE
6 FEET HIGH
FENCE
6 FEET HIGH
FENCE
6 FEET HIGH
FENCE
6 FEET HIGH200 FEET STRUCTURES BUFFER300 FEET RESIDENTIAL BUFFER860870
910
900 890 880
910
900
890
900
890
880
850
860
870
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AREA
MINE PERMIT LINEMINE PERMIT 25' BUFFER100 FEET LOT LINE BUFFER200 FEET STRUCTURES BUFFER300 FEET RESIDENTIAL BUFFERPROPERTY LINEA
A'
WEST WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL AREA
Little Beaverdam CreekBeaverdam CreekBe
a
v
e
r
d
am
C
r
e
e
k
Beave
r
d
a
m
C
r
e
e
k
11
4
0
11
3
0
10
9
0
10
4
0
10
8
0
9
9
0
94
0
89
0
84
0
840
890
9409901030108011201
14
0
1
1
30
1
09
01080 10401030990980 94094093093089088087687
0
880 890
930
940 980
1090
1080
1040
990
850
880
890
930
9
4
0
9
3
0
8
9
0
9
8
0
9
9
0
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 1
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 5
WWR DITCH NO. 1
WWR DITCH NO. 2
WWR DITCH NO. 3
WWR DITCH NO. 4
WWR DITCH NO. 5
WWR DITCH NO. 6
WWR DITCH NO. 7
WWR DITCH NO. 8
WWR DITCH NO. 9
WWR DITCH NO. 10
WWR FLUME NO. 1
WWR FLUME NO. 2
WWR FLUME NO. 3
WWR FLUME NO. 4
WWR FLUME NO. 5
WWR FLUME NO. 6
WWR FLUME NO. 7
WWR FLUME NO. 8
WWR FLUME NO. 9
WWR FLUME NO. 10
WWR FLUME NO. 11
WWR FLUME NO. 12
WWR FLUME NO. 13
WWR DITCH NO. 1
WWR DITCH NO. 1
POND ACCESS ROAD
POND ACCESS ROAD
POND ACCESS ROAD
POND ACCESS ROAD
WWR FLUME NO. 14
B
E
N
C
H

2%
B
E
N
C
H

2
%
B
E
N
C
H

2
%
B
E
N
C
H

2
%
B
E
N
C
H

2
%
B
E
N
C
H
BENCH 2%
BENCH 2%
BENCH 2%
BENCH 2%
BENCH
BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH 2%BENCH
2%BENCH
2%
BEN
C
H 2
%BENCH 2
%
BENC
H
2
%
BENC
H
2
%
BENC
H
2
%
BEN
C
H
2
%
BEN
C
H
2
%
BEN
C
H
2
%
WWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 4
POND ACCESS ROAD
900
87
0
86
0
82
0
81
0
780
760770
810820860870900
790810820850
87
086
0
85
0
81
0
80
0
77
0810820830830820810770760790810820860870900
87
0
86
0
82
0
81
0
780
760770
810820860870900
790810820850
87
086
0
85
0
81
0
80
0
77
0810820830830820810770760790810820860870EWR DITCH NO. 1
EWR FLUME NO. 1
POND ACCESS ROAD
EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 2
EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 3
EWR DITCH NO. 2
EWR DITCH NO. 3
EWR DITCH NO. 4
EWR DITCH NO. 4
EWR DITCH NO. 5
EWR DITCH NO. 5
EWR DITCH NO. 6
EWR DITCH NO. 6
PROPOSED CMP
EWR SEDIMENT POND NO. 1
EWR FLUME NO. 2
EWR FLUME NO. 3
EWR FLUME NO. 4
EWR FLUME NO. 5
EWR FLUME NO. 6
LOW WATER CROSSING
SCREENING BERM NO. 3
SCREENING BERM NO. 2
1+002+003+001+001+002+003+004+005+001+00
2+003+001
+
0
0
2+0
0 3+004+005+001+002+003+004+005+001+00
2+003+004+005+006+007+008+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+009+0010+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+0018+0019+0020+0021+0022+0023+0024+0025+0026+0027+0028+0029+0030+000+000+000+000+000+000+00 0+000
+
0
0
0+00
0+001+001+0
0
2
+
0
0 3+004+005+006+007+008+009+0010+0011+0012+0013+0014+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+00
9+00
1
+
0
0
2
+
0
0
3
+
0
0
4
+
0
0
5
+
0
0
6
+
0
0 7+008
+
0
0 9+0010+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+0018+00
19+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+000+000+000+001+002+
0
0
3+00
0+00 0+000
+
0
0
1+002+003+004+001+002+003+004+005+006+001+002+001+002+003+004+005+001+002+003+004+005+006+001+002+003+001+001+002+001+002+003+004+001+002+003+004+005+001+00
2+00
3+00
4+00
1+00
2+00
0+000+000+000+000+000+000+000+000+000+000+00
1+000+000+00
0+00
1+002+000+000+001+002+001
+
0
0
2
+
00
1+001+00
0+000+000
+
0
0
0+0079
9
79
981
0816
816
81
0
81
0
CREST /
A
C
C
E
S
S

-

1
0
'

W
I
D
E
790
790
790
775
775
780
775790
CREST / A
C
C
E
S
S - 1
0'
WIDE 790790800800786786788800CREST / ACCESS - 10' WIDE786
800
800
800 800
786
786
AC
C
E
S
S

-

1
0
'

W
I
D
E
CREST /840840826840840CREST / ACCESS ROAD - 10
' WIDE832840 840 829
829
840
CREST
/

A
C
C
E
S
S
R
O
A
D

-

1
0
'
W
I
D
E
LOW WATER CROSSING
EAST WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL AREA0+003+006+009+0012+0015+0018+0021+0024+0027+0030+0033+0036+0045+0048+0051+0054+0054+660+003+006+009+0012+0015+0018+000+003+006
+
0
0
9
+
0
0 12+0015+0018+0021+00HAUL ROAD
PLANT TO SOUTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
PLANT TO SOUTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
PLANT TO NORTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
CENTRAL PIT TO SOUTH PIT
HAUL ROAD
PLANT THRU CENTRAL PIT
HAUL ROAD
PLANT TO SOUTH PIT
77
6
77676
8 762PIT
DISCHARGE
PONDS
810
802
794
786
39+0042+000+003+006+009+
0
0
1
2
+
0
0 15+0018+0021+0024+0027+0028+6321+0024+0024+945
4
3
12
0
14
2
11
6
7
1
13
9
10
HEPHZIBAH CHURCH RD.
CLOSED TO THRU TRAFFIC
LOCAL USE ONLY
HEPHZIBAH CHURCH RD.
CLOSED
WHITESIDE RD.
CLOSED
HASTINGS RD.
CLOSED
SAG 3+03.89
-7
.
9
3
CREST 7+36.57
-2.01
SAG 11+37.27
-10.00-10.00
CREST 15+62.27 SAG 17+49.95-3.60 -10.00
CREST 22+03.01-4.51 -9.67 -7.49
CREST 5+35.44
-2.
0
0
-2
.
8
8
-2.
8
8
-9.78
CREST 0+58.72
-
1
.
9
6
-4
.
6
4
SAG 4+05.41
-
1
.
3
2
CREST 8+94.74
-
1
.
3
2
-3.
0
1
SAG 16+08.48
CREST 18+89.21-1.00-5.65-5.65-2.98SAG 34+64.35-2.98-8.00CREST 38+03.31
-8.00-8.00-8.00CREST 52+20.30-8.00-3.77
-0.
2
6
CREST 3+79.49-1.57 -6.91
-6.91
-1.
1
9
-10.00
SAG 21+18.17
-5.
9
9
-10.00 CREST 24+36.73-2.07
C7
C6
SB1
C5
ST1
SB5
ST8
ST9
ST10
ST12
ST13
C1
C2
C3
C4
ST11ST14ST15
ST16
ST17
ST18
ST19
ST20
ST21
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16
C17
ST22
ST23
ST24
ST25
C18
C19
SB2
CREST 1+30.60
-8.66
MAGAZINE RACK AREA
BEN
C
H
BEN
C
H
BEN
C
H
BEN
C
H
BEN
C
H
BEN
C
H
BENCH865860860850840830SOUTH PIT
830 820810
800 800790780
865 860860 840850830830 820810BACKFILL
EAST PIT
BACKFILL
EAST PIT
SOUTH
BACKFILL
NORTH
235.5
241.8
100.4
106.4
63.2
326.6
330.6
117.0
133.9
488.6
218.5
97.8
213.1
58.5
128.8
423.4
LIMITS OF EXCAVATION
LIMITS OF EXCAVATION
LIMITS OF EXCAVATION
TYP.
216.0
TYP.
100.0 MAGAZINE 2MAGAZINE 1MAGAZINE 3C11
C10
RD1
D1
ST3
ST6
ST7
ST4
C8
D1
ST2
ST5
FENCE
6 FEET HIGH
EXISTING STREAM CROSSING
SB4
SB3 CONCRETE HEADWALL (BOTH ENDS)
CONCRETE FLUME TO SB1
C9
BENC
H
BENC
H
BENC
H
BEN
C
H
BEN
C
H
770 780790
810
820800830 840850 860870
880
890 890880870870860
850
850840
820850840830870860870
890790780770830820810850860840890880870
May, 2019 JP SM CS JA
PIEDMONT LITHIUM, INC.
LINCOLNTON WEST QUADRANGLE
PIEDMONT LITHIUM
Bluefield, VA
PLAN VIEW
SCALE 1"=300'
3000 600 900
RECLAMATION MAP
300 FEET RESIDENTIAL BUFFER
200 FEET STRUCTURES BUFFER
100 FEET LOT BUFFER
MINE PERMIT LINE
PIEDMONT PROPERTY LINE
25 FEET MINE PERMIT BUFFER
CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2 FEET
GASTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
LEGEND
RECLAIM LAKES
SOUTH PIT BACKFILL
RECLAIM/REVEGETATED
EAST PIT BACKFILL
TYP.
12
11m TYP.11m TYP.
30m TYP.
30m TYP.
11m TYP.
11m TYP.
SAFETY BENCHES
2 HORIZONTAL TO 1 VERTICAL OF FINAL SLOPES
FOR UNCONSOLIDATED MATERIAL.
TYPICAL PIT CROSS SECTION
PIT CROSS SECTION
TYPICAL RECLAMATION
SAFETY BENCHES
OPENINGS
WITH 2" X 4"
6' HIGH FENCE
30' TYP
12° TYP
CENTERLINE OF PIT20' TYP
EXISTI
N
G
GROUN
D
80' TYPWATER
FILLED WITH
QUARRY TO BE 1
2
TYPICAL PIT BACKFILL SECTION
PIT WALL AT COMPLETION OF MINING
50'15'DIST VARIES
WITH 2:1 SLOPE
25'
SLOPE BENCH TO BERM
AT 10:1
2
1
WITH 2:1 SLOPE
HEIGHT VARIES
30' MAX
ORIGINAL GROUND
6 FEET HIGH WIRE FENCE DETAIL 24"-36"72"48"24"2" x 4" OPENINGS MAXIMUM
6 FEET HIGH FENCE
WOOD POST
5" DIA.
14' (MA
X
)
OR METAL T POST
PITOPENWARNIN
G
5. SEE PERMANENT SLOPE DRAIN DETAIL FOR CONSTRUCTION NOTES.
1. SLOPE TOP OF BERM TOWARDS EXISTING GROUND, MIN 1% SLOPE.
2. PROVIDE DIVERSION DITCH TO PERMANENT SLOPE DRAINS.
3. SLOPE DRAINS TO BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON PLANS.
SLOPE TO MINE SITE
50'15'DIST VARIES
WITH 2:1 SLOPE
25'
NOTES:
4. MAX. SIDE SLOPE TO BE 2:1.
SLOPE BENCH TO BERM
AT 10:1
2
1
WITH 2:1 SLOPE
HEIGHT VARIES
30' MAX
TYPICAL OVERBURDEN STORAGE SECTION WITH
BENCH
TYPICAL EARTHEN SCREEN BERM SECTION
12" CPP PERMANENT
SLOPE DRAIN
60'
INTERIOR
OF LOT
20'
12
60'
30'
TEMPORARY HIGHWALL BERM
BERM TO BE
CONSTRUCTED OF EARTH
OR BOULDERS
4'2'
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50 11+00750800850900750800850900TYPICAL SOUTH PIT BACKFILL SECTION
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+00
700
750
800
850
900
700
750
800
850
900
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00
800
850
900
950
800
850
900
950
TYPICAL EAST SOUTH PIT BACKFILL SECTION
TYPICAL EAST NORTH PIT BACKFILL SECTION
1 2
1
2
12 12
1
2
1
2
PROPOSED BACKFILL ORIGINAL GROUNDPROPOSED BACKFILL
ORIGINAL GROUND
PROPOSED BACKFILL
ORIGINAL GROUNDELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATION ELEVATIONELEVATIONELEVATIONMay, 2019 JP SM CS JA
PIEDMONT LITHIUM, INC.
LINCOLNTON WEST QUADRANGLE
PIEDMONT LITHIUM
Bluefield, VA
SECTION VIEWS
SCALE: NTS
DETAILS
300 FEET RESIDENTIAL BUFFER
200 FEET STRUCTURES BUFFER
100 FEET LOT BUFFER
MINE PERMIT LINE
PIEDMONT PROPERTY LINE
25 FEET MINE PERMIT BUFFER
CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2 FEET
GASTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Sediment Pond, Sediment Ditches, Ditches and Flumes
Prior to installation of drainage structures the sites shall be cleared and grubbed of all organic and
unsuitable material. Topsoil material shall be removed and stockpiled. All obstructions will be removed
along the line as is necessary for the construction of the sediment pond, sediment ditches, ditches and
flumes.

Excavation
The completed sediment pond, sediment ditches, ditches and flumes will conform to the cross-sections
shown on the applicable design drawings. The indicated design depths are minimum requirements; the
actual depths may be greater. The constructed channels will be generally free-draining and low areas will
not exceed 0.5 foot in depth. All portions of the channel will be finished and smoothed, if necessary, for the
establishment of vegetative cover. Field adjustments may be made to conform to actual site conditions, if
the minimum design configurations, specifications, and proper functioning of the drainage structure are
maintained.

