Butterfly Dreams Management Plan by Jared Bullock, Alys Hannum, and Johnathon Paynter

Butterfly Dreams Management Plan
Prepared for Jessica Kirby, Certified PATH Instructor
Submitted by Jared Bullock, Alys Hannum, and Johnathon Paynter
Instructors
Dr. Kris Irwin
Mr. Robert Izlar
Advisory Committee
Dr. William Miller
Dr. Gary Green
Spring 2016
Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources
University of Georgia
Athens, GA

ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Soil erosion and water drainage are serious problems at Butterfly Dreams Farm. Our primary
objectives were as follows: 1) to assess areas with poor water flow and suggest long-term
solutions, 2) to assess soil loss through erosion and suggest attainable management solutions, and
3) to locate potential third party funding sources for drainage and erosion control methods. We
collected all Butterfly Dreams Farm site data from January to April 2016.
We evaluated present drainage issues by examining the site before and after storm events. In
addition to the two emergent streams, we found areas of ponding where water drained slowly
through compacted soil. We evaluated the soil erosion risk by taking composite soil samples
from each pasture and sent them to be analyzed by the UGA Soil, Plant, and Water Laboratory
located in Athens, Georgia. Additionally, we performed on-site evaluations using the Revised
Universal Soil Loss Equation to estimate the rate of yearly topsoil erosion. We located potential
funding sources primarily through online research, then contacted each source through phone
call or email for more information. We ranked each potential source by how well they fit our
client's needs based on application requirements, payment amount, and donor requirements.
Our final recommendation to control drainage on the Farm is a French drain system installed by
Precision Landscape Management. We feel this method will best fit to our client's needs because
a French drain's subsurface nature minimizes horse to drain interaction, lowering the
maintenance costs while still having an affordable installation. For erosion control, our
recommendation is to spread temporary mulch and plant fescue grass seed directly on bare soil
areas. Simple cover is highly effective at reducing topsoil erosion, and we recommend that the
landowner spread mulch and plant seed themselves to further reduce costs. In regards to funding,
our number one recommendation is to contact the Natural Resources Conservation Service

iii
(NRCS). In addition to offering enough funding to cover the majority of the cost for each project
listed previously, the NRCS also provides technical assistance for similar projects. We feel a
good relationship with the NRCS will be essential for the Farm to manage future erosion and
drainage issues. However, each funding source is not exclusive, so we further recommend
applying to the Community Foundation for Northeast Georgia, the David, Helen and Marian
Woodward Fund, the Ford Fund Capital Grant, and the Build-a-Bear Workshop Bear Hugs
Foundation on a yearly basis.

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to express our utmost gratitude to Dr. Kris Irwin and Mr. Robert Izlar for their
invaluable support, expertise, and guidance throughout the semester. We would also like to thank
our committee members, Dr. William Miller and Dr. Gary Green, for taking time out of their
schedules to provide us with insightful advice.
We also thank the Board of Directors at Butterfly Dreams Farm for allowing us to work on their
beloved property, especially Joey Bristol, Cat and Kyle Vereen, and Jessica Kirby. We give
special thanks as well to Taylor Adams for her assistance in identifying and ranking private
funding sources.
Lastly, we would like to recognize the entire community at Butterfly Dreams Farm, including the
farm staff and volunteers, for allowing us to photograph on-site and for the hours of work they
dedicate to this property and its mission each week.
Without the help of everyone mentioned here, our project would not have been possible.

v
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Butterfly Dreams Farm pasture divisions, Oconee County, Georgia. Created by
Johnathon Paynter on February 21, 2016........................................................................
2. Half-acre sand and gravel parking lot at Butterfly Dreams Farm in Oconee County,
Georgia. Photographed by Johnathon Paynter on April 13, 2016...................................
3. Sheet metal and wood horse barn on Butterfly Dreams Farm, Oconee County,
Georgia. Photographed by Johnathon Paynter on April 13, 2016...................................
4. Hundred Acre Woods pasture on Butterfly Dreams Farm in Oconee County, Georgia.
Photographed by Johnathon Paynter on April 13, 2016..................................................
5. Removal of grass cover by horse pacing along the fence line in Green Frog pasture on
Butterfly Dreams Farm in Oconee County, Georgia. Photographed by Johnathon
Paynter on April 13, 2016................................................................................................
6. Emergent ephemeral stream in the middle of the Hundred Acre Woods pasture at
Butterfly Dreams Farm in Oconee County, Georgia. Photographed by Alys Hannum
on January 30, 2016.........................................................................................................
7. Emergent ephemeral stream at the northern end of Gold Fish pasture at Butterfly
Dreams Farm in Oconee County, Georgia. Photographed by Johnathon Paynter on
April 13, 2016..................................................................................................................
8. Erosion and leaf litter removal by runoff at the southern end of Yellow Duck pasture
at Butterfly Dreams Farm in Oconee County, Georgia. Photographed by Alys
Hannum on January 16, 2016..........................................................................................
9. Augering locations for the collection of soil data on Butterfly Dreams Farm in
Oconee County, Georgia. Created by Johnathon Paynter on April 5, 2016....................
10. Soil Survey Map for Oconee County showing dominant soil series on Butterfly
Dreams Farm, accessed at http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov on February 16,
2016.................................................................................................................................
11. Construction of a diversion ditch to intercept and redirect overland flow, reducing
potential for erosion of downslope areas. (Virginia City Highlands Property Owners
Association 2006)............................................................................................................
12. Construction of a French Drain to siphon water off the property, reducing overland
flow and erosion potential (NZ Drainage 2013)..............................................................
13. Construction of permeable paving to siphon water off the property, reducing overland
flow and erosion potential (Adamson, pub. date unknown)............................................
Page
2
3
3
4
5
6
6
7
11
12
13
14
15

vi
14. Placement of water bars to divert runoff from trail areas, reducing overland flow and
erosion potential. Accessed at http://woodlandstewardship.org/?page_id=1226 on
April 14, 2016..................................................................................................................
15. Construction of check dams to slow water flow and trap sediment (Georgia Soil and
Water Conservation Commission, 2014).........................................................................
16. Newly installed rip-rap check dam in Hundred Acre Woods pasture on Butterfly
Dreams Farm in Oconee County, Georgia. Photographed by Alys Hannum on
February 24, 2016............................................................................................................
18
19
28

