HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090858 Ver 3_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20161104IVEY-FERGUSON
BANK PARCEL
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
MONITORING YEAR 5 REPORT
DWQ # 09-08580
October 26, 2016
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................
1.1 Project Location and Description................................................................
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives.......................................................................
2.0 Vegetation Condition and Comparison..............................................................
3.0 Methodology......................................................................................................
3.1 Vegetation Monitoring Plots.......................................................................
3.2 Photo Stations..............................................................................................
4.0 References.........................................................................................................
Appendix A: Site Maps
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Figure 2: Monitoring Location Exhibit
Appendix B: Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 1: Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 2: Stem Count Total and Planted Species by Vegetation Plot
Table 3: Planted Species Comparison by Vegetation Plot
Table 4: Supplemental Planting 2015 and New Plantings
Appendix C: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Appendix D: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data Sheets
Appendix E: Photo Stations
0
................................. 1
................................. 1
................................. 1
................................. 2
................................. 2
................................. 2
................................. 2
................................. 3
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Location and Description
Located near the intersection of Carl Durham Road and Old Greensboro Road (SR 1005) in
Orange County, North Carolina (Appendix A. Figure 1— Site Location Map) is the nutrient
mitigation bank known as the Ivey -Ferguson Bank Site (Site). The Bank Site is located on 3
parcels of land (PIN Numbers: 9758022055, 9758034637, and 9758337836), which are
located near the intersection of Carl Durham Road and Old Greensboro Road. The first
parcel of land (PIN Number: 9758022055) is located on the north side of Old Greensboro
Road, approximately 450 feet west of the intersection of Carl Durham Road and Old
Greensboro Road. The second parcel (PIN Number: 9758034637) is located on the west and
east side of Carl Durham Road and is located approximately 1,200 feet north of the
intersection of Carl Durham Road and Old Greensboro Road. The third parcel of land (PIN
Number: 9758337836) is located on the north side of Old Greensboro Road, approximately
2,000 feet east of the intersection of Carl Durham Road and Old Greensboro Road. Overall,
the 3 parcels of land containing the Bank Site total approximately 218 acres. The purpose of
this Bank Site is to improve water quality within the B. Everett Jordan Lake watershed by
providing off-site mitigation for development (both existing and proposed) requiring nutrient
offsets.
The Bank Site is located within the Upper New Hope Arm of the B. Everett Jordan Lake
watershed, inside of 14 -digit USGS HUC 03030002060070. Stormwater runoff from this site
drains into an unnamed tributary of Phils Creek (Stream Index #16-41-2-2-(0.3), which
drains into University Lake approximately 3.4 miles downstream. According to the
Basinwide Information Management System (BIMS), Phils Creek is classified as WS -II;
HQW, NSW in this location (Appendix A. Figure 2 — Monitoring Year 5 Exhibit).
This Bank Site has been established under the terms and conditions of the Cape Fear Basin
Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Mitigation Umbrella Bank (Bank), signed on February 3, 2011,
made and entered into by EBX-EM, LLC (EBX-EM), acting as the Bank Sponsor, and the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). The Division of Water Quality is now hereby referred to as Division of
Water Resources (DWR).
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The goals of this nutrient offset mitigation project are to:
To improve the overall water quality and aquatic habitat in and around the unnamed
tributary of Phils Creek by reducing nutrient and sediment loads into the streams
caused by agricultural influences.
To improve the richness and diversity of the plant species within the conservation
easement.
To provide perpetual protection for the unnamed tributary of Phils Creek and
associated riparian and upland buffers
These goals will be met through the following objectives:
By establishing a native plant community to match the endemic plant species at the
Bank Site.
By reducing the quantities of exotic invasive species at the Bank Parcel through
chemical methods.
By establishing a conservation easement to provide long-term protection for the Bank
Site.
By donation of the conservation easement and all of its interests, in perpetuity, to an
accredited or approved land trust or stewardship program.
2.0 Vegetation Condition and Comparison
Current stem counts were calculated using vegetation plot monitoring data. Final stem count
criteria are 320 trees per acre at the end of the five (5) year monitoring (Ivey Ferguson Bank
Parcel - Bank Parcel Development Package, 2010). As of Monitoring Year 5, the Bank Parcel
had 9 plots encompassing 0.2224 acres, containing 173 planted and volunteer stems, which
yielded a density of 778 trees per acre including planted and volunteer species. Vegetation
survival threshold was met for each of the plots. Summary tables of the data collected are
provided in Appendix B. All success criteria have been met and the Ivey -Ferguson Bank Parcel
is ready to be closed out.
Re -planting was prescribed after Monitoring Year 3 activities and was conducted in the first
quarter of 2015. Monitoring Year 4 activities were conducted in September 2015, and additional
replanted stems were noted and recorded. Monitoring Year 5 activities were conducted in
September 2016. The additional replanted stems noted and recorded in Monitoring Year 4 were
also monitored as part of Monitoring Year 5 activities and are reflected in the data.
During Monitoring Year 5 field investigations, inspection of the fencing was conducted to
determine the condition and structural integrity of the fencing. It was determined that the fencing
was in good condition and remedial actions to the fencing were not warranted.
3.0 Methodolo
3.1 Vegetation Monitoring Plots
All monitoring methodologies follow the most current templates and guidelines provided by NC
DMS (EEP, 2006; EEP, 2009). All nine (9) vegetation plots installed by McAdams were located
in Monitoring Year 5. Baseline vegetation monitoring was conducted in accordance to CVS-EEP
Protocol for Recording Vegetation (CVS-EEP, v4.2). Table 1 (Appendix B) provides a success
summary for each vegetation monitoring plot which the target density is a minimum of 320 trees
per acre at the end of the five (5) year monitoring period. Table 2 (Appendix B) provides a stem
count total and planted stem total by each individual vegetation plot. Table 3 (Appendix B)
provides a summary of only planted stem counts as compared to planted stem counts of the As -
Built.
Vegetation monitoring plots were photographed and are located in Appendix C. Vegetation
Monitoring Plot Data Sheets are provided in Appendix D. Each Vegetation Monitoring Plot
Data Sheet provides measurements, location, and vigor of each planted species within a
respective vegetation monitoring plot.
3.2 Photo Stations
Photo documentation is essential to monitoring the success of the Bank Parcel. Photos provide a
visual assessment of the vegetation conditions. All fourteen (14) photo stations installed by
McAdams were located in Monitoring Year 5. Photographs were taken at high resolution using
an Olympus FE -115 5.0 megapixel digital camera. The locations of the photo stations are
depicted in the Monitoring Location Exhibit (Appendix A. Figure 2 — Monitoring Year 5
Exhibit). Photographs for the photo stations are located in Appendix E.
2
4.0 References
EcoEngineering — A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc. December 29, 2010.
Ivey -Ferguson Proposed Nutrient Offset Restoration Area — Bank Parcel Development
Package.
EcoEngineering — A division of The John R. McAdams Company, Inc. August 2012. Ivey -
Ferguson Proposed Nutrient Offset Restoration Area — As -Built Report.
Lee Michael T., Peet Robert K., Roberts Steven D., and Wentworth Thomas R., 2008. CVS-EEP
Protocol for RecordingVeyetation Level. Version 4.2
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) October 2004. Guidelines° or Riparian
Buffer Restoration.