Vegetated Lining
Channels requiring vegetated lining shall be covered with a layer of soil having a minimum thickness of 12
inches. The soil lined channel shall be vegetated in accordance with approved WVDEP reclamation plan.

Riprap Lining
Rock riprap lining, when required, shall be placed in a 1.5 feet minimum thick blanket on the bottom and
sides of the channel. The rock will be non-toxic, non-acid producing, durable rock having a minimum slake
durability of 95% with a median diameter (D50) of 12 inches. Twenty-five percent by weight of the rock will
be 1.5 times the median diameter or slightly larger. The remaining seventy-five percent will be well-graded
material consisting of sufficient rock small enough to fill the voids between the larger rocks. Shale or material
that will slake in water shall not be used.

Maintenance
The sediment ponds, sediment ditches, ditches and flumes will be kept free of sediment and other debris
during the working life of the facility, so the flow of water will remain unimpeded. Maintenance of the ditches
and bench flumes will be conducted throughout the like of the refuse facility to ensure protection against
channel erosion.

DITCHES
SITE PREPARATION
All obstructions and vegetative material will be removed along the line as is necessary for the
construction of the ditches.

EXCAVATION
The completed ditches will conform to the lines, grades, and cross-sections shown on the
applicable design drawings. The indicated design depths are minimum requirements; the actual
depths may be greater. The constructed channels will be generally free-draining and low areas will
not exceed one-half (0.5') feet in depth. All portions of the ditch will be finished and smoothed, if
necessary, for the establishment of vegetative cover. Field adjustments may be made to conform
to actual site conditions, if the minimum design configurations, specifications, and proper
functioning of the drainage structure are maintained.

VEGETATED LINING
Vegetated lining, when required, will be placed upon completion of final grade of ditch line, the
ditch shall be vegetated according to the reclamation plan.

ROCK RIPRAP LINING
Rock riprap lining, when required, will be placed in an eighteen (18) inch minimum thick blanket
on the bottom and sides of the channel. The rock will be non-toxic, non-acid producing, durable
rock having a minimum slake durability of ninety-five (95) percent and a median diameter (d50) of
twelve inches (12"). Twenty-five (25) percent by weight of the rock will be one and one-half (1-
1/2) times the median diameter or slightly larger. The remaining seventy-five (75) percent will be
well-graded material consisting of sufficient rock small enough to fill the voids between the larger
rocks.

GROUTED ROCK RIPRAP LINING
Grouted rock riprap lining, when required, will be placed in an eighteen (18) inch thick blanket on
the bottom and sides of the channel. The rock will be non-toxic, non-acid producing, durable rock
having a minimum slake durability of ninety-five (95) percent. The sizing of the rock shall range
in nominal diameter from three (3) inches to eighteen (18) inches with a minimum median diameter
(d50) of twelve (12) inches. Twenty-five (25) percent by weight of the rock will be one and one
half (1 – ½) times median diameter or slightly larger. Ten (10) percent of the rock shall be no
smaller than three (3) inches. The remaining sixty-five (65) percent of the rock will be graded
between three (3) and eighteen (18) inches. The grout shall be a sand/cement mixture with enough
water added to yield a workable consistency that will fully penetrate the rock riprap. The grout
mixture shall develop a twenty-eight (28) day compressive strength of three thousand (3000) psi.
The grout mixture shall be approved by the Engineer and/or Owner prior to placement.

WORKING EDGE DITCHES
Working edge ditches, when required, will be constructed in coarse refuse and maintained as
necessary to control surface drainage.

OUTLETS
The ditches will outlet as shown on the plans. The outlet area will be riprapped if necessary and
disturbed soil areas will be revegetated according to the reclamation plan.

MAINTENANCE
The ditches will be kept free of sediment and other debris during the working life of the facility so
that the flow of water will remain unimpeded. If needed, critical sections will be covered with
rock.

RESTORATION OF SURFACE AND/OR STRUCTURES
The contractor will restore the surface and/or structures disturbed to a condition equal to that before
the work began and to the satisfaction of the Engineer and/or Owner and will furnish all labor and
material incidental thereto.

CLEANING UP
Surplus material, tools and temporary structures will be removed by the Contractor. All dirt,
rubbish and excess earth from the excavation will be hauled to an approved disposal area provided
by the Contractor and the construction site will be left clean to the satisfaction of the Engineer
and/or Owner.

Plans and Specifications for Haulroads
A series of haul roads are is proposed under this application. Haul road ditches, sumps, culverts,
and ponds will control the runoff from the haul roads.
A. Design drawings, plan view, map, construction specifications and cross sections
A plan view of the primary road is shown on the Site Plan Map. Profiles and cross sections are
included on Road Profiles and Cross Sections included herein.
Clearing and Grubbing – Clearing and grubbing shall be done as described in this
application.
Excavation – If excavation is required to construct the roads, excavations shall not
be steeper than 2H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical) in soil or 0.25H:1V in rock. Details
regarding road construction are provided in this section.
Culverts – Culverts shall be installed at the approximate locations shown on the
design drawings. Size requirements are included this section.
B. Road width, gradient, and surfacing materials
As shown on the Site Plan Map and Road Profiles and Cross Section Sheet, the total width for
the haul road shall be a maximum 100 feet. The overall grade will not exceed 10 percent and the
maximum pitch grade will not exceed 15 percent for 300 feet in each 1,000 feet. The grade on
the switchback curves will be reduced to less than the approach grade and will not be greater
than 10 percent.
C. Fill embankment and road cut
Embankment sections required for road construction shall be benched into the original ground
surface (or existing fill) as shown on the benching detail included on the Road Profiles and Cross
Section Sheet.
D. Culverts, bridges, and low-water crossing
Ditch culverts shall be installed beneath roadways at the approximate locations shown on the
drawings.

E. Drainage ditches and structures
The appropriate haul road ditches and sump will be installed at the approximate locations shown
on the drawings.
F. Operation and maintenance procedures
Operation and maintenance procedures will consist of keeping a durable surface and keeping
sediment and drainage control structures maintained and operational. A road damaged by a
catastrophic event will be repaired as soon as practical after the damage has occurred.
G. Certification and periodic inspection procedures
Access roads and haul roads shall be inspected as part of the weekly site inspections required for
the facility. Certification of road construction shall be included in the required quarterly and
annual reports.
H. Abandonment and/or removal plan
Roads will be abandoned as soon as practical after they are no longer needed for construction or
reclamation operations. Regrade slopes shall be reshaped as necessary to be compatible with the
post-mining land use and revegetation requirements, and to compliment the natural drainage
pattern of the surrounding terrain.