vii
LIST OF TABLES
1. Average cost estimates for the installation of approximately 500 feet of diversion
ditches from various companies which service the Athens-Watkinsville area................
2. Average cost estimates for the installation of approximately 500 feet of French drain
subsurface drainage from various companies which service the Athens-Watkinsville
area....................................................................................................................................
3. Average cost estimates for the installation of 4,000 square feet of permeable paving
from various companies which service the Athens-Watkinsville area.............................
4. Estimated annual soil loss values in tons per acre per year for Butterfly Dreams Farm
pastures based on RUSLE...............................................................................................
5. Average cost estimates for mulch and fescue seed on approximately 150 square feet
(16.7 square yards) of high activity areas from various companies which service the
Athens-Watkinsville area.................................................................................................
6. Average cost estimates for the installation of ten rip-rap check dams from various
companies which service the Athens-Watkinsville area..................................................
7. 2016 Conservation Practice payment rates through the NRCS's Environmental
Quality Incentives Program for regular and historically under-served (HU) farmers
with the establishment of a contract or Conservation Action Plan (CAP)......................
Page
24
25
25
26
27
27
30

viii
LIST OF APPENDICES
A. Soil Pedon Descriptions for three locations on Butterfly Dreams Farm in Oconee
County.............................................................................................................................
B. Soil Test Results for Butterfly Dreams Farm Pastures. Tests performed by UGA Soil,
Plant, and Water Laboratory located in Athens, Georgia.................................................
C. Limestone, Nitrogen, Phosphate, and Potassium recommendations for ideal rye grass
growth conditions in pastures at Butterfly Dreams Farm in Oconee County, Georgia.
Provided by UGA Soil, Plant, and Water Laboratory located in Athens, Georgia..........
D. Summary of total scores from zero to three for funding sources based on Butterfly
Dreams Farm Board Member Taylor Adams’ (MPA) analysis of their
suitability..........................................................................................................................
D. Scoring of the top five funding sources for Butterfly Dreams Farm by Taylor Adams
(MPA)................................................................................................................................
Page
35
38
39
47
48

ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................
LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................................
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................
LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................................
LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................
LIST OF APPENDICES.....................................................................................................
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................
Site Description...................................................................................................................
OBJECTIVES AND ALTERNATIVES............................................................................
Drainage Alternative..........................................................................................................
Erosion Alternatives...........................................................................................................
Funding Alternatives..........................................................................................................
METHODS...........................................................................................................................
Drainage..............................................................................................................................
Soil Analysis.......................................................................................................................
Pedon Analysis...................................................................................................................
Alternatives.........................................................................................................................
Erosion.................................................................................................................................
Soil Loss Estimates.............................................................................................................
Alternatives.........................................................................................................................
Funding................................................................................................................................
RESULTS.............................................................................................................................
Drainage..............................................................................................................................
ii
iii
iv
v
vii
viii
1
1
8
8
8
9
10
10
10
10
12
16
16
17
20
23
23

x
Soil Analysis.......................................................................................................................
Pedon Analysis...................................................................................................................
Alternatives.........................................................................................................................
Erosion.................................................................................................................................
Soil Loss Estimates.............................................................................................................
Alternatives.........................................................................................................................
Funding................................................................................................................................
RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................
Drainage..............................................................................................................................
Erosion.................................................................................................................................
Funding................................................................................................................................
APPENDICES......................................................................................................................
LITERATURE CITED.......................................................................................................
23
23
24
26
26
26
28
32
32
33
33
35
53

1
INTRODUCTION
Butterfly Dreams Farm (the Farm) is a nonprofit 501(c)3 organization that specializes in
therapeutic horse riding and hippotherapy. Hippotherapy is a method of physical,
occupational, or speech therapy through the use of equine movement for individuals in need
(Our Story 2015). Soil erosion has affected the farm in the past, and it now poses a serious
threat to the future of the Farm program on its current site. Through a personal connection
with Ms. Jessica Kirby, our group requested permission to conduct our project at the Farm.
Ms. Kirby spoke to the Board of Directors, who approved. They asked us to evaluate soil
conditions, provide possible courses of corrective action, and discover possible funding
sources.
The board of directors invited us to attend meetings each month throughout the project. They
were held on January 21, February 15, March 21, and April 18 of 2016. We attended these
meetings which put us in contact with Board President Joey Bristol. We were then able to
communicate with her directly.
Site Description
The Farm is located on 12 acres at 2981 Hog Mountain Rd, Watkinsville, Georgia along
Highway 53 in Oconee County (Fig 1). It is 7.5 miles directly southwest of Athens. The site
consists of several pastures divided by fencing with a live electric wire over top, and each
pasture is used for grazing and roaming. Although the Georgia Horse Council recommends
that 2 to 2.5 acres of pasture be available per horse for grazing purposes, the farm is currently
only able to allocate approximately 1 acre per horse (Georgia Horse Council 2016). Animals
are rotated among pastures every few weeks to allow for recovery and regrowth. Land use of

2
the Farm is divided into the following categories: open pasture (9.24 acres, 76%), sand ring
(0.59 acres, 5%), tree-covered (0.84 acres, 7%), asphalt (0.19 acres, 2%), gravel (0.69 acres,
6%), and other covered area (0.48 acres, 4%).
Figure 1. Butterfly Dreams Farm pasture divisions, Oconee County, Georgia. Created by
Johnathon Paynter on February 21, 2016.
There is a gravel and asphalt driveway immediately upon entry from the main gate in the
northeast. The driveway follows the eastern property border to the south for approximately
625 feet, where it bends west behind the south side of the landowner's house and continues
for another 50 feet. The driveway ends in a 0.5 acre gravel and sand parking lot (Fig. 2).
There is an approximately 5,800 square foot aluminum sheet-metal siding and wood interior
barn directly west of the parking lot (Fig 3). The barn contains 12 stalls used for animal
housing, two additional stalls for food and equipment storage, and a wash rack on the
northeast corner. A 1,700 square foot aluminum shed used for hay, cedar chip, and
equipment storage is directly adjacent to the west side of the barn. A 0.6 acre sand riding ring
contained within a 4 foot high wooden fence is located in an unnamed pasture directly west
of the barn. The landowner's 2,600 square foot home is located on the property, east of the

