20180795 Ver 1_Final MP_20191125

FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
SLINGSHOT CREEK STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Rockingham County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 100058
Full Delivery Contract No. 7525
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01170
RFP No. 16-007330
Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030002
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
November 2019

FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
SLINGSHOT CREEK STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Rockingham County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 100058
Full Delivery Contract No. 7525
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01170
RFP No. 16-007330
Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030002
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Contact: Worth Creech
919-755 9490 (phone)
919-755-9492 (fax)
Prepared by:
And
November 2019
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Contact: Grant Lewis
919-215-1693 (phone)
"This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33
Navigation and Navigable Waters volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2) through(c)(14).
• NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010
These documents govern NCDMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation."
This document was assembled using the June 2017 DMS Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan Template and Guidance
and the October 24, 2016 NC Interagency Review Team Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update.

Slingshot Mitigation Plan Comment Responses:
DWR Comments, Mac Haupt and Erin Davis:
This site is in the Jordan Lake watershed, are there any plans to pursue riparian buffer or nutrient offset
strategy?
• No, RS has not been contracted by DMS for buffer or nutrient credits.
2. The number of crossings for the size of the site is a negative aspect of this site. Is there any way at least
one crossing could be removed?
• No, the conservation easement has already been recorded. The farthest downstream
crossing was originally 45' in width and scaled down to a 25' width based on the IRT field
notes. The additional crossings are required by the landowner.
3. Section 3.5- DWR noted that there is only one soil profile boring listed in the Appendix. Given that this
site has wetland restoration credit, a much more thorough soil characterization will need to occur
before DWR will approve the proposed wetlands in this mitigation plan. During the site visit,
DWR field notes stated that many of our soil cores did not see lower chromas required for hydric
soils.
• Additional soil profiles have been added to the appendix, with the locations depicted on
Figure 4.
4. Section 8.1.1- Outfall Structures- DWR does not support the use of the Terracell drop structure. DWR
prefers the utilization of natural materials in the channel bed. Moreover, DWR does not believe the
slope change is so drastic that the artificial structure is warranted.
• Terracel has been changed to Drop Structure in Figure 513, Figure 713, and in the text of the
document.
5. Section 8.3- Wetland Restoration — the plan states that, "...the construction of ephemeral pools will add
an important component to groundwater restoration activities. These activities will result in the
restoration of 1.02 acres of jurisdictional ....riverine wetlands." DWR would like to stress that if
ephemeral pools are counted as wetland restoration then they will need to be constructed so that
there is periodic drying.
• Ephemeral pools will be constructed such that they dry during the summer and will have
woody debris habitat incorporated into the feature.
6. Table 14 Planting Plan- DWR is recommending a cap of 5% in the planting of Green Ash due to the green
ash borer.
• The planting list has been updated to include species ordered for the Site. The final
planting list includes 400 green ash, which is less than 4% the total number of planted
stems.
7. Table 16- Monitoring Table-DWR requires a stream gauge on UT3 in the upper third of the reach.
• This is an EII reach added by the IRT/DMS. As the channel was identified by the IRT,
confirmed to be a stream by NCDWR and the Corps of Engineer during a PDJ, and no
channel alternation work is to be conducted within, or adjacent to the channel, we
respectfully request to leave this gauge off the monitoring protocol for the Site.
8. Table 16- DWR likes the fact that benthic macroinvertebrates will be monitored.
• Good.
9. From a landscape position standpoint, DWR would rather not have mitigation sites draining (in close
proximity) into ponds or lakes.
• This is an unavoidable aspect of this Site and was discussed during our initial Site visit.
Note: Downstream, Lake Reidsville, is a municipal drinking water source for the Town of
Reidsville and the local government is very appreciative of the project for the water quality
benefit.
10. Figure 513- there are areas which appear to be in green where the current channel exists. Are these areas
meant to be proposed for wetland restoration credit? If these areas are proposed for wetland credit,
DWR believes restoration credit may not be appropriate.
RS has successfully performed and received R credit in old stream channels in the past. We

have data from many similar projects that shows that these areas are successfully converted
back to wetlands.
11. DWR notes that there were no photos of the site in the mitigation plan. It is often beneficial in the
review of the document to have the photos, especially if it has been awhile since the site visit. In
addition, DWR would like to see photos associated with the cross sections (Appendix B) if at all
possible.
• Appendix J has been added to the document and contains Site photographs. Photographs of
existing conditions cross sections is not available.
12. Design sheet 2C- shows an engineered riffle with rip rap being placed on the bank slope. DWR does
not approve of rip rap being placed on the banks.
• This has been removed from the plans set.
13. Design sheet 4- DWR needs to see a scale on these sheets. Also, the thick dashed black line, is that
limits of disturbance? DWR prefers that significant markings on the plan view be clearly labeled.
• Completed
14. Design sheet 8- DWR does not believe the utilization of a Terracell structure is warranted when the rest
of the project was using log cross vanes.
• Terracel has been changed to Drop Structure in Figure 513, Figure 713, and in the text of the
document.
15. Design sheet E2- What activities will be done to return the areas utilized as haul roads back to natural
conditions?
• See construction notes, these will be added to the haul road sheets.
16. What percentage of this project has less than 50 foot buffers?
UT 4 has less than a 50-foot buffer on its right bank, as it enters the property. UT 4 is a
preservation reach and accounts for less than 2% of the buffer area. All other streams have
a minimum 50-foot buffer on both stream banks.
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
17. The correct USACE Action ID is SAW-2018-01170. Please correct the cover page.
• The USACE Action ID has been updated.
18. Please depict photo points/digital image stations on Figures 10. If the fixed cross-section locations are
to be used, please describe that in the text in section 7.1.
• A note was added to Table 15 indicating the following. "Visual Assessment will be
complimented by permanent photographic points located at each permanent cross section
and vegetation plot."
19. Section 8.3- Wetland Restoration — The inclusion of ephemeral/vernal pools is acceptable, and should
be 8-14" depressions that dry up yearly so that predatory species cannot colonize.
• Ephemeral pools will be constructed no deeper than 12 inches, will incorporate woody
debris for habitat, and will be expected to dry during summer months.
20. This section also discusses filling drainage ditches. If ditches are to be filled, please show these areas on
the construction plans, and the length of the ditch plug.
• Channel plugs will be added to the construction plans.
21. It would be beneficial to add some coarse woody debris to the depressional areas in the buffers and
throughout the adjacent wetlands for habitat, and to help store sediment, increase water
storage/infiltration, and absorb water energy during overbank events.
• Woody debris will be included as small piles in the riparian and wetland areas for habitat.
22. Please discuss how fescue will be treated within the buffer establishment area.
RS acknowledges that this site does face challenges based on the existing vegetation. These
challenges will be overcome through a combination of herbicide applications and
mechanical site prep techniques. Preliminary herbicide treatments have already been made
targeting woody non-native invasive species (NNIS) including Kudzu, Tree of Heaven,
Privet, and Multiflora Rose (September 2019) both within the site boundaries and along the

margins of the site on the parent tract. An additional herbicide treatment for privet and
fescue is planned before the end of 2019 (pre -construction). During construction
mechanical site prep techniques including ripping will be used to diminish any remaining
undesired pasture grasses and facilitate tree establishment. The planned permanent seed
mix will also mitigate the regrowth of fescue by including cool season forbs. After
construction a regular herbicide program will be implemented targeting both dense pasture
grasses and NNIS. This integrated approach will provide a high level of control of fescue
and other undesired species and will support establishment of the desired hardwood forest
community.
23. UT3- should have a flow gauge in the upper third of the reach.
• This is an EII reach added by the IRT/DMS. As the channel was identified by the IRT,
confirmed to be a stream by NCDWR and the Corps of Engineer during a PDJ, and no
channel alteration work is to be conducted within, or adjacent to the channel, we
respectfully request to leave this gauge off the monitoring protocol for the Site.
24. Section 7.0- Potential constraints... the last sentence is unclear.
Section 7.0 was altered to clarify work conducted for the document.
25. Table 1- Are additional credits for macroinvertebrate sampling being sought? If so, please clarify this
table.
RS is not seeking extra credit for macroinvertebrate sampling on this project.
26. Table 16- Will fixed photo points be monitored annually? If so, please indicate if they will be at all
cross- sections, or depict on monitoring map.
• A note was added to Table 15 indicating the following. "Visual Assessment will be
complimented by permanent photographic points located at each permanent cross section
and vegetation plot."
27. Table 17 Success CriteriaStreams, please add a statement (regarding UT3) at least 30-days
continuous surface water flow for intermittent streams.
• The statement was added to Table 17 Success Criteria for streams.
28. Stream restoration will bisect existing wetlands where Slingshot Creek intersects with GA Wetland, and
where UT intersects with GE Wetland. At least one wetland gauge should be installed in wetland
GE to ensure no functional loss.
• An additional groundwater gauge was added to Wetland GE to ensure no functional loss.
In addition, Table 16 was updated to include 10 groundwater gauges, instead of 9
groundwater gauges.
29. Figure 3 in the JD —All streams are referred to as Troublesome Creek. Isn't this Slingshot Creek? Was
this what it was called when proposed as a bank site? Please use consistent labeling throughout
the review period, and it's especially important for the PCN to track impacts.
• During our NCDMS review it was requested we change the name from Troublesome Creek
(as designated in the PJD submittal) to Slingshot Creek.
30. When submitting the PCN, please include an estimate of the number of trees, or acres, to be cleared for
the NLEB 4(d) Rule.
• We will include an estimate of the number of trees, or acres to be cleared in our PCN
submittal.
31. Table 14--Please confirm that one target community is being proposed for the entire Project Site
(stream side, wetland, and upland areas). If multiple planting zones are proposed, please show
zones on a figure/design sheet and reference in the planting table.
• Figures 8A and 8B (Planting Plan) depict the locations of planting zones and the number
of species to be planted within each planting zone. The table depicted in the figures match
Table 14 in the document, which specifies species and number of seedlings to be planted
in each planting zone.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................I
1.1 DIRECTIONS TO SITE..........................................................................................................1
1.2 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE AND NCDWR RIVER BASIN DESIGNATION .......................1
1.3 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND LAND USE.........................................................................................1
1.4 PROJECT COMPONENTS AND STRUCTURE............................................................................2
2.0 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION...................................................7
3.0 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS..................................................................9
3.1 SOILS AND LAND FORM.....................................................................................................9
3.2 SEDIMENT MODEL...........................................................................................................10
3.3 NUTRIENT MODEL...........................................................................................................11
3.4 PROJECT SITE STREAMS...................................................................................................11
3.4.1 Existing Conditions Survey...................................................................................12
3.4.2 Channel Classification and Morphology................................................................14
3.4.3 Channel Evolution................................................................................................14
3.4.4 Valley Classification.............................................................................................14
3.4.5 Discharge..............................................................................................................14
3.5 PROJECT SITE WETLANDS................................................................................................14
3.5.1 Hydrological Characterization...............................................................................14
3.5.2 Soil Characterization.............................................................................................15
3.5.3 Plant Community Characterization........................................................................15
4.0 REFERENCE STUDIES..................................................................................................15
4.1 REFERENCE STREAMS...............................................................................................15
4.1.1 Channel Classification..........................................................................................15
4.1.2 Discharge..............................................................................................................16
4.1.3 Channel Morphology............................................................................................16
4.2 REFERENCE FOREST ECOSYSTEM.....................................................................................16
5.0 CHANNEL ASSESSMENTS...........................................................................................17
5.1 CHANNEL STABILITY ASSESSMENT..................................................................................17
5.2 BANKFULL VERIFICATION................................................................................................18
6.0 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT AND PROJECT GOALS/OBJECTIVES..............................19
7.0 SITE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION CONSTRAINTS......................................24
7.1 THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES ....................
7.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................
7.3 NORTH CAROLINA NATURAL HERITAGE ELEMENTS..
7.4 FEMA.....................................................................
7.5 UTILITIES................................................................
7.6 AIR TRANSPORT FACILITIES .....................................
8.0 DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN.........................................25
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) Table of Contents page i
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

8.1 STREAM DESIGN..............................................................................................................25
8.1.1 Stream Restoration................................................................................................26
8.1.2 Stream Enhancement (Level I)..............................................................................27
8.1.3 Stream Enhancement (Level II).............................................................................27
8.1.4 Stream Preservation..............................................................................................27
8.2 INDIVIDUAL REACH DESCRIPTIONS..................................................................................27
8.2.1 Slingshot Creek (UT to Troublesome Creek).........................................................27
8.2.2 UT 1.....................................................................................................................28
8.2.3 UT 2.....................................................................................................................30
8.2.4 UT 3.....................................................................................................................30
8.2.5 UT 4.....................................................................................................................30
8.3 WETLAND RESTORATION.................................................................................................31
8.4 WETLAND ENHANCEMENT...............................................................................................
31
8.5 SOIL RESTORATION..........................................................................................................31
8.6 NATURAL PLANT COMMUNITY RESTORATION..................................................................31
8.6.1 Planting Plan.........................................................................................................32
8.6.2 Nuisance Species Management.............................................................................35
9.0 MONITORING AND SUCCESS CRITERIA................................................................35
9.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA..........................................................................................................37
9.2 CONTINGENCY.................................................................................................................37
9.2.1 Stream Contingency..............................................................................................37
9.2.2 Wetland Contingency............................................................................................38
9.2.3 Vegetation Contingency........................................................................................38
9.3 COMPATIBILITY WITH PROJECT GOALS.............................................................................38
10.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN...........................................................................40
11.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN.......................................................................40
12.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................41
TABLES
Table 1.
Project Components and Mitigation Credits..................................................................3
Table 2.
Project Activity and Reporting History.........................................................................4
Table 3.
Project Contacts Table..................................................................................................5
Table 4.
Project Attribute Table.................................................................................................5
Table 5.
Web Soil Survey Soils Mapped within the Site...........................................................10
Table 6.
BEM and NBS Modeling Summary...........................................................................11
Table 7.
Essential Morphology Parameters...............................................................................13
Table 8.
Profile Description......................................................................................................15
Table 9.
Reference Forest Ecosystem.......................................................................................17
Table 10.
Stream Power (Q) and Shear Stress (ti) Values..........................................................18
Table 11.
Reference Reach Bankfull Discharge Analysis.........................................................19
Table 12A.
Slingshot Creek NC SAM Summary......................................................................21
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) Table of Contents page ii
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

TABLES (continued)
Table 12B.
Slingshot Creek NC WAM Summary.....................................................................22
Table 12C.
Stream/Wetland Targeted Functions, Goals, and Objectives...................................23
Table 13.
Threatened and Endangered Species.........................................................................24
Table14.
Planting Plan............................................................................................................34
Table 15.
Monitoring Schedule................................................................................................35
Table 16.
Monitoring Summary................................................................................................36
Table17.
Success Criteria........................................................................................................37
Table 18.
Compatibility of Performance Criteria to Project Goals and Objectives .....................39
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Figures
Figure 1. Site Location
Figure 2. Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3. Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 4. Existing Conditions and Soils
Figures 5A-B. Restoration Plan
Figure 6. Proposed Dimension, Pattern, and Profile
Figures 7A-B. Typical Structure Details
Figure 8A-B. Planting Plan
Figure 9A-B. Monitoring Plan
Appendix B. Existing Stream and Wetland Data
Table B 1. Morphological Stream Characteristics
Figure B l . Cross-section Locations
Existing Stream Cross-section Data
NC SAM Forms
NC WAM Forms
Sediment Data
Soil Boring Log
Appendix C. Flood Frequency Analysis Data
Appendix D. Jurisdictional Determination Information
Appendix E. T&E, SHPO, Categorical Exclusion Document
Appendix F. Financial Assurance
Appendix G. Site Protection Instrument
Appendix H. Credit Release Schedule
Appendix I. Maintenance Plan
Appendix J. Site Photographs
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) Table of Contents page iii
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION
The Slingshot Creek Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site")
encompasses 11.6 acres of disturbed forest and livestock pasture along warm water, unnamed
tributaries to Lake Hunt. The Site is located approximately 2 miles west of Reidsville, just east of
Lake Hunt, and north NC Highway 158 in Rockingham County (Figures 1 and 2, Appendix A).
1.1 Directions to Site
Directions to the Site from Raleigh, North Carolina.
➢ From Raleigh travel west on I-40 for 45 miles,
➢ Take exit 148 onto NC-54W toward Graham/Chapel Hill and turn right onto Harden
Street,
➢ Travel 1.6 miles, then turn right onto NC-87 N/W Elm Street,
➢ After 5 miles, turn right onto NC-87 N/Ossipee Road,
➢ Travel 19.3 miles, then turn left and stay on NC-87 N,
➢ After 4.1 miles, turn left toward US-158, then turn left onto US-158 W,
➢ After 0.9 mile, take a slight right onto Iron Works Road, then take a right onto Harbor
Road,
➢ The Site is located north of the end of Harbor Road.
o Site Latitude, Longitude
36.334687°N, 79.711665°W (WGS84)
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWR River Basin Designation
The Site is located within the Cape Fear River Basin in 14-digit United States Geological Survey
(USGS) Cataloging Unit and Targeted Local Watershed 03030002010010 of the South
Atlantic/Gulf Region (North Carolina Division of Water Resources [NCDWR] subbasin number
03-06-01) [Figures 1 and 2, Appendix A]). Topographic features of the Site unnamed tributaries
to Troublesome Creek (Lake Hunt), which has been assigned Stream Index Numbers 16-6-2-(1),
and a Best Usage Classification of WS-III, B, NSW (NCDWR 2013). Site tributaries are not
listed on the final 2016 NC 303(d) lists (NCDWR 2018).
1.3 Physiography and Land Use
The Site is located in the Northern Inner Piedmont Ecoregion of the Piedmont Physiographic
Province within Rockingham County, North Carolina. Regional physiography is characterized by
dissected irregular plains, low to high hills, ridges, and isolated monadnocks. Streams are low to
moderate gradient with mostly cobble, gravel, and sand substrates (Griffith et al. 2002). Onsite
elevations range from a high of 780 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) at the upper
reach of Slingshot Creek to a low of approximately 740 feet NGVD at the Site outfall (USGS
Reidsville, North Carolina 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle) (Figures 1 and 3, Appendix A).
The Site provides water quality functions to an approximately 0.42-square mile (270-acre)
watershed at the outfall; Site tributary watershed sizes range from 0.01 square mile (9 acres) to
0.10 square miles (65 acres) (Figure 3, Appendix A). The watershed is dominated by pasture,
agricultural land, and sparse residential property. Impervious surfaces account for less than 5
percent of the upstream watershed land surface.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page I
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

Land use at the Site is characterized by livestock pasture, hay fields, and disturbed forest.
Livestock have unrestricted access to Site streams. A narrow riparian fringe has developed on the
stream margins that is composed of opportunistic species, invasive species, and a few mature tree
species.
1.4 Project Components and Structure
The Site encompasses 11.6 acres along warm water, unnamed tributaries to Troublesome Creek
(Lake Hunt). In its current state, the Site includes 3944 linear feet perennial stream and 172 linear
feet of intermittent stream (based on the approved PJD), 0.69 acre of degraded wetland, and 1.02
acre of drained hydric soil (Figure 4, Appendix A).
Proposed Site restoration activities include the construction of meandering, E/C-type stream
channel resulting in 2501 linear feet of Priority I stream restoration, 587 linear feet of stream
enhancement (Level I), 635 linear feet of stream enhancement (Level II), 391 linear feet of stream
preservation, 1.018 acre of riparian wetland restoration, and 0.606 acre of riparian wetland
enhancement (Table 1) (Figures 5A-513, Appendix A).
Completed project activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts, and background
information are summarized in Tables 1-4.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 2
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Slingshot Creek Restoration Site
Existing
Restoration
Mitigation
Stream
Mitigation
Reach ID
Footage/
Category
Restoration Level
Priority Level
Comment
StationingFootage/
Ratio
Acreage
Acreage
Slingshot
00+00 to 03+05
305
305
Warm
Preservation
NA
10:1
Creek -Reach 1
Slingshot
Creek -Reach 2
03+05 to 04+59
154
154
Warm
Enhancement (Level I1)
NA
2.5:1
Slingshot
Creek -Reach 3
04+59 to 05+78
156
119
Warm
Restoration
1
1:1
Slingshot
05+78 to 07+17
139
139
Warm
Enhancement (Level 1)
3
1.5:1
Creek -Reach 4
126 if of Slingshot Creek is
Slingshot
2060-50-51-
located outside of the
07+17 to 27+77
2069
25=
Warm
Restoration
1
1:1
conservation casement and
Creek -Reach 5
1934
therefore is not generating
credit
Slingshot
27+77 to 28+74
97
97
Warm
Enhancement (Level I1)
NA
2.5:1
Creek -Reach 6
UT IA
00+00 to 01+95
195
195
Warm
Enhancement (Level I1)
NA
2.5:1
52 if of the UT is located
500-52=
outside of the conservation
UT 1B
01+95 to 06+95
500
448
Warm
Enhancement (Level 1)
3
1.5:1
casement and therefore is not
generating credit
UT 1C
06+95 to 09+70
273
275
Warm
Restoration
1
1:1
UT 2
00+04 to 01+78
130
173
Warm
Restoration
1
1:1
UT 3
00+00 to 01+89
189
189
Warm
Enhancement (Level I1)
NA
2.5:1
UT 4
00+00 to 00+86
86
86
Warm
Preservation
NA
10:1
Wetland
1.018
Riparian
Restoration
NA
1:1
Restoration
Wetland
0.69
0.606
Riparian
Enhancement
NA
2:1
Enhancement
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058)
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Rockingham County, North Carolina
page 3
Restoration Systems, LLC
November 2019

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits (continued)
Slingshot Creek Restoration Site
Project Credits
Restoration Level
Warm Water Stream
(SMUs)
Riparian Wetland (WMUs)
Restoration
2501.000*
1.018
Enhancement (Level 1)
391.333**
--
Enhancement (Level I1)
254.000
--
Preservation
39.100
--
Enhancement
--
0.303
TOTALS
3185.433
1.321
*An additional 126 linear feet of stream restoration is proposed to occur outside of the conservation easement and is therefore not included in this total or in mitigation credit
calculations.
**An additional 52 linear feet of stream enhancement (level I) is proposed to occur outside of the conservation easement and is therefore not included in this total or in mitigation
credit calculations.
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Slingshot Creek Restoration Site
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Deliver
Technical Proposal (RFP No. 16-007330
February 2, 2018
February 8, 2018
Institution Date (NCDMS Contract No. 100058)
--
Aril 24, 2018
Mitigation Plan
Se tember 2018
June 2019
Construction Plans
--
--
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 4
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Slingshot Creek Restoration Site
Full Delivery Provider
Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Worth Creech
919-755-9490
Designer
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis
919-215-1693
Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Slingshot Creek Restoration Site
Project Information
Project Name
Slingshot Creek Restoration Site
Project County
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Project Area (acres)
11.6
Project Coordinates latitude & latitude
36.334687°N, 79.711665°W
Planted Area acres
9.3
Project Watershed Summary Information
Ph sio ra hic Province
Piedmont
Project River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS HUC for Project 14-di it
03030002010010
NCD WR Sub -basin for Project
03 -06-01
Project Drainage Area (acres)
270
Percentage of Project Drainage Area that is
Impervious
<5%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Managed Herbaceous Cover & Hardwood Swamps
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058)
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Rockingham County, North Carolina
page 5
Restoration Systems, LLC
November 2019

Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Slingshot Creek Restoration Site (continued)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Slingshot Creek
UT 1
UT 2
UT 3
UT 4
Length of reach (linear feet)
2920
968
130
189
86
Valley Classification & Confinement
Alluvial, confined
Drainage Area (acres)
270
60
65
9
22
NCDWR Stream ID Score
---
---
---
---
---
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Intermittent
Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS-III, B, NSW
Existing Morphological Description
Ros en 1996
G4/5
G5
G5
C5
Eg4
Proposed Stream Classification (Rosgen
1996)
C/E 4
C/E 4
C/E 4
C5
Eg4
Existing Evolutionary Stage (Simon and
Hupp 1986)
IIUIV
I/III/IV
IIUIV
IUIII
IUIII
Underlying Mapped Soils
Clifford sandy clay loam, Codorus loam, Davie sandy loam, Fairview -Poplar complex, Nathalic sandy loam, Poplar Forest
sandy clay loam
Drainage Class
Well -drained, moderately well -drained, somewhat poorly -drained, well -drained, well -drained, well -drained, well -drained
H dric Soil Status
Nonh dric, nonh dric, nonh dric, nonh dric, nonh dric, nonh dric, nonh dric, res ectivel
Valley Sloe
0.0195
0.0315
0.0218
--- ---
FEMA Classification
NA
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Alluvial Forest/Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover Site
43% forest,55% a ricultuml land, <2% low density residential/impervious surface
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover
Cedarock Reference Channel
65%forest 30%agricultural land, <5%low density residential/impervious surface
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive
Vegetation
<5%
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058)
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Rockingham County, North Carolina
page 6
Restoration Systems, LLC
November 2019

Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Slingshot Creek Restoration Site (continued)
Wetland Summary
Information
Parameters
Wetlands
Wetland acreage
1.02 acre drained & 0.69 acre degraded
Wetland Type
Ri ahan riverine
Mapped Soil Series
Worsham
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
H dric Soil Status
H dric
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater, stream overbank
Hydrologic Impairment
Incised streams, compacted soils, livestock
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
% Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation
<5%
Restoration Method
Hydrologic, vegetative, livestock
Enhancement Method
Vegetative, livestock
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States -Section 401
Yes
Yes
JD Package A D
Waters of the United States -Section 404
Yes
Yes
JD Package A D
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
CE Document A E
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
CE Document A E
Coastal Zone Management Act
No
--
NA
FEMA Flood lain Compliance
No
--
CE Document A E
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
--
NA
2.0 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION
Primary considerations for Site selection included the potential for improvement of water quality
within a region of North Carolina under heavy development and livestock/agricultural pressure.
More specifically, considerations included: desired aquatic resource functions; hydrologic
conditions; soil characteristics; aquatic habitat diversity; habitat connectivity; compatibility with
adjacent land uses; reasonably foreseeable effects the mitigation project will have on ecologically
important aquatic and terrestrial resources; and potential development trends and land use changes.
Site specific characteristics are summarized below, in addition to development trends and land use
changes within the watershed.
Currently, the proposed Site is characterized by disturbed forest, hay fields, and livestock pasture.
A summary of existing Site characteristics in favor of proposed stream and wetland activities
include the following.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 7
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

• Streams and wetlands are accessible to livestock
• Stream banks are trampled by livestock
• Streams and wetlands have been cleared of forest vegetation
• Site receives nonpoint source inputs including agricultural chemicals and livestock waste
• Wetland soils have been compacted by livestock and agricultural equipment
• Wetland hydrology has been removed by stream channel entrenchment
• Streams are classified as nutrient sensitive waters
In addition to the opportunity for ecological improvements at the Site, the use of the particular
mitigation activities and methods proposed in the Design Approach & Mitigation Work Plan
(Section 8.0) are expected to produce naturalized stream and wetland resources that will be
ecologically self-sustaining, requiring minimal long-term management (Long-term Management
Plan [Section 11.0]).
Development Trends and Land Use Changes in Cape Fear 03030002 (Cape Fear 02)
Between the 2000 and 2010 censuses, the Cape Fear 02 population increased approximately 17
percent. These data suggest land development activities will increase in frequency, as will aquatic
ecosystem impacts related to such development. Therefore, there is an immediate and prolonged
need for compensatory stream mitigation in the watershed. Of further benefit, aquatic ecosystem
restoration projects are capable of reducing nutrient loading in sensitive downstream receiving
waters such as Jordan Lake.
According to the Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDWQ 2005), all land uses
and discharges of wastewater and stormwater in the Cape Fear 02 subbasin 03-06-01 potentially
contribute nutrients to B. Everett Jordan Lake. B. Everett Jordan Lake provides low -flow
augmentation, flood control, recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, and water supply. The lake is
impaired for aquatic life due to excessive levels of chlorophyll a in violation of current standards
in all segments of the reservoir. In addition, the Site has a supplemental water quality classification
of Nutrient Sensitive Waters, which designates areas with water quality problems associated with
excessive plant growth resulting from nutrient enrichment. The proposed mitigation activities will
reduce sediment and nutrient levels, and improve water quality within the Site and downstream
watersheds.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 8
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

The project is located within the Troublesome Creek and Little Troublesome Creek Local
Watershed Planning area (NCEEP 2004); the project activities address priorities associated with
the LWP as follows with Site specific information following the LWP goals in parenthesis.
1. Protect and improve water quality by restoring wetland, stream, and riparian area functions
and values, which may have been, or may be, lost through historic, current, and future
impacts (4114 linear feet of stream restoration/enhancement/preservation, 1.624 acres of
wetland restoration/enhancement, and 11.6 acres of riparian buffer
restoration/enhancement).
2. Achieve a net increase in riparian zone buffers and wetlands acreage, functions, and values
(11.6 acres of riparian buffer restoration/enhancement, and increased wetland acreage by
0.934 acres).
3. Promote a comprehensive approach for the protection of natural resources (protection of
the Site, streams, wetlands, and riparian buffer through a permanent conservation
easement).
In addition to the defined Troublesome Creek LWP goals, additional goals for the area generally
revolve around reduction of stressors to water quality. Stressors and how each will be addressed
by project activities is as follows.
1. Nutrient Inputs — (nutrient model [Section 3.3] - livestock removal from streams will result
in a direct reduction of 474.7 pounds of nitrogen, 39.3 pounds of phosphorus per year, and
4.7 x 1011 colonies of fecal coliform; eliminate fertilizer application; and install marsh
treatment areas).
2. Streambank Erosion — (sediment model [Section 3.2] — reduction of 220 tons/year after
mitigation is complete).
3. Stormwater — (reduction of bank height ratio and installation of marsh treatment area will
reduce stormwater pulses).
4. Disturbed Riparian Buffer — (restoration/enhancement of 11.6 acres of riparian buffer along
4114 linear feet of stream).
5. Floodplain Alteration — (elimination of straightened, entrenched streams and the removal
of spoil material deposited in the floodplain).
Site specific mitigation goals and objectives have been developed through the use of North
Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM) and North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method
(NC WAM) and are discussed further in Section 6.0 (Functional Uplift and Project
Goals/Obj ectives).
3.0 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Soils and Land Form
Soils that occur within the Site, according to the Web Soil Survey (USDA 2017) are described in
Table 5.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 9
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