Appendix D
Groundwater & Surface
Water Monitoring Year-to-
Date Data

Figure 1. Surface water and groundwater monitoring locations

Table 1. Year-to-date surface water baseline monitoring results Turbidity (NTU)DO (mg/L)pHSpecific Conductivity (µS/cm)ORP (mV)Temperature (°C)Arsenic (µg/L)Barium (µg/L)Cadmium (µg/L)Chromium (µg/L)Lead (µg/L)Lithium (µg/L)Manganese (µg/L)Selenium (µg/L)Silver (µg/L)Mercury (µg/L)Bicarbonate (CaCO3) (mg/L)Carbonate (CaCO3) (mg/L)Total CaCO3 (mg/L)Chlorophyll a (mg/m^3)Chlorophyll b (mg/m^3)Chlorophyll c (mg/m^3)Chlorophyll a (Corrected) (mg/m^3)Pheophytin (mg/m^3)Total Nitrogen (mg/L)Nitrogen, Ammonia (mg/L)Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L)Nitrogen, NO2+NO3 (mg/L)Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L)Chloride (mg/L)Fluoride (mg/L)Sulfate (mg/L)Phosphorus (mg/L)Cyanide (mg/L)2/14/2019 8.52 15.55 6.17 61.3 298.1 6.1 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 10.4 <7.7 <7.7 <7.7 14.9 NS <0.10 NS NS 4.1 NM NM NM NM <0.050 NM3/21/2019 NM 12.50 6.55 147.8 179.7 9.8 <10.0 12.4 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 10.8 24.9 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 21.7 <5.0 21.7 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 72.2 0.79 <0.10 <0.50 0.53 4.4 52.0 3.5 <0.10 2.6 <0.050 <0.00804/23/2019 10.30 9.82 7.31 68.5 41.3 13.6 <10.0 17.3 <1.0 <5.0 <5.012.4 44 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 22.7 <5.0 22.7 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 0.87 <0.10 <0.50 0.56 7.9 80 3.4 <0.10 2.6 <0.050 <0.00805/23/2019 NM 8.24 7.40 69.7 35.5 18.6 <10.0 15.3 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 17.8 47 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 21.2 <5.0 21.2 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 1.10 <0.10 <0.50 0.65 9.0 71.0 3.8 <0.10 1.7 0.06 <0.00806/13/2019 15.4 15.16 8.67 70.6 121.8 17.1 <10.0 16.3 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 15.2 42.9 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 22.7 <5.0 22.7 5.2 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.00.83 <0.10 <0.50 0.53 4.9 59.0 3.7 <0.10 2.0 <0.050 <0.00802/14/2019 7.91 19.04 6.59 55.8 251.7 7 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSNS NS <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 66.5 NS <0.10 NS NS <2.5 NM NM NM NM <0.050 NM3/21/2019 NM 12.19 6.93 145.6 108.9 10.6 <10.0 11.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 26.3 13.1 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 23.1 <5.0 23.1 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 88.0 0.58 <0.10 <0.50 0.39 4.3 57.0 2.7 <0.10 1.2 <0.050 <0.00804/23/2019 9.40 10.70 7.21 64.4 7.5 13.5 <10.0 15.7 <1.0 <5.0 <5.032.2 29.4 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 25 <5.0 25 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 0.72<0.10 <0.50 0.47 5.5 107 2.7 <0.10 1.2 0.051 <0.00805/23/2019 NM 8.11 7.15 65.9 36.4 17.7 <10.0 18.1 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 37.5 28.4 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 23.4 <5.0 23.4 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 7.0 0.91 <0.10 <0.50 0.54 9.1 85.0 2.7 <0.10 <1.0 0.066 <0.00806/13/2019 13.3 15.96 8.07 63.9 46.0 16.5 <10.0 15.8 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 35.8 24.8 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 23.2 <5.0 23.2 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 0.71 <0.10 <0.50 0.44 4.1 58.0 2.8 <0.10 1.2 <0.050 <0.00802/14/2019 9.89 26.75 7.05 61.1 221.7 6.5 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 10.5 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 15.7 NS <0.10 NS NS 5.6 NM NM NM NM <0.050 NM3/21/2019 NM 11.80 6.97 151.3 132.2 10.2 <10.0 12.1 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 10.2 27.3 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 21.5 <5.0 21.5 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 91.0 0.86 <0.10 <0.50 0.53 4.8 57.0 3.5 <0.10 2.7 <0.050 <0.00804/23/2019 10.8 9.60 6.92 68.0 45.2 13.9 <10.0 170.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 12.4 53.4 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 22.9 <5.0 22.9 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 0.92 <0.10 <0.50 0.57 12.3 120 3.4 <0.10 2.7 <0.050 <0.00805/23/2019 NM 7.65 6.94 69.3 34.2 18.9 <10.0 22.5 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 19.2 161.0 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 21.7 <5.0 21.7 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 23.52.20 <0.10 1.5 0.66 27.9 74.0 3.7 <0.10 1.7 0.089 <0.00806/13/2019 13.4 15.96 8.07 63.9 46.0 16.5 <10.0 16.6 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 13.9 49.3 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 23.3 <5.0 23.3 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 0.80 <0.10 <0.50 0.55 5.9 59.0 3.9 <0.10 2.3 <0.50 <0.00802/14/2019 7.06 14.10 6.73 67.8 232.8 7.0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 16.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 64.4 NS <0.10 NS NS 4.8 NM NM NM NM <0.050 NM3/21/2019 NM 12.80 7.03 156.5 119.5 10.6 <10.0 13.7 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 8.7 21.2 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 24.8 <5.0 24.8 7.9 <5.9 <5.9 <5.9 107 0.90 <0.10 <0.50 0.54 5.4 66.0 3.6 <0.10 2.9 <0.050 <0.00804/23/2019 9.91 10.10 6.83 74.7 66.3 14.4 <10.0 20.3 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 10.1 39.1 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 25.9 <5.0 25.9 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 20.5 0.95 <0.10 <0.50 0.61 8 75 3.4 <0.10 2.9 0.053 <0.00805/23/2019 NM 7.94 7.00 78.9 25.2 18.8 <10.0 17.8 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 14.3 37.0 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 28.0 <5.0 28.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 19.4 1.2<0.10 <0.50 0.78 5.8 875 3.6 <0.10 1.9 0.064 <0.00806/13/2019 11.60 7.79 7.34 78.5 88.9 17.4 <10.0 20.2 <1.0 <5.0 <5.012.0 36.0 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 27.2 <5.0 27.2 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.00.87 <0.10 <0.50 0.58 4.6 76.0 3.8 <0.10 2.4 <0.050 <0.00802/14/2019 10.22 14.41 6.32 50.7 190.9 6.8 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 6.6 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 61.0 NS <0.10 NS NS 3.2 NM NM NM NM <0.050NM3/21/2019 NM 12.18 6.61 140.4 122.4 10.3 <10.0 9.4 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 10.3 33.3 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 13.7 <5.0 13.7 <6.4 <6.4 <6.4 <6.4 172 0.79<0.10 <0.50 0.53 <3.3 48.0 3.6 <0.10 2.4 <0.050 <0.00804/23/2019 10.2 9.92 6.71 57.0 45.6 14.2 <10.0 13.1 <1.0 <5.0 <5.013.8 61.9 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 15.3 <5.0 15.3 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.00.84 <0.10 <0.50 0.55 4.8 102 3.5 <0.10 2.4 <0.050 <0.00805/23/2019 NM 7.43 7.01 52.1 38.9 18.8 <10.0 11.7 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 18.2 58.9 <0.50 <0.40 <0.20 16.6 <5.0 16.6 <5.6 <5.6 <5.6 <5.6 12.9 0.98 <0.10 <0.50 0.57 7.7 160 3.6 <0.10 1.4 <0.050 <0.00806/13/2019 11.2 8.08 7.28 50.1 96.6 17.3 <10.0 11.2 <1.0 <5.0 <5.016.8 55.7 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 15.6 <5.0 15.6 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.00.80 <0.10 <0.050 0.54 5.0 47.0 4.0 <0.10 2.1 <0.050 <0.00802/14/2019 7.04 23.62 7.00 67.8 247.2 7.9 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 20.7 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 52.1 NS <0.10 NS NS 5.6 NM NM NM NM <0.050 NM3/21/2019 NM 12.43 6.82 157.1 148.8 11.0 <10.0 15.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 7.5 24.0 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 24.2 <5.0 24.2 8.9 <5.6 <5.6 <5.6 167 0.94 <0.10 <0.50 0.57 5.9 66.0 3.6 <0.10 2.9 <0.050 <0.00804/23/2019 10.1 9.62 7.05 74.5 80.8 16.1 <10.0 20.9 <1.0 <5.0 <5.08.3 43 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 25.2 <5.0 25.2 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 1 <0.10 <0.50 0.63 9.6 101 3.4 <0.10 3.0 0.058 <0.00805/23/2019 NM 7.35 7.04 76.1 26.3 19.2 <10.0 18.7 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 12.0 54.7 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 26.2 <5.0 26.2 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 1.2<0.10 <0.50 0.73 6.1 33.0 3.7 <0.10 2.0 0.068 <0.00806/13/2019 11.6 7.88 7.22 78.8 91.1 17.8 <10.0 20.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.09.4 45.7 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 26.0 <5.0 26.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 6.7 0.98 <0.10 <0.50 0.61 5.6 72.0 4.0 <0.10 2.4 <0.050 <0.00802/14/2019 6.64 19.03 6.91 66.4 221.8 9.1 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 19.7 <5.0 <5.0 14.6 7.5 NS <0.10 NS NS 7.2 NM NM NM NM <0.050NM3/21/2019 NM 11.56 6.74 156.1 113.9 11.5 <10.0 16.3 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 6.4 23.3 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 23.3 <5.0 23.3 10.2 <5.3 <5.3 <5.3 150 0.92<0.10 <0.50 <0.55 6.5 65.0 3.7 <0.10 3.1 <0.050 <0.00804/23/2019 9.65 9.44 6.91 71.6 88.8 17.0 <10.0 21 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 6.839.5 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 24.2 <5.0 24.2 11.0 7.5 13.0 14.8 <5.0 1.1 <0.10 <0.50 0.62 10.8 84 3.5 <0.10 3.1 0.056 <0.00805/23/2019 NM 7.48 7.03 77.0 27.4 19.1 <10.0 19.5 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 9.970.9 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 25.8 <5.0 25.8 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 1.4 <0.10 0.67 0.71 13.7 <25.0 3.8 <0.10 2.1 0.059 <0.00806/13/2019 9.00 7.73 6.97 79.3 84.8 18.3 <10.0 19.7 <1.0 <5.0 <5.07.8 50.3 <10.0 <5.0 <0.20 24.7 <5.0 <24.7 5.1 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 0.92 <0.10 <0.50 0.64 4.1 69.0 4.8 <0.10 2.6 <0.050 <0.0080<50 NE 6.0 - 9.0 NE NE NE 10.0 1000 NA 11 NA NE NE 5 NA 0.012 NE NE NE NENE NE 40 NE NE NE NE 10 NE 500 250 1.8 250 NE 5Notes:NA - Not Applicable; surface water standards for these constituents are hardness-dependentNE - Not establishedLocation Date Field MeasurementsMetalsAlkalinity Chlorophyll & PheopytinNCAC 2B StandardsNitrogenNS - Not SampledNM - Not MeasuredSite 1 Site 2Site 3Site 4Site 5Site 6Site 7
Table 2. Year-to-date groundwater baseline monitoring results Turbidity (NTU)DO (mg/L)pHSpecific Conductivity (µS/cm)Temperature (°C)Arsenic (µg/L)Barium (µg/L)Cadmium (µg/L)Chromium (µg/L)Lead (µg/L)Lithium (µg/L)Mercury (µg/L)Manganese (µg/L)Selenium (µg/L)Silver (µg/L)Bicarbonate (CaCO3) (mg/L)Carbonate (CaCO3) (mg/L)Total CaCO3 (mg/L)Total Nitrogen (mg/L)Total Keldahl Nitrogen (mg/L)Nitrogen, NO2+NO3 (mg/L)Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L)Chloride (mg/L)Fluoride (mg/L)Sulfate (mg/L)Cyanide (mg/L)8/10/2018 4.91 5.9711.73675.0 17.0 <10.0 16.6 <1.0 6.1 <5.0 NS NS NS <10.0 <5.0 <5.0 140160 <0.52 <0.50 0.17 233 3.3 0.32 12.9 <8.03/27/2019 NM NM NM NM NM <10.0 19.1 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 84.2 NS <5.0 <10.0 <5.0 <5.0 88.0 168 <0.52 <0.50 0.25 224 2.0 0.18 7.3 <8.04/24/2019 1.27 3.3611.75737 16.6 <10.0 18.7 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 78.2 <0.20 <5.0 <10.0 <5.0 <5.0 51.0 178 0.87 0.62 0.25 256.0 1.9 0.18 6.8 <8.08/9/2018 8.20 0.95 7.80 184.6 17.5 <10.0 <5.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 NS NS NS <10.0 <5.0 79.1 <5.0 79.1 1.30 <0.50 0.91 135 2.5 <0.10 8.2 <8.03/27/2019 NM NM NM NM NM <10.0 <5.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 180.0 NS 33.6<10.0 <5.0 95.4 <5.0 95.4 1.40 <0.50 1.10 139 2.3 <0.10 5.4 <8.04/24/2019 4.79 0.15 7.98 203.9 17 <10.0 <5.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 167 <0.20 31.1 <10.0 <5.0 97.3 <5.0 97.3 1.4 <0.50 1.1 165 2.3 <0.10 5.3 <8.08/9/2018 8.70 5.599.06106.9 17.7 <10.0 <5.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 NS NS NS <10.0 <5.0 46.1 <5.0 46.1 0.88 <0.50 0.65 94.0 1.3 <0.10 2.9 <8.03/27/2019 NM NM NM NM NM <10.0 <5.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 185.0 NS 12.5<10.0 <5.0 47.9 <5.0 47.9 0.90 <0.50 0.76 85.0 1.3 <0.10 1.5 <8.04/24/2019 3.21 6.398.77102.0 16.1 <10.0 5.2 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 185 <0.20 5.5 <10.0 <5.0 46.4 <5.0 48.2 0.99 <0.50 0.7 112.0 1.3 <0.10 1.6 <8.08/7/2018 13.10 7.119.20120.5 18.4 <10.0 5.2 <1.025.7<5.0 NS NS NS <10.0 <5.0 44.2 <5.0 49.1 1.2 <0.50 1.10 93.0 1.0 1.1 4.1 <8.03/27/2019 NM NM NM NM NM <10.0 5.4 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 222 NS 23.4 <10.0 <5.0 39.6 11.7 51.3 1.4 <0.50 1.2 93.0 <1.0 <0.10 1.3 <8.04/25/2019 2.23 6.159.08113.0 16.5 <10.0 <5.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 228 <0.20 11.9 <10.0 <5.040.3 15.0 55.2 1.6 <0.50 1.2 127 <1.0 <0.10 1.1 <8.08/8/2018 14.7 4.0411.97169.7 20.4221485 1.332839.9NS NS NS26.7<5.0 1530 1800 3330 <0.52 <0.50 0.081 520 2.4 0.28 19.4 <8.03/27/2019 NM NM NM NM NM <10.0 14.6 <1.0 6.2 <5.0 70.9 NS <5.0 <10.0 <5.0 <5.0 88.0 193 <0.52 <0.50 <0.040 271 1.8 0.15 13.5 <8.04/25/2019 2.93 3.1111.19276.4 19.3 <10.0 12.9 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 151 <0.20 <5.0 <10.0 <5.0<5.0 35.8 70.0 <0.52 <0.50 0.091 108.0 <1.0 <0.10 2.1 <8.08/9/2018 12.3 6.70 6.78 124.6 15.9 <10.0 <5.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 NS NS NS <10.0 <5.0 64.5 <5.0 64.5 <0.52 <0.50 0.16 103 <1.0 <0.10 <1.0 <8.03/27/2019 NM NM NM NM NM <10.0 <5.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 108 NS 12.8 <10.0 <5.0 69.6 <5.0 69.6 <0.52 <0.50 0.19 103 <1.0 <0.10 <1.0 <8.04/26/2019 5.71 6.40 6.92 127.9 14.9 <10.0 <5.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0109 <0.20 34.9 <10.0 <5.0 73.2 <5.0 73.2 <0.52 <0.50 0.17 157 <1.0 <0.10 <1.0 <8.08/7/2018 13.20 5.94 7.21 187.7 17.6 <10.0 5.5 <1.0 6.9 <5.0 NSNS NS <10.0 <5.0 93.8 <5.0 93.8 <0.52 <0.50 0.26 132 1.7 0.16 1.2 <8.03/27/2019 NM NM NM NM NM <10.0 <5.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 184 NS63.9<10.0 <5.0 100 <5.0 100 <0.52 <0.50 0.31 137 1.6 0.12 1.1 <8.04/26/2019 1.17 4.93 6.85 165.4 14.4 <10.0 <5.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0161 <0.20 <5.0 <10.0 <5.0 92.6 <5.0 92.6 1.0 0.75 0.27 155 1.5 <0.10 <1.0 <8.08/8/2018 49.4 5.686.42113.8 18.9 <10.0 9.7 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 NS NS NS <10.0 <5.0 56.1 <5.0 56.1 <0.52 <0.50 0.094 123 1.3 <0.10 <1.0 <8.03/27/2019 NM NM NM NM NM <10.0 <5.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 36.7 NS 8.1 <10.0 <5.0 61.1 <5.0 61.1 <0.52 <0.50 0.097 114 <1.0 <0.10 <1.0 <8.04/26/2019 9.26 5.18 6.54 113.8 16.0 <10.0 5.8 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 38.3 <0.20 19.3 <10.0 <5.0 61.9 <5.0 61.9 0.72 0.63 0.092 139 1.0 <0.10 <1.0 <8.08/8/2018 2.63 9.09 7.56 173.5 17.3 <10.0 <5.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 NS NS NS <10.0 <5.0 89.1 <5.0 89.1 <0.52 <0.50 0.12 128 1.1 0.1 <1.0 <8.03/27/2019 NM NM NM NM NM <10.0 <5.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 108 NS 7.8 <10.0 <5.0 89.2 <5.0 89.2 <0.52 <0.50 0.17 125 1.1 <0.10 <1.0 <8.04/26/2019 0.96 5.14 7.28 166.2 15.7 <10.0 <5.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0100 <0.20 <5.0 <10.0 <5.0 93.3 <5.0 93.3 <0.52 <0.50 0.15 139 1.1 <0.10 <1.0 <8.08/9/2018 1.83 5.49 6.56 166.0 16.8 <10.0 <5.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 NS NS NS <10.0 <5.0 82.5 <5.0 82.5 <0.52 <0.50 0.25 121 1.7 <0.10<1.0 <8.03/27/2019 NM NM NM NM NM26.0<5.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 1060 NS 17.1 <10.0 <5.0 72.4 <5.0 72.4 <0.52 <0.50 <0.040 110 1.32.38.7 <8.04/25/2019 0.28 0.198.66158.1 15.520.5<5.0 <1.0 <5.0 <5.0 1000 <0.20 9.2 <10.0 <5.0 68.8 <5.0 68.8 0.57 0.56 <0.040 122 1.2 2.5 8.9 <8.0 -- -- 6.5-8.5 -- -- 10 700 2 10 15 -- 50 20 20 -- -- -- -- -- 11 -- 250 2 250 70Notes:NS - Not SampledMW-1MW-2MW-3MW-4Location Date NCAC 2L StandardsOW-2SOW-2DPW-1MW-5OW-1SOW-1DNM - Not Measured

Appendix E
Groundwater Model
Technical Memorandum

Technical
Memorandum
Groundwater Model
Piedmont Lithium
Gaston County, North Carolina

July 2, 2019

Piedmont Lithium | Technical Memorandum – Groundwater Model
Contents

i

Contents
Contents ...................................................................................................................................... i
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Conceptual Site Model/Groundwater Model Framework ............................................................ 1
Model Domain ........................................................................................................................ 2
Water Budget ......................................................................................................................... 2
Hydrostratigraphy ................................................................................................................... 2
Boundary Conditions .............................................................................................................. 3
Recharge ............................................................................................................................ 4
Streams .............................................................................................................................. 4
Rivers ................................................................................................................................. 4
Wetlands ............................................................................................................................. 5
Ponds ................................................................................................................................. 5
Wells ................................................................................................................................... 5
Mine Pits ............................................................................................................................. 5
Temporal Constraints ............................................................................................................. 5
Dewatering and Water Handling ............................................................................................. 6
Model Set-up ............................................................................................................................. 6
Modeling Software .................................................................................................................. 6
Discretization .......................................................................................................................... 6
Model Layers .......................................................................................................................... 6
Boundary Conditions .............................................................................................................. 7
Recharge ............................................................................................................................ 7
Streams .............................................................................................................................. 7
Ponds ................................................................................................................................. 7
River ................................................................................................................................... 7
No-flow ............................................................................................................................... 7
Initial Calibration ..................................................................................................................... 8
Preliminary Dewatering Simulation ......................................................................................... 9
Model Limitations ......................................................................................................................13
Summary and Conclusions .......................................................................................................13
References ...............................................................................................................................15
Piedmont Lithium | Technical Memorandum – Groundwater Model
Contents

ii

Figures
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Figure 2 - Receptor Well Location Map
Figure 3 - Boundary Conditions
Figure 4 - Model Grid
Figure 5 - Distribution of Soft Rock and Hard Rock in Layers 4 and 5
Figure 6 - Distribution of Calibrated Heads
Figure 7 - Computed Heads versus Measured Heads
Figure 8 - Location of Stream Flow Measurements
Figure 9a - Model Predicted Drawdown from Dewatering in the Central Pit
Figure 9b - Model Predicted Drawdown from Dewatering in the East Pit
Figure 9c - Model Predicted Drawdown from Dewatering in the North Pit
Figure 9d - Model Predicted Drawdown from Dewatering in the South Pit
Figure 10 - HDR Delineated Wetlands
Figure 11 - Location of Stream Reaches