3
parking lot and south of the main gate. Directly north of the house is a 0.7 acre lawn which is
used privately by the landowner. One 240 square foot wooden and aluminum equipment
shed, a 400 square foot aluminum chicken coop, and a 500 square foot manure pile are
located in close proximity directly north of the parking lot (Fig. 4).
Figure 2. Half-acre sand and gravel parking lot at Butterfly Dreams Farm in Oconee County,
Georgia. Photographed by Johnathon Paynter on April 13, 2016.
Figure 3. Sheet metal and wood horse barn on Butterfly Dreams Farm, Oconee County,

4
Tree cover is limited to planted leyland cypress (Cupressus leylandii) on extreme edges of
the property boundaries and an isolated patch of mature trees and 6 saplings in the Hundred
Acre Woods pasture. This stand is 0.6 acres and contains the following trees: 17 sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), 9 water oak (Quercus nigra), 3 shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), 3
southern red oak (Quercus falcata), 3 loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and 2 eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana) in the overstory (Fig. 5). Understory cover is limited to 6 juvenile
eastern red cedars along the emergent stream bank. The aspect of the site is oriented south-
southeast, with a moderate slope rate of 5%.
Figure 4. Hundred Acre Woods pasture on Butterfly Dreams Farm in Oconee County,

5
Figure 5. Removal of grass cover by horse pacing along the fence line in Green Frog pasture
on Butterfly Dreams Farm in Oconee County, Georgia. Photographed by Johnathon Paynter
on April 13, 2016.
The grass for each pasture is rye, planted using plugs in late September or early October at a
rate of 50 lbs per acre. Horse grazing and pacing has removed all vegetative cover on pacing
trails along the fences and high traffic areas such as water troughs in all pastures (Fig. 5). The
remaining grass is less than 4 inches in height, and soil is readily visible within 6 inches on
either side of each pacing trail. All pastures show signs of erosion and soil compaction, with
new intermittent streams forming in the Hundred Acre Woods (Fig. 6), Gold Fish (Fig. 7),
and Yellow Duck pastures (Fig. 8). During the course of our project, the landowner placed
large rocks, gravel, and woody debris to reduce the rate of water flow in six places along
each of the two emerging streams. The Farm is situated within a single watershed, and the
central drainage point is located on the southern property border.

6
Figure 6. Emergent ephemeral stream in the middle of the Hundred Acre Woods pasture at
Butterfly Dreams Farm in Oconee County, Georgia. Photographed by Alys Hannum on
January 30, 2016.
Figure 7. Emergent ephemeral stream at the northern end of Gold Fish pasture at Butterfly
Dreams Farm in Oconee County, Georgia. Photographed by Johnathon Paynter on April 13,
2016.

7
Figure 8. Erosion and leaf litter removal by runoff at the southern end of Yellow Duck
pasture at Butterfly Dreams Farm in Oconee County, Georgia. Photographed by Alys
Hannum on January 16, 2016.

8
OBJECTIVES AND ALTERNATIVES
The objectives for this project are: 1) to evaluate the hydrology and examine possible
management activities, 2) to evaluate the current soil erosion and to examine possible
management activities, and 3) to identify potential sources of funding for all proposed
projects. With these objectives in mind, our group's research and recommendations are
presented and justified in this report. While the clients are free to decide upon whichever
management action they feels is best, the options in this report are presented in the order that
we recommend.
Drainage Alternatives
1. Construct a system of diversion ditches and berms to retain and redirect surface
runoff.
2. Install a French drain system to redirect and reduce surface runoff.
3. Install permeable paving in front of the bedding storage areas and near the wash rack
to reduce water ponding.
Erosion Alternatives
1. Spread mulch over bare activity areas and in places where grass cover has been worn
away by overgrazing and pacing to reduce soil erosion.
2. Place water diversion bars along each of the main trails and above the emergent
streams to slow and disperse water, reducing erosion.
3. Install rip-rap check dams in the emergent streams to detain sediment runoff.

9
Funding Alternatives
1. Register with the local Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) office and
apply for yearly payments through their Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
2. Apply for yearly grants through the Community Foundation for Northeast Georgia.
3. Apply for bi-yearly project grants through the David, Helen and Marian Woodward
Fund.
4. Apply for yearly grants through the Ford Fund Capital Grant.
5. Apply for yearly grants through The Build-A-Bear Workshop Bear Hugs Foundation,
specifically through the Build-A-Bear Workshop in Buford.

10
METHODS
Drainage
Soil Analysis
Using the guidelines from the Georgia Cooperative Extension Service, we collected soil
samples from each of the ten pastures on the property (Georgia Cooperative Extension 2008).
We extracted 10 soil cores from each pasture to 4 inches depth using a push probe, then
combined them to create a composite sample for each pasture. We determined the sampling
locations using the following systemic survey design: for each pasture, we collected one soil
core from the four corners, one halfway along each fence line, and two from the center.
After allowing the samples to air dry in a plastic pan for 48 hours and removing all visible
roots and rocks, we placed each in a paper soil sample bag labeled with the pasture name.
Due to their management similarities and physical proximity, we combined the soil samples
for White Dog and Paddock 2, Yellow Duck and Black Sheep, and Brown Bear and Green
Frog. We then sent the samples to the University of Georgia's Soil, Plant, and Water
Laboratory in Athens on February 4, 2016 to test their nutrient and organic matter content.
They returned the results on February 15, 2016, and can be found in Appendix C.
Pedon Analysis
Using a modified version of the NRCS guidelines for describing and sampling soils (Natural
Resources Conservation Service 2012), we performed a full analysis of the soil profile at
three locations on the Farm (Fig. 9). We extracted soil to a depth of 5 feet in each location
using a soil auger and identified the textural class, Munsell color, and any identifying