Available at internet site: http://www.nceep.net/news/reportsibuffers.pdf.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) January 15, 2010. Procedural Guidance
and Content Requirements for EEP Monitoringeports.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) November 7, 2011. Monitoring
Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Miti ag tion.
Schafale MP and AS Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
North Carolina.
APPENDIX A
Site Maps
S fi`� w.,°• ��'"._`..s..x s rr� 4 4 .- 4,,.,, 1'. 'w` W ✓ 4
' x
r�
.N
w
7
M •w
\r ]
. � •.,�' _ . �,�. �` ,...� v,�� � ; r �� a � � _ � .., '� r � ,r""�r, ^ *mow
J R"
5�r,, ,✓ d� ter , >� �. � � •,�
iJ� � `0 f//' �/
IN
� e
i,
of
Corr,
Y _
r
v�
i
4•Terrelts/Crock . � ..� . " ! ' �•. ,�.r
r
.117
a„
do
}_ * Jay •� /\. � � M *�� � 4`� "d,,,.
"tea
• ± .
op
rail
or
'w
BANK PARCEL
USGS 7.5 MINUTE "WHITE CROSS, NC" QUADRANGLE, 1968 (PHOTOREVISED 1981);
35.8994915°N, 79.1662239-W
PROJECT N0. MAM-09020
I/ N i _FERGUSON
j r l '/ ,i
PARCEL
2j2905
THE JOHN R McADAMS
COMPANY, INC.
Meridian Parkway
-�'
FILENAME:MAM 09020.DWG
SCALE:BANK
1" = 1,000,
�
MAP(800)
FIGURE 1. SITE LOCATION MAP
Durham, North
h Carolina 27713
License N°•: °-°293
• McAdamsco.com
DATE:
U
09-09-13
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
IMCADAmsi
NOW OR FORMERLY
JENNIFER NEWTON BARBER
PB 107, PG 10
DB 4953, PG 364
PIN: 9748734645
CONSERVATION EASEMENTS ARE INCLUSIVE OF THE AREAS NOTED AS BUFFER RESTORATION AREAS
CONSERVATION EASEMENT 1 ...................................................273,427
ELEZABETH M. IVEY &
SQ.
FT.
- 6.28
ACRES
BUFFER RESTORATION AREA 1 .......... ........... .... ...........
....... .......135,108
I
SQ.
FT.
- 3.10
ACRES
CONSERVATION EASEMENT 1 AREA REMAINING ... ..............
........138,319
I �
SO.
FT.
- 3.18
ACRES
CONSERVATION EASEMENT 2_........._.._._.._ ............................138,922
ELEZABETH M. IVEY &
SQ.
FT.
- 3.19
ACRES
BUFFER RESTORATION AREA 2 ... .......... .....................................127,797
PIN 9758034637
JACOBSONPB98,
SQ.
FT.
- 2.93
ACRES
CONSERVATION EASEMENT 2 AREA REMAINING............................11,125
PIN: 9758426771-14
SO.
FT.
- 0.25
ACRES
CONSERVATION/ BUFFER RESTORATION AREA 3
EASEMENT._..
_. 2,730
SQ.
FT.
- 0.06
ACRES
CONSERVATION EASEMENT 4._.___...... _._.._.....
....
..71,344
SQ.
FT.
- 1.64
ACRES
BUFFER RESTORATION AREA 4 ......................................
..............66,055
i'
V P 5
SQ.
FT.
- 1.52
ACRES
CONSERVATION EASEMENT 4 AREA REMAINING ...........................
------ __
5,289
SO.
FT.
- 0.12
ACRES
CONSERVATION/ BUFFER RESTORATION AREA 5
EASEMENT,.....
31, 600
SQ.
FT.
- 0.73
ACRES
CONSERVATION/ BUFFER RESTORATION AREA 6
EASEMENT......19,251
SQ.
FT.
- 0.44
ACRES
CONSERVATION/ BUFFER RESTORATION AREA 7
EASEMENT......35,922
SQ.
FT.
- 0.82
ACRES
CONSERVATION/ BUFFER RESTORATION AREA 8
EASEMENT......
34,594
SQ.
FT.
- 0.79
ACRES
CONSERVATION/ BUFFER RESTORATION AREA 9
EASEMENT......24,784
___ —�--------------------------
SQ.
FT.
- 0.57
ACRES
TOTAL AREA CONSERVATION EASEMENT....
.......... ... .....
597,980
SQ.
FT.
- 13.73 ACRES
TOTAL AREA BUFFER RESTORATION EASEMENT...
.....................443,247
BUFFER
SQ.
FT.-
10.18 ACRES
ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT NOT USED...
_............. ..........
34,594
SO.
FT.
- 0.79
ACRES
NOW OR FORMERLY
PAUL M. & SEDELIA D. CAMPBELL
PB 54, PG 43
DB 830, PG 4834
PIN: 9758055071
f i
NOW OR FORMERLY
BERNARD K. DURHAM JR. & HILDA 0.
DURHAM
PB94, PG 158
DS 1172, PG 275
PIN 9758146972
NOW OR FORMERLY
BERNARD K. DURHAM JR. & HILDA 0.
DURHAM
PB94, PG 158
DS 1172, PG275
PIN: 9758251993
LEGEND
PHOTO STATION (PS -X)
O VEGETATION MONITORING PLOT (VP -X)
NOW OR FORMERLY ---------__ --------
ELEZABETH M. IVEY &
PB 83, P
DB 1963, PG 50
i
PIN: 9758367142
I
AO, i
VIRGINIA I. FURGUSON
,S
o'
�Fy!!/y,
I �
I �
DB 965, PG 21
ELEZABETH M. IVEY &
N
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
PIN 9758034637
JACOBSONPB98,
VIRGINIA I. FU RGILSON
PG 184 1DB
CORPORATION
4619,PG 434
PIN: 9758457724
PIN: 9758426771-14
DB 965, PG 21
--J
O
----- -
2
GRAPHIC SCALE
PIN: 9758034637
zoo o ioo zoo
aoo i.1
1 inch = 200 ft
----_____
i'
V P 5
------ __
CONSERVATION/
i
BUFFER
PS7/' ;
-
"-- _
RESTORATION
_ _
-__-
AREA 5
% i'
___ —�--------------------------
__
-__
---------------------------
EASEMENT
/ '
CONSERVATION/
'---__ -_____,____,
'--_ -_______
BUFFER
_
'-- -----------------RESTORATION
CONSERVATION
_ ------
AREA 3
A M N 1
' --___
---- __
EASEMENT
NOW OR FORMERLY
i'
REDCO LIMITED
PS -6
PARTNERSHIP
NOW OR FORMERLY---
PS -5
f'ir
PB 90, PG 131
___
f -'
VIRGINIA I. FERGUSON
DB 3220, PG 328
DB 945, PG 227
fi'
PIN: 9758243026 \/P�
V
i
PIN: 9748929813
/� BUFFER
f RESTORATION
Ps 4
AREA 4
i
EASEMENT
� BUFFER
�
CONSERVATION
JRESTORATIO
PS -2
EASEMENT
AREA 1
ro NOW OR FORMERLY
4
�' EASEMENT PS -9 S
J
9
J
O THOMAS D. & SUSAN D. PRITCHARD
\ /P 4
V
/
i 92, PG 133
4 DB 3224, PG 34
S
CONSERVATION/
P S— 8
PIN: 9748826600 I
BUFFER
C
CONSERVATION /
U
RESTORATION
BUFFER
AREA 7
RESTORATION
EASEMENT
AREA 6
VP—2
O
EASEMENT
VP
i Q
CONSERVATION/
BUFFER
V
-3
o
RESTORATION
i
AREA 9
�a
EASEMENT
i
VIRGINIA I. FURGUSON
C�
Ps —3
NOW OR FORMERLY
aro
PB 77, PG 159
DB 1513, PG 228
BRUCE R. PADEN
f`�
PIN: 9758022055
PB 90, PG 131
DB 49'PG 518
m N
VP — 1
%
PIN: 97575 8227658
3
z o ao a
CONSERVATION/
BUFFER
RESTORATION
S
P 1
EA
1
S
EASEMENT
NOT USED)
NOW OR FORMERLY
TERRELLS CREEK BAPTIST
VIRGINIA L FURGUSON
CHURCH
PB 77, PG 159
PS -12
DB 277, PG 1155
DB 1513, PG 228
PIN: 9748919740
PIN: 9758027026
LEGEND
PHOTO STATION (PS -X)
O VEGETATION MONITORING PLOT (VP -X)
NOW OR FORMERLY ---------__ --------
COTTON
PB 83, P
DB 1963, PG 50
i
PIN: 9758367142
I
AO, i
,S
o'
�Fy!!/y,
I �
I �
CO02F�';1
I
/CHARLES
N
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
NOW OR FORMERLY
JACOBSONPB98,
SYNERGY HOLDING
PG 184 1DB
CORPORATION
4619,PG 434
PIN: 9758457724
-VP-7
ELEZABETH M.IVEY
DB 3918, PG 4
PIN: 9758337836
PS -10
—PS -11
PS -13
VP -8
V Z�_
BUFFER C
CONSERVATION RESTORATION
EASEMENT AREA 2
2 EASEMENT
NOW OR FORMERLY
BARTON LLOYD, JR.