Tables
Table ES-1 – Model Predicted Dewatering Rate by Pit
Table 1- Observed and Predicted Water Levels ......................................................................... 8
Table 2 - Simulated Base Flow and Base Flow Reported by Daniel, Smith, and Eimers (1997) . 9
Table 3 - Simulated Base Flow and Stream Flow Measured on May 13 and 15, 2019 ............... 9
Table 4 - Model Predicted Dewatering Withdrawal Rates by Pit ................................................10
Table 5 - Model-predicted Drawdown in Local Wells .................................................................11
Table 6 - Model-predicted Changes in Groundwater Flow to Wetlands (in gpm) .......................12
Table 7 - Changes in Base Flow to Streams that Cross the Site ...............................................12

Piedmont Lithium | Technical Memorandum – Groundwater Model
Contents

iii

This page intentionally left blank.
Piedmont Lithium | Technical Memorandum – Groundwater Model
Executive Summary

1

Executive Summary
Piedmont Lithium Inc. (PLI) is proposing to construct an open pit mine in the Carolina Tin-
Spodumene Belt (TSB) of North Carolina where lithium-bearing pegmatites have been
identified. The mine site (the Site) is located in the TSB of the Piedmont physiographic province
in south-central North Carolina. The approximately 963-acre Site is located in unincorporated
Gaston County, on private land surrounding Hephzibah Church Road, east of Whitesides Road,
and west of Aderholdt Road, approximately 2.7 miles east of Cherryville, North Carolina.
The mining will be accomplished through open pit excavations that will require dewatering. As
part of the planning process, it is necessary to estimate the rate of water withdrawal during pit
dewatering and what effect, if any, it may have on local water resources and water users. On
behalf of PLI, HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas (HDR) has developed a three-dimensional
groundwater flow model to estimate dewatering rates and evaluate whether these rates have
the potential to increase or decrease groundwater supply in the surrounding area. This
preliminary groundwater model is based on our current understanding of the hydrogeologic
setting and planned pit excavation geometries, as of the date of this report. As additional data
are collected and mine pit geometry changes, the model may be refined to reflect these
changes.
Water resources within the Site include Beaverdam Creek, which flows in an easterly to
northeasterly direction through the Site and eventually drains to the South Fork Catawba River
off-site. Little Beaverdam Creek flows north through the Site to a confluence with Beaverdam
Creek. Additionally, multiple streams and wetlands were identified within the Site and mapped
through field work conducted by HDR and verified by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) under action SAW-2018-01129. Potable and irrigation water is provided to
residential homes and cultivated fields via individual water supply wells; large capacity municipal
wells are not known to exist in the area. The Site location and surrounding area are shown on
Figure ES-1.
HDR used data from site-specific resource and hydrogeologic investigations; design-level mine
plans; local United States Geologic Survey (USGS) gauging stations; and published regional
geologic and hydrogeologic data to develop a six-layered groundwater flow model. Simulations
were conducted to assess the amount of withdrawal necessary to dewater the mine pits and to
assess potential impacts of pit dewatering on local water resources (wells, wetlands and
streams). The modeling was conducted in multiple scenarios where dewatering of the pits
(North, Central, South and East Pits) was simulated individually.
Model-predicted dewatering rates range from 375 gallons per minute (gpm) for the South Pit to
850 gpm for the Central Pit (Table ES-1).

Piedmont Lithium | Technical Memorandum – Groundwater Model
Executive Summary

2

Table ES-1: Model-Predicted Dewatering Rate by Pit
Pits Dewatering Rate
(gpm)
North 400
Central 850
South 375
East 600

Modeling demonstrated that shallow wells in the vicinity of the Site may experience water
column loss during pit dewatering. Predicted drawdown in wells within the Site boundary ranged
from 0 feet to 137 feet with an average of approximately 11 feet. Predicted drawdown in wells
beyond the Site boundary ranged from 0 feet to 39.5 feet with an average of 6 feet. PLI will
acquire through fee simple or long term lease all of the wells within the project boundary; and
therefore, loss of water column in these wells is informational purposes only, not material.
Beyond the Site boundary, two wells were projected to experience significant loss of water
column during dewatering of the East and Central Pits, while one (shallow supply) well was
predicted to go dry during dewatering of the North Pit.
To monitor water level fluctuations as a result of dewatering activities, PLI will install sentinel
monitoring wells along portions of the Site boundary. This monitoring is intended to allow for
early detection of potential drawdown effects to off-site supply wells. PLI will offer residents in
the immediate vicinity of the Site (within 1,500 ft.) to participate in a well inventory program and
will address impacts on a case by case basis. Wells that are affected through loss of water
column such that they cannot be used for residential water will be remedied by PLI, likely via
replacement of an existing shallow well with deeper wells, if required. PLI will acquire in fee
simple the property at 210 Hastings Road and the property at 633 Aderholdt Road as part of the
mine development.
Predicted impacts to wetlands were primarily observed during simulated dewatering of the East
and Central Pits with six and seven wetlands going dry, respectively. The South and North Pits
each have a single wetland that is predicted to go dry during dewatering. Base flow to three
streams crossing the site decreases between 0.01 and 10 percent, depending on the proximity
of the stream to the pit being dewatered, with the greatest decrease being in Little Beaverdam
Creek when the Central Pit is dewatered. Note that PLI currently plans to return water
withdrawn for dewatering to the streams at the downstream end of the Site via appropriate
NPDES permitted discharge points to reduce potential pumping effects during mine operation.
It is also possible that some water withdrawn for dewatering can be diverted to the wetlands
most effected by drawdown.
A more detailed summary of groundwater model construction, simulation, and results is
provided herein.

Piedmont Lithium | Technical Memorandum – Groundwater Model
Executive Summary

3

Figure ES-1 – Overview of PLI Site

Piedmont Lithium | Technical Memorandum – Groundwater Model
Introduction

1

Introduction
Piedmont Lithium Inc. (PLI) is proposing to construct an open pit mine in the Carolina Tin-
Spodumene Belt (TSB) of North Carolina where lithium-bearing pegmatites have been
identified. The mine site (the Site) is located in the TSB of the Piedmont physiographic province
in south-central North Carolina. The approximately 963-acre Site is located in unincorporated
Gaston County, on private land surrounding Hephzibah Church Road, east of Whitesides Road,
and west of Aderholdt Road, approximately 2.7 miles east of Cherryville, North Carolina.
The mining will be accomplished through open pit excavations that will require dewatering. As
part of the planning process it is necessary to estimate the rate of water withdrawal during pit
dewatering and what effect, if any, it may have on local water resources and water users. On
behalf of PLI, HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas (HDR) has developed a three-dimensional
groundwater flow model to estimate dewatering rates and potential effects. This preliminary
groundwater model is based on our current understanding of the hydrogeologic setting and
planned pit excavation geometries, as of the date of this report. As additional data are collected
and mine pit geometry changes, the model may be refined to reflect these changes.
Conceptual Site Model/Groundwater Model
Framework
HDR constructed a six-layer groundwater flow model utilizing data from site-specific resource
and hydrogeologic investigations; design-level mine plans; local United States Geologic Survey
(USGS) gauging stations; and published regional geologic and hydrogeologic data. Data
sources included the following:
· Investigations conducted by HDR to evaluate the occurrence of groundwater,
including long-term water level monitoring, stream flow measurements, and an
aquifer test;
· Investigations conducted by HDR to identify and map the locations of on-site
streams, wetlands, and ponds;
· Drilling programs conducted for PLI to investigate the locations of minable lithium-
bearing pegmatites, which include descriptions of fractures and geology in the
subsurface;
· PLI’s most recent estimate of pit shell extents;
· USGS stream gauging stations at Long Creek near Bessemer City, South Fork
Catawba River at Lowell, and Duharts Creek at SR 2439 near Cramerton;
· Stream flow measurements collected by HDR in May 2019 and stream flow data for
Indian Creek (portion within the model domain) presented in Daniel, Smith, and
Eimers (1997);
· Recharge as reported in Daniel, Smith, and Eimers (1997);
· Regional hydrostratigraphy from Schaeffer (2019) and Daniel, Smith, and Eimers
(1997) as the basis for hydrostratigraphy at the site;
Piedmont Lithium | Technical Memorandum – Groundwater Model
Conceptual Site Model/Groundwater Model Framework

2

· Locations and construction details (as available) for water supply wells within and
outside of the PLI permit boundary (see Figure 2);
· USGS Digital Elevation Model for ground surface elevations and extrapolation to
upper stratigraphy (overburden, saprolite, transition zone);
· USGS EROS Data Center - aerial photographs and ortho-images; and,
· Description of local geology (Kessler et. al, 1942).
Model Domain
The model domain is the simulated area that can potentially contribute water to the mine pit
during dewatering or that will be affected by dewatering. The model domain includes the
southern portion of the Indian Creek watershed (south of Indian Creek) to the north of the Site,
the Beaverdam Creek watershed (the site is wholly in Beaverdam Creek watershed), as well as
a reach of the South Fork Catawba River located between Indian Creek and Beaverdam Creek.
Most of the model domain is rural area; however, the southwestern most portion of the
Beaverdam Creek watershed does intersect a portion of the Town of Cherryville. Cherryville’s
water distribution system sources its water outside of the model domain. The Site boundary and
model domain are shown on Figure 1.
Water Budget
The model domain is approximately 32.5 square miles and average annual recharge is
estimated to be about 10 inches per year, based on the USGS study done in the Indian Creek
Watershed (Daniel, Smith, and Eimers, 1997). The recharge in the model domain equates to
approximately 5.5 billion gallons of water added to the groundwater each year. No large water
withdrawals (e.g., municipal and industrial) were identified in the model domain, so the natural
state is that the groundwater recharge will eventually discharge to local streams, wetlands, and
the South Fork Catawba River. Some withdrawals are made from individual residential wells or
irrigation; however, those withdrawals are likely small compared to the recharge and are largely
returned to the ground through septic or sprinkler systems, so as not to significantly affect the
overall water budget.
Hydrostratigraphy
The Site is located within the TSB, which is comprised of metamorphic and igneous rocks
overlain by weathered byproducts of the rock and residuum (Kessler 1942, Schaeffer 2019).
These materials can be divided into the following hydrostratigraphy:
1. Overburden is generally residuum consisting of alluvial and regolith deposits. The
residuum is generally composed of clays from weathered bedrock, with some rock
fragments as gravel and sand.
2. Saprolite, which underlies the overburden, is soil that is derived from weathering of
bedrock in-situ where some of the original textures and structure of the bedrock are still
identifiable; however, the minerals have been altered by weathering to a consistency of
soil.
Piedmont Lithium | Technical Memorandum – Groundwater Model
Conceptual Site Model/Groundwater Model Framework

3

3. Transition Zone is a thin zone between the saprolite and the underlying bedrock where
there is less weathering, but the rock is still highly fractured, weathered, and not
competent.
4. Bedrock at the Site is generally metavolcanic amphibolite intruded by pegmatites (some
of which are spodumene bearing). The amphibolite exhibits little foliation or other
structures. Other portions of the Site and area within the model domain are comprised of
metasedimentary rocks which are foliated and, at some places, have relict bedding
present. Neither the metavolcanics nor the metasedimentary rocks have significant
primary porosity, so almost all of the water in these units exists in joints and fractures. At
some locations, Triassic diabase dikes have intruded the crystalline bedrock. These
intrusive volcanic rocks have not been metamorphosed and may be responsible for
some of the lineations described below. As reported by Daniel, Smith, and Eimers
(1997), groundwater flow in the bedrock aquifers is controlled by fracturing and further, it
is likely that erosion results along fractures so that streams and rivers are associated
with areas of higher fracturing and hence more transmissive fractured bedrock.
5. Lineations are visible in aerial photographs and topographic maps as stream valleys and
linear topographic expressions across the region. These lineations are likely due to
weakness in the underlying bedrock such as faults and fractures, as well as more easily
eroded rock units that were folded by tectonics. Because the lineations often represent
partings in the rock (faults, joints, and bedding planes), they can also indicate where
higher hydraulic conductivity zones exist. These lineations are mapable, based on
topography, and can be simulated as higher-hydraulic conductivity material in the
groundwater model; however, their attitude in the subsurface is not easily discerned, so
the precise location of these features in the subsurface is not truly known. Daniel, Smith,
and Eimers (1997) studied the difference in hydraulic conductivity associated with valley
floors, valley walls, and hill tops. They found that valley floors had higher hydraulic
conductivity than hill tops and that the valley walls are transitional between the two
extremes. This variation in hydraulic conductivity is consistent with the idea that valleys
are coincident with fracturing in the subsurface.
6. Mine Pits are dry voids in the model domain and will be simulated in the model as no-
flow cells (dry cells). Water may seep into the pits through the face wall; as described
below, this seepage will be accounted for using drain package boundary conditions set
to the bottom of each layer at the edge of the mine pit.
Boundary Conditions
Several factors affect the amount of water that enters and exits a groundwater flow system.
Since these factors occur at the input and output of water into the system, they are termed
“boundary conditions.” The sum of the boundary conditions equates to the water budget of the
system (inflows need to equal outflows) and should equal zero, accounting for changes in
storage in the system. Inflow is generally through recharge, although under stress, water may
be diverted from adjacent systems or captured from surface water. Storage is from water
occupying space in the system and from compressibility of the aquifer matrix. Outflow under
natural conditions is usually to surface water bodies (streams, wetlands, rivers, lakes, and
oceans). At the Site, outflow (also termed discharge) is to streams (e.g., Beaverdam Creek),
wetlands (which typically feed streams), and rivers (e.g., the South Fork Catawba River). Close
to surface water bodies, where groundwater is near the ground surface, plants can use the
water and divert it from discharging to surface water through transpiration. Also, water will be
Piedmont Lithium | Technical Memorandum – Groundwater Model
Conceptual Site Model/Groundwater Model Framework