Table 5. Web Soil Survey Soils Mapped within the Site
Map Unit
Map Unit Name
Hydric
Description
S mbol
Classification
Status
This series consists of well -drained, moderately
CgB2
Clifford sandy clay loam
Non-hydric
eroded soils found along 2-8 percent slopes. The
(Typic Kanhapludults)
parent material is saprolite derived from schist
and/or gneiss.
This series consists of moderately well -drained
Codorus loam
and somewhat poorly drained soils found on 0-2
CsA
(Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts)
Non-hydric
percent slopes in floodplains. The parent material
is alluvium derived from schist, gneiss, phyllite,
and other metamorphic rocks.
This series consists of somewhat poorly -drained
DcB
Davie sandy loam
Non-hydric
soils found along 2-8 percent slopes. The parent
(Aquultic Hapludalfs)
material is residuum from intermediate or mafic
metamorphic or igneous rock.
This series consists of well -drained, moderately
FrE2
Fairview -Poplar complex
Non-hydric
eroded soils found on 15-25 percent hill slopes on
(Typic Kanhapludults)
ridges. The parent material is saprolite derived
from schist and/or gneiss.
This series consists of well -drained soils found
NaB
Nathalie sandy loam
Non-hydric
along 2-8 percent slopes. The parent material is
(Typic Fragiudults)
residuum from felsic igneous or metamorphic
rock.
This series consists of well -drained soils found
Poplar Forest sandy clay loam
along 8-15 percent slopes. The parent material is
PpD2
(Typic Kanhapludults)
Non-hydric
residuum from felsic or intermediate, high-grade
metamorphic or igneous rocks high in mica
content.
Hydric soils and jurisdictional wetlands were delineated and mapped by a licensed soil scientist in
October 26 and 27, 2017. Based on soil delineations approximately 0.69 acre of disturbed
jurisdictional wetland occur within the Site boundaries. Wetlands have been disturbed by livestock
grazing and clearing of vegetation within pastureland. In addition, 1.02 acre of drained hydric soil
occurs within the Site boundaries. These hydric soils have been effectively drained by stream
channel incision and/or relocation of stream channels to the margins of the floodplain.
3.2 Sediment Model
Sediment load modeling was performed using methodologies outlined in A Practical Method of
Computing Streambank Erosion Rate (Rosgen 2009) along with Estimating Sediment Loads using
the Bank Assessment of Non point Sources Consequences of Sediment (Rosgen 2011). These
models provide a quantitative prediction of streambank erosions by calculating Bank Erosion
Hazard Index (BEHI) and Near -Bank Stress (NBS) along each Site reach. The resulting BEHI
and NBS values are then compared to streambank erodibility graphs prepared for North Carolina
by the NC Stream Restoration Institute and NC Sea Grant.
Streambank characteristics involve measurements of bank height, angles, materials, presence of
layers, rooting depth, rooting density, and percent of the bank protected by rocks, logs, roots, or
vegetation. Site reaches have been measured for each BEHI and NBS characteristic and predicted
lateral erosion rate, height, and length to calculate a cubic volume of sediment contributed by the
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058)
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Rockingham County, North Carolina
page 10
Restoration Systems, LLC
November 2019

reach each year. Data forms for the analysis are available upon request and the data output is
presented in Appendix B. Results of the model are presented in the following table.
Table 6. BEHI and NBS Modeling Summary
Stream Reach
Proposed Mitigation Treatment
Predicted Sediment
Contribution
(tons/year)
Main
Restoration and Enhancement Level I & II
207.6
UT 1
Restoration and Enhancement Level I & II
8.2
UT 2
Restoration
4.1
Total Sediment Contribution (tons/year
220
Based on this analysis, mitigation of Site streams will reduce streambank erosion and subsequent
pollution of receiving waters.
3.3 Nutrient Model
Nutrient modeling was conducted using a method developed by NCDMS (NCDMS 2016) to
determine nutrient and fecal coliform reductions from exclusion of livestock from the buffer.
The equation for nutrient reduction for this model includes the following:
TN reduction (lbs/yr) = 51.04 (lbs/ac/yr) x Area (ac)
TP reduction (lbs/yr) = 4.23 (lbs/ac/yr) x Area (ac)
Where:
TN — total nitrogen;
TP — total phosphorus; and
Area — total area of restored riparian buffers inside of livestock exclusion fences.
Equations for fecal coliform reduction for this model include the following.
Fecal coliform reduction (col) = 2.2 x 10" (col/AU/day) x AU x 0.085
Where:
Col - quantities of Fecal Coliform bacteria
AU - animal unit (1000 lbs of livestock)
Results of the NCDMS analysis indicate approximately 474.7 lbs/yr of nitrogen, 39.3 lbs/yr of
phosphorus, and 4.68 x 10" col of fecal coliform/day will be reduced due to exclusion of livestock
from the easement area.
3.4 Project Site Streams
Streams targeted for restoration include unnamed tributaries to Troublesome Creek, which have
been cleared, dredged of cobble substrate, straightened, trampled by livestock, eroded vertically
and laterally, and receive extensive sediment and nutrient inputs from livestock. Approximately
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 11
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

55 percent of the existing stream channel has been degraded contributing to sediment export from
the Site resulting from mechanical processes from livestock hoof shear. In addition, streamside
wetlands have been cleared and drained by channel downcutting and land uses. Current Site
conditions have resulted in degraded water quality, a loss of aquatic habitat, reduced nutrient and
sediment retention, and unstable channel characteristics (loss of horizontal flow vectors that
maintain pools and an increase in erosive forces to channel bed and banks). Site restoration
activities will restore riffle -pool morphology, aid in energy dissipation, increase aquatic habitat,
stabilize channel banks, and greatly reduce sediment loss from channel banks.
3.4.1 Existing Conditions Survey
Site stream dimension, pattern, and profile were measured to characterize existing channel
conditions. Locations of existing stream reaches are depicted in Figure 4 (Appendix A) and cross-
section locations are depicted in Figure B 1 (Appendix B). Stream geometry measurements under
existing conditions are summarized in Table 7 (Essential Morphology Parameters) and presented
in detail in Table B 1 (Appendix B).
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 12
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

Table 7. Essential Morphology Parameters
Parameter
Existing
Reference
Proposed
Slingshot
Creek
UT 1
UT 2
Flint Rock
Farm
Caswell
Game Land
Slingshot
Creek
UT 1
UT 2
Valley Width ft
50-100
9-100
11-12
50-100
23-44
50-100
30-90
30-90
Contributing Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
0.42
0.09
0.10
0.43
0.65
0.42
0.09
0.09
Channel/Reach Classification
G 4/5
G5
G5
E5
Cg3/4
E/C 3/4
E/C 3/4
E/C 3/4
Design Discharge Width (ft)
6.0-14.6
7.2
7.7
7.5
18.4
10.8-11.1
7.6
7.6
Design Discharge Depth (ft)
0.6-1.4
0.6
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.8-0.9
0.5
0.5
Design Discharge Area (ft')
8.3-11.1
4.0
4.3
6.1
17.6
8.3-11.1
4.1
4.1
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)
4.0
3.8
3.7
4.0
4.0
3.9-4.0
3.8
3.8
Design Discharge (cfs)
44.4
15.0
15.9
24.4
71.1
32.7-44.4
15.5
15.5
Water Surface Slope
0.0151
0.0267
0.0186
0.0049
0.0100
0.0170
0.0263
0.0263
Sinuosity
1.03
1.18
1.17
1.22
1.14
1.15
1.2
1.2
Width/DepthRatio
4.3-24.3
12.0
12.8
9.6
19.6
14.0
14.0
14.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.3-4.5
2.4
2.8
1.0
1.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.2-10.5
2.0
1.6
13.4
1.8
8.0
6.6
6.6
Substrate
Gravel
Sand
Sand
Sand
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Note: UT 3 and UT 4 are proposed for Enhancement (level I1) and Preservation; therefore, are not included in the existing and proposed morphology parameters
tables.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 13
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

3.4.2 Channel Classification and Morphology
Stream geometry and substrate data have been evaluated to classify existing stream conditions
based on a classification utilizing fluvial geomorphic principles (Rosgen 1996). Existing Site
reaches are classified as unstable G-type streams with variable sinuosity. Existing Site reaches are
characterized by sand substrate as the result of channel impacts including livestock trampling,
channel straightening, and riparian vegetation removal.
3.4.3 Channel Evolution
Site streams targeted for restoration have been channelized and are continually trampled by
livestock resulting primarily in channels classified as channelized (Class II), degraded (Class III),
and degraded and widened (Class IV) channels throughout the Site (Simon and Hupp 1986).
3.4.4 Valley Classification
The Site is characterized by small stream, headwater, confined, alluvial valleys with approximately
20- to 100-foot floodplain valley widths. Valley slopes of restoration reaches are typical for the
Piedmont region and range from 0.0176-0.0315. Typical streams in this region include C- and E-
type streams with slightly entrenched, meandering channels with a riffle -pool sequence.
3.4.5 Discharge
This hydrophysiographic region is characterized by moderate rainfall with precipitation averaging
approximately 41.7 inches per year (USDA 1992). Drainage basin sizes range from 0.01- to 0.42-
square mile.
The Site's discharge is dominated by a combination of upstream basin catchment, groundwater
flow, and precipitation. Based on regional curves (Harman et al. 1999), the bankfull discharge for
the Site (0.01- to 0.42-square mile watershed) ranges from 3.2 to 47.8 cubic feet per second. Based
on indicators of bankfull at reference reaches and on -Site, the designed channel will equal
approximately 93 percent of the channel size indicated by Piedmont regional curves; this is
discussed in Section 5.2 (Bankfull Verification).
3.5 Project Site Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetlands/hydric soils within the Site were delineated in the field following
guidelines set forth in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and subsequent
regional supplements, and located using GPS technology with reported submeter accuracy
(Environmental Laboratory 1987). A jurisdictional wetland delineation was completed and
verbally approved by United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) representative David
Bailey during a meeting on August 22, 2018; the signed Notification of Jurisdictional
Determination can be found in Appendix D. Existing jurisdictional wetlands are depicted in light
blue and green stripes, and drained hydric soils are depicted as black cross hatch on Figure 4
(Appendix A).
3.5.1 Hydrological Characterization
Construction activities are expected to restore approximately 1.018 acre of drained riparian hydric
soils, and enhance 0.606 acre of cleared riparian wetlands. Areas of the Site targeted for riparian
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 14
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

wetlands will receive hydrological inputs from periodic overbank flooding of restored tributaries,
groundwater migration into wetlands, upland/stormwater runoff, and, to a lesser extent, direct
precipitation. Hydrological impairment in drained soils has resulted from lateral draw -down of
the water table adjacent to existing, incised stream channels.
3.5.2 Soil Characterization
Detailed soil mapping conducted by a North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist (NCLSS) in October
26 and 27, 2017 indicate that the Site is currently underlain by hydric soils of the Worsham Series
(Figure 4, Appendix A). Wetlands have been disturbed by livestock grazing and cleared of
vegetation within pastureland. These hydric soils have been effectively drained by stream channel
incision or relocation of stream channels to the floodplain margins.
Onsite hydric soils are grey to gley in color and are compacted and pockmarked by livestock
trampling. Livestock trampling, grazing, and clearing has resulted in an herbaceous vegetative
community. Groundwater springs and surface runoff contribute hydrology to these areas, although
the dominant hydrological influence is the lateral draw -down of the water table adjacent to incised
stream channels or streams relocated to the floodplain margins. A detailed soil profile conducted
by a NCLSS is as follows; the location is depicted on Figure 4 (Appendix A).
Table 8. Profile Description
Depth (inches)
Color
Texture
0-5
10 YR 3/3
10 YR 4/1 mottles 10%
Silt loam
5 - 8
10 YR 511
Loamy clay
8-14
10 YR 6/1
Sandy clay
14+
10 YR 6/1
Loamy sand
3.5.3 Plant Community Characterization
Areas proposed for wetland restoration and enhancement are primarily vegetated by fescue and
opportunistic herbaceous species with very little vegetative diversity.
4.0 REFERENCE STUDIES
4.1 REFERENCE STREAMS
Two reference reaches were identified for the Site. The first reference stream (Flint Rock Farm)
is located approximately 6 miles southwest of the Site on an unnamed tributary to Troublesome
Creek. The second reference stream (Caswell Game Land) is located approximately 25 miles east
of the Site on unnamed tributaries to South Country Line Creek.
4.1.1 Channel Classification
The streams were measured and classified by stream type (Rosgen 1996). The reference reaches
are characterized as E-type and Cg-type streams; Flint Rock Farm is a moderately sinuous (1.22)
channel dominated by sand substrate and Caswell Game Land had slightly lower sinuosity, due to
a higher valley slope, with a gravel -dominated substrate.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 15
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

4.1.2 Discharge
Field indicators of bankfull predict an average discharge of 24.4 and 71.7 cfs, respectively for the
Flint Rock Farm and Caswell Game Lands reference reaches, which is 50 and 110 percent of that
predicted by the regional curves.
4.1.3 Channel Morphology
Dimension: Data collected at Flint Rock Farm and Caswell Game Land indicate bankfull cross -
sectional areas of 6.1 and 17.6 square feet, respectively. Flint Rock Farm was significantly smaller
than the regional curves (12.1 square feet) and Caswell Game Land was slightly larger than
predicted by regional curves (16.0 square feet). Flintrock Farm may not be a suitable reference
site for determination of cross -sectional area; however, the channel is very stable and was useful
in determination of pattern and slope ratios for design calculation. Flint Rock Farm and Caswell
Game Land exhibit a bankfull width of 7.5 and 18.4, a bankfull depth of 0.8 and 1.0 feet, and
width -to -depth ratios of 9.6 and 19.6, respectively (see Table B 1, Morphological Stream
Characteristics). The reference reaches exhibit a bank -height ratio of 1.0 and 1.8, respectively.
The Caswell Game Land reference reach was slightly incised; however, defined bankfull indicators
were present, which assisted with determining the appropriate cross -sectional area.
Pattern and Profile: In -field measurements of the reference reaches have yielded an average
sinuosity of 1.22 at Flint Rock Farm and 1.14 at Caswell Game Land (thalweg distance/straight-
line distance). Onsite valley slopes of Site restoration reaches range from 0.0176-0.0315. Valley
slopes exhibited by reference channels range are characterized by similar slopes (0.0060 at
Flintrock Farm and 0.0114 at Caswell Game Lands), providing a good range of slopes to compare
existing and proposed Site conditions. Although slightly incised, the Caswell Game Land
reference reach had a suitable pattern with no shoot cutoffs, eroding outer bends, or excessively
tight radius of curvatures, in addition to appropriate pool -to -pool spacing and meander
wavelengths.
Substrate: Reference channels are characterized by substrate dominated by gravel and sand sized
particles, respectively.
4.2 Reference Forest Ecosystem
A Reference Forest Ecosystem (RFE) is a forested area on which to model restoration efforts at
the Site in relation to soils and vegetation. RFEs should be ecologically stable climax communities
and should be a representative model of the Site as it likely existed prior to human disturbances.
Data describing plant community composition and structure should be collected at the RFEs and
subsequently applied as reference data in an attempt to emulate a natural climax community.
The RFE for this project is located at the Abbey Lamm Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site. The
RFE supports plant community and landform characteristics that restoration efforts will attempt to
emulate. Tree and shrub species identified within the reference forest and outlined in Table 9 will
be used, in addition to other relevant species in appropriate Schafale and Weakley (1990) and
Schafale (2012) community descriptions.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 16
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

Table 9. Reference Forest Ecosystem
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
red maple (Acer rubrum)
black gum (N ssa s lvatica))
tag alder Alnus serrulata
black the Prunus serotina
ironwood (Car inus caroliniana)
white oak ( uercus alba)
pignut hickory (Carya labs
swamp chestnut oak uercus michauxii
green ash Fraxinus enns lvanica
water oak uercus ni ra
eastern red cedar Juni erus vir iniana
the bark oak uercus pagoda)
tulip poplar Liriodendron tuli i era
willow oak uercus hellos
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
slippery elm (Ulmus rubra)
5.0 CHANNEL ASSESSMENTS
5.1 Channel Stability Assessment
Stream power and shear stress were estimated for 1) existing dredged and straightened reaches, 2)
the reference reaches, and 3) proposed Site conditions. Reference reach values for stream power
and shear stress are slightly lower than the Site due to flatter valley and water surface slopes
resulting in lower stream power and shear stress values. Existing, Site streams are characterized
by a wide range of water surface slopes and varying degrees of degradation. In general, stream
power values of existing streams are slightly elevated as compared to proposed values, and shear
stress values of existing streams are significantly elevated as compared to proposed and reference
reach values. Proposed stream power and shear stress values appear adequate to mobilize and
transport sediment through the Site, without aggradation or erosion on proposed stream banks.
Important input values and output results (including stream power, shear stress, and per unit shear
power and shear stress) are presented in Table 10. Results of the analysis indicate the proposed
channel reaches are expected to maintain stream power as a function of width values of
approximately 2.89-3.77 lbs/sec3 and shear stress values of approximately 0.64-0.82 lbs/ft2 (Table
10).
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 17
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

Table 10. Stream Power M) and Shear Stress (i) Values
Bankfull
Discharge
(ft3/sec)
Water
surface
Slope
(ft/ft)
Total
Stream
Power (Q)
(lb-ft
/sec3)
CM
(lb/sec3)
Hydraulic
Radius (ft)
Shear
Stress
(T)
(lb/fe)
Velocity
(v)
(ft/sec)
c v
(lb/
ft-sec)
Tmax'
(lb/fe)
Existing Conditions
Main Upstream
32.7
0.0149
30.40
3.45
3.39
3.15
0.91
2.87
4.72
Main Downstream
44.4
0.0171
47.38
4.05
4.41
4.70
0.74
3.46
7.06
UTl
15
0.0267
24.99
6.75
4.26
7.09
0.75
5.32
10.63
UT2
15.9
0.0186
18.45
4.99
12.74
14.79
0.27
3.93
22.19
Reference Conditions
Flint Rock
24.4
0.0049
7.46
0.99
0.67
0.20
4.00
0.82
0.31
Caswell Game
71.7
0.0100
44.74
2.43
0.86
0.54
4.07
2.19
0.81
Proposed Conditions
Main Upstream
32.7
0.0153
32.22
2.89
0.67
0.64
3.94
2.52
0.96
Main Downstream
44.4
0.017
47.1
3.77
0.78
0.82
4.00
3.29
1.24
UT1
15.5
0.0263
25.44
3.35
0.48
0.78
3.78
2.96
1.17
UT2
15.5
0.0263
25.44
3.35
0.48
0.78
3.78
2.96
1.17
5.2 Bankfull Verification
Discharge estimates for the Site utilize an assumed definition of "bankfull" and the return interval
associated with that bankfull discharge. For this study, the bankfull channel is defined as the
channel dimensions designed to support the "channel forming" or "dominant" discharge (Gordon
et al. 1992).
Based on available Piedmont regional curves, the predicted bankfull discharge for the reference
reaches averages approximately 48.4 and 65.2 cubic feet per second (cfs) for Flint Rock Farm and
Caswell Game Land, respectively (Harmen et al. 1999). The USGS regional regression equation
for the Piedmont region indicates that bankfull discharge for the reference reaches at a 1.3-1.5 year
return interval average approximately 38-68 and 66-89 cfs, respectively (USGS 2006).
Field indicators of bankfull, primarily topographic breaks identified on the banks, and riffle cross -
sections were utilized to obtain an average bankfull cross -sectional area for the reference reaches.
The Piedmont regional curves were then utilized to plot the watershed area and discharge for the
reference reach cross -sectional area. Field indicators of bankfull approximate an average
discharge of 24.4 and 71.7 cfs, respectively for the reference reaches, which is 50 and 110 percent
of that predicted by the regional curves. Ultimately, on -site and reference cross sections with good
indicators of bankfull cross sectional areas should match close to the regional curves, which is
verified by the range approximated by the USGS regional regression equation.
Based on the above analysis of methods to determine bankfull discharge, proposed conditions at
the Site will be based on reference reaches and onsite indicators of bankfull (UT 1 cross -sections
3 and 7, Appendix B). Based on field indicators of bankfull at the Site (93 percent of the curves),
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 18
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

and the Reference Reaches, the designed onsite channel restoration area will equal approximately
93 percent of the channel size indicated by Piedmont regional curves. Therefore, Site bankfull
discharges range from approximately 15.5-44.4 cfs. Table 11 summarizes all methods analyzed
for estimating bankfull discharge.
Table 11. Reference Reach Bankfull Discharge Analysis
Method
Watershed Area
(square miles)
Return Interval
(years)
Discharge
(cfs)
Flint Rock
Farm Reference Reach
Piedmont Regional Curves
(Harman et al. 1999)
0.43
1.3-1.5
48.4
Piedmont Regional Regression Model
(USGS 2004)
0.43
1.3-1.5
38-68
Field Indicators of Bankfall
0.43
1.3-1.5
24.4
Caswell Game Land Reference Reach
Piedmont Regional Curves
(Harman et al. 1999)
0.65
1.3-1.5
65.2
Piedmont Regional Regression Model
(USGS 2004)
0.65
1.3-1.5
66-89
Field Indicators of Bankfall
0.65
1.3-1.5
71.7
6.0 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT AND PROJECT GOALS/OBJECTIVES
Project goals are based on the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report
(NCEEP 2009) and on -site data collection of channel morphology and function observed during
field investigations. The RBRP report documents benthic ratings vary between "Fair" and "Good -
Fair" possibly due to cattle, dairy, and poultry operations.
The project is located within the Troublesome Creek and Little Troublesome Creek Local
Watershed Planning area (NCEEP 2004); project activities address priorities associated with the
LWP as follows with Site specific information following the LWP goals in parenthesis.
1. Protect and improve water quality by restoring wetland, stream, and riparian area functions
and values, which may have been, or may be, lost through historic, current, and future
impacts (4115 linear feet of stream restoration/enhancement/preservation, 1.71 acres of
wetland restoration/enhancement, and 11.6. acres of riparian buffer
restoration/enhancement).
2. Achieve a net increase in riparian zone buffers and wetlands acreage, functions, and values
(11.6 acres of riparian buffer restoration/enhancement, and increased wetland acreage by
1.02 acres).
3. Promote a comprehensive approach for the protection of natural resources (protection of
the Site, streams, wetlands, and riparian buffer through a permanent conservation
easement).
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 19
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

In addition to the defined Troublesome Creek LWP goals, additional goals for the area generally
revolve around reduction of stressors to water quality. Stressors and how each will be addressed
by project activities is as follows.
1. Nutrient Inputs — (nutrient model [Section 3.3] - livestock removal from streams will result
in a direct reduction of 474.7 pounds of nitrogen, 39.3 pounds of phosphorus per year, and
4.7 x 1011 colonies of fecal coliform; eliminate fertilizer application; and install marsh
treatment areas).
2. Streambank Erosion — (sediment model [Section 3.2] — reduction of 220 tons/year after
mitigation is complete).
3. Stormwater — (reduction of bank height ratio and installation of marsh treatment area will
reduce stormwater pulses).
4. Disturbed Riparian Buffer — (restoration/enhancement of 11.6 acres of riparian buffer along
4115 linear feet of stream).
5. Floodplain Alteration — (elimination of straightened, entrenched streams and the removal
of spoil material deposited in the floodplain).
Site specific mitigation goals and objectives have been developed through the use of North
Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM) and North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method
(NC WAM) analyses of existing and reference stream systems at the Site (NC SFAT 2015 and NC
WFAT 2010). These methodologies rate functional metrics for streams and wetlands as high,
medium, or low based on field data collected on forms and transferred into a rating calculator.
Using Boolean logic, the rating calculator assigns a high, medium, or low value for each metric
and overall function. Site functional assessment data forms are available upon request and model
output is included in Appendix B.
Tables 12A and 12B summarize NC SAM and NC WAM metrics targeted for functional uplift and
the corresponding mitigation activities proposed to provide functional uplift. Metrics targeted to
meet the Site's goals and objectives are depicted in bold.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 20
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

Table 12A. Slingshot Creek NC SAM Summa
NC SAM Function Class Rating Summary
SAM 1
Main
Downstream
SAM 2
UT 1
SAM 3
Main
Middle
SAM 4
Main
Upstream
(1) HYDROLOGY
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
(1) WATER QUALITY
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Area Vegetation
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
2 Indicators of Stressors
YES
YES
YES
YES
2 Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
(1) HABITAT
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
(3) In -Stream Habitat
LOW
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
OVERALL
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
Based on NC SAM output, all three primary stream functional metrics (Hydrology, Water Quality,
and Habitat), as well as 16 sub -metrics are under -performing as exhibited by a LOW metric rating.
These same metrics measured in a relatively undisturbed upstream reach of Slingshot Creek
(Enhancement Level 11 Reach) exhibits MEDIUM to HIGH metric ratings (see Figure 4, Appendix
A for NC SAM data reaches). LOW performing metrics are to be targeted for functional uplift
through mitigation activities, goals and objectives, as well as, monitoring and success criteria.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 21
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

Table 12B. Slingshot Creek NC WAM Summar
NC WAM Sub -function Rating Summary
WAM-1
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
(I) HYDROLOGY
MEDIUM
(2) Surface Storage & Retention
MEDIUM
(2) Sub -surface Storage and Retention
MEDIUM
(1) WATER QUALITY
HIGH
(2) Pathogen change
HIGH
(2) Particulate Change
LOW
(2) Soluble change
HIGH
(2) Physical Change
MEDIUM
(1) HABITAT
LOW
(2) Physical Structure
LOW
(2) Landscape Patch Structure
LOW
(2) Vegetative Composition
LOW
OVERALL
MEDIUM
NC WAM forms are filled out for wetland enhancement areas. Wetland restoration areas were
not rated using the NC WAM methodology.
Table 12C outlines stream and wetland functions targeted for functional uplift, goals that are tied
to the specific functions, and objectives to be completed to achieve the proposed goals.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 22
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

Table 12C. Stream/Wetland Targeted Functions, Goals, and Objectives
Targeted Functions
Goals
Objectives
(I)HYDROLOGY
(2) Flood Flow (Floodplain Access)
. Attenuate flood flow across the Site.
• Minimize downstream flooding to the
maximum extent possible.
. Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank flows
and restore jurisdictional wetlands
• Plant woody riparian buffer
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
(4) Floodplain Access
• Connect streams to functioning wetland
• Remove livestock
Deep rip floodplain soils to reduce compaction and increase soil surface roughness
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
systems.
• Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation casement
(3) Stream Stability
. Increase stream stability within the Site
Construct channels with proper pattern, dimension, and longitudinal profile
• Remove livestock
(4) Sediment Transport
so that channels are neither aggrading nor
degrading.
Construct stable channels with cobble/gravel substrate
• Plant woody riparian buffer
p
(4) Stream Geomorphology
1 WATER QUALITY
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
• Remove livestock and reduce agricultural land/inputs
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
• Remove direct nutrient and pollutant
inputs from the Site and reduce
. Install marsh treatment areas, where necessary
. Plant wood riparian buffer
y
(2) Indicators of Stressors
contributions to downstream waters.
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams
Wetland Particulate Change
(1) HABITAT
(2) In -stream Habitat
• Construct stable channels with cobble/gravel substrate
(3) Substrate
(3) In -Stream Habitat
• Add large woody debris in the form of log vane structures
(2) Stream -side Habitat
• Improve instream and stream -side
' Plant permanent seed mixtures along banks to add rooting material and leafy
(3) Stream -side Habitat
habitat.
vegetation for macroinvertebrates
• Plant woody riparian buffer to provide organic matter and shade
(3) Thermoregulation
• Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation casement
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams
Wetland Physical Structure
Wetland Landscape Patch Structure
Wetland Vegetation Composition
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058)
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Rockingham County, North Carolina
page 23
Restoration Systems, LLC
November 2019

7.0 SITE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION CONSTRAINTS
The presence of conditions or characteristics that have the potential to hinder restoration activities
on the Site was evaluated. The evaluation focused primarily on the presence of hazardous
materials, utilities and restrictive easements, rare/threatened/endangered species or critical
habitats, and the potential for hydrologic trespass. Existing information regarding Site constraints
was acquired and reviewed. In addition, field surveys were conducted to confirm if constraints
occur within, or adjacent to the Site boundaries.
No known Site constraints that may hinder proposed mitigation activities were identified during
background research or field surveys. Potential constraints reviewed include the following.
7.1 Threatened & Endangered Species
Three federally protected species are listed as occurring in Rockingham County (USFWS 2018);
the following table summarizes potential habitat and preliminary biological conclusions for each.
Table 13. Threatened and Endangered Species
Species
Habitat
Potential
Biological
Habitat at Site
Conclusion
This freshwater mussel is limited to the
James River drainage and the Dan/Mayo
James spinymussel
River drainage within the Roanoke River
(Pleurobema collina)
basin in Virginia, North Carolina, and West
No
No Effect
Virginia. This species' range does not
include the Site, which is located in the
Upper Ca e Fear River drainage.
In North Carolina, this species is found in
Roanoke logperch
the Dan and Mayo rivers, as well as Big
(Percina rex)
Beaver Island Creek. This species' range
No
No Effect
does not include the Site, which is located
in the Up er Cape Fear River drainage.
This species grows in calcareous, basic, or
circumneutral soils on roadsides, clear cuts,
Smooth coneflower
and power line right-of-ways where there is
(Echinacea laevigata)
abundant light and little herbaceous
Yes
No Effect*
competition. Fire -maintained woodlands
also appear to provide potential habitat for
the coneflower.
*Detailed field surveys for this species were conducted during the optimum survey window. Survey methodology and results are
included in Appendix E.
Neither the James spinymussel nor the Roanoke logperch have ranges that extend into areas
adjacent to or within the Site; therefore, this project will have no effect on these federally protected
species. Suitable habitat for the smooth coneflower exists at the Site; therefore, surveys were
conducted in May 2018, during the optimal survey window for this plant. Correspondence
concerning survey methodology and results are presented in Appendix E.
7.2 Cultural Resources
The term "cultural resources" refers to prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, structures, or
artifact deposits over 50 years old. "Significant" cultural resources are those that are eligible or
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058)
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Rockingham County, North Carolina
page 24
Restoration Systems, LLC
November 2019

potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Evaluations of site
significance are made with reference to the eligibility criteria of the National Register (36 CFR
60) and in consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
Field visits were conducted at the Site late 2017 to ascertain the presence of structures or other
features that may be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. No
structures were identified within proposed easement boundaries; however, coordination with State
Historic Preservation Office will occur prior to construction activities to determine if any
significant cultural resources are present.
7.3 North Carolina Natural Heritage Elements
A query of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database indicates there are
no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed
areas within the proposed project boundary. Within a one -mile radius of the project boundary
NCNHP lists an element occurrence, a natural community, and a natural area, which are
summarized in the NCNHP correspondence in Appendix E. In addition, North Carolina Division
of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) Sharpe property wetland preservation Site is located within close
proximity of the Site.
7.4 FEMA
Inspection of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 3710798400J, Panels 7984 and 7994, effective
September 3, 2007, indicates that Site streams are not located in a Special Flood Hazard Area, and
the project should not alter FEMA flood zones. Therefore, a "Conditional Letter of Map Revision"
(CLOMR) is not necessary for this project.
7.5 Utilities
No utilities are located on the Site.
7.6 Air Transport Facilities
One air transport facility is located within 5 miles of the Site. Warf Airfield is located
approximately 0.5 mile south of the Site.
8.0 DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN
8.1 Stream Design
Onsite streams targeted for restoration have endured significant disturbance from land use
activities such as land clearing, livestock grazing, straightening and rerouting of channels, and
other anthropogenic maintenance. Site streams will be restored to emulate historic conditions at
the Site utilizing parameters from nearby, relatively undisturbed reference streams (see Section
4.1 Reference Streams).
Primary activities designed to restore Site streams include 1) stream restoration, 2) stream
enhancement (Level I), 3) stream enhancement (Level II), 4) stream preservation, 5) wetland
restoration, 6) wetland enhancement, and 7) vegetation planting (Figures 5A-513, Appendix A).
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 25
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

8.1.1 Stream Restoration
Stream restoration efforts are designed to restore a stable stream that approximates hydrodynamics,
stream geometry, and local microtopography relative to reference conditions. Restoration at the
Site will be Priority I restoration; therefore, bankfull elevations will be raised to meet the adjacent
valley floodplain elevation.
Stream restoration is expected to entail 1) channel excavation (Figure 6, Appendix A), 2) spoil
stockpiling, 3) channel stabilization, 4) channel diversion, and 5) channel backfill.
In -stream Structures
The use of in -stream structures for grade control and habitat is essential for successful stream
restoration (Figure 7A, Appendix A). In -stream structures may be placed in the channel to elevate
local water surface profiles in the channel, potentially flattening the water energy slope or gradient
and directing stream energy into the center of the channel and away from banks. The structures
will consist of log cross -vanes or log j-hook vanes; however, at the discretion of the Engineer, rock
cross -vanes or rock j-hook vanes may be substituted if dictated by field conditions. In addition,
the structures will placed in relatively straight reaches to provide secondary (perpendicular) flow
cells during bankfull events.
Piped Channel Crossings
Landowner constraints will necessitate the installation of 4 piped channel crossings within breaks
in the easement to allow access to portions of the property isolated by stream restoration activities.
The crossings may be constructed of properly sized pipes and hydraulically stable rip -rap or
suitable rock. Crossings will be large enough to handle the weight of anticipated vehicular traffic.
Approach grades to the crossing will be at an approximate 10:1 slope and constructed of hard,
scour -resistant crushed rock or other permeable material, which is free of fines.
Outfall Structures
One drop structure is proposed at the outfall of Slingshot Creek. The drop structure may be
constructed out of large cobble depending upon anticipated scour from the restored stream
channels (Figure 713, Appendix A). The structure should be constructed to resist erosive forces
associated with hydraulic drops proposed at the Site.
Marsh Treatment Areas
No areas of concentrated flow have been identified at this time; however, if during construction a
point of concentrated flow is identified then a shallow wetland marsh treatment area will be
excavated in the floodplain to intercept surface waters draining through agricultural areas prior to
discharging into the Site. Marsh treatment areas are intended to improve the mitigation project
and are not generating mitigation credit. The proposed marsh treatment area will consist of shallow
depressions that will provide treatment and attenuation of initial stormwater pulses (Figure 713,
Appendix A). The outfall will be constructed of hydraulically stable rip -rap or other suitable
material that will protect against headcut migration into the constructed depression. It is expected
that the treatment area will fill with sediment and organic matter over time.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 26
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

