20190681 Ver 1_Longhorn_100114_MY4_2023_20240216

ID#* 20190681 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:
Blake Hartshorn
Initial Review Completed Date 02/19/2024
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/16/2024
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* Yes No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name: * Email Address:
Jeremiah Dow [e-mail]
Project Information
ID#: * 20190681 Version:* 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Longhorn Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site
County: Randolph
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Longhorn_100114_MY4_2023.pdf 10.61 MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:

MY04 Monitoring Report
Longhorn Riparian Buffer Mitivation Site
Randolph County, NC
DMS Project No. 100114
DMS Contract Number: 7866
DWR Project Number: 2019-0681
Randleman Lake Watershed
Cape Fear River Basin
HUC 03030003
RFP #16-007703
Prepared For:
rkt
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

CLEARWATER MITIGATION
S O L U T I O N S
February 15, 2024
Mr. Jeremiah Dow
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street, Suite 3000
Raleigh, NC 27603
Re: Longhorn - Response to DMS Comments on the MY4 Report
DMS Project No. 100114/ DMS Contract No. 7866
Dear Mr. Dow,
Please find below the response to comments on the Longhorn Buffer Mitigation Plan provided
by DMS dated January 29, 2024:
Section 1.2 — please correct statements such as "0.89 acres was added to the project... and
will be reflected in an amendment..." Presumably the amendment has already been
completed. Same with last paragraph of the section where it says, " fencing will be
installed." Please correct the tense of actions that have occurred on the project
throughout the document.
Re: Grammatical tenses have been corrected and should be uniform throughout the
report.
2. Section 4.2 — refers to MY3 veg plot photos in Appendix B. This should be MY4 photos.
Re: Reference to MY3 in Section 4.2 has been modified to correctly reference MY4
3. Section 4.3 — the first paragraph when describing plots 2 and 2A discusses prior
monitoring years but no discussion of observations in MY4 are included. Was this
omitted or was some of the discussion about MY4 mistakenly labeled MY3? In general,
this paragraph discusses prior monitoring years through MY3 with nothing about MY4.
Please clarify or correct.
Re: Plot 2 and 2A performance has been clarified for MY4 in the last portion of the
first paragraph in Section 4.3.
4. Figure 7 — please include the date of the aerial photograph in the title block.
Re: Figure 7 now states the aerial photograph was sourced from 2016.
CCPV — the narrative says (Section 4.3) invasive treatment was done pre -construction
and in MY — 3. Was invasive treatment done in MY4? If not, then the invasive treatment
polygons should be removed from the CCPV, or the narrative should be corrected. Please
update the Visual Veg. Assessment Table, if necessary, based on response to this
comment.
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
604 Macon Place, Raleigh, NC 27609
919-624-6901
[e-mail]

CLEARWATER MITIGATION
S O L U T I O N S
Re: Invasive treatment was not conducted in MY4 and has been removed from the
CCPV to alleviate confusion. As a result, the Visual Veg. Assessment Table has been
updated to reflect these actions.
6. Table 4 is extremely difficult to read. Please split the Table into 2 pages if necessary.
Re: Table 4 has been divided into three pages to improve clarity.
7. Photo Log — Photos 6 and 7 are photos of the same locations facing the same direction,
but one is labeled as "looking west..." and the other "looking south..." Please clarify.
Re: Photos 6 and 7 were modified to reflect the correct year and orientation.
Please include individual stem location, height, and vigor in an Appendix per recent
request from DWR. This can be tables or scanned field sheets.
Re: Scanned field vegetation monitoring sheets have been added to Appendix C.
9. Last year DWR commented on the MY3 report with an understanding that a response
would be included in the subsequent MY4 report. The comment was "Should plot 2
be planted with more FACW stems so it stays planted and not develop low stem
count? Having low stem count within buffer enhancement does not seem ideal."
Please provide a response to DWR's comment.
Re: The area is affected by the modification of flow due to prior site
construction. This modification of the area has inundated the area and prevented
ample vegetative growth. The area has since stabilized and will be planted with
additional FACW tree in early 2024. A more detailed response is included in
Section 4.4 Maintenance and Management.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions at 919-624-6901.
Sincerely,
Kevin Yates
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
604 Macon Place, Raleigh, NC 27609
919-624-6901
[e-mail]

MY04 Monitoring Report
Longhorn Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site
Randolph County, NC
DMS Project No. 100114
DMS Contract Number: 7866
DWR Project Number: 2019-0681
Randleman Lake Watershed
Cape Fear River Basin
HUC 03030003
PREPARED FOR:
7kt;
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
PREPARED BY:
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
C`LK4 R WA TER A17TIGA 77ON
SOLUTIONS 6
604 Macon Place
Raleigh, North Carolina
Authorized Representative: Mr. Kevin Yates
Phone: [phone]
Contributing Staff:
Kevin Yates, Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
Christian Preziosi, Davey Resource Group
Wes Fryar, Davey Resource Group
Kim Williams, Davey Resource Group

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Mitigation Project Summary ...................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Goals....................................................................................................................1
1.2 Pre -Construction Site Conditions.......................................................................................2
2.0 Determination of Credits........................................................................................................2
3.0 Baseline Summary..................................................................................................................3
3.1 Planting Preparation.........................................................................................................3
3.2 Riparian Area Restoration and Enhancement Activities......................................................4
4.0 Annual Monitoring.................................................................................................................5
4.1 Methods...........................................................................................................................5
4.2 Tables..............................................................................................................................5
4.3 Results and Discussion......................................................................................................5
4.4 Maintenance and Management.........................................................................................7
5.0 References..............................................................................................................................7
LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND APPENDICES
Figure1......................................................................................
Figure2......................................................................................
Figure3.....................................................................................
Figure4......................................................................................
Figure5......................................................................................
Figure6......................................................................................
Figure7......................................................................................
Figure8......................................................................................
Figure9......................................................................................
................................................. Vicinity Map
........................................... Watershed Map
USGS Glenola 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
............................... NC DOT QL2 LiDAR Map
..............Randolph County NRCS Soil Survey
....................1998 NAPP Aerial Photography
.... 2016 Aerial with Conservation Easement
.............................Mitigation Plan Overview
........................Current Condition Plan View
Table 1..................................................................................................................... Buffer Project Attributes
Table 2.......................................................................................................... Buffer Project Areas and Assets
Table3........................................................................................................................................ Planting Plan
Table 4........................................................................................................... Planted and Total Stem Counts
AppendixA.............................................................................................................................. Figures/Tables
Appendix B....................................................................................Veg Data/Veg Plot Photos/Photo Stations
Appendix C.........................................................................................................Vegetation Monitoring Field Sheets
Longhorn Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site — Year 04 Monitoring Report i I P a g e
DMS Project No. 100114
February 9, 2024

1.0 Mitigation Project Summary
The Longhorn Riparian Buffer Restoration Project ("the Site") is a buffer restoration project located in
Randolph County, approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the Town of Sophia, North Carolina and
approximately 9 miles south of High Point (NC). The property is situated just east of NC Highway 311 and
is bounded to the south by Marlboro Church Road (refer to Figure 1). The Longhorn Buffer Mitigation Site
is located within the Muddy Creek 12-digit HUC (030300030106) of the Randleman Lake watershed (Figure
2). The buffer restoration and enhancement areas are located along an unnamed tributary (UT) of Bob
Branch and drainages that flow directly into Randleman Lake Reservoir approximately 2 river miles
downstream (refer to Figure 3 and Figure 4). Prior to project completion, the Site was surrounded by areas
managed for cattle production and lacked existing forested buffer along a majority of the streams and
pond dissecting the site. The Site is expected to generate 376,644.994 riparian buffer credits (BMU).
The Site is located within Hydologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030003010060 and North Carolina Department of
Water Resources (NC DWR) Sub -Basin 03-04-07. The buffer mitigation site consists of one stream reach
(Al) and an in -line pond (131) as illustrated in Figure 8. Reach Al is a perennial stream that flows from the
in -line pond (P1) to the north and into Bob Branch approximately 1,300 If downstream. Bob Branch has a
NC DEQ surface water classification as a WS-IV* waterbody.
1.1 Project Goals
The main goals of the project are to provide high quality compensatory mitigation for authorized riparian
buffer impacts credited through the NC DMS in -lieu -fee program and occurring within the Randleman
Lake Watershed by creating a riparian corridor and restoring the historic riparian buffer. The project
addresses the watershed goals identified in the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Plan (RBRP) (NC EEP,
2010). These goals include:
• Removal of non -point source pollution (including nitrogen, phosphorous, and fecal bacteria)
resulting from current land -use practices (principally cattle pasture);
• Reduction of sediment run-off/sediment loading to creek waters resulting from cattle hoof
shear, bank instability, and lack of riparian buffer woody vegetation;
• Increased floodwater attenuation;
• Enhancement and protection of stream ecology and aquatic/semi-aquatic habitats; and
• Enhancement and protection of terrestrial habitats along stream terraces and hillside slopes.
These goals are being achieved via the restoration and protection of riparian buffers and adjacent riparian
areas along an unnamed tributary of Bob Branch (which flows east into Randleman Lake Reservoir).
Specific objectives of the project to achieve the desired goals include:
• Conversion of existing cattle pasture into wooded riparian buffer and wooded riparian areas
along the existing stream channel and pond via planting of characteristic hardwood species and
installation of cattle -exclusion fencing;
• Reduction of stream bank instability via woody stem plantings (i.e. increased woody root
material) and cattle exclusion fencing;
Longhorn Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site — Year 04 Monitoring Report 1 1 P a g e
DMS Project No. 100078
February 9, 2024

