20180795 Ver 1_Slingshot_100058_MY4_2023_20240205

FINAL
MONITORING REPORT (MY4)

SLINGSHOT 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
DWR Project No. 20180795

Cape Fear River Basin Cataloging Unit 03030002

Data Collection: January - November 2023
Submission: February 2024

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 St. Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone]
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492
Response to DMS Comments Monitoring Year 4 (2023)
Slingshot Mitigation Site
Cape Fear River Basin – CU# 03030002 – Rockingham County
DMS Project ID No. 100058
Full Delivery Contract No. 7525
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01170
RFP No. 16-007330
DWR Project No. 20180795

Comments Received (Black Text) & Responses (Blue Text)

Report
1. Table 10 – please indicate with an additional column which reach or reaches are referenced foreach bankfull
event described. For example, it is unclear if only Slingshot Creek had a bankfull event or if UT-1 did as well
for the October 1, 2022 event.
Response: A column was added to the table indicating on which reach(es) each bankfull event was
documented.

2. Table 11 – recommend color coding each cell either red or green to indicate whether the gauge met success
or not. This makes it much easier to quickly assess trends for the gauges over the life of the project (see
Alliance Headwaters report as an example).
Response: The table was color coded to indicate whether gauges met success criteria.

3. During the site visit, an old fence in disrepair was observed near the UT-4 confluence with Slingshot Creek.
The fence is not recorded on the plat as a feature to be removed. The IRT and/or DEQ Stewardship may still
require removal of the fence.
Response: Understood. RS will investigate and attempt to remove the fence by hand in Spring 2024.

Digital
1. Please submit missing summary tables 10 and 11 included in the PDF report document along with photos if
any dedicated photo points were established in the Mitigation Plan.
Response: Tables 10 and 11 were added to the hydrology folder in the digital submittal. No photo points
were established in the mitigation plan, however beginning during MY3, the IRT requested photo points at
Site crossings. These photos were added to the digital submittal.

MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Monitoring Summary
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024
Slingshot Year 4, 2023 Monitoring Summary
General Notes
• No encroachment was identified in Year 4
• No evidence of nuisance animal activity (i.e., beaver, heavy deer browsing, etc.) was observed.

Streams
• Stream measurements were not performed in year 4 (2023), in accordance with the monitoring
schedule.
• A visual assessment indicates that across the Site, all in-stream structures are intact and
functioning as designed. Channel geometry compares favorably with the proposed conditions
outlined in the Detailed Restoration Plan and as constructed. No stream areas of concern were
identified during year 4 (2023) visual monitoring. Tables for year 3 (2022) data and annual
quantitative assessments are included in Appendix C.
• One bankfull event was documented in 2023 for a total of seven total events through four years
of monitoring (Appendix D.)

Summary of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data by Year
Sampling
Station
Preconstruction Year 3 (2022) Year 5 (2024) Year 7 (2026)
# EPT
Taxa
Biotic
Index
# EPT
Taxa
Biotic
Index
# EPT
Taxa
Biotic
Index
# EPT
Taxa
Biotic
Index
Slingshot Creek 4 6.96 2 6.32
UT-1 1 6.25 1 5.55

Wetlands
• Nine of the eleven groundwater gauges met success criteria for the year 4 (2023) monitoring
period. Groundwater gauge data are in Appendix D.

Gauge Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Year 1 (2020) Year 2 (2021) Year 3 (2022) Year 4 (2023)
1 Yes 26 days (11.4%) Yes 62 days (24.5%) No 12 days (4.7%) No 5 days (2%)
2 Yes 61 days (26.8%) Yes 253 days (100%) Yes 98 days (38.7%) Yes 72 days (28.4%)
3 Yes 187 days (82.0%) Yes 123 days (48.6%) Yes 79 days (31.2%) Yes 70 days (27.6%)
4 Yes 187 days (82.0%) Yes 178 days (70.4%) Yes 101 days (39.9%) Yes 78 days (30.8%)
5 Yes 100 days (43.9%) Yes 123 days (48.6%) Yes 207 days (81.8%) Yes 143 days (56.5%)
6 Yes 127 days (55.7%) Yes 143 days (56.5%) Yes 246 days (97.2%) Yes 253 days (100%)
7 Yes 83 days (36.4%) Yes 210 days (83.0%) Yes 246 (97.2%) Yes 253 days (100%)
8 Yes 29 days (12.7%) Yes 71 days (28.0%) Yes 33 days (13.0%) No 4 days (1.6%)
9 Yes 73 days (32.0%) Yes 109 days (43.1%) Yes 45 days (17.8%) Yes 34 days (13.4%)
10** No 4 days (1.8%) No 5 days (2.0%) No 3 days (1.2%) NA
10A** NA NA NA Yes 149 days (58.9%)
11* Yes 46 days (20.2%) Yes 151 days (59.7%) Yes 116 days (45.8%) Yes 148 days (58.5%)
*Gauge 11 was installed in an area not previously identified for wetland reestablishment but appeared to be exhibiting wetland
characteristics post-construction. During 2021 monitoring, the additional wetlands surrounding gauge 11 were delineated,
resulting in approximately 0.52 acres of wetlands on-site that were not previously accounted for.
**At the request of the IRT, gauge 10 was moved into the wetland rehabilitation area downstream from its original
location and was relabeled gauge 10A during MY4 (2023).
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Monitoring Summary
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024

Vegetation
• In accordance with the monitoring schedule, vegetation plot monitoring was not performed during
year 4 (2023). Visual assessments of trees planted during the 2022/2023 dormant season indicate
they are vigorous and doing well.

• Two invasive species treatments were performed during the 2023 growing season. Target species
include Kudzu, Chinese Privet, Russian Olive, and Multiflora rose. All target species are scattered
sitewide. Kudzu exists on the site as small patches of resprouts from previous treatments. Kudzu
treatments began one (1) year prior to construction and have continued through the current
calendar year. Multiple herbicides including Roundup, Triclopyr 3, Transline, and Milestone were
used in controlling the plant. Invasive species management will continue throughout all monitoring
years. Photo documentation of Kudzu management is not provided due to the scattered instances
of the plant.

Site Permitting/Monitoring Activity and Reporting History
Activity or Deliverable Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Technical Proposal (RFP No. 16-007330) February 2, 2018 February 8, 2018
Institution Date (NCDMS Contract No. 100058) -- April 24, 2018
Mitigation Plan September 2018 June 2019
Construction Plans -- November 18, 2019
404 Permit -- January 2, 2020
Site Construction Final Walkthrough -- April 30, 2020
Planting -- April 30, 2020
As-built Baseline Monitoring (MY0) May 2020 August 2020
Annual Monitoring (MY1) November 2020 January 2021
Annual Monitoring (MY2) October 2021 January 2022
Annual Monitoring (MY3) November 2022 December 2022
Annual Monitoring (MY4) November 2023 February 2024

Site Maintenance Report (2023)
Invasive Species Work Maintenance work
05/18/2023: Kudzu, Chinese Privet, Russian Olive,
Multiflora rose (Scattered treatment sitewide)

9/11/23
Kudzu, Chinese Privet, Russian Olive, Multiflora rose
(Scattered treatment sitewide)
9/22/23
Old fence within the easement removal (additional
fencing to-be removed in Spring 2024)

FINAL
MONITORING REPORT (MY4)