8.1.2 Stream Enhancement (Level 1)
Stream enhancement (level I) will occur on reaches accessible by livestock. Stream dimension
will be restored in these reaches, fencing will be erected to exclude livestock, and planting riparian
buffers with native forest vegetation will occur where needed.
8.1.3 Stream Enhancement (Level 11)
Stream enhancement (level II) will occur on reaches are characterized by channels with patches of
mature riparian vegetation, good channel bed substrate, and little bank erosion. The reaches are
accessible by livestock and will have fence erected to exclude livestock. Planting riparian buffers
with native forest vegetation will occur where needed.
8.1.4 Stream Preservation
Stream preservation will occur on the upstream reaches of Slingshot Creek and the entirety of UT
4. These reaches are characterized by channels with mature riparian vegetation, good channel bed
substrate, and little bank erosion. The reaches are not accessible by livestock and are included in
the project to protect the upstream reaches from future impacts.
8.2 Individual Reach Descriptions
Mitigation strategies proposed for each reach are presented below.
8.2.1 Slingshot Creek (UT to Troublesome Creek)
Slingshot Creek enters the Site from the upstream property and extends for 2920 linear feet in its
current location. The upper reach of Slingshot Creek is fenced from livestock and surrounded by
mature vegetation. Once the stream enters pastureland, remnants of a breached impoundment are
situated across the floodplain. Livestock have impacted the channel above and below the
impoundment; however, the channel retains suitable pattern. The channel descends the valley to
a nick point where the channel becomes deeply incised and appears to have been dredged and
straightened. Adjacent to the majority of the straightened reach, vegetation remains in
successional in patches, with unmaintained pasture comprising the rest of the channel banks and
floodplain. The lower reaches of channel were dredged and straightened, as evidenced by oxbow
wetlands in the floodplain. This reach was historically crossed by an elevated road bed. An
undersized or blocked pipe beneath the road bed appears to have failed, resulting in extensive
erosion above and below the road bed. The lower reach is characterized by mature vegetation on
the left bank and pasture on the right bank.
In its current state, Slingshot Creek is classified as a G-type channel with entrenchment ratios
averaging 1.6. Although entrenchment ratios exhibit some connection to the floodplain, the
majority of the channel is incised, as evidenced by bank -height -ratios ranging from 1.3 to 4.5.
Incision varies across the reach, with deep incision occurring in areas that appear to have been
dredged and straightened, particularly downstream from the nick point. Dredging and straightening
of the channel have resulted in a loss of riffle pool morphology.
Slingshot Creek is proposed for four mitigation treatments; 1) stream restoration, 2) stream
enhancement (level I), 3) stream enhancement (level II), and 4) stream preservation.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 27
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

Stream Restoration
Stream restoration is proposed for the majority of Slingshot Creek where the channel has been
straightened, is deeply incised, and is heavily impacted by livestock. The reach is proposed for
Priority 1 restoration on new location, reconnecting the channel to degraded/drained wetlands or
hydric soils. Channel construction is expected to entail filling ditches/drainage features,
installation of three piped crossings, excavating a channel that connects stream overbank events
with adjacent wetlands, installation of grade control and habitat structures, and connecting the
channel with downstream reaches.
Stream Enhancement (Level I)
Stream enhancement (level I) is proposed for the upper reaches of Slingshot Creek where channel
pattern appears to exhibit suitable sinuosity and pool -to -pool spacing; however, the channel is
relatively incised, impacted by livestock, and is characterized by low radius of curvature values in
several bends. Mitigation in these areas will focus on elevating the stream bed, providing the
proper channel dimension, and reducing shear on tight meander bends. Structures will be
strategically placed to reduce pressure on channel banks and focus scour into the center of the
channel. This reach will ultimately reconnect the channel to the floodplain and adjacent wetlands,
and bring the channel to a suitable elevation.
Stream Enhancement (Level II)
The upper reaches of Slingshot Creek are proposed for stream enhancement (level II) through the
removal of livestock, supplemental planting with native hardwood species, removal of remnants
of a breached dam, and placement of a permanent conservation easement.
Stream Preservation
The upper reaches of Slingshot Creek and UT 4 are proposed for stream preservation. These areas
are stable and livestock do not access the channels, or stream buffer. Preservation reaches will
have invasive species treatment, fence upgrades to ensure livestock exclusion, and placement of a
conservation easement.
8.2.2 UT 1
UT 1 enters the Site from the upstream property and extends for 968 linear feet in its current
location. The upper reaches of UT 1 are crossed by an elevated road with a failing pipe. Currently,
the upper reaches are impounded to a depth of approximately 3 feet. Stream flow overtops the
road bed and is eroding the channel. A bedrock sill has reduced erosion and UT 1 maintains pattern
for approximately 150 feet below the road, before the bedrock sill ends and the channel becomes
incised. Historically, this reach below the bedrock sill may have been impounded, as evidenced
by remnants of an earthen dam. Below the earthen dam, the channel appears to have been
manipulated in the past and livestock have impacted the channel banks. The entire reach of UT 1
is surrounded by sparse mature trees and successional vegetation associated with neglected
pastureland. Livestock have access to the entirety of UT 1 and channel banks are eroding from
hoof shear.
In its current state, UT 1 is classified as a G-type channel with entrenchment ratios averaging 2.0.
Although entrenchment ratios exhibit some connection to the floodplain, the majority of the
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058)
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Rockingham County, North Carolina
page 28
Restoration Systems, LLC
November 2019

channel is incised, as evidenced by bank -height -ratios ranging from 1.2 to 3.7. Incision varies
across the reach, with deep incision occurring in areas downstream from the nick point.
UT 1 is proposed for three mitigation treatments; 1) stream restoration, 2) stream enhancement
(level I), and 3) stream enhancement (level II). During field reviews with Interagency Review
Team (IRT) members it was discussed that a mix of mitigation treatments throughout the entire
reach of UT was is likely to occur. However, large sections of mitigation treatment is proposed
rather than many short alternating sections of mitigation treatments. Ultimately, UT 1 will include
various mitigation strategies throughout each reach.
Stream Restoration
Stream restoration is proposed for the lower, downstream sections of UT 1 as the channel enters
wetlands associated with the larger, Slingshot Creek floodplain. This reach of channel is currently
incised (BHR of 2.3 and 1.6 in cross sections 1 and 2 [Appendix B]) and will be reconnected to
the adjacent floodplain wetlands. In addition, as UT 1 meets Slingshot Creek floodplain the
channel is proposed to be redirected across the floodplain to the natural topographic location, the
lowest portion of the floodplain. The reach is proposed for Priority 1 restoration on new location.
Channel construction is expected to entail excavating a channel that connects stream overbank
events with adjacent wetlands, installation of grade control and habitat structures, and connecting
the channel with downstream reaches.
Stream Enhancement (Level I)
Stream enhancement (level I) is proposed for the middle reaches of UT 1, below the bedrock sill
and above the restoration reach. As stated above, this reach of channel will likely also include
enhancement (level II) and restoration measures. Reaches of the channel where pattern appears to
exhibit suitable sinuosity and pool -to -pool spacing, in channel manipulation of dimension and
profile will be conducted. These reaches are incised; therefore, enhancement efforts are expected
to rehydrate drained jurisdictional wetland within the narrow floodplain. Several tight meander
bends will be eased to reduce erosion. In addition, the remnants of a historic dam will be removed
to allow floodwaters to access floodplains below the dam.
Mitigation in these areas will focus on elevating the stream bed, providing the proper channel
dimension, and reducing shear on tight meander bends. Structures will be strategically placed to
reduce pressure on channel banks and focus scour into the center of the channel. This reach will
ultimately reconnect the channel to the floodplain and adjacent wetlands, and bring the channel to
a suitable elevation. In addition, a piped channel crossing will be installed in the upper reaches.
Stream Enhancement (Level II)
The upper reaches of UT 1 are impounded by a failing road crossing/culvert. This section of
stream is proposed to have the road crossing upgraded with a new, appropriately sized piped
crossing and the channel constructed to the proper dimension and slope. As stated above, this
reach is proposed for multiple mitigation treatments, including restoration, enhancement (level I),
and enhancement (level II) and has been lumped as one mitigation treatment for discussion and
crediting purposes.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 29
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

8.2.3 UT 2
UT 2 enters the Site from the upstream property and extends for 130 linear feet in its current
location. UT 2 is a relatively short reach that has been dredged and straightened. The channel is
excessively deep and parallels a driveway and metal structure outside of the easement boundaries.
Both banks of UT 2 are characterized as agriculture pasture, with the left bank providing a holding
pen for loading cattle into trailers.
In its current state, UT 2 is classified as a G-type channel with entrenchment ratios averaging 1.6.
The entire reach is incised as evidenced by bank -height -ratios ranging from 2.5 to 3.9. Dredging
and straightening of the channel have resulted in a loss of riffle pool morphology.
UT 2 is proposed for one mitigation treatment; 1) stream restoration.
Stream Restoration
Stream restoration is proposed for the entirety of UT 2 which will excavation of channel on new
location. Channel construction is expected to entail filling ditches/drainage features, upgrading a
forded channel crossing, excavating a channel that connects stream overbank events with adjacent
wetlands, installation of grade control and habitat structures, and connecting the channel with
downstream reaches.
8.2.4 UT 3
UT 3 enters the Site from the upstream property and extends for 189 linear feet in its current
location. UT 3 is a relatively short reach that was dredged and straightened many years ago and
has naturalized in its current location. The channel has disturbed forest on its left bank and pasture
on its right bank. The channel is characterized by an intermittent flow regime. Livestock have
access to the entire reach.
UT 3 is proposed for one mitigation treatment; 1) stream enhancement (level II).
Stream Enhancement (Level II)
The entire reach of UT 3 is proposed for stream enhancement (level 11) through the removal of
livestock with fencing, supplemental planting with native hardwood species, and placement of a
permanent conservation easement.
8.2.5 UT 4
UT 4 enters the Site from the upstream property and extends for 86 linear feet in its current
location. UT 4 is a relatively short reach that is characterized by mature forest vegetation and is
isolated from livestock. The IRT specified this reach for preservation credit.
UT 4 is proposed for one mitigation treatment; 1) stream preservation.
Stream Preservation
UT 4 is proposed for stream preservation. These areas are stable and livestock do not access the
channels, or stream buffer. Preservation reaches will have invasive species treatment, fence
upgrades to ensure livestock exclusion, and placement of a conservation easement.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 30
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

8.3 Wetland Restoration
Wetland restoration activities are designed to restore a fully functioning wetland system, which
will provide surface water storage, nutrient cycling, removal of imported elements and compounds,
and will create a variety and abundance of wildlife habitat.
Portions of the Site underlain by hydric soils have been impacted by drainage ditch excavation,
vegetative clearing, agriculture plowing, herbicide application, and other land disturbances
associated with land use management. Wetland restoration will focus on the restoration of
vegetative communities, filling drainage ditches, the reestablishment of soil structure and
microtopographic variations, and redirecting normal surface hydrology from streams back into the
Site floodplains. In addition, the construction of (or provisions for) surface water storage
depressions (ephemeral pools) will also add an important component to groundwater restoration
activities. These activities will result in the restoration of 1.02 acres of jurisdictional riparian
riverine wetlands.
Restoration of Historic Groundwater Elevations
Hydric soils appear to have been drained due to lowering of the groundwater tables and a lateral
drainage effect from stream channel incision and straightening. Reconstructing streams at a
natural depth, increasing stream sinuosity, and directing surface flow from adjacent properties
across the ground surface is expected to rehydrate hydric soils within the Site, resulting in the
restoration of jurisdictional hydrology to riparian wetlands.
Hvdrophvtic Vegetation
Site wetland areas have endured significant disturbance from land use activities such as land
clearing, livestock trampling, herbicide application, and other anthropogenic maintenance.
Wetland areas will be revegetated with native forest vegetation typical of wetland communities in
the region. Emphasis will focus on developing a diverse plant assemblage.
8.4 Wetland Enhancement
Wetland enhancement will focus on the removal of livestock and restoration of vegetative
communities resulting in the enhancement of 0.606 acre of riparian riverine wetland.
8.5 Soil Restoration
Soil grading will occur during stream restoration activities. Topsoil will be stockpiled during
construction activities and will be spread on the soil surface once critical subgrade has been
established. The replaced topsoil will serve as a viable growing medium for community restoration
to provide nutrients and aid in the survival of planted species.
8.6 Natural Plant Community Restoration
Restoration of floodplain forest and stream -side habitat allows for development and expansion of
characteristic species across the landscape. Ecotonal changes between community types
contribute to diversity and provide secondary benefits, such as enhanced feeding and nesting
opportunities for mammals, birds, amphibians, and other wildlife. Reference Forest Ecosystem
(RFE) data, onsite observations, and community descriptions from Classification of the Natural
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 31
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

Communities ofNorth Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990) were used to develop the primary
plant community associations that will be promoted during community restoration activities.
8.6.1 Planting Plan
Stream -side trees and shrubs include species with high value for sediment stabilization, rapid
growth rate, and the ability to withstand hydraulic forces associated with bankfull now and
overbank flood events. Stream -side trees and shrubs will be planted within 15 feet of the channel
top of bank throughout the meander belt -width. Shrub elements will be planted along the
reconstructed stream banks, concentrated along outer bends. Piedmont Alluvial Forest is the target
community for Site floodplains and Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest is the target community for
upland side -slopes.
Bare -root seedlings within the Piedmont Alluvial and Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forests will be
planted at a density of approximately 680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers. Shrub species in the
stream -side assemblage will be planted at a density of 2720 stems per acre on 4-foot centers.
Table 14 depicts the total number of stems and species distribution within each vegetation
association (Figures 8A and 8B, Appendix A). Planting will be performed between December 1
and March 15 to allow plants to stabilize during the dormant period and set root during the spring
season.
Permanent seed mixes will be planted that quickly establish a low -growing groundcover on the
Site which will reduce erosion, provide streambank stability, benefit wildlife, and facilitate the
successful establishment of the planned hardwood tree community. Species mix is subject to
commercial availability at time of planting; however, the general diversity and function of
permanent seed mix will remain. Seed mix components will include the following.
Upland Seed Mix (2 lbs/ac)
1.
Redtop (Agrostis alba)
2.
Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera)
3.
Winter Bentgrass (Agrostis hyemalis)
4.
Purple Coneflower (Echinacea laevigata)
5.
Partridge Pea (Cassia fasciculata)
6.
Oxeye Daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum)
7.
Lanceleaf Coreopsis (Coreopsis lanceolata)
8.
Blackeyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta)
9.
Plains Coreopsis (Coreopsis tinctoria)
10.
Korean Lespedeza (Lespedeza stipulacea)
11.
Mistflower (Eupatorium coelestinum)
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 32
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

Floodplain Seed Mix (6 lbs/ac)
1.
Fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea)
2.
Soft rush (Juncus effuses)
3.
Redtop (Agrostis alba)
4.
Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera)
5.
Winter Bentgrass (Agrostis hyemalis)
6.
Purple Coneflower (Echinacea laevigata)
7.
Partridge Pea (Cassia fasciculata)
8.
Oxeye Daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum)
9.
Lanceleaf Coreopsis (Coreopsis lanceolate)
10.
Blackeyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta)
11.
Plains Coreopsis (Coreopsis tinctoria)
12. Korean Lespedeza (Lespedeza stipulacea)
13. Mistflower (Eupatorium coelestinum)
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 33
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

Table 14. Planting Plan
Vegetation Association
Piedmont/Low
Mountain Alluvial
Forest*
Dry-Mesic Oak-
Hickory Forest*
Stream -side
Assemblage"
TOTAL
Area (acres)
4.8
2.2
2.5
9.6
Speciesplanted*
#
% of
totalplanted*
#
% of
totalplanted"
#
% of
total
# planted
Tag alder (Alnus serrulata)
--
--
--
--
350
7
350
River birch (Betula nigra)
300
9
--
--
400
8
700
Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
--
--
--
--
300
6
300
Sugarberry (Celtic laevigata))
--
--
300
14
--
--
300
Red bud (Cercis canadensis)
--
--
200
9
--
--
200
Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
--
--
--
--
1700
32
1700
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)
--
--
200
9
--
--
200
White ash (Fraxinus americana)
--
--
100
5
--
--
100
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
200
6
--
--
200
4
400
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
500
14
--
--
--
--
500
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
750
21
--
--
750
14
1500
Black gum N ssa s lvatica
250
7
--
--
250
5
500
Cherry (Prunus serotine)
--
--
300
14
--
--
300
White oak (Quercus alba)
250
7
250
12
--
--
500
Water oak (Quercus nigra)
500
14
500
23
500
9
1500
Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
500
14
300
14
600
11
1400
Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii)
250
7
--
--
250
5
500
TOTAL
3500
100
2150
100
5300
100
10,950
* Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre.
* * Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058)
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Rockingham County, North Carolina
page 34
Restoration Systems, LLC
November 2019

8.6.2 Nuisance Species Management
Invasive plant species will be observed and removed mechanically and/or chemically, as part of
this project. No other nuisance species controls are proposed at this time. Inspections for beaver
and other potential nuisance species will occur throughout the course of the monitoring period.
Appropriate actions may be taken to ameliorate any negative impacts regarding vegetation
development and/or water management on an as -needed basis. The presences of nuisance species
will be monitored over the course of the monitoring period. Appropriate actions will be taken to
ameliorate any negative impacts regarding vegetation development and/or water management on
an as -needed basis.
9.0 MONITORING AND SUCCESS CRITERIA
Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc based on the schedule in Table 15. A
summary of monitoring is outlined in Table 15 (Figures 9A-913, Appendix A). Annual monitoring
reports will be submitted to the NCDMS by Restoration Systems no later than December 31 of
each monitoring year data is collected.
Table 15. Monitoring Schedule
Resource Year I
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6 Year 7
Streams
Wetlands
Vegetation
Macroinvertebrates
Visual Assessment*
Report Submittal
*Visual Assessment will be complimented by permanent photographic points located at each permanent cross
section and vegetation plot.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 35
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

Table 16. Monitoring Summ
Stream Parameters
Parameter
Method
Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Data Collected/Reported
Stream Profile
Full longitudinal survey
As -built (unless otherwise
required)
All restored stream channels
Graphic and tabular data.
Stream Dimension
Cross -sections
Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
Total of 14 cross -sections on
Graphic and tabular data.
restored channels
Areas of concern will be depicted on a
Visual Assessments
Yearly
All restored stream channels
plan view figure with a written
Channel Stability
assessment and photograph of the area
included in the report.
Additional Cross -sections
Yearly
Only if instability is documented
Graphic and tabular data.
during monitoring
Continuous monitoring surface water
Continuous recording through
No surface water gauges proposed at
Stream Hydrology
gauges and/or trail camera
monitoring period
this time as stream flow regime is
NA
not in question.
Continuous monitoring surface water
Continuous recording through
Surface water gauge on Slingshot
Surface water data for each monitoring
gauges and/or trail camera
monitoring period
Creek and UT 1
period
Bankfull Events
Visual/Physical Evidence
Continuous through
All restored stream channels
Visual evidence, photo documentation,
monitoringperiod
and/or rain data.
" Qual 4" method described in Standard
Pre -construction, Years 3, 5,
2 stations (one at the lower end of
Results* will be presented on a site -by -
Operating Procedures for Collection
and 7 during the "index
UT I and one at the lower end of
site basis and will include a list of taxa
Benthic
and Analysis
period" referenced Small
Slingshot Creek); however, the exact
collected, an enumeration of
Macroinvertebrates
s,B Version
Macroinvertebrates, Version 5.0
Streams t e
locations will be determined at the
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
(NCDWR 2016)
(NCD
Development (NCDWQ 2009)
Q
time pre -construction benthics are
Tricopetera taxa as well as Biotic Index
collected
values.
Wetland Parameters
Parameter
Method
Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Data Collected/Reported
As -built, Years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
Soil temperature at the beginning of each
Wetland
Groundwater gauges
and 7 throughout the year with
10 gauges spread throughout
monitoring period to verify the start of the
Restoration
the growing season defined as
restored and enhanced wetlands
growing season, groundwater and rain
March 1-October 26
data for each monitoring period
Vegetation Parameters
Parameter
Method
Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Data Collected/Reported
Permanent vegetation plots 0.0247 acre
Vegetation
(100 square meters) in size, CVS-EEP
As -built, Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
10 plots spread across the Site
Species, height, planted vs. volunteer,
establishment and
Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
stems/acre
Version 4.2 Lee et al. 2008
vigor
Annual random vegetation plots, 0.0247
As -built Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
2 plots randomly selected each year
Species and height
acre (100 sauare meters) in size
*Benthic Macroinvertebrate sampling data will not be tied to success criteria, however, the data may be used as a tool to observe positive gains to in -stream habitat.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 36
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

9.1 Success Criteria
Monitoring and success criteria for stream restoration should relate to project goals and objectives
identified from on -site NC SAM and NC WAM data collection. From a mitigation perspective,
several of the goals and objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated by restoration activities
without direct measurement. Other goals and objectives will be considered successful upon
achieving success criteria. The following summarizes Site success criteria.
Table 17. Success Criteria
Streams
•
All streams must maintain an Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-05.
•
Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 at any measured cross-section over the monitoring period.
•
BHR at any measured riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10% from baseline condition over
monitoring period.
•
A minimum of 30-days continuous surface flow for intermittent streams.
•
The stream project shall remain stable and all other performance standards shall be met through four separate
bankfull events, occurring in separate years, during the monitoring ears 1-7.
Wetland Hydrology
•
Saturation or inundation within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for, at a minimum, 10 percent of the
growing season, during average climatic conditions. Note: Growing season length will be confirmed with a
continuous recording temperature gauge that will measure from February to April each monitoring year.
Vegetation
•
Within planted portions of the Site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3; a minimum of
260 stems per acre must be present at year 5; and a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at year 7.
•
Trees must average 7 feet in height at year 5, and 10 feet in height at year 7 in each plot.
•
Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the approved planting list for the site;
natural recruits not on the planting list may be considered by the IRT on a case -by -case basis.
Note: BHR will be calculated using procedures outlined in the latest approved guidance from NCDMS.
9.2 Contingency
In the event that stream success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism for contingency will be
implemented.
9.2.1 Stream Contingency
Stream contingency may include, but may not be limited to 1) structure repair and/or installation;
2) repair of dimension, pattern, and/or profile variables; and 3) bank stabilization. The method of
contingency is expected to be dependent upon stream variables that are not in compliance with
success criteria. Primary concerns, which may jeopardize stream success, include 1) structure
failure, 2) headcut migration through the Site, and/or 3) bank erosion.
Structure Failure
In the event that structures are compromised the affected structure will be repaired, maintained, or
replaced. Once the structure is repaired or replaced, it must function to stabilize adjacent stream
banks and/or maintain grade control within the channel. Structures which remain intact, but
exhibit flow around, beneath, or through the header/footer will be repaired by excavating a trench
on the upstream side of the structure and reinstalling filter fabric in front of the pilings. Structures
which have been compromised, resulting in shifting or collapse of a header/footer, will be removed
and replaced with a structure suitable for Site flows.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 37
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

Headcut Migration Through the Site
In the event that a headcut occurs within the Site (identified visually or through measurements [i.e.
bank -height ratios exceeding 1.4]), provisions for impeding headcut migration and repairing
damage caused by the headcut will be implemented. Headcut migration may be impeded through
the installation of in -stream grade control structures (rip -rap sill and/or log cross -vane weir) and/or
restoring stream geometry variables until channel stability is achieved. Channel repairs to stream
geometry may include channel backfill with coarse material and stabilizing the material with
erosion control matting, vegetative transplants, and/or willow stakes.
Bank Erosion
In the event that severe bank erosion occurs within the Site, resulting in incision, lateral instability,
and/or elevated width -to -depth ratios locally or systemically, contingency measures to reduce bank
erosion and width -to -depth ratio will be implemented. Bank erosion contingency measures may
include the installation of log -vane weirs and/or other bank stabilization measures. If the resultant
bank erosion induces shoot cutoffs or channel abandonment, a channel may be excavated to reduce
shear stress to stable values.
9.2.2 Wetland Contingency
Hydrological contingency will require consultation with hydrologists and regulatory agencies if
wetland hydrology enhancement is not achieved. Floodplain surface modifications, including
construction of ephemeral pools, represent a likely mechanism to increase the floodplain area in
support of jurisdictional wetlands. Recommendations for contingency to establish wetland
hydrology will be implemented and monitored until Hydrology Success Criteria are achieved.
9.2.3 Vegetation Contingency
If vegetation success criteria are not achieved, supplemental planting may be performed with tree
species approved by regulatory agencies. Supplemental planting will be performed as needed until
achievement of vegetation success criteria.
9.3 Compatibility with Project Goals
The following table outlines the compatibility of Site performance criteria described above to Site
goals and objectives that will be utilized to evaluate if Site goals and objectives are achieved.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 38
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

'I'able IN. Uom atibilit
Goals
(I) HYDROLOGY
• Attenuate flood flow across the
Site.
• Minimize downstream flooding
to the maximum extent
possible.
• Connect streams to functioning
wetland systems.
• Increase stream stability within
the Site so that channels are
neither aggrading nor
degrading.
WATER
• Remove direct nutrient and
pollutant inputs from the Site
and reduce contributions to
downstream waters.
HABITAT
• Improve instream and stream -
side habitat.
of Performance Unteria to Project Uoals and Objectives
Obiectives Success Criteria
• Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to •
restore overbank flows and restore jurisdictional wetlands •
• Plant woody riparian buffer
• Remove livestock •
• Deep rip floodplain soils to reduce compaction and increase •
soil surface roughness •
• Protect Site with a perpetual conservation easement •
• Construct channels with proper pattern, dimension, and
longitudinal profile •
• Remove livestock from the Site •
• Construct stable channels with cobble/gravel substrate •
• Plant woody riparian buffer •
Over the monitoring period BHR not to exceed 1.2
Document four overbank events in separate monitoring
years
Livestock excluded from the easement
Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
Conservation Easement recorded
Cross-section measurements indicate a stable channel with
cobble/gravel substrate
Visual documentation of stable channels and structures
Over the monitoring period BHR not to exceed 1.2
< 10% change in BHR over the monitoring period
Livestock excluded from the easement
Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
• Remove livestock and reduce agricultural land/inputs • Livestock excluded from the easement
• Plant woody riparian buffer • Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
• Restore/enhance wetlands adjacent to Site streams • Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
Construct stable channels with cobble/gravel substrate
Plant riparian buffer to provide organic matter and shade
Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to
restore overbank flows and plant woody riparian buffer
Protect Site with a perpetual conservation easement
Restore/enhance wetlands adjacent to Site streams
• Cross-section measurement indicate a stable channel with
cobble/gravel substrate
• Visual documentation of stable channels and in -stream
structures.
• Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
• Conservation Easement recorded
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 39
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

10.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
In the event the mitigation Site or a specific component of the mitigation Site fails to achieve the
necessary performance standards as specified in the mitigation plan, the sponsor shall notify the
members of the IRT and work with the IRT to develop contingency plans and remedial actions.
11.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Site will be transferred to the North Carolina Division of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
Stewardship Program. This party shall serve as conservation easement holder and long-term
steward for the property and will conduct periodic inspection of the Site to ensure that restrictions
required in the conservation easement are upheld. Funding will be supplied by the responsible
party on a yearly basis until such time an endowment is established. The NCDEQ Stewardship
Program is developing an endowment system within the non -reverting, interest -bearing
Conservation Lands Conservation Fund Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account
will be governed by North Carolina General Statute GS 113A-232(d)(3). Interest gained by the
endowment fund may be used for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship
administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 40
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

12.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology: an Introduction
for Ecologists. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. West Sussex, England.
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F.
MacPherson, J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and
South Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.A. O'Hara, A. Jessup, R. Everhart.
1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams. N.C. State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2016. Quantifying Benefits to Water
Quality from Livestock Exclusion and Riparian Buffer Establishment for Stream
Restoration. June 15, 2016. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan. Available: https:// https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/basin-planning/water-resource-plans/cape-fear-2005 [December 8,
2016]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2013. River Basin Classification
Schedule -Cape Fear River Basin (online). Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/CSU/Surface%20Water/River%20
Basin%20Water%20Quality%20CIassifications%20as%20of'/o20Dec%209%202013/Cap
eFear_Hydro_order.pdf [May 2, 2018]. North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality, Raleigh.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2018. Final 2016 Category 5
Assessments-3 03 (d) List. Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/TNML/303d/2016/2016 NC_Cate
gory_5_303d_list.pdf [May 2, 2018]. North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 41
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016. Standard Operating Procedures
for Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates (Version 5.0). (online).
Available:
https://files. nc. gov/ncdeq/Water%20Qualiiy/Environmental%20 SciencesBAU/NCDWR
Macroinvertebrate-SOP-February%202016_final. pdf
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2009. Small Streams Biocriteria
Development. Available:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document libraLy/get file?uuid=2d54ad23-0345-4d6e-82fd-
04005f48eaa7&groupId=3 83 64
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2004. Upper Cape Fear Basin Local
Watershed Plan (online). Available: https:Hncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Mitigation%20 Services/Watershed_Planning/Cape_ Fear_ River_ Basin/Troubleso
me_LittleTroublesome/Tsome%20Creek%20Targeting%20Mgt%20Report_may%2704_
LONames%20removed%2C%20hcb%2C%20oct%2711.pdf (November 6, 2017).
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2009. Cape Fear River Basin
Restoration Priorities 2009 (online). Available
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document—libEM/get file?uuld=864e 82e 8 -725 c-415 e-8 ed9-
c72dfcb55012&._ r�oupId=60329
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. (NC SFAT 2015). N.C. Stream Assessment
Method (NC SAM) User Manual. Version 2.1.
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. (NC WFAT 2010). N.C. Wetland
Assessment Method (NC WAM) User Manual. Version 4.1.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa Springs,
Colorado
Rosgen, D. 2009. A Practical Method of Computing Streambank Erosion Rate (online). Available:
http://www.u-s-c.org/htrnl/documents/Erosionrates.pdf.
Rosgen, D. 2011. Estimating Sediment Loads using the Bank Assessment of Non -point source
Consequences of Sediment (BANCS). Watershed Assessment of River Stability and
Sediment Supply (WARSSS). Hagerstown, Maryland.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 42
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Fourth
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Simon A, Hupp CR. 1986. Geomorphic and Vegetative Recovery Processes Along Modified
Tennessee Streams: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Disturbed Fluvial Systems. Forest
Hydrology and Watershed Management. IAHS-AISH Publ.167.
United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2013. Population estimates V.2013.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37000.html
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2017. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm v�/App/HomePa.°e�htm [May 2, 2018]. United States
Department of Agriculture.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1992. Soil Survey of Rockingham County,
NC. United States Department of Agriculture.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. Endangered Species, Threatened
Species, Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate Species, Rockingham County, North
Carolina (online). Available:
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/rockingham.html [May 2, 2018].
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2006. Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of
Floods in Rural Basins of North Carolina — Recompiled. USGS Water -Resources
Investigations Report 01-4207. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) page 43
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

APPENDIX A
FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Location
Figure 2. Hydrologic Unit Map
Figures 3. Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 4. Existing Conditions and Soils
Figures 5A-5B. Restoration Plan
Figure 6. Proposed Dimension, Pattern, and Profile
Figures 7A-B. Typical Structure Details
Figures 8A-8B. Planting Plan
Figures 9A-9B. Monitoring Plan
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

C0P7igh'UO 'fi' fibMIF
So ci Me, b d
n
Ler
N
n' 'tray t`Pa ! • • 'r �_ ; ` f
i
d' • �� .,_/ � �,, t it �
J.
��•ti aS / . •r n Axiom Environimniar, mc.
Prepared for:
-=�. '\.� •- . �— ' • .� ' JO *ter �
158
RESTORATION
41
• `94 �•1 y � :'3
`_ •. I �. �' f • • ,-_��. �Y9 ,�-. � - �-' , Project:
't, �_ ` i �� - e� • �� �� '. M�, SLINGSHOT CREEK
-- -= Ev ~: f, �-_ I .� �_- ■ L,�'' ?414 k STREAM AND
WETLAND
Val
-��•�* ` - �� p ��- �'.�• ,� . I` v ;'�' '► MITIGATION SITE
NT
Rockingham County, N
� Title:
8758
k r': e' �� ' ~ L `' - /I • - .. y • • „.. } A �J ` . •:
Reidsville
/ o , .• 1, 29 SITE LOCATION
l �' d � - 1 C ` g : * s• Q end •. • .Danbury Ch '
Cem
-' } ]
cam. o-
29 ' jt ;{damp �53+• MemQ araens '� - r1S• r
Drawn by:
r �
158 f. , `� — _ r� - • f, KRJ
•� �: L , 'r} '��• $•ice -- - Faith Wail f S Date:
Arrfi�[p-�� DEC 2018
Scale:
i�
1:20,000
`�� '� - "� �.' / •'� USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (Reidsville NC Quad)
t -• I� 4 cx I � B� ,.,T
�[ �:..— �: _ ,•C BMh7 . ; f �,. Project No.:
18-013
A �y``�� '�� // r' j Directions to the Site from Raleigh:
Z ,ter ? - .- - From Raleigh travel west on 1-40 for- 45 miles
a,• _3 - Take Exit 148 onto NC-54W toward Graham/Chapel Hilll and turn right onto Harden Street FIGURE
Travel - 1.6 miles, then turn right onto NC-87 N/W Elm Street
After - 5 miles, turn right onto NC-87 N/Ossipee Road
Travel - 19.3 miles, then turn left and stay on NC-87 N
After 4.1 miles, turn left toward US-158, then turn left onto US-158 W
•- - - _ '_ r • ^ _ After - 0.9 miles, take a slight right onto Iron Works Road, then take a right onto Harbor Road
The Site is located north of the end of Harbor Road
= rl «., . r Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic, - Latitude: 36.334687' N, Longitude: 79.711665' W
Imo+
Society, i-cubed
r