4

withdrawn from the system through water supply wells, reducing discharge to surface water.
These boundary conditions need to be accounted for in a groundwater model to assure the
appropriate water budget is simulated. The boundary conditions considered in the model are
shown on Figure 3.
Recharge
Recharge occurs when a portion of precipitation that falls in an area percolates into the
subsurface and arrives at the water table. Most precipitation is lost to evapotranspiration or runs
off to surface water; the remaining portion that infiltrates into the subsurface will eventually
recharge the groundwater. Daniel, Smith, and Eimers (1997) conducted a highly-detailed study
to estimate groundwater recharge in the Indian Creek watershed, which is the next watershed
north of the Site and partially within the model domain. This study included multiple stream flow
measurements on small branches of Indian Creek within the watershed. Ultimately the study
concluded that there were about 10 inches of recharge per year. Because the geology and
climate of Indian Creek are similar to (and connected with) the Beaverdam Creek watershed
where the PLI mining will take place, a recharge value of 10 inches per year is well supported
for the model domain.
Streams
Streams in the Eastern United States are generally gaining streams, meaning the stream is at
an elevation that intersects groundwater so groundwater discharges to the stream. The portion
of the stream flow that is supported by groundwater is termed “base flow”; streams also receive
flow from overland flow, which can make up most of the stream flow during large portions of the
year. The discharge to the stream (base flow) is controlled by the head in the aquifer adjacent to
the stream, as compared to the stage of the stream and the make-up of any sediment that lines
the bottom of the stream which will limit discharge proportional to the material’s water
conductance. The geometry of the stream (i.e., width and length) also impacts how much water
can discharge to it. Conversely, if the stream’s stage is higher than adjacent groundwater head,
then the stream can lose water to the groundwater, again limited by the stream’s bottom
conductance. However, the amount of water that can be lost is also constrained by how much
water flows into the losing reach from any upstream gaining reaches (the stream cannot lose
more water than is in it). Again, the geometry of the stream will affect the amount of water that
can be lost. Streams are the most common boundary condition type in the model, so they
account for most of the groundwater discharge. Streams are usually simulated as head and
conductance limited fluxes that also account for upstream discharge.
Rivers
The down-gradient boundary of the model domain is the South Fork Catawba River. Similar to
streams, rivers can gain and lose water based on the relationship to the adjacent groundwater,
the conductance of the bottom sediments, and the geometry of the river itself. However, for the
most part, stresses simulated in the model domain are not sufficient to significantly change the
river flow, so rivers in effect have an unlimited supply of water and are not constrained by
upstream reaches in the same way as streams. Rivers are usually simulated as head and
conductance value limited fluxes with a specified river stage (river package).
Piedmont Lithium | Technical Memorandum – Groundwater Model
Conceptual Site Model/Groundwater Model Framework

5

Wetlands
Wetlands fall into two categories: those that receive groundwater and those that are isolated
from groundwater. In general, wetlands that receive groundwater will discharge into adjacent
streams. If the water table falls below the wetland and there is not an upstream source of water,
the wetland will go dry. The amount of water that will discharge to a wetland from groundwater
is controlled by the conductance of sediments in the wetland. Wetlands are typically simulated
as conductance-limited drains where water can be removed but no water is returned if
groundwater levels fall below the elevation of the drain.
Ponds
Ponds are similar to wetlands in that they can either receive water from groundwater or they are
isolated from the groundwater. However, ponds may also receive water from upstream and can
have their water level controlled by dams, so are part of the stream system. The ponds only
affect groundwater locally.
Wells
Wells are usually simulated as a specified flux from a specific interval within the groundwater.
Most of the wells within the model domain are low-yield domestic supply wells that do not
significantly affect groundwater flow within the model. For this evaluation, HDR added the
location and construction details of publically-documented domestic supply wells near the Site
such that effects of pit dewatering on these wells can be evaluated within the model. Note that
pumping rates for these wells were not publically available, thus, pumping in the domestic
supply wells is not simulated in the model.
Mine Pits
As described above, the mine pits are represented as voids within the model domain. These
voids are either air-filled or water-filled, depending on stage of mining. If they are air-filled, then
water in the adjacent formation will be removed by either dewatering or evaporation at the pit
face. Water is not returned to the groundwater from the air-filled pit; however, it may be
discharged to an adjacent wetland or stream where it could infiltrate groundwater if the stream–
groundwater head relationship creates a losing stream. Water-filled pits act like surface water
bodies and can be simulated as very high-hydraulic conductivity material.
Temporal Constraints
The preliminary model was run as a steady-state model, which assumes the mine pits have
individually been fully excavated. In this case, the greatest amount of drawdown occurs during
dewatering at the designed terminal depth of excavation (full excavation). Note that once mining
reaches full excavation for a given pit, the pit will fill with water and potentially be filled by
excavated material from an adjacent pit. Steady-state simulations estimate mean conditions
without accounting for temporal variation. Because the pits will be dewatered in sequence and
only portions of different pits open at the same time, four predictive simulations were done, one
for each individual mine pit being dewatered separately. Transient simulations that account for
mine pit sequencing may be undertaken in the future, if that level of detail is necessary.
Piedmont Lithium | Technical Memorandum – Groundwater Model
Model Set-up

6

Dewatering and Water Handling
Water in the preliminary model is assumed to be pumped from the lowest level of the mine pit
and discharged to the adjacent streams. This assumption means that the dewatering can be
simulated with a drain, so the model will estimate the amount of water removal needed to
achieve the dewatering; the model does not account for the water after it has been removed
(removed water does not recharge groundwater elsewhere in the model). Future modeling can
simulate the effects of re-introducing dewatering water to the groundwater or elsewhere in the
model and can be used to estimate aquifer recovery time after dewatering has ceased, if such
simulations are needed.
Model Set-up
Modeling Software
Groundwater modeling was performed using the USGS groundwater model software,
MODFLOW-NWT (Niswonger, 2011). MODFLOW variable grid spacing allows the user to
create model grids that focus on areas of interest, while using generalized information for
remote areas. Aquaveo’s model pre- and post-processing software, GMS, was used to develop
the groundwater flow model. GMS’s graphic interface and data handling functions allow the
creation of a base conceptual site model (CSM) to create the hydrogeologic framework that is
the basis for the groundwater flow model. Once the model is set up, GMS also enables the user
to display model output and compare the output to observed data (calibration targets).
Discretization
The model grid was refined both horizontally and vertically so that features of the CSM and the
focus area near the Site could be simulated with greater detail than remote areas which are
generalized. Cells in the model range between 50 feet on a side where the grid is focused and
500 where it is generalized further away from the Site. The model grid is shown on Figure 4.
Model Layers
The model was constructed using the following six layers to represent hydrostrigraphy within the
model domain.
· Layer 1 – Overburden – regolith and fluvial deposits, calibrated hydraulic conductivity
of 1.5 feet per day and vertical anisotropy of 2.0.
· Layer 2 – Saprolite – bedrock eroded to soil, calibrated hydraulic conductivity of 1.0
feet per day and vertical anisotropy of 2.0.
· Layer 3 - Transition Zone – highly fractured and weathered rock beneath the
saprolite, calibrated hydraulic conductivity of 2.0 feet per day and vertical anisotropy
of 2.0.
Piedmont Lithium | Technical Memorandum – Groundwater Model
Model Set-up

7

· Layers 4 and 5 – Bedrock – as discussed above, bedrock near streams (topographic
lows) is more transmissive than at hill tops (Daniel, Smith, and Eimers, 1997). For
this reason, two bedrock types were simulated: soft rock near streams and hard rock
between streams. Soft rock was assigned a calibrated hydraulic conductivity of 0.25
feet per day and vertical anisotropy of 1.0. Hard rock was assigned a calibrated
hydraulic conductivity of 0.0075 feet per day and vertical anisotropy of 1.0. The
distribution of soft rock and hard rock in Layers 4 and 5 is shown on Figure 5.
· Layer 6 – Deep bedrock – entirely hard rock, assuming that the fractures are closed
due to the compressing weight of overlying rock, calibrated hydraulic conductivity of
0.0075 feet per day and vertical anisotropy of 1.0.
Boundary Conditions
Recharge
Recharge is based on studies done in the Indian Creek watershed by Daniel, Smith, and Eimers
(1997), who determined that recharge in the area covered by the model domain to be 10 inches
per year. This recharge value is applied to the highest active cell. Recharge was simulated
using constant flux in the MODFLOW Recharge package.
Streams
The streams placed into the model are based off the USGS NHD flow lines shapefile (USGS
2019) for generalized areas of the model and digitized stream map shapefile (HDR, 2018) at the
Site. They were placed in the model using the stream package, which allows for different
reaches and segments of the stream to gain or lose water. Each node along the streams was
referenced to the surface elevation in the grid and assigned an elevation. This elevation was
used to put the streams into the model at the correct elevations. For the stream package, the
river conductance, roughness, width, and incoming flow (connection with upstream stream
segments) was added to each segment of the stream. Beaverdam Creek is the largest stream
within the domain and was input with a channel width of 25 ft. Little Beaverdam Creek is the
second largest stream within the model domain and was input with a width of 15 ft. The smaller
tributary streams were assigned a width of 5 ft.
Ponds
In general, ponds in the model domain are created by small dams on streams and creeks.
Although they will effect groundwater flow locally, they do not significantly affect the system
beyond the effects of a stream at the same location. For that reason, changes in simulated base
flow in streams is used to gauge impacts on ponds.
River
The down-gradient boundary of the model domain is the South Fork Catawba River. This
portion of the domain boundary was applied using the River package in MODFLOW. This
package uses the riverbed elevation and conductance values along the stretch of the river.
No-flow
No-flow cells are inactive model grid cells through which water cannot pass (except recharge
may be applied to an underlying cell if the upper cells are no-flow or dry and underlying cells are
Piedmont Lithium | Technical Memorandum – Groundwater Model
Model Set-up

8

not). The domain is bounded by no-flow cells, which define the model domain. Also, no-flow
cells are used to simulate the empty space of pits.
Initial Calibration
Once constructed, the groundwater model results were compared to mean water levels from 10
monitoring wells at the Site, base flow estimates for streams in the Indian Creek watershed as
documented by Daniel, Smith, and Eimers (1997), and stream flows measured in May 2019
within the Site boundary.
Groundwater levels measured in 10 monitoring wells were evaluated to find the mean water
level and range of variability. Water levels simulated by the base model were compared to these
measured mean water levels. Simulated water levels in 9 of 10 wells were within the range of
observed levels and approached the mean levels. The simulated water level in the nine wells
was within two standard deviations of the mean water level and within one standard deviation of
the mean in four wells. The Root Mean Squared error for the base simulation is 3.60 feet, while
the mean square of the observed standard deviation is 4.32 feet. Water levels in MW-1 were
predicted to be nearly 30 feet higher in elevation than measured water levels in the well (note
that although MW-1 is on a hillside, it has the lowest water level of any monitoring well at the
Site). This could be due to local a feature not simulated by the model, such as a nearby large
fracture or spring. Adjusting the model so that the water levels in MW-1 would reflect the
measured water levels would require loss of calibration at all other wells. The distribution of
calibrated heads at the Site is shown on Figure 6. The computed heads, as compared to
measured heads, are shown on Figure 7. Simulated heads and measured head statistics are
presented in Table 1.
Table 1- Observed and Predicted Water Levels
Well
Top of
Screen
Elevation
(feet)
Bottom of
Screen
Elevation
(feet)
Mean
Observed
Head
(feet)
One
Standard
Deviation
(feet)
Predicted
Head
(feet)
Difference in Observed
vs. Predicted Head
(feet)
MW-1 702.49 652.49 743.65 1.56 771.72 -28.07
MW-4 782.97 731.97 847.48 2.95 842.93 4.55
MW-2 764.12 714.12 817.57 1.46 816.17 1.40
MW-3 725.39 673.39 787.07 2.40 790.31 -3.24
OW-1S 721.63 701.63 751.84 2.39 753.73 -1.89
OW-1D 636.14 418.14 752.20 2.34 752.83 -0.63
OW-2S 750.87 730.87 747.36 1.85 750.66 -3.30
PW-1 631.75 236.75 750.18 2.33 751.44 -1.26
OW-2D 630.05 439.05 747.81 1.91 751.17 -3.36
MW-5 696.75 642.75 745.38 1.63 747.99 -2.61

Total flow is defined as a stream’s direct response to a rainfall event and includes runoff into the
streams, lateral flow from the soil, and base flow. Base flow is the portion of stream flow which
is discharged from the aquifer. Base flows were determined by Daniel, Smith, and Eimers
(1997) at four locations on Indian Creek within the model domain. The base flow simulated by
Piedmont Lithium | Technical Memorandum – Groundwater Model
Model Set-up

9

the base model was compared to these locations. The comparison of simulated stream flows to
base flows determined by Daniel, Smith, and Eimers (1997) are presented in Table 2. Stream
flow (specifically base flow) measurement locations that were compared to the calibrated model
are shown on Figure 8.
Table 2 - Simulated Base Flow and Base Flow Reported by Daniel, Smith, and Eimers (1997)
Stream
Number
Reported Flow (1997) Modeled Flow Percent
Difference (ft3/s) (ft3/s)
81 0.16 0.17 5.6
79 0.75 0.69 7.3
82 1.79 1.77 1.4
75 0.28 0.26 6.5

