20150634 Ver 1_UTtoFallsLake_95389_MY6_2022_20230301

ID#* 20150634 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:
Katie Merritt
Initial Review Completed Date 03/06/2023
Mitigation Project Submittal - 3/1/2023
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#: * 20150634 Version:* 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: McDaniel Farm - UT Falls Lake Mitigation
Site
County: Durham
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: UTtoFallsLake_95389_MY6_2022.pdf 4.94MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
...........................................
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature: *
el/f'tP1wmlf c ewl

YEAR 6 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
FINAL
Year 7 Post Planting
UT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm)
Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Project
Durham County, North Carolina
NC Division of Mitigation Services Project #: 95389
Neuse River Basin
03020201
DWR #: 20150634
Mitigation, Services
ENVIRONMENTAL QUAL ITY
Prepared for and by:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
December 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Project Summary ............................................................................................................................1
2.0 Performance Standards....................................................................................................................1
3.0 Monitoring Plan..............................................................................................................................1
3.1 Reporting.................................................................................................................................1
3.2 Vegetation Monitoring.................................................................................................................2
4.0 Maintenance & Contingency Plan........................................................................................................2
5.0 Year 3 Annual Monitoring..................................................................................................................2
Appendices
Appendix A. Background Tables
Table 1 Project Components
Table 2 Project Activity & Reporting
Table 3 Project Contacts
Table 4 Project Attributes
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Asset Map
Figure 3 Current Condition Plan View
Site Photos
Table 5 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6 Planted Tree Species

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) implemented the UT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) Project (Project) to fulfill
riparian buffer mitigation needs in the Neuse 03020201 Catalog Unit and nutrient offset mitigation needs in the Upper Falls
Lake Watershed in accordance with the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) Temporary Buffer Mitigation Rule (15A NCAC
02B .0295) effective October 24, 2014.
This project site is located off Benny Ross Road in Durham County approximately 7.5 miles east of the City of Durham and is
within the Upper Falls Lake Watershed (Appendix B, Figure 1). The site is within the Lick Creek watershed (HU
3020201050030) which is comprised of sub -watersheds draining to Lick Creek, its tributary Rocky Branch, Laurel Creek, and
unnamed tributaries to Falls Lake. Falls Lake is a drinking water supply watershed with additional nutrient restrictions regulated
by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources. The site is in NC DWR's 03-04-01 sub -basin.
Riparian buffer mitigation activities occur along the Project from top of bank and extending out to 200 feet, resulting in a
maximum of 9.67 acres (421,385 ftz) of riparian buffer and/or nutrient offset mitigation through planting and preservation of
10.86 acres of forested buffer easement along the main unnamed tributary to Falls Lake and several water conveyances that
flow to UT to Falls Lake. Refer to Appendix A, Table 1 for project mitigation components and Appendix B, Figure 2 for the
project component/asset map. Due to the site's location within the Upper Falls Lake Watershed, nutrient offset mitigation from
this site can only be provided to offset impacts from development within the Falls Lake Watershed. In addition, riparian buffer
mitigation from this site can be used to offset permitted impacts according to the Temporary Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0295)
effective October 24, 2014.
The following goals of this riparian buffer/nutrient offset mitigation project are to address stressors identified in the Project
watershed through the restoration of riparian buffers along the UT and its conveyances.
• Removing nonpoint sources of pollution associated with agricultural activities
• Reducing sedimentation onsite and downstream
The success of these goals are based on the following objectives;
• Removal of horses and goats from riparian areas;
• Reducing the application of agricultural materials into and adjacent to streams;
• Establishing a vegetative buffer adjacent to streams to treat surface runoff, which may contain pollutants such as
sediment and/or agricultural pollutants from the adjacent landscape;
• Reducing bank erosion associated with a lack of vegetative cover; and
Planting a diverse hardwood vegetative buffer adjacent to Site tributaries.
Project restoration activities were completed in March 2016. Refer to Appendix A, Tables 2, 3 and 4 for detailed project activity,
reporting history, project contact information and project baseline information and attributes.
Directions to the Project from Raleigh: Take US 70 West/Glenwood Avenue toward Durham. Turn Right on NC 50
North/Creedmoor Road. Exit onto NC 98 West. Turn Right onto Southview Road and follow to T intersection. Turn Right onto
Baptist Road. Turn right onto Benny Ross Road Site. Travel approximately 0.3 mile to gate on the left. Access is by foot
through the gate and 50 ft. access easement See Appendix D, As -Built Sheets). Coordinates: 35.998142,-78.742794
2.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Performance standards were established for native forest development and diffuse flow through the riparian buffer in
accordance with DWR's Administrative Code 15A NCAC 02B.0295 (Mitigation Program Requirements for Protection and
Maintenance of Riparian Buffers) (NCDWR 2014 Temporary Rule). Performance standards are dependent upon the density
and survival of characteristic forest species. After a minimum of five years of monitoring, an average density of 260 woody
stems per acre must be surviving and diffuse flow maintained.
3.0 MONITORING PLAN
3.1 Reporting
Annual monitoring data will be reported following DMS's Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Buffer Annual Monitoring Report
Template (ver. 1.0) dated Feb. 2, 2014. The monitoring report shall provide a project data chronology and assist in decision
making regarding project close-out. The following table outlines monitoring requirements and parameters for this project.
LIT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) Year 6 Annual Monitoring Report December 2022
1