11
features of each soil horizon (Xrite 2000). We used these data to write a full pedon
description of each site, which is located in Appendix A.
Figure 9. Augering locations for the collection of soil data on Butterfly Dreams Farm in
Oconee County, Georgia. Created by Johnathon Paynter on April 5, 2016.
Soil data for the Farm and the areas directly surrounding it were downloaded from the NRCS
Web Soil Survey and used as a reference to ensure that our findings in the field were at least
similar to the official soil designations (Fig. 10). According to the Web Soil Survey, 10.9
acres (59.9%) of the Farm and surrounding area are classified as moderately eroded Cecil
sandy loam. 5.5 acres (28.5%) of this Cecil sandy loam are located at the very northern end
of the property with 6-10% slopes (CYC2). The other 5.4 acres (28.4%) are downhill, with
slopes of 2-6%. 0.6 acres (3.2%) at the southern end of the property were designated as

12
Chewlaca (Cob) alluvial deposits. The remaining 7.6 acres (39.9%) were classified as
severely eroded Pacolet sandy clay loam (PgC3) and was located at the center of the farm
(Natural Resources Conservation Service 2016).
Figure 10. Soil Survey Map for Oconee County showing dominant soil series on Butterfly
Dreams Farm, accessed at http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov on February 16, 2016.
Alternatives
During our initial visit during the week of January 11, 2016, we observed multiple problem
areas where water had ponded from rain the night before. For each of these problem areas,
we considered three separate methods for drainage control: the creation of diversion ditches
and berms, the installation of French drains along fences, and the use of permeable paving in
front of the bedding storage areas and near the wash rack, where water ponds regularly due to

13
rain and hose usage. We obtained additional information on these control methods through
meetings with our Advisory committee member, Dr. William Miller, and from the Manual
for Erosion and Sediment Control in Georgia, or the “Georgia Green Book” (W. Miller,
personal communication, March 9, 2016; Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission
2014).
Figure 11. Construction of a diversion ditch to intercept and redirect overland flow, reducing
potential for erosion of downslope areas (Virginia City Highlands Property Owners
Association 2006).
A diversion system consists of diversion ditches and berms which divert rainwater or hose
runoff downslope into channels, which can then be used to direct the water offsite or into a
holding pond where it can infiltrate slowly through non-compacted soil. Diversion ditches
can be lined with gravel or seeded to avoid further erosion from the channelized runoff (Fig.
11). They require a minimum yearly inspection and cleaning when necessary. Yearly
inspection can be performed by the landowner after a major storm event, during which the
length of the ditch is inspected for blockages or eroded ditch walls that would impair water
flow. If the landowner finds a small blockage, they can simply remove it from the ditch. If
they find a large blockage or a partially eroded ditch wall, it must be cleaned or repaired to
its original dimensions by professionals (Center for Environmental Excellence 2016).

14
Figure 12. Construction of a French Drain to siphon water off the property, reducing
overland flow and erosion potential (NZ Drainage 2013).
A French drain serves much the same purpose as a diversion ditch, except it is confined
underground. It is constructed by burying a length of perforated PVC or other piping under a
layer of permeable material such as gravel (Fig. 12). The water flows down through the
gravel and enters the pipe, where it can then be directed off the property. French drains
require a yearly inspection after a major storm event, which can be performed by the
landowner. During the inspection, the output end of the drain should be examined for
unusually low amounts of water flow, which can be a sign of an interior blockage. In that
event, the landowner should contact a professional to perform a more accurate inspection and
determine if a full drain replacement is necessary.

15
Figure 13. Construction of permeable paving to siphon water off the property, reducing
overland flow and erosion potential (Adamson).
Permeable paving would allow both horses and vehicles to pass normally, but rainwater
would infiltrate into the soil and flow naturally downward towards the stream (Fig. 13).
Unlike permeable concrete, permeable paving does not become clogged with silt and
sediment as quickly and only requires yearly inspections and professional cleanings when
necessary, making the maintenance costs much lower. A typical permeable paving inspection
consists of yearly visits by a professional, during which they measure the infiltration rate of
the paving. If the infiltration rate is too low, it indicates the presence of a blockage
somewhere, at which point a more thorough inspection and cleaning method must be
performed. The probability of a paving blockage can be decreased by minimizing the
sediment, grass clippings, and assorted lawn waste allowed to sit on the paving surface (Hunt
2016). Due to our client's business, the most important factor to consider when selecting

16
permeable paving material is to confirm it is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) Standards for Accessible Design (28 C.F.R. § 35; 28 C.F.R. § 36).
We contacted local companies Willow Oak Landscaping, Vision Landscaping, Precision
Landscape Management, Restoration Landscape Company, Drainage Solutions, and Easley's
Yard Care Etc. to obtain cost estimates (Matt Fulton, telephone, April 5, 2016; Andrew
Majsztrik, email, April 8, 2016; Chad Keller, telephone, April 6, 2016; Matt Torrence, email,
April 6 2016; Company representative, voicemail and email, April 6 2016; J. Easley,
telephone, April 8 2016). We compared these estimates to others obtained privately by Kyle
Vereen, husband of the property owner, through College Pro Landscaping and Escapes in
June and September of 2015, respectively.
Erosion
Soil Loss Estimates
Our team estimated the rates of prior and expected future soil loss using the Revised
Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE):
The RUSLE predicts annual erosion rates (A) based on the geographic rainfall factor (R), the
soil erodibility factor (K), the slope gradient (LS), and the vegetation cover (C), while
accounting for conservation practices (P) (Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation 2 2001).
Rainfall factors for this area of Georgia were estimated using the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Isoerodent Map of the Eastern United States (EPA, 2012). The K factor was
determined using a nomograph equation which relates K factors to topsoil conditions

17
(Goldman et al. 1986). We measured slopes using a clinometer, and obtained C and P values
from the RUSLE Online Soil Erosion Assessment Tool (Institute of Water Research, 2002).
To estimate the rate of erosion on overgrazed pastures, we halved the effect of the RUSLE's
C factor to simulate the effect of short, patchy rye grass cover based on visual assessments of
overgrazed pastures.
Alternatives
Our group considered three separate methods for erosion control on the Farm: the use of
mulch, the use of water diversion bars along major pathways, and the installation of rock
check dams along the intermittent streams. We obtained additional information on these
control methods through meetings with our Advisory committee member, Dr. William
Miller, and from the Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control in Georgia, or the “Georgia
Green Book” (W. Miller, personal communication, March 9, 2016; Georgia Soil and Water
Conservation Commission 2014).
Spreading mulch on areas of disturbed soil will reduce runoff, erosion, and sedimentation.
Common organic mulch materials include straw, hay, and wood chips, spread to a depth of 2
to 4 inches, but inorganic materials such as polyethylene films and geotextiles are also
available. If the landowner plans to use organic mulch and incorporate it into the underlying
soil, 20 to 30 pounds of nitrogen should be applied prior to spreading the mulch.
Organic mulch can last up to 6 months. It is common practice to combine mulching with
temporary or permanent grass seeding. The mulch protects the grass as it grows, and the
grass provides seasonal soil protection. Temporary seeding is often done with rye or barley,