Stream flows within the Site were measured on May 13 and 15, 2019. The USGS stream gage
on Indian Creek (the adjacent watershed) was at the 95th percentile and 85th percentile daily
flows for those two days, meaning elevated total flow was measured and not base flow. When
these stream flows are compared to model output (base flow, so likely less than 50th percentile),
all flows were less than measured and most at about 50 percent of observed. While this is a
qualitative comparison, the model-predicted base flows are within observed flows and likely
approaching actual base flow values. The measured stream flows and model-predicted base
flow are summarized in Table 3. Additional stream flows will be measured over time and the
comparison to model predicted base flow can be refined when additional lower flow data is
collected.
Table 3 - Simulated Base Flow and Stream Flow Measured on May 13 and 15, 2019
Stream
Number
Measured Stream
Flow
(5/13 – 15/19)
Modeled Base
Flow Percent
Difference
(ft3/s) (ft3/s)
FM1 24.1 12.12 49.73
FM6 9.1 6.42 29.43
FM3 8 5.24 34.53
FM4 12.2 6.33 48.10
FM2 20.9 6.38 69.49
Weir 5 0.22 0.03 84.20
Weir 6 0.83 0.23 72.67
Weir 2 0.60 0.15 75.47
Weir 4 0.42 0.06 86.41

Preliminary Dewatering Simulation
Once the base model-predicted heads and stream flows reasonably reproduced measured
heads and stream flows as described above, the model was considered calibrated and was
used to simulate dewatering of the mine pits. Mine pit dewatering was accomplished by
Piedmont Lithium | Technical Memorandum – Groundwater Model
Model Set-up

10

changing model cells within the footprint of the mine to no-flow cells in layers 1 through 5 and
then simulating a drain at the base of each layer in the first active cell outside the no-flow cells.
Water in the layer adjacent to the pit is removed by the drain in the same way it would seep
through the face of the pit, or flows into a lower layer and is removed by the drain in that layer.
The water removed by all drains simulating dewatering was summed to estimate the dewatering
volumes needed to dewater the pit and drawdown of the water table was calculated as a result
of this withdrawal. Each pit was simulated separately and as steady-state at the time when the
pit is its largest.
The estimated withdrawal rates for each pit based on these simulations are:
Table 4 - Model Predicted Dewatering Withdrawal Rates by Pit
Pits Pump Rate (gpm)
North 400
Central 850
South 375
East 600
Based on these dewatering withdrawal rates, predicted drawdown in wells within the Site
boundary ranges from 0 feet to 137 feet with an average of approximately 11 feet. Predicted
drawdown in wells beyond the Site boundary ranges from 0 feet to 39.5 feet with an average of
6 feet. Within the Site boundary, one well is predicted to experience significant loss of water
column (loss of available drawdown) during dewatering of the Central Pit. Beyond the Site
boundary, two wells are projected to experience significant loss of water column during
dewatering of the East and Central Pits, while one (shallow supply) well is predicted to go dry
during dewatering of the North Pit. Estimated drawdown in wells within and beyond the Site
boundary are presented in Table 5 and shown on Figures 9a, b, c, and d. The drawdown
depicted in the figures range from 0.5 ft to 400 ft of drawdown. The receptor wells and wetlands
are represented with green circles and light blue, respectively.
To monitor water level fluctuations as a result of dewatering activities, PLI will install sentinel
monitoring wells along portions of the Site boundary. This monitoring is intended to allow for
early detection of potential drawdown effects to off-site supply wells. PLI will offer residents in
the immediate vicinity of the Site (within 1,500 ft.) to participate in a well inventory program and
will address impacts on a case by case basis. Potential affects to local wells will be remedied by
PLI, likely via replacement of existing shallow wells with deeper wells less likely to be affected
by mine operations or through acquisition1. PLI will acquire in fee simple the property at 210
Hastings Road and the property at 633 Aderholdt Road as part of the mine development.

1 PLI will acquire through fee simple or long term lease all of the wells within the project boundary; and
therefore any loss of water column in these wells is informational purposes only, not material.
Piedmont Lithium | Technical Memorandum – Groundwater ModelModel Set-up 11 Table 5 - Model-predicted Drawdown in Local Wells Well Address Well Depth (ft) Reported Depth to Water (ft) Drawdown during Dewatering Available Water Column during Dewatering South Pit East Pit Central Pit North Pit No Dewatering South Pit East Pit Central Pit North Pit Wells within the Site Boundary 1523 R W McLamb Dr. 185 15 17.0 0.7 55.5 0.1 170 153.0 169.3 114.5 169.9 819 Whitesides Rd. 180 34 0.8 0.1 17.4 0.1 146 145.2 145.9 128.6 145.9 1121 Hephzibah Church Rd. 300 40 2.5 0.6 41.4 8.6 260 257.5 259.4 218.6 251.4 901 Whitesides Rd. 56 24 0.6 0.1 5.4 0.7 32 31.4 31.9 26.7 31.3 921 Whitesides Rd 150 30 1.2 0.2 12.0 1.3 120 118.8 119.8 108.0 118.7 1266 Hephzibah Church Rd. 300 40 29.8 137.1 23.9 0.8 260 230.2 123.0 236.1 259.3 1021 Hephzibah Church Rd. 45 35 0.3 0.1 3.2 1.5 10 9.7 9.9 6.8 8.6 1029 Hephzibah Church Rd. 0.8 0.2 15.4 7.9 Wells beyond the Site Boundary 732 Whitesides Rd. 166 20 6.0 0.5 15.8 0.0 146 140.0 145.5 130.2 146.0 129 George Payseur Rd. 63 33 3.0 1.3 1.7 0.0 30 27.0 28.8 28.3 30.0 210 Hastings Rd.* 50 25 0.3 20.0 0.2 0.0 25 24.7 5.0 24.8 25.0 663 Aderholdt Rd.* 62 40 0.0 0.9 11.4 39.5 22 22.0 21.1 10.6 -17.5 633 Aderholdt Rd.* 0.1 7.0 12.4 17.9 534 Whitesides Rd. 550/690 40 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.0 510 509.6 509.7 509.8 510.0 Note: Yellow-shaded cells indicate potentially significant loss of storage in a well, as simulated by the model, during dewatering of an individual mine pit; red-shaded cells indicate potentially dry well during dewatering. * PLI will acquire through fee simple or long term lease all of the wells within the project boundary; and therefore any loss of water column in these wells is informational only, not material and will also acquire in fee simple and property at 210 Hastings Road and the property at 633 Aderholdt Road as part of the mine development.
Piedmont Lithium | Technical Memorandum – Groundwater Model
Model Set-up

12

Changes in groundwater flow to wetlands were estimated by comparing flow to wetlands in the
base simulation with flow to wetlands in each pit dewatering scenario. Wetlands are most
impacted by dewatering the East and Central Pits with six and seven wetlands going dry,
respectively. Simulated dewatering of the South and North Pits each result in drying of a single
wetland. Changes in groundwater discharge predicted by the model for each pit dewatering
scenario are presented on Table 6. Wetland locations, as referenced in Table 6, are shown on
Figure 10.
Table 6 - Model-predicted Changes in Groundwater Flow to Wetlands (in gpm)

Notes:
1. Orange-shaded cells indicate where wetlands are predicted to go dry.
2. Red text indicates where groundwater flow has been reduced to a wetland by more than 50 percent.
Changes in stream base flow, or the groundwater contribution to overall stream flow, was also
assessed using the model. Base flow simulated during pit dewatering for each pit scenario was
compared to base flows predicted in the base model in three streams that cross the Site.
Decreases in base flow to Beaverdam Creek ranged from 5.3 percent when the East Pit is
dewatered to 10.2 percent when the Central Pit is dewatered. Decreases in base flow to Little
Beaverdam Creek ranged from 0.01 percent when the Central Pit is dewatered to 3.5 percent
when the East Pit is dewatered. Decreases in base flow to an unnamed tributary to Beaverdam
Creek (Stream 3) ranged from 0.06 percent when the South Pit is dewatered to 6.9 percent
when the East Pit is dewatered. Model-predicted changes in base flow for the three streams that
cross the Site (summed at the downstream end of the site) are presented in Table 7. The
locations of the streams identified in Table 7, and the location where base flow was summed
with respect to the Site, are shown on Figure 11.
Table 7 - Changes in Base Flow to Streams that Cross the Site
Streams Calibrated
Ft3/d
East Pit,
Ft3/d
% Dif. South Pit,
Ft3/d
% Dif. Central Pit,
Ft3/d
% Dif. North Pit,
Ft3/d
% Dif.
Beaverdam Creek
(Stream 1)
-1073419 -1016923 5.3 -1012505 5.7 -963527 10.2 -1016584 5.3
Little Beaverdam
Creek (Stream 2)
-452506 -436797 3.5 -441588 2.4 -448860 0.8 -452463 0.01
Stream 3 -84288 -78453.00 6.9 -84235 0.06 -83485 0.95 -84088 0.24
Calibrated Model
Flow Flow % Difference Flow % Difference Flow % Difference Flow % Difference
Wetland 1 0.28 22.03 9.74 55.79 19.15 13.06 DRY DRY 3.47 84.25
Wetland 2 0.15 44.94 DRY DRY 44.71 0.52 43.67 2.83 44.64 0.67
Wetland 3 3.19 61.24 DRY DRY 60.31 1.51 17.96 70.67 32.72 46.57
Wetland 4 0.66 9.71 DRY DRY 5.89 39.33 DRY DRY 2.11 78.22
Wetland 5 2.21 45.21 DRY DRY 12.17 73.09 11.11 75.43 42.74 5.46
Wetland 6 0.09 24.86 DRY DRY 7.38 70.32 19.95 19.73 24.78 0.31
Wetland 7 0.38 34.60 1.62 95.32 21.09 39.06 32.07 7.33 34.58 0.06
Wetland 8 0.23 27.21 DRY DRY DRY DRY 15.69 42.33 27.10 0.42
Wetland 9 0.18 14.82 14.74 0.92 14.45 4.66 11.63 39.74 13.85 12.51
Wetland 10 0.12 24.05 24.02 0.13 23.89 0.65 22.69 5.66 23.73 1.32
Wetland 11 0.04 24.89 24.45 1.77 12.03 51.66 DRY DRY 24.62 1.06
Wetland 12 0.06 25.14 24.86 1.14 19.59 22.09 DRY DRY 24.90 0.97
Wetland 13 0.09 35.84 35.66 0.52 33.34 7.00 DRY DRY 35.54 0.86
Wetland 14 5.45 55.99 55.78 0.38 54.37 2.89 38.26 31.66 55.14 1.52
Wetland 15 0.04 33.95 33.93 0.08 33.85 0.29 32.64 3.86 32.20 5.17
Wetland 16 0.08 25.63 25.43 0.77 25.22 1.58 6.95 72.90 DRY DRY
North PitWetlandWetland Size
(Acres)
East Pit South Pit Central Pit
Piedmont Lithium | Technical Memorandum – Groundwater Model
Model Limitations

13

Model Limitations
All models require generalization and many details of the groundwater flow system cannot be
reasonably simulated without extensive data gathering and detailed inputs. For the most part,
these details are captured in, or bounded by, the overall generalization, but they can have local
effects that could be consequential to specific outcomes in the real world. As an example,
anomalously low water levels in MW-1 cannot be explained by the current model and some field
work would likely be required to evaluate likely reasons for the anomaly. Other limitations of the
model that need to be considered are as follows:
· Subsurface conditions are varied and complex. The model simulates fractured bedrock,
a highly complex network of conduits that as a whole can act like a porous media, but on
smaller scales can become almost independent systems. For example, an unexpected
amount of water could be produced where a large undetected fracture intersects both a
stream and a newly excavated pit. The current model cannot predict such an outcome.
· The water budget is based on a study done in the adjacent Indian Creek watershed. It is
possible that conditions either in the subsurface or climatologically could be different
between the two watersheds, resulting in differing amounts of water being available, thus
causing some uncertainty in the overall water balance. Note that the model does not
simulate evapotranspiration, which can significantly reduce stream flows during certain
times of the year.
· Sensitivity analyses have not been conducted, but could show that model predictions are
sensitive to one or more of the parameters used in the model. Note that model runs
conducted during set up and calibration showed that the model can be sensitive to
hydraulic conductivity, recharge, and stream conductance. Sensitivity analyses could be
conducted if necessary.
Summary and Conclusions
HDR has developed a preliminary groundwater flow model to estimate the rate of groundwater
withdrawal necessary to dewater four planned mine pits under steady-state conditions and
evaluate the potential effects of dewatering on local water resources. The six-layer model was
constructed using data from site-specific resource and hydrogeologic investigations; design-
level mine plans; local USGS gaging stations; and published regional geologic and
hydrogeologic data. The model was calibrated to heads measured in on-site monitoring wells,
stream flow readings measured in on-site streams and tributaries, and to published data from
local and regional sources.
Model-predicted dewatering rates ranged from 375 gpm for the South Pit to 850 gpm for the
Central Pit. Predicted drawdown in wells within the Site boundary ranged from 0 feet to 137 feet
with an average of approximately 11 feet. Predicted drawdown in wells beyond the Site
boundary ranged from 0 feet to 39.5 feet with an average of 6 feet. Within the Site boundary,
one well is predicted to experience significant loss of water column (loss of available drawdown)
during dewatering of the Central Pit. Beyond the Site boundary, two wells are projected to
experience significant loss of water column during dewatering of the East and Central Pits, while
one (shallow supply) well is predicted to go dry during dewatering of the North Pit.
Piedmont Lithium | Technical Memorandum – Groundwater Model
Summary and Conclusions

14

Potential affects to wells within the Site boundary will be mitigated via condemnation and
abandonment of supply wells as mine construction occurs. Potential affects to wells beyond the
Site boundary will be evaluated, at the request of NCDEQ, via installation and periodic
monitoring of groundwater piezometers at the Site boundary. Should pumping effects be
observed in one or more piezometers during dewatering, PLI will mitigate the drawdown effects
accordingly, possibly through abandonment and re-installation of wells on a case-by-case basis.
Predicted impacts to wetlands were primarily observed during simulated dewatering of the East
and Central Pits with six and seven wetlands going dry, respectively. The South and North Pits
each have a single wetland that is predicted to go dry during dewatering. Base flow, or the
contribution of groundwater to overall flow, to three streams crossing the site decreases
between 0.01 and 10 percent, depending on the proximity of the stream to the pit being
dewatered. The greatest decrease in base flow was predicted in Little Beaverdam Creek when
the Central Pit is dewatered. Note that PLI currently plans to return water withdrawn for
dewatering to the streams at the downstream end of the Site via appropriate NPDES permitted
discharge points to reduce potential pumping effects during mine operation. It is also possible
that some water withdrawn for dewatering can be diverted to the wetlands most effected by
drawdown.

