Loading...
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.