20090165 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_20091124

I0
:7
"Manning Farm Property"
Buffer Restoration Project
Edgecombe County, NC
Tar - Pamlico River Basin
(Cataloging Unit #03020103)
09 -O 15
2009 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 5)
(Task 10)
NC EEP Contract #D05026
Prepared For:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Lc()s y`. tell l
November 2009
NO
C
N�FF sys 9
�poFM

•
Prepared By:
Land Management Group, Inc.
PO Box 2522
Wilmington, NC 28403
LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP INC.
Environmental Consultants
Phone. [phone]
Fax. [phone]
Project Manager:
Christian A. Preziosi
Office. 910 - 452 -0001
Cell. 910- 471 -0515
Email. cpreziosi ,lm roup.net
•
7

0
•
r.
0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY ................................................................. ..............................1
I. PROJECT BACKGROUND .............................................................. ..............................2
1. Location and Setting ......................................................................... ..............................2
2. Mitigation Type and Objectives ........................................................ ..............................2
3. Project History and Background ....................................................... ..............................2
II. PROJECT CONDITIONS ................................................................. ..............................3
1. Pre - Construction Conditions ............................................................ ..............................3
2. Soils .....:............................................................................................ ..............................3
3. Restoration Activities ....................................................................... ..............................3
III. METHODOLOGY AND SUCCESS CRITERIA ............................. ..............................4
IV. MONITORING .................................................................................... ..............................5
V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................... ..............................5
TABLES
1. REPORTING AND MILESTONE HISTORY
2. PLANTED SPECIES LIST
3. ANNUAL MONITORING DATA (YEAR 3) — CUMULATIVE
SPREADSHEET
FIGURES
1. SITE LOCATION MAP
2. USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE
3. NRCS SOIL SURVEY
4. BUFFER PLANTING OVERVIEW
APPENDICES
A. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
B. VEGETATION SURVEY DATA BY PLOT
C. CONSERVATION EASEMENT (WITH PLOT LOCATIONS)
i

•
40
0
Prior to project implementation, the Manning Farm Property was farmed for soybean and cotton
production. The site consisted entirely of open agricultural fields with no existing riparian buffer
(i.e. trees and shrubs are absent within 200 ft of existing surface waters). Under contract with the
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), Land Management Group, Inc. (LMG)
implemented the restoration of 10.0 acres of riparian buffer habitat along Knight Canal (a
tributary of Conetoe Creek) and contiguous surface - waters (i.e. field ditches) in Edgecombe
County, NC.
The 10.0 -ac project area was planted with characteristic tree and shrub species on an average
density of 900 stems /ac. Planting was completed in February 2006. Five (5) permanent 0.10 -ac
monitoring plots (equivalent to 5% of the restoration area) were established subsequent to
planting. Annual monitoring will be conducted near the end of each growing season for a period
of five years beginning in October 2006. Vegetative planting will be deemed successful if
survivorship of plantings and volunteers of desirable species meets or exceeds a target stem
density of 320 stems /acre. Based upon Year 4 monitoring, the buffer restoration area appears to
be progressing well toward the targeted stem density. A total of 377 stems (excluding red maple,
sweet gum, and privet) were enumerated within the five plots (corresponding to an average
density of 754 stems /acre).
The following monitoring report summarizes the restoration project and includes specific plot
data from the September 2009 (Year 4) monitoring event.
Manning Farm Riparian Buffer Restoration
Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 5)
Land Management Group, Inc.
November 2009
Conntract No. D05026