Piedmont Lithium | Technical Memorandum – Groundwater Model
References

15

References
C.C. Daniel III, D. G. Smith, and J. L. Eimers, 1997, Hydrogeology and Simulation of Ground-
Water Flow in the Thick Regolith-Fractured Crystalline Rock Aquifer System of Indian Creek
Basin, North Carolina. USGS Water-Supply Paper 2341.
HDR, 2018, shapefile of streams and wetlands on the PLI site.
T. L. Kessler, 1942 The Tin-spodumene belt of the Carolinas, a preliminary Report; Strategic
Minerals Investigation, Part 2, J-R USGS Bulletin 936 pp. 245 – 269.
R.G. Niswonger, Panday, Sorab, and Ibaraki, Motomu, 2011, MODFLOW-NWT, A Newton
formulation for MODFLOW-2005: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 6-A37, 44
p.
M. F. Schaeffer, 2019; Carolina Piedmont Groundwater System – Existence of the Transition
Zone Between Regolith and Bedrock; IAEG/AEG Annual Meeting Proceedings, San Francisco,
California, 2018 – Volume 2 Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019.
T. Spruill; USGS Coastal Plain Ground-Water Recharge;
https://nc.water.usgs.gov/projects/coastal_gw/index.html, 2003-2005.
U.S. Geological Survey, NHD for North Carolina State or Territory Shapefile Model Version
2.2.1: U.S. Geological Survey, 2019.

Piedmont Lithium | Technical Memorandum - Aquifer Test
Figures

Figures

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, ©
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
PATH: C:\USERS\JTROYER\DESKTOP\PROJECTS\004 PIEDMONT LITHIUM MINE\GIS\FIGURE 1.MXD - USER: JTROYER - DATE: 6/24/2019
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,
Intermap, increment P Corp.,
GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,
NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN,
LOCATION OF THE SITE AND MODELED
PLANNED PITS
LEGEND
Planned Pits
Site
Model Domain
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION
DATA SOURCES: State Plane Coordinate System,
Zone: North Carolina (FIPS 3200), NAD 1983 2011, feet
0 0.2 0.4
MILES
East
South
Central
North
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
!?
663 Aderholdt
210 Hastings Rd
633 Aderholdt Rd
732 Whiteside Rd
819 Whitesides Rd
901 Whitesides Rd
534 Whitesides Rd
921 Whitesides Rd
1523 R W McLamb Dr
129 George Payseur Rd
1266 Hephzibah Church Rd
1021 Hephzibah Church Rd
1029 Hephzibah Church Rd
1121 Hephzibah Church Rd
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, ©
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
PATH: C:\USERS\JTROYER\DESKTOP\PROJECTS\004 PIEDMONT LITHIUM MINE\GIS\FIGURE 2.MXD - USER: JTROYER - DATE: 6/24/2019
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,
Intermap, increment P Corp.,
GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,
NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN,

LEGEND
Site
Model Domain
!?Receptor Wells
Planned Pits
FIGURE 2
RECEPTOR WELLS
DATA SOURCES: State Plane Coordinate System,
Zone: North Carolina (FIPS 3200), NAD 1983 2011, feet
0 0.2 0.4
MILES
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, ©
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
PATH: C:\USERS\JTROYER\DESKTOP\PROJECTS\004 PIEDMONT LITHIUM MINE\GIS\FIGURE 3.MXD - USER: JTROYER - DATE: 6/24/2019
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,
Intermap, increment P Corp.,
GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,
NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN,
LOCATION OF STREAMS, WETLANDS,
AND SOUTH FORK CATAWABA RIVER
LEGEND
Planned Pits
Site
No Flow
Streams
South Fork Catawaba River
Delineated Wetlands
Model Domain
Watershed
Beaverdam Creek
Lower Indian Creek
FIGURE 3
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
DATA SOURCES: State Plane Coordinate System,
Zone: North Carolina (FIPS 3200), NAD 1983 2011, feet
0 1 2
MILES
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, ©
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
PATH: C:\USERS\JTROYER\DESKTOP\PROJECTS\004 PIEDMONT LITHIUM MINE\GIS\FIGURE 4.MXD - USER: JTROYER - DATE: 6/24/2019
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,
Intermap, increment P Corp.,
GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,
NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN,

LEGEND
Site
Model Domain
Grid
FIGURE 4
MODEL GRID
DATA SOURCES: State Plane Coordinate System,
Zone: North Carolina (FIPS 3200), NAD 1983 2011, feet
0 1 2
MILES
DRAFT
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, ©
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
PATH: C:\USERS\JTROYER\DESKTOP\PROJECTS\004 PIEDMONT LITHIUM MINE\GIS\FIGURE 5.MXD - USER: JTROYER - DATE: 6/24/2019
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,
Intermap, increment P Corp.,
GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,
NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN,

LEGEND
Site
Model Domain
Material Layer 4,5
Soft Rock
Hard Rock
FIGURE 5
DISTRIBUTION OF SOFT ROCK AND
HARD ROCK IN LAYERS 4 AND 5
DATA SOURCES: State Plane Coordinate System,
Zone: North Carolina (FIPS 3200), NAD 1983 2011, feet
0 1 2
MILES
DRAFT
Res+dual I Interval = 2 Std. Deviations !-----o,�,.,,.,,.,,.,., {
-Compuied Value
Ca,brafion ,_, _____ I = ::�:�: ... 1 Observed Value = Average Head
Exampleofacalibrationla1oet Observalionlargeterrorbars
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, lntermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAQ, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, ©
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
PATii: C:\USERSWTROYER\DESKTOP\PROJECTS\D04 PIEDMONT UTI-IIUM MINE\GIS\PIEDMONT_UTHIUM_MNE.MXD-USER: JTROYER-DATE: 6/13/2019
' ,
�
Sources: Esri, HERE, Ga�mir;it "•"' lntermap, increment P Corp.,
' ,
1000.0
970.0
940.0
910.0
880.0
850.0
&20.0
790.0
760.0
730.0
700.0
GEBCO, USGS, FAQ, NPS,
NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN,
DATA SOURCES: State Plane Coordinate System,
Zone: North Carolina (FIPS 3200), NAD 1983 2011, feet
CALIBRATED HEADS
DISTRIBUTION OF CALIBRATED HEADS
AT THE SITE
0
p IE D/'AONT LIT H IVM
1 MILES 2
1-)�
FIGURE 6
Figure 7Computed Heads vs. Measured Heads
740
760
780
800
820
840
860
720 740 760 780 800 820 840 860Computed
Observed
Computed vs. Observed Heads
Series11
MW-1
MW-4
MW-2
MW-3
OW-1S
OW-1D
OW-2S
PW-1
OW-2D
MW-5
Trendline
!.
!.
!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.!.
!.!.!.!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
FM-5
FM-1
FM-2
FM-4
FM-3
FM-6
Trib-4
Trib-5
Trib-8
Trib-9
Trib-1
Trib-3
Trib-2
Trib-6
Trib-7
75
82
79
81
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, ©
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
PATH: C:\USERS\JTROYER\DESKTOP\PROJECTS\004 PIEDMONT LITHIUM MINE\GIS\FIGURE 8.MXD - USER: JTROYER - DATE: 6/24/2019
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,
Intermap, increment P Corp.,
GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,
NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN,
LOCATION OF HDR MEASUREMENTS
AND DANIEL, SMITH, AND EIMERS
MEASUREMENTS
LEGEND
Site
Model Domain
Pits
!.Daniel, Smith, and Eimers
!.HDR Flow Measurements
FIGURE 8
STREAM FLOW MEASUREMENTS
DATA SOURCES: State Plane Coordinate System,
Zone: North Carolina (FIPS 3200), NAD 1983 2011, feet
0 1 2
MILES
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, ©
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
PATH: C:\USERS\JTROYER\DESKTOP\PROJECTS\002 HASTINGS\GIS\CONTOURS_FIGURE.MXD - USER: JTROYER - DATE: 6/26/2019
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,
Intermap, increment P Corp.,
GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,
NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN,
LEGEND
!?Receptor_Wells
Drawdown (ft)
0.5
5
10
15
20
25
50
75
100
200
300
400
FIGURE 9a
DATA SOURCES: State Plane Coordinate System,
Zone: North Carolina (FIPS 3200), NAD 1983 2011, feet
MODEL PREDICTED DRAWDOWN
FROM DEWATERING IN THE
CENTERAL PIT
0 0.5 1
MILES
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, ©
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
PATH: C:\USERS\JTROYER\DESKTOP\PROJECTS\002 HASTINGS\GIS\CONTOURS_FIGURE.MXD - USER: JTROYER - DATE: 6/26/2019
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,
Intermap, increment P Corp.,
GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,
NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN,
LEGEND
!?Receptor_Wells
Drawdown (ft)
0.5
5
10
15
20
25
50
75
100
200
300
400
FIGURE 9b
DATA SOURCES: State Plane Coordinate System,
Zone: North Carolina (FIPS 3200), NAD 1983 2011, feet
MODEL PREDICTED DRAWDOWN
FROM DEWATERING IN THE
EAST PIT
0 0.5 1
MILES
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, ©
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
PATH: C:\USERS\JTROYER\DESKTOP\PROJECTS\002 HASTINGS\GIS\CONTOURS_FIGURE.MXD - USER: JTROYER - DATE: 6/26/2019
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,
Intermap, increment P Corp.,
GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,
NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN,
LEGEND
!?Receptor_Wells
Drawdown (ft)
0.5
5
10
15
20
25
50
75
100
200
300
400
FIGURE 9c
DATA SOURCES: State Plane Coordinate System,
Zone: North Carolina (FIPS 3200), NAD 1983 2011, feet
MODEL PREDICTED DRAWDOWN
FROM DEWATERING IN THE
NORTH PIT
0 0.5 1
MILES
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, ©
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
PATH: C:\USERS\JTROYER\DESKTOP\PROJECTS\002 HASTINGS\GIS\CONTOURS_FIGURE.MXD - USER: JTROYER - DATE: 6/26/2019
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,
Intermap, increment P Corp.,
GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,
NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN,
LEGEND
!?Receptor_Wells
Drawdown (ft)
0.5
5
10
15
20
25
50
75
100
200
300
400
FIGURE 9d
MODEL PREDICTED DRAWDOWN
FROM DEWATERING IN THE
SOUTH PIT
DATA SOURCES: State Plane Coordinate System,
Zone: North Carolina (FIPS 3200), NAD 1983 2011, feet
1
0 0.5 1
MILES
Wetland 3
Wetland 5
Wetland 4
Wetland 7
Wetland 14
Wetland 1
Wetland 8
Wetland 9
Wetland 2
Wetland 10
Wetland 6
Wetland 13
Wetland 16
Wetland 12 Wetland 11
Wetland 15
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, ©
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
PATH: C:\USERS\JTROYER\DESKTOP\PROJECTS\004 PIEDMONT LITHIUM MINE\GIS\FIGURE 9.MXD - USER: JTROYER - DATE: 6/24/2019
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,
Intermap, increment P Corp.,
GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,
NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN,
LOCATION AND NAME OF DELINEATED
WETLANDS INSIDE THE SITE
LEGEND
Planned Pits
Delineated Wetlands
Site
Model Domain
FIGURE 10
HDR DELINEATED WETLANDS
DATA SOURCES: State Plane Coordinate System,
Zone: North Carolina (FIPS 3200), NAD 1983 2011, feet
0 0.2 0.4
MILES
!
!
!Stream 3cStream 2fS
tr
e
a
m
1
b
Stream 1e
Stream 1g Stream 1kStream 3aSt
r
e
a
m

3
bStream 2bStream 2a St
rea
m 1
fStream 1hStream 1jStream 1cStream 1aS tre am 2c
St
r
e
a
m

2
g
Stream 2dStream 1m
S
t
r
e
am

1iStream 1lSources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, ©
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
PATH: C:\USERS\JTROYER\DESKTOP\PROJECTS\004 PIEDMONT LITHIUM MINE\GIS\FIGURE 10.MXD - USER: JTROYER - DATE: 6/24/2019
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,
Intermap, increment P Corp.,
GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,
NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN,
LOCATION AND NAME OF STREAM
REACHES
LEGEND
Planned Pits
Site
Model Domain
Streams
Stream 2
Stream 3
Stream 1
!Total Flow Measurement
FIGURE 11
HDR STREAM REACHES
DATA SOURCES: State Plane Coordinate System,
Zone: North Carolina (FIPS 3200), NAD 1983 2011, feet
0 0.5 1
MILES

440 S Church Street, Suite 1000
Charlotte, NC 28202-2075
704.338.6700

hdrinc.com
© 2019 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved

Appendix F
DMS Credit Acceptance
Letter

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
Patrick Brindle
Piedmont Lithium, Inc.
5706 Dallas-Cherryville Highway
Bessemer City, NC 28016
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
July 3, 2019
Expiration of Acceptance: 1/3/2020
Project: Piedmont Lithium, Inc. County: Gaston
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to
accept payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as
indicated in the table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in -
lieu fee mitigation program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will
be approved. You must also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or
authorizations associated with the proposed activity including G.S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will
expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS receives a copy
of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must
be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the in -lieu fee to be paid by an applicant is
calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed on the DMS website.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts for which you are
requesting compensatory mitigation credit are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation
required and assigned to DMS for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the
impact amounts shown below.
River Basin I Impact Location Impact Type Impact Quantity
Catawba
Catawba
03050102 1Warm Stream
03050102 Riparian Wetland
6,385.5
7.8
Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010.
Thank you for your interest in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
cc: Kelly Thames, agent
Sincerely,
J me . B Stanfill
Aske/Management Supervisor
NOR7H D.E Q i
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 V1 ]ones Street 11652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.767.8976

Appendix G
SHPO Correspondence

From:Ferrante, Lindsay
To:RichardsonSeacat, Harriet
Subject:RE: [External] ER Request-Proposed Mine in Gaston County
Date:Thursday, May 17, 2018 4:01:16 PM
Attachments:image002.png
image003.png
Hello Harriet,

Thanks you for your email. Your methodology for this project sounds good to me; however, if you
are seeing consistently eroded soils and you are not in a particularly high probability area based on
topography and proximity to water or in an area where structures shown on historic maps, I think it
would be fine to bump your interval up to 60 meters.