• Ensuring diffuse flow and increased surface roughness throughout the buffer mitigation area;
• Establishment of a conservation easement to protect the riparian buffer restoration site in
perpetuity; and
• Invasive species management (as needed) during monitoring period.
Ancillary benefits of the riparian buffer and adjacent riparian area restoration effort include:
• Increase of organic material as food for invertebrate, fish and wildlife;
• Supply of woody debris that provides increased niche habitat for fish, invertebrates and
amphibians;
• Reduction of sunlight reaching the stream and modulation of surface water temperatures; and
• Floodwater attenuation via temporary storage, interception and slow releases from heavy rains.
1.2 Pre -construction Site Conditions
The project includes 20.81 acres of mostly open cattle pasture with one stream reach (Al) and an in -line
pond (P1) which drains to Bob Branch. An additional 0.89-acres was added to the project area to include
the pond dam within the conservation easement and was reflected in an amendment to the Conservation
Easement Plat. The Site has historically been managed for agricultural and cattle production. Site drainage
and hydrology have been historically altered via the impoundment of waters. Based upon a review of
available aerial photography, the tributary was impounded in the early 1970s (between 1970 and 1973).
A portion of the site was in cropland as early as 1948. The remaining land was cleared and converted to
agricultural production in the 1950s.
The buffer mitigation site consists of one stream reach (Al) and an in -line pond (P1) as illustrated in Figure
8. Reach Al is a perennial stream that flows from the in -line pond (P1) to the north and into Bob Branch.
There is approximately 625 If of stream associated with Reach Al within the proposed buffer easement
area. Pond (131) is an in -line pond that is approximately 5.3-acres and lies entirely within the proposed
conservation easement area.
The stream reach (Al) and an in -line pond (131) have been restored as a forested riparian buffer to 200-ft
(approximately 12.73 acres) while approximately 0.40 acres of partially forested areas have been
considered suitable for buffer enhancement. An additional 0.21 acres of existing, wooded riparian area
was enhanced as cattle exclusion fencing was installed around the conservation easement boundary. As
indicated above, an amendment to the Conservation Easement Plat to include the pond dam was provided
to NCDMS and NCDWR following recordation. The project attributes are listed in Table 1, located in
Appendix A.
2.0 Determination of Credits
On June 19th, 2019, Ms. Katie Merritt of the Division of Water Resources (DWR) performed an evaluation
of surface water features and adjacent riparian areas within the proposed mitigation site for the
determination of riparian buffer mitigation pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (effective November 1,
2015). Based upon this evaluation, DWR determined that areas within 200 ft of Reach A-1 and Pond P-1
Longhorn Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site — Year 04 Monitoring Report 2 1 P a g e
DMS Project No. 100078
February 9, 2024

are eligible for buffer credit. Inclusive of this area are approximately 12.73 acres of non -forested
restoration site per 15A NCAC 02B 0.0295 (n). In addition, 0.40 acres of partially forested areas are
considered suitable for buffer enhancement per 15A NCAC 02B 0.0295 (n) (i.e. areas classified such that
the establishment of woody stems (i.e., tree or shrub species) will maximize nutrient removal and other
buffer functions).
In addition to buffer restoration and enhancement on subject streams, per the Consolidated Buffer
Mitigation Rules (15 A NCAC 02B 0.0295 (o)), alternative mitigation is proposed on the site in the form of:
1) enhancement of grazing areas adjacent to streams. The project is in compliance with these rules as it
meets the following criteria:
Enhancement of Grazing Areas Adjacent to Streams (15A NCAC 02B 0.0295 (o)(6)):
Buffer credit at a 2:1 ratio shall be available for an applicant or mitigation provider who proposes
permanent exclusion of grazing livestock that otherwise degrade the stream and riparian zone through
trampling, grazing, or waste deposition by fencing the livestock out of the stream and its adjacent buffer.
An additional 0.21 acres of existing, wooded riparian area were enhanced as cattle exclusion fencing was
installed around the conservation easement boundary.
There are no known site constraints that would impede or adversely affect the restoration, enhancement,
and preservation of riparian buffer within the recorded easement area. Diffuse flow of runoff was
maintained within the riparian buffer.
Mitigation credits are presented in Table 2 and Figure 8 in Appendix A and are based upon the
conservation easement survey.
3.0 Baseline Summary
The project team restored high quality riparian buffers along all unnamed tributaries and an in -line pond
within the Site. The project design ensured that no adverse impacts to wetlands of existing riparian buffers
occurred during implementation. Refer to Figure 8 for the conceptual design of the project. Details of the
restoration activity that occurred follows in the sections below.
3.1 Planting Preparation
Based upon pre -project assessment of compaction within the proposed planting areas, all areas targeted
for vegetative plantings within the buffer restoration project were ripped to reduce compaction and to
enhance microtopography. Spot spraying of herbicide was initiated for control of invasive species within
the restoration, enhancement and preservation areas (i.e. Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Multiflora
rose (Rosa multiflora, Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and Chinese tree -of -heaven (Ailanthus
altissima). Treatment areas are depicted on Figure 9. The existing 84-ft pond spillway was stabilized prior
to planting. The spillway was widened to approximately 10-feet and tapered down to 6-feet. The side
slopes were lined with coir fiber matting, and the bottom of the spillway lined with rip -rap. Appropriate
Longhorn Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site — Year 04 Monitoring Report 3 1 P a g e
DMS Project No. 100078
February 9, 2024

erosion control measures were implemented before, during, and after the spillway maintenance to
prevent sediment loss into downstream waters. No other site preparation occurred. No observed drain
tiles were observed prior to, or during, construction and planting and no other land disturbance was
needed to maintain diffuse flow as required.
3.2 Riparian Area Restoration and Enhancement Activities
The conservation easement boundary was marked using 6-inch diameter treated post buried 2 feet,
standing 5 feet above the ground surface, within the pasture. Woven wire fencing with a top strand of
barbed wire was installed along the entire easement boundary. One pedestrian access gate was installed
for future monitoring and access. Three 12-ft wide gates were installed in appropriate locations to allow
cattle to exit in case they were to breach the fence and enter the conservation easement. The easement
boundary was marked with standard yellow Conservation Area signs, per the 01/23/14 NCDMS Boundary
Marking Standards.
The planting plan consisted of planting at least four hardwood species on a density of approximately 538
stems per acre. Species selection and distribution were matched closely to micro -site hydrologic and
edaphic conditions and include species characteristic of riparian assemblages in the watershed. In other
words, species more tolerant of poorly drained soils (i.e. river birch, green ash, and willow oak) were
planted within lower landscape positions generally consisting of the Chewacla and Wedhakee soil series
while species characteristically occurring in better drained soils (Wynott-Enon complex) were planted in
higher landscape positions (i.e. hillside slopes). The selected native trees are well -suited to the site -specific
conditions of the property to promote high survivorship rates. No one tree species planted was greater
than 50% of the established stems. Site planting was conducted on April 1st, 2020 by Carolina Silvics, Inc.
and supervised by project managers from both Clearwater Mitigation Solutions and Land Management
Group.
Table 3 summarizes the planting plan for the Longhorn mitigation site.
Table 3. Planting Plan'
Common Name
Scientific Name
% Composition
Acreage
Quantity
American Sycamore
Montanus occidentalis
30
3.94
2,119
Yellow Poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
25
3.28
1,766
River Birch
Betula nigra
25
3.28
1,766
Willow Oak
Quercus phellos
15
1.97
1,060
Green Ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
5
0.66
353
Total
N/A
100
13.13
7,064
'Note the planted area includes approximate 0.74 acres of conservation area. While no credit is proposed for this area, it was
planted per the same specifications (species density and composition) as those contained within final, approved mitigation plan.
Longhorn Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site — Year 04 Monitoring Report 4 1 P a g e
DMS Project No. 100078
February 9, 2024

4.0 Annual Monitoring
Annual Monitoring is being conducted during the growing season for a period of five years. The report
includes all information required by DMS monitoring guidelines including photographs, plot locations, and
documentation of existing species density and composition. Monitoring is being performed in accordance
with the Consolidated Mitigation Buffer Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0295) and current DMS standards. The
performance criteria for the Site follows approved performance criteria presented in the guidance
documents outlined in the Consolidated Buffer Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0295). Performance criteria are being
evaluated throughout the five-year post -construction monitoring.
4.1 Methods
The final vegetative success criteria are the survival of 260 planted stems per acre in the riparian buffer
at the end of the required monitoring period (MY05). Native hardwood and native shrub volunteer species
may be included to meet the final performance standard of 260 stems per acre. In addition, the Site must
contain at least four native hardwood species. Vegetative monitoring includes the establishment of eleven
(11) permanent plots consistent with the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) protocol Level 2 (version 4.2)
(refer to Figure 9 for plot locations). Reference photos of the vegetation plots and Site are taken at each
predetermined photo point location. Any vegetative problem areas in the site are noted and reported in
each monitoring report. Vegetative problem areas may include areas that either lack vegetation or include
populations of exotic vegetation. Monitoring reports identify any contingency measures that may need to
be employed to remedy site deficiencies.
Permanent photo stations were established across the project area in order to document site stability for
five years post construction. Markers were established and located with GPS equipment so that the same
locations and perspectives on the Site are photographed each year. Photo reference stations are shown
on Figure 9 and photos are included in Appendix B.
Visual assessments are performed annually during the five-year monitoring period. Problem areas of
vegetative health are noted and areas of concern are mapped, photographed, and documented in each
annual monitoring report. Problem areas that were found are re-evaluated in each subsequent monitoring
event.
4.2 Tables
(MY4) vegetation plot photographs and the planted and total stem counts (Table 4) are included in
Appendix B.
4.3 Results and Discussion
Annual monitoring (MY04) was conducted on September 27, 2023 by DRG staff. An average stem density
of 492 planted stems per acre was tallied across the site (approximately 73% of the recorded baseline
(MYO) density (673 stems per acre)). Stem densities within individual monitoring plots range from 121 to
Longhorn Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site — Year 04 Monitoring Report 5
DMS Project No. 100078
February 9, 2024

1,255 planted stems per acre. Stem counts within individual plots range from 3 to 31 stems with an
average of 12 planted stems per plot. Six different hardwood species were observed across the site,
exceeding the minimum diversity criteria. All but one vegetation plot (Plot 2) are on track to meet the final
stem density success criterion of 260 stems/acre for MY05. Plot 2 experienced high seedling mortality
during MY01. Plot 2 seedling mortality was likely caused by inundation and flooding of the plot. Based
upon review of the area during MY01, it appeared that an increase in surface water had filled the western
and side channel following construction of the new pond outlet due to a shift and rehabilitation of the
dam outlet structure. Many dead trees were observed buried in alluvial deposits during MY01. During
MY02, additional seedling mortality was observed due to inundation in the same location. During MY02,
a supplemental plot was established just to the south of Plot 2 (Plot 2A). Ten (10) planted stems were
enumerated within Plot 2A during MY02 and MY03 and all exhibited excellent vigor in MY04. In addition,
the remainder of the enhancement area was walked, and numerous planted stems were observed. Based
on the enumerated stems in Plot 2A during MY04 and observed stems within the remainder of the
enhancement zone, it is anticipated that Plot 2 is the only area within the enhancement zone experiencing
high mortality due to inundation and alluvial deposition. Additional individual stem location, height, and
vigor can be referenced in Appendix C.
Plot 5 mortality during MYO1 was likely a result of dry conditions and the presence of dense grasses post -
planting. These conditions persisted throughout MY02 and exhibited higher mortality. Supplement
planting occurred within this area in the Winter of 2022 (January — February). Approximately 0.75-acres
were supplemented. Additional planted stems were observed with excellent vigor during MY03.
Numerous planted stems were observed throughout the area surrounding Plot 5. No additional
mortalities were observed for Plot 5 during MY04.
During MY01, relatively higher stem mortality and lower vigor was observed for Plots 7, 9, and 10.
Excessive mortality within these plots are likely attributed to dry conditions and competitive fescue post
planting. Suggested supplemental planting proposed for these areas in the Winter of 2021 (January —
February) did not take place as a selective, broad spectrum, postemergence herbicide (Poast) was
implemented. Distribution of Poast successfully controlled fescue grass and ceased additional planted
stem mortalities. All planted stems were accounted for and exhibited excellent vigor during MY04 within
these plots.
Most of the stem mortality occurred between MYO and MY01. During MY04 these areas are on track to
meet the final stem density success criteria. Refer to Figure 9 (Current Condition Plan View) and Table 4
in Appendix B for additional information.
Invasive species occupied a cumulative 1.6 acres throughout the site and were treated in MY03. Chinese
Privet (Ligustrum sinense) and Multiflora Rose (Rosa multiflora) have been observed within the proposed
buffer enhancement, preservation areas, and along the eastern bank of Stream Al. A small cluster of
Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) was also observed within the easement. Treatment was applied
prior to planting, MY01, MY02, and MY03. Invasive densities have steadily declined across the site as an
effect of the treatment. Although complete eradication did not take place, the survivability of planted
stems nor the success of the project were affected by current populations during MY04. Invasive species
Longhorn Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site — Year 04 Monitoring Report 6 1 P a g e
DMS Project No. 100078
February 9, 2024

