20110841 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_2020_20201217

ID#* 20110841 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Katie Merritt
Initial Review Completed Date 12/17/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 12/17/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
r Stream r Wetlands W Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Lindsay Crocker
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20110841
Existing IDV
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Burnetts Chapel II
County: Guilford
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: BurnettsPhll_100045_MY2_2020.pdf 15.58MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Lindsay Crocker
Signature:*

MONITORING YEAR 2
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
BURNETTS CHAPEL MITIGATION SITE -PHASE II
Guilford County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 7430
DMS ID No. 100045
DWR Project Number 2011-0841
Randleman Lake Watershed
Cape Fear River Basin
HUC 03030003
Data Collection Period: September 2020
Submission Date: December 14, 2020
PREPARED FOR:
r��
NC Department of Environmental Quality,
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

BURNETTS CHAPEL MITIGATION SITE -PHASE II
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW........................................................................................................
1.1 Project Description.....................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
1.3 Project History...........................................................................................................................1-2
1.4 Project Location.........................................................................................................................1-2
1.5 Project Design............................................................................................................................1-2
Section 2: DETERMINATION OF CREDITS..........................................................................................2-1
Section 3: PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND MONITORING PROTOCOLS...............................................3-1
3.1 Annual Monitoring and Reporting.............................................................................................3-1
3.2 Vegetation Success Criteria and Monitoring Protocol...............................................................3-1
3.3 Photo Reference Stations..........................................................................................................3-1
3.4 Visual Assessments....................................................................................................................3-1
Section 4: Results of Year 2 Monitoring............................................................................................
4-1
4.1 Vegetative Success.....................................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Vegetative Problem Areas.........................................................................................................4-1
4.3 Parcel Maintenance...................................................................................................................4-2
4.4 Conclusions................................................................................................................................4-2
Section 5: REFERENCES....................................................................................................................
5-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Tables and Figures
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1
Buffer Project Areas and Assets
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contact Table
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Table 5
Monitoring Components Summary
NCDWR Site Viability Letter
NCDWR On -site Determination Approval Letter
Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3 Current Condition Plan View
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Buffer & Site Conditions Photographs
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9 Planted and Total Stem Count
Vegetation Plot Field Data Sheets
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site -Phase II
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report — Final Page i

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
1.1 Project Description
The Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site -Phase II (Site) is a buffer restoration project located approximately
three miles west of the Town of Pleasant Garden and four miles south of the City of Greensboro in
Guilford County, NC (Figure 1). The Site is comprised of 7.50 acres along several unnamed tributaries to
the Randleman Reservoir (Figure 2). The Site is surrounded by fields that are used for agriculture and is
immediately adjacent to Phase I of the Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Project, which was successfully
completed by Wildlands in 2017 for the North Carolina Division of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (DIMS). The project expands the Phase I riparian buffer area from 50 feet
to 100 to 200 feet on five of the original project streams and channels. The Site is expected to generate
280,577.321 riparian buffer credits.
The Site is located within the Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030003-010050 and
the North Carolina Department of Water Resources (NCDWR) Sub -basin 03-06-08. Five unnamed
tributaries on the Site flow into the Randleman Reservoir (Reaches B1-B5). These water bodies are
classified as WS-IV, as the Randleman Reservoir is a major source of drinking water for the region.
This buffer restoration project will reduce sediment and nutrient loading and improve terrestrial habitat.
The area surrounding the streams proposed for restoration is primarily open agricultural fields.
Restoring the vegetative buffer on the areas up to 200 feet from the streams will remove the hay fields
and fertilizer inputs within the project area. The restored floodplain areas will filter sediment -laden farm
runoff during rainfall events. The establishment of riparian buffers will create shading to minimize
thermal pollution. Finally, invasive vegetation will be treated within the project area as needed and the
proposed native vegetation will provide cover and food for wildlife.
Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix 1 provide more detailed watershed and Site background information for this
project.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The major goals of the proposed buffer restoration project are to provide ecological and water quality
enhancements to the Randleman Reservoir watershed of the Cape Fear River Basin by creating a
functional riparian corridor and restoring the riparian buffer. Specific enhancements to water quality
and ecological processes are outlined below.
Goals
Objectives
Nutrient input will be decreased by filtering runoff from the
Decrease nutrient levels
agricultural fields through restored native buffer zones. The
off -site nutrient input will also be absorbed on -site by
dispersing flood flows through native vegetation.
Sediment from off -site sources will be deposited on
Decrease sediment input
restored floodplain areas where native vegetation will slow
overland flow velocities.
Create appropriate terrestrial habitat
Buffer areas will be restored by removing invasive
vegetation and planting native vegetation.
Permanently protect the Site from harmful uses.
A conservation easement will be established on the Site.
WBurnetts Chapel Mitigation Site -Phase II
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report — Final Page 1-1

1.3 Project History
On March 26, 2018, NCDWR conducted on -site determinations to review features and land use within
the project boundary. The resulting NCDWR site viability letter and map confirming the Site as suitable
for riparian buffer mitigation is located in Appendix 1. NCDWR also approved the five project reaches as
appropriate for buffer mitigation as related to the rules set forth in the Randleman Lake Water Supply
Watershed: Mitigation Program for Protection and Maintenance of Existing Riparian Buffers (15A NCAC
02B .0252). The on -site determination approval letter from NCDWR is also included in Appendix 1.
The final mitigation plan was submitted and accepted by the NC DIMS in September 2018. Planting
activities were completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in March 2019. The baseline monitoring and
as -built survey were completed in May 2019. There were no significant deviations reported in the
project elements in comparison to the design plans. Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix 1 provides more
detailed project activity, history, and contact information for this project.
1.4 Project Location
The Site is located (Center of project 35.944022 N and-79.845255 W) in Guilford County, NC
approximately three miles west of the Town of Pleasant Garden and four miles south of the City of
Greensboro) within the Cape Fear River Basin (HUC 03030003-010050) and the NCDWR Sub -basin 03-
06-08. Directions to the project are as follows: Traveling south on 1-73 from Greensboro, take Exit 94 for
Old Randleman Road. Turn right onto Old Randleman Road. Travel 0.5 miles and take a slight right onto
Kivett Drive. Continue on Kivett Drive for 0.7 miles and take a left onto Drake Road. Continue on Drake
Road for 1.7 miles and turn left onto Burnetts Chapel Road. The project parcel will be on the right
approximately 0.1 miles down Burnetts Chapel Road. Enter the Site via the gravel driveway. The
property location is depicted on the Vicinity Map (Figure 1), which is located in Appendix 1.
1.5 Project Design
The Wildlands Team restored high quality riparian buffers along several unnamed tributaries on the Site.
The project design ensured that no adverse impacts to wetlands or existing riparian buffers occurred.
Figure 2 illustrates the conceptual design for the Site. Detailed descriptions of the proposed restoration
activity follow in Sections 1.5.1 through 1.5.2. General site and buffer photographs are included in
Appendix 2.
1.5.1 Riparian Area Restoration Activities
Prior to planting, the buffer restoration area was used as agricultural fields. These areas were tilled with
a chisel plow to reduce soil compaction prior to planting. The fields within the project area contained
only a few invasive species; therefore, only some selective spot herbicide treatments were required. The
Site's ephemeral channels were located fully within the conservation easement area and were
completely buffered as part of the project; therefore, no land disturbance to maintain diffuse flow was
required.
The revegetation plan for the buffer restoration area included permanent seeding, planting bare root
trees, live stakes, and herbaceous plugs. These revegetation efforts were coupled with the select
treatment of invasive species to control their population. The specific species composition planted was
selected based on the desired community type, observation of occurrence of species in riparian buffers
adjacent to the Site, and best professional judgement on species establishment and anticipated site
conditions in the early years following project implementation. The total number of tree species planted
across the buffer areas are as follows: tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) 450 stems, willow oak
(Quercus phellos) 900 stems, American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) 900 stems, river birch (eetula
nigra) 900 stems, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 900 stems, and swamp chestnut oak (Quercus
WBurnetts Chapel Mitigation Site -Phase II
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report — Final Page 1-2

michauxii) 450 stems. In total, 4,500 stems were planted across the buffer areas of the Site resulting in a
planting density of 608 stems per acre. Trees were planted at a density sufficient to meet the
performance standards outlined in the Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 of 260 trees per acre at the end of five
years. No one tree species planted was greater than 50% of the established stems. An appropriate seed
mix was applied as necessary to provide temporary ground cover for soil stabilization and reduction of
sediment loss during rain events in disturbed areas. This was followed by an appropriate permanent
seed mixture. Planting was completed on March 16, 2019.
Vegetation management and herbicide applications were implemented as needed during tree
establishment in the restoration areas to prevent establishment of invasive species that could compete
with the planted native species.
1.5.2 Riparian Area Preservation Activities
No work was done in the buffer preservation areas, as allowed under 15A NCAC 02B .0295(o). The
preservation area will be protected in perpetuity under a conservation easement.
WBurnetts Chapel Mitigation Site -Phase II
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report — Final Page 1-3