Ma
N
—)IT .
Plne all
MMlnut cove '-
- _
. �
Limifle Lckr
-
Ba.w: cre n --
fAountaa+
j�
rwt k�ftown
a k Ridge
r .�S
158
- rsville
40B _ Colfax
6�8-
011 '•Lctic
w�lfe„r4 J
`S
Location of Slingshot Creek
00 _
Stream and Wetland Mitigation
-
--'.
a' A,
Site within USGS Hydrologic
ILI
Unit and Targeted Local
-
-
Watershed 03030002010010
IlF'--�
rmnerlake
Axiom Environroenial, mc.
an ,❑
stOHy :, ° `6
IH Mills
urdle
Sorg
Prepared for:
p
Creek °•
Prospect Hdl
5
a
If
►Kcuntaln
4� LAC rngfon
Sgcr Pao:
,
Red
uuntain
'
m�
.
�l yemvn[
{
P'k
RESTORATION
�]
ti�
iew
Bahama
� Lcte rcr:ge
,s58h
Bpaer _r'
Project:
T�'
�
rville
_
�`
f •I -
SLINGSHOT CREEK
g rlingt-
w Rim
- -
-
Enann
� a `�[Yillshorough r
STREAM AND
Sed .
-
whiten S;raham
i
i
�,.
`
WETLAND
_
ll.n-
tti
MITIGATION SITE
HYDRULUUIG
lian To LarLake $5 - ;�, _ UNIT MAP
suit = a; a,ei�3m
r:wnatt:+xl
} • �: f� Li6eliy�""
$ c • .f J� I l -
r st
Sophia 4leman '� M-ris-Lla -�
Drawn by:
KRJ
J � Date:
rn a at Shephed sa DEC 2018
Mcun in vnteln r I` - B -ie n rJprda
• �:_ _ _ ^ Falls
::.� Scale:
l ank inville ..
Back Ba
ck Creek
M°n�n• ==�_' •���' seur ��� , — Fj�r�. - - - x 1:375,000
9ii-City Idavnlam ]
Legend Ash roProject No.:
tiler' . k,a ., :,I 18-013
Easement
Q USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002 M Nops ` f HvL._ FIGURE
lly Springs
14 Digit Hydrologic Unit Boundaries _. gm"h'r'p Y 4
c:� B�arc •.k l
Targeted Local Watersheds ids R sbsaon lcrrr sc'`i
.: Re:enoir f
Goldstan e - rWill
/ y Rey ^e4 Fu ay-Var 'y�
0 5 10 20 30 a ' II
se
Mlles Gulf_'-
cL fi Copy ri ht:© 2014 D Lorme

F
Ile
Legend
Slingshot Creek Easement = 11.6 ac.
Slingshot Creek Mainstem Drainage Area =0.42 sq mi (270 ac)
--; `
y � � UT1 Drainage Area = 0.09 sq mi (60 ac)
�! UT2 Drainage Area = 0.10 sq mi (65 ac)
,,• i w UT3 Drainage Area = 0.01 sq mi (9 ac)
7 Axia- Enwan-enial, Inc.
# . UT4 Drainage Area = 0.03 sq mi (22 ac)
Prepared for:
or
2*53 i
328
OiN
':` I
�,' I / + ► AD Project:
AA i
•�W r. W
It . i
R
- t 1
r
N
-F r v
0 0.25 0.5
� 0%0SLINGSHOT CREEK
STREAM AND
WETLAND
;`u �' ■ ` - , _ ± MITIGATION SITE
NT Ile
of C7 Rockingham County, NC
Title:
f.-,� _ I - �� TOPOGRAPHY
NO TOPOGRAPHY
w ' AND
DRAINAGE AREA
1 Drawn by:
~ r + • -J KRJ
r r * l- baribury C h Date:
. ... C e m DEC 2018
— / • * 0 • • ■ • Scale:
1:10,000
Project No.: 1.
■■ � � * a � ht 18-013
E v r 'ree n
$ FIGURE
Memory a rdens
,'• 4. 4 1 r
Miles
W.2 Copyright:© 2013 Natio I Geographic Society, i-cubed

,
Legend
_�.=
Q Slingshot Creek Easement =
11.6 ac
Existing Perennial Streams =
3913 ft
�. _� • •
# (
�'•
Existing Intermittent Streams
= 172 ft
-^ -
*b.,
,
® Existing Wetlands = 0.69 ac
"'
,�.
100
Cross Section 3 -Slingshot Creek Upper
'
NCSAM Form 4
® Existing Drained Hydric Soils
= 1.02 ac
—
99
Score: Medium
Cross Sections
98
DA=0.15sgmi
N. •-
a
• Soil Profile
Abkf=5.9sgft
97
—
Aexisting=18.8sq ft
NRCS Soil Boundaries
Wbkf=1.0 ft
-
2-foot Topographic Contours
96
ft
Dbkf=1..3f
Dmf/Dbkf ft
95
bkf
Wbkf/Dbkf=5.4
FPA =8ft
a
Soil Map Unit
Soil Series
CgB2
Clifford sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 % slopes
CsA
Codorus loam 0 to 2 % slopes
DcB
Davie sandy loam, 2 to 8 % slopes
IJ FrE2
Fairview -Poplar complex, 15 to 25 % slopes
LBH = 3..1 ft94 - . ~--
BHR = 2.4
r, G-type
93 _
0 5 10 15 20
CgB2 r
s-
N
Axiom Erfrtnorfrnenial. Pnc,
Prepared for
NaB Nathahe sandy loam, 2 to 8 % slopes d
P D2 Poplar Forest san cla loam, 8 to 15 % slopes
Project:
SLINGSHOT CREEK
E =r _ ,,� STREAM AND
WETLAND
NCSAM Form 3 t -- - MITIGATION SITE
i Score: Low -'
100 Cross Section 1- Slingshot Creek lower
99
CgB2
98 DA=0.41sgmi Rockingham County, NC
-,. _ ,
97 Abkf=11.7sgft Qi •�
Aexisting =71.9 sq ft
96
Wbkf =9.8 ft
Dbkf = 1.2 ft
Dm ax = 1.6 ft
95
Wbkf/Dbkf=8.3
•
Q
FPA = 20 ft
ENT = 2.0
—
94
LBH = 5.0 ft
BHR = 3.1
93
Ge-type
0
5
10
15 20 25
11111111
ecB
t* NCWAM Form 1 - .•
`Pp�2
Score: Medium
NCSAM Form 1
Score: Low
e
-
�FnE2
N .
500 „0 -
r;
99
99
98
98
97
97
— 96
m_
r� 96
0
`v
Title:
ay,
NCSAM Form 2 -.Ivae
EXISTING
Score: Low
CONDITIONS
�T
AND SOILS
Rol
5
yfy�$
--
•.PpD2 r; � s �
=� ::• ��' �_ ..
_
Drawn by:
KRJ
�.�
Date:
XS-2
:; :
JUL 2019
-
=
Scale:
1:2200
Cross Section 2 - UT-1
Project No.:
18-013
DA = 0.09sgmi
Abkf=4.2 sq ft
Aexisting=18.2 sq ft
Wbkf=7.1 ft
Dbkf=0.6 t
FIGURE
Dmax=1.01.0 ft
Wbkf/Dbkf =12.0
FPA =12 ft
ENT =1.7
LBH = 2.3 ft
BHR = 2.3
G-type
10 15 20 25
1

UT 4
Start Preservation
Sta 00+00
UT 4 Elev At Grade
End Preservation L_
Sta 00+86
Elev At Grade
Easement Boundary = 11.6 ac
Major Topographic Line uT 3
Minor Topographic Line Start Enhancement II Slingshot Creek
Sta 00+00 - — Start Reach 1 Preservation
Property Boundary At Grade Sta 00+00
Channel Banks Elev At Grade
— — Stream Restoration = 2501 ft
— — Stream Enhancement (Level 1) = 587 ft UT 3
— — Stream Enhancement (Level 11) = 635 ft End Enhancement II Slingshot Creek
Sta 01+89 " End Reach 1 Preservation
Stream Preservation = 391 ft Elev 772.84 Start Reach 2 Enhancement II
Wetland Restoration = 1.018 ac Sta 03+05
Elev at Grade '
Wetland Enhancement = 0.606 ac
r Piped Stream Crossing Remove Remnants
"`
� of Relict Dam '
101111171
f Note: Channel length for mitigation purposes has
rbeen calculated using center of Top of Bank.
fl j `.' Slingshot Creek
Slingshot Creek End Reach 2 Enhancement II
End Reach 3 Restoration
Start Reach 4 Enhancement Level I Start Reach 3 Restoration
Sta 05+78 Sta 04+59
r Y- j Elev 772.84 Elev 772.99
' i�
i � �' } � Slingshot Creek
End Reach 4 Enhancement I
f Start Reach 5 Restoration
�{ iy Sta 07+17
JR� Elev 771.57
50 Feet of Stream is Outside _
the Easement and is Non -Credit
Generating
41 r
t IF J j 52 Feet of Stream is Outside
the Easement and is Non -Credit T
Generating
End UT 1A Enhance II
Start UT 1 B Enhance I
Sta 01+95 t>
End UT 1 B Enhance I
Start UT 1C Restoration
Sta 06+95
Elev 760.40 Remove Remnants
laeEtnd UT 1C Restoration ' of Relict Dam
09+70 UT 1A
Elev 756.57 �, Start Enhance II
Sta 00+00
_, Elev 775.55 '
a. +
51 Feet of Stream is Outside
the Easement and is Non -Credit _
i
Generating
0 100 20
PERA 0&1 SCALE IN FEET
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
NOTES/REVISIONS
Project:
Slingshot
Mitigation Site
Rockingham County
North Carolina
Title:
Restoration Plan
Scale: FIGURE NO.
As Shown
Date: 5A
Oct 2018
Project No.:
18-013

Easement Boundary = 11.6 ac
Major Topographic Line
Minor Topographic Line
50 Feet of Stream is Outside
Property Boundary the Easement and is Non -Credit
Channel Banks Generating
Stream Restoration = 2501 ft
— — Stream Enhancement (Level 1) = 587 ft
— — Stream Enhancement (Level 11) = 635 ft
Stream Preservation = 391 ft
Wetland Restoration = 1.018 ac
Wetland Enhancement = 0.606 ac
Piped Stream Crossing
1'. Note: Channel length for mitigation purposes has
11 been calculated using center of Top of Bank. AA
IX
End UT 1C Restoration
3 > Sta 09+70
~r Elev 756.57
51 Feet of Stream is Outside
r the Easement and is Non -Credit
Generating
Teracell Drop
-� Structure
PC,--'
:•x• i =
Slingshot Creek
Top Drop Structure
Sta 27+23
Elev 745.48
`
Slingshot Creek
Slingshot Creek
Bottom Drop Structure
End Reach 6
End Reach 5 Restoration ---_
Enhancement II
, Start Reach 6 Enhancement II --
Sta 28+74
y
„ Sta 27+77
Elev At Grade
k°' Elev 741.95
UT 2
End Restoration
Sta 01+77
Elev 753.76
25 Feet of Stream is Outside
the Easement and is Non -Credit
Generating
End UT 1 B Enhance I
Start UT 1 C Restoration
Sta 06+95
Elev 760.40
Remove Remnants
- of Relict Dam
r
UT 2
Start Restoration
Sta 00+04
Elev 753.97 t0.
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
NOTES/REVISIONS
Project:
Slingshot
Mitigation Site
Rockingham County
North Carolina
Title:
Restoration Plan
Scale: FIGURE NO.
As Shown
Date: 5 ^
�L{J Oct 2018
Project No.:
18-013

POOL
RIFF
WATER SURFACE
%%k
�•y
SOTTOM
CHANNEL
POOL -TO -POOL SPACING (A.j
[VARIES -SEE NOTE 1 }
TYPICAL CHANNEL PROFILE
NOTES'
1, POOL -TO -POOL SPACING IS MEASURED FROM
CENTER OF POOL BEND TO CENTER OF POOL BEND.
VALLEY
SIRE SLOPE
I'HOPOSLO
FLOOOPLAIN
15' MIN.
21
BANK SLOPE
EXTEND STONE
SEC MATERIAL UP
CHANNEL BANK
TO 113 D "'l
W t3I,q
COIR FIBER
—EROSION —
CONTROL MATTING
Class A and
C04bt%Stare
kiC4�W_
W
W hnl
TYPICAL RIFFLE CROSS-SECTION
LIVE WILLOW
STAKES
PROPOSED
P
LIVE WILLOW
STAKES
DPOSED
)ODPLAIN7
Axiom Environmental. Inc.
I NOTES/REVISICINS I
POOL LENGTH
MAX. 1,1 SLOPE
1
HEAD OF
TPJL tlF7—T-HR3 i RIFFLE TYPICAL POOL CROSS-SECTION
RIFFLE • , _ IF • R2
RIFFLE
,
L `� J DESIGN Gtfpfi CHANNE• • - , -v,
Project:
Q' ri Rr��iG •� ` HRY ,• CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION NOTES: Slingshot
k
2 FLOW 1. MATERIAL EXCAVATED FROM CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN SHALL BE
USED TO BACKFILL EXISTING CHANNEL. Mitigation Site
TYPICAL CHANNEL PLAN VIEW
NU-1 1i1M19Yff.LI'i1: 42AZ* H% &I I
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LAYOUT THE CHANNEL ALIGNMENT BY LOCATING
THE RADII AND SCRIBING THE CENTER LINE FOR EACH POOL BEND. THE
CONNECTING TANGENT SECTIONS SHALL COMPLETE THE LAYOUT OF THE CHANNEL
2. FIELD ADJUSTMENTS OF THE ALIGNMENT MAY BE REQUIRED TO SAVE TREES
OR AVOID OBSTACLES. THE STAKEOUT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CONSTRUCTION
MANAGER BEFORE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHANNEL.
2, BANK PROTECTION SHALL CONSIST OF NATURAL COIR FIBER MATTING,
3, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY BED MATERIAL FOR THE ENTIRE BED
LENGTH OF EACH RIFFLE SECTION. THE BED MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF
A MIX OF CLASS A AND SMALLER STONE.
CROSS-SECTION DIMENSIONS
REACH
Wbkf ft.
Wbot ft.
Driff ft.
Dthal ft.
❑ ool ft.
Wool ft.
Wthal ft.
Slingshot Creek Upstream
10-8
6.4
1.0
0.1
1.5
11.9
2-9
Slingshot Creek Downstream
12.5
7.7
1.1
0.1
1.7
13.7
3.5
UT 1 and UT 2
T6
4.4
0.7
0.1
1-0
8.3
2.3
Rockingham County
North Carolina
Title:
PROPOSED DIMENSION,
PATTERN, AND PROFILE
Scale:
FIGURE NO.
NA
Date,
Oct 2018
Project No-:
18-013

X57 STONE AND
CLASS W RIP RAPT
NATIVE CHANNEL -
MATERIAL
LOG CROSS VANE
SCALE'NTS
FILTER FABRIC
.--. LOG SILL
:ILTER FABRIC
HEADER LOG
NOTES:
1. HEADER AND FOOTER LOGS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 18`
DIAMETER AND SHALL BE A HARDWOOD SPECIES.
(FOOTER LOG MAY BE SUBSTITUTED WITH PINE)
2. A DOUBLE FODTER LOG MAY BE REQUIRED IN SAND BED
STREAMS,
3. ALL STONES ARE TO BE STRUCTURE STONES,
4. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE
OF THE STRUCTURE TO PREVENT WASHOUT OF SEDIMENT
THROUGH LOG GAPS, FILTER FABRIC SHALL EXTEND
FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOTER TO THE FINISHED GRADE
ELEVATION AND SHALL BE PLACED THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE
STRUCTURE.
S. PERPENDICULAR ROOTWAO LOGS ARE REQUIRED IF THE LOG
VANE ARM DOES NOT HAVE A ROOTBALL TO TIE INTO THE BANK.
HEADER LOG
7• fL� A COIR LOG
TOP OF BANK
CLASSW RIP PAP FLOW (BANKFULL)
NATIVE CHANNEL
MATERIAL
EXITING 70P OF BANK 957 STONE 1 NATIVE 1 SCOUR
EXISTING CHANNEL MATERIAL \ OIL
GROUND L!jrHEADER LOG (BANKFULL) GROUND
COIR LOG ]]] STREAMBED
BACKF I LLED AND COM PACTS ❑ POOL FILTER ELEVATION
WITH p57 STONE AND 7 �FILTERR
FABRICCLANNE RIP RAP 1 NATIVE �/ �li FOOTER LOG
CHANNEL MATERIALSTREAMBED FABRIC SECTION A -A
ELEVATION FOOTER LOG
SECTION B-B
REACH
ARM LENGTH (FT,)
CHANNEL DEPTH (FT.)
UT 1 and 2
a
0.8
Slingshol Creek
12
1.2
NOTE:
HEADER AND FOOTER STONES ARE LARGE, ANGULAR BOULDERS
MEASURING A MINIMUM OF 24" ALONG THE SHORTEST DIMENSION,
CHANNEL
BANK
__1-
CHANNEL
I BANK
FILTER
JL HEADER STONE
I
II�$
� I
I
WSJ
]/ Y, I
PLAN VIEW
TYPICAL CROSS -VANE
EXIST,
CHANNEL
HEADER
STONE
CHANNEL ,t
BANK
I
I
LARGE
STONE r
1
1
r
SCOUR r
HOLE —7m1
NOTE:
FILTER FABRIC TOED IN AND DRAPED
ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF LOG VANE
PRIOR TO BACKFILL.
TOP OF BANK
LARGE
PLAN VIEW
SCALE:
` \ CHANNEL
BANK
CROSS-SECTION A -A
SCALE' N.T.S.
A
-OG VANE
FILTER
FABRIC
LARGE
STONE
TOP OF BANK
FOOTER BAN KFUL L_ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J
ELEVATION A -A STONE
FLOW' -
w BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
------------
BACK FILL
LOG VANE
TO GRADE
CHANNEL
DEQFH FLOW
+yw�
FILTER
FABRIC
EXIST.
GROUND
L_ FOOTER STONE L FILTER FABRIC
PROFILE B-B
NOTE:
FILTER FABRIC TOED IN AND DRAPED
PROFILE B-B ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF LOG VANE
SCALE: N.T.S.
- PRIOR TO BACKFILL.
TYPICAL LOG VANE
OF
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Project:
Slingshot
Mitigation Site
Rockingham County
North Carolina
Title:
TYPICAL
STRUCTURE
DETAILS
FIGURE NO.
NO SCALE
Date:
Oct 2018 7A
Project No-,
18-013

WATER SURFACE
ELEVATION
weWd
PROFILE
SECTION A -A
Side Slope al 810
Welland
Grade Base of
WMIard at '51c 1
RIP RAP OUTLET
DROP STRUCTURE
18 IN CLASS 1 RIP RAP
FILTER
„1P RAP
(SEE NOTES)
STRUCTURE NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR WILL INSTALL EROSION CONTROL FABRIC AND 18-INCH DEPTH OF CLASS 1
RIP RAP OR OTHER SUITABLE MATTERIAL.
r — — OITCH OR ,
%1E 1 LET
j 1 1
RIP RAP
BASIN
MARSH TREATMENT AREA
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Project:
Slingshot
Mitigation Site
Rockingham County
North Carolina
Title:
TYPICAL
STRUCTURE
DETAILS
Scale: FIGURE NO.
NO SCALE
Date,
Oct 2018 7B
Project No
18-013

Piedm an V Low Mountain
llry-►'tesis Oak-
slream-hide
Vegel no ion As s or i athm
:Ulusial Forest•
Hiic kory Forest'
Assemblage—
]tl [AL
�.S
2.Z
2S
�1.+
�t•ra (act•csJ
Easement Boundary = 11-6 ac R:
y
Major Topographic Line
srecies
# rlanied"
% of lnta]
#planted*
% of total
# Filanted"
Me ofintal
# planted
Minor Topographic Line
-
-
350
7
350
Tag alder (A Inus serrulala )
'• Property Boundary
.:•ti
-
-
3(K)
8
700
Rirerbirrll [�errlla nigra ]
Channel Banks
Piedmont/Mountain Alluvial Forest = 4.8 ac
Dry-Mesic Oak Hickory Forest = 2.2 ac
�.'tll'I- Stream -side Assemblage = 2.5 ac
g
�-
,. '• ■
Ironwood(Caipinuscaroliniana
-
--
300
6
30n
Sugarbctry [Celrisloerigala]
300
14
300
Red bud [C:ere oscanaq'etpsrs}
��
--
_'iMl
9
-.
--
20[t
Sdkv dogwood [Comus amonnim]
-
-
::ii
17W
Prrtiimmnn [I7iospt•�ns i•ir inian�r ]
..
--
'��:'
9
-.
200
White ash (Fraximxs americona }
100
r +
- -
(-seen a,h (P r-alyinns pennsi'lranico 1
'_(A]
��
--
-
_. 1
1
400
Tulip poplar (briodendown irdipifera }
�00
14
500
Sv cam= (Plulunu.s occidenmii.$)
-�!]
' i
--
-
-`i i
14
1 �0 )
Black gum (lvyssa sylcarica ]
-
-
500
clieny (Prunus seron lino }
300
14
30(}
y •' s..
W hire oak (Quercus alb }
__�o
250
12
-
500
i
Water oak (Quercus nigra }
500
I;
5W
23
500
L1
1500
W illow oak {QierCns phellos}
500
I S
3iR7
14
69)
11
1400
Shumardoak (Duercusshumardii]
250
-
2�11
5
500
TO-1:►1_
;;u[]
1100
2150
10u
-�300
IN
11950
-
Planted at a density of - 680 stems.+acre.
�-
•' pianlod at a density of - 2720 stems 1t m
l
1 �'Vti • i f Rig ? .I�. 1. _ -.
r
F, Y.
k
AW
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
NOTES/REVISIONS
Project:
Slingshot
Mitigation Site
Rockingham County
North Carolina
Title:
Planting Plan
A
0 100 200
t R,•
SCAL,FEE s
3
Scale: FIGURE NO.
As Shown
Date: 8 B
0Ct 2018
Project No.:
18-013

i
Easement Boundary = 11.6 ac
Major "topographic Line
Minor Topographic Line
Property Boundary
Channel Banks
'
W Stream Restoration = 2501 ft
Stream Enhancement (Level 1) = 587 ft
Stream Enhancement {Level II} = 635 ft
Stream Preservation = 391 ft
r
Wetland Restoration = 1.018 ac
i Wetland Enhancement = 0.606 ac
Cross Section
0 Vegetation Plot
Q Groundwater Gauge
❑ Crest Gauge
-•}'• :rr. .�— fir- i�: � r�... hr.. �
50 Feet of Stream is Outside
the Easement and is Non -Credit
Generating,
IPA
* '� :.+'-`!' t;s• . ��� . -{ . "!Y.,y. End UT 1C Restoration
Sta 09*70
;� r „^. -cc ==• Elev 756.57
51 Feet of Stream is Outside }+
the Easement and is Non -Credit r
Generating 4.+
End UT 1 H Enhance I
- r
+ woo
Start UT 1C Restoration
06+95
f�
j "6: •roc ...- f . _ Elev 760.40
Slingshot Creek
End Reach 6
Enhancement II
Sta 28+74
Elev At Grade
�11
Slingshot Creek
Top Teracell
Sta 27+23
Elev 745.48
Slingshot Creek
r� ` Bottom Teracell
End Reach 5 Restoration
Start Reach 6 Enhancement II
Sta 27+77
Elev 741.95
k
I. I
Remove Remnants
of Relict Dam
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
NOTESIREVISIONS
Project,
Slingshot
Mitigation Site
Rockingham County
North Carolina
Title:
Monitoring Plan
Generating ' _
Emma
ej
ion
jr
SCAL�T
UT 2
End Restoration
Sta 01+77
Elev 753-76
25 Feet of Stream is Outside
the Easement and is Non -Credit y
UT 2
Start Restoration
Sta 00+04
Elev 753.97
Scale: FIGURE NO.
As Shown
Date: 9 B
Oct 2018
Project No.:
18-013

Appendix B
Existing Stream Data
Table B 1. Slingshot Morphological Stream Characteristics
Figure B 1. Cross-section Locations
Existing Stream Cross-section Data
NC SAM Forms
NC WAM Forms
Sediment Data
NCDWQ Stream Forms
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

Table 131. Slingshot Morphological Stream Characteristics
Slinqshot Mitiqation Site
Variables
REFERENCE - FLINT
REFERENCE - CASWELL
ROCK FARM
GAME LAND
Stream Type
E5
Cg 3/4
Drainage Area (mi')
0.43
0.65
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
24.4
71.7
Dimension Variables
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (Abkf)
6.1
17.6
Existing Cross -Sectional Area at TOB (Ae,;sr;r)
6.1
17.6
Bankfull Width (Wbkf)
Mean:
7.5
Mean:
18.4
Range:
6.9 -
8.1
Range:
14.6 - 21.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (Dbkf)
Mean:
0.8
Mean:
1.0
Range:
0.7-0.9
Range:
0.9 - 1.0
Bankfull Maximum Depth (Dma.)
Mean:
1.4
Mean:
1.4
Range:
1.4 -
1.4
Range:
1.3 - 1.5
Pool Width (Wpoo;)
Mean:
7.7
Mean:
11.1
Range:
6.7 -
8.6
Range:
9.7 - 12.4
Maximum Pool Depth (Dpoo;)
Mean:
2.0
Mean:
2.3
Range:
1.6 -
2.3
Range:
2.3 - 2.3
Mean:
100
Mean:
33.5
Width of Floodprone Area (Wfpa)
Range:
100
- 100
Range:
23.0 - 44.0
Dimension Ratios
Entrenchment Ratio (Wfpa/Wbkf)
Mean:
13.4
Mean:
1.8
Range:
12.3
- 14.5
Range:
1.5-2.0
Width / Depth Ratio (Wbkf/Dbkf)
Mean:
9.6
Mean:
19.6
Range:
7.7 -
11.6
Range:
14.9 - 24.3
Max. Dbkf/ Dbkf Ratio
Mean:
1.8
Mean:
1.5
Range:
1.6-2.0
Range:
1.3 - 1.7
Low Bank Height / Max. Dbkf Ratio
Mean:
1.0
Mean:
1.8
Range:
1.0 -
1.0
Range:
1.4 - 2.2
Maximum Pool Depth / Bankfull
Mean:
2.5
Mean:
2.4
Mean Depth (Dpoo;/Dbkf)
Range:
1.8 -
3.3
Range:
2.3 - 2.6
Pool Width / Bankfull
Mean:
1.0
Mean:
0.6
Width (WPoo;/Wbkf)
Range:
0.8 -
1.2
Range:
0.6-0.7
Pool Area / Bankfull
Mean:
1.5
Mean:
1.2
Cross Sectional Area
Range:
1.0 -
1.6
Range:
1.1 - 1.3
Variables
REFERENCE - FLINT
REFERENCE - CASWELL
ROCK FARM
GAME LAND
Pattern
Variables
Med:
17.8
Med:
58.2
Pool to Pool Spacing (Lp_p)
Range:
8.9 - 32.7
Range:
31.6 - 101.8
Meander Length (Lm)
Med:
29.4
Med:
104.6
Range:
13.4 - 47.2
Range:
61 - 154.7
Belt Width (Wbe;r)
Med:
14.3
Med:
28.6
Range:
7.9 - 24.9
Range:
15 - 42.2
Radius of Curvature (Ro)
Med:
8.4
Med:
31.1
Range:
5.2 - 12.8
Range:
18.6 - 46.3
Sinuosity (Sin)
1.22
1.14
Pattern Ratios
Pool to Pool Spacing/
Med:
2.4
Med:
3.2
Bankfull Width (Lp_p/Wbkf)
Range:
1.6-4.0
Range:
2.1 - 4.6
Meander Length/
Med:
3.9
Med:
5.7
Bankfull Width (Lm/Wbkf)
Range:
1.9 - 5.8
Range:
4.1 - 7.1
Meander Width Ratio
Med:
1.9
Med:
1.6
(Wbelr/Wbkf)
Range:
1.1 -4.1
Range:
1 - 1.9
Radius of Curvature/
Med:
1.1
Med:
1.7
Bankfull Width (Rc/Wbkf)
Range:
0.8-2.1
Range:
1.2 - 2.1
Profile Variables
Average Water Surface Slope (Save)
0.0049
0.0100
Valley Slope (Sva;;ey)
0.0060
0.0114
Riffle Slope (Sr;fle)
Mean:
0.0053
Mean:
0.0153
Range:
0 - 0.0193
Range:
0 - 0.036
Pool Slope (Spool)
Mean:
0.0013
Mean:
0.0000
Range:
0 - 0.0107
Range:
0 - 0.0037
Run Slope (Sr r,)
Mean:
0.0064
Mean:
0.002
Range:
0 - 0.0156
Range:
0 - 0.53
Mean:
0.0049
Mean:
0.0030
Glide Slope (Sg;;de)
Range:
0 - 0.0089
Range:
0 - 0.0112
Profile Ratios
Riffle Slope/ Water Surface
Mean:
1.1
Mean:
3.1
Slope (Sr;ffle/Save)
Range:
0 - 3.94
Range:
0 - 7.35
Pool Slope/Water Surface
Mean:
0.3
Mean:
0.0
Slope (Spool/Save)
Range:
0 - 2.18
Range:
0 - 0.76
Run Slope/Water Surface
Mean:
1.31
Mean:
0.41
Slope (Sr r,/Save)
Range:
0 - 3.18
Range:
0 - 10.82
Glide Slope/Water Surface
Mean:
1.00
Mean:
0.61
Slope (Sg;;de/Save)
Range:
0 - 1.82
Range:
0 - 2.3
Existing UT 1
Existing UT 2
PROPOSED UT 1 and 2
G 5
G 5
E/C 3/4
0.09
0.10
0.10
15.0
15.9
15.5
Dimension Variables
4.0
4.3
4.1
5.8-34.1
19.2-40.7
4.1
Mean: 7.2
Mean: 7.7
Mean:
7.6
Range: 4.4 to
14.5
Range: 6.2 to 8.4
Range:
7.0
to
8.1
Mean: 0.6
Mean: 0.6
Mean:
0.5
Range: 0.3 to
0.9
Range: 0.5 to 0.7
Range:
0.5
to
0.6
Mean: 1.1
Mean: 0.9
Mean:
0.8
Range: 0.6 to
1.4
Range: 0.8 to 1.1
Range:
0.6
to
0.8
Mean:
8.3
No distinct repetitive pattern
No distinct repetitive pattern
Range:
7.6
to
10.6
of riffles and pools due
to
of riffles and pools due to
Mean:
1.0
staightening activities
staightening activities
Range:
0.7
to
1.1
Mean: 12
Mean: 12
Mean:
50
Range: 9.0 to
####
Range: 11.0 to 12.0
Range:
30.0
to
90.0
Dimension Ratios
Mean: 2.0
Mean: 1.6
Mean:
6.6
Range: 1.4 to
13.7
Range: 1.4 to 1.8
Range:
4.0
to
11.9
Mean: 12.0
Mean: 12.8
Mean:
14.0
Range: 4.9 to
48.3
Range: 8.9 to 16.8
Range:
12.0
to
16.0
Mean: 1.8
Mean: 1.6
Mean:
1.4
Range: 1.3 to
2.4
Range: 1.3 to 1.8
Range:
1.2
to
1.5
Mean: 2.4
Mean: 2.8
Mean:
1.0
Range: 1.2 to
3.7
Range: 2.5 to 3.9
Range:
1.0
to
1.2
Mean:
1.9
Range:
1.3
to
2.1
No distinct repetitive pattern
No distinct repetitive pattern
Mean:
1.1
of riffles and pools due
to
of riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
staightening activities
Range:
1.0
to
1.4
Mean:
1.4
Range:
1.1
to
1.6
Existing UT 1
Existing UT 2
PROPOSED UT 1 and 2
Pattern Variables
Med:
30.3
Range:
22.7 to
60.6
No distinct repetitive pattern
of riffles and pools due to
No distinct repetitive pattern
of riffles and pools due to
Med:
Range:
64.4
45.5 to
90.9
Med:
22.7
staightening activities
staightening activities
Range:
15.2 to
30.3
Med:
22.7
Range:
15.2 to
75.8
1.18
1.17
1.20
Pattern Ratios
Med:
4.0
Range:
3.0 to
8.0
Med:
8.5
No distinct repetitive pattern
of riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
No distinct repetitive pattern
of riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
Range:
6.0 to
12.0
Med: 3.0
Range:
2.0 to
4.0
Med:
3.0
Range:
2.0 to
10.0
Profile Variables
0.0267
0.0186
0.0263
0.0315
0.0218
0.0315
Mean:
0.0394
Range:
0.0315 to 0.0525
Mean:
0.0026
No distinct repetitive pattern
of riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
No distinct repetitive pattern
of riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
Range:
0.0000 to 0.0184
Mean: 0.0105
Range:
0.0000 to 0.0210
Mean:
0.0029
Range:
0.0000 to 0.0210
Profile Ratios
Mean:
1.5
Range:
1.2 to
2.0
Mean:
0.10
No distinct repetitive pattern
of riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
No distinct repetitive pattern
of riffles and pools due to
staightening activities
Range:
0.0 to
0.7
Mean: 0.40
Range:
0.0 to
0.8
Mean:
0.11
Range:
0.0 to
0.8