'0
�, I
I. PROJECT BACKGROUND
1. Location and Setting
Under contract with the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), Land
Management Group, Inc. (LMG) implemented the restoration of 10.0 acres of farmland located
adjacent to Knight Canal (a tributary of the Tar River) and a series of contiguous surface waters
(i.e. field ditches). The project area is part of the "Manning Farm ", located approximately 4.0
miles southeast of Tarboro in Edgecombe County, NC (refer to Figure 1). The site is bordered to
the north by US 64 Alternate and to the west by Knight Canal (refer to Figure 2). The property is
situated within TAR -3 of the lower Tar - Pamlico River Basin (USGS Cataloging Unit 03020103).
2. Mitigation Structure and Objectives
The restoration project is intended to provide suitable, high - quality riparian buffer restoration as
compensatory mitigation for riparian buffer impacts authorized through the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NC DWQ). The objective of the project is to restore riparian buffer
vegetation and diffuse flow conditions to help reduce non -point source discharge of contaminants
into adjacent water bodies. The restoration project has resulted in the removal of agricultural
fields adjacent to Knight Creek and surface -water ditches contiguous with the creek. In doing so,
the restoration project helps to reduce non -point source loading of nitrogen (N) into surface
waters while increasing the nutrient removal capacity of the adjacent land. The following
monitoring report summarizes conditions related to restoration site development.
3. Project History and Background
Table 1 provides the reporting and milestone history of the Manning Farm restoration project.
Manning Farm Riparian Buffer Restoration
Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 5)
Land Management Group, Inc.
November 2009
Conntract No. D05026
2

i•
H. PROJECT CONDITIONS
1. Pre - Construction Conditions
The 10.0 -acre riparian buffer restoration area represents a portion of a larger 250 -acre tract
( "Manning Farm ") formerly farmed for the production of soybean and cotton. Land use
practices, including herbicide, pesticide, and fertilizer application, served as potential contributors
to decreased water quality of adjacent surface waters (i.e. ditches and `blue -line' streams).
Application of nitrogen -rich fertilizer represented the most significant non -point source of
ID nitrogen within the immediate project area. Woody vegetation along ditches was either absent or
sparse (less than 100 stems per acre that are > 5 inches diameter at breast height). As a result,
nutrient -laden runoff was discharged from agricultural fields directly into surface waters with
little or no nutrient filtration/transfoTation. Photographs documenting pre - project conditions are
provided in Appendix A.
2. Soils
The site consists predominantly of Cape Fear loam, a very poorly drained soil occurring along
stream terraces and depressional drainageways. Infiltration is slow and surface runoff is slow in
these areas. The seasonal high water table occurs at or near the soil surface, assuming no ditching
in the vicinity. The remaining portion of the buffer area consists of Roanoke loam — a poorly
drained soil characteristic of broader flats of stream terraces. Roanoke soils exhibit slow
infiltration with a seasonal high water table occurring at or near the soil surface (Figure 3).
0 3. Restoration Activities
The restoration project included the planting of characteristic tree and shrub seedlings adjacent to
open ditches and blue -line streams on the 10.0 -ac restoration site (refer to Figure 4). No federal
or state permits were necessary to conduct the restoration activities. The riparian buffer was
planted with characteristic tree species including river birch (Betula nigra), sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), water oak (Quercus nigra), overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), and red bay (Persea borbonia). Bare -root seedlings were planted at a
density of 600 trees per acre. The outer 50 feet of the proposed buffer areas were planted with
Manning Farm Riparian Buffer Restoration
Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 5)
Land Management Group, Inc.
November 2009
Conntract No. D05026