DB 254, PG 637
PIN: 9758453458
NOW O FORMERL
DANIEL & THELMA
WI LIAMS
PB 3, PG 35
DB 3 3. PG 56
/ NOW OR FORMERLY
VIE LLC
PB 98, PG 184
DB 3924, PG 193
PIN: 9758446961
i
i
NOW OR FORMERLY
VIE LLC
PB 98, PG 184
DB 3924, PG 193
PIN: 9758446556
I
NOW OR FORMERLY
VIF LLC
PB 98, PG 184 i
DB 3924, PG 193
PIN 9758446288 I
1 �
I �
I �
I �
NOW OR FORMERLY '
JEFF ERY W. & KAREN R. I
FU CHS
PB 98, PG 184
DB 4520, PG 20
-_� PIN: 9758436158
I
I
\ ) I
1
I �
I �
11
I
/CHARLES
N
NOW OR FORMERLY
& ALLISON R -I
JACOBSONPB98,
PG 184 1DB
4619,PG 434
PIN: 9758426771-14
I
--J
O
----- -
2
GRAPHIC SCALE
zoo o ioo zoo
aoo i.1
1 inch = 200 ft
z
0
a Q
d o
x r�
c.> w
z'S°
�07N
m
?m
F -
0
0
z z`
ri]i W
0
U
WAawl�
a°z
�a H
z
Z�o°a
Q ^ 0
�W0W
W a � w
�W�
Z 5�
rO
V
°.MAM-09020
E. MAM09020-F1
IuRM—D BY. RTF
RTF
NTS
e N0 09-09-2013
WMADAMS
APPENDIX B
Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 1. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
Ivey -Ferguson Bank Parcel; Orange County, NC
Monitoring Year 5: September 21, 2016
McAdams Project #: MAM-09020
Vegetation Plot ID
Conservation Easement
Area
Vegetation Threshold
Met?*
Tract Mean
1
9
Yes
2
7
Yes
3
6
Yes
4 4
Yes
5
5
Yes
100%
6
1
Yes
7 1
Yes
8
2
Yes
9 2
Yes
* Target density is a minimum of 320 shrubs and desirable trees per acre at the end of the five (5) year monitoring period according
to the "Ivey -Ferguson Bank Parcel Proposed Nutrient Offset Restoration Area, Bank Parcel Development Package"; approved by
DWQ on December 29, 2010.
Table 2. Stem Count Total and Planted Species by Vegation Plot
Ivey -Ferguson Bank Parcel; Orange County, NC
Monitoring Year 5: September 21, 2016
McAdams Project #: MAM-09020
Monitoring Year 5: September 21, 2016
CURRENT MONITORING YEAR
ANNUAL MEANS
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
VP -1
PL NT
VP -2
PLI NT
VP -3
PL NT
VP -4
PL NT
VP -5
PLI NT
VP -6
PL NT
VP -7
PL NT
VP -8
PL NT
VP -9
PL NT
MY -5
(Sept 2016)
MY -4
(Sept 2015)
MY -3 (Oct
2014)
MY -2
(Sept 2013)
MY -1
(Oct 2012)
AS BUILT
(June 2012)
Betula nigra river birch Tree
3
5
4 1 3
2
2 2
21
25
2
2
3
9
Caow tomentosa shagbark hickory Tree
Cornus orida flowering dogwood Small Tree
I
1
2
3
2
7
3
11
DiospVros vir iniana ppersimmon Tree
I
1 8
1
11
23
2
2
11
16
Fraxinuspennsylvanica green ash Tree
9
5
3
5
7
2
31
30
29
29
28
31
Li uidambers raci ua* sweet gum Tree
5
3
9
2
17
4
31
Liriodendron tulipifera tulip poplar Tree
2
1
2 2
3 2
5
2
1
20
21
13
16
15
27
Platanus occidentalis sycamore Tree
7
7
8
8
8
8
10
Quercus laurifolia laurel oak Tree
3
3
1
2
9
15
11
10
11
15
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree
I
Quercus nigra water oak Tree
3
3
6
6
5
7
5
10
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree
2
8
3
1
5
3
1
6
2
31
41
24
23
23
27
Quercus pagoda cherry bark oak Tree
3
Ulmus americana American elm Tree
4
18
3
25
45
37
48
N ssa sylvatica black gum Tree
2
3
5
9
7
2
2
Prunus serotinablack the Small Tree
1
1
1
Taxodium distichum bald c ress Tree
I
1
1
Planted Stem Count Total
8
17
13
12
20
14
13
15
9
121
129
95
103
106
156
Volunteer Natural Stem Count Total
0
0
3
0
5
9
29
2
5
53
102
45
52
3
0
Size ofVegetation Plot (Acres)
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.2224
0.2224
0.2224
0.2224
0.2224
0.0224
Number of Different Species (Planted & Volunteer Natural)
4
3
5
5
8
91
8
6
7
55
51
36
44
37
42
Planted &Volunteer Stems Per Acre
324
688
647
486
1012
931 1
1700
688
567
782
1039
630
697
490
701
PL= Planted Species
NT = Natural/Volunteer Species
= Liquidambar stryraciflua was observed in plot; however, is not listed as a species to be planted according to the Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration (EEP, 2004). Therefore this species is not quantified.