Table 131. Slingshot Morphological Stream Characteristics
Slinqshot Mitigation Site
Variables
Stream Type
Drainage Area (mi')
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Dimension Variables
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (Abkf)
Existing Cross -Sectional Area at TOB (Ae,isun )
Bankfull Width (Wbkf)
Bankfull Mean Depth (Dbkf)
Bankfull Maximum Depth (Dma.)
Pool Width (Wpool)
Maximum Pool Depth (Dpool)
Width of Floodprone Area (Wfpa)
Dimension Ratios
Entrenchment Ratio (WfpaNVbkf)
Width / Depth Ratio (Wbkf/Dbkf)
Max. Dbkf/ Dbkf Ratio
Low Bank Height / Max. Dbkf Ratio
Maximum Pool Depth / Bankfull
Mean Depth (Dpool/Dbkf)
Pool Width / Bankfull
Width (WpoolNVbkf)
Pool Area / Bankfull
Cross Sectional Area
Variables
Pattern Variables
Pool to Pool Spacing (Lp_p)
Meander Length (Lm)
Belt Width (Wbelr)
Radius of Curvature (Ro)
Sinuosity (Sin)
Pattern Ratios
Pool to Pool Spacing/
Bankfull Width (Lp_p/Wbkf)
Meander Length/
Bankfull Width (Lm/Wbkf)
Meander Width Ratio
(W belrNVbkf)
Radius of Curvature/
Bankfull Width (Rc/Wbkf)
Profile Variables
Average Water Surface Slope (Save)
Valley Slope (Syalley)
Riffle Slope (Srifle)
Pool Slope (Spool)
Run Slope (Sr r,)
Glide Slope (Sglme)
0.0118 (0.0089 - 0.0111)
Riffle Slope/ Water Surface
Slope (Srime/Save)
Pool Slope/Water Surface
Slope (Spool/Save)
Run Slope/Water Surface
Slope (Sr n/Save)
Glide Slope/Water Surface
Slope (Sglme/Save)
Existing Slingshot Cr
Upstream
PROPOSED Slingshot Cr
Upstream
Existing Slingshot Cr
Downstream
PROPOSED Slingshot Cr
Downstream
G 4/5
E/C 3/4
G 4/5
E/C 3/4
0.28
0.28
0.42
0.42
32.7
32.7
44.4
44.4
Dimension Variables
Dimension Variables
8.3
8.3
11.1
11.1
12.1-59.7
8.3
16.2-104.6
11.1
Mean: 8.8
6.0 to 14.6
Mean:
Range:
10.0
10.8
to
11.5
Mean: 11.7
8.7 to 15.8
Mean:
Range:
11.5
12.5
to
13.3
Mean: 0.9
Range: 0.6 to 1.4
Mean:
Range:
0.7
0.8
to
0.8
Mean: 1.0
Range: 0.7 to 1.3
Mean:
Range:
0.8
0.9
to
1.0
Mean: 1.4
Range: 0.7 to 1.9
Mean:
Range:
0.9
1.1
to
1.2
Mean: 1.6
Range: 1.1 to 1.9
Mean:
Range:
1.1
1.2
to
1.3
No distinct repetitive
pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening
activities
Mean:
Range:
10.8
11.9
to
15.1
No distinct repetitive
pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening
activities
Mean:
Range:
12.5
13.7
to
17.5
Mean: 1.5
Range: 1.0 to 1.6
Mean: 1.7
Range: 1.2 to
1.9
Mean: 16
Range: 12.0 to 100.0
Mean:
Range:
30.0
50
to
70.0
1 Imean: 20
Range: 12.0 to 100.0
Mean:
Range:
70.0
100
to
150.0
Dimension Ratios
Dimension Ratios
Mean: 1.5
Range: 1.2 to 11.4
Mean:
Range:
2.8
4.6
to
6.5
Mean: 1.6
Range: 1.1 to 10.5
Mean:
Range:
5.6
8.0
to
12.0
Mean: 9.8
Range: 4.3 to 24.3
Mean:
Range:
12.0
14.0
to
16.0
Mean: 12.4
Range: 6.7 to 22.6
Mean:
Range:
12.0
14.0
to
16.0
Mean: 1.5
Range: 1.2 to 1.7
Mean:
Range:
1.2
1.4
to
1.5
Mean: 1.6
Range: 1.2 to 2.3
Mean:
Range:
1.2
1.4
to
1.5
Mean: 2.2
Range: 1.4 to 3.6
Mean:
Range:
1.0
1.0
to
1.2
Mean: 3.0
Range: 1.3 to 4.5
Mean:
Range:
1.0
1.0
to
1.2
No distinct repetitive
pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening
activities
Mean:
Range:
1.3
1.9
to
2.1
No distinct repetitive
pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening
activities
Mean:
Range:
1.3
1.9
to
2.1
Mean: 1.1
Range: 1.0 to 1.4
Mean: 1.1
Range: 1.0 to
1.4
Mean: 1.4
Range: 1.1 to 1.6
Mean: 1.4
Range: 1.1 to
1.6
Existing Main Upstream
PROPOSED Main Upstream
Existing Main
Downstream
PROPOSED Main
Downstream
Pattern
Variables
Pattern
Variables
Med: 43.1
Med: 49.9
Range: 32.3 to 86.2
Range: 37.4 to 99.7
No distinct repetitive
Med: 91.6
No distinct repetitive
Med: 106.0
pattern of riffles and pools
Range: 64.7 to 129.4
pattern of riffles and pools
Range: 74.8 to 149.6
due to staightening
due to staightening
Med: 32.3
Med: 37.4
activities
Range: 21.6 to 43.1
activities
Range: 24.9 to 49.9
Med: 32.3
Med: 37.4
Range: 21.6 to 107.8
Range: 24.9 to 124.7
1.18
1 1.15
1.14
1 1.15
Pattern Ratios
Pattern Ratios
Med: 4.0
Med: 4.0
Range: 3.0 to 8.0
Range: 3.0 to 8.0
Med: 8.5
Med: 8.5
No distinct repetitive
No distinct repetitive
pattern of riffles and pools
Range: 6.0 to 12.0
pattern of riffles and pools
Range: 6.0 to 12.0
Med: 3.0
Med: 3.0
due to staightening
due to staightening
activities
Range: 2.0 to 4.0
activities
Range: 2.0 to 4.0
Med: 3.0
Med: 3.0
Range: 2.0 to 10.0
Range: 2.0 to 10.0
Profile Variables
Profile Variables
0.0149
0.0153
0.0171
0.0170
0.0176
0.0176
0.0195
0.0195
Mean: 0.0230
Mean: 0.0254
Range: 0.0184 to 0.0306
Range: 0.0203 to 0.0339
Mean: 0.0015
Mean: 0.0017
No distinct repetitive
No distinct repetitive
pattern of riffles and pools
Range: 0.0000 to 0.0107
pattern of riffles and pools
Range: 0.0000 to 0.0119
due to staightening
due to staightening
Mean: 0.0061
Mean: 0.0068
activities
Range: 0.0000 to 0.0122
activities
Range: 0.0000 to 0.0136
Mean: 0.0017
Mean: 0.0019
Range: 0.0000 to 0.0122
Range: 0.0000 to 0.0136
Profile Ratios
Profile Ratios
Mean: 1.5
Mean: 1.5
Range: 1.2 to 2.0
Range: 1.2 to 2.0
Mean: 0.10
Mean: 0.10
No distinct repetitive
No distinct repetitive
pattern of riffles and pools
Range: 0.0 to 0.7
pattern of riffles and pools
Range: 0.0 to 0.7
due to staightening
due to staightening
Mean: 0.40
Mean: 0.40
activities
Range: 0.0 to 0.8
activities
Range: 0.0 to 0.8
Mean: 0.11
Mean: 0.11
Range: 0.0 to 0.8
Range: 0.0 to 0.8

XS 5
XS 4
xS2 XS3
XS 1
XS 11
XS10'
XS 8
XS 7
,L
/• reek
� Slingsh°t c �
UT 2
XS 1 f
XS 6 xS 2
X5 16
XS 13 —
XS 12
XS
9
XS 17
XS 1
XS 2
XS 3
XS 21
XS 20
—X519
X5 18
XS 15
- XS 14
XS 6 \
xs 7 � xs s
T UT
.+A►
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Project:
Slingshot
Mitigation Site
Rockingham County
North Carolina
• XS 5
Title:
XS 4 Cross Section
Locations
Scale: FIGURE NO.
AS Shown
Date, ^ 1
Oct 2018 �V.(
❑ i❑❑ 20o project No-:
18-013
SCALE IN FEET

102
101
100
c 99
98
w 97
96
95
94
0
Slingshot Main Down -XS 1 Riffle---
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
description: ■.
height of instrument (ft): r r r r
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Mannii
notes pt. (ft) (ft) elevation bankfull top of bank (ft) slope (%) "n"
dimensions
11.1
10.5
1.3
3.9
12.0
x-section area
1.1
11.5
1.0
10.0
1.1
d mean
width
wet P
d max
h d radi
bank ht
w/d ratio
W flood prone area
ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0 velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
B-B
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D8mm
0.0
relative rou hiness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material
103
102
101
c 100
99
w 98
97
96
95
notes
0
Slingshot Main - XS 2 Riffle ---
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
of instrument (ft): Roza
r r
Ice IFS FS Ft
(ft) elevation bankfull top of
„n„
dimensions
11.1
13.8
x-section area
0.8
14.3
d mean
width
wet P
1.3
4.2
d max
bank ht
0.8
17.2
h d radi
w/d ratio
20.0
W flood prone area
1.5
ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
"
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D8m
0.0
relative rou himness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material

104
103
102
101
100
99
w 98
97
96
95
0
notes
Slingshot Main Down - XS 3 Riffle ---
20 40 60 80
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
of instrument (ft) z X
Ice IFS FS Fl
(ft) I elevation bankfull top of
100 120
lannel Manning's
ape (% I "n"
dimensions
11.1
11.7
x-section area
0.9
12.7
d mean
width
wet P
1.6
d max
0.9
h d radi
4.7
bank ht
12.4
w/d ratio
20.0
W flood prone area
1.7
ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
"
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 1 0.0 1 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material
106
105
104
103
102
101
100
w 99
98
97
96
0
Slingshot Main Down - XS 4 Riffle ---
height of instrument (ft) z X
omit I distance FS FS FS Wfpa channel Me ning's
notes pt. (ft) (ft) elevation bankfull top of bank (ft) slope (% "n"
dimensions
11.1
15.5
x-section area
width
0.7
15.9
d mean
wet P
1.1
d max
0.7
h d radi
4.9
bank ht
21.7
w/d ratio
20.0
W flood prone area
1.3
ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
B-B
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D8m
0.0
relative rou himness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material

107
106
105
104
103
102
'w 101
w 100
99
98
97
notes
Slingshot Main Down - XS 5 Riffle ---
12
10
8
6
w 4
2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 II II 0
Slingshot Main Down - XS 6 Riffle ---
Width from River Left to Right (ft) 11 11 Width from River Left to Right (ft)
of instrument (ft) � II II height of instrument
elevation I I bankfull Itop of
„n„
dimensions
11.1
11.7
x-section area
1.0
12.5
d mean
width
wet P
1.6
d max
0.9
h d radi
6.1
bank ht
12.2
w/d ratio
20.0
W flood prone area
1.7
ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
dischar a rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
"
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material
notes
elevation I I bankfull I top of bank) (ft) I slope (%) I "n"
dimensions
11.1
8.7
x-section area
width
1.3
9.9
d mean
wet P
1.9
d max
1.1
h d radi
3.4
bank ht
6.7
w/d ratio
24.0
W flood rone area
2.8
ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
"
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material

Slingshot Main Down - XS 7 Riffle
of instrument
notes I pt. I (ft) I (ft) I elevation I I bankfull I top of bank) (ft) I slope(%) I ..n..
dimensions
11.1
15.8
x-section area
0.7
16.0
d mean
width
wet P
1.2
d max
0.7
hyd radi
3.6
bank ht
22.7
w/d ratio
22.0
Wflood prone area
1.4
ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity (fUs c)
0.0
discharge rate, Q (cfs)
0.00
shear stress ((Ibs/ft sq)
0.00
shear velocity (ft/sec)
0.000
unit stream power (lbs/fUsec)
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
"
threshold grain size (mm=====jI
Icheck from channel material
0
im
measured D aLe� 'n
0.0
relative ive roT , hi-)
I t T
nessm 1 0.0 1 fric. factor
9
0.000
1 Manning's n from channel material

109
108.5
108
107.5
107
106.5
06
w 105.5
105
104.5
104
103.5
0
description:
of instrument (ft):
notes
Slingshot Main Down - XS 8 Riffle ---
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
elevation I I bankfull Itop of
„n„
dimensions
11.1
10.1
1.5
3.6
22.0
x-section area
1.1
10.9
1.0
9.1
2.2
d mean
width
wet P
d max
h d radi
bank ht
w/d ratio
W flood prone area
ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0 velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
B-B
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D8mm
0.0
relative rou hiness 1 0.0 1 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material
Slingshot Main - XS 9 Riffle ---
rgloomF $
height of instrument (ft): r r r r
omit distance FS FS F:
notes pt. (ft) (ft) I elevation bankfull 1 top of
100 120
„n„
dimensions
11.1
9.5
x-section area 1.2
width 10.4
1
d mean
wet P
1.9
d max 1.1
h d radi
2.4
bank ht 8.2
w/d ratio
100.0
W flood prone area 10.5
ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
"
ithreshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D8m
0.0
relative rou himness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material

112
111
110
10g
w 108
107
106
0
notes
Slingshot Main Down - XS 10 Riffle ---
Width from Klver Lett to Might (it)
of instrument (ft) z x
Ice IFS FS F:
(ft) I elevation bankfull top of
„n„
dimensions
11.1
15.0
x-section area
0.7
15' 5
cm ean
width
wet P
1.6
d max
0.7
h d radi
3.5
bank ht
20.3
w/d ratio
16.0
W flood prone area
1.1
ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
"
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 1 0.0 1 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material
120
100
80
60
u 40
20
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
sectinn
1 1.2
height of instrument (ft) z x
omit I distance FS FS FS Wfpa channel Me ning's
notes pt. (ft) (ft) elevation bankfull top of bank (ft) slope (%) "n"
dimensions
0.0
0.0
x-section area
0.0
0.0
d mean
width
wet P
0.0
d max
0.0
h d radi
0.0
bank ht
0.0
w/d ratio
0.0
W flood prone area
0.0
ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/ft/sec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
B-B
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D8m
0.0
relative rou himness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material

0 20
description:
of instrument (ft):
notes
Slingshot Main Up - XS 11 Riffle ---
40 60 80 100
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
elevation I I bankfull hot) of
„n„
120
dimensions
8.3
9.2
x-section area
0.9
9.8
width
1.4
d max
0.8
radii
Oentratio
3.1
bank ht
10.2
16.0
W flood prone area
1.7
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/fUsec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
B-B
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D8mm
0.0
relative rou hiness 1 0.0 1 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material
Slingshot Main Up - XS 12 Riffle ---
S
E
III®.illlllllll6. - =a
B
S
100 120
height of instrument (ft): r r r r
omit I distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes pt. (ft) (ft) elevation bankfull top of bank (ft) slope (%) "n"
dimensions
8.3
6.0
x-section area
width
1.4
7.9
1.9
d max
1.0
nentratio
4.9
bank ht
4.4
12.0
W flood prone area
2.0
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity ft/sec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/fUsec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
"
ithreshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D8m
0.0
relative rou himness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material

122
121
120
c 119
118
w 117
116
115
114
0
Slingshot Main Up - XS 13 Riffle ---
20 40 60 80
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
100 120
height of instrument (ft) z X
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Me ning's
notes pt. (ft) (ft) elevation bankfull top of bank (ft) slope (%) "n"
dimensions
8.3
7.6
x-section area
1.1
8.6
d mean
width
wet P
1.7
d max
1.0
h d radi
5.7
bank ht
6.9
w/d ratio
12.0
W flood prone area
1.6
ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity fUsec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/fUsec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
"
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 1 0.0 1 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
Slingshot Main Up - XS 14 Riffle ---
10 20 Ath from RiveAft to Right (ft)0 60 70 80
height of instrument (ft)
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes pt. (ft) (ft) elevation bankfull top of bank (ft) slope (%) "n"
dimensions
8.3
7.8
x-section area
width
1.1
8.8
d mean
wet P
1.6
d max
0.9
h d radi
5.8
bank ht
7.4
w/d ratio
12.0
W flood prone area
1.5
ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity fUsec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/fUsec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
B-B
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D8m
0.0
relative rou himness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material

30
25
20
15
u 10
5
0
notes
Slingshot Main Up - XS 15 Riffle ---
30
25
20
15
u 10
5
0
Slingshot Main Up - XS 16 Riffle ---
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width from River Left to Right (ft) Width from River Left to Right (ft)
of instrument (ft)II II height of instrument
elevation I I bankfull Itop of
„n„
dimensions
8.3
7.2
x-section area
1.1
8.6
d mean
width
wet P
1.4
d max
1.0
h d radi
-83.7
bank ht
6.3
w/d ratio
17.0
W flood prone area
2.4
ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity fUsec
0.0
dischar a rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity fUsec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/fUsec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
"
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material
notes
elevation I I bankfull I top of bank) (ft) I slope (%) I "n"
dimensions
8.3
7.9
x-section area
1.0
8.9
d mean
width
wet P
1.5
3.1
d max
bank ht
0.9
7.5
h d radi
w/d ratio
12.0
W flood prone area
1.5
ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity fUsec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity fUsec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/fUsec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
"
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material

27
26.5
26
" 25.5
25
w 24.5
24
23.5
of instrument
Slingshot Main Up - XS 17 Riffle ---
30 40 50 60
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
notes I A I (ft) I (ft) I elevation I I bankfull I top of bank) (ft) I slope (%) I "n"
dimensions
8.3
13.2
x-section area
0.6
13.5
d mean
width
wet P
1.0
d max
0.6
h d radi
2.2
bank ht
20.9
w/d ratio
18.0
W flood prone area
1.4
ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity fUsec
0.0
dischar a rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity fUsec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/fUsec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
"
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material

129
128
127
126
w 125
124
123
Slingshot Main Up - XS 18 Riffle ---
129.5
129
128.5
128
127.5
127
u 126.5
126
125.5
125
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
description:
height of instrument (ft):
r r r r
notes
omit
pt.
distance
(ft)
FS
(ft)
elevation
FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
bankfull top of bank (ft) slope (%) "n"
notes
❑
•
126.7515
126.5416
r r
125.02 126.4143
❑
126.4143
❑
124.7332
dime
8.3 x-section area
14.6 width
0.9 d max
2.3 bank ht
18.0 W flood rone area
0.6
14.9
0.6
25.7
1.2
d mean
❑
124.3537
❑
124.1193
wet P
❑
124.482
h d radi
❑
124.6807
w/d ratio
❑
127.4319
ent ratio
❑
128.6653
hydraulics
❑
❑
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.0
B-B
velocity ft/sec
❑
discharge rate, Q cfs
❑
shear stress Ibs/ft s
❑
shear velocity fUsec
❑
unit stream power Ibs/fUsec
❑
Froude number
❑
friction factor u/u*
❑
threshold grain size mm
13
❑
check from channel material
❑
0
0.0
0.000
measured D84 mm
❑
relative rou hness 1 0.0 fric. factor
❑
1 Mannin 's n from channel material
13
Slingshot Main Up - XS 19 Riffle ---
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
of instrument (ft): MOM
r r
Ice IFS FS Ft
(ft) I elevation bankfull top of
„n„
dimensions
8.3
14.5
x-section area
width
0.6
14.8
d mean
wet P
0.7
d max
0.6
h d radi
1.2
bank ht
25.3
w/d ratio
18.0
W flood prone area
1.2
ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity fUsec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/fUsec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
"
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D8m
0.0
relative rou himness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material

129.5
129
128.5
128
127.5
A 127
w 126.5
126
125.5
125
0
Slingshot Main Up - XS 20 Riffle ---
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
height of instrument (ft) z X
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Me ning's
notes pt. (ft) (ft) elevation bankfull top of bank (ft) slope (%) "n"
dimensions
8.3
8.8
x-section area
0.9
9.6
d mean
width
wet P
1.5
d max
0.9
h d radi
2.3
bank ht
9.2
w/d ratio
100.0
W flood prone area
11.4
ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity fUsec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/fUsec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
"
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 1 0.0 1 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material
31
30
29
28
u 27
26
25
0
Slingshot Main Up - XS 21 Riffle ---
10 20 Ath from RiveAft to Right (ft)0 60 70 80
height of instrument (ft)
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
notes pt. (ft) (ft) elevation bankfull top of bank (ft) slope (%) "n"
dimensions
8.3
10.7
x-section area
0.8
11.2
d mean
width
wet P
1.1
1.9
d max
bank ht
0.7
13.9
h d radi
w/d ratio
13.0
W flood prone area
1.2
ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity fUsec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/fUsec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
B-B
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D8m
0.0
relative rou himness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material

114.5
114
113.5
113
112.5
12
w 111.5
111
110.5
110
0
description:
of instrument (ft):
notes
Slingshot UT 1 - XS 1 Riffle --- Slingshot UT 1 - XS 2 Riffle ---
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
elevation I I bankfull hot) of
„n„
dimensions
4.0
14.5
x-section area
0.3 d mean
14.6 wet P
width
0.6
d max
0.3 h d radi
1.4
bank ht
52.2 w/d ratio
28.0
W flood prone area
1.9 ant ratio
hydraulics
0.0 velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharger ate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity fUsec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/fUsec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
B-B
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D8mm
0.0
relative rou hiness 1 0.0 1 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material
notes
of instrument
elevation I I bankfull hot) of
„n„
dimensions
4.0
7.3
on area 0.5
7.7
1.1
0.5
rbank
Fentratio
1.8
t 13.6
100.0
d prone area 13.6
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity fUsec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/fUsec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
"
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D8m
0.0
relative rou himness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material

120
119
118
c 117
116
w 115
114
113
112
0
Slingshot UT 1 - XS 3 Riffle ---
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
height of instrument (ft) M M
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Me ning's
notes pt. (ft) (ft) elevation bankfull top of bank (ft) slope M "n"
dimensions
4.0
7.7
x-section area
0.5
8.2
d mean
width
wet P
1.2
d max
0.5
h d radi
1.4
bank ht
14.8
w/d ratio
22.0
W flood prone area
2.9
ant ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity fUsec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/fUsec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
"
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 1 0.0 1 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material
120
119
118
117
116
w 115
114
113
Slingshot UT 1 - XS 4 Riffle ---
0 10 20 Width from Riverleft to Right (ft) 40
50 60
height of instrument (ft) M M
omit distance FS FS FS Wfpa channel Me ning's
notes pt. (ft) (ft) elevation bankfull top of bank (ft) slope (%) "n"
dimensions
4.0
5.3
x-section area
0.8
6.1
d mean
width
wet P
1.4
3.7
d max
bank ht
0.7
7.0
h d radi
w/d ratio
12.0
W flood prone area
2.3
ant ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity fUsec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity fUsec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/fUsec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
B-B
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D8m
0.0
relative rou himness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material

122
121
120
`0 119
u 118
117
116
0
Slingshot UT 1 - XS 5 Riffle ---
10 20 30 40
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
50 60
height of instrument (ft) M M
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Me ning's
notes pt. (ft) (ft) elevation bankfull top of bank (ft) slope M "n"
dimensions
4.0
7.2
section area
0.6
7.5
d mean
atP
0.9
�ba
�kh
0.5
h d radi
3.3
12.9
w/d ratio
10.0
W flood prone area
1.4
ant ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity fUsec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/fUsec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
"
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 1 0.0 1 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material
121
120.5
120
119.5
119
A 118.5
u 118
117.5
117
116.5
0
Slingshot UT 1 - XS 6 Riffle ---
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
height of instrument (ft) M M
omit distance FS FS FS Wfpa channel Me ning's
notes pt. (ft) (ft) elevation bankfull top of bank (ft) slope (%) "n"
dimensions
4.0
4.4
x-section area
0.9
5.5
d mean
width
wet P
1.2
3.4
d max
bank ht
0.7
4.9
h d radi
w/d ratio
9.0
W flood prone area
2.0
ant ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity fUsec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/fUsec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
B-B
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D8m
0.0
relative rou himness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material

Slingshot UT 1 - XS 7 Riffle
MEMO
ev
MMMMMMM'E,Cd"�M
of instrument
notes I pt. I (ft) I (ft) I elevation I I bankfull I top of bank) (ft) I slope(%) I ..n..
dimensions
4.0
5.6
x-section area
0.7
6.3
d mean
width
wet P
0.9
d max
0.6
hyd radi
2.2
bank ht
7.8
w/d ratio
10.0
Wflood prone area
1.8
ant ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec)
0.0
discharge rate, Q (cfs)
0.00
shear stress ((lbs/ft sq)
0.00
shear velocity (fUsec)
0.000
unit stream power (lbs/fUsec)
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
"
threshold grain size (mm=====jI
Icheck from channel material
0
im
measured D aLe� 'n
0.0
relative ive roT , hi-)
I t T
nessm 1 0.0 1 fric. factor
9
0.000
1 Manning's n from channel material

112
111
110
c 109
108
w 107
106
105
104
notes
Slingshot UT 2 - XS 1 Riffle ---
111
110.5
110
109.5
109
108.5
08
w 107.5
107
106.5
106
105.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 10
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
description: r r r r descript
of instrument (ftl: height of instrument
elevation I I bankfull hot) of
„n„
dimensions
4.3
8.4
x-section area
0.5
8.8
width
0.9
d max
0.5
radii
Oentratio
3.5
bank ht
16.7
12.0
W flood prone area
1.4
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity fUsec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/fUsec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
B-B
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D8mm
0.0
relative rou hiness 1 0.0 1 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material
notes
Slingshot UT 2 - SX 2 Riffle ---
20 30 40 50 60 70
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
elevation I I bankfull hot) of
„n„
dimensions
4.3
7.7
x-section area
0.6
8.2
width
0.8
2.2
d max
bank ht
0.5
13.7
nentratio
12.0
W flood rone area
1.6
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity fUsec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/fUsec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
"
ithreshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D8m
0.0
relative rou himness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material

12
10
8
6
w 4
2
0
0
Slingshot UT 2 - XS 3 Riffle ---
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
height of instrument (ft)NEW
omit distance FS FS FS W fpa channel Me ning's
notes pt. (ft) (ft) elevation bankfull top of bank (ft) slope M "n"
dimensions
4.3
6.2
x-section area
0.7
6.7
d mean
width
wet P
1.1
d max
0.6
h d radi
2.7
bank ht
8.9
w/d ratio
11.0
W flood prone area
1.8
ant ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity fUsec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/fUsec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
"
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D84 mm
0.0
relative rou hness 1 0.0 1 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
w 0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 Width from Riveh%ft to Right (ft) 0.8
1 1.2
height of instrument (ft)
omit distance FS FS FS Wfpa channel Manning's
notes pt. (ft) (ft) elevation bankfull top of bank (ft) slope M "n"
dimensions
0.0
0.0
x-section area
0.0
0.0
d mean
width
wet P
0.0
d max
0.0
h d radi
0.0
bank ht
0.0
w/d ratio
0.0
W flood prone area
0.0
ant ratio
hydraulics
0.0
velocity ft/sec
0.0
discharge rate, Q cfs
0.00
shear stress Ibs/ft s
0.00
shear velocity fUsec
0.000
unit stream power Ibs/fUsec
0.00
Froude number
0.0
friction factor u/u*
B-B
threshold grain size mm
check from channel material
0
measured D8m
0.0
relative rou himness 1 0.0 fric. factor
0.000
1 Mannin 's n from channel material

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name: SAM 1 (Main Downstream)
Stream Category Pb2
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
Date of Evaluation 20172121
Assessor Name/Organization
Perkinson - Axiom
YES
YES
YES
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4) Microtopography NA
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat LOW
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name: SAM 2 (UT 1)
Stream Category Pb1
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
Date of Evaluation 20171221
Assessor Name/Organization
Perkinson - Axiom
YES
YES
YES
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography NA
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality LOW
(2) Baseflow MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat HIGH
(3) Baseflow MEDIUM
(3) Substrate HIGH
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name: SAM 3 (Main Middle)
Stream Category Pb2
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
Date of Evaluation 20171221
Assessor Name/Organization Perkinson - Axiom
YES
YES
YES
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4) Microtopography NA
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat LOW
(3) Thermoregulation LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name: SAM 4 (Main Upstream)
Stream Category Pb2
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
Date of Evaluation 20171221
Assessor Name/Organization
Perkinson - Axiom
YES
YES
YES
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow MEDIUM
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography NA
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall MEDIUM

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WAM-1
Date
12-21-2017
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other
open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Sub -Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Habitat Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

Site
Slingshot Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Stream
Main channel (UT to Troublesome
Bank Length
5540
Observers
Kenan and Andrew
Date
7-Dec-17
Station
Bank
BEHI
NBS
Erosion Rate
Length
Bank Height
Erosion
1
350
left
high
high
0.2
350
5
350.0
2
470
left
very high
high
1
120
6
720.0
3
835
left
high
high
0.2
365
5
365.0
4
1100
left
moderate
moderate
0.05
265
4
53.0
5
1165
left
high
moderate
0.15
65
3.5
34.1
6
1230
left
high
high
0.2
65
3
39.0
7
1320
left
high
moderate
0.15
90
3.5
47.3
8
1385
left
high
high
0.2
65
5
65.0
9
1520
left
moderate
low
0.02
135
2.5
6.8
10
1840
left
high
high
0.2
320
3.5
224.0
11
2065
left
high
high
0.2
225
6
270.0
12
2770
left
low
low
0
705
1.5
0.0
1
355
right
high
high
0.2
355
5
355.0
2
475
right
very high
high
1
120
6
720.0
3
830
right
high
high
0.2
355
5
355.0
4
1100
right
moderate
moderate
0.05
270
4
54.0
5
1165
right
high
moderate
0.15
65
3.5
34.1
6
1220
right
moderate
moderate
0.05
55
3
8.3
7
1320
right
high
moderate
0.15
100
3.5
52.5
8
1385
right
high
high
0.2
65
4.5
58.5
9
1520
right
moderate
low
0.02
135
2.5
6.8
10
1840
right
high
high
0.2
320
3.5
224.0
11
2065
right
high
high
0.2
225
6
270.0
12
2770
right
low
low
0
705
1.5
0.0
Sum eronsion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS
Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
4312.3
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
Total Erosion (yd/yr)
159.7
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
Total Erosion (tons/yr)
207.6
Erosion per unit length
Total Erosion (Tons/yr/ft)
0.04