F,
U
characteristic shrub species including wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), American beautyberry
(Callicarpa americana), and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis). Shrubs were planted at a density
of 1,200 plants per acre. These species are considered to be well suited for site - specific
conditions, including soil characteristics and moisture regimes. In addition, each of these species
is listed within NCDENR's "Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration" as appropriate species
for use in riparian buffer restoration projects. Approximately 7,500 trees and shrubs were planted
throughout the project footprint. On -site planting was completed in February 2006. Refer to
Table 2 for a list of species planted (with corresponding quantities) within the buffer restoration
area.
LMG arranged for the execution of the conservation easement deed to ensure the protection of the
riparian buffer restoration area in perpetuity. The easement prohibits any activities (e.g.
timbering, farming, building, etc.) that would alter the environmental state of the restoration
project. Post - restoration management will be consistent with allowable activities as identified in
the Tar- Pamlico Buffer Rule (15A NCAC 02B.0233). The conservation easement has been
transferred to the North Carolina State Property Office for long -term protection and management
of the site.
III. METHODOLOGY & SUCCESS CRITERIA
Based upon standard mitigation site monitoring requirements, annual monitoring will be
conducted at the end of each growing season over a period of five years. Five (5) 0.10 -acre
permanent plots corresponding to a total of 0.5 acres (equivalent to 5% of the restoration area)
were established subsequent to site planting. The locations of the monitoring plots are depicted in
Appendix C. Monitoring includes the identification and enumeration of individuals (including
shrubs and trees, planted or volunteer) occurring within each plot. All tree and shrub species
within the plots are identified, flagged, and recorded on field data sheets during each monitoring
event. Site planting is to be deemed successful if survivorship of plantings and volunteers of
desirable species' meets or exceeds a target stem density of 320 stems /acre. Non - preferred and
invasive species are not counted toward success criteria. Thus species such as red maple (Acer
rubrum), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and privet (Ligustrum sinense) are excluded from
the recorded plot density data.
Manning Farm Riparian Buffer Restoration
Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 5)
Land Management Group, Inc.
November 2009
. Conntract No. D05026
M

I*
Monitoring reports are being submitted annually to the EEP (by January 1 of each year). These
reports include results of vegetative monitoring and photographic documentation of site
conditions. Monitoring reports will also identify any contingency measures that may need to be
employed to remedy any site deficiencies. For instance, deer browse tubes and fencing may need
to be used if evidence of significant herbivory or deer browse is observed. In addition,
supplemental planting may be necessary in areas of reduced survivorship.
IV. MONITORING
A total of 622 stems (planted and volunteer shrubs /trees) were observed within the five 0.10 -acre
plots. Of the total observed, 377 stems (total excluding privet, red maple and sweet gum) were
counted toward the success criteria (corresponding to 754 stems /acre). Individual plot totals
ranged between 41 stems (Plot 4) and 115 stems (Plot 1). Of the species planted, river birch
(Betula nigra) and American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) were the most abundant trees
observed. Eastern false - willow (Baccharis halimifolia) was the most abundant shrub observed
within the five monitoring plots.
Refer to Table 3 for a comprehensive list of monitoring plot totals. Site photographs from the
2009 monitoring event are included in Appendix A and individual plot data sheets are included in
Appendix B.
V. CONCLUSION
• Restoration activities have demonstrated to be successful at the 10.0 -acre project site through the
fourth year of annual monitoring. The observed density (754 stems /acre) indicates that the site is
progressing well and has exceeded the aforementioned success criteria. Based on the existing
conditions observed during the Year 4 monitoring event it is expected that the site will continue
to exhibit sufficient vegetative density through the final year of monitoring and will provide the
intended functions of a mature, vegetated buffer ecosystem.
1 Desirable species are considered as noninvasive species characteristic of riparian habitats.
Manning Farm Riparian Buffer Restoration 5
Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 5)
Land Management Group, Inc.
November 2009
Conntraci No. D05026

i•
Cl
Reversion of agricultural land to wooded riparian buffer will decrease source nutrient loading and
concurrently increase nutrient removal capacity. In addition, the project will provide ancillary
benefits to aquatic and wildlife habitat via enhanced niche habitat, microclimate modification and
shade, and increased food -web support. By doing so, the proposed project will help to effectively
mitigate for authorized loss of riparian buffers within the Tar - Pamlico River Basin.
Manning Farm Riparian Buffer Restoration
Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 5)
Land Management Group, Inc.
November 2009
Conntract No. D05026
on

TABLES

Table 1. Reporting and Milestone History
Task
Project Milestone
Completion
COMMENTS
Date
1
Feasibility Study, CE Document, and Public
July 1, 2005
Meeting
2
Record a Conservation Easement on the
January 25, 2006
Recorded in Edgecombe
Site
County Register of Deeds
3
Restoration Plan Approved by EEP
January 2006
Restoration Plan complete
4
Mitigation Site Earthwork Completed
January 15, 2006
Minimal earthwork required
(only disking)
5
Mitigation Site Planting and Installation of
February 15, 2006
Approved by EEP
Monitoring Devices
6
Submittal of Mitigation Plan (including as-
June, 2006
Approved by EEP
built drawings)
7
Submittal of Monitoring Report #1 to EEP
December 31,
Approved by EEP
2006
8
Submittal of Monitoring Report #2 to EEP
December 31,
Approved by EEP
2007
9
Submittal of Monitoring Report #3 to EEP
December 31,
Approved by EEP
2008
10
Submittal of Monitoring Report #4 to EEP
December 31,
2009
11
Submittal of Monitoring Report #5 to EEP
December 31,
2010