Required
Parameter
Quantity
Frequency
Notes
Quantity and location of vegetation plots
Vegetation will be monitored for a period of five years or until
Yes
Vegetation
will be determined by Division of
Annual
success criteria are met. During years 2, 3 and 5 random plots will
Mitigation Services
be used. Visual monitoring of the site will be done all five years
Yes
Project
Annual
Locations of fence damage, vegetation damage, boundary
boundary
encroachments, etc. will be mapped
3.2 Vegetation Monitoring
To monitor the vegetation at this site, the NC Division of Mitigation Services will use a combination of visual monitoring and
random vegetation plots. Visual monitoring will be conducted during all years of monitoring to assess vegetative cover,
diffuse flow and easement integrity. DMS will monitor ten (10) rotating, random 1,500 square foot vegetation plots in years 2,
3, and 5 to assess vegetative success representative of the entire mitigation area from top of bank to 200 feet from each
tributary/conveyance. These ten (10) plots will provide coverage of 3% of the site each year used. In each sample plot,
monitoring parameters will include species composition and density. As it was done for the baseline data collection, the
vegetation plots will be randomly selected using a grid and random number generator or similar method for each of the
monitoring years 2, 3 and 5. Visual observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species, diffuse flow and
easement integrity will be documented by photograph and site visits.
Monitoring of site restoration efforts will be performed for five years or until performance standards are met. The first annual
monitoring assessment (MY1) was completed in the fall of 2016. The vegetation has been monitored for 6 years, with the
final monitoring activities concluding in 2022. The close-out for the Project will be conducted in 2023 given that the
performance criteria has been met.
4.0 MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN
DMS shall monitor the site and conduct a physical inspection of the site a minimum of once per year throughout the post -
construction monitoring period until performance standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components
and features that require routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years
following site construction and may include the following:
Component/Feature
Maintenance through project close-out
Remedial Measures
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure survival. Routine vegetation
Any remedial activities performed will be
Vegetation
maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting. The site
documented in the annual monitoring reports.
will also be evaluated to ensure diffuse flow is still occurring.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between
the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by
Any remedial activities performed will be
Site Boundary
fence, marker, bollard, post, tree -blazing, or other means as allowed by site
documented in the annual monitoring reports.
conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed,
damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as needed basis.
5.0 YEAR 6 MONITORING
Based on the results of Year 2 annual monitoring, and DMS's efforts to contract with a new planting contractor to replant the
Project and treat invasive vegetation, DMS did not conduct annual monitoring in 2018. The replanting of the site was
completed in late February 2019. A list of species planted during the replant of the site is provided in Appendix C. Invasive
treatments were last completed in August 2021. Species treated included Lespedeza.
In 2020, DMS secured a planting contractor, TerraVista Landscape Management (TerraVista), to treat invasive vegetation
and replant approximately 3.27 acres of low stem density area within the easement. TerraVista began the supplemental
planting on December 16, 2020 and completed the work on January 4, 2021. To maximize survivability of stems in the poor
site soils, TerraVista dug 10" deep holes by hand with shovels and backfilled with 50/50 mix. Planted stems were at least
24" in height and 0.5" in caliper size. Planted species included Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) and Sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis). TerraVista was contracted to conduct independent, random vegetation transect monitoring to ensure survival
of at least 300 stems per acre in the supplemental planting zones. The results of TerraVista's 2021 monitoring were
included in last year's MY5 report.
LIT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) Year 6 Annual Monitoring Report December 2022
2