Site
Slingshot Steam and Wetland Mitigation Site
Stream
UT 1 to Troublesome Creek
Bank Length
1900
Observers
Kenan and Andrew
Date
7-Dec-17
Station
Bank
BEHI
NBS
Erosion Rate
Length
Bank Height
Erosion
1
45
left
moderate
low
0.02
45
2.5
2.3
2
85
left
high
high
0.2
40
3
24.0
3
145
left
moderate
low
0.02
60
2.5
3.0
4
355
left
low
low
0
210
1.5
0.0
5
405
left
high
high
0.2
50
5.5
55.0
6
455
left
low
low
0
50
3
0.0
7
645
left
moderate
low
0.02
190
3.5
13.3
8
950
left
low
low
0
305
1.5
0.0
9
10
145
right
moderate
low
0.02
145
2.5
7.3
11
355
right
low
low
0
210
1.5
0.0
12
405
right
high
high
0.2
50
5.5
55.0
13
455
right
low
low
0
50
3.5
0.0
14
645
right
moderate
low
0.02
190
3
11.4
15
950
right
low
low
0
305
1.5
0.0
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Sum eronsion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS
Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
171.2
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
Total Erosion (yd/yr)
6.3
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
Total Erosion (tons/yr)
8.2
Erosion per unit length
jTotal Erosion (Tons/yr/ft)
0.004

Site
Slingshot Steam and Wetland Mitigation Site
Stream
UT 2 to Troublesome Creek
Bank Length
260
Observers
Kenan and Andrew
Date
7-Dec-17
Station
Bank
BEHI
NBS
Erosion Rate
Length
Bank Height
Erosion
1
40
left
high
high
0.2
40
5
40.0
2
75
left
moderate
low
0.02
35
3.5
2.5
3
130
left
low
low
0
55
3
0.0
4
5
6
7
8
9
0.0
10
40
right
high
high
0.2
40
5
40.0
11
75
right
moderate
low
0.02
35
3.5
2.5
12
130
right
low
low
0
55
3
0.0
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Sum eronsion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS
Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
84.9
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
Total Erosion (yd/yr)
3.1
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
Total Erosion (tons/yr)
4.1
Erosion per unit length
jTotal Erosion (Tons/yr/ft)
0.02

BEHI/NBS Summary
Stream Reach
Erosion Rate
(tons/year)
Main Channel
207.6
UT 1
8.2
UT 2
4.1
Total
220.0

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Project/Site: Slingshot Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
County, State: Rockingham, NC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates: Hydric Soil 1/ 36.334113,-79.713389
Investigator: Lewis
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Notes: Location of soil profile
is depicted on Figure 4
(Existing Conditions).
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottling
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
0-5
10YR 3/3
90
10YR 4/1
10
silt loam
5-8
10YR 5/1
100
--
--
loamy clay
8-14
10YR 6/1
100
--
--
sandy clay
14+
10YR 6/1
100
--
--
loamy sand
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature: �C '°"l`^'a UI
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Project/Site: Slingshot Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
County, State: Rockingham, INC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates: Hydric Soil 2/ 36.334803,-79.711736
Investigator: Lewis
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Notes: Location of soil profile is
depicted on Figure 4 (Existing
Conditions).
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottlinf
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
0-4
7.5YR 5/2
100
-
-
Clay Loam
4-8
7.5YR 6/2
95
7.5YR 5/6
5
Clay Loam
8-12
7.5YR 6/2
90
7.5YR 5/6
10
Silty Clay
12-18
7.5YR 6/1
85
7.5YR 5/6
15
Silty Clay
18-25+
7.5YR 6/2
90
7.5YR 5/6
10
Sandy Clay
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature: `^""`
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Project/Site: Slingshot Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
County, State: Rockingham, INC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates: Hydric Soil 3/ 36.334515,-79.710766
Investigator: Lewis
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Notes: Location of soil profile is
depicted on Figure 4 (Existing
Conditions).
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottlinf
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
0-4
10YR 4/3
100
-
-
Sandy Loam
4-8
10yr 5/6
90
10yr 7/8
10
Sandy Loam
8-12
7.5YR 6/2
90
7.5YR 6/8
10
Loam
12-18
7.5YR 6/1
85
7.5YR 5/6
15
Silty Clay
18-25+
7.5YR 6/2
90
7.5YR 5/6
10
Sandy Clay
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature: `^""`
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Project/Site: Slingshot Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
County, State: Rockingham, INC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates: Hydric Soil 4/ 36.336517,-79.710230
Investigator: Lewis
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Notes: Location of soil profile is
depicted on Figure 4 (Existing
Conditions).
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottlinf
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
0-5
7.5yr 4/1
100
-
-
Loam
5-10
7.5yr 6/1
50
7.5 YR 5/8
20
Clay Loam
10-20
7.5YR 6/2
90
7.5YR 5/6
10
Clay Loam
20-30+
7.5YR 6/1
95
7.5YR 5/6
5
Sandy Clay Loam
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature:
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

Appendix C
Flood Frequency Analysis Data
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058)
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC
November 2019

Reference Reaches
Flood Frequency Analaysis-Regional Regression Equation (USGS 2015)
Flint Rock Farm Reference Reach
Return
Interval
(years)
Discharge
(cfs)
1.3
38
1.5
68
2
98.2
5
163
10
213
25
279
50
333
100
388
200
447
500
525
Note: Bold values are interpolated.
Caswell Reference Reach
Return
Interval
(years)
Discharge
(cfs)
1.3
66
1.5
89
2
128
5
216
10
285
25
380
50
457
100
539
200
625
500
735
500
450
0- 400
> 350
Fa 300
a, 250
S 200
3 150
v 100
at
A
alA:
450
400
> 350
300
v 250
200
3 150
v 100
Flint Rock Farm Reference Reach
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Discharge (cfs)
Caswell Game Land Reference Reach
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Discharge (cfs)

Appendix D
Jurisdictional Determination Info
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058)
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC
November 2019

SAW-2018-01170
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2018-01170 County: Rockingham U.S.G.S. Quad: NC -Reidsville
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner: NCDEQ DMS
Attn: Tim Baumgartner
Address: 1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Size (acres) —12 Nearest Town Reidsville
Nearest Waterway UT to Troublesome Creek / Lake Hunt River Basin Cane Fear
USGS HUC 03030002 Coordinates 36.333480 N,-79.715103 W
Location description: The proiect area is located approximately 0.1 mile north of the northern terminus of Harbor Road, near
Reidsville, Rockingham Countv, North Carolina. The Proiect Area is shown as the "Slingshot Creek Stream Restoration Site
Easement" on the attached Figure 3, titled "Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Potential Waters of the US."
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
® There appear to be waters including wetlands, on the above described project area, 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
August 2018. 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.
❑ 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 MAP DATE. If you wish to
have the delineation surveyed, the Corps can review and verify the survey upon completion. Once verified, this survey will

SAW-2018-01170
provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA and/or RHA 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 SURVEY SIGNED 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 David Bailev at [phone] X 30 or
David.E.Bailev2C&usace. army.mil.
C. Basis For Determination: See the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination form dated 5/7/2019.
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 IOM15
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.
BAILEY
AVID. by
BAILEY.DAVID.E.1379283736
Corps Regulatory Official: Date: 2019.05.0711A8:14-04'00'
Date of JD: 5/7/2019 Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable
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 our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at http://cop2smapu.usace.ilM.mil/cm_Mex/Vp=136:4:0.
Copy furnished:
Grant Lewis, Axiom Environmental, Inc., 218 Snow Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603
Sue Homewood, NCDEQ-DWR, 450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300, Winston-Salem, NC 27105

SAW-2018-01170
NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: NCDEQ DMS (Attn: Tim Baumgartner) File Number: SAW-2018-01170
Date: 5/7/2019
Attached
is:
See Section below
❑
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
A
❑
PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
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.anny.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatorvProgramandPennits.asl)x
or the Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• 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.
• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

SAW-2018-01170
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
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
attn: David E. Bailey
CESAD-PDO
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
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 opportuni to participate in all site investi ations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, David Bailey, 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 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 5/7/2019
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Grant Lewis -Axiom Environmental, Inc, 218 Snow Avenue, Raleigh, Nc27603
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: CESAW-RG-R, SAW-2018-01170
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Rockingham City: Reidsville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.: 36.333480 Long.:-79.715103
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearestwaterbody: UT to Troublesome Creek / Lake Hunt
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑■ Office (Desk) Determination. Date: 5/7/2019
❑■ Field Determination. Date(s): 1/6/2015
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 resource
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (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)
See attached

Site Number/ Feature
Name
Latitude
Longitude
Cowardin
Class
Estimated amount of
aquatic resource in review
area
Class of aquatic
resources
Main Channe (UT to
Troublesom Creek)
36.335113
-79.711581
R3U131/2
2808.4 feet
Non -section 10 -
Non -wetland
UT 1 to Troublesome
Creek
36.33468
-79.710414
R3U 131/2
968.2 feet
Non -section 10 -
Non -wetland
UT 2 to Troublesome
Creek
36.333898
-79.712397
R3U 131/2
130.4 feet
Non -section 10 -
Non -wetland
UT 3 to Troublesome
Creek
36.3371
-79.7102
R2UB1/2
172.0 feet
Non -section 10 -
Non -wetland
UT 1A to Troublesome
Creek
36.3374
-79.7095
R3UB1/2
37.1 feet
Non -section 10 -
Non -wetland
GA
36.334091
-79.713219
PSS1
0.088 acres
Non -section 10-
Wetland
GE
36.334714
-79.711486
PSS1
0.513 acres
Non -section 10-
Wetland
SC
36.33531
-79.711542
PSS1
0.001 acres
Non -section 10-
Wetland
JC
36.335981
-79.710591
PSS1
0.007 acres
Non -section 10 -
Wetland
JB
36.33692
-79.709894
PSS1
0.059 acres
Non -section 10 -
Wetland
A
36.337071
-79.709727
PSS1
0.021 acres
Non -section 10-
Wetland

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: Aerial, soils, and topo maps (Axiom)
0 Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
■❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
■❑ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1-24,000 Reisdville Quad
■❑ Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Rockingham Co. Soil Survey
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: .(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
■❑ Photographs: ❑■ Aerial (Name & Date): 2014 NC OneMap
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
■❑ Other information (please specify): LiDAR (NC Floodmaps)
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
Signature and date of
person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)'
' Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor 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.

This preliminary JD finds that there "may be" waters of the United States on the
subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not
necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be retied u on for
later iurisdictional determinations.
Digitally signed by
�! J� Date: 2. 19.05. 7 11:43: 3736
i� Date: 2019.05.0711:43:36
04'00'
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)
W. Grant Lewis'
e���'.=9�ris�dunensLmrriantaEa"9. c-US
Pa1a:2016.01.0] 99A5:0.3 �btl
Signature and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)
4

Jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address: 1400 Front Street
City, State:
Reidsville, NC
County: Rockingham
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): 170686
B. REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name: Grant Lewis - Axiom Environmental.
Mailing Address: 218 Snow Avenue
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address
Select one:
✓❑
Raleigh, NC 27603
[phone]
[e-mail]
I am the current property owner.
I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant)
Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
Other, please explain.
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
Name: Robert L. Wheless
Mailing Address: 1400 Front Street
Reidsville, NC 27320
Telephone Number: [phone]
Electronic Mail Address:
1 Must provide completed Agent Authorization Forrraetter.
2 Docu nentation of ownership also needs to be provided with request (copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record).
Version: May 2017 Page 2

Jurisdictional Determination Request
D. PROPERTY ACCESS CERTIFICATION',4
By signing below, I authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on -
site investigations, if necessary, and issuing a jurisdictional determination pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. I, the
undersigned, am either a duly authorized owner of record of the property identified herein, or
acting as the duly authorized agent of the owner of record of the property.
W. Grant Lewis
Print Name
Capacity: ❑ Owner Z Authorized Agent'
Date
* Please see attached Agent Authorization form
Signature
E. REASON FOR JD REQUEST: (Check as many as applicable)
❑ I intend to construct/develop a projector perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all aquatic resources.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a projector perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all jurisdictional aquatic resources under Corps authority.
❑✓ I intend to construct/develop a projector perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps, and the JD would be used to avoid and minimize
impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources and as an initial step in a future permitting
process.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps; this request is accompanied by my permit application
and the JD is to be used in the permitting process.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities in a navigable water of the
U.S. which is included on the district Section 10 list and/or is subject to the ebb and flow of
the tide.
❑ A Corps JD is required in order obtain my local/state authorization.
❑ I intend to contest jurisdiction over a particular aquatic resource and request the Corps
confirm that jurisdiction does/does not exist over the aquatic resource on the parcel.
❑ I believe that the site may be comprised entirely of dry land.
❑ Other:
s For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
a If there are multiple parcels owned by different parties, please provide the following for each additional parcel on a
continuation sheet.
s Must provide agent authorization form/letter signed by owner(s).
Version: May 2017 Page 3

Jurisdictional Determination Request
F. JURISDICTIONAL DETERNIINATION (JD) TYPE (Select One)
❑✓ I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) provides an indication that there may
be "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United States"on a property.
PJDs are sufficient as the basis for permit decisions. For the purposes of permitting, all
waters and wetlands on the property will be treated as if they are jurisdictional "waters of
the United States". PJDs cannot be appealed (33 C.F.R. 331.2); however, a PJD is
"preliminary" in the sense that an approved JD can be requested at any time. PJDs do
not expire.
❑ I am requesting that the Corps provide an approved JD for the property identified herein.
An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) is a determination that
jurisdictional "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United
States" are either present or absent on a site. An approved JD identifies the limits of
waters on a site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act and/or
Rivers and Harbors Act. Approved JDs are sufficient as the basis for permit
decisions. AJDs are appealable (33 C.F.R. 331.2). The results of the AJD will be
posted on the Corps website. A landowner, permit applicant, or other "affected
party" (33 C.F.R. 331.2) who receives an AJD may rely upon the AJD for five years
(subject to certain limited exceptions explained in Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-
02).
❑ I am unclear as to which JD I would like to request and require additional information
to inform my decision.
G. ALL REQUESTS
Map of Property or Project Area. This Map must clearly depict the boundaries of the
review area.
✓❑ Size of Property or Review Area -12 acres.
❑ The property boundary (or review area boundary) is clearly physically marked on the site.
Version: May 2017 Page 4

Jurisdictional Determination Request
H. REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS
Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): Latitude: 36.333480
Longitude:-79.715103
A legible delineation map depicting the aquatic resources and the property/review area.
Delineation maps must be no larger than I Ix17 and should contain the following: (Corps
signature of submitted survey plats will occur after the submitted delineation map has been
reviewed and approved).6
■ North Arrow
■ Graphical Scale
■ Boundary of Review Area
■ Date
■ Location of data points for each Wetland Determination Data Form or tributary
assessment reach.
For Approved Jurisdictional Determinations:
■ Jurisdictional wetland features should be labeled as Wetland Waters of the US, 404
wetlands, etc. Please include the acreage of these features.
■ Jurisdictional non -wetland features (i.e. tidal/navigable waters, tributaries,
impoundments) should be labeled as Non -Wetland Waters of the US, stream, tributary,
open water, relatively permanent water, pond, etc. Please include the acreage or linear
length of each of these features as appropriate.
■ Isolated waters, waters that lack a significant nexus to navigable waters, or non -
jurisdictional upland features should be identified as Non -Jurisdictional. Please
include a justification in the label regarding why the feature is non jurisdictional (i.e.
"Isolated", "No Significant Nexus", or "Upland Feature"). Please include the acreage
or linear length of these features as appropriate.
For Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations:
Wetland and non -wetland features should not be identified as Jurisdictional, 404,
Waters of the United States, or anything that implies jurisdiction. These features can be
identified as Potential Waters of the United States, Potential Non -wetland Waters of
the United States, wetland, stream, open water, etc. Please include the acreage and
linear length of these features as appropriate.
Completed Wetland Determination Data Forms for appropriate region
(at least one wetland and one upland form needs to be completed for each wetland type)
6 Please refer to the guidance document titled "Survey Standards for Jurisdictional Determinations" to ensure that the
supplied map meets the necessary mapping standards. hM?://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatoiy-Permit-
Pro gram/Jurisdiction/
Version: May 2017 Page 5

Jurisdictional Determination Request
F4Completed appropriate Jurisdictional Determination form
• PJDs, please complete a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form' and include the
Aquatic Resource Table
• AJDS• please complete an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form'
Vicinity Map
Aerial Photograph
F4 USGS Topographic Map
0 Soil Survey Map
Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
Landscape Photos (if taken)
0 NCSAM and/or NCWAM Assessment Forms and Rating Sheets
❑✓ NC Division of Water Resources Stream Identification Forms
1_J Other Assessment Forms
' www.saw.usace.4rmy.mil/Portals/59/docs/regulatory/readocs/JD/RGL 08-02_App A Prelim _JD_Form fillable.pdf
' Please see http://www.saw.usace.4M.ruil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Jurisdiction/
Principal Purpose: The information that you provide will be used in evaluating your request to determine
whether there are any aquatic resources within the project area subject to federaljurisdiction under the regulatory
authorities referenced above.
Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local
government agencies, and the public, and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by federal
law. Your name and property location where federal jurisdiction is to be determined will be included in the
approved jurisdictional determination (AJD), which will be made available to the public on the District's website
and on the Headquarters USAGE website.
Disclosure: Submission of requested information is voluntary; however, if information is not provided, the
request for an AJD cannot be evaluated nor can an AJD be issued.
Version: May 2017 Page 6

Appendix E
ME Correspondence
NHP Letters
Categorical Exclusion Document
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058)
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC
November 2019

From:
Allison Keith
To:
"ihambvCabrestorationsystems.com"
Cc:
Grant Lewis
Subject:
Slingshot T&E Biological Conclusion
Date:
Friday, May 25, 2018 10:56:00 AM
Good Morning,
This email provides a summary of the results of an Axiom Environmental, Inc. (Axiom) federally
protected species survey at the Slingshot Creek Mitigation site in Rockingham County. The
approximately 12-acre site is located north of Highway 158, 2 miles west of Reidsville, NC.
Smooth Coneflower
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) is typically found on calcareous, basic, or circumneutral
soils within clearcuts, power line right-of-ways, roadsides, and open woodlands where there is
abundant light and little herbaceous competition. Suitable habitat for smooth coneflower occurs
within open areas of the site, field borders, woodland edges, and forested areas along stream
channels. Systematic surveys performed within areas of suitable habitat were performed by Axiom
biologists Allison Keith and Andrew Radecki on May 21, 2018, and identified no individuals. As of
May 25, 2018, the NCNHP has no record of this species within 1.0 mile of the site. The proposed
project will have No Effect on smooth coneflower.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist with this project. If you have any questions about this
information, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Allison Keith
Allison Keith
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Cell [phone]
akeith(@axiomenvironmental.org

Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 919 270-9306
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
May 28, 2015
Worth Creech
Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes St #211
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: Federally Protected Species Assessment Results 15-007.05
Slingshot Creek, Reidsville, Rockingham County
Dear Mr. Creech
Axiom Environmental, Inc. (Axiom) is pleased to provide you with this summary letter of the
results of a survey for federally protected species on an approximately 12-acre tract (hereafter
referred to as the site) planned for Slingshot Creek Mitigation Site in Reidsville, NC (see
attached map). The survey was conducted by three Axiom biologists, Kenan Jernigan, Ryan
Gibbons, and Allison Keith, on May 28, 2015.
Site Description
The site is in the Piedmont physiographic region of the state in southeastern Rockingham
County. The site contains dissected, irregular plains with moderate to steep slopes and low to
moderate gradient streams. Land use at the site is characterized by livestock pastures where
livestock have unrestricted access to the streams. The majority of the site is dominated by
herbaceous vegetation with some scattered shrubs, although, a narrow riparian fringe has
developed along the stream margins that contains opportunistic species as well as a few mature
trees. Dominant herbaceous species include a multitude of grasses, common pokeweed
(Phytolacca americana), oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), grape (Muscadinia sp.), and
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). The scattered shrubs include winged sumac (Rhus
copallinum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styracifZua), redbud (Cercis canadensis) and flowering
dogwood (Corpus florida). The riparian fringes support narrow forests dominated by a canopy of
loblolly pine (Pious taeda), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styracifZua), and a mix of oaks (Quercus sp.).
Federally Protected Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has identified one species with ranges that extend
into Rockingham County: Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata).
A brief description of the species' habitat requirements follows, along with the Biological
Conclusion rendered based on survey results in the study area. Habitat requirements for this
species are based on the current best available information from referenced literature and/or
USFWS.

Smooth coneflower
USFWS optimal survey window: late May -October
Habitat Description: Smooth coneflower, a perennial herb, is typically found in meadows, open
woodlands, the ecotonal regions between meadows and woodlands, cedar barrens, dry
limestone bluffs, clear cuts, and roadside and utility right-of-ways. In North Carolina, the
species normally grows in magnesium- and calcium -rich soils associated with gabbro and
diabase parent material, and typically occurs in Iredell, Misenheimer, and Picture soil series.
It grows best where there is abundant sunlight, little competition in the herbaceous layer, and
periodic disturbances (e.g., regular fire regime, well-timed mowing, and careful clearing) that
prevents encroachment of shade producing woody shrubs and trees. On sites where woody
succession is held in check, it is characterized by a number of species with prairie affinities.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect. Suitable habitat for smooth coneflower occurs throughout the
study area within utility line corridors, along woodland edges, and within residential yards.
A review of NCNHP records, updated April 2015, indicates no known smooth coneflower
occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Axiom biologists visited the UNC Botanical
Garden on May 28, 2015 and found their smooth coneflowers to be in bloom. Subsequently,
systematic surveys were performed in all areas of suitable habitat on the same day and no
individuals of this species were identified within the study area.
I hope this summary is sufficient for your review. Should you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to send me an email (j ernigangaxiomenvironmental.org) or give me a call (919-215-9465).
Sincerely,
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
Kenan R. Jernigan
Project Scientist

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
Natural Heritage Program
Dovemor Ray Cooper
December 20, 2017
Phillip Perkinson
Axiom Environmental Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27612
RE: Slingshot
Dear Phillip Perkinson:
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
NCNHDE-4944
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database, based on the project area mapped with your request, indicates that there are
no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed areas
within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there may be no documentation of natural
heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have
been surveyed. The results of this query should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists.
In the event that rare species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may
update our records.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that have been
documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these records suggests that
these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable habitat exists and is
included for reference. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed area within a one -mile radius of the
project area, if any, are also included in this report.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning, project
review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory decisions.
Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written notification to the
NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP
data may not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a Dedicated Nature
Preserve (DNP), Registered Heritage Area (RHA), Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) easement,
or Federally -listed species are documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, please
contact Rodney A. Butler at rodney.butler(d).ncdcr.gov or 919.707.8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
MAILING ADDRESS: Telephone: (919) 7D7-8107 LOCATION:
1651 Mail Servica Center www.ncnhp.org 121 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 275::-II35 Raleiigh, NC 276D3

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Slingshot
December 20, 2017
NCNHDE-4944
Element Occurrences Documented
Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID
Scientific Name ■ Common Name Last Element Accuracy Federal
IFObservation
State
Global
State
Group
Occurrence Status
Status
Rank
Rank
Date Rank
Dragonfly or 33770
Somatochlora georgiana Coppery Emerald 2004-Pre H? 5-Very ---
Significantly
G3G4
S2?
Damselfly
Low
Rare
Natural 27686
Dry Basic Oak --Hickory --- 2010 BC 2-High ---
---
G2G3
S2S3
Community
Forest
Natural Areas Documented
Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Site Name
Representational Rating Collective Rating
Warf Airfield Forest
R5 (General) C5 (General)
No Managed Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.ora/content/help. Data query generated on December 20, 2017; source: NCNHP, Q4 October 2017. Please resubmit
your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 3

N
W+E
S
December 20, 2017
Project Boundary
Buffered Project Boundary
63 NHP Natural Area (NHNA)
NCNHDE-4944: Slingshot
DaPPk•R
v
Regal Rd p°
• _ _B56R u &'
� �42af9" Or
s
unm�,�st
i
oPRd
B5811
L.,.F- Hunt
V ca,ov l7yv',:,
Swnlbv.' Rd
E.eig
rlen
Gaf[
/I6010
_ O
a � _
L,rt'e Troublesome geeµ
a�
vdoat
2
Uxx
a 855/t
rt
i- ,i NtG
1:23,283
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 mi
0 0.3 0.6 1.2 km
Sources' Fsri, HERE, DeLorms, Intermap, increment P Corp_, GFBCO,, USGS,
FAO, NIPS
NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL Ordnance Survey, Fsri Japan,
METI, Es" m© China (Hong Kong),—bbtopo, Mapylndia, OpenStreetMap
contributors, and the GIS User Community
Page 3 of 3

Slingshot Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Rockingham County, North Carolina
DMS Project No. 100058
Categorical Exclusion/ERTR
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
June 2018

TASK 1 b.) Categorical Exclusion Summary:
Part 1: General Project Information
(Attached) Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Questions
Coastal Zone ManagementAct
Not applicable — project is not located within a CAMA county.
CERCLA
No issue within project boundaries— please see the attached Executive Summary from a Limited
Phase 1 Site Assessment performed by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) on June 12th,
2018.
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
No Issue — please see attached letter from Ramona M. Bartos- State of the Historic Preservation
Office.
Hnifnrm Art
Please see the attached letter, sent to the landowner June 121", 2018.
Part 3: Ground -Disturbing Activates Regulation/Questions
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)
Not applicable — project is not located in a county claimed as "territory" bythe Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians.
Antiauities Act (AA
Not applicable — project is not located on Federal land.
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)
Not applicable — project is not located on federal or Indian lands.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Project activities were determined to pose "No Effect" to Endangered or Threatened Species. The
proposed project will occur in existing agricultural fields. There is not Potential Habitat at Site for
any of the T&E species and no endangered species were observed during field surveys. Record
searches from the Natural Heritage Program indicate that federally protected species have not
been documented within a mile of the Site boundaries.
Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)
Not applicable — project is not located in a county claimed as "territory" bythe Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians.
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
Please find the attached Form AD-1006 and letter from Milton Cortes of the NRCS.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
Please find the attached response from the Fish and Wildlife Service
Land & Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6(f))
Not applicable
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and management Act (Essential Fish Habitat)
Not applicable — project is not located within an estuarine system
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
USFWS has no recommendation with the project relative to the MBTA
Wilderness Act
Not applicable —the project is not located within a Wilderness area.

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. I Ia nilton
June 18, 2018
JD Hamby
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Slingshot Stream & Wedand Mitigation Site, 222 Harbor Road, Reidsville, Rockingham County,
ER 18-1209
Dear Mr. Hamby:
Thank you for your letter of May 18, 2018, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
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
environmental.review&ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

From: Elizabeth Toombs
To: Brownina. Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: US Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice SAW-2018-01170 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Date: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 11:19:28 AM
Many thanks for the review request, Ms. Browning. Rockingham County, North Carolina is outside the Cherokee
Nation's Area of Interest. Thus, this Office respectfully defers to federally recognized Tribes that have an interest in
this landbase.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this proposed undertaking. Please contact me if there are any
questions or concerns.
Wado,
Elizabeth Toombs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cherokee Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
PO Box 948
Tahlequah, OK 74465-0948
918.453.5389
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US) [mailto:Kimberly.D.BrowningCq)usace.army.mil]
Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2018 11:19 AM
To: Baumgartner, Tim <[e-mail]>
Cc: Schaffer, Jeff <jeff.schaffer&cdenr.gov>; worth*estorationsystems.com; John Hamby
<jhamby *estorationsy stems.com>
Subject: <EXTERNAL> US Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice SAW-2018-01170 (UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
You are hereby notified that the Wilmington District, United States Army Corps of Engineers has issued a Public
Notice. The text of this document can be found on the RIBITS web site at: Blockedhttps://ribits.usace.anny.mil . To
access the public notices, first select the Wilmington District from the Filter View drop -down menu in the lower
left-hand comer, and then select the Bank & ILF Establishment tab. NCDMS Slingshot Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Site.

The current notice involves:
Corps Action ID#: SAW-2018-01170
Issue Date: November 8, 2018
County: Rockingham
Applicant: NC Division of Mitigation Services
Expiration Date: December 8, 2018
Point of Contact: Kim Browning
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of the proposal is the modification of the Division of Mitigation Services
In -Lieu -Fee Program Instrument to add an additional mitigation site. The Slingshot Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Site proposes the restoration and enhancement of approximately 3,827 linear feet of stream, and the enhancement
and reestablishment of 1.65 acres of wetlands. Stream restoration activities will include restoring appropriate
dimension, pattern, and profile with Priority 1 restoration, which will improve wetland hydrology. Stabilization
structures will be installed, which will also provide habitat. Native riparian buffers will be established, and all
reaches will have fencing for livestock exclusion. Enhancement activities will include cattle exclusion, installing bed
structures to enhance pool habitat, invasive treatment, and establishing a native woody riparian buffer.
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any .supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
trarne:
Slingshot Skeem and Wetland M(tigation Site
Name:
Rockingham
mber:
ID#:100058 Conhad#:7525
S onsor:
Restoralion Systems, LLC
ontact dame:
do Hamby
Contact Tess:
1101 Haynes Stmel, Suite 211, Raleigh, NC 2MM
Contact E-mail:
)hamDyrgrastoralionsystems.com
i.eet Manager:
[e-mail]
The Site is located within Targeted Local Watershed (11W) 03030002010010. The Site is
proposed to include 2328 linear feet of stream restoration. 752 linear feet of stream enhancement
(level 1), 747 linear feet of stream enhancement (level 11), 0.96 acres of reestablished riparian
riverine wetlands, and 0.69 acre of enhanced riparian riverine wetland. Site alterations include
removing livestock, restoration of streams and wetlands, and planting native, woody vegetation
Reviewed By:
11.1//e
Date
Conditional Approved By:
Date
EJJ Check this box if there are outstanding Issues
EEP Project Manager
For Division Administrator
FHWA
Final Approval By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
6 Version 1.4, 8/18/05

2: All Projects
Regulation/QuestionPart
..
Coastal Zone Management Act CZMA
1.
Is the project located in a CAMA county?
✓❑ Yes
❑ No
2.
Does the project involve ground -disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
❑ Yes
Environmental
Concern (AEC)?
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
3.
Has a CAMA permit been secured?
❑ Yes
❑ No
N/A
4.
Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
❑ Yes
Program?
✓❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilit Act CERCLA
1.
Is this a "full -delivery" project?
✓❑ Yes
❑_ No
2.
Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
❑ Yes
designated
as commercial or industrial?
❑✓ No
✓❑ N/A
3.
As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
❑ Yes
hazardous
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑✓ No
❑ N/A
4.
As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑
Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
✓❑
No
❑
N/A
5.
As a result of a Phase 11 Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
✓❑
Yes
waste sites within the project area?
❑✓
No
❑
N/A
6.
Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?
❑✓
Yes
✓❑
No
❑✓
N/A
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
1.
Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
✓❑ Yes
Historic
Places in the project area?
❑ No
2.
Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3.
If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act Uniform
Act
1.
Is this a "full -delivery" project?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
2.
Does the project require the acquisition of real estate?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
3.
Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds?
❑ Yes
✓❑ No
❑ N/A
4.
Has the owner of the property been informed:
✓❑ Yes
*
prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
❑ No
*
what the fair market value is believed to be?
❑ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

3: Ground -Disturbing Activities
Regulation/QuestionPart
..
American Indian Relic0ous Freedom Act AIRFA
1.
Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of
❑ Yes
Cherokee
Indians?
❑✓ No
2.
Is the site of religious importance to American Indians?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
3.
Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
❑ Yes
Places?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
4.
Have the effects of the project on this site been considered?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Antiquities Act AA
1.
Is the project located on Federal lands?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
2.
Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
❑ Yes
of antiquity?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
3.
Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
4.
Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA
1.
Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
2.
Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
3.
Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
4.
Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Endangered Species Act ESA
1.
Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
❑✓ Yes
listed for the county?
❑ No
2.
Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3.
Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
❑ Yes
Habitat?
❑✓ No
❑ N/A
4.
Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the species and/or "likely to adversely modify"
❑ Yes
Designated
Critical Habitat?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
5.
Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
6.
Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory"
❑ Yes
by the EBCI?
❑✓ No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
❑ Yes
project?
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
❑ Yes
sites?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA
1. Will real estate be acquired?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
❑✓ Yes
important farmland?
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any
❑✓ Yes
water body?
❑ No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6 f
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
❑ Yes
outdoor recreation?
❑✓ No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Ma nuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Manaciement Act Essential Fish
Habitat
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
❑ Yes
project on EFH?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Migratory Bird Treat Act MBTA
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining
❑ Yes
federal agency?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