Table 2. Manning Farm Plant List.
Buffer Zone
Zone 1
(Trees)
Zone 2
(Shrubs)
Stem Target:
Species
600 /ac.
# planted
4,500
(% of
total)
1,200 /ac.
#
planted
3,000
(% of
total
River Birch (Betula nigra )
1,200
26.67%
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
800
17.78%
Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
500
11.11%
Overcup Oak (Quercus lyrata)
200
4.44%
Water Oak (Quercus nigra)
500
11.11%
Red Bay (Persea borbonia)
500
11.11%
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tuli ifera
1,000
22.22%
Sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia)
500
16.67%
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
1,000
33.33%
American Beautyberry (Callicarpa americans)
1,000
33.33%
Wax Myrtle (Myrica cerifera)
500
16.67%
TOTAL
7,700

TABLE 3. ANNUAL MONITORING DATA SHEET (YEAR 4) - VEGETATION PLOTS
MANNING FARM RIPARIAN BUFFER SITE
Year 4
SPECIES
PLOT 1
PLOT 2
PLOT 3
PLOT 4
PLOT 5
TOTAL
American beautyberry
11
26
37
Baccharis
36
17
4
5
15
77
Elderberry
5
1
3
6
15
Green Ash
0
5
19
24
Loblolly Pine
3
3
Overcup Oak
0
Persimmon
4
2
2
2
10
Privet
0
Red Bay
0
River Birch
37
4
23
64
Sweet Gum
70
28
17
60
70
245
Sweet Pepperbush
0
0
Sycamore
18
14
20
52
Tulip Poplar
10
1
2
20
32
Water Oak
2
3
39
45
Willow Oak
6
11
17
Wax Myrtle
0
Winged Sumac
1
1
TOTAL
- 5.-
'''18 -- .
; .:.. :x72 - :.
' 87
: :.
1;04.: _ ;
. ..
.17. 7
• ... - _
' Total Counted, toward
Success' .
1115 "
'44 =
70`.41
X1`07'377
Stem Dense erac
x,1150
440.2.700
�,41 "0 •�
� .1070
x.754

FIGURES

— .r...,I
Airport
s
LI
s
0
3
� t
SITE
kMapSouroe: Del-orme: North Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer., 1997 p. 46. SCALE 1" = 2.0 miles
NC EEP Land Management Group, Inc. Figure 1.
anning Farm Environmental Consultants Restoration Project Wilmington, N.C. Site Location Map
ecombe County November 2008
n
i_.

i•
0
�7
0
r I�
fl
r
r�
u
kdn es are approximate
eant to be absolute.
ce: 1990, USGS 7.5' Topograp hic Quadrangle. Conetoe Quadrangle SCALE 1" = 2000'
NC EEP Land Management Group, Inc. anning Farm Environmental Consultants Figure 2.
estoration Project Wilmington, N.C. 1990 Topographic Quad
ecombe County November 2008
• ti.
kdn es are approximate
eant to be absolute.
ce: 1990, USGS 7.5' Topograp hic Quadrangle. Conetoe Quadrangle SCALE 1" = 2000'
NC EEP Land Management Group, Inc. anning Farm Environmental Consultants Figure 2.
estoration Project Wilmington, N.C. 1990 Topographic Quad
ecombe County November 2008