18
and permanent seeding is often done with fescue grass (Georgia Soil and Water Conservation
Commission 2014).
Figure 14. Placement of water bars to divert runoff from trail areas, reducing overland flow
and erosion potential. Accessed at http://woodlandstewardship.org/?page_id=1226 on April
14, 2016.
Water diversion bars are ridges laid at an angle across trails or other areas of high use to
divert flowing water into vegetated areas before it can cause erosion (Fig. 14). Water
diversion bars can either be constructed out of earthen berms or by anchoring logs or rocks
into the trail to create a raised area. Earth-berm water bars degrade more quickly than those
made from logs or rocks, but may also cover a wider area.

19
Figure 15. Construction of check dams to slow water flow and trap sediment (Georgia Soil
and Water Conservation Commission, 2014).
Check dams are small temporary dams constructed across an area of concentrated flow which
reduce erosion by slowing the velocity of water flow (Fig. 15) (Georgia Soil and Water
Conservation Commission, 2014). These are typically placed in diversion ditches such as the
ones we discussed in the previous section, but they can also be placed into existing channels.
An inspection and spot cleaning is required every 5 years.

20
We contacted local companies Willow Oak Landscaping, Vision Landscaping, Precision
Landscape Management, Restoration Landscape Company, Drainage Solutions, and Easley's
Yard Care Etc. to obtain cost estimates (Matt Fulton, telephone, April 5, 2016; Andrew
Majsztrik, email, April 8, 2016; Chad Keller, telephone, April 6, 2016; Matt Torrence, email,
April 6 2016; Company representative, voicemail and email, April 6 2016; J. Easley,
telephone, April 8 2016). We compared these estimates to others obtained privately by Kyle
Vereen, husband of the property owner, through College Pro Landscaping and Escapes in
June and September of 2015, respectively.
We collected spatial data for the Farm during the week of January 18, 2016. We used a Flint
S Series GPS unit for all data collection and mapped all pastures, emergent streams, and
paths by walking along the perimeter of each feature while using automatic point logging at a
rate of 1 point per second. Data collection paused only when a section of the perimeter was
impassible and resumed immediately upon arrival at the next closest point along the
perimeter. We mapped major point features by standing as close to the feature's center as
possible and allowing the GPS unit to average a minimum of 40 logged points.
Funding
One potential source of monetary assistance for the various erosion and drainage control
projects is the NRCS. The NRCS provides financial assistance, conservation easements, and
competitive grants to both private and public landowners. Their largest program is the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). EQIP provides both financial and
technical assistance to agricultural producers with an adjusted gross income of less than
$900,000 and who have at least one natural resource concern. We placed landowner Cat

21
Vereen and Board President Joey Bristol in contact with the Oconee County NRCS
representative, Gerald Grace, through e-mail on February 22, 2016. We were notified on
April 11, 2016, that Mr. Grace had been called away by a family emergency and was unable
to perform a site visit before the conclusion of our project. Additional information on the
EQIP program was afterward provided by the NRCS representative for Greene County (TJ
Oneal, telephone, April 13, 2016).
We researched additional government organizations able to assist in the search for funds.
Through a web search, we discovered that there were no Oconee County departments
dedicated to nonprofit organizations (Oconee County Georgia 2016). We next reached out
via phone call to the Oconee County Area Resource Council on April 1, 2016 and spoke with
Executive Director Ann Hester. This is a nonprofit organization located at 12 Durham Street
in Watkinsville. Their mission is to improve the quality of lives for families and children in
Oconee by networking with other organizations. Ann Hester was not aware of any county,
state or federal organizations that might provide funding for the Farm (A. Hester, telephone,
April 1, 2016).
We then contacted the Georgia Council on Developmental Disabilities on April 4, 2016,
which is a federally funded, independent state agency devoted to improving the well-being of
people with disabilities. We spoke to Grants and Contacts Manager Lisa Eaves. She was also
unable to make any recommendations for potential funding sources (L, Eves. Personal
communication, April 4, 2016). We decided to focus on private funding sources rather than
public ones.

22
At the board meeting on February 15, 2016, we met Taylor Adams, an MPA working with
the board with a focus on obtaining grants. Ms. Adams shared an extensive excel sheet that
listed all the potential funding sources she had identified. Alongside each source, she also
listed the deadline for an application, what project types they sponsor, any requirements or
restrictions for the money, and how much could potentially be received. Ms. Adams selected
the top 5 sources from the list and ranked each on a scale of 0-3 based on the suitability of
their requirements as compared to the Farm's needs (T. Adams, e-mail, March 22, 2016). We
summed these scores to objectively rank how the 5 sources compared.

23
RESULTS
Drainage
Soil Analysis
The UGA Soil, Plant, and Water Laboratory provided us with nutrient, pH, and organic
matter data on each of the twelve pastures at the Farm. They also supplied us with
recommendations for nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and limestone application based on
the growing requirements of rye grass (Appendix C). The only pasture we saw a significant
difference in was Red Bird pasture, which requires 0.75 tons/acre of limestone application in
order to reach a target pH of 6.0 and 20 lbs/acre of potassium application. All pastures
require 40-60 lbs/acre of nitrogen application, which is the same rate as the Farm already
applies at a price of $1,500 per year (K. Vereen, email, March 29, 2016). As a result, we did
not factor this into our pricing calculations.
Pedon Analysis
We used the data from our soil profile analysis to identify the drainage class of each area and
determine whether any portions of the Farm lie on hydric soils. Hydric soils are “formed
under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season
to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part” (Federal Register 1994). Our soil profile
analysis revealed that none of the soils on the Farm qualified as hydric soils, as none of them
had any visible redoxomorphic features within the 6 to 12 inch rooting zone (Batzer 2014).
The Brown Bear and Yellow Duck pastures both qualified as "well drained" and the Hundred
Acre Woods at the very southern end of the property was "moderately well drained" (W.
Miller, lecture, Feb 2016).