Section 2: DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
In addition to buffer restoration on subject streams, per the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rules (15A
NCAC 02B 0.0295 (o)), alternative mitigation is proposed on the Site in the form of buffer restoration on
ephemeral channels and preservation of forested buffer on subject streams. The proposed project is in
compliance with these rules in the following ways:
Buffer Restoration on Ephemeral Channels (15A NCAC 02B 0.0295(o)(7)):
• NCDWR performed an evaluation of the Site (Phase I in 2011 and Phase II in 2018) and identified
the perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral channels on the property.
• The mitigation area on the Site's ephemeral channels is located completely within their drainage
areas.
• The ephemeral channels are directly connected to intermittent or perennial stream channels
and will be protected under the same contiguous easement boundary.
• The mitigation area on the ephemeral channels is less than 25% of the total buffer mitigation
area on the Site (Table 1, Appendix 1).
Preservation on Subject Streams (15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(5):
• The buffer width is at least 30 feet from the stream.
• The area meets the requirements of 15A NCAC 02R 0.0403(c)(7), (8), and (11) with no known
structures, infrastructure, hazardous substances, solid waste, or encumbrances within the
mitigation boundary.
• Preservation mitigation is being requested on no more than 25% of the total buffer mitigation
area (Table 1, Appendix 1).
Mitigation credits are presented in Table 1 and Figure 2 in Appendix 1 and are based upon the as -built
survey included in the Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site -Phase II Baseline Monitoring Report (2019).
WBurnetts Chapel Mitigation Site -Phase II
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report — Final Page 2-1

Section 3: PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND MONITORING PROTOCOLS
The performance criteria for the Site follows approved performance criteria presented in Burnetts
Chapel Mitigation Site -Phase II Mitigation Plan (Wildlands Engineering, Inc., 2018), the NC DIMS Riparian
Buffer and Nutrient Offset Buffer Baseline & Annual Monitoring Report Template, Version 2.0 (May
2017) and the Consolidated Buffer Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0295).
The buffer restoration project has been assigned specific performance criteria components for
vegetation. Performance criteria will be evaluated throughout the five-year post -construction
monitoring. The monitoring period will extend for five years beyond the completion of construction or
until performance criteria have been met. An outline of the performance criteria and monitoring
components are described below.
3.1 Annual Monitoring and Reporting
Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished
project. The extent of invasive species coverage will also be monitored and treated as necessary
throughout the required monitoring period (five years). Complete monitoring reports will be prepared in
the fall of each monitoring year and submitted to DIMS. Annual monitoring reports will be based on the
above referenced DIMS Template (May 2017).
3.2 Vegetation Success Criteria and Monitoring Protocol
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 260 planted stems per acre in the riparian
corridor at the end of the required monitoring period (Monitoring Year (MY) 5). The final performance
standard shall include a minimum of four native hardwood tree species or four native hardwood tree
and native shrub species, where no one species is greater than 50 percent of stems. Native hardwood
and native shrub volunteer species may be included to meet the final performance standard of 260
stems per acre. Performance criteria will be evaluated throughout the five-year post -construction
monitoring or until performance criteria have been met. Annual vegetation monitoring will follow the
CVS-EEP Level 1 & 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation (2008).
A total of six (6) vegetation monitoring quadrants were established within the project easement area
using standard 10 meter by 10 meter vegetation monitoring plots. Plots were randomly established
within planted portions of the riparian buffer areas to capture the heterogeneity of the designed
vegetative communities. The plot corners have been marked and are recoverable either through field
identification or with the use of a GPS unit. Reference photographs of the vegetation plots are taken
annually from the origin looking diagonally across the plot to the opposite corner.
Vegetation plot locations are depicted on the Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) Map (Figure 3) in
Appendix 2. Photos depicting the current conditions of the vegetation plots for MY2 are also presented
in Appendix 2.
3.3 Photo Reference Stations
Photographs will be taken within the project area once a year to visually document stability for five
years following construction. A total of eight (8) permanent markers were established and located with
GPS equipment so that the same locations and view directions on the Site are photographed each year.
Photo reference locations are depicted on the Integrated CCPV map (Figure 3) in Appendix 2. Photos
depicting the current conditions of the conservation easement for MY2 are also presented in Appendix 2.
3.4 Visual Assessments
Visual assessments should support the specific performance standards for each metric as described
WBurnetts Chapel Mitigation Site -Phase II
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report — Final Page 3-1

above. Visual assessments will be performed within the Site on a semi-annual basis during the five-year
monitoring period. Problem areas with vegetative health will be noted (e.g. low stem density, vegetation
mortality, invasive species, and/or encroachment). Areas of concern will be mapped, photographed, and
accompanied by a written description in the annual monitoring report. Problem areas will be re-
evaluated during each subsequent visual assessment.
WBurnetts Chapel Mitigation Site -Phase II
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report — Final Page 3-2

Section 4: Results of Year 2 Monitoring
4.1 Vegetative Success
The six vegetation plots were sampled in September 2020 towards the end of the second growing
season. A reference photo was taken from the southwest corner of each plot, which can be found in
Appendix 2. Total numbers of tree species identified within the monitoring plots as well as density and
composition are summarized in Table 9. The field data sheets are also in Appendix 3.
One stem within the plot 3 was mis-identified as swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) during
baseline monitoring based on the planting list provided by the contractor. During the MY1 monitoring
period after leaf -out, this stem was reexamined and correctly identified as white oak (Quercus alba); the
identity of the tree was again confirmed in MY2. Though white oak was not included on the planting list
provided by the contractor, it appears to have been a mistake since the stem was part of the original
planted stems and is evidently a white oak. Therefore, the vegetation plot composition table was
updated in MY1 to include the accurate label of Q. alba for the associated planted stem.
The MY2 vegetation monitoring resulted in an average stem density of 486 planted stems per acre,
which exceeds the final stem density requirement of at least 260 stems per acre by the end of MY5.
Stem densities within individual monitoring plots range from 283 to 567 planted stems per acre. The
number of different species planted per plot ranged from three to six with a Site average of five planted
species, which meets the species diversity criteria of a minimum of four native hardwood species. With
the inclusion of desirable volunteer species such as persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) and black walnut
(Juglans nigra), the total species diversity increased to nine native species. Plots one through four met
or exceeded the MY5 species diversity criteria; however, VP5 and VP6 only had three species. In
addition, no one planted species represents more than 50% of the total planted species throughout the
Site. Though volunteer species were noted as present, none were included in the monitoring
assessment vegetative success results for MY2.
Species diversity throughout the site, as well as within the monitoring plots, will likely increase in
subsequent monitoring years by way of resprouts and/or reseeding of planted species and the
continued introduction of volunteer species. If species diversity does not continue to improve,
supplemental planting may be needed. See Table 9 in Appendix 3 for additional information. Please
refer to Appendix 3 for vegetation plot data and vegetation plot photographs.
4.2 Vegetative Problem Areas
Though a few problems areas were noted throughout the conservation easement in MY2, their presence
continues to be minimal and are not negatively affecting the overall vegetative success of the Site.
These areas are described below in Section 4.2.1 and 4.2.2. Please refer Figure 3 in Appendix 2 for
mapped visual assessment data locations.
4.2.1 Invasive Species
As in MY1, a small patch of tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica) continue to persist within a patch of intact forest located within the easement. Small pockets
or individual stems of seedling Callery pear (Pyrus calleryana) and oriental bittersweet (Celastrus
orbiculatus) were hand -cut in July to keep it under control. Japanese honeysuckle within the Site
continued to have only a limited occurrence. Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) was present during
MY1 in small areas but it has expanded to cover a larger area in MY2; it currently covers 16% of the
planted acreage. As Johnsongrass is listed as a species of low/moderate concern, and because the
species' presence is not affecting the survival or growth of the planted stems, it is not shown on either
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site -Phase II
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report — Final Page 4-1

Table 6 or Figure 3. Consequently, although there are some invasive species present throughout the
Site, none are affecting the survival of the planted stems or the success of the project. Spot herbicide
treatments may be applied around the base of the trees as needed to reduce the competition from S.
holepsense and allow the trees to grow up and shade out the grass. Invasive species populations will
continue to be monitored and spot herbicide treatments will be conducted as needed during the
appropriate time of year.
4.2.2 Bare Areas
There is one small area (0.01 acres) along the left bank of Reach 134 continues to have a low planted
stem density based on the visual assessment conducted in September of 2020. It is likely that this area's
density will increase throughout the monitoring period; therefore, no additional planting is needed at
this time. Wildlands will continue to monitor this area for emergence of woody species. If species
density does not continue to improve, supplemental planting may be needed.
4.3 Parcel Maintenance
Adaptive measures will be developed, or appropriate remedial actions will be implemented in the event
that the Site or a specific component of the Site fails to achieve the success criteria outlined in the Site's
Mitigation Plan. Site maintenance will be performed to correct any identified problems on the Site that
have a high likelihood of affecting project success. Such items include but are not limited to excess tree
mortality caused by fire, flooding, drought, or insects. Any actions implemented will be designed to
achieve the success criteria and will include a work schedule and updated monitoring criteria.
4.4 Conclusions
The 2020 vegetation monitoring data reflects that the Site is on trajectory to achieve the final vegetative
success criteria by the end of Monitoring Year Five. These criteria include a stem density of 260 stems
per acre, a species diversity of at least four native species, and no one planted species representing
greater than 50 percent of stems for the Site. No major problems, such as large invasive species
populations, excessive areas lacking vegetative cover, or excessive tree mortality, were identified during
Monitoring Year 2. Therefore, no corrective actions are needed at this time; however, the Site will
continue to be re-evaluated throughout the monitoring period.
WBurnetts Chapel Mitigation Site -Phase II
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report — Final Page 4-2

Section 5: REFERENCES
15A NCAC 02B .0252
15A NCAC 02B .0295
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved from http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-
5.pdf
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities
2009. http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/cape_fear/RBRP%20Cape%20Fear%202008.pdf
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DIMS). 2017. Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Buffer
Baseline & Annual monitoring Report Template (Version 2.0, 05-2017). Raleigh, North Carolina.
https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Mitigation%20Services/Document%20Management%20Library/Guidance%20and%20Templa
to%20Documents/RB NO Base Mon Template 2.0 2017 5.pdf
North Carolina Interagency Review Team. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update. October 24, 2016.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, 3rd
approx. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2018. Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site -Phase II Mitigation Plan. DIMS, Raleigh,
NC. September 28, 2018.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2019. Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site -Phase II Baseline Monitoring Report.
DIMS, Raleigh, NC. May 16, 2019.
WBurnetts Chapel Mitigation Site -Phase II
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report — Final Page 5-1

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

Rewr'Cwlf
Club 8iskvoP pod
Gra�`"V�1
�6
z
d
O�
03030003010030
e s;
3010040,
/
r
03030003010050
I'a4 Kd
w
n
,.
Project Location
Phase I Conservation Easement Boundary
Phase 11 Conservation Easement Boundary
County Boundary
t Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
J
ESher
%
aloe Park Rd
3-
L -
�Rcl a
it
ILI
r�
i JL
er"' tts C /�6 Ra E Steep%
opt Skeple C chase R(i
I 73
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site
Phase II Location
149,4,T�
—••—••--�`—.._..----- GUILFORD
i
i'Atle`�
7
03030003010070
r,
Directions: Traveling south on I-73 from Greensboro,
Take Exit 94 for Old Randleman Road.
Turn right onto Old Randleman Road (0.5 miles).
Slight right onto Kivett Drive (0.7 miles).
Turn left onto Drake Road (1.7 miles).
` Turn left onto Burnetts Chapel Road (0.1 miles).
Turn right onto gravel driveway.
%Z WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
w
I
03030003010080
r� �`
,� L+
tii
J..
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
0 0.5 1 Miles Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site - Phase II
2020 Monitoring Report (MY2)
Cape Fear River Basin (03030003)
Guilford County, NC

OProject Location
Phase I Conservation Easement Boundary
! ! Phase 11 Conservation Easement Boundary
Buffer Restoration (0'-100')'P,
Buffer Restoration (100'-200')
- Buffer Restoration (51'-100') Ephemeral Channel
® Buffer Restoration (101'-200') Ephemeral Channel .`
Buffer Preservation (51'-100')
Perennial/Intermittent Streams 1
Ephemeral Channels
Non -Project Streams �■■
- - - Surveyed Top of Bank Project Channels
G%s�G�3
Ain
WILDLANDS
% V* ENGINEERING
It Vt !k,*
/►
2
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
0 100 200 Feet Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site - Phase II
I 1 1 1 I 2020 Monitoring Report (MY2)
Cape Fear River Basin (03030003)
Guilford County, NC

Table 1. Buffer Project Areas and Assets
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site - Phase II
DMS Project No. 100045
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
RIPARIAN BUFFER (15A NCAC 0213.0295)
Min -Max
Convertible to
Jurisdictional
Feature
Total Area
Creditable
Initial Credit
%Full
Final Credit
Riparian
Location
Method
Buffer
Nutrient Offset
Streams
Name
(sf)
Area (sf)
Ratio (x:1)
Credit
Ratio (x:1)
Buffer Credits
Width (ft)
(Yes or No
Rural or
Subject or
Restoration
20-29
--
--
1
75%
1.33333
--
--
Urban
Nonsubject
Rural or
Subject or
Restoration
Ephemeral
0-100
70,473
70,473
1
100%
1.00000
70,473.000
No
Urban
Nonsubject
Rural or
Subject or
Restoration
Streams
0-100
188,792
188,792
1
100%
1.00000
188,792.000
No
Urban
Nonsubject
Rural or
Subject or
Restoration
Ephemeral
101-200
2,837
2,837
1
33%
3.03030
936.211
No
Urban
Nonsubject
Rural or
Subject or
Restoration
Streams
101-200
60,573
60,573
1
33%
3.03030
19,989.110
No
Urban
Nonsubject
Rural or
Subject or
Enhancement
20-29
--
--
2
75%
2.66667
--
--
Urban
Nonsubject
Rural or
Subject or
Enhancement
0-100
--
--
2
100%
2.00000
--
--
Urban
Nonsubject
Rural or
Subject or
Enhancement
101-200
--
--
2
33%
6.06061
--
--
Urban
Nonsubject
SUBTOTALSI
322,675
1
1 280,190.321
ELIGIBLE PRESERVATION AREA
107,558
Min -Max
Jurisdictional
Feature
TotalArea
Creditable
Initial Credit
% Full
Final Credit
Riparian
Location
Method
Buffer
Streams
Name
(sf)
Area (sf)
Ratio (x:1)
Credit
Ratio (x:1)
Buffer Credits
Width ft
Rural
Subject
Preservation
20-29
10
75%
13.33333
Rural
Subject
Preservation
Streams
0-100
3,870
3,870
10
100%
10.00000
387.000
Rural
I Subject
Preservation
—
101-200
10
33%
30.30303
Rural
Nonsubject
Preservation
—
20-29
5
75%
6.66667
Rural
Nonsubject
Preservation
—
0-100
5
100%
5.00000
Rural
Nonsubject
Preservation
—
101-200
5
33%
15.15152
Subject or
Urban
Preservation
—
20-29
--
--
3
75%
4.00000
--
Nonsubject
Subject or
Urban
Preservation
—
0-100
--
--
3
100%
3.00000
--
Nonsubject
Subject or
Urban
Preservation
—
101-200
--
--
3
33%
9.09091
--
Nonsubject
SUBTOTALS
3,870
387.000
TOTALS
326,545
280,577.321

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site - Phase II
DMS Project No. 100045
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
ReportActivity or
Mitigation Plan
Data Collection Complete Completion or Scheduled
Delivery
- September 2019
Bare roots plantings
- March 2019
Baseline Monitoring (Year 0)
April 2019 May 2019
Year 1 Monitoring
October 2019 November 2019
Invasive Species Treatment
July 2020
Year 2 Monitoring
September 2020
November 2020
Year 3 Monitoring
November 2021
Year 4 Monitoring
November 2022
Year 5 Monitoring
I
November 2023
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site - Phase II
DMS Project No. 100045
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designers
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
704.332.7754
Project Manager (POC)
Andrea Eckardt, 704.332.7754, Ext. 101
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
Planting Contractor
150 Old Black Creek Rd
Freemont, NC 27830
Dykes & Son Nursery
Nursery Stock Suppliers
825 Maude Etter Rd.
McMinnville, TN 37110
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Monitoring (POC)l
Kristi Suggs, 704.332.7754, Ext. 110

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site - Phase II
DMS Project No. 100045
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Project Name
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site — Phase II
Hydrologic Unit Code
03030003010050
River Basin
Cape Fear
Geographic Location (Lat, Long)
35° 56- 46.0"N, 79° 50- 44.2"W
Site Protection Instrument (DB, PG)
8127 / 2755
Total Credits (BMU)
280,577.321
Types of Credits
Riparian Buffer
Table 5. Monitoring Components Summary
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site - Phase II
DIMS Project No. 100045
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
QuBantity/LeBngth by ReBa4ch
Frequency
61 65
Vegetation
CVS Level 1 & 2
6
Annual
Visual Assessment
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Semi -Annual
Exotic and Nuisance Vegetation
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Semi -Annual
Project Boundary
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Semi -Annual
Reference Photos
Photographs
8
Annual

f;a
Wa ter Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
March 27, 2018
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Attn: Andrea Eckardt
1430 South Mint Street Suite 104
Charlotte, NC
(via electronic mail: [e-mail] )
ROY COOPER
Go ve,-nor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secrel nl P
LINDA CULPEPPER
Interim Direclor
DWR ID# 2011-0841 v2
Guilford County
Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset — Burnetts Chapel Phase II Site
1323 Burnetts Chapel Road, Greensboro, NC
Randleman Lake Watershed
Dear Ms. Eckardt
On March 26, 2018, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), assisted you
and staff with Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) at the proposed Burnetts Chapel
Mitigation Site (Site) in Greensboro, NC. The Site is located in the Randleman Lake WS of the
Cape Fear River Basin within the 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code 03030003. The Site is being
proposed as part of a full -delivery buffer mitigation project for the DMS (RFP # 16-007242). At
your request, on March 26, 2018, Ms. Merritt performed an onsite assessment of riparian land uses
adjacent to streams onsite, which are shown on the attached map labeled "Site Map". This site is
adjacent to an existing DMS full -delivery buffer mitigation site known as "Burnetts Chapel
Mitigation Site" (DWR# 2011-0841) where fifty -foot riparian buffers were restored.
Ms. Merritt's evaluation of the features onsite and their associated mitigation determination for the
riparian areas are provided in the table below. This evaluation was made from 51' out to 200' from
the top of bank from each feature for buffer mitigation pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (effective
November 1, 2015).
Feature
Classification
'Subject
Riparian Land uses
Buffer
2Nutrient
Mitigation Type Determination w/in riparian
to Buffer
adjacent to Feature
areas
Credit
Viable
Offset Viable
Rule
51-200'
at 2,273
Ibs acre
B1
Stream
Yes
Hay crop fields
Yes
N/A
Fields - Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
.0295 (n)
62
Stream
Yes
Hay crop fields
Yes
N/A
Fields - Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
.0295 (n)
133
Stream
Yes
Hay crop fields
Yes
N/A
Fields - Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
.0295 (n)
64
Wetland /
No
N/A
No
N/A
N/A
Above
Swale
DWR 2011
flag (green)
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919 807 6300

Burnetts Chapel Phase II Site
Wildlands
March 27, 2018
Feature
Classification
1Subiect
Riparian Land uses
Buffer
2Nutrient
Mitigation Type Determination w/in riparian
to Buffer
adiacent to Feature
areas
Credit
Offset Viable
Rule
51-200'
at 2,273
Viable
Ibs acre
B4
Ephemeral
No
Hay crop fields
Yes°
N/A
Fields - Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
At DWR
.0295 (o)(7)
2011 flag
Must meet additional requirements under .0295
(o)(7) to be viable for buffer mitigation
134
Stream
Yes
Hay crop fields
Yes
N/A
Fields - Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
At DWR
.0295 (n)
2010 flag
65
Wetland /
No
N/A
No
N/A
N/A
Above
Swale
DWR 2011
flag (green)
B5
Ephemeral
No
Hay crop fields
Yes°
N/A
Fields - Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
At DWR
.0295 (o)(7)
2011 flag
Must meet additional requirements under .0295
(o)(7) to be viable for buffer mitigation
B5
Stream
Yes
Hay crop fields
Yes
N/A
Fields - Restoration Site per 15A NCAC 02B
At DWR
.0295 (n)
2010 flag
'Subjectivity calls for the features were determined by DWR in correspondence dated March 27, 2018 using the 1:24,000
scale quadrangle topographic map prepared by USGS and the most recent printed version of the soil survey map prepared
by the NRCS
2 NC Division of Water Resources - Methodology and Calculations for determining Nutrient Reductions associated with
Riparian Buffer Establishment
'The area of preservation credit within a buffer mitigation site shall comprise of no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total
area of buffer mitigation per 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(5) and 15A NCAC 0295 (o)(4). Site cannot be a Preservation only site
to comply with this rule.
'The area of the mitigation site on ephemeral channel shall comprise no more than 25 percent (25%) of the total area of
buffer mitigation per 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(7).
The attached map (Site Map) showing the project site and features was provided by Wildlands
Engineering and was initialed by Ms. Merritt on March 27, 2018. This letter should be provided in
any future stream, wetland, buffer and/or nutrient offset mitigation plans for this Site.
This letter does not constitute an approval of this site to generate mitigation credits. Pursuant to 15A
NCAC 02B .0295, a mitigation proposal and a mitigation plan shall be submitted to DWR for written
approval prior to conducting any mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or surface waters for
buffer mitigation credit. Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0240, a proposal regarding a proposed nutrient
load -reducing measure for nutrient offset credit shall be submitted to DWR for approval prior to any
mitigation activities in riparian areas and/or surface waters.
Page 213

Burnetts Chapel Phase II Site
Wildlands
March 27, 2018
All vegetative plantings, performance criteria and other mitigation requirements for riparian
restoration, enhancement and preservation must follow the requirements in 15A NCAC 02B .0295 to
be eligible for buffer and/or nutrient offset mitigation credits. For any areas depicted as not being
viable for nutrient offset credit above, one could propose a different measure, along with supporting
calculations and sufficient detail to support estimates of load reduction, for review by the DWR to
determine viability for nutrient offset in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0240. For any areas
generating wetland mitigation credit, no buffer or nutrient offset credit can be generated.
This viability assessment will expire on March 27, 2020 or upon the submittal of an As -Built
Report to the DWR, whichever comes first. Please contact Katie Merritt at (919)-807-6371 if you
have any questions regarding this correspondence.
KAH/km
Attachments: Site Map
cc: File Copy (Katie Merritt)
DMS - Jeff Schaffer (via electronic mail)
Sincerely,
Karen Higgins, Supervisor
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
Page 313

Site Map
W I L D L A N S 0 125 250 Feet Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site - Phase II
%%� ENGINEERI NG I I I I I Cape Fear River Basin (03030003)
Guilford County, NC

Project Location
FJr
1
Pleasant Garden USGS 7.5 minute Topographic Quadrangle - 2016
USGS Topographic Map
W I L D L A N D S 0 250 500 Feet Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site - Phase II
ENGINEERING I I Cape Fear River Basin (03030003)
Guilford County, NC

r �
Water Resources
Environmental Quality
March 27, 2018
Andrea Eckardt
Wildlands Engineering Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte NC 28203
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
LINDA CULPEPPER
Interim Director
Subject: On -Site Determination for Applicability to the Randleman Lake Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B
.0250)
Subject Property: Burnett's Chapel Mitigation Site, 1323 Burnetts Chapel Rd, Greensboro NC
Guilford County
DWR# 2011-0841
Dear Ms. Eckardt:
On March 26, 2018, at your request, Sue Homewood conducted an on -site determination to review features
located on the subject project for stream determinations with regards to the above noted state regulations.
Katie Merritt with the Division of Water Resources (Division) was also present during the site visit.
During the site visit the upper portions of Reach B4 and Reach B5, as shown in green on the attached
map, were reviewed. Both areas were representative of vegetated swales and had characteristics of
wetlands and were therefore were determined not to be subject to the Randleman Buffer Rules as stated
above.
The owner (or future owners) should notify the Division (and other relevant agencies) of this decision in
any future correspondences concerning this property. This on -site determination shall expire five (5) years
from the date of this letter.
Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by the Division or Delegated Local
Authority that a surface water exists and that it is subject to the buffer rule may request a determination by
the Director. A request for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o
401 & Buffer Permitting Branch, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650. Individuals that
dispute a determination by the Division or Delegated Local Authority that "exempts" surface water from
the buffer rule may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you
receive this letter. Applicants are hereby notified that the 60-day statutory appeal time does not start until
the affected party (including downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of this decision. The
Division recommends that the applicant conduct this notification in order to be certain that third party
appeals are made in a timely manner. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This determination is final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing within 60 days.
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality
450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300 1 Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27105
336-776-9800

This letter only addresses the applicability to the buffer rules and does not approve any activity within
Waters of the United States or Waters of the State or their associated buffers. If you have any additional
questions or require additional information, please contact me at 336-776-9693 or
sue.homewoodkncdenr.gov.
Sincerely,
S � ',= * � "S �'
Sue Homewood
Winston-Salem Regional Office
Enclosures: USGS Topo Map
Wildlands Features Map
Cc: Rick & Val Ingram, 1323 Burnetts Chapel Rd, Greensboro NC 27406
Katie Merritt, DWR (via email)
DWR, Winston-Salem Regional Office

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

QProject Location
Phase I Conservation Easement
Boundary
,•--, Phase 11 Conservation Easement
�—' Boundary
L , Buffer Restoration (0'-100')
® Buffer Restoration (100'-200')
Buffer Restoration (51'-100')
Ephemeral Channel
Buffer Restoration (101'-200')
Ephemeral Channel
Buffer Preservation (51'-100')
Vegetation Plot Conditions - MY2
= Criteria Met
Monitoring Issues
Low Stem Density
Tree of Heaven & Honeysuckle
Perennial/Intermittent Streams
Ephemeral Channels
Non -Project Streams
0 Photopoint (PP)
5 }.
.'.•.may -.may_ `~� '�r.�
Figure 3 Current Conditions Plan View
W I L D L A N D S 0 100 200 Feet Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site - Phase II
ENGINEERING I i�i I 2020 Monitoring Report (MY2)
Cape Fear River Basin (03030003)
Guilford County, NC

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site - Phase II
DMS Project No. 100045
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Planted Acreage 7.4
Mapping
% of
Number of
Combined
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Planted
(acres)
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
0
0.0
0%
i
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY5 stem
Low Stem Density Areas
0.1
1
0.1
1%
count criteria.
Total
1
0.0
1%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given
0.0
0
0.0
0%
Vigor
the monitoring year.
Cumulative Total
I 1
1 0.0
1 1%
Easement Acreage 7.5
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(SF)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Planted
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1,000
1
0.1
1%
Easement Encroachment Areas
JAreas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
1 0
0.0
0%
1Acreage calculated from vegetation plots monitored for site and visual assessement during the site walk.

Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site — Phase II
Monitoring Year 2
Buffer and Site Condition Photographs

Photo Point 1— Looking upstream B2 and B5 (09/03/2020) 1 Photo Point 1— Looking downstream B1 (09/03/2020) 1
Photo Point 2 — Looking upstream B1 (09/03/2020) 1 Photo Point 2 — Looking downstream to B1-B2 confluence (09/03/2020) 1
Photo Point 3 — Looking upstream B2 (09/03/2020) 1 Photo Point 3 — Looking downstream B2 (09/03/2020)

Photo Point 4 — Looking upstream B2 (09/03/2020) 1 Photo Point 4 — Looking downstream B2 (09/03/2020) 1
Photo Point 5 — Looking upstream B3 (09/03/2020) 1 Photo Point 5 — Looking downstream to B2-B4 confluence (09/03/2020) 1
Photo Point 6 — Looking upstream across top of B4 (09/03/2020) 1 Photo Point 6 — Looking downstream B4 (09/03/2020)

Photo Point 7 — Looking upstream B5 (09/03/2020) 1 Photo Point 7 — Looking downstream B5 (09/03/2020) 1
Photo Point 8 — Looking upstream B5 (09/03/2020) I Photo Point 8 — Looking downstream B5 (09/03/2020)

Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site — Phase II
Monitoring Year 2
Vegetation Plot Photographs

Vegetation Plot 1 (09/03/2020) 1 Vegetation Plot 2 (09/03/2020) 1
Vegetation Plot 3 (09/03/2020) 1 Vegetation Plot 4 (09/03/2020) 1
Vegetation Plot 5 (09/03/2020) 1 Vegetation Plot 6 (09/03/2020)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site - Phase II
DMS Project No. 100045
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Plot
Success Criteria
Met (Y/N)
Tract Mean
1
Y
100%
2
Y
3
Y
4
Y
5
Y
6
Y

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Tables - Metaclata
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site - Phase II
DIMS Project No. 100045
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Report Prepared By
Sara Thompson
Date Prepared
9/8/2020 13:27
Database Name
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0 Burnetts Phase II MY2_2020.mdb
Database Location
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02170 Burnetts Chapel Phase II\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 2_2020\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name
SARA2020
File Size
51654656
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Project Planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Project Total Stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
100045
Project Name
Burnett's Chapel Mitigation Site - Phase II
Project Description
NC DMS Full Delivery Project - Buffer Mitigation
Sampled Plots
6

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Count
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site - Phase II
DMS Project No. 100045
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 2
Current Plot D. 2020)
Vegetation Plot 3 Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 5
Vegetation Plot 6
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
4
4
4
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon, Possumwood
Tree
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
1
1
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
1
Liquidambarstyraciflua
Sweet Gum, Red Gum
Tree
18
1
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
1
1
13
3
3
3
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
Quercus alba
White Oak
Tree
I
I
1 1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
5
5
5
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
Stem count
14
14
44
14
14
14
13
13
16
14
14
17
7
7
7
9
9
9
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
Species count
6
6
7
4
4
4
6
6
9
5
5
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
Stems per ACRE
567
567
1781
567
567
567
526
526
647
567
567
688
283
283
283
364
3644-364
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY2 (2020)
Annual Means
MY1 (2019)
MYO (2019)
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon, Possumwood
Tree
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
1
Liquidambarstyraciflua
Sweet Gum, Red Gum
Tree
22
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulp Poplar
Tree
4
4
16
8
8
8
9
9
9
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
11
11
11
13
13
13
13
13
13
Quercus alba
White Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
16
16
16
18
18
18
20
20
20
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
10
10
10
13
13
13
17
17
17
Stem count
72
72
108
83
83
84
90
90
90
size (ares)
6
6
6
size (ACRES)
0.1483
0.1483
0.1483
Species count
7
7
10
7
7
8
6
6
6
Stems per ACRE
486
486
728
560
560
567
607
607
607
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteers included
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P-All: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems

Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site — Phase II (MY2)
Vegetation Monitoring Data Sheets
Plots 1-6
Sampled:
09/03/2020
Notes:
Party:
JT Jeff Turner
ST Sara Thompson
Abbreviations for Natural Woody Stems:
Be.ni.
Betula nigra
Di.vi.
Diospyros virginiana
Fr.pe.
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Li.st.
Liquidambar styraciflua
Li.tu.
Liriodendron tulipifera
Pl.oc.
Platanus occidentalis
Qu.mi.
Quercus michauxii
Qu.a1.
Quercus alba
Qu.ph.
Quercus phellos
Ju. ni.
luglans nigra
River birch
American Persimmon
Green ash
Sweetgum
Tulip poplar
American sycamore
Swamp chestnut oak
White Oak
Willow oak
Eastern black walnut

Plot (continued): 10045-01-VP1 Sep 2019 Data o THIS YEAR'S DATA
0
map source X Y ddh Height DBH ddh Height DBH Re -
ID Species char (m) (m) (mm) (cm) (cm) (mm) (cm) (cm) sprout Vigor Damage Notes
Vegetation Monitoring Data (VIVID) Datasheet Please fill in any missing data and correct any errors.
Plot 10045-01-VP1 P Role: Date last planted:
S'1 I -?_ - New I rating date m/yy? /
VMD Year (1-5): ❑� Date: 01 / b 3 / 2O - Check box if plot was not
Taxonomic Standard: Notes: sampled, specify reason below
Taxonomic Standard DATE:
Latitude or UTM-N: 35.94385 Datum: NAD83/W
(dec.deg. or m)
Longitude or UTM-E:-79.84587 UTM Zone: 17
Coordinate Accuracy (m): 1 X-Axis bearing (deg): 50.36
10 Y 10
Plot Dimensrons. X. ❑ Plot has reverse orientation for X and Y axis (Y is 90 degrees to the right of X
Sep 2019 Data o THIS YEAR'S DATA
Map Source* X Y Height DBH * Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Notes
ID Species Name char 0.1m 0.1in1 lcm* 1 cm L lcm* 1 cm sprout
1
Quercus michauxii
R
0.4
0.4
94.0
❑
2
Platanus occidentalis
Q
R
5.0
0.4
122.0
DBH? ❑
3
Betula nigra
©
R
9.6
0.4
87.0
0
4
Quercus michauxii
Q
R
9.6
2.4
53.0
❑
5
Quercus phellos
Q
R
5.2
2.5
43.0
0
6
Betula nigra
R
0.3
2.4
87.0
0
7
Platanus occidentalis
R
0.4
4.6
104.0
DBH? ❑
8
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
®
R
5.0
4.9
95.0
❑
9
Quercus phellos
R
9.8
5.0
51.0
❑
10
Quercus michauxii
O
R
9.9
7.5
81.0
❑
11
Betula nigra
R
5.0
7.3
64.0
12
Quercus michauxii
®
R
0.3
6.7
66.0
❑
13
Liriodendron tulipifera
O
R
0.5
9.6
100.0
❑
14
Betula nigra
G)
R
5.0
9.8
48.0
15
Betula nigra
®
R
9.6
9.7
38.0
0
# stems:
15 New Stems,
not included last
year, but
are obviously
planted. If more space
X
Y
Height DBH
Species Name
Source*
(m)
(m)
1 cm* 1 cm
Vigor*
*Notes by ID: 3-Broken stem
5-Broken stem
6-Broken stem
11-Broken stem
14-Broken stem
15-Broken stem
110�
■0���
needed, use blank PWS (Planted Woody Stems) Form:
Damage* Notes
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2--fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, ANIMal, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other.
*HEIGHT PRECISION drops to 10cm if >2.5m and 50cm if >4m. Printed in the CVS Entry Tool ver. 2.5.0

Plot (continued): 10045-01-VP1
map source X Y
ID Species char (m) (m)
Sep 2019 Data
ddh Height DBH
(mm) (cm) (cm)
o
*
(mm)
THIS YEAR'S DATA
ddh Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Notes
(cm) (cm) sprout
Exalanation of cut-off
Natural Woody Stems - tallied by species &subsamdine**:
Height Cut-Off(All stems shorterthan thisare ignored. If>10cm, explain why to the right.): ❑ 10cm ❑ 50cm ❑ 100cm ❑ 137cm
Species Name
p
e
SEEDLINGS
— HEIGHT CLASSES
SAPLINGS
— DBH
TREES — DBH
Sub-
Seed
10 cm-
50 cm
50cm-
100 cm
100 cm-
137 cm
Sub-
Sap
0-1 cm
1-2.5
2.5-
5-
=10
(write DBH)
**Required if cut-off >1 0cm or subsample ? 100%. 01
•2
•
• 3
••
0*4
••
"5
••
�6 �•7 �8
• r••
��9
••ii
�10 Fom�WS2,ver9.1
Map of stems on plot 10045-01-VPI
Y:5
(0,0) X:5m
X-axis: 50.4 ° # stems: 15
/N mapsi_e:
small
O
*SOURCE: Tr --Transplant, L=Live stake B=Ba11 and burls P=Potted Tu=Tublin R=bare Root M=Mechanicall U=Unknown • 2
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, ANIMal, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other.
*HEIGHT PRECISION drops to 10cm if >2.5m and 50cm if >4m. Printedin the Cvs Enrry Tool ver. 2.5.0

Vegetation Monitoring Data (VMD) Datasheet
Plot 10045-01-VP2
VMD Year (1-5): ❑� Date: / , ;. /
Taxonomic Standard:
Taxonomic Standard DATE:
Latitude or UTM-N: 35.943204 Datum: NAD83/W
(dec.deg. or m)
Longitude or UTM-E:-79.843804 UTM Zone: 17
Coordinate Accuracy (m): 1 X-Axis bearing (deg): 15.06
Please fill in any missing data and correct any errors.
Y: Role: Date last planted:
P New lanting date m/yy? 0
Check box if plot was not
Notes: sampled, specify reason below
Plot Dimensions: X: 10 Y: 10 Plot has reverse orientation for X and Y axis (Y is 90 degrees to the right of X
ID
Species Name
Map
char
Source* X Y
0.1m 0.1m
Sep 2019 Data
Height DBH
lcm* 1 cm
�Z�
Height
lcm*
THIS YEAR'S DATA
DBH Re -
1 cm sprout Vigor Damage Notes
16 Betula nigra ® R 0.5 0.5 47.0
17 Betula nigra 0 R 4.8 0.6 92.0
18 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Q R 9.5 0.5 93.0
19 Quercus michauxii © R 9.5 2.4 84.0
20 Betula nigra ® R 4.8 2.2 96.0
21 Betula nigra © R 0.5 1.9 40.0
22 Platanus occidental is @ R 0.5 4.5 100.0
24 Betula nigra O R 9.7 5.3 100.0
25 Platanus occidentalis ® R 9.7 7.5 101.0
26 Betula nigra O R 4.8 6.7 40.0
27 Quercus michauxii ® R 0.5 6.3 27.0
28 Quercus michauxii O R 0.4 9.5 95.0
29 Platanus occidentalis R 4.8 9.4 133.0
30 Quercus michauxii O R 9.6 9.5 57.0
# stems: 14 New Stems, not included last year, but are obviously planted.
Species Name Source* (m) (m) HightI cm* DBIH
Alo V0/-s I-If-f� I I I
Q 59
0 0
Q
70
0 3
❑ `i Y
s
DBH? El 7-3
V `i 5
y C/
❑ 1 U
a
DBH? ❑
�,--;,,
If more space needed, use blank
Vigor* Damage*
❑
,1
❑
3
❑
El
Ll
y
'
El
El
PWS (Planted
Notes
Woody Stems)
Form:
*Notes by ID: 16-Broken stem
17-Broken stem
19-Broken stem
20-Broken stem
21-Broken stem
24-Broken stem
26-Broken stem
30-Insects, Broken stem
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2--fair, DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, ANIMal, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other.
*HEIGHT PRECISION drops to 10cm if >2.5m and 50cm if >4m. Printed in the CVS Entry Tool ver. 2.5. 0

Plot (continued): 10045-01-VP2
map source X Y
ID Species char (m) (m)
Sep 2019 Data
ddh Height DBH
(mm) (cm) (cm)
o
N
THIS YEAR'S DATA
ddh Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Notes
(mm) (cm) (cm) sprout
Explanation of cut-off
Natural Woody Stems - tallied by species & subsampline�`*:
HeightCut-Off(Allsternsshorterthanthisareignored. If >10cm, explain why to the right.): ❑ IOcm ❑ 50cm ❑ 100cm ❑ 137cm
SEEDLINGS — HEIGHT CLASSES SAPLINGS — DBH TREES — DBH
Species Name 0 Sub- 10 cm- 50 cm- 100 cm- Sub- =10
c Seed 50 cm 100 cm 137 cm Sapl 0-1 cm 1-2.5 2.5- 5- (write DBH))
**Required ifcrt-off>I0cm or subsample?100%. •1
•2
• 3
• 04
• •5
•6
:•7
::8
t�9
U0 Form WS2,ver9.1
Map of stems on plot 10045-01-VP2
Y:5
O
O .�
J
O
O
n
J J�
O
O O
(0,0) X:�m
X-axis: 15.1 ° #stems: 14
0map e:
N small
*SOURCE: Tr --Transplant, L=Live stake B=Ball and burls P=Potted Tu=Tublin R=bare Root M=Mechanical) U=Unknown U. I
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, ANIMal, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other.
Printed in the CAS Enby Tool ver. 2.5.0
*HEIGHT PRECISION drops to 10cm if>2.5m and 50cm if >4m.

Vegetation Monitoring Data'(VMD) Datasheet
Plot 10045-01-VP3
VMD Year (1-5): ❑� Date: 0 5 / 0 3
Taxonomic Standard:
Taxonomic Standard DATE:
Latitude or UTM-N: 35.943236 Datum: NAD83/W
(dec.deg. or m)
Longitude or UTM-E:-79.846504 UTM Zone: 17
Coordinate Accuracy (m): 1 X-Axis bearing (deg): 328.89
Please fill in any missing data and correct any errors.
Role: Date last planted:
S-r/ TT New lanting date m/yy?
Check box if plot was not
Notes: sampled, specify reason below
0
Plot Dimensions: X: 10 1 1
Elplot has reverse orientation for X and Y axis (Y is 90 degrees to the right of X
ID Species Name
Map Source* X Y
char O.lm Urn
Sep 2019 Data Z THIS YEAR'S DATA
0
Height DBH * Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Notes
lcm* 1 cm lcm* 1 cm sprout
31
Quercus phellos
®
R
0.5
0.5
65.0
El
32
Platanus occidentalis
O
R
2.4
0.5
91.0
33
Quercus alba
®
R
4.9
0.5
82.0
34
Betula nigra
O
R
7.1
0.4
35.0
35
Betula nigra
Qj
R
9.4
0.5
38.0
❑
36
Quercus michauxii
®
R
9.6
4.9
64.0
37
Quercus phellos
Q
R
7.1
4.7
50.0
38
Quercus phellos
O
R
5.1
4.6
15.0
❑
39
Betula nigra
O
R
2.6
4.6
96.0
❑
40
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
®
R
0.5
4.5
64.0
W
41
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
©
R
0.4
9.6
91.0
42
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
0
R
2.3
9.5
98.0
❑
44
Betula nigra
©
R
7.2
9.7
108.0
DBH? 0
45
Quercus phellos
R
9.6
' 9.5
33.0
0
# stems: 14 New Stems, not included last year, but are obviously planted. If more space needed, use blank PWS (Planted Woody Stems) Form:
Species Name Source* X Y Height DBH
p (m) (m) 1 cm* 1 cm Vigor Damage Notes
*Notes by ID: 33-Mislabeld MYO as Q. mich.
36-Broken stem
37-Broken stem
40-Insect damage
44-Insect damage
45-Broken stem
*SOURCE: Tr --Transplant, L=Live stake B=Ball and burlap, P=Potted Tu=Tublin R=bare Root M=Mechanicall U=Unknown P.
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2--fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock Other/Unknown
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, ANIMal, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other.
*HEIGHT PRECISION drops to 10cm if >2.5m and 50cm if >4m. Printed in the CVS Entry Tool ver. 2.5.0

Plot (continued): 10045-01-VP3
map source X Y
ID Species char (m) (m)
Sep 2019 Data
ddh Height DBH
(mm) (cm) (cm)
o
*
(mm)
THIS YEAR'S DATA
ddh Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Notes
(cm) (cm) sprout
Explanation of cut-off
Natural Woody Stems - tallied by species & subsamNine* *:
Height Cut -Off (All stems shorterthan thisare ignored. If >10cm, explain why to the right.): ❑ IOcm ❑ 50cm ❑ 100cm ❑ 137cm
Species Name
Q
c
SEEDLINGS
— HEIGHT
CLASSES
SAPLINGS
— DBH
TREES — DBH
Sub-
Seed
10 cm-
50 cm
50 cm-
100 cm
100 cm-
137 cm
Sub-
Sapl
0-1 cm
1-2.5
2.5-
5-
=10
(write DBH)
Bkc<
**Required ifcLt-0ff>10cmorsubsample?100%. 01
•2
•
• 3
••
•�4
••
HS
••
r6
•
r•• �•7
�8I:r
x10 Form WS2, ver 9.1
#stems: 14
Map of stems on plot 10045-01-VP3 X-axis: 329 °
map e:
� small
N
Y:5
n
O
O
O
T
O
O
®
O
O
(0,0) Y:5111
*SOURCE: Tr --Transplant, L=Live stake B=Ball and burls P=Potted Tu=Tubling R=bare Root M=Mechanically, U=Unknown p• t
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, ANIMal, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other.
*HEIGHT PRECISION drops to 10cm if >2.5m and 50cm if >4m. Printedin the CAS E» rn Too! ve,. 1.5.0

Vegetation Monitoring Data6(VMD) Datasheet
Plot 10045-01-VP4
VMD Year (1-5): ❑� Date: /0 3
Taxonomic Standard:
Taxonomic Standard DATE:
Latitude or UTM-N: 35.942042 Datum: NAD83/W
(dec.deg. or m)
Longitude or UTM-E:-79.844988 UTM Zone: 17
Coordinate Accuracy (m): 1 X-Axis bearing (deg): 35 2. 6
Please fill in any missing data and correct any errors.
y: Role: Date last planted:
I- New lanting date m/yy?
Check box if plot was not
Notes: sampled, specify reason below
Plot Dimensions: X: 10 y; 10 El plot has reverse orientation for X and Y axis (Y is 90 degrees to the right of X
1D
Species Name
Map
char
Source*
X Y
0.1m 0.1m
Sep 2019 Data
Height DBH
lcm** 1 cm
X
0
C
CD
47
Platanus occidentalis
®
R
5.3
0 4
157.0
0.0 El
48
Betula nigra
O
R
9.6
0.5
51.0
El
49
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
©
R
9.5
2.5
84.0
0
50
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
O
R
5.2
2.6
69.0
❑
51
Quercus michauxii
®
R
0.6
2.5
99.0
El
52
Quercus phellos
O
R
0.5
5.1
14.0
53
Betula nigra
©
R
5.2
5.1
41.0
54
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
©
R
9.4
5.1
34.0
55
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
O
R
9.3
7.5
25.0
56
Quercus michauxii
O
R
5.1
7.5
65.0
El
57
Betula nigra
®
R
0.4
7.5
45.0
91
58
Platanus occidentalis
O
R
0.5
9.5
116.0
DBH? Ej
59
Betula nigra
Q
R
5.1
9.5
59.0
0
60
Quercus phellos
®
R
9.5
9.6
60.0
# t
14
THIS YEAR'S DATA
Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Notes
lcm* 1 cm sprout
MM0
-m©_-
MM0���
MMIM
®-M®_-
M-M®_-
MM
M
.
ME
MM
M
=M
N
=M
E
=M
E
S ems. New Stems, not included last year, but are obviously planted. If more space needed, use blank PWS (Planted Woody Stems) Form:
Species Name Source* (m) (m) Heeight I cm
DBH Vigor* Damage* Notes
*Notes by ID: 49-Insect damage
53-Broken stem
57-Broken stem
59-Broken stem
*SOURCE: Tr -Transplant, L=Live stake B=Ball and burlap, P=Potted Tu=Tublin R=bare Root M=Mechanicall U=Unknown
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, ANIMal, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other.
*HEIGHT PRECISION drops to 10cm if >2.5m and 50cm if >4m. Printed in the CVS Entry Tool ver. 2.5.0

Sep Plot (continued): 10045-01-VP4 2019 Data o 1ri1J YhAK'J DA1P,
map source X Y ddh Height DBH * ddh Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Notes
ID Species char (m) (m) (mm) (cm) (cm) (mm) (cm) (cm) sprout
Explanation of cut-off
Natural Woody Stems - tallied by species & subsamalin2**:
ei ht Cut -Off (All stems shorter than this are ignored. If>10cm, explain why to the right.): ❑ 10CM ❑ 50cm ❑ 100cm ❑ 137Cm
SEEDLINGS — HEIGHT CLASSES SAPLINGS — DBH TREES — DBH
Species Name Q Sub- 10 cm- 50 cm- 1100cm- Sub- =10
Sp -- e Seed 50 cm 100 cm 137 cm saps 0-1 cm 1-2.5 2.5- 5- (writeDBI-I)
c., _0 _ — ' 11 I N—
**RequiredifcLt-off>10cmorsubsample?100%. 101 •2 • 3 �*4 N5 :6 r7 �8 9 �10 Form WS2, ver 9.1
• •• •• •• • :-• �i
X-axis: 353 ° # stems: 14
Map of stems on plot 10045-01-VP4 map sise:
_ N small
Y:
O O /
J
�i �T
�n
O �J
d
n
(0,0) X:5111
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVEN Iocic, utnetrunxnown
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, I ANIMal, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other.
*HEIGHT PRECISION drops to 10cm if >2.5m and 50cm if >4m. Primed in the CVS Entry Tool ver. 2.5.0

Vegetation Monitoring Data (VMD) Datasheet Please fill in any missing data and correct any errors.
Plot 10045-01-VP5 P Role: Date last planted:
T New lantin date m/ ?
VMD Year (1-5): Date: o j / u 3 / 2 n - / / S 1 T Check box if plot was not
Taxonomic Standard: Notes: sampled, specify reason below
Taxonomic Standard DATE:
Latitude or UTM-N: 35.941879 Datum: NAD83/W P1 T C D v e < v.
(dec.deg. or m) 79.847799 UTM Zone: 17
Longitude or UTM-E:
Coordinate Accuracy (m): 1 X-Axis bearing (deg): 2.09
Plot Dimensions: X: 10 Y: 10 ❑ plot has reverse orientation for X and Y axis (Y is 90 degrees to the right of X
Sep 2019 Data o THIS YEAR'S DATA
Map Source* X Y Height DBH y Height DBH Re -
ID Species Name char 0.1m 0.1m lcm* 1 cm * lcm* 1 cm sprout Vigor* Damage* Notes
61
Liriodendron tulipifera
O
R
0.4
0.5
35.0
0
62
Quercus michauxii
O
R
2.5
0.4
84.0
Ej
63
Quercus michauxii
®
R
5.1
0.4
38.0
W
64
Platanus occidentalis
O
R
7.7
0.4
111.0
DBH? ❑
65
Liriodendron tulipifera
®
R
9.6
0.5
94.0
66
Quercus michauxii
O
R
9.5
5.1
89.0
❑
67
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
©
R
7.3
5.1
62.0
❑
68
Quercus michauxii
R
4.6
5.2
64.0
❑
70
Quercus michauxii
®
R
0.5
5.3
87.0
❑
71
Quercus michauxii
R
0.6
9.5
19.0
❑
72
Quercus michauxii
©
R
2.7
9.4
74.0
El
73
Quercus phellos
R
5.3
9.3
60.0
❑
74
Betula nigra
©
R
7.7
9.5
83.0
S6
75
Platanus occidentalis
(�)
R
9.6
9.5
111.0
DBH? ❑
it stems: 14 New Stems, not included last year, but are obviously planted. If more space needed, use blank PWS (Planted Woody Stems) Form:
Species Name Source* (m) (m) Heeight DBH Vigor* Damage* Notes
*Notes by ID: �74-13roken
61-Broken stem
63-Broken stem
stem
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2--fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, ANIMal, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other.
*HEIGHT PRECISION drops to 10cm if >2.5m and 50cm if >4m. Printed in the CVS Entry Toot ver. 2.5.0

Plot (continued): 10045-01-VP5
map source X Y
ID Species char (m) (m)
Sep 2019 Data
ddh Height DBH
(mm) (cm) (cm)
Z THIS YEAR'S DATA
0 1
* ddh Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Notes
(mm) (cm) (cm) sprout
Explanation of cut-off
Natural Woody Stems -tallied by species & su bsarn Nine* *:
HeightCut-Off(Allstemsshorterthanthisareignored. If >10cm, explain why to the right.): ❑ 10cm ❑ 50cm ❑ 100cm ❑ 137cm
Species Name
p
SEEDLINGS
—HEIGHT
CLASSES
SAPLINGS—DBH
TREES — DBH
Sub-
Seed
10 cm-
50 cm
50 cm-
100 cm
100 cm-
137 cm
Sub-
saps
0-1 cm
1-2.5
2.5-
5-
=10
(write DBH)
**Required ifcut-off>1Ocm or subsample ? 100%. 01
•2
03
•*4
NS
:6 :•7 �8
�10 Form WS2, ver 9.1
Map of stems on plot 10045-01-VP5
Y:
(0,0) X:5m
X-axis: 2.09 °
# stems: 14
0-map si=e:
N small
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, L1VESTock, Other/Unknown
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, ANIMal, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other.
*HEIGHT PRECISION drops to 1 Ocm if >2.5m and 50cm if >4m. Printed in the CUS Envy Tool ver. 2.5.0

Vegetation Monitoring Data (VMD) Datasheet
Plot 10045-01-VP6
VMD Year (1-5): F2� Date: 09 / 03 / zb -
Taxonomic Standard:
Taxonomic Standard DATE:
Latitude or UTM-N: 35.943291 Datum: NAD83/W
(dec.deg. or m)
Longitude or UTM-E:-79,847478 UTM Zone:�17Coordinate Accuracy (m): 1 X-Axis bearing (deg):
Please fill in any missing data and correct any errors.
y: Role: Date last planted:
ST / IT New lanting date m/yy?
Check box if plot was not
Notes: sampled, specify reason below
Plot Dimensions: X: 10 Y: 10 plot has reverse orientation for X and Y axis (Y is 90 degrees to the rieht of X
ID Species Name
Map Source* X Y
char 0.1m 0.1m
Sep 2019 Data o THIS YEAR'S DATA
Height DBH * Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Notes
lcm* 1 cm lcm* 1 cm sprout
76
Quercus phellos
®
R
0.4
0.4
48.0
0
78
Liriodendron tulipifera
O
R
5.0
0.3
115.0
DBH?
79
Platanus occidentalis
0
R
7.6
0.4
50.0
80
Liriodendron tulipifera
@
R
9.6
0.4
10.0
81
Quercus phellos
®
R
0.4
4.8
43.0
82
Quercus phellos
O
R
2.2-
4.8
28.0
83
Liriodendron tulipifera
®
R
5.0
4.7
85.0
85
Quercus phellos
Ol
R
9.7
4.8
15.0
86
Liriodendron tulipifera
R
0.4
9.5
40.0
87
Liriodendron tulipifera
O
R
2.3
9.5
22.0
0
89
Platanus occidentalis
Q
R
7.6
9.5
128.0
DBH?
90
Platanus occidentalis
Q
R
9.4
9.5
100.0
El
m-w©_-
# stems: 12 New Stems, not included last year, but are obviously planted. If more space needed, use blank PWS (Planted Woody Stems) Form:
Species Name Source* X Y Height DBH
P (m) (m) 1 cm* 1 cm Vigor* Damage* Notes
A-) 6 m rn
*Notes by ID: 76-Broken stem
81-Broken stem
�87-Broken stem
rt=trans tam r,=Lrve sraxe is=ts iana ourta r=rotted to=l umm K=bare Koot M=Mecnanlcall U=Unknown .11
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, ANIMal, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other.
*HEIGHT PRECISION drops to 10cm if >2.5m and 50cm if >4m. Printed in the CVS Entry Tool ver. 2.5.0
# stems: 12 New Stems, not included last year, but are obviously planted. If more space needed, use blank PWS (Planted Woody Stems) Form:
Species Name Source* X Y Height DBH
P (m) (m) 1 cm* 1 cm Vigor* Damage* Notes
A-) 6 m rn
*Notes by ID: 76-Broken stem
81-Broken stem
�87-Broken stem
rt=trans tam r,=Lrve sraxe is=ts iana ourta r=rotted to=l umm K=bare Koot M=Mecnanlcall U=Unknown .11
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, ANIMal, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other.
*HEIGHT PRECISION drops to 10cm if >2.5m and 50cm if >4m. Printed in the CVS Entry Tool ver. 2.5.0

Plot (continued): 10045-01-VP6
map source X Y
ID Species char (m) (m)
Sep 2019 Data
ddh Height DBH
(mm) (cm) (cm)
o
*
(mm)
THIS YEAR'S DATA
ddh Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Notes
(cm) (cm) sprout
Explanation of cut-off
Natural Woody Stems - tallied by species & subsampline**:
Height Cut -Off (All stems shorterthan thisare ignored. If >10cm, explain whytotheright): ❑ 10cm ❑ 50cm ❑ 100cm ❑ 137cm
Species Name
p
c
SEEDLINGS
— HEIGHT
CLASSES
SAPLINGS
— DBH
TREES — DBH
Sub-
Seed
10 cm-
50 cm
50 cm-
100 cm
100 cm-
137 cm
Sub1
Sapt
0-1 cm
1-2.5
2.5-
5-
=10
(write DBH)
**Requiredifcut-0ff>lOcmorsubsample?100%. •1
•2
•3
•�4
H5
�6
t•7
:
Z.,a,
�10 FormWS2,ver9.1
Map of stems on plot 10045-01-VP6
Y:5
((),0) X:5111
X-axis: 13.5 ° # stems: 12
map e0:
N small
*SOURCE: Tr --Transplant, L=Live stake B=Ball and burlap, P=Potted Tu=Tublin R=bare Root M=Mechanical) U=Unknown P. 1:
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, ANIMal, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other.
*HEIGHT PRECISION drops to 10cm if >2.5m and 50cm if >4m. Printed in the CVS Enny Tool ver. 2.5.0