Please feel free to reach out if you have any further questions.

Thanks,
Lindsay

Lindsay Flood Ferrante
Office of State Archaeology
Deputy State Archaeologist

[phone]
109 East Jones Street | 4619 Mail Service Center | Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4619

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
_____________________________________________________________

Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube

From: RichardsonSeacat, Harriet [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:03 PM
To: Ferrante, Lindsay <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: [External] ER Request-Proposed Mine in Gaston County

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.

Hello Lindsay,

Regarding ER 18-0800, I am developing a scope for the work needed. In doing and per DCR
requirements, I wanted to confer with you regarding our methodology for this. Typically in NC, we
conduct our survey based on probability, as follows:

In high to moderate probability areas, defined as locations less than 15 percent slope, not frequently
saturated or obviously previously disturbed, and any areas where buildings are depicted on available
historical topographic quadrangles or aerial photographs, we excavate shovel tests at 30-meter
intervals. Low probability areas are subjected to controlled surface inspection, and any shovel tests
in these areas would be excavated at 60-meter intervals based on professional judgment. Following
the excavation of shovel tests containing cultural material and where cultural material is
encountered on the surface, additional shovel tests would be excavated at 10-meter intervals or
judgmentally to delineate site boundaries and assess site integrity.

Please let me know if you have agree with this approach or if you would suggest any modifications.

Thank you,
Harriet

Harriet L. Richardson Seacat, M.A.
D & M 256.614.9007

hdrinc.com/follow-us

From: DCR - Environmental_Review [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:12 AM
To: RichardsonSeacat, Harriet <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] ER Request-Proposed Mine in Gaston County

Our response is attached. Thank you.

Renee Shearin
Environmental Review Technician, State Historic Preservation Office
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
[phone] Office
[e-mail]

109 East Jones Street | 4603 Mail Service Center | Raleigh, North Carolina 27699

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Please submit all Environmental Review projects to [e-mail]. Only one project
per email.
Allow at least 30 days for our review. We try hard to complete the reviews in fewer days, but under state
and federal regulations we have a mandatory 30 days.

See http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/er/er_email_submittal.html for guidelines on submitting projectsfor
environmental review.
Do not send .zip, .tif files, downloads, or links to websites as we are not able to process these types of
items. The message size, including all attachments, should be no larger than 20 megabytes.

From: RichardsonSeacat, Harriet [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 1:39 PM
To: DCR - Environmental_Review <[e-mail]>
Cc: Blackwell, Thomas <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] ER Request-Proposed Mine in Gaston County

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.

Hello,

Attached you will find materials relating to Piedmont Lithium’s proposed lithium mining
operation in Gaston County. These are being provided for your review and comment based on
the potential application for a United States Army Corps of Engineers Section 404/401 permit.

If you need additional information, please contact me via email or phone, as provided below.

Most appreciatively,
Harriet

Harriet L. Richardson Seacat, M.A.
Senior Ethnographer
HDR
440 S. Church Street, Ste. 1000
Charlotte, NC 28202-2075
D & M 256.614.9007
[e-mail]
hdrinc.com/follow-us

March 20, 2019

Kelly Thames
HDR
440 S. Church Street, Suite 1000
Charlotte, NC 28202-2075

Subject: Management Summary for the Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed
Piedmont Lithium Mine Tract, Gaston County, North Carolina.

Dear Kelly:

Under contract with the HDR, TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) conducted a Phase I
Cultural Resources (CR) survey for the proposed Piedmont Lithium Mine. The project area
consists of an approximately 963-acre tract located four miles east of Cherryville, North
Carolina. In a letter dated May 10, 2018 the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) recommended a comprehensive archaeological survey of the tract due to the potential
for intact archaeological sites. The Phase I cultural resources survey was conducted in December
2018 and January 2019, The Architectural Survey was conducted in February of 2019. All work
was done in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of
1966, as amended, and its implementing regulations at 36 CFR § Part 800.

The archaeological area of potential effects (APE) consists of the proposed project area of
disturbance. The total APE for direct-effect encompasses 963 acres. The architectural APE
included the construction footprint and any areas that have a visual connection to the
construction footprint. Areas within the survey radius that were determined to be outside the
viewshed of the proposed Project due to terrain, vegetation, and/or modern development were
not considered part of the architectural APE. Approximately 779 acres have been surveyed to
date. The remaining acreage is awaiting landowner permission prior to accessing individual
properties (Figure 1).

Background Review
Prior to initiating field work, TRC personnel conducted research at the North Carolina Office of
the State Archaeologist (OSA) Archaeological Site Files for a background literature and records
search. Additional research was conducted via the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office’s
(HPO) HPOWEB GIS Service. The purpose of this research was to locate any previously
identified archaeological sites, architectural resources, and previous investigations located within
the APE. The review revealed that there are no previously recorded archaeological sites within

Figure 1. Areas surveyed and identified resources at the Piedmont Lithium Mine Tract.

the boundaries of the project area. There is one previously recorded architectural resource
present directly within the direct impact area (GS0229). This home site was revisited during the
course of the survey. The review identified four other previously surveyed architectural
resources (GS0018, GS0160, GS0231 and GS0376) within the project APE.

Archaeological Survey
The goals of the intensive cultural resources survey included systematic shovel testing and
pedestrian survey to locate any previously recorded or unrecorded archaeological sites located
within the project tract and access the NRHP eligibility status of the resources. Shovel tests
measuring 30-centimeters in diameter were excavated at 30-meter intervals across the project
area. All soils were sifted using ¼-inch screen and artifacts were collected and bagged according
to provenience. The surface was visually inspected for cultural materials in areas with greater
than 25 percent ground visibility and more than 15 percent slope. When positive shovel tests or
surface finds were encountered, additional shovel tests were excavated at 10 or 15-meter
intervals in a grid pattern surrounding the initial positive test/find to determine the site
boundaries and more fully investigate the horizontal and vertical integrity of the deposits. During
the course of the survey shovel test were systematically excavated at 30 m (100 ft) intervals
across the accessible portions of Project APE. Shovel tests within a majority of the APE
exhibited eroded soils typical of the Piedmont.

Five Archaeological Sites and one isolated find were identified during the course of the survey.
The isolated find consisted of a single brick fragment. None of the sites are recommended
eligible for the NRHP.

Site 1 is a former house site and scatter of twentieth century artifacts. The house is no longer
extant. The area is heavily eroded and highly disturbed (Figure 2). The house that once stood at
this location has been destroyed. A push pile containing bricks and a separate push pile of large
rocks are present. Shovel tests were excavated to determine the extent of the site. Soils at the the
site were shallow consisting of a thin humic layer above a rocky clay subsoil. Artifacts recovered
from the surface and the humic layer include ironstone, stoneware, glass and nails. The historic
artifacts were mixed with modern refuse (plastic bottles, beer bottles). The site has been heavily
disturbed and impacted by modern dumping. These factors have compromised the integrity of
the site. There was no evidence of intact features and the likelihood of significant cultural
deposits is minimal. It is not eligible for the NRHP.

Site 2 was identified as a house site based on the presence of a brick lined well and a structural
foundation. Artifacts recovered and observed on the surface include building material (brick and
stone) window glass, container glass and nails. All artifacts were recovered from a surface
context. No artifacts were recovered from the shovel tests excavated at this site. The site is a
heavily disturbed former twentieth century house site. It does not possess the integrity required
for inclusion on the NRHP.

Site 3 is another former house site. The site was identified when a pile of bricks and the ruins of
a barn were observed east of Hephzibah Church Road (Figure 3). Shovel testing recovered glass,
nails and brick fragments. Modern garbage (plastic bottles, asphalt shingles, tile) was also
present and intermixed with the historic artifacts. The site is heavily disturbed. The house that
once stood here is no longer present. The barn is in poor condition and no longer in use. Soils at
the site were shallow and eroded. Subsoil was encountered immediately below the root mat
layer. The site is of a common type in rural North Carolina. It represents the remnants of an early

to mid-twentieth century farmstead. The integrity of the site has been compromised. It does not
meet the criteria required for inclusion on the NRHP.

Site 4 is an area of push piles and partially filled in pits related to the mid -twentieth century
lithium mining operation that was once active at this location (Figure 4). There were no
structural features or artifacts associated with this site. The site offers little in the way of research
potential and is not recommended for inclusion on the National Register.

Site 5 is the ruins of an early 20th century cabin/house (Figure 5). The house is dilapidated and in
poor condition. Shovel testing around the house did not recover any artifacts. The house is
present on historic topo maps. It does not possess the integrity or information potential required
for inclusion on the NRHP.

Figure 2. Site 1. Brick and stone pile.

Figure 3. Site 3. Brick and stone pile.

Figure 4. Site 4. Push piles associated with former lithium mine.

Figure 5. Site 5 cabin ruins.

Architectural Survey
Subsequent to the archaeological survey, TRC’s architectural historian conducted a field survey
of the project area. The purpose of the architectural survey was to identify historic architectural
properties aged 50 years or older within the project area and within the visual APE of the project
that are listed, or eligible for listing, in the NRHP. Two of the previously recorded architectural
resources (GS0160 and GS0231) had pervisouly been recorded as demolished. Resource
GS0018, the Hickory Grove School was revisited and also found to be demolished. Resource
GS0229, within the project tract, and resource GS0376, adjacent to the project tract, were
revisited and are recommended as “not eligible” for the NRHP.

Property GS0229, the Jonas D. Rudisill House, is a Folk Victorian style house with a reported
construction date of 1901(Gaston County, NC WebGIS 2019). The two-story dwelling features a
pyramidal roof covered in asphalt shingles, brick exterior, and a brick foundation (Figure 6).
Property GS0229 is recommended Not Eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A, B, or
C. The property does not possess any particular historical significance at the local level and is
recommended not eligible under Criterion A. Background research did not reveal any
associations with a significant person or people and TRC recommends the property not eligible
under Criterion B. Property GS0229 was evaluated under Criterion C and does not appear to
possess significance in the area of architecture. The dwelling’s integrity has been compromised
as a result of extensive alterations, which include the replacement of the original roof, the
enclosure of the porch frame, the replacement of most of the historic windows, the construction
of a rear addition, and the application of vinyl cladding.

Property GS0376, the Payseur House, is a ca. 1910 vernacular house in a dilapidated condition.
Tax assessor records do not provide an approximate date of construction for the dwelling. The
single story dwelling features a roof covered in corrugated metal, synthetic exterior siding, and a
brick pier foundation (Figure 7). A partially intact exterior brick chimney is attached to the
northwest elevation. Views of the remaining elevations could not be obtained from public right-
of way. The dwelling is located on a private drive on a 6.75-acre parcel of land that includes a
modern mobile home and outbuildings.

The property does not possess any particular historical significance at the local level and is
recommended not eligible under Criterion A. Background research did not reveal any
associations with a significant person or people and TRC recommends the property not eligible
under Criterion B. Property GS0376 was evaluated under Criterion C and does not appear to
possess significance in the area of architecture. The dwelling is in a dilapidated condition and
represents a typical vernacular building type found throughout the region.

Thirteen above ground resources aged 50 years or older were identified within the construction
footprint or within the surrounding viewshed. The newly recorded resources are mid-twentieth
century homes that are currently occupied. The do not possess any unique architectural traits and
are not associated with significant historical persons or events. They do not meet the criteria
required for inclusion on the NRHP. TRC is currently preparing NC Structural Survey Cards to
obtain official state site numbers for these resources.

Summary
No significant cultural resources were identified within or adjacent to the proposed Piedmont
Lithium Mine Tract. No further cultural resources work is recommended for the areas that were
accessible for survey. Further survey is required for parcels that were not cleared for access.

Figure 6. Oblique view of Property GS0229 façade and northwest elevation; view southeast
Figure 7. View of Property GS0376 west elevation; view east

Please let us know if there are any questions or concerns with these preliminary findings. TRC is
preparing a report for the work completed to date. Artifacts have been washed and analyzed. We
are currently waiting for official NC site numbers for the archaeological sites and newly
identified structures.

Sincerely,
Sean Norris, M.A., RPA
Program Manager, Archaeology
May 22, 2019

David L. Shaeffer
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Project Manager/Geographer
Charlotte Regulatory Office
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 611
Charlotte, NC 28262

Re: Piedmont Lithium Mine Site in Gaston County, North Carolina

Mr. David L. Shaeffer:

The Cherokee Nation (Nation) is in receipt of your correspondence about Piedmont Lithium
Mine Site in Gaston County, North Carolina, and appreciates the opportunity to provide
comment upon this project. Please allow this letter to serve as the Nation’s interest in acting as a
consulting party to this proposed project.

The Nation maintains databases and records of cultural, historic, and pre-historic resources in this
area. Our Historic Preservation Office reviewed this project, cross referenced the project’s legal
description against our information, and found no instances where this project intersects or adjoins
such resources. Thus, the Nation does not foresee this project imparting impacts to Cherokee
cultural resources at this time.

Additionally, the Nation requests a copy of the completed cultural resources survey with related
comments from the State Historic Preservation Office. The Nation requires that cultural resources
survey personnel and reports meet the Secretary of Interior’s standards and guidelines.

However, the Nation requests that the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) halt all
project activities immediately and re-contact our Offices for further consultation if items of cultural
significance are discovered during the course of this project.

Additionally, the Nation requests that USACE conduct appropriate inquiries with other pertinent
Tribal and Historic Preservation Offices regarding historic and prehistoric resources not included
in the Nation’s databases or records.

If you require additional information or have any questions, please contact me at your convenience.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Wado,
Elizabeth Toombs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cherokee Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office
[e-mail]
918.453.5389