SLINGSHOT 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
DWR Project No. 20180795

Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030002

Data Collection: January - November 2023
Submission: February 2024

Prepared for:

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652

Prepared by:

And

Restoration Systems, LLC Axiom Environmental, Inc.
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211 218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Contact: Worth Creech Contact: Grant Lewis
919-755-9490 (phone) 919-215-1693 (phone)
919-755-9492 (fax)

MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Table of Contents page i
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Goals & Objectives ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Background ......................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Project Components and Structure ................................................................................................ 4
1.4 Success Criteria ............................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 METHODS ....................................................................................................................................5
2.1 Monitoring ...................................................................................................................................... 5
3.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................9

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Background Map and Tables
Figure 1. Project Location
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation
Units
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting
History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes Table

Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A-5C. Visual Stream Morphology
Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment

Appendix C. Year 3 (2022) Stream Geomorphology
Data
Tables 7A-D. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 8A-D. Monitoring Data-Dimensional
Morphology Summary (Dimensional
Parameters-Cross-sections)
Tables 9A-D. Monitoring Data-Stream Reach
Data Summary

Appendix D. Hydrology Data
Table 10. Verification of Bankfull Events
Stream Crest Gauge Graphs
Table 11. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Soil Temperature Graph
Figure D1. 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
Groundwater Gauge Graphs

Appendix E. Site Photo Log

MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) page 1
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, LLC has established the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Slingshot Mitigation Site (Site).

1.1 Project Goals & Objectives
Project goals were based on the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report (NCEEP 2009)
and on-site preconstruction data collection of channel morphology and function observed during field
investigations. The Site is located within Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03030002010010. 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 addressed priorities associated with the LWP and 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 restored/enhanced/preserved, 1.71 acres of wetland restored/enhanced,
and 11.6. acres of riparian buffer restored/enhanced).
2. Achieve a net increase in riparian zone buffers and wetlands acreage, functions, and values (11.6
acres of riparian buffer were restored/enhanced, and wetland acreage was increased by 1.02
acres).
3. Promote a comprehensive approach for the protection of natural resources (protected 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 reducing stressors to water quality. Stressors and how each was addressed by project activities
are as follows.

1. Nutrient Inputs – (livestock were removed from streams resulting 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;
eliminated fertilizer applications; and installed marsh treatment areas).
2. Streambank Erosion – (reduction of 220 tons of sediment per year).
3. Stormwater – (reduced bank height ratios and installed marsh treatment area to reduce
stormwater pulses).
4. Disturbed Riparian Buffer – (restored/enhanced 11.6 acres of riparian buffer along 4115 linear
feet of stream).
5. Floodplain Alteration – (eliminated straightened, entrenched streams and removed spoil material
deposited in the floodplain).

Site-specific mitigation goals and objectives were developed through the use of North Carolina Stream
Assessment Method (NC SAM) and North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) analyses of
preconstruction and reference stream systems at the Site (NC SFAT 2015 and NC WFAT 2010) (see table
below).

MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) page 2
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024
Stream/Wetland Targeted Functions, Goals, and Objectives
Targeted Functions Goals Objectives Compatibility of Success Criteria
(1) HYDROLOGY
(2) Flood Flow
(Floodplain Access)
• Attenuate flood flow
across the Site.
• Minimize
downstream flooding
to the maximum
extent possible.
• Connect streams to
functioning wetland
systems.
• 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 riparian buffers with a
perpetual conservation
easement
• 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
(3) Streamside
Area Attenuation
(4) Floodplain
Access
(4) Wooded
Riparian Buffer
(3) Stream Stability
• Increase stream
stability within the
Site so that channels
are neither aggrading
nor degrading.
• Construct channels with proper
pattern, dimension, and
longitudinal profile
• Remove livestock
• Construct stable channels with
cobble/gravel substrate
• Plant woody riparian buffer
• 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
(4) Sediment
Transport
(4) Stream
Geomorphology
(1) WATER QUALITY
(2) Streamside Area
Vegetation
• Remove direct
nutrient and
pollutant inputs from
the Site and reduce
contributions to
downstream waters.
• Remove livestock and reduce
agricultural land/inputs
• Install marsh treatment areas,
where necessary
• Plant woody riparian buffer
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional
wetlands adjacent to Site
streams
• Livestock excluded from the
easement
• Attain Wetland Hydrology Success
Criteria
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
(3) Upland
Pollutant Filtration
(2) Indicators of
Stressors
Wetland Particulate
Change

MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) page 3
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024
Stream/Wetland Targeted Functions, Goals, and Objectives (Continued)
Targeted Functions Goals Objectives Compatibility of Success Criteria
(1) HABITAT
(2) In-stream Habitat
• Improve instream
and streamside
habitat.
• Construct stable channels with
cobble/gravel substrate
• Add large woody debris in the
form of log vane structures
• Plant permanent seed mixtures
along banks to add rooting
material and leafy vegetation for
macroinvertebrates
• Plant woody riparian buffer to
provide organic matter and
shade
• Protect riparian buffers with a
perpetual conservation
easement
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional
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
(3) Substrate
(3) In-Stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side
Habitat
(3) Stream-side
Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
Wetland Physical
Structure
Wetland Landscape
Patch Structure
Wetland Vegetation
Composition

1.2 Project Background
The Slingshot 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, east of Lake Hunt, and north NC Highway 158 in Rockingham
County (Figure 1, Appendix A).

Before construction, Site land use consisted of livestock pasture, hayfields, and disturbed forest. Livestock
had unrestricted access to Site streams. A narrow riparian fringe had developed on the stream margins
that was composed of opportunistic species, invasive species, and a few mature tree species.
Approximately 55 percent of the stream channel was degraded, contributing to sediment export from the
Site resulting from mechanical processes from livestock hoof shear. In addition, streamside wetlands were
cleared and drained by channel downcutting, and land uses. Preconstruction Site conditions 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 restored riffle-pool morphology, aided in
energy dissipation, increased aquatic habitat, stabilized channel banks, and greatly reduced sediment loss
from channel banks.

MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) page 4
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024
1.3 Project Components and Structure
Proposed Site restoration activities generated 3185 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 1.321 Riparian
Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs) as the result of the following.

• 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
• 0.606 acre of riparian wetland enhancement

Additional activities that occurred at the Site included the following.
• Planting 12.05 acres of the Site with 10,950 stems (planted species are included in Table 5
[Appendix C]).

Deviations from the construction plans included removing the left vane arm from the structure at station
05+63 on Slingshot Creek and removing the three log cross-vanes between station 03+00 and 04+00 on
UT1 due to bedrock presence. No other deviations of significance occurred between construction plans
and the as-built condition. In addition, no issues have arisen since construction occurred.

Site design was completed in November 2019. Construction started on March 13, 2020, and ended within
a final walkthrough on April 30, 2020. The Site was also planted on April 30, 2020. Completed project
activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts, and background information are
summarized in Tables 1-4 (Appendix A).

1.4 Success Criteria
Project success criteria have been established per the October 24, 2016, NC Interagency Review Team
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Monitoring and success
criteria relate to project goals and objectives. 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
table summarizes Site success criteria.

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
the 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 years 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.
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) page 5
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024

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.

2.0 METHODS
Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc. Annual monitoring reports of the data
collected will be submitted to the NCDMS by Restoration Systems no later than December 31 of each
monitoring year data is collected. The monitoring schedule is summarized in the following table.