Year 6 annual monitoring (MY6) was conducted in October 2022. MY6 monitoring activities included stem counts using ten
(10) rotating, random 1,200 square foot vegetation plots. Other monitoring activities included visual monitoring of the project
verifying the presence or absence of invasive species; checking the integrity of the easement and fencing; and taking
photographs at the established photo points.
Five (5) of the ten (10) transects met the success criteria of 260 stems per acre for planted stems. One (1) of the plots that
did not meet the 260 stem/acre success criteria had 254 stems/acre. In addition, monitoring was not performed in 2018 so
this was the 71h year of monitoring activities since planting the site, and one would expect the stems/acre to continue to
decrease as trees mature and outcompete other planted stems. With volunteer species counted (excluding Loblolly pine)
every veg transect except VT3 & VT4 would meet the 260 stems/acre success criteria with densities ranging from 143
stems/acre (VT4) to 929 stems/acre (VT8). The average across the site with volunteers minus Loblolly is 471 stems/acre.
The average across the site with planted stems only is 294 stems/acre. Please see Appendix C for veg tables.
The fence installed along the easement boundary is functioning as intended and any missing or damaged signs were
replaced in October of 2022.
LIT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) Year 6 Annual Monitoring Report December 2022
3

APPENDIX A
BACKGROUND TABLES
LIT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) Year 6 Annual Monitoring Report December 2022

Table 1: Project Mitigation Components
UT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) DMS Project #95389
Mitigation
Components*
Riparian
Nutrient
Nutrient
Buffer
Offset
Offset
Existing
Restored
Creditable
Mitigation
Mitigation
Credits
Credits
Buffer
Buffer
Buffer
Restortion
Ratio
Credits
Nitrogen
Phosphous
Project Component
SF
SF
SF
Level
(X:1)
(SF)
(Ibs)
(Ibs)
Notes/Comments
Buffer
Riparian Buffer TOB-50'
Restored riparian buffer for buffer or Nutrient
(Reaches Al, A2 & B)
0
49,393
49,393
R
1
49,393
OR
2,577.48
166.00
Offset credit
Subject Rural
Riparian Buffer 51-100'
Restored riparian buffer for buffer or Nutrient
(Reaches Al, A2 & B)
0
82,083
82,083
R
1
82,083
OR
4,283.35
275.87
Offset credit
Subject Rural
Riparian Buffer 101-200'
Restored riparian buffer for Nutrient Offset
(Reaches Al, A2 & B)
0
149,557
149,557
R
1
7,804.36
502.64
credit only
Subject Rural
Riparian Buffer TOB-200'
Restored riparian buffer for Nutrient Offset
0
72,392
72,392
R
1
3,777.65
243.30
Non -Subject Rural
credit only
Riparian Buffer TOB-100'
Preserved Riparain Buffer for Buffer Credit
(Reaches Al, A2 & B)
64,826
0
64,826
P
10
6,483
only
Subject Rural
Preserved Riparian Buffer for Buffer Credit
only. Area in this zone is less than 10% of
Riparian Buffer 101-200'
3,134
0
3,134
P
20
157
total Buffer Mitigation area. 20:1 ratio = 10:1
(Reach A2) Subject Rural
factoring in 50% reduction for preservation
on a Subject Non -Urban stream.
Totals
421,385
138,115
18,442.85
1,187.82
"All assets and credits generated in accordance withDWR Temporary Buffer Mitigation Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0295) effective October 24, 2014.
Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category
Restoration Level
Stream
Riparian Wetiand
Non -riparian
Wetland
Creditable
Buffer
(linear
feet)
(acres)
(acres)
(square
feet)
Riverine
Non-
Riverine
Restoration
353,425
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
Creation
Presery ation
67,960
High Quality Pres
Overall Assets Summary
Overall
Asset Category
Credits
Buffer'
138,115
Nutrient Offset Nitrogen
18,442.85
(lbs1ac130 yr)
Nutrient Offset
Phosphorus (lbs1ac130 yr)
1,187.82
'Pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295(n)(1)
(2014 Temporary Rule), buffer mitigation
credit used for buffer credit will not be
used for nutrient offset credit
LIT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) Year 6 Annual Monitoring Report December 2022