is
0
Lm
•
�i
kMapSource: Soil Survey of Edgecombe County , 1977. SCALE 1'� = 1000'
NC EEP Land Management Group, Inc. Figure 3.
anning Farm Environmental Consultants Generalized Soil Map
estoration Project Wilmington, N.C. combe County November 2008 Edgecombe County, NC
CeB
Pu
AaA _
'j �a AaA
Ro
We
Pu
CeB
TaB
a
AaA
PU
GS6
A A 1
F
Ro Flo
Ro
i
CeB \
i I
AaA
Ro
Ro
Mannino Rd. '
Pu
Aal
Ca
I
Ta B
Ro
AaA
-
Ro We
We
- -
Ro
—
Ce
Ca
wi
\
,.i RO Ro
Ro
(�
AaA
AaA�
AaA
Pu
PU
/ Pu
Ro
/
Ro Ro i
Ca
(
CeB
AaA
1
CeB
aAi
/
�i
kMapSource: Soil Survey of Edgecombe County , 1977. SCALE 1'� = 1000'
NC EEP Land Management Group, Inc. Figure 3.
anning Farm Environmental Consultants Generalized Soil Map
estoration Project Wilmington, N.C. combe County November 2008 Edgecombe County, NC

I0
0
.'
0
Im
z�
i
go
a=
200' Buffer Planting Area (10.0 acres)
Boundaries are approximate
and not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: 1993 Aerial Photography NCGIA SCALE 1" = 500'
NC EEP Land Management Group, Inc. Figure 4.
Manning Farm Environmental Consultants Buffer Planting Overview
Buffer Restoration Project Wilmington, N.C.
Edgecombe County November 2008
•

APPENDIX A.
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (SEPTEMBER 2009, YEAR 4 OF 5)

J
(1) Typical view of a 4th year Sycamore in plot #1.
(2) Typical view of a 4th year River Birch in Plot #1 looking NW toward Cobbs and Knight Canal
Manning Farm LMG Site Photographs
Buffer Restoration Project LANDMANAGEMENTGROUP-
Edgecombe County, NC Environmental Consultants (Annual Monitoring Year 4 of 5)
September 2009

U
•
•
(4) View of maturing trees in Plot #4
(3) View of maturing trees in Plot #3
Manning Farm
Buffer Restoration Project
Edgecombe County, NC
LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP �wc
Environmental Consultants
September 2009
Site Photographs
(Annual Monitoring Year 4 of 5)

•
:l
l J
J
1..
t'9
(6) Typical view of 4th year Green Ash in Plot #5
y, i az o 3 /
1 tZ t' d Scat rsrH.
f�4l�- '�: S' `m l!•' �'.• rt � 3.r- ',.�i✓�C.�i =iY c• �. .Z
Manning Farm LMG Site Photographs
Buffer Restoration Project LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP INC
Edgecombe County, NC Environmental Consultants (Annual Monitoring Year 4 of 5)
Se tember 2009

APPENDIX B.
VEGETATION SURVEY DATA BY PLOT

MANNING FARM RIPARIAN BUFFER SITE
ANNUAL MONITORING DATA SHEET - VEGETATION PLOTS
PLOT NUMBER
SPECIES
STRATUM
Number of
Individuals
HEIGHT
Planted vs.
Volunteer Species
Number of Individuals
Counted toward
Success Criteria
(T, SA, or SH)
River Birch
SA
1
2 ft
Planted
1
River Birch
SA
2
4 ft
Planted
2
River Birch
SA
1
5 ft
Planted
1
River Birch
SA
7
6 ft
Planted
7
River Birch
SA
5
7 ft
Planted
5
River Birch
SA
10
8 ft
Planted
10
River Birch
SA
1
9 ft
Planted
1
River Birch
SA
4
loft
Planted
4
River Birch
SA
2
11 ft
Planted
2
River Birch
SA
4
12 ft
Planted
4
Tulip Poplar
SA
3
1 ft
Planted
3
Tulip Poplar
SA
5
2 ft
Planted
5
Tulip Poplar
SA
2
3 ft
Planted
2
American Sycamore
SA
1
3 ft
Planted
1
American Sycamore
SA
1
4 ft
Planted
1
American Sycamore
SA
1
5 ft
Planted
1
American Sycamore
SA
3
6 ft
Planted
3
American Sycamore
SA
1
9 ft
Planted
1
American Sycamore
SA
4
loft
Planted
4
American Sycamore
SA
1
12 ft
Planted
1
American Sycamore
SA
3
14 ft
Planted
3
American Sycamore
SA
3
15 ft
Planted
3
Willow Oak
SA
3
2 ft
Planted
3
Willow Oak
SA
1
3 ft
Planted
1
Willow Oak
SA
1
5 ft
Planted
1
Willow Oak
SA
1
12 ft
Planted
1
Water Oak
SA
1
7 ft
Planted
1