C0P7igh'UO 'fi' fibMIF
So ci i-c b d
n
Ler
Pa
i
d' • �� .,_/ � �,, t it �
J.
aS / . •r n Axiom Environimniai, mc.
Prepared for:
- \.• •- . �— ' JO *ter
• `94 �•1
RESTORATION
`_ •. I �. �' f • •,-_��. �Y9 ,�-. � "r', , Project:
:h
't, �_ ` i �� - e� • �� �� '. M�, SLINGSHOT CREEK
-- -= Ev ~: f, �-_ .� �_> - ■ U-1-1 7414 k STREAM AND
`
17
WETLAND
L11p - �'.�• ,� . I` v ;'�' '► MITIGATION SITE
.. �j , , i r ram- •f - • ' r — ~
� �• IV`t - �-fie'• � a -�� a - % w 3_• _c _ _ @s : y '1/4 -�
Rockingham County, N
�/'� �^l' �+ `"r ' Ste-•' ! � I, ' -` r•..`� � 73J�-� t! � � :' • . •.'� r, �
J luny
. � � -. - ...�v'� v L r'ti '_••::: i- _. ; rr r/ r,,- �: �_ � - y3 {,, , � `rr• ` •` � _ � Title:
- — __ _ � .w'>.r-+' - - rr" 87 .i- _ _ - - �v '''r' � L•`' I . -- r / - • * w AZt � �• „. } +► I / • +. • �_
Reidsville ' L •� • c ,1 29 •� SITE LOCATION
S Q Danbury Ch 1 k
Cem
►� ��_ Sri ` /r_ / /P - -, Ev rgreen �`� rb• r
zL Iw�r 29 ;r ' fi ;l amp �g3' ( Me
mo ardens
_ cF'?' Arrest . �_, .--••� ..�,a � � , : �
Drawn by:
�, I _ _ �• KRJ
158
', •fir �: J _ - i 'r'`'��' $'i� Faith Wail f S Date:
:['Arrfi�[p r^�� DEC 2017
Scale:
i�
t eex �f 1:20,000
`�� '� - "� �.' •'� USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (Reidsville NC Quad)
t -• I� 4 cx I � B� ,.,T
-.t_ �:..- �: _ ,•C BMh7 . ; f �,. Project No.:
17-001.02
Directions to the Site from Raleigh:
Z ,ter _�? - .- - From Raleigh travel west on 1-40 for- 45 miles
''�,• '' �� i - Take Exit 148 onto NC-54W toward Graham/Chapel Hilll and turn right onto Harden Street FIGURE
°� ' Travel - 1.6 miles, then turn right onto NC-87 N/W Elm Street
„ af- �' { - After - 5 miles, turn right onto NC-87 N/Ossipee Road
a 0 . -
Travel - 19.3 miles, then turn left and stay on NC-87 N
After ^ 4.1 miles, turn left toward US-158, then turn left onto US-158 W
•- - - _ '_ r • ^ _ After - 0.9 miles, take a slight right onto Iron Works Road, then take a right onto Harbor Road
The Site is located north of the end of Harbor Road
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic, - Latitude: 36.334687' N, Longitude: 79.711665' W
Imo+
`Society, ,-cubed
r

N
a�
ou
In 1
311
�t
Plne all
it '
V
= Q.
Limrflelck¢
6pNws Cr�k�
8aux
--'•
IAnu p}88�'
,
ir$ yf
—field
-
Wa4kMtpwn
d
r`11
`
LYYf
M ainge
p
H`
ville
P
'
4
Location of Slingshot Creek
TLeaehurq
ti;Ba><4o
a
Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Site within USGS Hydrologic`�c
r
Unit and Targeted Local
1. .
Watershed 03030002010010
-
��: me''
.
i
Perspr: CA Timberlake
-
Axiom Environroenial, mc.
K nMO
Hurdle Mills
Prepared for:
Stony
So�o4 Fir.
-
Creek '*
Proa pvct Hrll
.q
`1(mntoln
Red i
La eB In'Gr
Idvultain
.
ega� Pc:
vern pnt
J
!r
1.
� P rdyF�•e C
..__�
ak,RESTORATION
ti�
_
CedarG
t?:Er
.-
L e w r .}
r'
—.
.Bahama
Lc' Sfrckie
�y
Late range
`
\3
Bpe,er
Project:
40
•�
MITIGATION SITE
.
{
•nla
fl ol.' w LGi.e •_ _
wanburq
'3
II
Jar„ n
.},.i
t-, .-
5
•�-'
_ .'rham.._
Rockingham County, NC
t
Title:
}
Point~��-
h�a sam Garden Sp
_
o
r
!
HYDROLOGIC
87
UNIT MAP
•
�
Thpma Jill
5.
e3eipF PjLti�,am
B5
li!
Libcity�'t-7
sophia
Ran lema
,1
Mvrris�rlle
Drawn by:
.,e -
`---'
'Ca
KRJ
r
-
-
l
Date:
7hre at Sheph l
in � ount i
� ��
F
ZA
- ..-
B e t Jv rd'
DEC 2017
al�cun _
^rE
-
saes'
_• -_- ------- - reek
honlsi
ram_ �
r
a .
Scale:
1:375,000
I--':
,
.eur
r -
`suer city
_- -
Ideunlam ~--
pet
Project No.:
Le end
9
^Sh
ro
II1e
pP�
17-001.02
:
�2r
w
Q Easement
'tip
a
�.> L
Q'�USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002
mope =
IAnpnteln
4
FIGURE
14 Digit Hydrologic Unit Boundaries
sm"hkr 'P 4
+
Holly Springs
Targeted Local Watersheds<arJ2
.R+r,: Y �
�
eear CreNr Q°`• • � cvie
'
-•�,
R@S6lNOFl•
fae
'6Wdstpn R 1
;will
0 5 10
20
30
f
F II
Miles
'
¢ I I r_
ti
r 4°• :CL yF
2014II
0 fi'• LoBirrmkeCopyrht'`©

Ile
Legend
r ;, ` J� • Slingshot Creek Easement = 12.0 ac.
i'
Slingshot Creek Mainstem Drainage Area =0.42 sq mi (270 ac)
UT1 Drainage Area = 0.09 sq mi (60 ac)
�• i
UT2 Drainage Area = 0.10 sq mi (65 ac)
Axio- Eriwori menial, Inc.
Wk
e
`'r Prepared for:
' it
of
RESTORATION
ADProject:
SLINGSHOT CREEK
STREAM AND
... .,,.,r:' a WETLAND
V.
; 4 - MITIGATION SITE
lot �4�k_
Ile
. F � �i f�7j � y1 ��1IM t�� ■ �� w :I� -
�
.. s.r _
��� • � .a • II'c=:P Rockingham County, NC
a o 4
r - - Title:
- ' "'� ''" • ��-,� �� TOPOGRAPHY
- .. • �� _ s.r. ■• AND
1604 DRAINAGE AREA
to
}� ►■• ` ,'�. ' ' 1 Drawn by:
KRJ
,, := f .� #�i, ■ « ,1• barlbury C h • + Date:
C!',',.. r r • ■ «. '* - �.@m DEC 2017
!_ - AR'► . r _- •err ■ •' • }�,
Scale:
x °� • �40
• ■ « ' Project No.:
N '�' • ■ d� h 17-001.02
i ►�'.v Ev rgreen
41 FIGURE
M emery a rdens I
4 I r
3
+ • r
0 0.25 0.5 1 ' ■ `
Miles
- ! - .r Wa rf Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

Legend•
QSlingshot Creek Easement = 12.0 ac
Existing Streams = 3907 ft
Existing Wetlands = 0.69 ac
® Existing Drained Hydric Soils = 0.96 ac
Cross Sections
O Soil Profile
NRCS Soil Boundaries
Soil Map Unit Soil Series
CgJ32 Clifford sandy clay laom, 2 to 8 % slopes
CsA Codorus loam, 0 to 2 % slopes
DcB Davie sandy loam, 2 to 8 % slopes
FrE2 Fairview -Poplar complex, 15 to 25 % slopes
NaB INathahe sandy loam, 2 to 8 % slopes
PDD2 1PoDlar Forest sandv clav loam 8 to 15 % slopes
100
99
98
97
96
95
94
93
0
5
li v�
6 r
0 250
100
99
98
97
96
95
94
93
0
5 10
DA=0.41 sgmi
Abkf =11.7 sq ft
Aexisting =71.9 sq ft
Wbkf=9.8 ft
Dbkf = 1.2 ft
Dm ax = 1.6 ft
Wbkf/Dbkf=8.3
FPA = 20 ft
ENT = 2.0
LBH = 5.0 ft
BHR = 3.1
Ge-type
10 15 20
25
NCWAM Form 1
- Score: Medium
`
NCSAM Form 1
-
Score: Low
500
E4&i 1
1,000
= Feet
few
lain Upper
DA=0.15sgmi
Abkf=5.9 sgft
Aexisting =18.8 sq ft
Wbkf=5.6 ft
Dbkf =1.0 ft
Dnax=1.3ft
Wbkf/Dbkf=5.4
FPA = 8 ft
ENT =1.4
LBH = 3.1 ft
BHR = 2.4
G-type
15 20 25
INVA
Xs-3
NCSAM Form 4
Score: Medium
NCSAM Form 3
Score: Low .. _
L
DcB NCSAM Form 2
UT-1. Score: Low
D2
XS-2
99
Cross Section 2 - UT-1
99
t
98
98
97 A
97
96
96
95
0 5 10 15
DA=0.09sgmi
Abkf=4.2 sgft
Ae xis ting =18.2 s q ft
Wbkf=7.1 ft
Db kf = 0.6 ft
Dm ax =1.0 ft
Wbkf/Dbkf =12.0
FPA = 12 ft
ENT = 1.7
LBH = 2.3 ft
BHR = 2.3
G-type
20 25
N
Aram Environ+nmiat, Inc.
Prepared for:
Project:
SLINGSHOT CREEK
STREAM AND
WETLAND
MITIGATION SITE
Rockingham County, NC
Title:
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
AND SOILS
Drawn by:
KRJ
Date:
DEC 2017
Scale:
1:2200
Project No.:
17-001.02
FIGURE
4

June 121", 2018
Mr. Robert L. Wheless
222 Harbor Rd.
Reidsville, NC 27320
Dear Mr. Wheless:
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that Restoration Systems, LLC, in offering to
purchase your property in Rockingham County, North Carolina, does not have the power to acquire it
by eminent domain. Also, Restoration Systems' offer to purchase your property is based on what we
believe to be its fair market.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 919-755-9490.
Sincerely,
21
JD Hamby
Project Manager

May 18t", 2018
Shannon Deaton,
Habitat Conservation Program Manager
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
1701 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1701
Re: Slingshot Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site, Rockingham County, NC
Dear Ms. Deaton:
The purpose of this letter is to request concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Recourse Commission
concerning a stream restoration project located in Rockingham County for the N.C. Division of Mitigation
Services. Site land use consists of disturbed forest and livestock pasture. All Site hydrology drains to
unnamed tributaries to Lake Hunt. The proposed conservation easement area contains approximately 12
acres. Please review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act from the potential stream restoration project. Attached is a USGS base map with
the projects 12 acre footprint identified.
The Slingshot Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site has been identified for the purpose of providing in -kind
mitigation for unavoidable impacts to streams wetlands within watersheds of the Cape Fear River Basin, CU
03030002.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact the below
referenced Project Manager with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance
associated with this project.
Yours truly,
Restoration Systems, LLC
JD Hamby
Project Manager
[e-mail]
919-755-9490
Attachments: Location and USGS Map

9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
20 June 2018
Mr. JD Hamby
Restoration Systems LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Subject: Request for Project Review and Comments
Slingshot Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Hamby,
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) received your letter on 30
May 2018 requesting review and comment on any possible concerns regarding the Slinghsot Stream &
Wetland Mitigation Site. Biologists with NCWRC have reviewed the provided documents. Comments
are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667e) and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
The Slingshot Stream & Mitigation Site is located north of the terminus of Harbor Road near Reidsville,
Rockingham County, North Carolina. The project occurs on approximately 12 acres of livestock fields
and disturbed forests. The project will provide in -kind mitigation for unavoidable impacts to streams and
wetlands within the Cape Fear River Basin (HUC 03030002). The project will restore portions of
unnamed tributaries of Lake Hunt. The site occurs within the Water Supply Watershed of Troublesome
Creek, which is classified as a Water Supply III and Nutrient Sensitive Water by the N.C. Division of
Water Resources (NCDWR).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists the federally endangered smooth coneflower (Echinacea
laevigata) as having the potential to occur if suitable habitat is present. We have no records of rare,
threatened, or endangered species within or near the mitigation site, although the lack of records from the
project area does not imply or confirm the absence of federal or state protected species. Based upon the
information provided to NCWRC, it is unlikely that stream and wetland mitigation will adversely affect
any federal or state -listed species. However, we recommend leaving snags and mature trees or if
necessary, remove tees outside the maternity roosting season for bats (May 15 — August 15).
We recommend that riparian buffers are as wide as possible, given site constraints and landowner needs.
NCWRC generally recommends a woody buffer of 100 feet on perennial streams to maximize the
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Page 2
20 June 2018
Slingshot Mitigation
Rockingham County
benefits of buffers, including bank stability, stream shading, treatment of overland runoff, and wildlife
habitat.
Stream restoration projects often improve water quality and aquatic habitat. Establishing native, forested
buffers in riparian areas will help protect water quality, improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats, and
provide a travel corridor for wildlife species. Provided measures are taken to minimize erosion and
sedimentation from construction/restoration activities, we do not anticipate the project to result in
significant adverse impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposed project. If I can be of additional assistance, please
call [phone] or email olivia.munzer&ncwildlife.org.
Sincerely,
C�
Olivia Munzer
Western Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program

May 181h, 2018
Renee Gledhill -Earley,
Environmental Review Coordinator
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Sent electronically to Environmental. [e-mail]
Re: Slingshot Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site, Columbus County, NC
Dear Renee,
The purpose of this letter is to request written concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO)for the Shaw's Run Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site in Columbus County, a Full -Delivery project for
the N.C. Davison of Mitigation Services. Please review and comment on any possible issues that might
emerge with respect to SHPO from a potential stream restoration project depicted on the attached mapping.
Project Name: Slingshot Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
Project Location: 222 Harbor Rd. Reidsville, NC
Project Contact: JD Hamby, Restoration Systems LLC, 1101 Haynes St. Suite 211,
Raleigh, NC 27604
Project Description: The project has been identified for the purpose of providing in -kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. Permits from the NC DWR and USACE will be obtained to
restore waters of the US. Soil and erosion control permits will also be obtained. The project encompasses 9
acres of drained hydric soils, and cleared riparian buffer area currently used for row crop production.
Approximately 2200 linear feet of stream and 4.4 acres of riparian wetland will be restored.
The term "cultural resources" refers to prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, structures, or artifact
deposits over 50 years old. "Significant" cultural resources are those that are eligible or potentially
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Evaluations of site significance are made
with reference to the eligibility criteria of the National Register (36 CFR 60) and in consultation with the
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
Field visits were conducted in January 2017 to conduct evaluations for presence of structures or features
that may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. No structures were identified within the
Site boundaries that may be eligible for the National Register. In addition to field reviews for historically
relevant structures, a records search was conducted at the SHPO office to determine if documented
occurrences of historic structures or artifacts occur within, or adjacent to the Site. The SHPO records
identify no features within the Site boundaries and seven features within a 1.0 mile radius of the Site,
listed here:

• RK1436 Carter House
• RK1829 D.C. Smith Farm (DOE: 2005)
• RK1589 Bartee Log House (DOE: 2005)
• RK1430 Reid School
• RK1437 House
• RK1431 Alfred Reid House
• RK1440 Pritchard -Tuttle House
Typical SHPO coordination will occur prior to construction activities to determine if any significant
cultural resources are present; however, no constraints are expected at this time. We thank you in
advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact me with any questions
that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Yours truly,
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
JD Hamby
Project Manager
[e-mail]
919-755-9490
Attachments — USGS Map, Existing Conditions

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. I Ia nilton
June 18, 2018
JD Hamby
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Slingshot Stream & Wedand Mitigation Site, 222 Harbor Road, Reidsville, Rockingham County,
ER 18-1209
Dear Mr. Hamby:
Thank you for your letter of May 18, 2018, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
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
environmental.review&ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

May 181h, 2017
Milton Cortes
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
4407 Bland Road
Suite 117
Raleigh, NC 27609
Re: Slingshot Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site, Alamance County, NC
Restoration Systems, LLC (IRS), of Raleigh, NC has been awarded a contract by DMS to provide 2200 Stream
Mitigation Units and 4.4 Wetland Mitigation Units at Slingshot Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site,
Alamance County, North Carolina.
One of the earliest tasks to be performed by IRS is completion of an environmental screening and
preparation/submittal of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) document. This document is specifically required by
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to ensure compliance with various federal environmental laws
and regulations. DMS must demonstrate that its projects comply with federal mandates as a precondition to
FHWA reimbursement of compensatory mitigation costs borne by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation to offset its projects' unavoidable impacts to streams and wetlands.
In order for the project to proceed, IRS is obligated to coordinate with the NRCS to complete Form AD-1006 in
compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act on behalf of the FHWA. The purpose of this letter is to
request your assistance in completion of the Form.
Project Location & Description
The Slingshot Creek Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site"), is located
approximately 2 miles west of Reidsville, NC, east of Lake Hunt, and north NC Highway 158. Site land use
consists of disturbed forest, hay fields, and livestock pasture. All Site hydrology drains to unnamed
tributaries to Lake Hunt. The proposed conservation easement area contains approximately 12 acres.
The Site is located within Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03030002010010 and subbasin 03-06-01.
According to the Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDWQ 2005), all land uses and
discharges of wastewater and stormwater in subbasin 03-06-01 potentially contribute nutrients to B.
Everett Jordan Lake. B. Everett Jordan Lake provides low -flow augmentation, flood control, recreation,
fish and wildlife habitat, and water supply. The lake is impaired for aquatic life due to excessive levels of
chlorophyll a in violation of current standards in all segments of the reservoir. In addition, the Site has a
supplemental water quality classification of Nutrient Sensitive Waters, which include areas with water
quality problems associated with excessive plant growth resulting from nutrient enrichment. The
proposed mitigation activities will reduce sediment and nutrient levels, and improve water quality within
the Site and downstream watersheds.
The project is located within the Troublesome Creek and Little Troublesome Creek Local Watershed
Planning area (NCEEP 2004).

Restoration Means & Methods
Stream restoration efforts are designed to restore a stable stream that approximates hydrodynamics, stream
geometry, and local microtopography relative to reference conditions. Restoration at the Site will be Priority
I restoration; therefore, bankfull elevations will be raised to meet the adjacent valley floodplain elevation.
Stream restoration is expected to entail 1) channel excavation, 2) channel stabilization, 3) channel diversion,
and 4) channel backfill.
The use of in -stream structures for grade control and habitat is essential for successful stream restoration.
In -stream structures may be placed in the channel to elevate local water surface profiles in the channel,
potentially flattening the water energy slope or gradient and directing stream energy into the center of the
channel and away from banks. The structures will consist of log cross -vanes or logj-hook vanes; however, at
the discretion of the Engineer, rock cross -vanes or rockj-hook vanes may be substituted if dictated by field
conditions. In addition, the structures will placed in relatively straight reaches to provide secondary
(perpendicular) flow cells during bankfull events.
One drop structure is proposed at the Site outfal I; the drop structure may be constructed out of Terracell, or
large cobble depending upon anticipated scour from the restored stream channels. The structure should be
constructed to resist erosive forces associated with hydraulic drops proposed at the Site.
Stream enhancement (level 1) will occur on reaches accessible by livestock. Stream dimension will be
restored in these reaches, fencing will be erected to exclude livestock, and planting riparian buffers with
native forest vegetation will occur where needed and will extend a minimum of 50 feet from the top of
stream banks to facilitate stream recovery and prevent further degradation of the stream.
Stream enhancement (level 11) will occur on reaches are characterized by channels with patches of mature
riparian vegetation, good channel bed substrate, and little bank erosion. The reaches are accessible by
livestock and will have fence erected to exclude livestock. Planting riparian buffers with native forest
vegetation will occur where needed and will extend a minimum of 50 feet from the top of stream banks to
facilitate stream recovery and prevent further degradation of the stream.
Alternatives for wetland reestablishment are designed to restore a fully functioning wetland system, which
will provide surface water storage, nutrient cycling, removal of imported elements and compounds, and will
create a variety and abundance of wildlife habitat.
Portions of the Site underlain by hydric soils have been impacted by stream degradation (incised and ditched
channels), vegetative clearing, agriculture plowing, livestock compaction, herbicide application, and other
land disturbances associated with land use management. Wetland reestablishment options should focus on
the restoration of vegetative communities, restoration of stream corridors and historic groundwater tables,
and the reestablishment of soil structure and microtopographic variations. In addition, the construction of
(or provisions for) surface water storage depressions (ephemeral pools) will also add an important
component to groundwater restoration activities. These activities will result in the reestablishment 0.96 acre
and the enhancement of 0.69 acre of jurisdictional riparian riverine wetlands. Wetland enhancement will
focus on the removal of livestock and restoration of vegetative communities resulting in the enhancement of
0.69 acre of riparian wetland
Restoration of floodplain forest allows for development and expansion of characteristic species across the
landscape. Ecotonal changes between community types contribute to diversity and provide secondary

benefits, such as enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities for mammals, birds, amphibians, and other
wildlife.
Revegetating floodplains will provide overall system stability, shade, and wildlife habitat. In addition, viable
riparian communities will improve system biogeochemical function byfiltering pollutants from overland and
shallow subsurface flows and providing organic materials to adjacent stream channels.
Variations in vegetative planting will occur based on topography and hydraulic condition of soils. Vegetative
species composition will be based on RFEs, site -specific features, and community descriptions from
Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Community
associations to be utilized include: 1) Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest, 2) Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory
Forest and 3) Streamside Assemblage.
Bare -root seedlings within the Piedmont Alluvial Forest and Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest will be planted at
a density of approximately 680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers, and in the stream -side assemblage at a
density of approximately 2720 stems per acre on 4-foot centers. Planting will be performed between
November 15 and March 15 to allow plants to stabilize during the dormant period and set root during the
spring season.
Should you have any questions or if any additional information is needed to complete the Form, please feel
free to contact me at the office 919.334.9111. Your valuable time and cooperation are much appreciated.
Yours truly,
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
�l
JD Hamby
Project Manager
[e-mail]
919-334-9111
Attachments

John Hamby
From: Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2018 3:09 PM
To: John Hamby
Subject: RE: Request Farmland Impact Evaluation -Stream and Wetland Mitigation Sites
Attachments: Arabia Bay Wetland Restoration Site_AD1006.pdf; Phantom Mill_AD1006.pdf, Shaws
Run_AD1006.pdf, Slingshot Restoration Site_AD1006.pdf
Importance: High
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
John
Please find attached the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating forms, AD1026, for:
Arabia Bay Wetland Rest Hoke Co.
Phantom Mill Stream & Wet Rest Alamance Co.
Shaw's Run Stream & Wet Rest Columbus Co.
Slingshot Stream & Wet Rest Rockingham Co.
Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.
Cordially:
Milton Cortes
Acting State Soil Scientist
Natural Resources Conservation Service
4407 Bland Rd, Suite 117
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone:[phone]
miIto n.cortes(@nc.uscla.eov
USDA
This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any
unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the
law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error,
please notify the sender and delete the email immediately.

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Date Of Land Evaluation Request
Name Of Project Slingshot Stream & Wetland Restoration Site
Federal Agency Involved Federal Highway Administration
Proposed Land Use Stream and Wetland Restoration
County And State Rockingham, INC
PART II (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Received By NRCS 5/18/18
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
(If no, the FPPA does not apply -- do not complete additional parts of this form). V ❑ none 124 acres
Major Crop(s)
CORN
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: 260,767 acres % 71
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 249,142 acres %68
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
Rockingham Co. NC LESA
Name Of Local Site Assessment System
N/A
Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
6/24/18
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Alternative Site Rating
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
12.0
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
0.0
C. Total Acres In Site
12.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
4.2
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
7.0
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
0.0045
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
49.6
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
72
0
0
0
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b)
Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
15
8
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
10
9
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
20
15
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
20
0
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
15
5
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
15
0
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
10
1
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
10
0
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
5
5
10. On -Farm Investments
20
9
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
10
0
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
10
1
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
53
0
0
0
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100
72
0
0
0
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
site assessment)
160
53
0
0
0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines)
260
125
0
0
0
Site Selected:
Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ❑ No ❑
Reason For Selection:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (10-83)
This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff

Regulatory review
The iPaC regulatory review process helps evaluate the patentsai impacts of your project on
resources managed by the U.S_ Fish and Wfldl'fe Service_ it walks through regulations
covering each pratecred resource, and offers suggestions and assistance in desrgningyour
project -
Endangered species
Endangered species are protected under the Endangered Species Acc
3 endangered spe€ies are known to occur or may be affe€ted by activitles In
this to€adon.
Reques,-an Dfficial species list
Ar. official species list was generated about.a month ago.
Evaluate determination keys
There are no determination keys available in this project area-
0 Make effect determinations
For each listed specres in the project area, a de€errnrnation must be made
regarding the potential effects of €his project -
Migratory birds
Certain birds are p rotecced under the Migratory 6r rd Treary Acc 2 and ch a Sal d
and Golden Eagle Protection Act 3 .
6 migratory birds of conservation €on€ern are expected to oc€ur or may be
affected by activities in this location.
Contact the local U.S. Fish and Wild Iife Service field office
There iscurrently no regu@atory review process in IPaCfor migratory birds.
Please contactthe local U5_ Fish and WildlifeSeMice field ofFteto evaluate
effects and authorixe take.
Facilities
U.S. Fish and Wfidlife Service facilities are pratecced under the National Wildlife
Refuge System AdministrationAct 4 andthe NadonalFishHatchery System 6 _
4) Refuge and fish hatchery inforrnatron is not availab#e at this time
TRY AGAIN
Wetlands
Wetlands and other aquatic habitats may besubjectto regulation under5ection
404 of the Clean Water Act 6 or other State/Federal statutes.
T=ERE ARE NO KNOIN % LAN GS AT -HIS ! iDCAT:ON.

Regulatory+ review Erkdangered species Species deterrninations
Species determination
For Fsted sDec'es I not covered by de_errr..[nation keys, an impact anaiysisshou d be performed to reach
a conclusion about how this projet will impact the species. These conclusions will result in determinations
for ea ch sped esr which wil I be used in consultation with the U.S. Fish a nd Wildlife Service_
Fishes
NA"�1E aEl- i=RMI%-A-;CH1
Roanoke Logperch None
Percina sex
Clams
�'.`= CETER'-A-;CrA
j a mes Spi nym ussel N one
P cc : r-a
Flowering Plants
`, = DES=RiIIA—:r,i
Srroo Conetlower None
Critical habitats
—H E RE ARE N 0 CRiF: _ -A3 -ATS AT T1--I-S LOCATION.

Threatened & Endangered Species
Three federally protected species are listed as occurring in Rockingham County (USFWS 2015); the following table
summarizes potential habitat and preliminary biological conclusions for each.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Species
Habitat
Potential
Biological
Habitat at Site
Conclusion
This freshwater mussel is limited to the
James River drainage and the Dan/Mayo
River drainage within the Roanoke River
James spinymussel
basin in Virginia, North Carolina, and West
No
No Effect
(Pleurobema collina)
Virginia. This species' range does not
include the Site, which is located in the
Upper Cape Fear River drainage.
In North Carolina, this species is found in the
Roanoke logperch
Dan and Mayo rivers, as well as Big Beaver
Island Creek. This species' range does not
No
No Effect
(Percina rex)
include the Site, which is located in the
Upper Cape Fear River drainage.
This species grows in calcareous, basic, or
circumneutral soils on roadsides, clear cuts,
Smooth coneflower
and power line right-of-ways where there is
(Echinacea laevigata)
abundant light and little herbaceous
Yes
No Effect*
competition. Fire -maintained woodlands
also appear to provide potential habitat for
the coneflower.
*Detailed field surveys for this species were conducted during the optimum survey window. Smooth coneflower
(Echinacea laevigata) is typically found on calcareous, basic, or circumneutral soils within clearcuts, power line
right-of-ways, roadsides, and open woodlands where there is abundant light and little herbaceous competition.
Suitable habitat for smooth coneflower occurs within open areas of the site, field borders, woodland edges, and
forested areas along stream channels. Systematic surveys performed within areas of suitable habitat were
performed by Axiom biologists Allison Keith and Andrew Radecki on May 21, 2018, and identified no individuals.
As of May 25, 2018, the NCNHP has no record of this species within 1.0 mile of the site. The proposed project will
have No Effect on smooth coneflower.
Neither the James spinymussel nor the Roanoke logperch have ranges that extend into areas adjacent to or within
the Site; therefore, this project will have no effect on these federally protected species. Suitable habitat for the
smooth coneflower exists at the Site; therefore, surveys were conducted in May 2015, during the optimal survey
window for this plant. Correspondence concerning survey methodology and results are presented in Appendix C.

John Hamby
From: Allison Keith <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 10:56 AM
To: John Hamby
Cc: Grant Lewis
Subject: Slingshot T&E Biological Conclusion
Good Morning,
This email provides a summary of the results of an Axiom Environmental, Inc. (Axiom) federally protected species survey
at the Slingshot Creek Mitigation site in Rockingham County. The approximately 12-acre site is located north of Highway
158, 2 miles west of Reidsville, NC.
Smooth Coneflower
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) is typically found on calcareous, basic, or circumneutral soils within clearcuts,
power line right-of-ways, roadsides, and open woodlands where there is abundant light and little herbaceous
competition. Suitable habitat for smooth coneflower occurs within open areas of the site, field borders, woodland edges,
and forested areas along stream channels. Systematic surveys performed within areas of suitable habitat were performed
by Axiom biologists Allison Keith and Andrew Radecki on May 21, 2018, and identified no individuals. As of May 25, 2018,
the NCNHP has no record of this species within 1.0 mile of the site. The proposed project will have No Effect on smooth
coneflower.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist with this project. If you have any questions about this information, please let us
know.
Sincerely,
Allison Keith
Allison Keith
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Cell [phone]
[e-mail]
1

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To:
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2018-SLI-0763
Event Code: 04EN2000-2018-E-01667
Project Name: Slingshot
71.
Fisdi s WIIJJUrV.
14L'][ ,N,pf
t
May 18, 2018
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The species list generated pursuant to the information you provided identifies threatened,
endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical
habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by
your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended
(16U.S.C. 1531 etseq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally -listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally -protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or

05/18/2018 Event Code: 04EN2000-2018-E-01667
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes
If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally -listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally -protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require
development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/
eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy
guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and
bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications
towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://
www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws. o� rg atoI3 birds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/
comtow.html.
Not all Threatened and Endangered Species that occur in North Carolina are subject to section 7
consultation with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, sea
turtles,when in the water, and certain marine mammals are under purview of the National Marine
Fisheries Service. If your project occurs in marine, estuarine, or coastal river systems you should
also contact the National Marine Fisheries Service, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our office. If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Ellis
of this office at [e-mail].

05/18/2018 Event Code: 04EN2000-2018-E-01667
Attachment(s):
• Official Species List

05/18/2018 Event Code: 04EN2000-2018-E-01667
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
[phone]

05/18/2018 Event Code: 04EN2000-2018-E-01667
Project Summary
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2018-SLI-0763
Event Code: 04EN2000-2018-E-01667
Project Name: Slingshot
Project Type: STREAM / WATERBODY / CANALS / LEVEES / DIKES
Project Description: This proposal describes the Slingshot Creek Stream & Wetland Mitigation
Site (Site) and is designed specifically to assist in fulfilling North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) mitigation goals. The Site is
located within 14-digit Cataloging Unit and Targeted Local Watershed
03030002010010, approximately 2 miles west of Reidsville, NC, east of
Lake Hunt, and north NC Highway 158 (Figures 1 and 2, Appendix A).
The Site is located within the Troublesome Creek and Little Troublesome
Creek Local Watershed Planning area (NCEEP 2004). The Site is situated
along warm water, unnamed tributaries to Lake Hunt.
The Slingshot Creek Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site is proposed to
include 2328 linear feet of stream restoration, 752 linear feet of stream
enhancement (level I), 747 linear feet of stream enhancement (level II),
0.96 acres of reestablished riparian riverine wetlands, and 0.69 acre of
enhanced riparian riverine wetland. Site alterations include removing
livestock, restoration of streams and wetlands, and planting native, woody
vegetation within the entire 12-acre Site easement. Mitigation outlined in
this report will result in net gains in hydrology, water quality, and habitat
functions, and are designed to provide 3128 Stream Mitigation Units and
1.31 Riparian Riverine Wetland Mitigation Units
Construction and planting will occur outside of growing season during the
winter months.
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:
www.goo�le.com/mgps/Tlace/36.33542092009579N79.71107015124949W

05/18/2018 Event Code: 04EN2000-2018-E-01667
Counties: Rockingham, NC

05/18/2018
Event Code: 04EN2000-2018-E-01667
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 3 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheriesl, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Fishes
NAME
Roanoke Logperch Percina rex
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws. og v/ecp/species/1134
Clams
NAME
STATUS
Endangered
STATUS
James Spinymussel Pleurobema collina Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https:Hecos.fws. og v/ecp/species/2212
Flowering Plants
NAM STATUS
Smooth Coneflower Echinacea laevigata Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: h!Ws:Hecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3473

05/18/2018 Event Code: 04EN2000-2018-E-01667
Critical habitats
FHERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.