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) DMS Project #95389
Activity or Deliverable
Data
Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Institution Date
NA
Jun-13
404 permit date
NA
NA
Restoration Plan
Jul-15
Sep-15
Final Design — Construction Plans
Jul-15
Sep-15
Construction
NA
Mar-16
Planting
Mar-16
Mar-16
Mitigation Plan / As -built (Year 0 Monitoring — baseline)
May-16
Jun-16
Year 1 Monitoring
Oct-16
Oct-16
Year 2 Monitoring
Oct-17
Oct-17
Invasive Treatment
NA
Oct-19
Site Replant
NA
Feb-19
Invasive Treatment
NA
Jun-19
Year 3 Monitoring
Sep-19
Sep-19
Year 4 Monitoring
Aug-20
Aug-20
Supplemental Planting
NA
Jan-21
Year 5 Monitoring
Nov-21
Dec-21
Year 6 Monitoring
Oct-22
Feb-23
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
UT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) DMS Proiect #95389
Designer
NC Division of Mitigation Services
217 W Jones Street, Raleigh, NC 27603
Jeff Schaffer, DMS
[phone]
Construction Contractor
Wright Contracting, LLC
PO Box 545, Siler City, NC 27344
Andrew Dimmette
[phone]
Initial Planting Contractor
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
PO Box 1197, Fremont, NC 27830
Charlie Bruton
[phone]
Supplemental Planting &
Terravista Landscape Management
Invasive Contractor
7213 Becky Cir., Raleigh, NC 27615
Jennifer Barnhill
[phone]
Monitoring Performers
NC Division of Mitigation Services
217 W Jones Street, Raleigh, NC 27603
Jeremiah Dow, DMS
[phone]
UT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) Year 6 Annual Monitoring Report December 2022

Table 4: Project Attributes Table
UT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) DMS Project #95389
Project Information
Project Name
UT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm)
County
Durham
Project Area (acres)
10.86
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35.998142,-78.742794
Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted)
10.86
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
River Basin
Neuse
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
3020201
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03020201050030
DWR Sub -basin
03-04-01
Project Drainage Area (acres)
21.5
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
< 5%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Majority Forested, some pasture
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404
No
Water of the United States - Section 401
No
Endangered Species Act
No
Historic Preservation Act
No
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA)
No
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
UT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) Year 6 Annual Monitoring Report December 2022

APPENDIX B
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
LIT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) Year 6 Annual Monitoring Report December 2022

F ail$
Lake
Fang Vllraqa
Golf Cpuma
Wave fOF .
Fatly
Lake "Stai
Recreatoa 0
Project
c
a
ake F Ofest ti
c rcLs: Esri;.FrERE, DeLorme, U-90S, Intermap, increment PCorp., NRCA44, Esri
Japan.METI, EsriChina (Hong Kongj, Esri j1hailand}, Mapmylndia, 9
OpenStreetMap rmtrihctcm, and the GIS user Community
FIGURE 1
Project Location Map JE
UT TO FALLS LAKE (McDANIEL FARM)
Durham County, NC o 0_5 0_5 0_5 1
Miles
LIT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) Year 6 Annual Monitoring Report December 2022
9

LIT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) Year 6 Annual Monitoring Report
a
December2022

t
AL
F-ti # • `#.
A
Figure 3: Current Condition Plan View
U'T to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm)
PhotD Points
Eawnient (14.86 ac)
Supplemental Plant Area 2020r2021 dofmant
season (approx_ 3.27 acres)
Eddie Path
0 Existing Mature Trees
Non -Subject Channel
u*ct Channel
MY6 Random Veg Transects
0 Exceeds Requiremel& by 10%
0 Exceeds Requirements, but by less than 1i %
0 Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more Wn 10%
�AL
A
Ap
LIT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) Year 6 Annual Monitoring Report December 2022
11

Site Photos
Photo Point 1
Photo Point 1
Photo Point 2
Photo Point 1
Photo Point 2
Photo Point 3
Photo Point 3
°':. .,
}
� A6 ,
LIT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) Year 6 Annual Monitoring Report December 2022
12

g
LAW
• • •Elm
-
.�::
Y•
t..
-
° t..
4...
'
t
_
t
.�.t3 t� ^i• e 1 F�
4 4
cl

Photo Point 6
Photo Point 7
Photo Point 8
a
Photo Point 8
Photo Point 7
Photo Point 7
Photo Point 8
Photo Point 9
LIT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) Year 6 Annual Monitoring Report December 2022
14

Photo Point 9
Photo Point 10
Photo Point 10
Photo Point 9
Photo Point 10
LIT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) Year 6 Annual Monitoring Report December 2022
15