Baccharis
SH
1
3 ft
Volunteer
1
Baccharis
SH
3
4 ft
Volunteer
3
Baccharis
SH
6
5 ft
Volunteer
6
Baccharis
SH
16
6 ft
Volunteer
16
Baccharis
SH
7
7 ft
Volunteer
7
Baccharis
SH
3
8 ft
Volunteer
3
Persimmon
SA
4
2 ft
Volunteer
4
Loblolly Pine
SA
3
2 ft
Volunteer
3
Sweet Gum
SA
70
2 ft -12 ft
Volunteer
0
Red Maple
SA
3
4 ft
Volunteer
0
TOTAL SHRUBS
36.,..,
r .OBSERVED;; <`, :°
DENSITY:
=
=u �. ;115
(PER PLC±T)'�.:
TOTAL TREES OF
PLANTED
SPECIES
72
= OBSERVED°��`'`;
DENSITY (PER
1'150
TOTAL TREES OF
VOLUNTEER
SPECIES
80
TOTAL
INDIVIDUALS
188

MANNING FARM RIPARIAN BUFFER SITE
ANNUAL MONITORING DATA SHEET - VEGETATION PLOTS
PLOT NUMBER
SPECIES
STRATUM
Number of
Individuals
HEIGHT
Planted vs.
Volunteer Species
Number of Individuals
Counted toward
Success Criteria
(T, SA, or SH)
Elderberry
SH
1
2 ft
Planted
1
Elderberry
SH
2
3 ft
Planted
2
Elderberry
SH
2
4 ft
Planted
2
River Birch
SA
2
4 ft
Planted
2
River Birch
SA
1
8 ft
Planted
1
River Birch
SA
1
11 ft
Planted
1
Tulip Poplar
SA
1
1 ft
Planted
1
Tulip Poplar
SA
1
2 ft
Planted
1
American Sycamore
SA
1
3 ft
Planted
1
American Sycamore
SA
2
4 ft
Planted
2
American Sycamore
SA
2
5 ft
Planted
2
American Sycamore
SA
3
6 ft
Planted
3
American Sycamore
SA
3
7 ft
Planted
3
American Sycamore
SA
2
9 ft
Planted
2
American Sycamore
SA
1
loft
Planted
1
Baccharis
SH
1
3 ft
Volunteer
1
Baccharis
SH
6
4 ft
Volunteer
6
Baccharis
SH
5
5 ft
Volunteer
5
Baccharis
SH
4
6 ft
Volunteer
4
Baccharis
SH
1
8 ft
Volunteer
1
Persimmon
SA
1
2 ft
Volunteer
1
Persimmon
SA
1
3 ft
Volunteer
1
Sweet Gum
SA
28
1 ft - 3 ft
Volunteer
0
TOTAL SHRUBS
22
- "OBSER,V,Eb-
wDENSITY,
.;,`W
(PER..PL•,OT)