populations will continue to be monitored and spot herbicide treatments will be conducted as needed
during the appropriate time of year. Please refer to Appendix B for visual assessment data and for
vegetation plot data and vegetation plot photographs.
4.4 Maintenance and Management
Overall, the site appears to be progressing well towards the target success criteria. Supplemental planting
during the Winter of 2022 appears to have successfully brought Plot 5 back into compliance with the MY05
success criteria of 260/planted stems per acre. The inhibition of planted stems within Plot 2 was a result of
previous construction. The spillway outlet for the onsite pond was redirected prior to baseline. This
modification redirected flow towards the western side of the enhancement area. The newly channelized
flow inundated the area and prevented vegetative growth. Since then, the area has stabilized and will be
supplemented with additional 3-gallon facultative wetland (FACW) tree species such as Betula nigra and
Quercus michauxii in early 2024. In addition, invasive treatment areas will continue to be monitored and
managed if additional exotic species appear within the site. If it is determined that the site's ability to
achieve the performance standards are jeopardized, staff members of NCDMS/NCDWR will be notified,
and an adaptive management plan will be developed to address these issues.
5.0 References
Lee, Michael T. Peet, Robert K., Steven D. Wentworth, Thomas R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.2. http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-2.pdf
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Web Soil Survey of Randolph County.
http://websoiIsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities
2009. http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/cape fear/RBRP/`20Cape%2OFear%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/s3fspublic/Mitigation/`2OServices/Document%2OManagement%2OLi
brary/Guidance%20and%20Templa to%20Documents/RB_NO_Base_Mon_Template_2.0_2017_5.pdf
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2011. Surface Water Classifications.
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification-standards/classifications
Longhorn Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site — Year 04 Monitoring Report 7 1 P a g e
DMS Project No. 100078
February 9, 2024

APPENDIX A:
Figures/Tables

RD 1 Y E
i
�Crjj yr
2 311 ,f
Q 11P.
Sill;
nv f —
cot ©�idg
7 rf
.00
C
r �. � C
i
Q
;`.PPY 0,9 Ap '• �� %�:. lam,
Ridge
Unks
A WNITD RD m t
SITE
EARL s
�
o
a
J [�
rp
1.
RLAVE
Ar_:_�. G _ �.. sip ��'� •_ �, •�
r 311 I 6G
p !
ICE
Ri
��� "y. � fir• ' f��i � � � r-� -� N l�
� N III i� G rE S
Golf C
2�_ r1� O
0! �7 �1� `t -:� �� ,r, ��I►` �7 � � r1 itjP
64
fCS
Boundaries are approximate and not meant to be absolute. N
Map Source: DeLorme 2012 Atlas & Gazeteer 0 0.5 1 2
Miles
L:\WETLANDS\2018 WETLANDS FILES\LMG18.457 --- Randleman DMS Buffer Site, Kevin Yates\Proposal\Figures
Longhorn Riparian CLEIRWATER VffTIGATION
Buffer Mitigation Site SOLUTIONS
Cataloging Unit 03030003 Figure 1
Randolph County, NC tLMG
Vicinity Map
Map Date: 01-07-19
LMG # 40-18-457 L.A N D 14 A NAG ELATE NT GROUF

v
- Longhorn Project Boundary
Muddy Creek Watershed (030300030106)
Randleman Lake Watershed
Q 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit (03030003)
Boundaries are approximate and not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: ArcGIS Open Street Map
L:\WETLANDS\2019 WETLANDS FILES\LMG19.249 --- Longhorn Buffer Project, Kevin Yates\Mitigation Plan\Draft Mit Plan\Figures
N
A
0 2.5 5 10 15 20
Miles
Longhorn Riparian CLE4RWATER AHTIGA2IQ?V
Buffer Mitigation Site SOLUTIONS
Cataloging Unit 03030003 Figure 2
Randolph County, NC T Watershed Map
Map Date: 02-24-20 :LMG
LAND MANA45ENTENT GROUF
,.... LMG # 19.249 JR ____

Legend
Parcel Boundary: —45.18 Acres
® Longhorn Conservation Easement: —20.81 Acres
N
OWETLANDS\2019 WETLANDS FILES\LMG19.249 -- Longhorn Buffer Project, Kevin YatesWitigation Plan\Draft Mit Plan\Figures 0
Boundaries are approximate and not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: USGS Glenola Quadranqle 7.5 Minute
200 400 800
Feet
Longhorn Riparian C,LEARW.4TER WTIG.4YYON
Buffer Mitigation Site SOLUTIONS �
Cataloging Unit 03030003 Figure 3
Randolph County, NC T� Topographic Map
L Map Date: 02-24-20
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
LMG # 19.249 1

Bob Branch
4
AM -
Legend
Parcel Boundary: --45.18 Acres
® Longhorn Conservation Easement: —20.81 Acres
• "LiDAR
Elevation
k,
802.533 - 812.23
792.837 - 802,533
— 783.14 - 792.837
- 773.443 - 783.14
- 763.747 - 773.443
754.05 - 761747
- 744.353 - 754.05
734.657 - 744.353
724.96 - 734.657
N �7n�7 n/� /�/�
L-IWETLANDSU019 WETLANDS FILESTMG19.249 -- Longhorn Buffer Project, Kevin Yates%Mitigation PIan%Draft Mit PIanTigures A
0 200 400 800
Boundaries are approximate and not meant to be absolute. Feet
Ma Source: NC Flood lain Ma in Pro ram 2014 QL2 LiDAR Data
Longhorn Riparian CLF-4RWATF'R .IffTIGA770-V
Buffer Mitigation Site SOLT,,T.IOVS 1
Cataloging Unit 03030003 _ Figure 4
Randolph :02-2County, 0 4 LM G LiDAR Map
Map Date: 02-24-20
LMG # 19.249 LAND MAN F-MENT AUI:P
a DAVEYAI. CO-P a

Legend
CmA: Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, 0-2% slopes, frequently flooded
CnB2: Coronaca clay loam, 2-8% slopes, moderately eroded
CnC2: Coronaca clay loam, 8-15% slopes, moderately eroded
HeB: Helena sandy loam, 2-6% slopes
HeC: Helena sandy loam, 6-10% slopes
MaC: Mecklenburg loam, 8-15% slopes
McB2: Mecklenburg clay loam, 2-8% slopes, moderately eroded
McC2: Mecklenburg clay loam, 8-15% slopes, moderately eroded
WtB: Wynott-Enon complex, 2-8% slopes
WtC: Wynott-Enon complex, 8-15% slopes
WvB2: Wynott-Enon complex, 2-8% slopes, moderately eroded
WvC2: Wynott-Enon complex, 8-15% slopes, moderately eroded
WzB: Wynott-Wilkes-Poindexter complex, 2-8% slopes
Boundaries are approximate and not meant to be absolute.
® Longhorn Conservation Easement
N
0 350 700
Longhorn Riparian CLF-4RWATER VffTIGAIIDN
Buffer Mitigation Site SOLUTIONS 1
Cataloging Unit 03030003 Figure 5
Randolph County, NC ILMG
Soils Map
Map Date: 02-24-20
LMG # 19.249 L.AND14ANA45ENTENTGROUF
_-__�
1,400
= Feet

a.0 410
IT a•
Bob Branch
A IL V,
46
gr
+�
1�...
7
n t Ir
Legend
Parcel Boundary: -45.18 Acres
® Longhorn Conservation Easement: -20.81 Acres
N
3oundaries are approximate and not meant to be absolute. 0 200 400 800
Map Source: 1998 NAPP Aerial Photography Feet
Longhorn Riparian CLEARWATER MITIGATIQN
Buffer Mitigation Site SOLUTIONS
Cataloging Unit 03030003 Figure 6
Randolph County, NC 1998 Aerial Photograph
Map Date: 02-24-20 :LMG
LMG # 19.249 L,AND14ANMf..tiSENTGRGllF

f..
i Bob Branch
7,
a,
r
i
4, '
1 I: ti.
Marf4o�p Ghur�
Legend
Parcel Boundary: -45.18 Acres
® Longhorn Conservation Easement: -20.81 Acres
L:\WETLANDS\2019 WETLANDS FILES\LMG19.249 --- Longhorn Buffer Project, N
Kevin Yates\Mitigation Plan\Draft Mit Plan\Figures 0 200 400 800
3oundaries are approximate and not meant to be absolute. Feet
Map Source: 2016 ESRI World Imagery
Longhorn Riparian CLEA.RWATERAff TIGANON
Buffer Mitigation Site SOLUTIONS
Cataloging Unit 03030003 Figure 7
Randolph County, NC 4LMG 2016 Aerial Photograph
Map Date: 02-24-20
LMG # 19.249 LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
a D MMYJ# company

Stream Not
Subject to
Buffer Rules
Access
Easement 1
Stream Start
35.8424490
79.8833720
Non -Creditable A
(2,046.150
Headwater
Wetland Area
(Herbaceous) ,
Access
Easement 2
n-Creditable Area
!,83J.128 s.f.)

Table 1. Buffer Project Attributes
Longhorn Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Project Name
Longhorn Riparian Buffer Restoration Project
Hydrologic Unit Code
03030003010060 (14 digit)
River Basin
Cape Fear
Geographic Location (Lat, Long)
35.841600,-79.882810
Site Protection Instrument (DB, PG)
DB 163 Page 99
Total Credits (BMU)
376,644.994
Types of Credits
Riparian Buffer
Mitigation Plan Date
February 2020
Initial Planting Date
April 1st, 2020
Baseline Monitoring Date
April 6th, 2020
Baseline Report Date
June, 2020
MY1 Report Date
December 1st, 2020
MY2 Report Date
November 1st, 2021
MY3 Report Date
November 22nd, 2022
MY4 Report Date
November 17th , 2023
MY5 Report Date

Table 2. Longhorn, 100114, Project Mitigation Credits
Cape Fear - Randleman
Service Area
N/A
N Credit Ratio (sf/credit)
N/A
P Credit Ratio (sf/credit)
Subject?
Total
( enter NO if
Min -Max Buffer
(Creditable)
Initial Credit
Final Credit
Convertible
Riparian Buffer
Convertible
Delivered
Delivered
Credit Type
Location
ephemeral or
Feature Type
Mitigation Activity
Width (ft)
Feature Name
Total Area (sf)
Area of Buffer
Ratio (x:l)
%Full Credit
Ratio (x:l)
to Riparian
Credits
to Nutrient
Nutrient
Nutrient
ditch')
Mitigation (sf)
Buffer?
Offset?
Offset: N (Ibs)
Offset: P (Ibs)
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I/P
Restoration
0-100
Al
82,245
82,245
1
100%
1.00000
Yes
82,245.000
No
—
—
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I/P
Restoration
101-200
Al
96,615
96,615
1
33%
3.03030
Yes
31,882.982
No
—
—
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I/P
Enhancement
0-100
Al
17,433
17,433
2
100%
2.00000
Yes
8,716.500
No
—
—
Buffer
Rural
Yes
I/P
Enhancementvia
0-100
Al
9,271
9,271
2
100%
2.00000
Yes
4,635.500
No
—
—
Cattle Exclusion
Buffer
Rural
Yes
In -Line Pond
Restoration
0-100
Pi
186,823
186,823
1
100%
1.00000
Yes
186,823.000
No
—
—
Buffer
Rural
Yes
In -Line Pond
Restoration
101-200
P1
188,915
188,915
1
33%
3.03030
Yes
62,342.012
No
—
—
Totals: 581,302
581,302
Enter Preservation Credits Below
Eligible for Preservation (sf):
193,767
Total
Min -Max Buffer
(Creditable)
Initial Credit
Final Credit
Riparian
Credit Type
Location Subject?
Feature Type
Mitigation Activity Width (ft)
Feature Name Total Area (sf)
Area for
Ratio (x:l)
%Full Credit Ratio (x:l)
Buffer Credits
Buffer
Mitigation (sf)
Preservation Area Subtotal (sf):
o
Preservation as %Total Area of Buffer Mitigation:
0.0%
TOTAL AREA OF BUFFER
MITIGATION (TABM)
Ephemeral Reaches as %Total Area of Buffer Mitigation:
0.0%
Mitigation Totals
Square Feet
Credits
Restoration:
554,598
363,292.994
Enhancement:
26,704
13,352.000
Preservation:
0
0.000
Total Riparian Buffer:
581,302
376,644.994
TOTAL NUTRIENT OFFSET MITIGATION
Mitigation Totals
Square Feet
Credits
Nutrient Nitrogen:
0.000
—
0
1. The Randleman Lake buffer rules allowsome ditches to beclassified as subject accordingto 15A NCAC 02B .0250 (5)(a).
Offset: hosphorus:
0.000

APPENDIX B:
Veg Data/Visual Assessment Table
Veg Plot Photos/Photo Stations

Table 4. Planted and Total Stems
Longhorn Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100114
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
CVS Proiect Code LRBMS. Proiect Name: Longhorn Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
`feet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P-All: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems
Current Plot Data (MY4 2023)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
LRBMS-01-0001
LRBMS-01-0002A
LRBMS-01-0002
LRBMS-01-0003
LRBMS-01-0004
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acernegundo
Boxelder Maple
Tree
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
4
Baccharis halimifolia
Silverling, High -tide Bush, Mullet Bush, Groundsel Tree
Shrub Tree
3
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
2
2
2
6
6
61
6
6
15
Carya glabra
Pignut Hickory
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
7
71
71
6
61
6
31
3
31
1
2
2
2
Juniperus virginiana
Eastern Red Cedar
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet Gum, Red Gum
Tree
62
14
23
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
Pinus echinata
Shortleaf Pine, Rosemary Pine, Yellow Pine
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
19
19
19
1
1
1
7
7
7
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak
Tree
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
4
41
4
1
1
1
41
4
4
2
2
2
Ulmus alata
Winged Elm
Tree
12
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree
�3193
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
StemsperACRE
31
10
10
10
3
3
3
131
13
30
18
18
66
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
41
41
51
41 41
41
11 11
1
4
41
61
5
5
8
12551
12551
37641111111111111111111111
4051
4051111111111111111111111
1211
1211
5261
5261
12141
7281
7281
2671

Table 4. Planted and Total Stems
Longhorn Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100114
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
CVS Project Code LRBMS. Project Name: Longhorn Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
fig�eet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P-All: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems
Current Plot Data (MY4 2023)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
LRBMS-01-0005
LRBMS-01-0006
LRBMS-01-0007
LRBMS-01-0008
LRBMS-01-0009
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acer negundo
Boxelder Maple
Tree
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
Baccharis halimifolia
Silverling, High -tide Bush, Mullet Bush, Groundsel Tree
Shrub Tree
1
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Carya glabra
Pignut Hickory
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
3
3
3
Juniperus virginiana
Eastern Red Cedar
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet Gum, Red Gum
Tree
1 3
10
4
1
19
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
51
5
5
21
2
2
Pinus echinata
Shortleaf Pine, Rosemary Pine, Yellow Pine
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
4
4
41
1
1
1
4
41
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak
Tree
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
lWillow Oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
5
5
5
Ulmus alata
lWinged Elm
Tree
1
Ulmus americans
jAmerican Elm
Tree
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
7
7
11
11
11
21
10
10
14
12
12
14
12
12
31
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
2
2
4
5
5
6
3 3
4
3
3
5
4
4
5
283
283
445
445
445
850
405
567
486
486
567
486
486
1255

Table 4. Planted and Total Stems
Longhorn Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100114
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
CVS Proiect Code LRBMS. Proiect Name: Longhorn Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Fxceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P-All: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems
Current Plot Data (MY42023)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
LRBMS-03-0020
LRBMS-01-0011
MY4 (2023)
MY3 (2022)
MY2 (2021)
MY3 (2020)
MYO (2020)
Pnol-S
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Acer negundo
Boxelder Maple
Tree
1
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
4
4
13
Baccharis halimifolia
Silverling, High -tide Bush, Mullet Bush, Groundsel Tree
Shrub Tree
4
2
1
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
1
1
1
3 3
3
19
19
28
9 9
21
18
18
18
14
14
14
28
28
28
Carya glabra
Pignut Hickory
Tree
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
3
3
3
24
24
24
15
15
15
21
21
21
17
17
17
25
25
25
Juniper- virginiana
Eastern Red Cedar
Tree
1
1
2
1
3
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet Gum, Red Gum
Tree
7
6
131
183
105
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
2
2
2
7 7
7
17
17
17
23
23
23
26
26
26
29
29
29
46
46
46
Pinus echinata
Shortleaf Pine, Rosemary Pine, Yellow Pine
Tree
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
5
5
5
3 3
3
41
41
41
34
34
34
37
37
37
39
39
39
57
57
57
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak
Tree
5
5
5
4 4
4
5
5
5
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
lWillo. Oak
ITree
3 3
3
13
13
13
211
21
21
22
22
22
22
22
22
27
271
27
Ulmus alata
Winged Elm
Tree
3
16
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree
2 21
2
1
1
1
11
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
11
111
21
181
181
29
1201
1201
289
306
106
320
1291
1291
249
1231
1231
124
1831
183
183
1
1
12
12
12
11
11
0.02
0.02
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.27
0.27
41 41
8
51 51
7
7
14
6 6
12
6
6
30
6
6
7
5
5
5
445
850
728
1174
405
405
975
357
1079
435
435
840
453
453
456
673
673
673

Visual Vegetation Assessment
Planted acreage 113.13
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
Combined
Acreage
%of Planted
Acreaee
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.10 acres
0.00
0.00/.
Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count criteria.
0.10acres
0.10
0.8%
Total
0.10
0.8%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates
Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance Standard. 0.10 acres
0.00
0.00%
Cumulative Total
0.10
0.8%
Easement Acreage 120.81
Mapping
Combined
% of Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Acreage
Acreage
Invasives may occur outside of planted areas and within the easement and will therefore be
calculated against the total easement acreage. Include species with the potential to directly
Invasive Areas of Concern
0.10 acres
0.00
outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term or community structure for existing
communities. Species included in summation above should be identified in report summary.
Encroachment may be point, line, or polygon. Encroachment to be mapped consists of any
violation of restrictions specified in the conservation easement. Common encroachments are
Easement Encroachment Areas
none
#Encroachments noted
mowing, cattle access, vehicular access. Encroachment has no threshold value as will need to be
addressed regardless of impact area.

APPENDIX B. VEG PLOT PHOTOS
(1) Plot 1
(3) Plot 3
(5) Plot 5
(2) Plot 2
(4) Plot 4
(6) Plot 6
Longhorn Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site — Appendix B 1 I P a g e
DMS Project No. 100114

�4[r;
49�
• � - 4i
i
�.E
' k:. �. � +•TSB.

APPENDIX B. PHOTO STATIONS
(1) PS1 (looking south)
(3) PS2 (looking east)
(5) PS3 (looking north into enhancement area)
(2) PS2 (looking north towards restoration area)
(6) PS4 (looking west towards dam)
Longhorn Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site — Appendix B 1 I P
DMS Project No. 100114

APPENDIX B. PHOTO STATIONS
(7) PS4 (looking north into easement)
(9) PS6 (looking north along pond edge)
(11) PS8 (looking north into restoration area)
(8) PS5 (looking west along conservation easement)
(10) PS7 (looking southwest into restoration area)
Longhorn Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site — Appendix B 2 1 P
DMS Project No. 100114

APPENDIX C:
Vegetation Monitoring
Field Sheets

Plot (continued): LRBMS-01-0001 Oct 2022 Data i z THIS YEAR'S DATA
map source X Y ddh I feiglst Di3}{ ddh Kcig,irt l]BH Re- Vigor• Damage* Notes
ID Species char (m) (m) (min) (cm) (cm) I (mm) (cm) (cm) sprout `
Vegetation Monitoring Data (VMD) Datasheet Please fill in any missing data and correct any errors.
Plot LRBMS-01-0001 Part: Role: Date last planted:
VIVID Year (1-5): 1_ Date: q / / New lanting date m/yy?
[ NCheck box if plot was not
Taxonomic Standard: Notes: Sampled, specify reason below
Taxonomic Standard DATE:
i
Latitude or UTM-N: 35.843617 Datum.
(dec.deg. or m)-79.883083 UTM Zone:
Longitude or UTM-E:
Coordinate Accuracy (m): X-Axis bearing (deg)- ;r
Plot Dimensions: X: 10 Y: 10 ElPlot has reverse orientation for X and Y axis (Y is 90 degrees to the right of X
Oct 2022 Data z THIS YEAR'S DATA
0
Map Source* X Y Height DBH * Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Notes I ID Species Name char 0.1m 0.1m, icm* I cm Icm* 1 cm spmut I
I Fraxinus pennsylvanica r O R 2.1 8.5 60.0 0 C) y
2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica (a) R 4.7 8.6 58.0 4
3 Fraxinus pennsylvanica ' © R 0.8 0.1 101.0 DBH? 0 ,'t L.
5 - Fraxinus pennsylvanica ' Qj R 3.4 0.2 79.0 192 L4
7 Fraxinus pennsylvanica n R 6.4 0.2 94.0 ❑ /L{'o 0 S L4
8 Quercus phellos O R 7.5 5.9 60.0 0 4
9 Fraxinus pennsylvanica C) R 9.1 0.2 72.0 ❑ �3 Li
10 Platamis occidentalis O R 4.5 5.5 114.0 DBH? ❑ I q0 1,0 L
I Fraxinus-pennsylvanica. O R 2.4 5.4 69.0 &PG{ t�
12 Quercus pagoda R 0.1 2.8 75.0 ❑ 114
13 Platanus occidentalis O R 03 5.8 110.0 DBH? 0 Iu6 I 0SElL{
14 Quercus phellos R 3.1 2.8 100.0 1 to 4
15 Quercus phellos 0J R 6.1 2.8 97.0 Ll O.S
16 Quercus phellos © R 9.0 2.8 69.0 Q 165 Ll
17 Platanus occidentalis R 9.8 5.7 100.0 1557
665 Platanus occidental is @ R 2.2 9.0 105.0 DBH?❑ +2_0 E H
666 Platanus occidentalis ® R 0.5 1.0 68.0 ❑ r2' 2- _71y
667 Platanus occidentalis R 4.8 9.2 73.0 ❑ 9 L4
668 Platanus occidentalis O R 2.5 2.0 50.0 ❑ L-4
669 Platanus occidentalis Q R 7.5 9.5 91.0 ❑ "
670 Platanus occidentalis O R 95 9.5 88.0 ❑ I (Q $ Q s LF
671 Platanus occidentalis R 5.0 5.1 43.0 ❑ 9 2 Li
672 Platanus occidentalis ® R 0.2 5.5 96.0 ❑ I (� v ,� L
673 Platanus occidentalis O R 3.0 6.5 102.0 DBH? ❑ I 4
674 Platanus occidentalis 0, R 5.5 6.5 61.0 ❑ 9C) ❑ u
675 Platanus occidentalis Q R 7.0 1.5 115.0 DBH? ❑ I (.f L) D • 5 ❑ Lf
676 Platanus occidentalis R 4.5 0.3 110.0 DBH?❑ 12.5 ❑ L.I
*SO-LIRCE: Tr --Trans lan L=Live stake 13=13all and hurt P=Potted Tu=Tubhri . R= base Ri LYEMechanically_ U=Unk.uo«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.
*HEIGHT PRECISION drops to IOcm if>2.5m and 50em if>4m, Prinled in the (TS EnlrY Tool rer. 2,5.0

Plot (continued): LRBMS-01-0001 Oct 2022 Data z THIS YEAR'S DATA
map source X Y ddh Height DBH * ddh HeiLhl DBII I<e- Vigor' Damage• Notes
ID Species char (m) (m) (mm) (cm) (cm) (mm) i rm) i cmy chruut
# stems: 27 New Stems, not included last year, but are obviously planted. If more space needed, use blank PWS (Planted Woody Stems) Form:
Species Name Source* lm} (m) 1 cm* Height
l,Bm Vigor* Damage* Notes
`t Gn 2-- 2. 120 Lj
l l � 0 111
t 3 9.5 _9 �_ y l
*Notes by ID: 1-No leaves d
+ -No leaves
-No leaves
5-No leaves
Mrokm stem
11-No leaves
13-No leaves
14-yr0: No leaves I yrl: shade
15-yr0: No leaves I yrl: broken stem
16-No leaves
17-No leaves
1-No leaves
2-No leaves
-No leaves
5-No leaves
8-broken stem
11-No leaves
13-No leaves
14-yr0: No leaves yrI: shade
15-yr0: No leaves yrl: broken stem
16-No leaves
17-No leaves
);xolawllion of cut-off
Natural Woody Stems - tallied by species �L suhsam[A.inP * *.
ei ht Cut-0ti(All stems shorter than this are ignored. If>10cm, explain why to the right.): U 1(1G111 0 50Cm ❑ 10k'm ❑ l.. Cm
Species Name
0
c
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 ifettoff>10cmorsubsample?100%. •i
•2 1
•3
••4
NS
r6
7
s ]
�10 Form WS2,ver9.l
"SOURCE: Tr --Transplant, i =Lire stake B=8a11 and >71u1a €=Pntte p.rl :
*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 (TS Entri, Toot ter. 1.5-0

Vegetation Monitoring Data (VMD) Datasheet Please fill in any missing data and correct any errors.
Plot LRBMS-01-0002
VMD Year (1-5):IE Date: /Z/ Z3
Taxonomic Standard:
Taxonomic Standard DATE:
Latitude or UTM-N: 135.843 Datum:
(dem) 79 882808 UTM Zone720
Longitude or UTM-TM-E:
Coordinate Accuracy (m): X-Axis bearing (deg):
Lb
Date last planted:
NeW lanting date m/yy? I�
nC'heck box if plot was not
Notes: sampled, specify reason below
Plot Dimensions: X: ln: y; 10 El plot has reverse orientation for X and Y axis I.Y is 90 degrees to the riot of X
Species Name
Map Source* X Y
char 0.1m O.lm
Oct 2022 Data i THIS YEAR'S DATA
Height DF3il J Ileight DBE Rc- Vigor' Damage* Notes
Icm• I Cm Icm* I Cm sprout
18 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
®
R 0.6 8.5
47.0
0
(
4
21 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
©
R 1.0 3.7
125.0
0.6 0
I ' D
29 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Q
R 3.8 8.0
214.0
1.0
Pe�061
y,;
# steins: 3 New Stems,
not included last year, but are obviously planted.
If more space needed, use blank PWS (Planted Woody Stems) Form:
X Y
Height DBH
Species Name
Source*
(m) (m)
1 cm* I Cm
Vigor*
Damage* Notes
*Notes by ID: �I 8-No leaves
] -No leaves
4.Nn 1PavPc
Ec ul ana tion of eut-ff
Natural Woody Stems - tallied by species & sutysamPiine';
ei htCut-Off(Allstemsshorterthanthisareignored If>]Ocm.explain .dy to therigh[.): ❑ 10CM 050Cm ❑ 100cm O 137cm
Species Name
[
c
SEEDLINGS
— HEIGHT CLASSES
SAPLINGS
— DBH
TREES — DBH
Sub-
Seed
10 cm-
50 cm
50 cm-
100 cm
100 cm- I
137 cm
Sub-
sapi
0-1 cm
1-2.5
2.5-
5-
=10
(,.rite DBH)
**Required ifertoff>]Ocm or subsample? 100%. 01
• •2
•• • 3
! •4
••
"5
••
6
•
8
t�9
rii
�10 Form WS2, ver9.1
'SOURCE: TrTrani lan I=.ivc stake. B—Bali and budap, P=Potted Tu=Tublin R=bare Rtia_L M=Mechanicali U=Unknown , 7
*VIGOR: 4�excellent, 3=good, 24air, *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 I Ocm if>2.5m and 50cm if>4m. Printed in the CIS Entry Toot ter. 2.5.0

Vegetation Monitoring Data (VMD) Datasheet
Please fill in any missing data and correct any errors.
Plot L"MS-01-0002A 1' :rt : Role: Date last planted:
VMD Year (1-5): - Date: / / / / New lanting date m/yy?
Check box if plot was not
Taxonomic Standard: Notes: sampled, specify reason below
Taxonomic Standard DATE:
Latitude or UTM-N: 35,842718 Datum:
(dec.deg. or m)
Longitude or UTM-E:-79.882829 UTM Zone:
Coordinate Accuracy (m): X-Axis bearing (deg): F355
Plot Dimensions: X: 10. Y: lt1 ❑ plot has reverse orientation for X and Y axis (Y is 90 degrees to the right of X
Last Year's Data Z THIS YEAR'S DATA
0
Map Source* X Y Height DBH Height DBH Re- Vigor- Damage* Notes
ID Species Name char 0.1m 0.1m lcm* 1 cm Icm* I cm sprout g g
506 Fraxinus pennsylvanica @ R 3.0 0.4 186.0 0.8 ❑ ?)�(4 2, a 1 J
507 Fraxinus pennsylvanica (J R 2.8 3.2 196.0 1.0 -�,;> Z 5 ❑ Ll
508 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 0 R 4.0 5.0 304.0 1.8 41 I 3, o Ll
509 Fraxinus pennsylvanica O R 95 1.0 275.0 1.5 ❑ 4z% 2.5
510 Platanus occidentalis Q R 9.8 0.2 365.0 4.0 ❑ L42-+ (0. D G
511 Fraxinus pennsylvanica O R 7.0 4.6 135.0 DBH? ❑ ME ,, o ❑ u
512 Quercus pagoda Q R 9.6 9.6 66.0 ❑ 1-O ❑ 4
513 Fraxinus pennsylvanica © R 5.0 7.8 136.0 0.5 ❑ 2 ( 3 I , S ❑ 14
514 Betula nigra ® R 8.0 4.5 137.0 0.2 ❑ C � �IKN"' Si+c •�
515 Betula nigra O R 0.0 10.0 141.0 0.3 ❑ ps L; �'�� � „ s�
# stems: 10 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} 1 cm* Height
DBtH Vigor* Damage* Notes
*SOURCE:_T>-Transplant, L=Live stake _B=Ball and.burla P=Potted Tu=Tub5n H dare: Roa M=Mechanicall y, U=Unknown . 4
*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 cTS Enby Tool rer. _5.0
--I N)(k G

Vegetation Monitoring Data (VMD) Datasheet
Plot LRBMS-01-0003
VMD Year (1-5): 4 Date: I /5/ z
Taxonomic Standard:
Taxonomic Standard DATE:
Latitude or UTM-N: i35,842796 Datum:
(dec.deg. or m)
79.883235 UTM Zone
Longitude or UTM-E: :
Coordinate Accuracy (m): X-Axis bearing (deg): 0
Please fill in any missing data and correct any errors.
Date last planted:
New lanting date m/yy? L�
Check box if plot was not
Dotes: sampled, specify reason below
Plot Dimensions: X: 11 Y: 10 ❑ Plot has reverse orientation for X and Y axis (Y is 90 degrees to the right of X
Oct 2022 Data Z THIS YEAR'S DATA
0
Map Source* X Y Height DBH * Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Notes
ID Species Name char 0 lm 0.1m . Icm* I cm lcm* 1 cm sprout
35
37
38
39
42
43
44
46
49
50
52
53
516
Quercus phellos
Quercus phellos
Quercus phellos
Betula nigra
Quercus phellos
Betula nigra
Betula nigra
Betula nigra
Liriodendron tulipifera
Quercus pagoda
Liriodendron tulipifera
Betula nigra
Betula nigra
O
Q
O
0
O
Q
Q
®
O
Q
®
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
5.6
3.0
0.5
2.4
21
4.9
45
6.7
9.1
0.9
3.6
6.4
9.2
10.0
9.9
9.8
1.9
7.2
2.1
7.2
7.3
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
63.0
79.0
43.0
94.0
52.0
125.0
94.0
120.0
69.0
87.0
138.0
116.0
223.0
0
DBH?
DBH? 0
❑
0.3 ❑
DBH? W
0.7 ❑
G q
❑
LI
9'R
E
3 1
V40-
a.-'Jl
❑
H
101
L.f
v4a_
132-
❑
14
15 S.0,.5
W
(ZI
1
4
15,
1 v
q
JM
❑
9l12
E
L.f
?.?-
I' C
El
12Z
O• s
❑
-;35
❑
# stems: 13 New Stems not included last year, but are obviously planted. If more space needed, use blank PWS (Planted Woody Stems) Form
Species Name
X Y Height DBH
Source* (m). W 1 cm* 1 cm Vigor* Damage* Notes
-No leaves
-No leaves
-yr0: No leaves I yr3: shade
-No leaves
-Nn leaves
-No leaves
-No leaves
-No leaves
-No leaves
= OURCE.:'rr=•rmnlarlt L=Live - B=Ball and burl P=Potte 'ru Tubiin R=bare Root. M-Mechan€call . U=Unknolivn _ _ P. `?
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2-fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSecls, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown
I=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 I Ocm if>2.5m and 50cm if>4m, Primed in the (TS Entry l unl rer. 25.o

Plot (continued): LRBMS-01-0003 Oct 2022 Data o THIS YEAR'S DATA
map source X Y ddh Height DBH * ddh Height DBH Rrr Vigor* Damage* Notes
ID Species char (m) (m) (mm) (cm) (cm) (mm) (cm) (cm) sprout
Ecplanation of cut-off
Natural Woody Stems - tallied by species !A sobsan,plinp'".
ei htLut-0IT(AIIstemsshorterthanthisareignored. If>l0cm,explain why to theright.): ❑ 1OCm ❑50en7 L 100cm u 137cm
Species Name
GQ
c
SEEDLINGS
— HEIGHT -CLASSES
SAPLINGS
— DBH
TREES — DBH
Sub-
Seed
10 cm-
50 cm
50 cm-
100 cm
100 cm-
137 cm
Sub_
Sap
0-1 cm
1-2.5
2.5-
5-
=10
(write DBH)
G4 vvN
"Required ifcut-0ff>Iocmorsubsample?100%. •1
!2
•
!3
!•
!!4
!!
!��
!!
06
!
7
�8
'
10 Form W S2, v er 9.1
*SOURCE: Tr--Tmns L=Live stake. B=Ball and burls P--Patted. TttrTubline, R=bare Root. M=Mechariicall LI=IJnkno►vn -
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2—fair, I *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown
ea 1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dd, ``j 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 CPS Entry Tool rer. 2.5.0

Vegetation Monitoring Data (VMD) Datasheet
Plot LRBMS-01-0004
VMD Year (1-5): IE Date: et / Z} / 'Z7� --
Taxonomic Standard:
Taxonomic Standard DATE:
Latitude or UTM-N: 35.842709 Datum:
(dec.deg. or m) -
Longitude or UTM-E:-79.882146 UTM Zone 11 I
Coordinate Accuracy (m): X-Axis bearing (deg). u
Please fill in any missing data and correct any errors.
Plot Dimensions: X: 10: Y. 10 ❑ Plot has reverse orientation for X and Y axis
Date last planted:
New planting date m/yy?
Check box if plot was not
Notes: sampled. specify reason below
is 90 degrees to the right of X
Oct 2022 Data z THIS YEAR'S DATA
a
Map Source* X Y Height DBH r Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Not"
ID Species Name char 0.1m 0 1m: lcnr• ] cm Icm, 1 cm sprout
55
Platanus occidentalis
Q
R
2.3
9.7
135.0
DBH? ❑
58
Platanus occidentalis
R
3.4
7.9
198.0
1.5
59
Quercus phellos
Q
R
2.5
2.0
75.0
❑
62
Platanus occidentalis
®
R
7.4
9.5
214.0
1.0 ❑
63
Platanus occidentalis
0
R
4.7
9.5
214.0
1.3 ❑
64
Platanus occidentalis
R
9.1
4.9
86.0
❑
65
Betula nigra
Qj
R
6.3
4.9
214.0
1.2 W
66
Platanus occidentalis
®
R
3.8
4.9
183.0
0.9 ❑
69
Liriodendron tulipifera
Q
R
4.2
3.2
89.0
❑
70
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
O
R
8.3
1.5
109.0
DBH? ❑
71
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Q
R
5A
2.0
66.0
519
Betula nigra
O
R
8.1
1.0
42.0
520
Betula nigra
R
8.4
1.4
39.0
521
Betula nigra
®
R
1.5
2.0
66.0
0
522
Platanus occidentalis
©
R
1.5
8.0
93.0
523
Betula nigra
O
R
3.0
4.5
20.0
0
524
Betula nigra
0
R
5.1
6.8
47.0
0
M®n©M�
Ci��mmm_-
F
m-m=_-
®mm=_-
Fmmm®_-
�-mm_
�®mm
®mm-_-
KR-MM_-
®mm®_-
1
-MM_-
®-mm_-
# slenrs: 17 New Stems not included last year, but are obviously planted If more space needed use blank PW S (Planted Woody Stems) Form:
Species Name
X Y Height DBH
Source* 1m) Inre 1 ern' I cm Vigor* Damage* Notes
8-No leaves
5 No leaves
1-yr0: No leaves I yr1: shade
19-resprout
20- resprout
21-resprout
22- resprout
23-resprout
24- resprout.
Oj,
*SOURCE: Tr --Trans Ian L=Live stake. B=13a I and burls P=Potted Tu=Tublin R=hare.Root. M--Mechanically. U=Unknown
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, 1NSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown
]=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 50em if >4m. Printed in the CP.S Aomy Tool rer•. =-5.0

Plot (continued): L"MS-01-0004 Oct 2022 Data o THIS YEAR'S DATA
map source X Y ddh Height DBH N ddh Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Notes
ID Species char (m) (m) (mm) (cm) (cm) (mm) (cm) (cm) sprout
I- planation of rut�ff
Natural Woody Stems - tallied by species & su&antnli1a9`
'00ei htCut-Off(Allstemsshorterthanthisareignored If>l0an,explain why to the right.): ❑ 10Ctn 1:150Cm ❑ 100CM ❑ 137cm
Species Name
p
e
SEEDLINGS
— HEIGHT
CLASSES
SAPLINGS
— DBH
TREES — DBH
Sub-
Seed
10 cm-
50 cm
50 cm-
100 cm
100 cm-
137 cm
Sub
Sap l
0-1 em
1-2.5
2.S-
S-
=10
(write DBH)
**Required ifcu-off>I0cm or subsample? 100%. 01
■2
• 3
• •4
NS
:41
In,
::10 Form WS2, ver9.l
*SOURCE: Tr --Transplant L=Live.stakc B=Ba l and burl . P=Potted Tti—Tublin R=bars: RooL M=MP. 13
*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, D1Seased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other.
*HEIGHT PRECISION drops to 10em if>2.5m and 50em if>4m. Primed in the O'S 1,*wry Tool rer 2.5.0

Vegetation Monitoring Data (VMD) Datasheet
Please till in any missing data and correct any errors.
Plot LRBMS-01-0005
VMD Year (l-5): F74 Date:
Taxonomic Standard:
Taxonomic Standard DATE:
Latitude or UTM-N:
(dec.deg. or m)
Longitude or UTM-E:
Coordinate Accuracy (m):
Plot Dimensions: X:
19
.88386
I' Role: Date last planted:
New lanting date m/yy?
Check box if plot was not
Notes: sampled, specify reason below
7 Datum:
8 UTM Zone:
X-Axis bearing (deg): t�
10 Y: 10 ❑ Plot has reverse orientation for X and Y axis (Y is 90 degrees to the right of X
Oct 2022 Data G THIS YEAR'S DATA
Map Source* X Y Height DBH N Height
D13H Re- Vigor- Damage* Notes
ID Species Name char O.Im 0.1m Iom* I cm Icm* t cm sprout
74
Platanus occidentalis
O
R
54
9.8
170.0
0.3
75
Liriodendron tulipifera
®
R
9.0
9.9
76.0
0
81
Platanus occidentalis
R
0.0
7.4
304,0
2.4
82
Platanus occidentalis
O
R
6.1
4.4
182.0
1.0 O
527
Liriodendron tulipifera
©
R
1.0
2.7
101,0
DBH? W
683
Platanus occidentalis
Q
R
2.3
9.5
44.0
El
684
Platan
'U
� `• I�
R
40
4.0
60.0
El•
m
■00m
M1
IMMMM
mmmm
# stems: 7 New Sterns, 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
(m) (m) 1 cm* 1 cm Vigor* Damage* Notes
*Notes by ID: 7�-tila leaves
�^ 7_ rp�nrni rr
Explanation of cut-off
Natural Woody Stems - tallied by species & su bsam Nine* *:
ki=h Cut-Oti(All stems shorterthanthis are ignored. If>l0an_Lip la in why to the right.): ❑ IOcm 050CM ❑ 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
sub_
saps
0-1 cm
1-2.5
2.5-
5-
=10
(tirite DBH)
i
"Required if cu-off >I Ocm or subsample ? 100u . 101
•7
••
4
r�
II NS
:46
::7 ::8
1
::10 Form WS2_ ver 9.1
*SOURCE: Tr —Transplant, L=Live stake, B=8tt11 and (rtu "=Potted Tu=Tublin R=ban Ro MMechnnicall U=[idllti� awn 15
*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=6ead, 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. Prinled in the CI'SEnirvTool rer. 2.5.0

Vegetation Monitoring Data (VMD) Datasheet
Plot LRBMS-01-0006
VMD Year (1-5): F4] Date:
Taxonomic Standard:
Taxonomic Standard DATE:
Latitude or UTM-N: P5.841705 Datum:
(dec.deg, or m) ;7y 883631 UTM Zone:
Longitude or UTM-E:
Coordinate Accuracv (m): X-Axis bearine (deal: 20
Please fill in any missing data and correct any errors.
Role: Date last planted:
New ]:tinting date m/yy?
Check box if plot was not
Notes: sampled, specify reason below
Plot Dimensions: X: l01 Y: I "I ❑ Plot has reverse orientation for X and Y axis (Y is 90 degrees to the right of X
Oct 2022 Data Z THIS YEAR'S DATA
0
Map Source* X Y I•Ieight DBI3 * Height DBH Rc- Vigor' Damage* Notes
ID Species Name char O.lm 0.1m Icm* I cm lcmt I cm sprout
88
Betula nigra
®
R
0.1
0.1
260.0
1.7
90
Liriodendron tulipifera
R
4.8
8.5
139.0
0.5 0
94
Quercus phellos
O
R
5.0
0.2
198.0
1.0
95
Liriodendron tulipifera
O
R
5.2
5 8
96.0
96
Quercus pagoda
Q
R
7.4
0.2
127.0
DBH?
97
Liriodendron tulipifera
O
R
2.8
5.2
142.0
0.6
98
Quercus phellos
Q
R
10.0
0.1
215.0
1.5
99
Liriodendron tulipifera
©
R
0.3
5 8
213.0
1.4 0
100
Quercus pagoda
Q
R
8.9
2.8
57.0
El
101
Platanus occidentalis
O
R
1.7
3.0
243.0
1.5 ❑
102
Quercus phellos
Q
R
4.0
2.8
135.0
DBH? W
®mm©_-
®mm_-
M
MMM
_=
stems: 11 New Stems, not included last year, but are obviously planted. If more space needed, use blank PWS (Planted Woody Stems) Form,
X Y H6aht DBH
Species Name Source* (m) (m) 1 cm' 1 cm Vigor* Damage* Notes
•$OL11€CE; 7 rTrans lag L=Live stake B=Ba I and buda . P=Potted Tug Lublin R=bare RnoL M=Mechanicall : U=Unknown P. 17
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, 1NSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown
1=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, ANIMal, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, D1Seased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other,
*HEIGHT PRECISION drops to 10cm if>2.5m and 50cm if>4m. Printed in the CF.S Liu,y Tool rer. 2.5,0

Plot (continued): LRBMS-01-O0O6 Oct 2022 Data o THIS YEARS DATA
map source X Y ddh Height DBH * ddh Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Notes
ID Species char (m) (m) (mm) (cm) (em) (mm) (cm) (cm) sprout
Fsnlanation of cut-off
Natural Woody Stems - tallied by species &suITampling"
t ht ut-Off(AIIstemsshorter thanthisare igrwred. If >10an, &p lain .xfiy to the right.): L1 IOcm ❑5Ocm ❑ I00cm [1137cm
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
Sub_
saps
0-1 cm
1-2.5
2.5-
5-
=10
(write DBH)
L-j y�/�
/
1
• I
•
"Required ifcut-offA0cmorsubsample?100% ■1
�2
�3
•0
•04
••
H5
•�
6
's
�7
�8
�'
�10 FormWS2,ve,9.1
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown
dea 1=unlikely to survive year, 0=d, 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 ON Entry Tool rer. Z 5.0

Vegetation Monitoring Data (VMD) Datasheet
Please fill in any missing data and correct any errors.
Plot LK 3MS-01-0007
VMD Year (1-5): ❑4 Date:
Taxonomic Standard:
Taxonomic Standard DATE:
Latitude or UTM-N:
(dec.deg_ or m)
Longitude or UTM-E:
Coordinate Accuracy (m):
Plot Dimensions: X:
ID Species Name
942 Datum:
.882172 UTM Zone:
X-Axis bearing (deg): F 111'
Kole:
r�
10' Y: 10 ❑ Plot has reverse orientation for X and Y axis
Map Source* X Y
char 0.1m O.lm
Oct 2022 Data z
0
Height DBH (D licight
Icm* I cm )cm*
Date last planted:
New lanting date m/yy?
Check box if plot was not
Notes: sampled. spec:iy} reason below
is 90 degree~ to the right of X
TH IS YEAR'S DATA
❑BH Re- Vigor' Damage* Notes
1 cm sprout
107 Platanus occidentalis O R 8.3 8.5 335.0
108 Liriodendron tulipifera O R 3.8 0.1 304.0
109 Platanus occidentalis R 7.5 5.6 365.0
III Platanus occidentalis Q R 4.6 5.6 274.0
112 Liriodendron tulipifera 0 R 96 0.3 243.0
113 Liriodendron tulipifera Q R 1.4 5.6 213.0
114 Quercus phellos ® R 0.4 28 183.0
115 Platanus occidentalis Q R 2.5 2.8 365.0
118 Liriodendron tulipifera O R 7.6 2.8 228.0
689 Liriodendron tulipifera R 0.1 8.5 98.0
# stems: 10 New Stems, not included last year, but are obviously planted.
Species Name Source* X Y Height DBH
(m) (in) 1 cm* 1 em
2.5 ❑ 3(�j
4.0 ❑ ��
3.4 ❑ 19�
2.5 W -20S
2.5 W LI5-4
1.7 ❑ 3 20
0,7 ❑ 2N 3
6.0 0 Gq s
1.5 � / &
❑ 14S
If more space needed, use
Vigor* Damage*
S,
❑
S•S
❑
❑
3 5
❑
1 y. v
❑
2. S
❑
12, S
❑
t v
❑
y
i.
❑
blank
PWS
(Planted
Notes
Woody Stems) Form:
*Notes by ID: I I I -broken stem
112-No leaves
I I5-No Ieaves
1 O Ai.. �..........
*SOURCE: Tr --Transplant, L=Live slekc H-Ball and burlap. P=Potted Tu=Tublin R=bare Roo M-McchanlcalI U=Unknown p. 2C
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, 1NSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown
l=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. Pruned in the CI'S Entrr Tool rer. 2.5.0

Plot (continued): L"MS-01-0007 Oct 2022 Data o THIS YEAR'S DATA
map source X Y ddh Height DBH N ddh Height DBH Rc- Vigor* Damage* Notes
ID Species char (m) (m) (mm) (cm) (cm) (mm) (cm) (cm) sprnut
lui lunation of rut-o f
Natural Woody Stems - tallied by species &- subsom in '•-
ei Ili ut-Off(All stems shorter than this are ignored- If>10cm,mp lain vby to the right.): ❑ I0cm ❑5€I1m L lU{)cln ❑ I37CR1
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
sub-
Sap
0-1 cm
1-2.5
2.5-
5-
=10
(write DBH)
�
M
•
**Required ifctt-off>I0cmorsubsample?100%. al
•2
•
• 3
••
• 04
••
NS
of
�6
•
?
�8
+
10 Form WS2,ver9.1
*SOURCE: Tr=Trans €aut L=Live s€ake B=Ba I and -bur] P=Potted Ttr—TubJW R=bare Rna M=Mech nicalI _ U—Unknown 21
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown
I=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, ANIMal, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicanc, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify othet,
*HEIGHT PRECISION drops to 10cm if >2.5m and 50em if >4m. Printed in the CPS Eno), Tool rer. 2.5.0

Vegetation Monitoring Data (VMD) Datasheet Please fill in any missing data and correct any errors.
Plot L"MS-01-0008 Parh : Role: Date last planted:
VMD Year (1-5): Date: / / New anting date m/yy?
Check box if plot was not
Taxonomic Standard: Notes: sampled, specify reason below
Taxonomic Standard DATE:
Latitude or UTM-N: M.841098 Datum;
(dec.deg. or m)
Longitude or UTM-E: 79.884179 UTM Zone:
Coordinate Accuracy (m): X-Axis bearing (deg); 10
Plot Dimensions: X: 10 Y: 1Plot has reverse orientation for X and Y axis (Y is 90 degrees
0 El to the ri ht of X
Oct 2022 Data z THIS YEAR'S DATA
0
Map Source* X Y Height DBH 9 Hcight. DBH Re- Vigor' Damage* Notes
ID Species Name char 0.1m 0.1m I cm* I cm I cm* I cm sprout
120 Quercus phellos ® R 0.3 9.9 243.0
121 Quercus phellos O R 3.3 9.9 139.0
122 Platanus occidentalis O R 0.6 1.5 228.0
125 Quercus phellos Q R 6.0 9.9 237.0
126 Platanus occidentalis ® R 5.9 1.6 245.0
127 Platanus occidentalis Q R 0.2 7.0 426.0
128 Platanus occidentalis O R 8.4 1.7 213.0
131 Quercus phellos 0 R 7.1 4.3 80.0
132 Platanus occidentalis O R 7.8 7.1 548.0
133 Quercus phellos Q R 4.1 4.3 83.0
134 Platanus occidentalis O R 0.7 4.2 243.0
9 stems: II New Stems, not included last year, but are obviously planted.
X Y Height DBH
Species Name Source* (m) (m) 1 cm* 1 cm
.'n A- - , r_1 Qm 1 1_ I 1 1
1.0 -44 7 °3, Z)
0.5 33 5 2, D
1.2 ❑ S ; ,D
1.4W ?,�C� 3.d
1.9 ❑ 7�S' 3 /D
4.00 (4 3,0
1.2 ❑ :�A
0 I & � D.S
4.5 ❑ (�4•0 O z)
❑d ) Z't b .5
1.5 ❑ L42a 410
If more space needed, use blank
Vigor* Damage*
r t t
0
Lf
El
❑
L4
1
N
�
Ll
s.i
❑
Li
❑
L1
PWS (Planted Woody Stems) Form:
Notes
*Notes by ID: 120-No leaves
121-No leaves
125-No leaves
131-yr0: No leaves I yrl: broken stem
133-No leaves
*SOURCE: Tr=Trans last L=Livc stake B=Ball and burlap, P=PaLtcd Tu=Tub1" P=bare Roo h4-M_rchanieallr. U=Unknown V. 23
*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, D1Scased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other.
*HEIGHT PRECISION drops to 10cm if>2,5m and 50cm if>4m. Prinled in the O'S hniry Tool ver. 2 5.0

Plot (continued): LRBMS-01-0008 Oct 2022 Data o THIS YEAR'S DATA
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
uit-0f1'
Natural Woody Stems - tallied by species s subsamEe n1 anation ofplingci
Leight Cut-0Off( stems shorter than this are ignored. if>l0cm.cealasn u}ivtothe riulu.1: ,.] IOCM I] 50cm LJ I()0 III LJ 137Cm
Sacies Name
Q
SEEDLINGS
—HEIGHT CLASSES
SAPLINGS—DBH
TREES — DBH
Sub-
10 cm-
50cm-
100 cm-
Sub--10
c
Seed
50 cm
100 cm
137 cm
saps
0-1 cm
1-2.5
2.5-
5-
(write DBH)
do_
-,r�
i
i
**Requiredifcit-0ff>l0cmorsubsample?l00%.
•1
•2
•3
••4
NS
rl1:1-�}T
::10 FormWS2,ver9.1
*SO1J[krF: Tr -Transplant. L=Live stake_ B-Ball and hurlan_ P=Potted. Tu=Tuhlinp- R=hare RnoL M=Mechanically. U=Unknown v. 24
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, 1NSects, 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. Primed in the CIS Entry "Tool ,per. 25.0

Vegetation Monitoring Data (VMD) Datasheet
Plot LRBMS-.01-0009
VMD Year (1-5): 7 Date:
Taxonomic Standard:
Taxonomic Standard DATE:
Latitude or UTM-N: '35.840212 Datum:
(dec.deg. or m) .79.883204 UTM Zone:
Longitude or UTM-E:
Coordinate Accuracy (m): X-Axis bearing (deg): 10
Please fill in any missing data and correct any errors.
Role: Date last planted: -�
New lanting date m/yy? C�
Check box if plot was not
Notes: sampled, specify reason below
I
i
I
Plot Dimensions: X: 101 Y, ! 10
❑ Plot has reverse orientation for X and Y axis Y is 90 degrecs to the right of X
Oct 2022 Data zF THIS YEAR'S DATA
0
Map Source* X Y Height DBII * Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Notes
ID Species Name char 0.1m 0 lm Iem* ]CM lcm' 1 cm sprout
135 Liriodendron tulipifera © R 0.4 9.0 170.0
136 Platanus occidentalis O R 3.4 9.1 176.0
137 Liriodendron tulipifera ® R 6.1 9.1 304.0
139 Platanus occidentalis G R 8.9 92 365.0
140 Betula nigra Od R 3.3 0.4 213.0
141 Platanus occidentalis Oa R 0.2 6.0 243.0
145 Platanus occidentalis O R 5.4 6.0 243.0
147 Platanus occidentalis O R 8.0 3.2 170.0
531 Platanus occidentalis Q R 1.0 3.1 121.0
# stems: 9 New Stems, not included last year, but are obviously planted.
Species Name Source* (X (m} 1 eight DBm* ItH
0.9 0 �J F
1.0 ❑
2.5 ❑ 4
2.0 ❑ Li Z&
0.7 / 1'LI
2.5 0 ,/s� =- -- _:
2.0 W .34S
1.2 ❑ "3OL f
DBH?W 2qs
If more space needed, use
Vigor* Damage*
�,0
21 S
( ,
5
,�
❑
El
y v
❑
7 D
.1,5
blank
PWS (Planted Woody Stems) Form:
Notes
*Notes by ID: 135-No leaves
140-No leaves
141-No leaves
145-No leaves
*SOURCE: Tr -Trans Ian L=Live stake. B=BalI and hurl I --Potted Tu=Tublin R=bare Rom M=Mech lnically. U7.Unlmown _ P. 3d
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=1air, *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 I Ocm if>2.5m and 50cm if>4m. Primed in the rl SEnny7nul rer. 2.5.0

Plot (continued): LR13MS-01-0009 Oct 2022 Data o THIS YEAR'S DATA
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
I'-x nlikup tion of cut-off
Natural Woody Stems - tallied by species & s1,6sanrpiing:
-IeightCut-01i(Allstems shorter than this are ignored. If>10an,ccpka whytotheright.]: El cm 0 70Ctr1 El li]iiCm El I37Cm
Species Name
0
SEEDLINGS
— HEIGHT
CLASSES
SAPLINGS
--DBH
TREES — DBH
Sub
Seed[
10 cm-
50 cm
50 cm-
100 cm
100 cm-
137 cm
Sub-
Sap
0-1 em
1-2.5
2.5-
5-
=10
(write DBH)
s-,
:4
elf
**Requiredifcttoff>]Ocmorsubsample?100% 101
2
■
3
••
• ••4
■
•i
6
••
i7
:ti
10 Form WS2,ver9.1
,SOURCE: Tr=Trans lan L=Livc stake B=Ball and hurl P=Potted Tu=Tubiin , R=bare Rout 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 O'S Enw), fool rer. 2.5.0

Vegetation Monitoring Data (VMD) Datasheet Please fill in any missing data and correct any errors.
Plot LRBMS-01-0010
VMD Year (1-5): C Date: / /
Taxonomic Standard:
Taxonomic Standard DATE:
Latitude or UTM-N: 35.840777 Datum:
(dec.deg. or m) 79 882729 UTM Zone:
Longitude or UTM-E:
Coordinate Accuracy (m): X-Axis bearing (deg): I[�
Date last planted:
New lanting date m/yy? L�
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
Oct 2022 Data Z THIS YEAR'S DATA
0
Map Source* X Y Height DBH * Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Notes
ID Species Name char 0.1m 0.1m lcm* 1 cm Icm* 1 cm sprout
152
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
694
695
Platanus occidentalis
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Liriodendron tulipifera
Liriodendron tulipifera
Platanus occidentalis
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Platanus occidentalis
Platanus occidentalis
Platanus occidentalis
O
0
O
Q
O
Q
©
®
0
0
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
2.9
0.1
3.1
3.2
6.2
0.2
0.2
3.2
9.5
7.7
98
0.1
68
1.4
1.4
5.8
3.0
4.2
8.5
1.5
1700
125.0
96.0
79.0
61.0
195.0
140.0
115.0
49.0
58.0
1.3
DBH? W
W
W
W
1.0 W
0.5 0
DBH?
El'7
2-t.L3
2 -a
El
Ll
ricA
I . D
❑
' 14-
t7 S
❑
Ll
) yD
t7 S
Ll
--'+1.f
❑
I y
?- (3
Z• O
❑
I y
-L-{7
%s
❑
1 q
L4
(,r
FOR
# sleets: 10 New Stems, not included last year, but are obviously planted. If more space needed, use blank PWS (Planted Woody Stems) Form:
X Y Height DBH
Species Name Source* fnt] im) 1 cm* 1 em Vigor* Damage* Notes
*Notes by ID: 157-No leaves
158-No leaves
159-broken stem
160-yrO: No leaves yrl: shade
161-No leaves
162-No leaves
163-broken stem
•s.ouRCE:'I'r=Transp1an4 L=Live stake BalI and burl I--'-Pvtted Tu=Tuhlin R--barc Root. M-Mechanieali . L]�Unisrt vri D,2S
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2--fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown
I=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, ANIMal, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DISeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNovvn, specify other.
*HEIGHT PRECISION drops to I Ocm if>2.5m and 50cm if>4m. III-inted in the CIS l:pum Tool rrc Z5.0

Plot (continued): LRBMS-01-0010 Oct 2022 Data o THIS YEAR'S DATA
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
Ex Ikon of cut-off
Natural Woody Stems - tallied by species & suhs:arnplinaa•".
atig,ht 'pC t-0fF(AIIstemsshorterthanthisare ignored. If>10cm, expIainwhy totherighl.y: C] 10cm ❑ 50cm 1.1 100cm U 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
Sul-
Sap
0-1 em
1-2.5
2.5-
5-
=10
(write DBH)
boo
r
**Required if catoff>10cmorsubsample?100%. 01
:2
•
•3
••
r*4
r •
NS
••
6
•
i
8
10 Form WS2,ver9.1
'SOURCE: Tr --Transplant, L=Live stake B=Ball and hurl ` I�o Tir—Tublin Rare Roti M=Meehasti li U—Unknawn .3(
*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 l Ocm if>2.5m and 50cm if >4m. Printed in the CPS Elurr Tool rer. 25.0

Vegetation Monitoring Data (VMD) Datasheet Please fill in any missing data and correct any errors.
Plot LRBMS-01-0011
VIVID Year (1-5): F 4 ] Date:
Taxonomic Standard:
Taxonomic Standard DATE:
Latitude or UTM-N: 35.840864 Datum:
(dec,deg. or m) 79 881218 UTM Zone:
Longitude or UTM-E:
Coordinate Accuracy (m): X-Axis bearing (deg): 3�i1;
Date last planted:
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 de reeti to the right of X
Oct 2022 Data Z THIS YEAR'S DATA
c
Map Source* X Y Height DBH * Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Notes
ID Species Name char 0.1m 0.1m lcm* l cm Icm* 1 cm sprout
167 Quercus phellos ® R 2.1 9.4 213.0 1.0 0 q? (D 3_ U ❑ C�
168 Betula nigra ® R 5.0 9.1 243.0 1.5 0 Say 3r�
169 Liriodendron tulipifera O R 8.0 9.6 160.0 0.7 2;)-Li 2. (� ❑ Ll
170 Liriodendron tulipifera ® R 7.9 7.4 123.0 1.5 0 Zy3 2, D ❑ -A
171 Quercus phellos O R 5.2 7.1 130.0 DBH? z4D t a ❑ L4
172 Liriodendron tulipifera Q R 2.3 7.0 153.0 0.7 0 -nI Z -b ❑ u
174 Liriodendron tulipifera O R 2.7 3.8 168.0 0.7 2-5-q 2,S ❑ y
175 Liriodendron tulipifera R 5.3 3.9 274.0 2.0 ❑OS (� D ❑ y
177 Liriodendron tulipifera (D R 7.9 40 72.0 W �� (� ❑
178 Liriodendron tulipifera Q R 7.9 1.8 135.0 DBH? 2541 Z e) El y
179 Quercus phellos O R 5.5 1.0 93.0 0 35 0''�; ❑ y
180 Platanus occidentalis Q R 8.2 0.1 274.0 1.8 ❑ '%2��j 3.b ❑ 4
182 Platanus occidentalis R 9.3 6.1 243.0 1.3 ❑ S N ❑ y
183 Platanus occidentalis Q R 1.2 2.5 213.0 0.9 ❑ 4 2 S ❑ Li
533 Ulmus americana O R 2.5 7.0 950 0 `� 5 ❑ lurdlT� <. ti
698 Betula nigra Q R 3.8 0.8 40.0 ❑ g ❑ L{
# sterns: 16 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) llc ht 1DBm Vigor* Damage* Notes
k��� y
*Notes by ID: 167-No leaves
168-No leaves
I69-No leaves
I70-No leaves
171-No leaves
172-No leaves
174-No leaves
177-No leaves
178-No leaves
179-No leaves
*SOURCE: Tr -Trans lan L=Live stake 13=Ba 1 and burls P-Potted Tu=Tublin R=hare Root M=MechanicalI U1 Unknown s:.32
*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, D1Seased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other.
*HEIGHT PRECISION drops to 10cm if>2.5m and 50cm if>4m. Printed in the CI S h'nn.r Tout rer. 2 5.0
`� D1A 6

Plot (continued): LRBMS-01-0011 Oct 2022 Data o TFHS YEAR'S DATA
map source X Y ddh Height DBH y ddh Height DBH Re- Vigor* Damage* Notes
ID Species char (m) (m) (mm) (cm) (cm) * (mm) (cm) (cm) sprout
L'"x of nnatiun of tut -oft
Natural Woody Stems - tallied by species & snbsnmNiny' •:
ieiglitC,Ut- off(Allstemsshorterthanthisareigiored If>l0an,explain why to the right.): ❑ 10cm ❑ 50CM D 100cm ❑ 137cm
Species Name
Z
c
SEEDLINGS
— HEIGHT CLASSES
SAPLINGS
— DBH
TREES — DBH
Sub-
Seed
10 cm-
50 cm
50 cm-
100 cm
100 cm-
137 cm
Sub-
sap]
0-1 cm
1-2.5
2.5-
5-
=10
(write DBH)
**Required ifcrt-off>locm or subsample? ]00%. 01
• :2
: •3
•
• 14 I NS
•• I••
:6
••
i ti
�'::
.0 Form WS2, ver9.1
*SOURCE: Tr=Trap lac L=Live stake B=Ball and burls . P=Rotted Tu=Tublin R=bare Ron M=Mechanical] U=Unknown 0111.4
*VIGOR: 4=excellent, 3=good, 2=fair, *DAMAGE: REMoval, CUT, MOWing, BEAVer, DEER, RODents, INSects, GAME, LIVESTock, Other/Unknown
I=unlikely to survive year, 0=dead, ANIMal, Human TRAMpled, Site Too WET, Site Too DRY, FLOOD, DROUght, STORM, HURRicane, DlSeased, VINE
M=missing. Strangulation, UNKNown, specify other -
*HEIGHT PRECISION drops to 10em if>2.5m and 50cm if>4m. Printed in fhe CI S Lwi:y Tuu! ver. 2.5.0