Monitoring Schedule
Resource Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Streams X X X X X
Wetlands X X X X X X X
Vegetation X X X X X
Macroinvertebrates X X X
Visual Assessment* X X X X X X X
Report Submittal X X X X X X X
*Visual Assessment will be complimented by permanent photographic points located at each permanent cross
section and vegetation plot.

2.1 Monitoring
The monitoring parameters are summarized in the following table.
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) page 6
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024
Monitoring Summary
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 restored
channels Graphic and tabular data.
Channel Stability
Visual Assessments Yearly All restored stream channels
Areas of concern will be depicted on a plan view
figure with a written assessment and photograph of
the area included in the report.
Additional Cross-sections Yearly Only if instability is documented during
monitoring Graphic and tabular data.
Stream Hydrology Continuous monitoring surface water
gauges and/or trail camera
Continuous recording through monitoring
period
Stream flow regime is not in question.
However, surface water gauges and/or
cameras will be used to document
bankfull events.
NA
Bankfull Events
Continuous monitoring surface water
gauges and/or trail camera
Continuous recording through monitoring
period
Surface water gauge on Slingshot
Creek and UT 1 Surface water data for each monitoring period
Visual/Physical Evidence Continuous through monitoring period All restored stream channels Visual evidence, photo documentation, and/or rain
data.
Benthic
Macroinvertebrates
“Qual 4” method described in
Standard Operating Procedures for
Collection and Analysis of Benthic
Macroinvertebrates, Version 5.0
(NCDWR 2016)
Preconstruction, Years 3, 5, and 7 during the
“index period” referenced in Small Streams
Biocriteria Development (NCDWQ 2009)
2 stations (one at the lower end of UT1
and one at the lower end of Slingshot
Creek)
Results* will be presented on a site-by-site basis
and will include a list of taxa collected, an
enumeration of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Tricopetera taxa as well as Biotic Index values.
Wetland Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
Wetland Restoration Groundwater gauges
Years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 throughout the
year with the growing season defined as
March 26-November 8
11 gauges spread throughout
restored/enhanced wetlands
Soil temperature at the beginning of each
monitoring period to verify the start of the growing
season, groundwater and rain data for each
monitoring period
Vegetation Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
Vegetation
establishment and vigor
Permanent vegetation plots 0.0247
acre (100 square meters) in size; CVS-
EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al.
2008)
As-built, Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 10 plots spread across the Site Species, height, planted vs. volunteer, stems/acre
Annual random vegetation plots,
0.0247 acre (100 square meters) in
size
As-built, Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 2 plots randomly selected each year Species and height
*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

MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) page 7
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024
Stream Summary
All streams are functioning as designed, and no stream areas of concern were observed during year 4
(2023) monitoring. Stream morphology data is available in Appendix C. One bankfull event was
documented in 2023 for a total of seven total events through four years of monitoring (Appendix D.)

In accordance with the monitoring schedule, benthic macroinvertebrate sampling did not occur during
year 4 (2023). Sampling will occur during Year 5 (2024). Below is a summary of Benthic sampling results
to date.

Summary of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data by Year
Sampling
Station
Preconstruction Year 3 (2022) Year 5 (2024) Year 7 (2026)
# EPT
Taxa
Biotic
Index
# EPT
Taxa
Biotic
Index
# EPT
Taxa
Biotic
Index
# EPT
Taxa
Biotic
Index
Slingshot Creek 4 6.96 2 6.32
UT-1 1 6.25 1 5.55

Wetland Summary
Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
Year Soil Temperatures/Date Bud
Burst Documented
Monitoring Period Used for
Determining Success
10 Percent of
Monitoring Period
2020 (Year 1) March 26, 2020* March 26-November 8
(228 days) 23 days
2021 (Year 2) March 1, 2021** March 1-November 8
(253 days) 25 Days
2022 (Year 3) March 1, 2022% March 1-November 8
(253 days) 25 Days
2023 (Year 4) March 1, 2023$ March 1-November 8
(253 days) 25 Days
* NRCS growing season used for MY1 (2020) since gauges and soil temperature logger were not installed until May
6, 2020.
** Growing season start date confirmed with soil temperature reading of 47.83°F on March 1, 2021 and dropping
no lower than 41.96°F thereafter.
% Growing season start date confirmed with documented bud burst and soil temperature reading of 43.66°F on
March 1, 2022 and dropping no lower than that thereafter.
$ Growing season start date confirmed with documented bud burst and soil temperature reading of 48.83°F on
March 1, 2023 and dropping no lower than 41.57°F thereafter (Appendix D). Since March 1 has been the
documented growing season start date for 3 out of the 4 monitoring years and based on the IRT request to
standardize the growing season, March 1 to November 8 will be the growing season for the remainder of the
monitoring period.

Nine of the eleven groundwater gauges met success criteria for the year 4 (2023) monitoring period
(Appendix D). Below normal rainfall before the start of the growing season and a dry fall season with no
tropical rain events contributed to two gauges not meeting success (Figure D1, Appendix D). Gauge 1 met
success criteria during years 1 and 2, it did not meet success during years 3 and 4; the logger will be sent

MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) page 8
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024
to manufacturer for assessment will be replaced prior to the start of the 2024 MY5 monitoring. Gauge 8
has historically met success criteria. The landscape position, soils, and vegetation adjacent this gauge are
indicative of a headwater forest, there are no concerns currently for the gauge to be successful during
subsequent monitoring years, assuming normal rainfall amounts.

Vegetation Summary
During quantitative vegetation sampling, 10 sample plots (10-meter by 10-meter) were installed within
the Site as per guidelines established in CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al.
2008). In accordance with the monitoring schedule, vegetation plot monitoring was not performed in year
4 (2023). A visual assessment indicates that Site vegetation is vigorous.

Per IRT conversations during the MY2 IRT Site visit on July 26, 2022, 50 three-gallon containerized trees
were supplementally planted along the abandoned haul road, which occupies elevated areas along the
margins of the conservation easement between vegetation plot 7 and vegetation plot 9. The area of
replant is shown on Figure 2 (Appendix B). The table below summarizes planted species. The trees were
vigorous throughout the growing season and remained vibrant throughout the fall drought. Visual
assessments during the 2023 growing indicate the supplementally planted trees are vigorous.

2022-23 Planted 3-Gallon Species
Species Count Mitigation Plan
Approved
Wetland Indicator
Status
Black Cherry (Prunus serotina) 10 Yes FACU
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) 10 Yes FAC
Redbud (Cercis canadensis) 10 Yes UPL
Water oak (Quercus nigra) 10 Yes FAC
Willow oak (Quercus phellos) 10 Yes FACW
Total = 50

MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) page 9
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024
3.0 REFERENCES

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). 2014. Stream and Wetland Mitigation Monitoring
Guidelines. 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://deq.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). 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for Collection
and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates (Version 5.0). (online). Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Environmental%20Sciences/BAU/NCDWRMacroin
vertebrate-SOP-February%202016_final.pdf

North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2009. Small Streams Biocriteria Development.
Available:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=2d54ad23-0345-4d6e-82fd-
04005f48eaa7&groupId=38364

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2009 (online). Available:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=864e82e8-725c-415e-8ed9-
c72dfcb55012&groupId=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.