TOTAL TREES OF
20
OBSERVED,
PLANTED
DENSITY (RER
SPECIES
-ACRE
TOTAL TREES OF
30
VOLUNTEER
TOTAL
72
INDIVIDUALS

MANNING FARM RIPARIAN BUFFER SITE
ANNUAL MONITORING DATA SHEET - VEGETATION PLOTS
PLOT NUMBER
SPECIES
STRATUM
Number of
HEIGHT
Planted vs.
Number of Individuals
(T, SA, or SH)
Individuals
Volunteer Species
Counted toward
Success Criteria
River Birch
SA
1
6 ft
Planted
1
River Birch
SA
1
7 ft
1
Planted
River Birch
SA
-4
8 ft
4
Planted
River Birch
SA
6
loft
6
Planted
River Birch
SA
3
12 ft
3
Planted
River Birch
SA
4
14 ft
4
Planted
River Birch
SA
4
15 ft
4
Planted
Sycamore
SA
1
6 ft
1
Planted
Sycamore
SA
2
7 ft
2
Planted
Sycamore
SA
2
8 ft
2
Planted
Sycamore
SA
1
loft
1
Planted
Sycamore
SA
5
12 ft
5
Planted
Sycamore
SA
3
14 ft
3
Planted
Sycamore
SA
5
15 ft
5
Planted
Sycamore
SA
1
16 ft
1
Planted
Tulip Poplar
SA
4
4 ft
4
Planted
Tulip Poplar
SA
8
6 ft
8
Planted
Tulip Poplar
SA
1
7 ft
1
Planted
Tulip Poplar
SA
5
8 ft
5
Planted
Tulip Poplar
SA
1
9 ft
1
Planted
Tulip Poplar
SA
1
loft
1
Planted
Water Oak
SA
1
2 ft
1
Planted
Water Oak
SA
1
4 ft
1
Planted
Elderberry
SH
1
5 ft
1
Planted

Baccharis
SH
1
3 ft
1
Volunteer
Baccharis
SH
1
6 ft
1
Volunteer
Baccharis
SH
1
7 ft
1
Volunteer
Baccharis
SH
1
8 ft
1
Volunteer
Sweet Gum
SA
17
2 ft -10 ft
0
Volunteer
TOTAL SHRUBS
5
��:,. OB;SERVED. -'
;'_. -,,; _�;` �: -70i
DENSITY °,
-.
TOTAL TREES OF
PLANTED
65
DENSITY (PER °;;
", ' .;" ~ ;::` 700
SPECIES
ACRE�;_-
TOTAL TREES OF
VOLUNTEER
17
SPECIES
TOTAL
87
INDIVIDUALS

MANNING FARM RIPARIAN BUFFER SITE
ANNUAL MONITORING DATA SHEET - VEGETATION PLOTS
PLOT NUMBER
SPECIES
STRATUM
Number of
Individuals
HEIGHT
Planted vs.
Volunteer Species
Number of Individuals
Counted toward
Success Criteria
(T, SA, or SH)
American Beautyberry
SH
2
3 ft
Planted
2
American Beautyberry
SH
5
4 ft
Planted
5
American Beautyberry
SH
4
5 ft
Planted
4
Water Oak
SA
1
7 ft
Planted
1
Water Oak
SA
1
8 ft
Planted
1
Water Oak
SA
1
9 ft
Planted
1
Willow Oak
SA
3
4 ft
Planted
3
Willow Oak
SA
1
5 ft
Planted
1
Willow Oak
SA
6
6 ft
Planted
6
Willow Oak
SA
1
8 ft
Planted
1
Green Ash
SA
1
3 ft
Planted
1
Green Ash
SA
1
5 ft
Planted
1
Green Ash
SA
3
6 ft
Planted
3
Elderberry
SH
1
3 ft
Planted
1
Elderberry
SH
2
4 ft
Planted
2
Persimmon
SA
1
1 ft
Volunteer
1
Persimmon
SA
1
4 ft
Volunteer
1
Winged Sumac
SH
1
2 ft
Volunteer
1
Baccharis
SH
1
5 ft
Volunteer
1
Baccharis
SH
3
6 ft
Volunteer
3
Baccharis
SH
1
8 ft
Volunteer
1
Sweet Gum
SA
60
3 ft - 5 ft
Volunteer
0
TOTAL SHRUBS
20�
, OBSERVED eo:41
;DENSITY''. '=
(PERkPLOT)
TOTAL TREES OF
PLANTED
SPECIES'
19`
.,�, OBSERVED,,_';; ..;
DENSITY_(PER
ACRE ).:,'.
41;0,

TOTAL TREES OF
VOLUNTEER
62
SPECIES
TOTAL
101
INDIVIDUALS

MANNING FARM RIPARIAN BUFFER SITE
ANNUAL MONITORING DATA SHEET • VEGETATION PLOTS
PLOT NUMBER
SPECIES
STRATUM
Number of
HEIGHT
Planted vs.
Number of Individuals
(T, SA, or SH)
Individuals
Volunteer Species
Counted toward
Success Criteria
Water Oak
SA
5
3 ft
Planted
5
Water Oak
SA
11
4 ft
Planted
11
Water Oak
SA
10
5 ft
Planted
10
Water Oak
SA
3
6 ft
Planted
3
Water Oak
SA
1
7 ft
Planted
1
Water Oak
SA
3
8 ft
Planted
3
Water Oak
SA
1
9 ft
Planted
1
Green Ash
SA
3
3 ft
Planted
3
Green Ash
SA
4
4 ft
Planted
4
Green Ash
SA
5
5 ft
Planted
5
Green Ash
SA
4
6 ft
Planted
4
Green Ash
SA
3
7 ft
Planted
3
American Beautyberry
SH
3
2 ft
Planted
3
American Beautyberry
SH
10
3 ft
Planted
10
American Beautyberry
SH
17
4 ft
Planted
17
American Beautyberry
SH
1
5 ft
Planted
1
Planted
Elderberry
SH
5
2 ft
5
Planted
Elderberry
SH
1
4 ft
1
Volunteer
Persimmon
SA
1
1 ft
1
Persimmon
SA
1
2 ft
Volunteer
1
SH
15
3 ft - 6 ft
Volunteer
15
Baccharis
SA
70
3 ft - 7 ft
Volunteer
Sweet Gum
0
TOTAL SHRUBS
52
06SERVED .:_-
107
DENSITY` :; "�
(PER PLOT -)
TOTAL TREES OF
OBSERVED'.`
_ =
PLANTED
53
DENSITY (PER
SPECIES
'; - ,ACRE), ,

TOTAL TREES OF
VOLUNTEER 72
SPECIES
TOTAL 177
INDIVIDUALS

APPENDIX C.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT PLAT
(WITH PLOT LOCATIONS)

4.0
O
IL
04 00
— o
0, —
oo r,
00 —
co q
(>0.
,E
S
ON
r, CY)
Or
Z:T LC)
00 CY)
0
E
ON
LO so
Cj —
0 —
0 r-,
cy.) L-C)
R::T
Ln :;t
CN LO
so os
0
r-I 00
C,4 —
r -0
'o
q 00
0
co or)
r-, q
(CP, C5
L.C)
r, 0
0
I:T 04
'0 04
LO 00
Lo 00
Lo -0
q 'o
"ZT 'o
LO co
Lo cy)
Lo (Y)
Lo cy)
LO co
cy')
q co
q co
-ZT co
::T co
E
D
r-, 04
r-I 04
r-� 011
r- C"j
FL
-01
<
< N y
E
> 0 0
Lj
cr
< 0
cr 0
(n LLJ Ld
IL
cl? 0
ZP Z U) V)
—0 LLJ cr Gi
LiJ Z Uj X
<
< LL Z LL-
LLJ 0 <
Z LLJ M z
C)
< ui Z
z
< <
Lul
--I
09
UJ V)
LLI
LN
1.19Z V)
N, ig
z V)
OXO
L) 0 C)
L, LAJ
Z
Xl/
A
z-4
S
1r
or
cy
>D<,
P
<
9
a et
z
0
V) C'
<
ff �i
Z
IJ
n
p
d'—
b,
sAE
gi;m
He
f
"p,� ��z , o" ° >! ,
Pl!
c,
• • � 0
F,
0
E
co
c
C
0
C)a
ir =
. 4w
U)
o`
49
C-) OD
c!) 5 U) 0
o
c Z0 C,4
o a)
r
It c E
E '— (D
c E >
0 0
Z
W
E n.
0
ca o 0
W LL a)
0) -0
C 0 E
C: �
0)
z a) 0 0
CU a)
w
:3
co
L;l