Table 5: Vegetation Condition Assessment
UT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farms Dh15 Project #95389
Planted Acreage 10.66
Ve etation Catellory
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV de iction
Number of
Pol one
Combined
Acr
% of Planted
Acr
i. Bare Areas
Very milled cover of boll woody and herbacemis malarial.
0.1 acres
Pawm aria COo�
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Weedy slem densom cleady below target Ilevels based cc MY3, 4, OF 5 stern oouitcrilerm.
0.1 acres
Pattle'l _,d c c,
0
0.00
0.0%
Total
•3
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas will wncdy seems of a sine class dial are obviously small given the monrlomg year.
0.25 acres
Pak." :" v= _ -
0
0.00
0.096
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage 10.86
VerietatiGn Catenory
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV Depiction
Number of
Po4ypons
Combined
Acres a
% of Easement
Acres e
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or pants {rf too small to render as polygons al map scale].
' •)�3 SF
P.a_e's as;. Coo-
0
0.X
0.0
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas cr pants (dim small to render as polygons amap scale].
none
Palm and Cesar
0
0.X
0.0
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of
the understory, the channel acreage, crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part ofihe project effort.
2 = The acreage wilhin the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in
the cable and is the result ofencraachment, the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., ilem 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5-
4 = Invasi• es nla': occur in or oui of n'ar'ed areas. but still wi:hir tl,e easement and '.k"II therefore be ca'c.lla' .ed against the eve ra'1 easement ac'eage. 'nvasives o' c-ncaf%:r:arest are lister'
below. The lint of I-igl' concern a1_•c es a-e tl-osa t1' the Dcter:ial tc tl reci ;' o-r.vc•moeie 'lati•ve o-mg. '•:•Dori; s:e 11s i7 t1"e s 1cr.-;e'i • ,.e.g. '11cni:cfing ;:er oc cr vhcltl-::Iefeafterl or affec: t1'e
C011 III L1"It's Sif_I;ti-'E for '1'5{'rg r"•D,e estc l:•I sh eC [r'e'S 11 r_IC =_:a I. -Is 6:•'r :I'"e`'al'le3 [I- a-. a'c- S ightly to Tg -r .E c -± ceraceSJ. The lorr;n'oce'a:e --cr-ern gro.11; are these species tha:
gEr e'ul, do r01 nave i'1 is Caoa Clt'f o've- t1-e -. I.'ef'amd3 cl3cLS3ecl a'1d it"E 'e'J'E a'e 1oi e•:oac:a•:I to be ma;:f ee ,.,it ; regular t,:• but can be mapper If i'1 the ju;lgerne nt c- -.qe crserrer th cif
coverage, density ordistrbuiion is supl-Essing the viabil C: ce'lsif; or grc••,::'1 of pla'11a;t •::1 oody s-.anls. Decisions as to ,'e7ier remediation will be needed are hosed on me integration of risk
factors by EEP such as species present, H-eir coverage cl s:'ir.ution relative to native ciomass, and the praciicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese
Kroiweed early in the projects history will warrant ccn[rcl rut potentially large coverages of Microslegium in 1'1e herb layer will not likley trigger control because efthe limiled capacities to ripacl
tr":•S`Iftib layers •a'tHn the timefra'nes discussed and :'1e ooisntial imoac:s of treating eartensive amounis c- ;round cover. Those species vJth the-vatr:h list- designator in gray shaele are of
ir:a'ast , s ti;el rut have yet tc re orsar,ec across tl"a site tl" air-: i'eq.lancy. Those in ors of oar. o.i a- r:e•est given ihei' e•::'e'na riskrthreat level far -napping as points %-'I lere
ISC19id;l SCdClll'el"8 al'e FQl'n•:l. l:a.ltl•=ulafl; ea-r; it a o'o eci= rgo'1:o'i'lg hi_tor/. However, areas of :liso-ee-. •-lense Latches will of cruise re ~cooed as po1',-co-ls the 7----nhcicg,sc'leme
r.E1c,: ',:as cne t1'a: ,:as -a.iAd is ca 'Ielaf.l fcI v '11rclzl'13 n-- asi -;es ccI-':g •ns, par5culairy for si:.lati-D i- :here the --ond ton for an area is 8CWe. Tr3'e 1_e:•,:ean solaled spec me'1s arc cense,
disc'ee-. paid -es I'l an; case :'1e oo r: c•r col gc•r:a'aa 'eaiure ca.r I_e s%:mbolized to describe things like 1"i;l' cr low concern and species car rc li3:a•:I as a map insel, in lege'ld [Er'? 'the
null~oar of species are limited or in tl-e iareaJ.-a ="ectio 1 of tl-e executive aur"i-nary.
UT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) Year 6 Annual Monitoring Report December 2022
16

APPENDIX C
Vegetation Plot Data
LIT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) Year 6 Annual Monitoring Report December 2022
17

DMS MY6 Random Veg Transects
Table 6a: Planted Tree Species
UT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) DMS Project #95389
Scientific Name
Common Name
Number
Planted
%of
Total
Acerrubrum
Red Maple
1,000
17.5%
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
1,000
17.5%
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
1,000
17.5%
Betulanigra
River birch
1,000
17.5%
Ulmus am ericana
American Elm
1,000
17.5%
Hamamelis virginiana
Witch hazel
700
12.3%
Total 5,700 100%
Table 6b: Supplemental Planted Tree Species (2018)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Number
%of
Liriodendron tulipefera
Tulip poplar
700
15.6%
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
700
15.6%
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
600
13.3%
Betulanigra
River birch
600
13.3%
Diosypros virginiana
Persimmon
600
13.3%
Nyssa sylvatica
Black gum
600
13.3%
Cercis Canadensis
Red bud
700
15.6%
Total 4,500 100.0%
Table 7: Planted and Total Stems - MY4
UT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) DMS Project #95389
Table 6c: Supplemental Planted Tree Species (Dec.2020)
Scientific Name
Common Name
%of
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
50.0%
Diosypros virginiana
Persimmon
50.0%
Cu rrent Year (M Y6)
Annual Means
Vi1
VT2
Vi3
VT4
VT5
VT6
VT7
Vf8
Vi9
VT10
MY6 (2022)
MY5 (2021)
MY4 (2020)
MY3 (2019)
MY2 (2017)
MY1 (2016)
MYO (2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Type
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
Acerrubrum
Red Maple
Tree
2
2
3
3
26
26
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
1
1
3
3
13
13
7
7
3
3
24
24
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
6
6
3
3
3
3
1
1
5
5
4
4
22
22
34
26
20
20
18
18
12
12
25
25
26
26
Betulanigra
River birch
Tree
13
13
5
5
24
24
32
32
Ulm us am ericana
American Elm
Tree
1
2
1
9
9
9
9
6
6
17
17
35
35
Hamamelis virginiana
Witch hazel
Tree
43
43
9
9
19
19
28
28
Liriodendron tulipefera
Tulip poplar
Tree
Diosypros virginiana
Persimmon
Tree
2
2
10
10
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
4
4
1
1
27
27
9
9
28
28
14
18
Nyssasylvatica
Blackgum
Tree
1
1
3
3
3
3
12
12
5
5
1
1
25
25
24
24
47
47
Cercis Canadensis
Red bud
Tree
Pinustaeda
Loblollypine
Tree
27
2
9
1
30
5
17
6
29
1 28
153
170
217
1 165
81
46
29
LiquidambarstyraciFlua
Sweet gum
Tree
2
1
1
3
11
9
14
7
3
51
70
1
36
62
1 85
64
38
Salixnigra
Black Willow
Tree
2
Chamaecyparis thyoides
Atlantic White Cedar
Tree
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
9
6
4
2
2
1
Quercusspp.
Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Unknown
Tree
I
I
1
1
1
4
8
1
Stem count
8
1 35
13
1 17
6
1 16
3
34
10
18
4
32
7
22
12
55
14
1 49
4
1 7
81
285
70
311
114
365
110
1 343
41
214
91
1 213
171
239
Plot size (acres)
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.275
0.275
0.344
0.344
0.344
0.344
0.344
Species Count
2
3
2
4
2
74
11
4
1 6
4
1 5
5
1 8
5
9
7
9
6
9
6
11
6
12
6
9
Stems per ACRE
290
1,271
472
617
218
581
109
1,234
363
653
145
1,162
254
799
436
1,997
508
1,779
145
254
294
1035
254
1,129
331
1,061
319
996
119
621
264
618
581
1 1016
Type = Tree, Shrub, Livestake
P = Planted
T = Total
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
UT to Falls Lake (McDaniel Farm) Year 6 Annual Monitoring Report December 2022
18