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 Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1992. Soil Survey of Rockingham County, NC. United
States Department of Agriculture.

MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024
Appendix A
Background Map and Tables

Figure 1. Project Location
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Units
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes Table

Copyright:© 20 13 Natio nal Ge ographic Soc ie ty, i-cub ed
FIGURE
Dra wn by :
Dat e:
Sca le:
Pro jec t N o.:
KRJ
DEC 2018
1:20,000
18-013
Tit le:
Pro jec t:
Pre pa red for :
Rockingham County, NC
SL INGSHOT CREEKSTREAM ANDWETLANDMITIGATION SITE
SITE LOCATION
1
³
Copyright:© 20 13 Natio nal Ge ographicSociety, i-c ubed
Copyright:© 20 13 Natio nal Ge ographicSociety, i-c ubed
Directions to the Site from Raleigh:- From Raleigh travel west on I-40 for ~ 45 miles- Take Exit 148 onto NC-54W toward Graham/Chapel Hilll 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 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- Latitude: 36.334687° N, Longitude: 79.711665° W
USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (Reidsville, NC Quad)
Reidsville
¬«87
£¤158
£¤29
Ir o n W o r k s R o a d
H
a
r
b
o
r
R
o
a
d
£¤158
£¤158
£¤29

MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Slingshot Creek Restoration Site
Project Segment
Stream
Stationing/
Wetland Type
Existing
Footage/
Acreage
Mitigation Plan
Footage/
Acreage
Restoration Level Mitigation
Ratio
Restoration
Footage/
Acreage
Comment
Slingshot Creek-
Reach 1 00+00 to 03+05 305 305 Preservation 10:1 305
Slingshot Creek-
Reach 2 03+05 to 04+59 154 154 Enhancement (Level II) 2.5:1 154
Slingshot Creek-
Reach 3 04+59 to 05+78 156 119 Restoration (Priority I) 1:1 124
Slingshot Creek-
Reach 4 05+78 to 07+17 139 139 Enhancement (Level I) 1.5:1 143
Slingshot Creek-
Reach 5 07+17 to 27+77 2069 2060-50-51-25=
1934 Restoration (Priority I) 1:1 1970
126 lf of Slingshot Creek is located
outside of the conservation
easement and therefore is not
generating credit
Slingshot Creek-
Reach 6 27+77 to 28+74 97 97 Enhancement (Level II) 2.5:1 97
UT 1A 00+00 to 01+95 195 195 Enhancement (Level II) 2.5:1 195
UT 1B 01+95 to 06+95 500 500-52=
448 Enhancement (Level I) 1.5:1 475
52 lf of the UT1 is located outside
of the conservation easement and
therefore is not generating credit
UT 1C 06+95 to 09+70 273 275 Restoration (Priority I) 1:1 270
UT 2 00+04 to 01+78 130 173 Restoration (Priority I) 1:1 169
UT 3 00+00 to 01+89 189 189 Enhancement (Level II) 2.5:1 189
UT 4 00+00 to 00+86 86 86 Preservation 10:1 86
Wetland
Restoration -- -- 1.018 Restoration 1:1 1.018
Wetland
Enhancement -- 0.69 0.606 Enhancement 2:1 0.606

MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits (continued)
Slingshot Creek Restoration Site
Restoration Level Stream Riparian Wetland Non-Rip Coastal
Warm Cool Cold Riverine Non-Riv Wetland Marsh
Restoration 2501.000* 1.018
Re-establishment
Rehabilitation
Enhancement 0.303
Enhancement I 391.333**
Enhancement II 254.000
Creation
Preservation 39.100
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 Delivery
Technical Proposal (RFP No. 16-007330) February 2, 2018 February 8, 2018
Institution Date (NCDMS Contract No. 100058) -- April 24, 2018
Mitigation Plan September 2018 June 2019
Construction Plans -- November 18, 2019
404 Permit -- January 2, 2020
Site Construction Final Walkthrough -- April 30, 2020
Planting -- April 30, 2020
As-built Baseline Monitoring (MY0) May 2020 August 2020
Annual Monitoring (MY1) November 2020 December 2020
Annual Monitoring (MY2) October 2021 January 2022
Annual Monitoring (MY3) November 2022 December 2022
Annual Monitoring (MY4) November 2023 February 2024

MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Slingshot Creek Restoration Site
Full Delivery Provider
Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Raymond Holz - 919-755-9490
Designer & Monitoring Provider
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) 36.334687ºN, 79.711665ºW
Planted Area (acres) 9.3
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
Project River Basin Cape Fear
USGS HUC for Project (14-digit) 03030002010010
NCDWR 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

MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024
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
(Rosgen 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) III/IV I/III/IV III/IV II/III II/III
Underlying Mapped Soils Clifford sandy clay loam, Codorus loam, Davie sandy loam, Fairview-Poplar complex, Nathalie 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
Hydric Soil Status Nonhydric, nonhydric, nonhydric, nonhydric, nonhydric, nonhydric, nonhydric, respectively
Valley Slope 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% agricultural 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%

MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024
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 Riparian riverine
Mapped Soil Series Worsham
Drainage Class Poorly drained
Hydric Soil Status Hydric
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 (App D, Mitigation Plan)
Waters of the United States-Section 404 Yes Yes JD Package (App D, Mitigation Plan)
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes CE Document (App E, Mitigation Plan)
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes CE Document (App E, Mitigation Plan)
Coastal Zone Management Act No -- NA
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No -- CE Document (App E, Mitigation Plan)
Essential Fisheries Habitat No -- NA
*included in the Detailed Mitigation Plan

MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024
Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A-5C. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment

#*
#*
^_
!.
!.
PP -5 /6
PP-1/2
PP -3 /4
PP-7/8
1
6
5
4
3
2
2
3
7
4
8
9
5
1
6
10
X
S
-
8
XS-3
X
S
-
2
XS-4
XS-1
XS-4
XS-2
XS-2
XS-1
5
7
9
6
4
3
2
11
10A
8
1
XS-5
XS-6
XS-7
XS-3
X
S
-
1
FIGU R E
Dra wn b y:
Da te:
Sca le :
Pro jec t N o.:
KRJ
NO V 2023
1:2000
18-013
Pre pa red fo r:
CUR RE NTCONDITIONSPLAN VIEW
2
³
0 500 1,00 0250Feet
Tit le:
Pro jec t:
R oc ki ng h am C o u nty, N C
SL ING SHO T CREE KSTREAM ANDWETLANDMITIGATION S IT E
U T-1
U
T-2
Leg en d
Sli ngshot Cr eek E asement = 11.6 ac
Str eam Rest or ati on
Str eam Enhan ce ment (Level I)
Str eam Enhan ce ment (Level II )
Str eam Pr eser vati on
No C red it - Cr ossing
Wetl and Reesta blishm ent
Wetl and Rehabi lit ati on
Addit ional S it e We tla nd R eestabl ishm ent (0.52 acres) - D eli neated 2021
CVS Pl ots Meet ing Success C ri ter ia I n M Y3
25m x 4m Veg etat ion Transect s M eet ing Success C ri ter ia In MY 3
Cro ss-Sect ions
Gr oundwat er Gaug es M eeti ng S uccess Cr it eri a I n MY4
Gr oundwat er Gaug es Not M eet ing Success C ri ter ia In M Y4
#*Cre st Gauge
^_Rain Gaug e/ Soil Temp erat ure Logger
!.Benthi c S ampl ing Sta tio ns
Culver t Phot o P oint U pstr eam/Dow nstr eam
2022/2023 3-Gal lon Plant ing Ar ea: 0.4 7 Acr e
UT-3
UT-4
SlingshotCreek
Per I RT r eque st , ga uge 10
was m ove d in to t he
downs tr ea m wet land
reh abilit at ion ar ea and
was re la beled ga uge 1 0A.
Table 5A Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Slingshot Creek
Assessed Length 2920
1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 48 48 100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition 1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)49 49 100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)49 49 100%
4.Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)49 49 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)49 49 100%
2. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion 0 0 100%100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.
0 0 100%100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%100%
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Engineered
Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.20 20 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 20 20 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.20 20 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 20 20 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.20 20 100%
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Totals
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-built
Table 5B Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Slingshot UT-1
Assessed Length 968
1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 19 19 100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition 1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)19 19 100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)19 19 100%
4.Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)19 19 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)19 19 100%
2. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion 0 0 100%100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.
0 0 100%100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%100%
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Engineered
Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.10 10 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 10 10 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.10 10 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 10 10 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.10 10 100%
Totals
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Table 5C Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Slingshot UT-2
Assessed Length 130
1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 6 6 100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition 1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)5 5 100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)5 5 100%
4.Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)5 5 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)5 5 100%
2. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion 0 0 100%100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.
0 0 100%100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%100%
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Engineered
Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.1 1 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 1 1 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.1 1 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 1 1 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.1 1 100%
Totals
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Slingshot
Planted Acreage1 9.3
1. Bare Areas None 0.1 acres none 0 0.00 0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas None 0.1 acres none 0 0.00 0.0%
2B. Low Planted Stem Density Areas None 0.1 acres none 0 0.00 0.0%
0 0.00 0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor None 0.25 acres none 0 0.00 0.0%
0 0.00 0.0%
Easement Acreage2 11.6
4. Invasive Areas of Concern4 None 1000 SF none 0 0.00 0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas3 None none none 0 0.00 0.0%
% of
Planted
Acreage
Total
Cumulative Total
Vegetation Category Definitions
Number of
Polygons
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Combined
Acreage
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
AcreageVegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment,
the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are
those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes
that are slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can be
mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration of
risk factors by DMS such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will
warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of treating
extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular interest given
their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons. The symbology
scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In any case, the
point or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary.

MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024
Appendix C
Year 3 (2022) Stream Geomorphology Data