Slingshot
0 Harbor Road
Reidsville, NC 27320
Inquiry Number: 5328451.8s
June 11, 2018
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
(rEDW Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
FORM-PBA-CCA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
Executive Summary-------------------------------------------------------
ES1
Overview Map
2
Detail Map
3
Map Findings Summary----------------------------------------------------
4
Map Findings
8
Orphan Summary---------------------------------------------------------
12
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking
GR-1
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum------------------------------------------
A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary
A-2
Physical Setting Source Map
A-7
Physical Setting Source Map Findings----------------------------------------
A-8
Physical Setting Source Records Searched------------------------------------.
PSGR-1
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2018 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
TC5328451.8s Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-13), the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments for Forestland or Rural Property (E 2247-16), the ASTM Standard Practice for Limited
Environmental Due Diligence: Transaction Screen Process (E 1528-14) or custom requirements developed
for the evaluation of environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
0 HARBOR ROAD
REIDSVILLE, NC 27320
COORDINATES
Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranverse Mercator
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
36.3348500 - 36' 20' 5.46"
79.7117580 - 79' 42' 42.32"
Zone 17
615619.1
4021658.0
787 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property Map: 5948275 REIDSVILLE, NC
Version Date: 2013
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT
Portions of Photo from: 20140705
Source: USDA
TC5328451.8s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

F- MAPPED SITES SUMMARY
Target Property Address:
0 HARBOR ROAD
REIDSVILLE, NC 27320
Click on Map ID to see full detail.
MAP RELATIVE DIST (ft. & mi.)
ID SITE NAME ADDRESS DATABASE ACRONYMS ELEVATION DIRECTION
1 DJ'S COMMUNITY MART 120 IRON WORKS RD LUST, UST, Financial Assurance Higher 2016, 0.382, SSE
5328451.8s Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL___________________________ National Priority List
Proposed NPL________________ Proposed National Priority List Sites
NPL LIENS -------------------- Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL__________________ National Priority List Deletions
Federal CERCLIS list
FEDERAL FACILITY__________ Federal Facility Site Information listing
SEMS_________________________ Superfund Enterprise Management System
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
SEMS-ARCHIVE-------------- Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS------------------ Corrective Action Report
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF------------------ RCRA- Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG------------------- RCRA- Large Quantity Generators
RCRA-SQG------------------- RCRA- Small Quantity Generators
RCRA-CESQG---------------- RCRA- Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries
LUCIS_________________________ Land Use Control Information System
US ENG CONTROLS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Engineering Controls Sites List
TC5328451.8s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
US INST CONTROL_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sites with Institutional Controls
Federal ERNS list
ERNS_________________________ Emergency Response Notification System
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
NC HSDS_____________________ Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS------------------------- Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF_______________________ List of Solid Waste Facilities
OLI____________________________ Old Landfill Inventory
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LAST__________________________ Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks
INDIAN LUST_________________ Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUST TRUST_________________ State Trust Fund Database
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST____________________ Underground Storage Tank Listing
UST___________________________ Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
AST___________________________ AST Database
INDIAN UST__________________ Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
State and tribal institutional control / engineering control registries
INST CONTROL_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
VCP___________________________ Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
INDIAN VCP__________________ Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS______________ Brownfields Projects Inventory
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS----------- A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites
HIST LF_______________________ Solid Waste Facility Listing
TC5328451.8s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SWRCY_______________________ Recycling Center Listing
INDIAN ODI___________________ Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
DEBRIS REGION 9----------- Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
ODI___________________________ Open Dump Inventory
IHS OPEN DUMPS___________ Open Dumps on Indian Land
Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL_________________ Delisted National Clandestine Laboratory Register
US CDL_______________________ National Clandestine Laboratory Register
Local Land Records
LIENS 2_______________________ CERCLA Lien Information
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS________________________
Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
SPILLS________________________
Spills Incident Listing
IMD___________________________
Incident Management Database
SPILLS 90____________________
SPILLS 90 data from FirstSearch
SPILLS 80____________________
SPILLS 80 data from FirstSearch
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen / NLR _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ RCRA - Non Generators / No Longer Regulated
FUDS_________________________
Formerly Used Defense Sites
DOD__________________________
Department of Defense Sites
SCRD DRYCLEANERS_______
State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
US FIN ASSUR_______________
Financial Assurance Information
EPA WATCH LIST____________
EPA WATCH LIST
2020 COR ACTION_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ 2020 Corrective Action Program List
TSCA_________________________
Toxic Substances Control Act
TRIS__________________________
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
SSTS--------------------------
Section 7 Tracking Systems
ROD__________________________
Records Of Decision
RMP__________________________
Risk Management Plans
RAATS________________________
RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
PRP___________________________
Potentially Responsible Parties
PADS_________________________
PCB Activity Database System
ICIS___________________________
Integrated Compliance Information System
FTTS__________________________
FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide
Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
MLTS_________________________
Material Licensing Tracking System
COAL ASH DOE_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ Steam -Electric Plant Operation Data
COAL ASH EPA______________
Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
PCB TRANSFORMER_______
PCB Transformer Registration Database
RADINFO ---------------------
Radiation Information Database
HIST FTTS____________________
FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
DOT OPS_____________________
Incident and Accident Data
CONSENT____________________
Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
INDIAN RESERV_____________
Indian Reservations
FUSRAP______________________
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
UMTRA_______________________
Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
LEAD SMELTERS____________
Lead Smelter Sites
TC5328451.8s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
US AIRS______________________
Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem
US MINES____________________
Mines Master Index File
ABANDONED MINES ---------
Abandoned Mines
FINDS -------------------------
Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
ECHO -------------------------
Enforcement & Compliance History Information
DOCKET HWC----------------
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Listing
UXO ---------------------------
Unexploded Ordnance Sites
FUELS PROGRAM___________
EPA Fuels Program Registered Listing
AIRS__________________________
Air Quality Permit Listing
ASBESTOS___________________
ASBESTOS
COAL ASH____________________
Coal Ash Disposal Sites
DRYCLEANERS______________
Drycleaning Sites
Financial Assurance -----------
Financial Assurance Information Listing
NPDES------------------------
NPDES Facility Location Listing
UIC----------------------------
Underground Injection Wells Listing
AOP---------------------------
Animal Operation Permits Listing
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP_____________________ EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
EDR Hist Auto ----------------- EDR Exclusive Historical Auto Stations
EDR Hist Cleaner_____________ EDR Exclusive Historical Cleaners
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
RGA HWS____________________ Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste Facilities List
RGA LF_______________________ Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List
RGA LUST____________________ Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were identified in the following databases
Elevations have been determined from the USGS Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on
a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity
should be field verified. Sites with an elevation equal to or higher than the target property have been
differentiated below from sites with an elevation lower than the target property.
Page numbers and map identification numbers refer to the EDR Radius Map report where detailed
data on individual sites can be reviewed.
Sites listed in bold italics are in multiple databases.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
TC5328451.8s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
LUST: The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incidents Management Database contains an inventory
of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. The data come from the Department of Environment, &
Natural Resources' Incidents by Address.
A review of the LUST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 02/02/2018 has revealed that there is 1 LUST
site within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction / Distance Map ID Page
DJ'S COMMUNITY MART 120 IRON WORKS RD SSE 114 - 112 (0.382 mi.) 1 8
Incident Phase: Follow Up
Incident Number: 3878
Current Status: File Located in House
TC5328451.8s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There were no unmapped sites in this report.
TC5328451.8s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8

OVERVIEW MAP - 5328451.8S
*
Target Property
A
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
♦
Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
A
Manufactured Gas Plants
National Priority List Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0 1/4 1/2 1 Mlles
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
10o-year flood zone Disposal Sites
5oo-year flood zone
National Wetland Inventory
State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Slingshot CLIENT: Restoration Systems, LLC
ADDRESS: 0 Harbor Road CONTACT: JD Hamby
Reidsville INC 27320 INQUIRY #: 5328451.8s
LAT/LONG: 36.33485 / 79.711758 DATE: June 11, 2018 4:35 pm
Copyright �o 2018 EDR, Inc.(,) 2015 Tom Tom Rel. 2015.

Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 919 270-9306
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
May 28, 2015
Worth Creech
Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes St #211
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: Federally Protected Species Assessment Results 15-007.05
Slingshot Creek, Reidsville, Rockingham County
Dear Mr. Creech
Axiom Environmental, Inc. (Axiom) is pleased to provide you with this summary letter of the
results of a survey for federally protected species on an approximately 12-acre tract (hereafter
referred to as the site) planned for Slingshot Creek Mitigation Site in Reidsville, NC (see
attached map). The survey was conducted by three Axiom biologists, Kenan Jernigan, Ryan
Gibbons, and Allison Keith, on May 28, 2015.
Site Description
The site is in the Piedmont physiographic region of the state in southeastern Rockingham
County. The site contains dissected, irregular plains with moderate to steep slopes and low to
moderate gradient streams. Land use at the site is characterized by livestock pastures where
livestock have unrestricted access to the streams. The majority of the site is dominated by
herbaceous vegetation with some scattered shrubs, although, a narrow riparian fringe has
developed along the stream margins that contains opportunistic species as well as a few mature
trees. Dominant herbaceous species include a multitude of grasses, common pokeweed
(Phytolacca americana), oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), grape (Muscadinia sp.), and
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). The scattered shrubs include winged sumac (Rhus
copallinum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styracifZua), redbud (Cercis canadensis) and flowering
dogwood (Corpus florida). The riparian fringes support narrow forests dominated by a canopy of
loblolly pine (Pious taeda), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styracifZua), and a mix of oaks (Quercus sp.).
Federally Protected Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has identified one species with ranges that extend
into Rockingham County: Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata).
A brief description of the species' habitat requirements follows, along with the Biological
Conclusion rendered based on survey results in the study area. Habitat requirements for this
species are based on the current best available information from referenced literature and/or
USFWS.

Smooth coneflower
USFWS optimal survey window: late May -October
Habitat Description: Smooth coneflower, a perennial herb, is typically found in meadows, open
woodlands, the ecotonal regions between meadows and woodlands, cedar barrens, dry
limestone bluffs, clear cuts, and roadside and utility right-of-ways. In North Carolina, the
species normally grows in magnesium- and calcium -rich soils associated with gabbro and
diabase parent material, and typically occurs in Iredell, Misenheimer, and Picture soil series.
It grows best where there is abundant sunlight, little competition in the herbaceous layer, and
periodic disturbances (e.g., regular fire regime, well-timed mowing, and careful clearing) that
prevents encroachment of shade producing woody shrubs and trees. On sites where woody
succession is held in check, it is characterized by a number of species with prairie affinities.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect. Suitable habitat for smooth coneflower occurs throughout the
study area within utility line corridors, along woodland edges, and within residential yards.
A review of NCNHP records, updated April 2015, indicates no known smooth coneflower
occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Axiom biologists visited the UNC Botanical
Garden on May 28, 2015 and found their smooth coneflowers to be in bloom. Subsequently,
systematic surveys were performed in all areas of suitable habitat on the same day and no
individuals of this species were identified within the study area.
I hope this summary is sufficient for your review. Should you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to send me an email (j ernigangaxiomenvironmental.org) or give me a call (919-215-9465).
Sincerely,
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
Kenan R. Jernigan
Project Scientist

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
Natural Heritage Program
Dovemor Ray Cooper
December 20, 2017
Phillip Perkinson
Axiom Environmental Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27612
RE: Slingshot
Dear Phillip Perkinson:
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
NCNHDE-4944
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database, based on the project area mapped with your request, indicates that there are
no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed areas
within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there may be no documentation of natural
heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have
been surveyed. The results of this query should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists.
In the event that rare species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may
update our records.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that have been
documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these records suggests that
these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable habitat exists and is
included for reference. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed area within a one -mile radius of the
project area, if any, are also included in this report.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning, project
review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory decisions.
Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written notification to the
NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP
data may not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a Dedicated Nature
Preserve (DNP), Registered Heritage Area (RHA), Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) easement,
or Federally -listed species are documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, please
contact Rodney A. Butler at rodney.butler(d).ncdcr.gov or 919.707.8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
MAILING ADDRESS: Telephone: (919) 7D7-8107 LOCATION:
1651 Mail Servica Center www.ncnhp.org 121 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 275::-II35 Raleiigh, NC 276D3

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Slingshot
December 20, 2017
NCNHDE-4944
Element Occurrences Documented
Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID
Scientific Name ■ Common Name Last Element Accuracy Federal
IFObservation
State
Global
State
Group
Occurrence Status
Status
Rank
Rank
Date Rank
Dragonfly or 33770
Somatochlora georgiana Coppery Emerald 2004-Pre H? 5-Very ---
Significantly
G3G4
S2?
Damselfly
Low
Rare
Natural 27686
Dry Basic Oak --Hickory --- 2010 BC 2-High ---
---
G2G3
S2S3
Community
Forest
Natural Areas Documented
Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Site Name
Representational Rating Collective Rating
Warf Airfield Forest
R5 (General) C5 (General)
No Managed Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.ora/content/help. Data query generated on December 20, 2017; source: NCNHP, Q4 October 2017. Please resubmit
your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 3

N
W+E
S
December 20, 2017
Project Boundary
Buffered Project Boundary
63 NHP Natural Area (NHNA)
NCNHDE-4944: Slingshot
DaPPk•R
v
Regal Rd p°
• _ _B56R u &'
� �42af9" Or
s
unm�,�st
i
oPRd
B5811
L.,.F- Hunt
V ca,ov l7yv',:,
Swnlbv.' Rd
E.eig
rlen
Gaf[
/I6010
_ O
a � _
L,rt'e Troublesome geeµ
a�
vdoat
2
Uxx
a 855/t
rt
i- ,i NtG
1:23,283
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 mi
0 0.3 0.6 1.2 km
Sources' Fsri, HERE, DeLorms, Intermap, increment P Corp_, GFBCO,, USGS,
FAO, NIPS
NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL Ordnance Survey, Fsri Japan,
METI, Es" m© China (Hong Kong),—bbtopo, Mapylndia, OpenStreetMap
contributors, and the GIS User Community
Page 3 of 3

Appendix F
Financial Assurances
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058)
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC
November 2019

Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Division of Mitigation Service's In -Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources has provided the US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal
commitment to fund projects to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by DMS. This
commitment provides financial assurance for all mitigation projects implemented by the program.
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina November 2019

Appendix G
Site Protection Instrument
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058)
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC
November 2019

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AND RIGHT OF ACCESS PROVIDED
PURSUANT TO
FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
COUNTY
SPO File Number:
DMS Project Number:
Prepared by: Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Return to: NC Department of Administration
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321
THIS DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF ACCESS, made
this day of , 20, by Landowner name goes here
, ("Grantor"), whose mailing address is Landowner address goes here , to the State of
North Carolina, ("Grantee"), whose mailing address is State of North Carolina, Department of
Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1321. The
designations of Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs,
successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or neuter as
required by context.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.8 et seq., the State
of North Carolina has established the Division of Mitigation Services (formerly known as the
Ecosystem Enhancement Program and Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring,
enhancing, creating and preserving wetland and riparian resources that contribute to the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 1 of 11

protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife
habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between ( insert name and
address of full delivery contract provider ) and the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality, to provide stream, wetland and/or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality Purchase and Services Contract Number
WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-35; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the United
States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding, (MOU) duly executed by all parties on November 4, 1998. This MOU
recognized that the Wetlands Restoration Program was to provide effective compensatory
mitigation for authorized impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources by restoring,
enhancing and preserving the wetland and riparian areas of the State; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Division of Mitigation Services
(formerly Ecosystem Enhancement Program) is to provide for compensatory mitigation by
effective protection of the land, water and natural resources of the State by restoring, enhancing
and preserving ecosystem functions; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality, the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service entered into an agreement to continue the In -Lieu Fee operations of the North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources' Division of Mitigation Services (formerly Ecosystem
Enhancement Program) with an effective date of 28 July, 2010, which supersedes and replaces
the previously effective MOA and MOU referenced above; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8th day of February 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Division of Mitigation Services in the Department of Environmental
Quality, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and Council of State
to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this instrument; and
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 2of11

WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being
in Township, County, North Carolina (the "Property"), and being
more particularly described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately
acres and being conveyed to the Grantor by deed as recorded in Deed Book at Page
of the County Registry, North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement and Right of Access
over the herein described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the
areas of the Property subject to the Conservation Easement to the terms and conditions and
purposes hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing to accept said Easement and Access Rights.
The Conservation Easement shall be for the protection and benefit of the waters of if known
insert name of stream, branch, river or waterway here.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation
Easement along with a general Right of Access.
The Conservation Easement Area consists of the following:
Tracts Number containing a total of acres as shown on the plats
of survey entitled "Final Plat, Conservation Easement for North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services, Project Name: , SPO File No. , EEP Site No. ,
Property of dated 20 by name of surveyor,
PLS Number and recorded in the County, North Carolina Register
of Deeds at Plat Book Pages
See attached "Exhibit A", Legal Description of area of the Property hereinafter referred to as the
"Conservation Easement Area"
The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, construct,
create and preserve wetland and/or riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area that
contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries,
aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the
Conservation Easement Area in its natural condition, consistent with these purposes; and to
prevent any use of the Easement Area that will significantly impair or interfere with these
purposes. To achieve these purposes, the following conditions and restrictions are set forth:
L DURATION OF EASEMENT
Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with, and be a continuing restriction upon the
use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor's heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 3of11

II. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
The Conservation Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that
would impair or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Unless expressly
reserved as a compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area
by the Grantor is prohibited as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement.
Any rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the Grantee.
Any rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor, including the rights to all mitigation
credits, including, but not limited to, stream, wetland, and riparian buffer mitigation units,
derived from each site within the area of the Conservation Easement, are conveyed to and belong
to the Grantee. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are
prohibited, restricted, or reserved as indicated:
A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped recreational
uses, including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the Conservation
Easement Area for the purposes thereof.
B. Motorized Vehicle Use. Motorized vehicle use in the Conservation Easement Area is
prohibited except within a Crossing Area(s) or Road or Trail as shown on the recorded survey
plat.
C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to
engage in educational uses in the Conservation Easement Area not inconsistent with this
Conservation Easement, and the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area for such
purposes including organized educational activities such as site visits and observations.
Educational uses of the property shall not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.
D. Damage to Vegetation. Except within Crossing Area(s) as shown on the recorded
survey plat and as related to the removal of non-native plants, diseased or damaged trees, or
vegetation that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Conservation Easement Area to persons or
natural habitat, all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation
in the Conservation Easement Area is prohibited.
E. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All industrial, residential and
commercial uses are prohibited in the Conservation Easement Area.
F. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses are prohibited within the Conservation Easement
Area including any use for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland.
G. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna, utility
pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Conservation Easement Area.
H. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction or maintenance of new roads, trails,
walkways, or paving in the Conservation Easement.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 4of11

All existing roads, trails and crossings within the Conservation Easement Area shall be shown on
the recorded survey plat.
L Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Conservation Easement Area except
interpretive signs describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the
Conservation Easement Area, signs identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the
Conservation Easement, signs giving directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the
use of the Conservation Easement Area.
J. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery, or any other material in the Conservation Easement
Area is prohibited.
K. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining, drilling, hydraulic fracturing; removal of topsoil, sand, gravel,
rock, peat, minerals, or other materials.
L. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging,
channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or permitting
the diversion of surface or underground water in the Conservation Easement Area. No altering
or tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored,
enhanced, or created drainage patterns is allowed. All removal of wetlands, polluting or
discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or
shortage of all other water sources, water from within the Conservation Easement Area may
temporarily be withdrawn for good cause shown as needed for the survival of livestock on the
Property.
M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no further subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the Conservation Easement Area portion of the Property owned by the
Grantor in fee simple ("fee") that is subject to this Conservation Easement is allowed. Any future
transfer of the Property shall be subject to this Conservation Easement and Right of Access and to the
Grantee's right of unlimited and repeated ingress and egress over and across the Property to the
Conservation Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein.
N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the
Conservation Easement Area and are non-transferrable.
O. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of
the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non-
native plants, trees and/or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.
The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement, and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the Division of Mitigation
Services, 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 5 of 11

III. GRANTEE RESERVED USES
A. Right of Access, Construction, and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents,
successors and assigns, receive a perpetual Right of Access to the Conservation Easement Area
over the Property at reasonable times to undertake any activities on the property to restore,
construct, manage, maintain, enhance, protect, and monitor the stream, wetland and any other
riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area, in accordance with restoration activities
or a long-term management plan. Unless otherwise specifically set forth in this Conservation
Easement, the rights granted herein do not include or establish for the public any access rights.
B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade, fill, and
prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and
manmade materials as needed to direct in -stream, above ground, and subterraneous water flow.
C. Signs. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following: describe
the project, prohibited activities within the Conservation Easement, or identify the project
boundaries and the holder of the Conservation Easement.
D. Fences. Conservation Easements are purchased to protect the investments by the State
(Grantee) in natural resources. Livestock within conservations easements damages the
investment and can result in reductions in natural resource value and mitigation credits which
would cause financial harm to the State. Therefore, Landowners (Grantor) with livestock are
required to restrict livestock access to the Conservation Easement area. Repeated failure to do so
may result in the State (Grantee) repairing or installing livestock exclusion devices (fences)
within the conservation area for the purpose of restricting livestock access. In such cases, the
landowner (Grantor) must provide access to the State (Grantee) to make repairs.
E. Crossing Area(s). The Grantee is not responsible for maintenance of crossing area(s),
however, the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, reserve the right to repair
crossing area(s), at its sole discretion and to recover the cost of such repairs from the Grantor if
such repairs are needed as a result of activities of the Grantor, his successors or assigns.
IV. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantee is
allowed to prevent any activity within the Conservation Easement Area that is inconsistent with
the purposes of this Conservation Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or
features in the Conservation Easement Area that may have been damaged by such unauthorized
activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, the
Grantee shall, except as provided below, notify the Grantor in writing of such breach and the
Grantor shall have ninety (90) days after receipt of such notice to correct the damage caused by
such breach. If the breach and damage remains uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may
enforce this Conservation Easement by bringing appropriate legal proceedings including an
action to recover damages, as well as injunctive and other relief. The Grantee shall also have the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 6 of 11

power and authority, consistent with its statutory authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the
Conservation Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful or in violation of this Conservation
Easement; (b) to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in the Property; or (c) to seek damages
from any appropriate person or entity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the
immediate right, without notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other
appropriate relief, if the breach is or would irreversibly or otherwise materially impair the
benefits to be derived from this Conservation Easement, and the Grantor and Grantee
acknowledge that the damage would be irreparable and remedies at law inadequate. The rights
and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all
other rights and remedies available to Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement.
B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have the
right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Conservation Easement Area over the Property at
reasonable times for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor is complying
with the terms, conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement.
C. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement
shall be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change
in the Conservation Easement Area caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the
Grantor's control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from
any prudent action taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent,
abate, or mitigate significant injury to life or damage to the Property resulting from such causes.
D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses, any costs
incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,
including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's acts or omissions
in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.
E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be invalid, the
remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.
B. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon
the Property. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly
provided herein. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the Property
are the sole responsibility of the Grantor. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 7of11

obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to
the exercise of the Reserved Rights.
C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the
parties at their addresses shown herein or to other addresses as either party establishes in writing
upon notification to the other.
D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to whom
the Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is made.
Grantor further agrees that any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument by which any
interest in the Property is conveyed is subject to the Conservation Easement herein created.
E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive
any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof.
F. This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in writing
signed by all parties hereto, or their successors or assigns, if such amendment does not affect the
qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any applicable
laws, and is consistent with the purposes of the Conservation Easement. The owner of the
Property shall notify the State Property Office and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in writing
sixty (60) days prior to the initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property or of any
request to void or modify this Conservation Easement. Such notifications and modification
requests shall be addressed to:
Division of Mitigation Services Program Manager
NC State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1321
and
General Counsel
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
G. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in
gross and assignable provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in
the event it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the
interest will be a qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the
Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the
transfer or assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in
perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 8 of 11

VI. QUIET ENJOYMENT
Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the Conservation
Easement Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor, and the Grantor's invitees and
licensees, the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area, and the right of quiet
enjoyment of the Conservation Easement Area,
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes,
AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said premises in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same is free from
encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all
persons whomsoever.
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 9of11

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year first above written.
(SEAL)
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
I, , a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that , Grantor, personally appeared
before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
day of , 20.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 10 of 11

Exhibit A
[INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION]
NCDMS Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 5 May 2017
Page 11 of 11

Appendix H
Credit Release Schedule
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058)
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC
November 2019

Table 3 — Schedule of Monitoring Events
Monitoring
Monitoring Activities Required
Event
Streams
Wetlands
Pre -Construction
• Water Quality (Section VII(A))
• Per Mitigation Plan
Macroinvertebrate & Fish (Section VII(B-C))*
Year 0
• As -built Survey (includes longitudinal profile and
• As -built Survey
(As -Built)
sampling point locations)
• Vegetation (Section V)
• Vegetation (Section V)
• Stream Channel Stability/Hydrology (Section VI)
• Wetland Hydrology (Section IX)
Year 1
Water Quality (Section VII(A))*
• Visual, two times (Section X)
• Visual, two times (Section X)
• Vegetation (Section V)
• Vegetation (Section V)
• Stream Channel Stability/Hydrology (Section VI)
• Wetland Hydrology (Section IX)
Year 2
Water Quality (Section VII(A))*
• Visual, two times (Section X)
• Visual, two times (Section X)
• Vegetation (Section V)
• Vegetation (Section V)
• Stream Channel Stability/Hydrology (Section VI)
• Wetland Hydrology (Section IX)
Year 3
• Water Quality (Section VII(A))*
• Visual, two times (Section X)
• Macroinvertebrate & Fish (Section VII(B-C))*
• Visual, two times (Section X)
Year 4
• Water Quality (Section VII(A)) *
• Visual (Section X)
Visual, two times (Section X)
• Wetland Hydrology (Section IX)
• Vegetation (Section V)
• Vegetation (Section V)
• Stream Channel Stability/Hydrology (Section VI)
• Wetland Hydrology (Section IX)
Year 5
• Water Quality (Section VII(A)) *
• Visual, two times (Section X)
• Macroinvertebrate & Fish (Section VII(B-C))
• Visual, two times (Section X)
• Water Quality (Section VII(A)) *
• Wetland Hydrology (Section IX)
Year 6
0 Visual, two times (Section X)
• Visual, two times (Section X)
• Vegetation (Section V)
• Vegetation (Section V)
• Stream Channel Stability/Hydrology (Section VI)
• Wetland Hydrology (Section IX)
Year 7
• Water Quality (Section VII(A)) *
• Visual, two times (Section X)
• Macroinvertebrate & Fish (Section VII(B-C))
• Visual, two times (Section X)
*Indicates optional monitoring activities
XIV. Credit Release Schedules
The standard release schedule for mitigation bank and ILF credits generated through stream and wetland
mitigation projects has been modified to meet the new standards for the monitoring timeframes provided
in this guidance document. For mitigation banks, the first credit release (15% of the bank's total stream
restoration and/or enhancement credits) will occur upon establishment of the mitigation bank, and upon
completion following criteria:
1) Execution of the MBI or UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE
2) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
28

3) The mitigation bank site must be secured
4) Delivery of the financial assurances described in the Mitigation Plan
5) Recordation of the long-term protection mechanism and title opinion acceptable to the USACE
6) Issuance of the 404 permit verification for construction of the site, if required.
For mitigation sites that include preservation -only credits, 100% of the preservation credits will be
released with the completion of the six criteria stated above.
For ILF sites (including all NCDMS projects), no initial release of credits (Milestone 1) is provided because
ILF programs utilized advance credits, so no initial release is necessary to help fund site construction. To
account for this, the 15% credit release associated with the first milestone (bank establishment) is held
until the second milestone, so that the total credits release at the second milestone is 30%. In order for
NCDMS to receive the 30% release (shown in the schedules as Milestone 2), they must comply with the
credit release requirements stated in Section IV(I)(3) of the approved NCDMS Instrument.
The following conditions apply to the credit release schedules:
A. A reserve of 10% of a site's total stream credits will be released after four bankfull events
have occurred, in separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance
standards are met. In the event that less than four bankfull events occur during the
monitoring period, release of these reserve credits is at the discretion of the NCIRT.
B. For mitigation banks, implementation of the approved Mitigation Plan must be initiated no
later than the first full growing season after the date of the first credit transaction (credit sale).
C. After the second milestone, the credit releases are scheduled to occur on an annual basis,
assuming that the annual monitoring report has been provided to the USACE in accordance
with Section IV (General Monitoring Requirements) of this document, and that the monitoring
report demonstrates that interim performance standards are being met and that no other
concerns have been identified on -site during the visual monitoring. All credit releases require
written approval from the USACE.
D. The credits associated with the final credit release milestone will be released only upon a
determination by the USACE, in consultation with the NCIRT, of functional success as defined
in the Mitigation Plan.
29

The schedules below list the updated credit release schedules for stream and wetland mitigation projects
developed by bank and ILF sites in North Carolina:
Credit Release Schedule and Milestones for Wetlands
Credit
Banks
ILF/NCDMS
Release
Release Activity
Interim
Total
Interim
Total
Milestone
Release
Released
Release
Released
Site Establishment (includes all required criteria
1
15%
15%
0%
0%
stated above)
Completion of all initial physical and biological
2
improvements made pursuant to the Mitigation
15%
30%
30%
30%
Plan
Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that
3
10%
40%
10%
40%
interim performance standards have been met
Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that
4
°
10 /°
°
50 /°
°
10 /°
°
50/°
interim performance standards have been met
Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that
5
15%
65%
15%
65%
interim performance standards have been met
Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that
6
interim performance standards have been met
5%
70%
5%
70%
Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that
7
°
15 /°
°
85 /°
°
15 /°
°
85/°
interim performance standards have been met
Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that
8
°
5 /°
°
90 /°
°
5 /°
°
90/°
interim performance standards have been met
Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that
9
10%
100%
10%
100%
performance standards have been met
*Please note that vegetation plot data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during
these monitoring years unless otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the NCIRT.

Credit Release Schedule and Milestones for Streams
Credit
Banks
ILF/NCDMS
Release
Release Activity
Interim
Total
Interim
Total
Milestone
Release
Released
Release
Released
Site Establishment (includes all required criteria
1
15%
15%
0%
0%
stated above)
Completion of all initial physical and biological
2
improvements made pursuant to the Mitigation
15%
30%
30%
30%
Plan
Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that
3
channels are stable and interim performance
10%
40%
10%
40%
standards have been met
Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that
4
channels are stable and interim performance
10%
50%
10%
50%
standards have been met
Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that
5
channels are stable and interim performance
10%
60%
10%
60%
standards have been met
Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that
6`
channels are stable and interim performance
5%
5%
(75%--)
(75%-)
standards have been met
Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that
7
channels are stable and interim performance
10%
10%
(85%--)
(85%--)
standards have been met
Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that
8'
channels are stable and interim performance
5%
o
.)
5%
o
(90%
(90%-)
standards have been met
Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that
9
channels are stable, performance standards
10%
--)
10%
--)
(100%
(100%
have been met
*Please note that vegetation data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these monitoring
years unless otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the NORT.
**10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
31

Appendix I
Maintenance Plan
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058)
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC
November 2019

Maintenance Plan
The Site shall be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site shall be conducted a
minimum of once per year throughout the post -construction monitoring period until performance
standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine
maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site
construction and may include the following:
Component/Feature
Maintenance through project close-out
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include securing of loose
coir matting and supplemental installations of live stakes and other target
Stream
vegetation along the channel. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows
intercept the channel may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and
head -cutting.
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted
plant community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may
include supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive
Vegetation
plant species shall be controlled by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any
vegetation control requiring herbicide application will be performed in
accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
Beaver and associated dams are to be removed as they colonize and until the
Beaver
project is closed.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between
the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by
Site Boundary
fence, marker, bollard, post, tree- blazing, or other means as allowed by site
conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed,
damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as needed basis.
Road crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by
Road Crossing
Conservation Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or
corridor agreements.
Terracell Drop
Routine maintenance and repair activities may include removal of debris and
supplemental installation of live stakes and other target vegetation along the
Structure
channel. Undermining of the structure may require repair or replacement.

Appendix J
Site Photographs
Mitigation Plan (Project No. 100058)
Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC
November 2019

+w��� iaarxr
r�
a
r
5
Ti
z� , -
T
ti
t �

s }�

r I
40
JF
. tv
.14