Table 3. Planted Species Comparison by Vegation Plot
Ivey -Ferguson Bank Parcel; Orange County, NC
Monitoring Year 5: September 21, 2016
McAdams Project #: MAM-09020
Monitoring Year 5: September 21, 2016
VP -1
VP -2
VP -3
VP -4
VP -5
VP -6
VP -7
VP -8
VP -9
Monitoring Year 5 Planted Stem Count Total
8
17
13
12
20
14
13
15
9
As Built Planted Stem Count Total
21
17
19
13
14
17
19
19
19
Planted Stem Difference from As Built
-13
0
-6
-1
6
-3
-6
4
-10
Surivability Rate (%) per Monitoring Plot
38%
100%
68%
92%
143%
82%
68%
79%
47%
Note: The difference between planted stems from the As Built and Monitoring Year 5 is due to species which were deemed "missing" or "dead" at the time of monitoring. One possible explanation for "missing' species is due to thick herbaceous growth obscurring the species from
identification during Monitoring Year 5. Therefore, it is possilbe "missing' species could grow larger than the herbaceous layer and allow for their identification and measurment in subsequent monitoring years. In addition, species which were deemed "dead" could survive in
subsequent years because the species may have gone dormant at the time of monitoring while the roots of the. species are surviving below ground. Therefore, in subsequent years the species could grow under more favorable conditions. In addition, re -planting, as recommended in
previous monitoring years, could have increased stem counts above the As -built stem counts.
APPENDIX C
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Ivey -Ferguson Bank Parcel
Monitoring Year 5 Report
Orange County, North Carolina
MAM-09020
September 29, 2016
Vegetation Plot Photos:
Vegetation Plot 1: View facing 320°NW.
Vegetation Plot 2: View facing 2380SW.
Vegetation Plot 3: View facing 1401SE.
Vegetation Plot 4: View facing 3320NW.
Vegetation Plot 5: View facing 2220NW.
Vegetation Plot 6: View facing 1300SE.
Vegetation Plot 7: View facing 2760W.
Vegetation Plot 8: View facing 192°S.
Vegetation Plot 9: View facing 2320SW.
APPENDIX D
Vegetation Monitoring Data Sheets
Site: Ivey Ferguson
Page: 1
Monitoring Year: MY5
Date: 9/21/2015
Area: 9
Veg Plot No.: 1
X-axis: 41N
Plot Location:
MONITORING YEAR 5 DATA MY -4 (September 2015)
see sketch below
Map ID Scientific Name
X Y ddh
Source meter meter millimeter
Height
centimeter
DBH
cm
Vigor ddh
millimeter
Height
centimeter
DBH
cm
Notes
1 Quercus laurifolia
B
1
1.3
Missing
2 Quercus nigra
B
3.5
1
247
2.36
3
175
2
3 Quercus nigra
B
5.5
1.3
250
2.45
3
153
2.2
4 Quercus phellos
B
7.4
1.5
253
2.39
3
151
2.1
5 Quercus laurifolia
B
7.8
0.2
261
2.34
3
156
2.2
6 Betula nigra
B
101
1.11
Missing
7 Betula nigra
B
9.7
2.6
Missing
8 Quercus phellos
B
7
3.5
231
2.43
3
145
2.2
9 Platanus occidentalis
B
5
3.4
Missing
10 Quercus laurifolia
B
2.8
3.1
181
2.09
3
135
1.9
11 Platanus occidentalis
B
0.8
3.5
Missing
12 Platanus occidentalis
B
0.5
5.9
Dead
13 Diospyros virginiana
B
2.4
5.7
Missing
14 Quercus nigra
B
4.1
5.71
Missing
15 Quercus nigra
B
6.4
5.8
189
2.25
3
120
2
16 Quercus laurifolia
B
8.9
5
Missing
17 Quercus laurifolia
B
8.7
7.5
Missing
18 Quercus laurifolia
B
5.3
8.2
266
2.56
3
1751
2.4
19 Diospyros virginiana
113
3
8.2
Dead
20 Quercus laurifolia
IB
1.6
8.1
Missing
21 lQuercus phellos
113
0.2
8.3
1Missing
B = bare root Vigor:
M = Missing 3 = good condition
D = Dead 2 = surviving and likely to survive next year
1 = almost surviving and not likely to survive next year
Fence
---------------------------------
xy x Existing Forest
CURRENT MONITORING YEAR DATA
VOLUNTEER HEIGHT CLASSES (cm)
Scientific Name
10-50 50-100 > 100
Liquidambar styraciflua
5
Site: Ivey -Ferguson
Page: 2
Monitoring Year: MY5
Date: 9/21/2016
Area: 9
Veg Plot No.: 1
X-axis: 40N
10
1
0.5
0,0 0.5
320°
1 L 6 4 b b t b V I
X-AXIS
0 uenotes missing-. stem may De missing because or 1nicK neraaceous layer ana tneretore not visiDie at the time or
monitoring. Stem should be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the stem may grow
above herbaceous layer.
Denotes "Dead". Stem should still be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the roots of
the stem may survive and therefore re -sprout in subsequent Monitoring Years.
21
20
18
'
17
'
13_
14
15;I
'
16
i 11
------
--------;----
10
-------;--------
------- ---- ------------
9
------ --- 8
---- ------
-------- ------
-------- ------
I
--- -- -------F------
1
--------f------
--------f----------------i----------------
2
--- ----
3
------- -----------------------
f ------
--------f
6
5
320°
1 L 6 4 b b t b V I
X-AXIS
0 uenotes missing-. stem may De missing because or 1nicK neraaceous layer ana tneretore not visiDie at the time or
monitoring. Stem should be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the stem may grow
above herbaceous layer.
Denotes "Dead". Stem should still be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the roots of
the stem may survive and therefore re -sprout in subsequent Monitoring Years.
Site: Ivey Ferguson
Page: 1
Monitoring Year: MY5
Date: 9/21/2016
Area: 7
Veg Plot No.: 2
X-axis: 1941N
Plot Location:
MONITORING YEAR 5 DATA I MY -4 (September 2015)
see sketch below
Map ID Scientific Name
X Y ddh
Source meter meter millimeter
Height
centimeter
DB H
cm
Vigor
ddh Height
millimeter centimeter
DBH
cm Notes
1 Quercus phellos
B
1.4
1.5
257
1.058
3
161
0.586
2 Platanus occidentalis
B
3.7
1.3
500
4.714
3
282
3.577
3 Platanus occidentalis
B
5.6
0.6
510
4.790
3
282
3.262
4 Quercus phellos
B
8
0.4
174
0.543
3
14.27 109
5 Quercus phellos
B
8.3
2.6
254
2.1663
163
0.989
6 Platanus occidentalis
B
6
2.7
537
6.464
3
290
3.804
7 Platanus occidentalis
B
3.3
3.2
600
6.164
3
295
4.675
8 Quercus phellos
B
1.5
3.6
157
0.250
3
14.3 111
9 Platanus occidentalis
B
1.2
6.1
642
8.154
3
296
4.571
10 Platanus occidentalis
B
3.7
7.3
631
8.094
3
301
5.729
11 Liriodendron tuli ifera
B
6
7.2
245
1.520
3
137
0.745
12 Quercus phellos
B
8.1
8.3
213
0.868
3 1
139
0.245
13 Quercus phellos
B
7.7
8.8
290
1.864
3
255
1.121
14 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
6.5
9.2
215
1.181
3
137
0.745
15 Platanus occidentalis
B
4.1
9.6
692
8.811
3
305
6.487
16 Quercus phellos
B
8.3
6
237
1.190
3
162
0.762
17 Quercus phellos
B
7.9
4.4
229
0.976
3
137
0.876
B = bare root Vigor:
M = Missing 3 = good condition
2 = surviving and likely to survive next year
1 = almost surviving and not likely to survive next year
---------------
-------- a ----------
y Existing Trees
xy x-------------- -----
Fence
CURRENT MONITORING YEAR DATA VOLUNTEER HEIGHT CLASSES cm
Scientific Name 10-50 50-100 > 100
Plantanus occidentalis
Quercus phellos
Site: Ivey -Ferguson
Page: 2
Monitoring Year: MY5
Date: 9/21/2016
Area: 7
Veg Plot No.: 2
X-axis: 194°N
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0.5
0,0
U.5 1 2 :i 4 5 b / 6 9 1U
X-AXIS
ienotes "Missing". Stem may be missing because of thick herbaceous layer and therefore not visible at the time of
ionitoring. Stem should be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the stem may grow
bove herbaceous layer.
)enotes "Dead". Stem should still be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the roots of
ie stem may survive and therefore re -sprout in subsequent Monitoring Years.
15
14
13
2
--- ------------
-------- j -----------------
L ----------------
----------------
L- ---------
10
----------------
--- --
11
-- ---- -----------
- -------
--------- L ----------------
L --------
--------
------- - ------ ---------
9
---------------------------------
----------------
----------------
--------
------- - -------
-------- ------------------------
16
----------------
- -------
--------- L ----------------
L ----------------
--------
I ------- ----------------
----------------
- ----------------
L ----------------
L --------
----------------
- -------
------------------------------------------
----------------
----------------
--------
------- - 17
--------------------------
--------
---- --------------
L
7
-------- ----------------i----------------
--------
------- --------
--------L-------
--------L-------
6
5 '
2
3
U.5 1 2 :i 4 5 b / 6 9 1U
X-AXIS
ienotes "Missing". Stem may be missing because of thick herbaceous layer and therefore not visible at the time of
ionitoring. Stem should be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the stem may grow
bove herbaceous layer.
)enotes "Dead". Stem should still be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the roots of
ie stem may survive and therefore re -sprout in subsequent Monitoring Years.
Site: Ivey Ferguson
Page: 1
Monitoring Year: MY5
Date: 9/21/2016
Area: 6
Veg Plot No.: 3
X-axis: 1881S
Plot Location:
MONITORING YEAR 5 DATA I MY -4 (September 2015)
see sketch below
Map ID Scientific Name
X Y
Source meter meter
ddh
millimeter
Height
centimeter
DB H
cm
Vigor
ddh
millimeter
Height
centimeter
DBH
cm Notes
1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
2.3
1.8
22.29
94
3
11.14
85
Deer
2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
4.6
2
10.31
55
3
8.88
45
Deer
3 Fraxinus penns Ivanica
B
7.5
2
152
0.549
3
11.29
120
Deer
4 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
9.1
0.9
150
0.417
3
14.39
110
Deer
5 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
8.7
2.6
167
0.534
3
140
6.136
6 Quercus phellos
B
9.4
5.1
5.28
25
3
4.65
38
Deer
7 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
7.3
4.2
10.62
79
3
14.46
85
Deer
8 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
4.7
4.7
148
0.404
3
14.25
107
9 Liriodendron tuli ifera
B
2.2
4.4
28.49
96
3
19.2
112
10 Quercus nigra
B
1.4
6.3
Dead
11 Quercus phellos
B
3.9
6.5
5.78
44
Missing
12 Quercus phellos
B
7.1
6.3
4.63
44
Missing
13 Fraxinus permsylvanica
B
9.9
5.5
8.50
45
3
7.84
48
14 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
8.1
5.4
Missing
15 Fraxinus permsylvanica
B
9.8
6.7
8.68
45
3
16 Quercus nigra
B
9.2
9.1
Missing
17 Quercus phellos
B
6.4
8.7
5.41
58
3
5.93
47
18 Betula nigra
B
3.6
8.7
Missing
19 Quercus phellos
IB
1
8.4
7.36
59
3 1
10.921
64
B = bare root Vigor:
M = Missing 3 = good condition
2 = surviving and likely to survive next year
1 = almost surviving and not likely to survive next year
y
Fence
xy xRoad Existing Forest
CURRENT MONITORING YEAR DATA VOLUNTEER HEIGHT CLASSES (cm)
Scientific Name 10-50 50-100 > 100
Liquidambar styraciflua 3
Betula nigra 3
Site: Ivey -Ferguson
Page: 2
Monitoring Year: MYS
Date: 9/21/2016
Area: 6
Veg Plot No.: 3
X-axis: 188'S
10
18
---------------
4 ----------------
I ---------------
----------------
4 ----------------
I ---------------
----------------
4 ----------------
-------
--- - -----
16
9
0
L---
1 ----------------
-------------
- -----------
----------------
-----------
---------------
----------------
---------------
- -------
8
T---------------------------------
---------------
— -------
------- 4 ----------------
---------------
— ---------------
----- --------------------------
- -------
7
C15
------------------------
------- ----- -------------
- -------------
_
121
6
------- - ---------------
----------------
---------------
- ---------------
----------------
---------------
- ---------------
L ----------------
L 13
5
- --------------
I
--- ---------------
T --------------
------------
---------------
— ---------------
4 ----------------
----------------
4 --------
--------
9
4
--------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
----------------
4 --------------------------------
--------
3
----------------
---------
------ ---------------
----------------
1 ----------------
---------------
- ---------------
----------------
--------
- -------
------- - ---------------
4 ----------------
---------------
T ---------------------------------
---------------
T ---------------------------------
2
---------------
T --- ---
(
F4
0.5
---------------
------- 4 --------
-------- -------
---------------
------- 4 ------------------------
-------
............
4.
........ ...... -
....
---------------
0,0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
X-AXIS
18
ODenotes "Missing". Stem may be missing because of thick herbaceous layer and therefore not visible at the time of
monitoring. Stem should be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the stem may grow
above herbaceous layer.
Denotes "Dead". Stem should still be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the roots of
140° O
the stem may survive and therefore re -sprout in subsequent Monitoring Years.
Site: Ivey Ferguson
Page: 1
Monitoring Year: MY5
Date: 9/21/2016
Area: 4
Veg Plot No.: 4
X-axis: 141N
Plot Location:
MONITORING YEAR 5 DATA I MY -4 (September 2015)
see sketch below
Map ID Scientific Name
X Y
Source meter meter
ddh
millimeter
Height
centimeter
DB H
cm
Vigor
ddh
millimeter
Height
centimeter
DBH
cm Notes
1 Diospyros vir iniana
B
4.3
1.5
Missing
2 Cornus florida
B
6.2
1.8
Missing
3 Cornus florida
B
8.5
2.3
Missing
4 Cornus florida
B
8.2
5.5
Missing
5 Cornus florida
B
5.9
4.4
Missing
6 Cornus florida
B
3.8
3.9
9.54
90
Missing
7 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
0.9
2.8
186
0.903
3
11.17
80
8 Cornus florida
B
0.7
5.4
Missing
9 Fraxinus permsylvanica
B
3.3
6.4
12.32
95
3
7.73
59
10 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
5.7
7.1
10.28
83
3
6.19
50
11 Cornus florida
B
8
8.2
Missing
12 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
2.8
8.8
13.7
76
3
8.09
67
13 Fraxinus permsylvanica
B
0.4
8.2
24.84
102
3
14.46
85
14 Betula nigra
B
2.5
3
189
0.372
3
14.5
94
planted 2015
15 Betula nigra
B
8.6
3.5
171
0.225
3
11.53
90
Planted 2015
16 Betula nigra
B
9.6
3.6
16.74
109
3
16.4
97
planted 2015
17 Quercus phellos
B
8.5
6.8
13.58
127
3
8.41
71
planted 2015
18 Betula nigra
B
7.8
5.4
6.04
73
3
4.6
63
planted 2015
19 Taxodium distichum
C
1.6
7.2
9.11
1153
25.971
154
5.32 planted 2015
20 Betula nigra
B
1 0.51
5.91
7.22
84
3
6.721
67
1planted 2015
B = bare root; C = containerized Vigor: 3 = good condition, 2 = surviving and likely to survive next year, 1 = almost surviving and not likely to survive next
year
y
Existing Drainage
Feature
Xy x
.................................................................................................................................................................. Existing Forest
CURRENT MONITORING YEAR DATA VOLUNTEER HEIGHT CLASSES (cm)
Scientific Name 10-50 50-100 > 100
Li uidambar st raciflua 1 8
Site: Ivey -Ferguson
Page: 2
Monitoring Year: MY5
Date: 9/21/2016
Area: 4
Veg Plot No.: 4
X-axis: 14°N
10
1
0.5
0,0 0.5
1 2 3 4 5 b
X-AXIS
ienotes "Missing". Stem may be missing because of thick herbaceous layer and therefore not visible at the time of monitoring.
tem should be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the stem may grow above herbaceous
Iyer.
ienotes "Dead". Stem should still be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the roots of the
tem may survive and therefore re -sprout in subsequent Monitoring Years.
12
13'
11
19
10
-----------------------a--------------------------------
-------
------ ------
--------------
--------------
------ ------
----- ------------------
17
9
5
20
4
$
6
15
16
14
7
-----------
-------'------
--------`------
------------------------'------
--------`------
---------------
-------'-----
DO
2
I
1 2 3 4 5 b
X-AXIS
ienotes "Missing". Stem may be missing because of thick herbaceous layer and therefore not visible at the time of monitoring.
tem should be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the stem may grow above herbaceous
Iyer.
ienotes "Dead". Stem should still be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the roots of the
tem may survive and therefore re -sprout in subsequent Monitoring Years.
Site: Ivey Ferguson
Page: 1
Monitoring Year: MY5
Date: 9/21/2016
Area: 5
Veg Plot No.: 5
X-axis: 2741W
Plot Location:
MONITORING YEAR 5 DATA I MY -4 (September 2015)
see sketch below
Map ID Scientific Name
X Y ddh
meter meter millimeter
Height
centimeter
DBH
cm
Vigor
ddh
millimeter
Height
centimeter
DBH
cm Notes
1 Quercus laurifolia
1 2
0.1
1.3
5.6
52
3
10.78
72
2 Quercus laurifolia
dB
0.3
3.4
10.69
55
3
10.1
60
3 Quercus laurifolia
2
7.7
9.67
38
Missing
4 Quercus laurifolia
1.7
5.2
11.6
58
Missing
5 Quercus michauxii
2.1
2.1
137
1.496
3
10
73
6 Cornus florida
B
4.2
2.6
Missing
7 1 Cornus florida
B
3.9
4.9
Missing
8 Quercus laurifolia
B
3.9
7.5
Missing
9 Quercus phellos
B
6.3
7.2
142
1.208
3
10.14
53
10 Cornus florida
B
6.3
4.6
Missing
11 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
6.3
2.3
Missing
12 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
8.4
1.6
Missing
13 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
8.6
4.4
Missing
14 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
8.5
7.1
Missing
15 Quercus laurifolia
B
6.6
3.1
137
1.368
3
8.55
70
16 Quercus phellos
C
0.2
0.8
12
75
3
10.78
72
planted 2015
17 Quercus phellos
C
0.7
4.1
11.84
61
3
11.6
58
planted 2015
18 Betula nigra
B
0.4
6.3
148
0.189
3
5.13
67
planted 2015
19 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
2.1
5.7
4.96
31
3
1.01
29
planted 2015
20 Quercus phellos
C
2
6.7
11.65
59
3
5.19
66
planted 2015
21 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
2.7
7.4
4.99
29
Missing
22 Nyssa sylvatica
C
3.9
8.7
10.41
53
3
9.99
70
planted 2015
23 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
4.7
7.6
8.74
53
3
9.84
53
planted 2015
24 Betula nigra
C
4.3
6.7
152
0.075
3
15.95
135
planted 2015
25 Quercus pagoda
C
5.3
9.4
9.07
93
3
11.58
90
planted 2015
26 Quercus phellos
C
8.8
8.9
13.43
87
3
11.58
62
planted 2015
27 Nyssa sylvatica
C
8.8
6.4
12.26
37
3
7.95
87
planted 2015
28 Quercus pagoda
C
7.2
5.6
6.64
73
3
4.01
64
planted 2015
29 Betula nigra
B
6.9
4.8
6.87
85
3
4.6
58
planted 2015
30 Quercus pagoda
C
9.3
4.4
8.71
84
3
7.87
92
planted 2015
311 Betula nigra
C
8.9
0.8
12.13
150
0.083
3 1
12.81
122
planted 2015
B = bare root; C = containerized Vigor: 3 = good condition, 2 = surviving and likely to survive next year, 1 = almost surviving and not likely to survive
M = Missing 'Identified as Quercus michauxii instead of Quercus laurifolia
Utility Easement Fence
y
Gate
xy x
Fence
CURRENT MONITORING YEAR DATA
VOLUNTEER HEIGHT CLASSES (cm)
Scientific Name
10-50 1 50-100 1 > 100
Liquidambar styraciflua
1 2
Betula nigra
1 3
Liriodendron tulipifera
1 2
Site: Ivey -Ferguson
Page: 2
Monitoring Year: MY5
Date: 9/21/2016
Area: 5
Veg Plot No.: 5
X-axis: 274°W
10
c
f
E
E
4
2
1
0.5
0,0
U.5 1 2 :i 4 5 b / 6 9 1U
X-AXIS
)enotes "Missing". Stem may be missing because of thick herbaceous layer and therefore not visible at the time of
ionitoring. Stem should be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the stem may grow
bove herbaceous layer.
)enotes "Dead". Stem should still be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the roots of
ie stem may survive and therefore re -sprout in subsequent Monitoring Years.
22
26
3
23
8
I
i
- -------
I
21
9
14
20
24
18
----------
Y
---------
-*----------------
27
19
28 L
I
4
7
------------ -
------------------------
-------------
---------------
29
10 '
13
30 ------
17
.__ -------------
--- J- ----------------
L-------
--------L-------
--------L----------------
----------------J-
_---------J--------
--------L-------
--------L-------
6
5
I
12
1
16
31
U.5 1 2 :i 4 5 b / 6 9 1U
X-AXIS
)enotes "Missing". Stem may be missing because of thick herbaceous layer and therefore not visible at the time of
ionitoring. Stem should be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the stem may grow
bove herbaceous layer.
)enotes "Dead". Stem should still be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the roots of
ie stem may survive and therefore re -sprout in subsequent Monitoring Years.
Site: Ivey Ferguson
Page: 1
Monitoring Year: MY5
Date: 9/21/2016
Area: 1
Veg Plot No.: 6
X-axis: 1761N
Plot Location:
MONITORING YEAR 5 DATA I MY -4 (September 2015)
see sketch below
Map ID Scientific Name
I X Y ddh
Source meter meter millimeter
Height
centimeter
DBH Vigor
cm
ddh
millimeter
Height
centimeter
DBH
cm Notes
1 Quercus phellos
B
2.7
0.6
3.16
23
2
3.68
32
2 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
4
2
12.39
40
3
8.46
42
3 Quercus nigra
B
7.4
1.4
5.96
45
3
5.34
47
4 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
8.4
3
14.32
59
3
13.21
67
5 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
6.6
3.5
13.09
60
3
10.5
57
6 Quercus phellos
B
4.2
4
6.33
25
1
6.58
56
7 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
2.4
4.7
13.84
88
3
13.54
122
8 Cornus florida
B
0.8
5.3
Dead
9 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
2.3
8
197
1.074 3
138
0.668
10 Cornus Florida
B
4
8.4
7.67
67
3
6.67
63
11 Cornus Florida
B
1.5
9.5
Missing
12 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
5
6.6
14.5
61
3
11.75
63
13 Quercus nigra
B
5.9
6.4
5.74
57
3
4.88
46
14 Quercus nigra
B
5.3
8.2
5.9
36
3
5.21
50
15 Cornus Florida
B
4.6
9.5
Missing
16 Quercus phellos
B
4.6
9.4
9.42
77
2
8.48
73
17 Diospyros virginiana
B
8.8
9.8
14.21
95
3
11.52
711
1
B = bare root Vigor: 3 = good condition, 2 = surviving and likely to survive next year, 1 = almost surviving and not likely to survive
next year
M =Missing *Identified as Quercus nigra instead of Qellos
-Identified as Quercus phellos instead of Fence laurifolia
y
xy x Existing Forest
CURRENT MONITORING YEAR DATA
VOLUNTEER HEIGHT CLASSES (cm)
Scientific Name
10-50 50-100 > 100
Ulmus americana
2 2
Betula nigra
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
1 1
Quercus laurifolia
1
Site: Ivey -Ferguson
Page: 2
Monitoring Year: MY5
Date: 9/21/2016
Area: 1
Veg Plot No.: 6
X-axis: 1760SE
10
0.5
0,0 0.5
--------
--- 1 1 ----
------- ------
--------t------
-----�-
6 5
--------------
---------------
-------------
17
--------
-------- ------
9
10
14
12
13
7
6
y
F-------
L------
I
5
4
i--------
---------------
--------F------
2
--------f---------------f----------------i----------------
--------
------------------
3
-------
--------f------
1
I
1 L 6 4 b b / b U "Iu
X-AXIS
)enotes "Missing". Stem may be missing because of thick herbaceous layer and therefore not visible at the time of
ionitoring. Stem should be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the stem may grow
bove herbaceous layer.
)enotes "Dead". Stem should still be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the roots of
ie stem may survive and therefore re -sprout in subsequent Monitoring Years.
Site: Ivey Ferguson
Page: 1
Monitoring Year: MY5
Date: 9/21/2016
Area: 1
Veg Plot No.: 7
X-axis: 3161N
Plot Location:
MONITORING YEAR 5 DATA I MY -4 (September 2015)
see sketch below
Map ID Scientific Name
X Y I
Source meter meter
ddh
millimeter
Height
centimeter
DBH
cm
Vigor
ddh
millimeter
Height
centimeter
DBH
cm Notes
1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
2.3
0.7
13.76
106
3
13.5
111
2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
7.4
1.4
7.75
72
3
6.9
67
3 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
8.9
1.1
145
1.756
3
16.43
108
4 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
6.7
2.6
8.13
43
3
8.46
41
5 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
4.6
1.8
12.4
91
3
9.851
78
6 Quercus phellos
B
2
2.3
8.8
123
3
6.63
72
7 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
1.9
4
11.95
59
3
11.59
56
8 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
4.1
4.7
13.49
72
Missing
9 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
3.3
5.1
Missing
10 Cornus florida
B
4.9
4.6
Missing
11 Cornus Florida
B
7.5
4.3
13.1
93
3
10.11
74
Deer
12 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
5.8
9.7
Missing
13 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
7.5
9.7
Missing
14 Betula nigra
B
9.8
9.5
Missing
15 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
7.4
7.9
9.56
75
3
7.97
35
16 Diospyros virginiana
B
6.5
7.5
240
1.754
3
177
1.46
17 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
4.5
7.7
14.33
27
3
4.84
34
18 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
3.4
7.7
8.81
70
3
8.59
72
19 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
0.1
8.5
7.261
42
3
6.71
531
Resprout
B = bare root Vigor: 3 = good condition, 2 = surviving and likely to survive next year, 1 = almost surviving and not likely to survive
next year
M =Missing
Fence
y
xy x Existing Forest
CURRENT MONITORING YEAR DATA
VOLUNTEER HEIGHT CLASSES (cm)
Scientific Name
10-50 50-100 > 100
Liquidambar styraciflua
10 7
Nyssa sylvatica
3
Ulmus americana
18
Diospyros virginiana
6 2
Site: Ivey -Ferguson
Page: 2
Monitoring Year: MY5
Date: 9/21/2016
Area: 1
Veg Plot No.: 7
X-axis: 316°N
10
L
1
0.5
0,0 0.5
------- --------
-------T-------
------- ------
-------- ------
--------*-------
12
-------
-------------
13
--
14
19
-------- ----------------
--------
------- - ----------------
------------;-------
18
17
---------------------
----
-----
15
r" — -------
--------
9
.________________
------- T---------------�
7
8 10
--------�
11
--------------
6
4
iF
----f------
------- 5
i
2
F f
3
1
I
1 L 6 4 b b / b U "Iu
X-AXIS
Denotes "Missing". Stem may be missing because of thick herbaceous layer and therefore not visible at the time of
monitoring. Stem should be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the stem may grow
above herbaceous layer.
Denotes "Dead". Stem should still be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the roots of
the stem may survive and therefore re -sprout in subsequent Monitoring Years.
Site: Ivey Ferguson
Page: 1
Monitoring Year: MY5
Date: 9/21/2016
Area: 2
Veg Plot No.: 8
X-axis: 236°N
Plot Location:
MONITORING YEAR 5 DATA I MY -4 (September 2015)
see sketch below
Map ID Scientific Name
X I Y I
Source meter meter
ddh Height
millimeter centimeter
DBH
cm
Vigor
ddh
millimeter
Height
centimeter
DBH
cm
Notes
1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
0.1
1.2
220
1.03
3
212
1.284
2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
2.2
1.4
255
2.094
3
240
1.463
3 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
4.6
0.6
Missing
4 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
6.9
0.9
Missing
5 Fraxinus permsylvanica
B
9.2
0.8
217
1.597
3
215
1.282
6 Quercus phellos
B
9.5
2.6
215
0.794
3
20.5
127
7 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
6.7
2.4
200
1.11
3
141
0.514
8 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
4.6
2.1
253
1.939
3
185
0.705
9 Fraxinus permsylvanica
B
0.5
4.7
280
2.235
3
274
1.284
10 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
3.8
4.9
232
1.588
3
206
1.149
11 Quercus phellos
B
6.9
4.9
187
0.788
3
178
0.483
12 Quercus phellos
B
9.8
5.7
218
0.792
3
24.57
113
13 Quercus phellos
B
9.2
8
265
0.926
3
188
0.794
14 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
7.1
7.6
13.12 81
3
11.57
63
15 Quercus phellos
B
4.1
7.3
Missing
16 Quercus phellos
B
1.9
6.7
230
1.387
3
149
0.635
17 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
6.8
9.2
193
1.278
3
184
0.93
18 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
4.3
9.3
16.54
89
Missing
19 Quercus hellos
B
1.7
9.1
300
1.242
3
16.711
2051
1
B = bare root Vigor: 3 = good condition, 2 = surviving and likely to survive next year, 1 = almost surviving and not likely to survive
next year
M = Missing
....................................................................................................................................................................................
1 y
Draina a Feature
\ Existing Forest
1 xy x_._._._ _._._._._ _,.
_.- - -
CURRENT MONITORING YEAR DATA VOLUNTEER HEIGHT CLASSES cm
Scientific Name 10-50 50-100 I > 100
Li uidambar styraciflua 31 1
Prunus serotina 1
Diospyros vir iniana 1
Site: Ivey -Ferguson
Page: 2
Monitoring Year: MY5
Date: 9/21/2016
Area: 2
Veg Plot No.: 8
X-axis: 236°N
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0.5
0,0
----------------
- ----------------
19
-------
-------- -------
- ---------------
18 '
----------------
---
17
-------- - ------ ---------
----------------
--------
15
14
13
16
'-------J-----------------
-------
--------L-------
--------L-------
--------L----------------
----------------
J----------------
-------
'J- ----------------
L -------
12
--------L--
4/ ----
--------------
--------------
--------t- 1 0---------
*----------------
-------
-------------
------ ------
----------------------------------
------- ------
-----------------
--------.----------------
1
L -------
--------L-------
_-------L--_____
________L-----------_____�----------------J----------------J--------
--------L-------
--------L-------
8
7
1
2
4
5
- --- ------
--------
---------------
--------------------------------
-------
--------t------
-------3
-------------------------
-------------
--------------
U.5 1 2 3 4 5 b / 6 9 1U
X-AXIS
)enotes "Missing". Stem may be missing because of thick herbaceous layer and therefore not visible at the time of
ionitoring. Stem should be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the stem may grow
bove herbaceous layer.
)enotes "Dead". Stem should still be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the roots of
ie stem may survive and therefore re -sprout in subsequent Monitoring Years.
Site: Ivey Ferguson
Page: 1
Monitoring Year: MY5
Date: 9/21/2016
Area: 2
Veg Plot No.: 9
X-axis: 2701N
Plot Location:
MONITORING YEAR 5 DATA I MY -4 (September 2015)
see sketch below
Map ID Scientific Name
X Y I
Source meter meter
ddh
millimeter
Height
centimeter
DBH
cm
Vigor
ddh
millimeter
Height
centimeter
DBH
cm
Notes
1 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
2
2.9
Dead
2 Quercus phellos
B
5.7
2.7
7.88
108
3
19.71
127
3 Quercus nigra
B
6
5.4
Missing
4 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
2.4
5.7
Missing
5 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
2
9
221
1.596
3
213
1.171
6 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
B
6
8.8
140
2.262
3
142
0.494
7 Quercus laurifolia
B
10
8.7
10.62
96
3
6.62
52
8 Quercus phellos
B
4.1
0.3
Missing
9 Betula nigra
B
6.5
0.4
Missing
10 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
9.9
2.5
Missing
11 Betula nigra
B
3.9
2.6
Dead
12 Betula nigra
B
7.7
2.8
217
0.769
3
134
0.669
13 Quercus phellos
B
7.7
2.5
10.72
83
3
75
1.15
14 Quercus nigra
B
9.9
5.4
6.37
41
Missing
15 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
9
5.3
Dead
16 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
6.8
5.5
Missing
17 Liriodendron tulipifera
B
0.5
6
163
0.571
3
123
2.275
18 Betula nigra
B
4
5.7
220
0.759
3
152
3.3
19 Quercus laurifolia
4
8.8
255
1.652
3
1701
0.539
B = bare root Vigor: 3 = good condition, 2 = surviving and likely to survive next year, 1 = almost surviving and not likely to survive
next year
M = Missing
y
Fence
xy x Existing Forest
Fence
------ -_._._._.-._. . ._._.--------------------
-------------------------
Nyssa sylvatica
HEIGHT CLASSES (cm)
Scientific Name
10-50 50-100 > 100
Ulmus americana
3
Liquidambar styraciflua
21 10
Betula nigra
2
Site: Ivey -Ferguson
Page: 2
Monitoring Year: MY5
Date: 9/21/2016
Area: 2
Veg Plot No.: 9
X-axis: 270°N
10
L
1
0.5
0,0 0.5
1 L 6 4 b b / b U lu
X-AXIS
Denotes "Missing". Stem may be missing because of thick herbaceous layer and therefore not visible at the time of
monitoring. Stem should be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the stem may grow
above herbaceous layer.
Denotes "Dead". Stem should still be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the roots of
the stem may survive and therefore re -sprout in subsequent Monitoring Years.
5
19
6
7
17
--------
-------I-------
�
18
--------•------•----------------1---
3 UV
------ ------
------- ---- ----
CE)
------- --------
------- — --- -- - ------- --------------
A,e-------
----
2 --------
----------------
12
-
13
10
i--------
---------------
--------F------
--------f------
--------f----------------i----------------i--------
---------------
--------F------
--------f------
a--------
---------------
-------- ;------
--------t-------
----------------
8
--------
----
I.----------
no
- -------
LLJ
-------- -------
----------------
1 L 6 4 b b / b U lu
X-AXIS
Denotes "Missing". Stem may be missing because of thick herbaceous layer and therefore not visible at the time of
monitoring. Stem should be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the stem may grow
above herbaceous layer.
Denotes "Dead". Stem should still be searched for at location during subsequent Monitoring Years because the roots of
the stem may survive and therefore re -sprout in subsequent Monitoring Years.
APPENDIX E
Photo Stations
Ivey -Ferguson Bank Parcel
Monitoring Year 5 Report
Orange County, North Carolina
MAM-09020
September 29, 2016
Photo Station Photos:
Photo Station 1: View facing 300N.
Photo Station 2: View facing 1620SE.
Photo Station 3: View facing 340N.
Photo Station 4: View facing 280SE.
Photo Station 5: View facing 540NE.
Photo Station 6: View facing 2180S.
Photo Station 7: View facing 310°W.
Photo Station 8: View facing 22°N.
Photo Station 9: View facing 3360NW.
Photo Station 10: View facing 338°NW.
Photo Station 11: View facing 312°NW.
Photo Station 12: View facing 64°NE.
Photo Station 13: View facing 2260SW.
WORP, Wm
4: r'
6 �
Photo Station 14: View facing 312°NW.
Photo Station 14: View facing 312°NW.