Tables 7A-7D. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 8A-8D. Monitoring Data-Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters-Cross-
sections)
Tables 9A-9D. Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Parameter Gauge2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft)8.7 11.7 15.8 6.9 7.5 8.1 14.6 18.4 21.9 11.5 12.5 13.3
Floodprone Width (ft)12 20 100 100 100 100 23 33.5 44 70 100 150
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.7 1 1.3 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1 1 0.8 0.9 1
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.1 1.6 1.9 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.2 1.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)11.1 11.1 11.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 17.6 17.6 17.6 11.1 11.1 11.1
Width/Depth Ratio 6.7 12.4 22.6 7.7 9.6 11.6 14.9 19.6 24.3 12 14 16
Entrenchment Ratio 1.1 1.6 10.5 12.3 13.4 14.5 1.5 1.8 2 5.6 8 12
1Bank Height Ratio 1.3 3 4.5 1 1 1 1.4 1.8 2.2 1 1 1.2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0 0.005 0.019 0 0.015 0.036 0.02 0.025 0.034
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)1.6 2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.2 1.7 1.9
Pool Spacing (ft)8.9 17.8 32.7 31.6 58.2 101.8 37.4 49.9 99.7
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)7.9 14.3 24.9 15 28.6 42.2 24.9 37.4 49.9
Radius of Curvature (ft)5.2 8.4 12.8 18.6 31.1 46.3 24.9 37.4 124.7
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)0.8 1.1 2.1 0.8 1.1 2.1 2 3 10
Meander Wavelength (ft)13.4 29.4 47.2 61 104.6 154.7 74.8 106 149.6
Meander Width Ratio 1.1 1.9 4.1 1 1.6 1.9 2 3 4
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
0.0171 0.0049 0.017
1.14 1.22 1.151.14
0.01
1368
1200
0.74 4
44.4
G 4/5 E 5 E/C 3/4Cg 3/4
47.38 47.1
4.7 0.82
Table 7A. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site/100058) - Segment/Reach: Slingshot Creek Downstream (1200 feet)
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
Monitoring BaselineRegional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Flint Rock Farm Reference Data DesignCaswell Gameland Reference Data
Parameter Gauge2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft)6 8.8 14.6 6.9 7.5 8.1 14.6 18.4 21.9 10 10.8 11.5
Floodprone Width (ft)12 16 100 100 100 100 23 33.5 44 30 50 70
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.6 0.9 1.4 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1 1 0.7 0.8 0.8
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.7 1.4 1.9 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.5 0.9 1.1 1.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)8.3 8.3 8.3 6.1 6.1 6.1 17.6 17.6 17.6 8.3 8.3 8.3
Width/Depth Ratio 4.3 9.8 24.3 7.7 9.6 11.6 14.9 19.6 24.3 12 14 16
Entrenchment Ratio 1.2 1.5 11.4 12.3 13.4 14.5 1.5 1.8 2 2.8 4.6 6.5
1Bank Height Ratio 1.4 2.2 3.6 1 1 1 1.4 1.8 2.2 1 1 1.2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0 0.005 0.019 0 0.015 0.036 0.018 0.023 0.031
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)1.6 2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 1 1.5 1.6
Pool Spacing (ft)8.9 17.8 32.7 31.6 58.2 101.8 32.3 43.1 86.2
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)7.9 14.3 24.9 15 28.6 42.2 21.6 32.3 43.1
Radius of Curvature (ft)5.2 8.4 12.8 18.6 31.1 46.3 21.6 32.3 107.8
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)0.8 1.1 2.1 0.8 1.1 2.1 2 3 10
Meander Wavelength (ft)13.4 29.4 47.2 61 104.6 154.7 64.7 91.6 129.4
Meander Width Ratio 1.1 1.9 4.1 1 1.6 1.9 2 3 4
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Table 7B. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site/100058) - Segment/Reach: Slingshot Creek Upstream (1609 feet)
Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Flint Rock Farm Reference Data Caswell Gameland Reference Data Design Monitoring Baseline
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
0.315 0.64
30.4 32.22
G 4/5 E 5 Cg 3/4 E/C 3/4
32.7
0.91 3.94
1898
1609
0.049 0.0049 0.01 0.0153
1.18 1.22 1.14 1.15
Parameter Gauge2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft)4.4 7.2 14.5 6.9 7.5 8.1 14.6 18.4 21.9 7 7.6 8.1
Floodprone Width (ft)9 12 100 100 100 100 23 33.5 44 30 50 90
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.3 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.6
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.6 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.5 0.6 0.8 0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)4 4 4 6.1 6.1 6.1 17.6 17.6 17.6 4.1 4.1 4.1
Width/Depth Ratio 4.9 12 48.3 7.7 9.6 11.6 14.9 19.6 24.3 12 14 16
Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 2 13.7 12.3 13.4 14.5 1.5 1.8 2 4 6.6 11.9
1Bank Height Ratio 1.2 2.4 3.7 1 1 1 1.4 1.8 2.2 1 1 1.2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0 0.005 0.019 0 0.015 0.036 0.032 0.039 0.053
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)1.6 2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.7 1 1.1
Pool Spacing (ft)8.9 17.8 32.7 31.6 58.2 101.8 22.7 30..3 60.6
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)7.9 14.3 24.9 15 28.6 42.2 15.2 22.7 30.3
Radius of Curvature (ft)5.2 8.4 12.8 18.6 31.1 46.3 15.2 22.7 75.8
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)0.8 1.1 2.1 0.8 1.1 2.1 2 3 10
Meander Wavelength (ft)13.4 29.4 47.2 61 104.6 154.7 45.5 64.4 90.9
Meander Width Ratio 1.1 1.9 4.1 1 1.6 1.9 2 3 4
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Table 7C. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site/100058) - Segment/Reach: UT 1 (968 feet)
Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Flint Rock Farm Reference Data Caswell Gameland Reference Data Design Monitoring Baseline
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
7.09 0.78
24.99 25.44
G 5 E 5 Cg 3/4 E/C 3/4
15
0.75 3.78
1142
968
0.0267 0.0049 0.01 0.0263
1.18 1.22 1.14 1.2
Parameter Gauge2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft)6.9 7.5 8.1 14.6 18.4 21.9 7 7.6 8.1
Floodprone Width (ft)100 100 100 23 33.5 44 30 50 90
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.6
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.5 0.6 0.8 0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)6.1 6.1 6.1 17.6 17.6 17.6 4.1 4.1 4.1
Width/Depth Ratio 7.7 9.6 11.6 14.9 19.6 24.3 12 14 16
Entrenchment Ratio 12.3 13.4 14.5 1.5 1.8 2 4 6.6 11.9
1Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 1.4 1.8 2.2 1 1 1.2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0 0.005 0.019 0 0.015 0.036 0.032 0.039 0.053
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)1.6 2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.7 1 1.1
Pool Spacing (ft)8.9 17.8 32.7 31.6 58.2 101.8 22.7 30..3 60.6
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)7.9 14.3 24.9 15 28.6 42.2 15.2 22.7 30.3
Radius of Curvature (ft)5.2 8.4 12.8 18.6 31.1 46.3 15.2 22.7 75.8
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)0.8 1.1 2.1 0.8 1.1 2.1 2 3 10
Meander Wavelength (ft)13.4 29.4 47.2 61 104.6 154.7 45.5 64.4 90.9
Meander Width Ratio 1.1 1.9 4.1 1 1.6 1.9 2 3 4
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Table 7D. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site/100058) - Segment/Reach: UT 2 (130 feet)
Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Flint Rock Farm Reference Data Caswell Gameland Reference Data Design Monitoring Baseline
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
14.79 0.78
18.45 25.44
G 5 E 5 Cg 3/4 E/C 3/4
15.9
0.27 3.78
152
130
0.0186 0.0049 0.01 0.0263
1.17 1.22 1.14 1.2
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)13.4 18.8 15.7 15.3 12.6 12.6 12.6 14.1 16.1 22.1 20.7 17.7 12.7 13.0 13.5 13.0
Floodprone Width (ft)NA NA NA NA 100 100 100 100 NA NA NA NA 100 100 100 100
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.4 1.0 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.4 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2.0 2.2 2.1 2.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)18.2 18.2 18.2 18.2 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 22.1 22.1 22.1 22.1 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA NA 14.7 14.7 14.8 18.4 NA NA NA NA 14.7 15.4 16.6 15.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA NA 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.1 NA NA NA NA 7.9 7.7 7.4 7.7
Low Bank Height (ft)2 2.2 2.1 2.3 1.2 1.3 1.293 1.3 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio NA NA NA NA 1.0 1.03 1.0 1.0 NA NA NA NA 1.0 1.04 1.10 1.0
LTOB Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 18.2 19.4 18.1 19.1 10.8 11.3 10.2 11.0 22.1 21.7 20.6 22.4 11 11.6 12.7 10.5
d50 (mm)
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with DMS. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: “It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary.”
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)11.2 16.2 12.3 13.7 12.1 18.6 14.8 16.3 11.7 13.7 11.9 15.0 12.4 19.4 17.4 20.9
Floodprone Width (ft)100 100 100 100 NA NA NA NA 100 100 100 100 NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 1.2 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.3 0.8 0.9 0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.1 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 16.8 35.5 20.4 25.3 NA NA NA NA 13.5 18.6 14.0 22.2 NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 9.0 6.2 8.1 7.3 NA NA NA NA 8.5 7.3 8.4 6.7 NA NA NA NA
Low Bank Height (ft)1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.09 1.0 0.9 NA NA NA NA 1.0 1.0 1.03 1.0 NA NA NA NA
LTOB Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 7.4 9.3 7.3 8.3 14.3 14.2 11.6 15.1 10.1 9.9 10.6 9.6 16.3 17.6 14.3 15.6
d50 (mm)
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with DMS. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: “It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary.”
Table 8A. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site/100058) - Segment/Reach: Slingshot Creek Downstream (1200 feet)
Cross Section 1 (Pool)Cross Section 2 (Riffle)Cross Section 3 (Pool)Cross Section 4 (Riffle)
Table 8B. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross Sections)Project Name/Number (Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site/100058) - Segment/Reach: Slingshot Creek Upstream (1609 feet)
Cross Section 5 (Riffle)Cross Section 6 (Pool)Cross Section 7 (Riffle)Cross Section 8 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)8.0 7.6 7.2 8.1 11.0 17.3 12.4 17.1 15.4 16.4 15.1 15.71 12.8 16.5 13.1 14.0
Floodprone Width (ft)100 100 100 100 NA NA NA NA 100 100 100 100 NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.7 0.9 0.7 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 19.7 18.1 16.3 20.6 NA NA NA NA 14.4 16.4 13.9 15.0 NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 12.5 13.2 13.9 12.4 NA NA NA NA 6.5 6.1 6.6 6.4 NA NA NA NA
Low Bank Height (ft)0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.04 1.0 1.2 NA NA NA NA 1.0 1.02 1.02 0.9 NA NA NA NA
LTOB Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.4 11.4 11.6 10 11.2 16.4 16.9 17 17.1 18.1 20.1 18.5 18.0
d50 (mm)
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with DMS. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: “It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary.”
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)9.5 11.9 9.8 11.0 7.8 14.5 9.4 9.2
Floodprone Width (ft)100 100 100 100 NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 16.7 26.2 17.6 22.4 NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 10.6 8.4 10.3 9.1 NA NA NA NA
Low Bank Height (ft)0.7 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.04 1.06 1.1 NA NA NA NA
LTOB Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 5.4 5.8 6 5.6 6.3 6.1 5.4 4.8
d50 (mm)
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with DMS. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: “It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary.”
Table 8C. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site/100058) - Segment/Reach: UT 1 (968
feet)Cross Section 1 (Riffle)Cross Section 2 (Pool)Cross Section 3 (Riffle)Cross Section 4 (Pool)
Table 8D. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site/100058) - Segment/Reach: UT 2 (130
feet)Cross Section 1 (Riffle)Cross Section 2 (Pool)
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width (ft)12.6 12.6 12.6 12.7 0.07 2 12.6 12.8 13 2 12.6 13.1 13.5 2
Floodprone Width (ft)100 100 100 100 0 2 100 100 100 2 100 100 100 2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.86 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.01 2 0.8 0.9 0.9 2 0.8 0.8 0.9 2
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.19 1.21 1.21 1.24 0.03 2 1.3 1.3 1.3 2 1.2 1.3 1.3 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)10.8 10.9 10.9 11 0.14 2 10.8 10.9 11 2 10.8 10.9 11 2
Width/Depth Ratio 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 0.01 2 14.7 15 15.4 2 14.8 15.7 16.6 2
Entrenchment Ratio 7.88 7.91 7.91 7.95 0.05 2 7.7 7.8 7.9 2 7.4 7.7 7.9 2
1Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 1 0 1.03 1.03 1.04 2 1 1.05 1.1 2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4.= Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Baseline MY-1
Exhibit Table 9A. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site/100058) - Segment/Reach: Slingshot Creek Downstream (XS 1 - 4) (1200 feet)
MY-2 MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5
1368
0.0171
1.14
G 4/5
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and
pools due to staightening activities
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data
indicate significant shifts from baseline
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width (ft)11.2 11.4 11.4 11.7 0.37 2 13.7 15 16.2 2 11.9 12.1 12.3 2
Floodprone Width (ft)100 100 100 100 0 2 100 100 100 2 100 100 100 2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.66 0.76 0.76 0.86 0.14 2 0.5 0.6 0.7 2 0.6 0.7 0.8 2
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.03 1.2 1.2 1.36 0.23 2 1.1 1.3 1.4 2 1.1 1.3 1.4 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)7.42 8.78 8.78 10.1 1.92 2 7.4 8.8 10.1 2 7.4 8.8 10.1 2
Width/Depth Ratio 13.5 15.2 15.2 16.8 2.31 2 18.6 27 35.5 2 14 17.2 20.4 2
Entrenchment Ratio 8.53 8.74 8.74 8.95 0.3 2 6.2 6.7 7.3 2 8.1 8.3 8.4 2
1Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 1 0 1.0 1.0 1.09 2 1.0 1.0 1.03 2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4.= Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Exhibit Table 9B. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site/100058) - Segment/Reach: Slingshot Creek UpStream (XS 5 - 8) (1200 feet)
Baseline MY-1 MY-2 MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5
G 4/5
1898
1.18
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and
pools due to staightening activities
0.049
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data
indicate significant shifts from baseline
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width (ft)7.97 11.7 11.7 15.4 5.25 2 7.6 12 16.4 2 7.2 11.2 15.1 2
Floodprone Width (ft)100 100 100 100 0 2 100 100 100 2 100 100 100 2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.41 0.74 0.74 1.07 0.47 2 0.4 0.7 1 2 0.4 0.8 1.1 2
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.7 1.29 1.29 1.88 0.83 2 0.8 1.3 1.8 2 0.9 1.4 1.8 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)3.23 9.82 9.82 16.4 9.31 2 3.2 9.8 16.4 2 3.2 9.8 16.4 2
Width/Depth Ratio 14.4 17.1 17.1 19.7 3.69 2 16.4 17.2 18.1 2 13.9 15.1 16.3 2
Entrenchment Ratio 6.5 9.52 9.52 12.5 4.28 2 6.1 9.6 13.2 2 6.6 10.3 13.9 2
1Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 1 0 1.02 1.02 1.04 2 1 1 1.02 2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4.= Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Exhibit Table 9C. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site/100058) - Segment/Reach: Slingshot Creek UT 1 (XS 1 - 4) (1200 feet)
Baseline MY-1 MY-2 MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and
pools due to staightening activities
0.0267
G 5
1142
1.18
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data
indicate significant shifts from baseline
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width (ft)9.45 9.45 9.45 9.45 1 11.9 11.9 11.9 1 9.8 9.8 9.8 1
Floodprone Width (ft)100 100 100 100 1 100 100 100 1 100 100 100 1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 1
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 1 0.9 0.9 0.9 1 1 1 1 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)5.35 5.35 5.35 5.35 1 5.4 5.4 5.4 1 5.4 5.4 5.4 1
Width/Depth Ratio 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 1 26.2 26.2 26.2 1 17.6 17.6 17.6 1
Entrenchment Ratio 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 1 8.4 8.4 8.4 1 10.3 10.3 10.3 1
1Bank Height Ratio 1 1 1 1 1 1.04 1.04 1.04 1 1.06 1.06 1.06 1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4.= Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Baseline MY-1 MY-2 MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5
Exhibit Table 9D. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Slingshot Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site/100058) - Segment/Reach: Slingshot Creek UT 2 (XS 1 - 2) (1200 feet)
0.0186
G 5
152
1.17
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and
pools due to staightening activities
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data
indicate significant shifts from baseline

MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024
Appendix D
Hydrology Data

Table 10. Verification of Bankfull Events
Stream Crest Gauge Graphs
Table 11. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Soil Temperature Graph
Figure D1. 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
Groundwater Gauge Graphs

MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024
Table 10. Verification of Bankfull Events

Date of Data
Collection
Date of
Occurrence Method Reach(es)
Documented
Photo
(if available)
June 3, 2020 May 21, 2020
Stream gauges and trail cameras captured a bankfull
event after 5.37 inches of rain was documented between
May 20th and 22nd, 2020 at an onsite rain gauge. Flow
gauge recorded a stream stage of 2.15 feet.
Slingshot 1
November 18,
2020
November 12,
2020
Stream gauges and trail cameras captured a bankfull
event after 3.1 inches of rain was documented between
November 10th and 13th, 2020 at an onsite rain gauge.
Flow gauge recorded a stream stage of 2.94 feet.
Slingshot,
UT1 2, 3
February 25,
2021
February 15,
2021
Wrack was observed along the floodplain of Slingshot
Creek and the crest gauge captured a bankfull event after
2.31 inches of rain was documented between February
12th and 15th, 2021 at an on-site rain gauge. The trail
camera was damaged by the accompanying ice storm.
Flow gauge recorded a stream stage of 1.45 feet.
Slingshot,
UT1 4
March 27,
2021
March 27,
2021
Stream gauges and trail cameras captured Slingshot Creek
receding from a bankfull event after 1.45 inches of rain
was documented between March 26th and 27th, 2021 at
an on-site rain gauge. Flow gauge recorded a stream
stage of 1.10 feet.
Slingshot,
UT1 5
January 7,
2022
January 3,
2022
Wrack was observed along the floodplain of Slingshot
Creek and the crest gauge captured a bankfull event after
2.88 inches of rain was documented between Jan. 2nd
and 4th, 2022 at an on-site rain gauge. Slingshot creek
and UT1 crest gauges recorded stream stages of 3.65 and
2.94 feet, respectively
Slingshot,
UT1 6
November 1,
2022
October 1,
2022
The Slingshot stream gauge captured a bankfull event
after 2.63 inches of rain was documented between
September 30th and October 1st, 2022 at an on-site rain
gauge. Slingshot Creek crest gauge recorded a stream
stage of 1.05 feet.
Slingshot --
March 1, 2023 February 12,
2023
Stream gauges captured a bankfull event after 1.46 inches
of rain was documented on February 12, 2023 at an on-
site rain gauge. Slingshot Creek and UT-1 crest gauges
recorded stream stages of 1.04 and 0.83 feet,
respectively.
Slingshot,
UT1 7

MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024

Photo-2
Photo-1

MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024

Photo-3
Photo-4

MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024

Photo-6
Photo-5

MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024

Photo-7
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
St
r
e
a
m
 St
a
g
e
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Slingshot Creek Crest Gauge  
Year  4  (2023 Data)
1.04 feetTOB
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
St
r
e
a
m
 St
a
g
e
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Slingshot UT1 Crest Gauge 
Year  4 (2023 Data)
TOB 0.83 feet

MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024
Table 11. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Gauge
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Year 1
(2020)
Year 2
(2021)
Year 3
(2022)
Year 4
(2023)
Year 5
(2024)
Year 6
(2025)
Year 7
(2026)
1
Yes
26 days
(11.4%)
Yes
62 days
(24.5%)
No
12 days
(4.7%)
No
5 days
(2%)

2
Yes
61 days
(26.8%)
Yes
253 days
(100%)
Yes
98 days
(38.7%)
Yes
72 days
(28.4%)

3
Yes
187 days
(82.0%)
Yes
123 days
(48.6%)
Yes
79 days
(31.2%)
Yes
70 days
(27.6%)

4
Yes
187 days
(82.0%)
Yes
178 days
(70.4%)
Yes
101 days
(39.9%)
Yes
78 days
(30.8%)

5
Yes
100 days
(43.9%)
Yes
123 days
(48.6%)
Yes
207 days
(81.8%)
Yes
143 days
(56.5%)

6
Yes
127 days
(55.7%)
Yes
143 days
(56.5%)
Yes
246 days
(97.2%)
Yes
253 days
(100%)

7
Yes
83 days
(36.4%)
Yes
210 days
(83.0%)
Yes
246 days
(97.2%)
Yes
253 days
(100%)

8
Yes
29 days
(12.7%)
Yes
71 days
(28.0%)
Yes
33 days
(13.0%)
No
4 days
(1.6%)

9
Yes
73 days
(32.0%)
Yes
109 days
(43.1%)
Yes
45 days
(17.8%)
Yes
34 days
(13.4%)

10**
No
4 days
(1.8%)
No
5 days
(2.0%)
No
3 days
(1.2%)
NA
10A** NA NA NA
Yes
149 days
(58.9%)

11*
Yes
46 days
(20.2%)
Yes
151 days
(59.7%)
Yes
116 days
(45.8%)
Yes
148 days
(58.5%)

*Gauge 11 was installed in an area not previously identified for wetland reestablishment but appeared to be exhibiting
wetland characteristics post-construction. During 2021 monitoring, the additional wetlands surrounding gauge 11 were
delineated, resulting in approximately 0.52 acres of wetlands on-site that were not previously accounted for.
**At the request of the IRT, gauge 10 was moved into the wetland rehabilitation area downstream from its original
location and was relabeled gauge 10A during MY4 (2023).
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
5
/
2
3
1/
2
9
/
2
3
2/
1
2
/
2
3
2/
2
6
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
6
/
2
3
4/
9
/
2
3
4/
2
3
/
2
3
5/
7
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
6/
4
/
2
3
6/
1
8
/
2
3
7/
2
/
2
3
7/
1
6
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
1
3
/
2
3
8/
2
7
/
2
3
9/
1
0
/
2
3
9/
2
4
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
2
/
2
3
11
/
5
/
2
3
11
/
1
9
/
2
3
12
/
3
/
2
3
12
/
1
7
/
2
3
12
/
3
1
/
2
3
So
i
l
 Te
m
p
 °F
Date
Slingshot Soil Temperature
Year  4  (2023 Data)
March 1:
48.83°F
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
 in
 In
c
h
e
s
Figure D1: Slingshot
30‐70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall 
Current year data from onsite rain gauge
30‐70th percentile data from WETS Station: Reidsville 2 NW
2020
2021
2022
2023
30th Percentile
70th Percentile
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s

(i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Slingshot Groundwater Gauge 1
Year  4 (2023 Data)
End Growing Season
November 8
Start Growing Season
March 1
5 Days ‐2%
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s

(i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Slingshot Groundwater Gauge 2
Year  4 (2023 Data)
End Growing Season
November 8
72 Days ‐28.4%
Start Growing Season
March 1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s

(i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Slingshot Groundwater Gauge 3
Year  4 (2023 Data)
End Growing Season 
November 8
70 Days ‐27.6%
Start Growing Season
March 1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Slingshot Groundwater Gauge 4
Year  4 (2023 Data)
End Growing Season
November 8
78 Days ‐30.8%
Start Growing Season
March 1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s

(i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Slingshot Groundwater Gauge 5
Year  4 (2023 Data)
End Growing Season 
November 8
143 Days ‐56.5%
Start Growing Season
March 1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Slingshot Groundwater Gauge 6
Year  4 (2023 Data)
End Growing Season
November 8
253 Days ‐100%
Start Growing Season
March 1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s

(i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Slingshot Groundwater Gauge 7
Year  4 (2023 Data)
End Growing Season
November 8
253 Days ‐100%
Start Growing Season
March 1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Slingshot Groundwater Gauge 8
Year  4 (2023 Data)
End Growing Season 
November 8
4 Days ‐1.6%
Start Growing Season
March 1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Slingshot Groundwater Gauge 9
Year  4 (2023 Data)
End Growing Season
November 8Start Growing Season
March 1
34 Days ‐13.4%
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s

(i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Slingshot Groundwater Gauge 10A
Year  4 (2023 Data)
End Growing Season
November 8Start Growing Season
March 1
149 Days ‐58.9%
At request of the IRT during the 
MY3 field visit, this gauge was 
moved into a new location on 
7/27/2022 and relabeled gauge 
10A for MY4 (2023).
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s

(i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Slingshot Groundwater Gauge 11
Year  4 (2023 Data)
End Growing Season
November 8
148 Days ‐58.5%
Start Growing Season
March 1

MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Rockingham County, North Carolina February 2024
Appendix E
Site Photo Log

Photo 1: Slingshot Creek PP-1
Photo 2: Slingshot Creek PP-2
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Slingshot Creek
MY-04 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 3: Slingshot Creek PP-3
Photo 4: Slingshot Creek PP-4
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Slingshot Creek
MY-04 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 5: Slingshot Creek PP-5
Photo 6: Slingshot Creek PP-6
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Slingshot Creek
MY-04 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 7: UT1 PP-7
Photo 8: UT1 PP-8
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Slingshot Creek
MY-04 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 9: Q. phellos planted winter 2023 in haul road
Photo 10: Fencing and Buffer
Vegetation along Slingshot Creek
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Slingshot Creek
MY-04 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 11: Slingshot Creek and UT1 Aerial View
Photo 12: Slingshot Creek Lower Reach Aerial View
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Slingshot Creek
MY-04 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 13: UT1 Aerial View
Photo 14: Whole Site from Downstream Extent Aerial View
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Slingshot Creek
MY-04 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 15: Bud Burst of Cercis canadensis.
Photo Taken 3/01/23
Photo 16: Bud Burst of Ulmus americana
Photo taken 3/01/23
Slingshot Creek
MY-04 (2023) Photo Log
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100058) Appendices
Slingshot Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC