HomeMy WebLinkAbout20110841 Ver 2_BurnettsII_100045_MY5_2023_20240206
MONITORING YEAR 5
ANNUAL / CLOSEOUT
REPORT
Final
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site‐Phase II
Guilford County, NC
DMS Project No. 100045
DMS Contract No. 7430
DWR Project Number 2011‐0841
Randleman Lake Watershed
Cape Fear River Basin
HUC 03020201
DMS RFP No. 16‐007242
Data Collection Period: September 2023
Draft Submission Date: November 2023
Final Submission Date: January 2024
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality,
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699‐1652
PREPARED BY:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint St., Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: (704) 332‐7754
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site‐Phase II
Monitoring Year 5 Annual/Closeout Report – Final Page i
BURNETTS CHAPEL MITIGATION SITE‐PHASE II
Monitoring Year 5 Annual/Closeout Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................ 1‐1
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 .................................................................................................................... 3‐2
Section 4: RESULTS OF YEAR 5 MONITORING ................................................................................... 4‐1
4.1 Vegetative Success ..................................................................................................................... 4‐1
4.2 Vegetative Problem Areas ......................................................................................................... 4‐1
4.3 Boundary Inspection .................................................................................................................. 4‐2
4.4 Parcel Maintenance ................................................................................................................... 4‐2
4.5 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 Planted Tree Species
NCDWR Site Viability Letter
NCDWR On‐site Determination Approval Letter
Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3 Current Conditions Plan View
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Buffer & Site Conditions Photographs
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Areas of Concern Photographs
Improved Areas of Concern Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8 Planted and Total Stem Count
Table 9 Vegetation Performance Standard Summary Table
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site‐Phase II
Monitoring Year 5 Annual/Closeout Report – Final Page ii
Table 10 Vegetation Height Data
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site‐Phase II
Monitoring Year 5 Annual/Closeout Report – Final Page 1‐1
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 (DMS). 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 A 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
Decrease nutrient levels
Nutrient input will be decreased by filtering runoff from the
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.
Decrease sediment input
Sediment from off‐site sources will be deposited on
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.
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site‐Phase II
Monitoring Year 5 Annual/Closeout Report – Final Page 1‐2
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 A. 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 A.
The final mitigation plan was submitted and accepted by the NC DMS 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 A 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 I‐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 A.
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 B.
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 (Betula
nigra) 900 stems, green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 900 stems, and swamp chestnut oak (Quercus
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site‐Phase II
Monitoring Year 5 Annual/Closeout Report – Final Page 1‐3
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.
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site‐Phase II
Monitoring Year 5 Annual/Closeout Report – Final Page 2‐1
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 A).
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 A).
Mitigation credits are presented in Table 1 and Figure 2 in Appendix A and are based upon the as‐built
survey included in the Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site‐Phase II Baseline Monitoring Report (2019).
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site‐Phase II
Monitoring Year 5 Annual/Closeout Report – Final Page 3‐1
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 DMS 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 DMS. Annual monitoring reports will be based on the
above referenced DMS 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 B. Photos depicting the current conditions of the vegetation plots for MY5 are also presented
in Appendix B.
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 CCPV map (Figure 3) in Appendix B. Photos depicting the
current conditions of the conservation easement for MY5 are also presented in Appendix B.
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site‐Phase II
Monitoring Year 5 Annual/Closeout Report – Final Page 3‐2
3.4 Visual Assessments
Visual assessments should support the specific performance standards for each metric as described
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.
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site‐Phase II
Monitoring Year 5 Annual/Closeout Report – Final Page 4‐1
Section 4: RESULTS OF YEAR 5 MONITORING
4.1 Vegetative Success
The six vegetation plots were sampled in September 2023 towards the end of the growing season. A
reference photo was taken from the southwest corner of each plot, which can be found in Appendix B.
Total numbers of tree species identified within the monitoring plots as well as density and composition
are summarized in Table 8. The field data sheets are in Appendix C.
The MY5 vegetation monitoring resulted in an average stem density of 978 total stems per acre (479
planted stems per acre) which exceeds the final stem density requirement of at least 260 stems per acre
by the end of MY5. Seventy‐nine percent of the planted stems survived from MY0. Stem densities within
individual monitoring plots ranged from 445 to 2,630 total stems per acre (324 to 607 planted stems per
acre). As shown in the plot below, the trees took a year to get established and have shown continuous
growth. Average stem height increased 40 cm (1.3 ft) since last year and now averages 182 cm (6.0 ft).
The number of different species in each plot ranged from four to eight with a Site total of ten species,
which exceeds the species diversity criteria of a minimum of four native hardwood species.
Figure A: Growth of the planted stems across the Site.
Please refer to Appendix C for vegetation plot data and Appendix B for vegetation plot photographs. The
Site has met and exceeded the final success criteria.
4.2 Vegetative Problem Areas
An assessment of the vegetation condition was conducted throughout the site. The history of invasive
species management and low growth areas are outlined below and are presented in Table 6 in Appendix
B.
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site‐Phase II
Monitoring Year 5 Annual/Closeout Report – Final Page 4‐2
4.2.1 Invasive Species
During MY5, follow up herbicide treatments of callery pear (Pyrus calleryana) and tree of heaven
(Ailanthus altissima) were completed. With the help of ring spays in 2021, the trees have not had a
problem growing above the Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Pine tree saplings growing in the
eastern portion of the easement were previously cut down by hand to facilitate the growth of the
targeted hardwood community and are no longer an issue.
4.2.2 Bare, Low Stem Density, & Poor Growth Rate Areas
A 0.1‐acre area of low stem density was reported along Reach B4 in MY2. This area was reduced in MY3
once the planted stems had time to get established and some volunteers were noted. The area is
performing well in MY5, and no concerns were noted during the site walk with the DMS representative
in August 2023. Photos of this improvement are shown in the Improved Areas of Concern Photographs
in Appendix B.
4.3 Boundary Inspection
Starting in 2022, it was noticed that narrow areas of mowing (“scalloping”) had occurred across the site.
These swaths extended only 6‐12‐inches into the easement and were not substantial enough to cut any
of the trees close to the boundary. Horse tape and additional easement signs were added during MY4 to
better demarcate portions of the boundary. During MY5, a few areas continued to be scalloped. The
landowner was contacted about this issue in November and after discussion, agreed that additional
signage would not be necessary. Refer to Figure 3 for the locations of the mowing encroachments and
Appendix 2 for the Areas of Concern Photographs. These areas total 0.02 acres and are now considered
resolved. This issue will continue to be monitored until the project is closed out.
The entirety of the boundary was walked and there were no issues with the boundary markings.
4.4 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.
4.5 Conclusions
This is the fifth and final monitoring year (MY5) as established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2018).
The Site will be presented to the NCDWR for regulatory closeout in 2023. Vegetation is thriving across
the Site and is exceeding the performance standards. Monitoring Year 5 data shows an average density
of 978 total stems per acre (479 planted stems per acre) across all vegetation plots, which exceeds the
final criteria. Herbaceous cover is well established throughout the site and no bare or low stem‐density
areas are reported. The trees are doing well with an average stem height of 6.0 feet. As with the
previous years, monitoring data shows positive trends in vegetation establishment and this trajectory is
expected to continue after the project is closed out. Invasive species treatments have been effective and
are no longer an issue on the project. The areas will continue to be monitored through closeout.
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site‐Phase II
Monitoring Year 5 Annual/Closeout Report – Final Page 5‐1
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 (DMS). 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
te%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. DMS, Raleigh,
NC. September 28, 2018.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2019. Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site‐Phase II Baseline Monitoring Report.
DMS, Raleigh, NC. May 16, 2019.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2021. Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site‐Phase II Monitoring Year 3 Annual
Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC. November 2021.
APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures
GUILFORD
RANDOLPH
03030003010050
03030003010080
03030003010070
03030003010060
03030003010030
03030002020050
03030003010040
03040103050040
03030002040020
¹0 10.5 Miles
2018 Aerial Photography
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site - Phase II
2023 Monitoring Report (MY5)
Cape Fear River Basin (03030003)
Guilford County, NC
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site
Phase II Location
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.
Project Location
Phase I Conservation Easement Boundary
Phase II Conservation Easement Boundary
County Boundary
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
0 900450 Feet
Reach B2
Reach B1
Reach B3
Reach B4
Reach B5
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site - Phase II
2023 Monitoring Report (MY5)
Cape Fear River Basin (03030003)
0 200100 Feet
Guilford County, NC
¹
Project Location
Phase I Conservation Easement Boundary
Phase II Conservation Easement Boundary
Buffer Restoration (0'-100')
Buffer Restoration (100'-200')
Buffer Restoration (51'-100') Ephemeral Channel
Buffer Restoration (101'-200') Ephemeral Channel
Buffer Preservation (51'-100')
Perennial/Intermittent Streams
Ephemeral Channels
Non-Project Streams
Surveyed Top of Bank Project Channels
2018 Aerial Photography
DMS Project No. 100045
RIPARIAN BUFFER (15A NCAC 02B.0295)
Location Jurisdictional
Streams Method Feature
Name
Min‐Max
Buffer
Width (ft)
Total Area
(sf)
Creditable
Area (sf)
Initial Credit
Ratio (x:1)
% Full
Credit
Final Credit
Ratio (x:1)
Riparian
Buffer Credits
Convertible to
Nutrient Offset
(Yes or No)
Rural or
Urban
Subject or
Nonsubject Restoration ~ 20‐29 ‐‐ ‐‐1 75% 1.33333 ‐‐ ‐‐
Rural or
Urban
Subject or
Nonsubject Restoration Ephemeral 0‐100 70,473 70,473 1 100% 1.00000 70,473.000 No
Rural or
Urban
Subject or
Nonsubject Restoration Streams 0‐100 188,792 188,792 1 100% 1.00000 188,792.000 No
Rural or
Urban
Subject or
Nonsubject Restoration Ephemeral 101‐200 2,837 2,837 1 33% 3.03030 936.211 No
Rural or
Urban
Subject or
Nonsubject Restoration Streams 101‐200 60,573 60,573 1 33% 3.03030 19,989.110 No
Rural or
Urban
Subject or
Nonsubject Enhancement ~ 20‐29 ‐‐ ‐‐2 75% 2.66667 ‐‐ ‐‐
Rural or
Urban
Subject or
Nonsubject Enhancement ~ 0‐100 ‐‐ ‐‐2 100% 2.00000 ‐‐ ‐‐
Rural or
Urban
Subject or
Nonsubject Enhancement ~ 101‐200 ‐‐ ‐‐2 33% 6.06061 ‐‐ ‐‐
322,675 280,190.321
107,558
Location Jurisdictional
Streams Method Feature
Name
Min‐Max
Buffer
Width (ft)
Total Area
(sf)
Creditable
Area (sf)
Initial Credit
Ratio (x:1)
% Full
Credit
Final Credit
Ratio (x:1)
Riparian
Buffer Credits
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 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 ‐‐
Urban Subject or
Nonsubject Preservation ~ 20‐29 ‐‐ ‐‐3 75% 4.00000 ‐‐
Urban Subject or
Nonsubject Preservation ~ 0‐100 ‐‐ ‐‐3 100% 3.00000 ‐‐
Urban Subject or
Nonsubject Preservation ~ 101‐200 ‐‐ ‐‐3 33% 9.09091 ‐‐
3,870 387.000
326,545 280,577.321
SUBTOTALS
SUBTOTALS
TOTALS
ELIGIBLE PRESERVATION AREA
Table 1. Buffer Project Areas and Assets
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site ‐ Phase II
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site ‐ Phase II
DMS Project No. 100045
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan ‐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
Year 2 Monitoring September 2020 November 2020
Invasive Species Treatment
Year 3 Monitoring September 2021 November 2021
Boundary Monitoring
Invasive Species Treatment
Year 4 Monitoring September 2022 November 2022
Boundary Monitoring
Invasive Species Treatment
Year 5 Monitoring September 2023 November 2023
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site ‐ Phase II
DMS Project No. 100045
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
Project Manager (POC)
Monitoring Performers
Monitoring (POC)
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Kristi Suggs, 704.332.7754, Ext. 110
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
150 Old Black Creek Rd
Freemont, NC 27830
Dykes & Son Nursery
825 Maude Etter Rd.
July 2020
Designers
Planting Contractor
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
704.332.7754
Andrea Eckardt, 704.332.7754, Ext. 101
McMinnville, TN 37110
April 2021
September 2022
March 2022
September 2023
May‐September 2023
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site ‐ Phase II
DMS Project No. 100045
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
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. Planted Tree Species
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site ‐ Phase II
DMS Project No. 100045
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
Common Name Scientific Name
River Birch Betula nigra
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera
American Sycamore Platanus occidentalis
White Oak Quercus alba
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii
Willow Oak Quercus phellos
Project Information
State of North Carolina | Environmental Quality
450 West Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300 | Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27105
336-776-9800
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
LINDA CULPEPPER
Interim Director Water Resources
Environmental Quality
March 27, 2018
Andrea Eckardt
Wildlands Engineering Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte NC 28203
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.
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.homewood@ncdenr.gov.
Sincerely,
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
!
!
!
!
!
!
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
Reach B2
Reach B1
Reach B3
Reach B4
Reach B5
4
2
5
6
3
1
PP 1
PP 2
PP 3
PP 4
PP 5
PP 6
PP 7
PP 8
Figure 3 Current Conditions Plan View
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site - Phase II
2023 Monitoring Report (MY5)
Cape Fear River Basin (03030003)
0 200100 Feet
Guilford County, NC
¹
Project Location
Phase I Conservation Easement
Boundary
Phase II Conservation Easement
Boundary
Buffer Restoration (0'-100')
Buffer Restoration (100'-200')
Buffer Restoration (51'-100')
Ephemeral Channel
Buffer Restoration (101'-200')
Ephemeral Channel
Buffer Preservation (51'-100')
Perennial/Intermittent Streams
Ephemeral Channels
Non-Project Streams
GF Photo Point (PP)
Vegetation Plot Conditions - MY5
Criteria Met
Easement Encroachment
Encroachment (Resolved)
2018 Aerial Photography
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site ‐ Phase II
DMS Project No. 100045
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
Planted Acreage 7.4
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(acres)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Planted
Acreage
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material 0.1 0 0.0 0%
Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY5 stem
count criteria.0.1 0 0.0 0%
0 0.0 0%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or
Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the
monitoring year.0.0 0 0.0 0%
0 0.0 0%
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 0 0.0 0%
Easement Encroachment Areas Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). none 0 0.0 0%
Total
Cumulative Total
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site – Phase II
Monitoring Year 5
Buffer and Site Condition Photographs
Photo Point 1 – Looking upstream B2 and B5 (09/30/2019) Photo Point 1 – Looking upstream B2 and B5 (09/27/2023)
Photo Point 1 – Looking downstream B1 (03/25/2019) Photo Point 1 – Looking downstream B1 (09/27/2023)
Photo Point 2 – Looking upstream B1 (03/25/2019) Photo Point 2 – Looking upstream B1 (09/27/2023)
Photo Point 2 – Looking downstream to B1‐B2 confluence (09/30/2019) Photo Point 2 – Looking downstream to B1‐B2 confluence (09/27/2023)
Photo Point 3 – Looking upstream B2 (09/30/2019) Photo Point 3 – Looking upstream B2 (09/27/2023)
Photo Point 3 – Looking downstream B2 (03/25/2019) Photo Point 3 – Looking downstream B2 (09/27/2023)
Photo Point 4 – Looking upstream B2 (09/30/2019) Photo Point 4 – Looking upstream B2 (09/27/2023)
Photo Point 4 – Looking downstream B2 (03/25/2019) Photo Point 4 – Looking downstream B2 (09/27/2023)
Photo Point 5 – Looking upstream B3 (03/25/2019) Photo Point 5 – Looking upstream B3 (09/27/2023)
Photo Point 5 – Looking downstream to B2‐B4 confluence (09/30/2019) Photo Point 5 – Looking downstream to B2‐B4 confluence (09/27/2023)
Photo Point 6 – Looking upstream across top of B4 (09/30/2019) Photo Point 6 – Looking upstream across top of B4 (09/27/2023)
Photo Point 6 – Looking downstream B4 (03/25/2019) Photo Point 6 – Looking downstream B4 (09/27/2023)
Photo Point 7 – Looking upstream B5 (03/25/2019) Photo Point 7 – Looking upstream B5 (09/27/2023)
Photo Point 7 – Looking downstream B5 (09/30/2019) Photo Point 7 – Looking downstream B5 (09/27/2023)
Photo Point 8 – Looking upstream B5 (09/30/2019) Photo Point 8 – Looking upstream B5 (09/27/2023)
Photo Point 8 – Looking downstream B5 (03/25/2019) Photo Point 8 – Looking downstream B5 (09/27/2023)
Note: MY0 photos only captured one view from each photo point location; an upstream and downstream photo at each location
began in MY1. MY1 photos are used in the above comparison photos to fill in any gaps from the MY0 photos.
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site – Phase II
Monitoring Year 5
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Vegetation Plot 1 ‐ MY0 (03/18/2019) Vegetation Plot 1 ‐ MY5 (09/27/2023)
Vegetation Plot 2 ‐ MY0 (03/18/2019) Vegetation Plot 2 ‐ MY5 (09/27/2023)
Vegetation Plot 3 ‐ MY0 (03/18/2019) Vegetation Plot 3 ‐ MY5 (09/27/2023)
Vegetation Plot 4 ‐ MY0 (03/18/2019) Vegetation Plot 4 ‐ MY5 (09/27/2023)
Vegetation Plot 5 ‐ MY0 (03/18/2019) Vegetation Plot 5 ‐ MY5 (09/27/2023)
Vegetation Plot 6 ‐ MY0 (03/18/2019) Vegetation Plot 6 ‐ MY5 (09/27/2023)
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site – Phase II
Monitoring Year 5
Areas of Concern Photographs
Photo 1 – Shallow mowing encroachment (“scalloping”) near PP3
(09/05/2023)
Point 2 – Shallow mowing encroachment (“scalloping”) along the
right boundary of B4 (09/05/2023)
Photo 3 – Shallow mowing encroachment (“scalloping”) along upper
reach of B4 (09/05/2023)
Point 4 – Shallow mowing encroachment (“scalloping”) along B5
near VP3 (09/05/2023)
Photo 5 – Shallow mowing encroachment (“scalloping”) along the
upper reach of B5 (09/05/2023)
Point 6 – Shallow mowing encroachment (“scalloping”) near PP1
(09/05/2023)
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site – Phase II
Monitoring Year 5
Improved Areas of Concern Photographs
Photo 1 – Looking at low density area on the right floodplain of B4
(09/03/2020)
Point 1 – Looking at low density area on the right floodplain of B4
(09/27/2023)
APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site ‐ Phase II
DMS Project No. 100045
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
Plot Success Criteria
Met (Y/N)Tract Mean
1 Y
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
5 Y
6 Y
100%
Table 8. Planted and Total Stem Count
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site ‐ Phase II
DMS Project No. 100045
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree
Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree 555666333444111
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon, Possumwood Tree 2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree 111111333444111
Juglans nigra Black Walnut Tree
Juniperus virginiana Red Cedar Tree 1
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum, Red Gum Tree 35 5 10 3 2
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 1116 1 333
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane‐tree Tree 222333111222111333
Quercus alba White Oak Tree 111
Quercus michauxii Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 444444111222555
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 222 222222 333
Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Tree
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree
15 15 65 14 14 14 11 11 18 14 14 26 8 8 11 9 9 11
667444668558445334
607 607 2,630 567 567 567 445 445 728 567 567 1,052 324 324 445 364 364 445
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 2
Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon, Possumwood Tree 2 1111
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11
Juglans nigra Black Walnut Tree 111
Juniperus virginiana Red Cedar Tree 1 2
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum, Red Gum Tree 55 43 20 22
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulp Poplar Tree 44204421 4 4 15 4416888999
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane‐tree Tree 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13
Quercus alba White Oak Tree 111111111111111
Quercus michauxii Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 18 18 18 20 20 20
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 999999 10101010 10 10 13 13 13 17 17 17
Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Tree 1
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 1
71 71 145 72 72 140 73 73 106 72 72 108 83 83 84 90 90 90
7710771477107710778666
479 479 978 486 486 944 492 492 715 486 486 728 560 560 567 607 607 607
1 ‐ L. styraciflua composed 54% of the plot's total stems.
2 ‐ MY2 stem counts corrected based on data sheets; 19 river birch and 12 sycamore counted during MY2; overall total unchanged.
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P‐All: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Stem count
66
0.1483
6
size (ACRES)0.1483 0.1483
0.0247
MY1 (2019) MY0 (2019)MY3 (2021)
Annual Means
Stems per ACRE
MY4 (2022)
6
0.1483
MY5 (2023)
6
0.1483
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Volunteers included
Vegetation Plot 3 Vegetation Plot 4 Vegetation Plot 5
0.0247 0.0247
6
0.1483
MY2 (2020)2
Vegetation Plot 6Vegetation Plot 2Vegetation Plot 11
0.0247
size (ares)
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Current Plot Data (MY5 2023)
Exceeds requirements by 10%
0.0247
11 1
0.0247
1 1
Table 9. Vegetation Performance Standard Summary Table
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site ‐ Phase II
DMS Project No. 100045
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
Total Stems Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species Total Stems Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species
Monitoring Year 5 65 2,630 7.0 7 Monitoring Year 5 14 567 4.3 4
Monitoring Year 4 65 2,630 5.4 7 Monitoring Year 4 15 607 3.3 4
Monitoring Year 3 37 1,497 3.3 7 Monitoring Year 3 14 567 2.9 4
Monitoring Year 2 44 1,781 2.8 7 Monitoring Year 2 14 567 2.2 4
Monitoring Year 1 15 607 2.5 6 Monitoring Year 1 14 567 2.6 4
Monitoring Year 0 15 607 2.8 6 Monitoring Year 0 15 607 3.0 4
Total Stems Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species Total Stems Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species
Monitoring Year 5 18 728 6.0 8 Monitoring Year 5 26 1,052 4.9 8
Monitoring Year 4 19 769 4.3 11 Monitoring Year 4 23 931 4.2 9
Monitoring Year 3 17 688 3.2 9 Monitoring Year 3 19 769 3.3 7
Monitoring Year 2 16 647 2.6 9 Monitoring Year 2 17 688 2.3 6
Monitoring Year 1 15 607 2.2 7 Monitoring Year 1 14 567 2.2 5
Monitoring Year 0 15 607 2.4 5 Monitoring Year 0 15 607 2.7 5
Total Stems Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species Total Stems Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species
Monitoring Year 5 11 445 7.6 5 Monitoring Year 5 11 445 6.0 4
Monitoring Year 4 8 324 6.1 4 Monitoring Year 4 10 405 4.7 4
Monitoring Year 3 8 324 4.1 4 Monitoring Year 3 11 445 4.2 4
Monitoring Year 2 7 283 3.2 3 Monitoring Year 2 9 364 2.7 3
Monitoring Year 1 14 567 2.4 6 Monitoring Year 1 12 486 1.9 3
Monitoring Year 0 15 607 2.5 6 Monitoring Year 0 15 607 2.5 4
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%
Vegetation Plot 5 Vegetation Plot 6
Vegetation Plot 1 Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 3 Vegetation Plot 4
Table 10. Vegetation Height Data
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site ‐ Phase II
DMS Project No. 100045
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
Plot Scientific Name Common Name X (m) Y (m) Height (ft) Vigor
VP1 Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 0.4 0.4 300 4
VP1 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 5 0.4 500 4
VP1 Betula nigra River Birch 9.6 0.4 70 4
VP1 Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 9.6 2.4 225 4
VP1 Quercus phellos Willow Oak 5.2 2.5 110 4
VP1 Betula nigra River Birch 0.3 2.4 85 3
VP1 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 0.4 4.6 500 4
VP1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 5 4.9 300 4
VP1 Quercus phellos Willow Oak 9.8 5 135 4
VP1 Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 9.9 7.5 250 4
VP1 Betula nigra River Birch 5 7.3 64 4
VP1 Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 0.3 6.7 137 4
VP1 Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar 0.5 9.6 400 4
VP1 Betula nigra River Birch 5 9.8 34 3
VP1 Betula nigra River Birch 9.6 9.7 90 4
VP2 Betula nigra River Birch 0.5 0.5 67 4
VP2 Betula nigra River Birch 4.8 0.6 65 4
VP2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 9.5 0.5 220 4
VP2 Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 9.5 2.4 100 4
VP2 Betula nigra River Birch 4.8 2.2 59 4
VP2 Betula nigra River Birch 0.5 1.9 62 4
VP2 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 0.5 4.5 200 4
VP2 Betula nigra River Birch 9.7 5.3 65 4
VP2 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 9.7 7.5 275 4
VP2 Betula nigra River Birch 4.8 6.7 67 4
VP2 Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 0.5 6.3 100 4
VP2 Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 0.4 9.5 150 4
VP2 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 4.8 9.4 300 4
VP2 Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 9.6 9.5 95 4
Table 10. Vegetation Height Data
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site ‐ Phase II
DMS Project No. 100045
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
Plot Scientific Name Common Name X (m) Y (m) Height (ft) Vigor
VP3 Quercus phellos Willow Oak 0.5 0.5 220 4
VP3 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 2.4 0.5 450 4
VP3 Quercus alba White Oak 4.9 0.5 110 4
VP3 Betula nigra River Birch 7.1 0.4 Dead 0
VP3 Betula nigra River Birch 9.4 0.5 37 4
VP3 Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 9.6 4.9 240 4
VP3 Quercus phellos Willow Oak 7.1 4.7 163 4
VP3 Quercus phellos Willow Oak 5.1 4.6 Dead 0
VP3 Betula nigra River Birch 2.6 4.6 95 4
VP3 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 0.5 4.5 75 4
VP3 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 0.4 9.6 250 4
VP3 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 2.3 9.5 300 4
VP3 Betula nigra River Birch 7.2 9.7 87 4
VP4 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 5.3 0.4 500 4
VP4 Betula nigra River Birch 9.6 0.5 65 4
VP4 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 9.5 2.5 250 4
VP4 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 5.2 2.6 100 4
VP4 Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 0.6 2.5 220 4
VP4 Quercus phellos Willow Oak 0.5 5.1 95 4
VP4 Betula nigra River Birch 5.2 5.1 55 4
VP4 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 9.4 5.1 85 4
VP4 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 9.3 7.5 40 4
VP4 Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 5.1 7.5 130 4
VP4 Betula nigra River Birch 0.4 7.5 60 4
VP4 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 0.5 9.5 300 4
VP4 Betula nigra River Birch 5.1 9.5 65 4
VP4 Quercus phellos Willow Oak 9.5 9.6 105 4
VP5 Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 2.5 0.4 240 4
VP5 Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 9.5 5.1 300 4
VP5 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 7.3 5.1 125 4
VP5 Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 4.6 5.2 140 4
VP5 Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 0.5 5.3 180 4
VP5 Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 0.6 9.5 110 4
VP5 Betula nigra River Birch 7.7 9.5 70 4
VP5 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 9.6 9.5 700 4
Table 10. Vegetation Height Data
Burnetts Chapel Mitigation Site ‐ Phase II
DMS Project No. 100045
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2023
Plot Scientific Name Common Name X (m) Y (m) Height (ft) Vigor
VP6 Quercus phellos Willow Oak 0.4 0.4 85 4
VP6 Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar 5 0.3 275 4
VP6 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 7.6 0.4 350 4
VP6 Quercus phellos Willow Oak 0.4 4.8 63 4
VP6 Quercus phellos Willow Oak 2.2 4.8 31 4
VP6 Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar 5 4.7 64 4
VP6 Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar 0.4 9.5 69 4
VP6 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 7.6 9.5 300 4
VP6 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 9.4 9.5 400 4