24
Alternatives
The lack of hydric soils means that the drainage issues on the Farm are caused by
compaction, and not a naturally high water table. Installing drain tile would not significantly
improve the drainage of the soil or decrease water ponding. The major issue is soil
compaction caused by horses, which results in a slow initial rainwater infiltration rate.
Of the six companies we initially contacted, Restoration Landscape Company, Drainage
Solutions, and Easley's Yard Care Etc. were unable to provide cost estimates without a site
visitation. Restoration Landscape Company and Drainage Solutions offered a free
consultation visit, but because we could not guarantee that the landowners would be available
at the time, we declined the offer.
Table 1. Average cost estimates for the installation of approximately 500 feet of diversion
ditches from various companies which service the Athens-Watkinsville area.
Company Price estimate per linear foot Total Cost
Willow Oak Landscapes $8 ~ $4,000
Vision Landscaping $18 ~ $9,000
College Pro Landscaping Not Provided $11,024
Willow Oak Landscapes and Vision Landscaping were able to provide us with basic rate
estimates for diversion ditch installation which included labor and equipment costs, as well
as an offer for a free consultation to design the system (Table 1). Kyle Vereen obtained the
additional estimate from College Pro Landscaping.

25
Table 2. Average cost estimates for the installation of approximately 500 feet of French drain
subsurface drainage from various companies which service the Athens-Watkinsville area.
Company Price estimate per linear foot Total Cost
Precision Landscape Mgmt. $18 ~ $9,000
Escapes $1,640 for 20 feet ~ $41,000
Willow Oak Landscapes, Vision Landscaping, and Precision Landscape Management were
able to provide us with basic rate estimates for French Drain installation which included
labor and equipment costs, as well as an offer for a free consultation to design the system
(Table 2). Kyle Vereen obtained the additional estimates from College Pro Landscaping and
Escapes.
Table 3. Average cost estimates for the installation of 4,000 square feet of permeable paving
from various companies which service the Athens-Watkinsville area.
Company Price estimate per square foot Total Cost
Precision Landscape Mgmt $13 ~ $52,000
Willow Oak Landscapes, Vision Landscaping, and Precision Landscape Management were
able to provide us with basic rate estimates for permeable paving installation (Table 3).
These prices may vary based on the design and the material of the permeable paving due to
the range of styles.

26
Erosion
Soil Loss Estimates
The number of horses the Farm keeps forces them to overgraze their pastures at a rate of 1
acre per horse, rather than the recommended 2 to 2.5 acres per horse (Georgia Horse Council
2016). This, combined with bare trail and arena areas contributes to a high rate of erosion
year-round (Table 4).
Table 4. Estimated annual soil loss values in tons per acre per year for Butterfly Dreams
Farm pastures based on RUSLE.
Ground Cover Annual Soil Loss
(conservative)
Annual Soil Loss
(high)
Average Estimated
Annual Soil Loss
Active Pasture 0.31 0.42 0.36 tons/ac/yr
Regrowth 31.26 41.69 36.48 tons/ac/yr
Activity Area 62.53 83.375 72.95 tons/ac/yr
Alternatives
Our erosion control options should be used in conjunction with the proposed drainage
improvements. For instance, no matter what drainage option our clients choose, it is
important to lay down mulch cover on exposed soil, which is the most at risk for erosion by
surface runoff.

27
Table 5. Average cost estimates for mulch and fescue seed on approximately 150 square feet
(16.67 square yards) of high activity areas from various companies which service the Athens-
Watkinsville area.
Company Price estimate per square yard Total Cost
Vision Landscaping $15 delivered, $55 installed ~ $250 delivered,
~ $916 installed
Precision Landscape Mgmt. $50 installed ~ $833 installed
Escapes Not Provided $1,695
Vision Landscaping and Precision Landscape Management were able to provide us with
basic rate estimates for the delivery and spreading of mulch, but not for fescue grass seeding
(Table 5). Kyle Vereen obtained the additional estimates from College Pro Landscaping and
Escapes, which did include fescue grass seeding.
Table 6. Average cost estimates for the installation of ten rip-rap check dams from various
companies which service the Athens-Watkinsville area.
Company Price estimate per dam Total Cost
Vision Landscaping $80 ~ $800
Escapes $2,375 for 5 dams ~ $4,750
Willow Oak Landscapes and Vision Landscaping were able to provide us with basic rate
estimates for the delivery and installation of rip-rap check dams, including the cost of
equipment rental and labor (Table 6). Kyle Vereen obtained the additional estimates from
College Pro Landscaping and Escapes, which also included equipment and labor.

28
Figure 16. Newly installed rip-rap check dam in Hundred Acre Woods pasture on Butterfly
Dreams Farm in Oconee County, Georgia. Photographed by Alys Hannum on February 24,
2016.
It is important to note that during the course of this project, our clients reached the same
conclusion independently. They brought in 14 tons of rip-rap stone and constructed 3 main
check dams in the intermittent stream in Hundred Acre Woods pasture on February 29, 2016
(Fig. 16). Additionally, our clients purchased an excess amount of stone which was used to
prop up the area around the bridge. Bass Landscaping Care Inc. performed this installation
for a total cost of $1,670, paid out-of-pocket.
Funding
Once a landowner registers their agricultural property with the NRCS, their local NRCS field
office is able to offer technical assistance with identifying and designing conservation
projects for implementation even if the landowner is not eligible to receive payments through
any federal programs such as EQIP. A NRCS certified Technical Service Provider will help

29
landowners develop a Conservation Activity Plan (CAP) to "assist in identifying
conservation practices needed to address a specific natural resource need" (Natural Resources
Conservation Service 2016). The labor costs associated with developing the CAP can also be
covered under EQIP for supported CAPs in each state. A list of nationally approved CAP
practices and state-supported CAPs can be accessed at the NRCS website.
In order to receive financial assistance payments from EQIP, an applicant must have a
natural resource concern on "cropland, rangeland, pastureland, non-industrial private
forestland and other farm or ranch lands" that they control or own (Natural Resources
Conservation Service 2016). They must also be in compliance with all conservation
requirements and have an adjusted gross income of less than $900,000 per year, unless they
are part of a federally recognized Native American Tribe or Alaska Native corporation. Once
an applicant has met all these requirements, they can work with the NRCS to develop and
sign a contract to receive financial assistance payments for the implementation and
maintenance of conservation practices. Applications for EQIP are done through a local
NRCS field office.
Financial assistance payment amounts to those in the EQIP program are based on the type of
conservation practice. "Historically under-served" (HU) farmers qualify for a higher payment
rate; this definition may include equine producers, farmers with less than 10 acres of land,
and first-time users of the NRCS service, but HU designation is done on a case-by-case basis
and is not guaranteed. Payments through EQIP are limited to a total of $20,000 per fiscal
year. The table below lists the payment rates for the proposed conservation practices on the
Farm (Table 7).

30
Table 7. 2016 Conservation Practice payment rates through the NRCS's Environmental
Quality Incentives Program for regular and historically under-served (HU) farmers with the
establishment of a contract or Conservation Action Plan (CAP).
Conservation Practice Regular Payment Rate HU Payment Rate Lifespan
Conservation Cover -
Native Grass
$185.28 per acre $222.34 per acre 3 years
Check Dams $42.07 per ton of stone $50.49 per ton of stone 15 years
Diversion $1.69 per square foot $2.02 per square foot 10 years
Natural Mulch $321.51 per acre $385.81 per acre 1 year
Payments for drainage options such as French Drains and permeable paving may also be
available, but we were unable to locate them on the 2016 EQIP Policy Worksheet and our
contacts at the local Oconee County NRCS field office were unable to provide us with
numbers without a field visitation (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2016).
We ranked the private funding sources provided by Taylor Adams. The 5 best private
funding sources, beginning with the strongest recommendation, are as follows:
1. The Community Foundation for Northeast Georgia. This foundation manages donations
from individuals, organizations, and businesses in order to disburse a wide variety of
charitable funds to those in need. Their motto is "Connecting People who Care with Causes
that Matter" (About Us 2016). The grants offered by this group are appropriate as they are
primarily interested in funding projects that benefit children. The Farm is located in Oconee
County, which is within the Foundation’s applicable range. The maximum amount of money
available is $25,000 each year. A typical grant is between $2,000 and $5,000.
2. The David, Helen and Marian Woodward Fund. This Fund focuses on issues involving
human services, animals and the environment. Although the Fund is available to all of

31
Georgia and its neighboring states, they have historically given preference to organizations in
Georgia (David, Helen, and Marian Woodward Fund - Atlanta 2016). Grants often range
between $15,000 and $50,000 bi-yearly.
3. The Ford Fund Capital Grant. This Grant typically offers between $25,000 and $45,000
each year for the general purpose of community development. Although this is potentially as
much or more than the first two recommendations, the Farm does not meet the criteria as
well the first two. Instead of being aimed specifically at children or animals, it is for
community development in general.
4. Build-a-Bear Workshop Bear Hugs Foundation. The goal of this Foundation is to provide
grants to nonprofit organizations within 50 miles of a Build-A-Bear Workshop store for the
purpose of enhancing the lives of animals and people. Their motto is H.E.A.R.T.: Helping
communities through volunteering, Experiencing the power of teamwork, Accepting people’s
unique differences, Respecting people and animals, and Taking the lead to drive positive
change. The grants from this Foundation are smaller than the other recommendations, from
$1,000 to $5,000 each year. The closest Build-A-Bear Workshop to the Farm is in Buford,
approximately 40 miles away.
5. The Rich Foundation. This Foundation is dedicated to distributing a share of the profits
from Rich Inc. to nonprofit organizations, with an emphasis on programs that benefit people
with intellectual and developmental disabilities (Mission and History 2016). Grants usually
range between $5,000 and $10,000. Although this aligns perfectly with the function of
Butterfly Dreams, the fund is aimed at Metro Atlanta.

32
RECOMMENDATIONS
Drainage
We recommend the installation of a French drain system as the best way to manage drainage
on this site. Although French drains are more costly to install and maintain than diversion
ditches, they will minimize the amount of surface runoff on the Farm's pastures therefore also
minimizing the amount of erosion. The drains can be disguised as gravel pathways and
integrated into the current layout of the farm. However, our clients should be aware that a
higher up-front cost will likely reduce the length of drain that can be installed unless an
outside source supplies funding.
Our second recommendation is a system of diversion ditches and berms. Diversion ditches
are easy and cheap to create relative to the other two alternatives. While they will develop
soil buildup more quickly than a French drain, it is possible to clean them without
professional assistance. However, because the interior of the diversion ditch should be seeded
with grass to prevent further erosion during storm events, it is possible that horses will
interfere with them.
Our last recommendation is the installation of permeable paving in front of the bedding
storage and parking lot areas. While installation and maintenance costs are comparatively
low, combined gravel and asphalt cover on the site is only 0.88 acres (7% of the total area).
The open, compacted pastures on the southern end of the property which experience ponding
during rainfall events do not benefit at all from this alternative. One exception is Yellow
Duck pasture which lies directly south of the parking lot.

33
Erosion
We recommend the spreading of temporary mulch and fescue grass seed on bare activity
areas as the best way to manage erosion on this site. It is effective at reducing surface erosion
and the additional grass can be used to graze horses as well as stabilize the site. There are
multiple companies in the area who will deliver mulch material. We recommend that the
landowners spread the material themselves to reduce costs.
Our second recommendation is the placement of water diversion bars on all main trails on the
property, especially in the Hundred Acre Woods pasture and below the sand arena. Water
diversion bars have a simple installation process and can be constructed out of wood or logs
already present on the property, reducing the cost even further.
Our last recommendation is the installation of check dams in emergent streams. The
landowner has already placed new check dams in the emergent stream in Hundred Acre
Woods pasture, and it would not benefit from additional check dams. While the emergent
streams in Yellow Duck pasture and Gold Fish pasture could benefit from their installation,
they are less central to the property and so less of a concern than the heavily used trail areas.
Funding
We recommend that the NRCS be the Farm's first contact. Not only do they offer enough to
cover the entire cost of materials and installation for the Farm's check dam, mulch, and
seeding projects, they also provide professional technical assistance for project design
whether the landowner is applying for money or not. We recommend that our clients build a
working relationship with the NRCS as soon as possible.

34
Our second recommendation is that the Farm contact the Community Foundation for
Northeast Georgia and apply for the David, Helen and Marian Woodward Fund. Both of
these groups have mission statements which closely match the Farm's, and provide money on
a yearly basis.
Our third recommendation is that the Farm contact the Ford Fund Capital Grant and the
Build-a-Bear Workshop Bear Hugs Foundation. Both of these groups have mission
statements that do not fit the Farm's goals as closely, and have historically given money to a
much wider range of recipients, making it less likely that the Farm will receive money from
these sources consistently in subsequent years.
Although the Rich Foundation was mentioned in Taylor Adams’ top five list, we do not
recommend that the Farm apply for their grants. This organization only operates in Metro
Atlanta so the Farm does not qualify.

35
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Soil Pedon Descriptions for three locations on Butterfly Dreams Farm in
Oconee County.
Location: Oconee County, GA. Butterfly Dreams Farm, Yellow Duck Pasture.
Landform: Toeslope Elevation: 266 meters Slope: 6% S
Parent Materials: Residuum - Saprolite
Physiography: Piedmont Land Use: Pasture
Described by: Alys Hannum Date: 2/6/16
Soil Description: (colors for moist soils unless otherwise noted)
Oa - 0 to 6 cm; dark brown (7.5YR 3/4)
Ap - 6 to 16 cm; red (2.5YR 4/6) silty clay; weak medium subangular blocky structure; very
friable; common fine roots; abrupt smooth boundary.
- 16 to 35 cm; red (2.5YR 5/8) sandy clay loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure;
friable; few fine roots; clear smooth boundary.
- 35 to 60 cm; red (10R 4/6) clay loam; weak medium subangular blocky structure; firm; few
fine clay films on faces of peds; gradual smooth boundary.
- 60 to 85 cm; red (10R 5/8) clay loam; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; firm;
few fine clay films on faces of peds; common fine mica flakes; clear wavy boundary.
- 85 to 110 cm; red (10R 5/6) clay loam; few fine dull reddish brown (5YR 4/3) redox
depletions; weak medium subangular blocky; friable; few fine mica flakes; gradual smooth
boundary.
- 110 to 130 cm; red (10R 5/6) clay; common fine grayish red (2.5YR 4/2) redox depletions;
weak granular structure; friable; common fine mica flakes; gradual smooth boundary.
- 130 to 150 cm; red (10R 5/6) clay; common fine reddish gray (2.5YR 4/1) redox depletions;
few coarse dull reddish brown (5YR 5/4) redox concentrations;
- 150+ cm; red (2.5YR 4/8) clay;
Wetness Class: 2: well drained

36
Location: Oconee County, GA. Butterfly Dreams Farm, Brown Bear Pasture.
Landform: Backslope Elevation: 266 meters Slope: 4% S
Ap - 0 to 10 cm; reddish brown (5YR 4/3) sandy loam; weak granular structure; friable;
many coarse roots; abrupt smooth boundary.
BA - 10 to 25 cm; reddish brown (5YR 5/4) sandy loam; weak granular structure; very
friable; common coarse and fine roots; clear wavy boundary.
Bt1 - 25 to 40 cm; bright reddish brown (5YR 5/6) sandy clay loam; moderate granular
structure; friable; few fine roots; clear smooth boundary.
Bt2 - 40 to 75 cm; yellowish red (2.5YR 5/6) sandy clay loam; few fine grayish red (2.5YR
5/2) redox depletions; moderate granular structure; gradual wavy boundary.
Bc - 75 to 105 cm; yellowish red (2.5YR 5/6) clay loam; common fine dull reddish brown
(2.5YR 5/3) redox depletions; weak medium subangular blocky structure; firm; common fine
mica flakes; gradual smooth boundary.
C1 - 105 to 140 cm; red (2.5YR 4/8) clay loam; few fine dull reddish brown (2.5YR 5/3)
redox depletions; moderate medium subangular blocky structure; firm; common clay films
on faces of peds; common fine mica flakes; gradual wavy boundary.
C2 - 140+ cm; red (2.5YR 5/8) clay loam; few coarse bright yellowish brown (10YR 6/8)
redox concentrations; few medium dull brown (7.5YR 5/4) concretions; moderate medium
subangular blocky structure; firm; common clay films on faces of peds; common fine mica
flakes; gradual wavy boundary.
Wetness Class: 1; well drained

37
Location: Oconee County, GA. Butterfly Dreams Farm, Hundred Acre Woods Pasture.
Landform: Toeslope Elevation: 266 meters Slope: 4% SW
Ap - 0 to 10 cm; very dark gray (10YR 3/1) loam; single grained; very friable; many very
fine roots, abrupt smooth boundary.
A - 10 to 25 cm; brown (7.5YR 5/4) sandy loam; few fine grayish brown (7.5YR 5/2) redox
depletions; weak fine granular structure; friable; few fine roots, clear smooth boundary.
B - 25 to 45 cm; strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) silty clay loam; few fine dull brown (7.5YR 5/3)
redox depletions; weak granular structure; friable; gradual smooth boundary.
B2- 45 to 60 cm; yellowish red (5YR 5/6) silty clay loam; few medium dull brown (7.5YR
5/3) redox concentrations; weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable; gradual
smooth boundary.
B3 - 60 to 100; yellowish red (5YR 5/6) clay loam; few medium grayish brown (5YR 4/2)
redox depletions; weak medium subangular blocky structure; firm; gradual smooth boundary.
Bt- 100 to 150+ cm; yellowish red (5YR 5/6) clay loam; common fine and medium light
brownish gray (5YR 7/1) redox depletions; moderate medium subangular blocky structure;
firm; common clay films on faces of peds; gradual wavy boundary.
Wetness Class: 3; moderately well drained

38
APPENDIX B - Soil Test Results for Butterfly Dreams Farm Pastures. Tests performed by
UGA Soil, Plant, and Water Laboratory located in Athens, Georgia.
Hannum, Alys From: Soil, Plant, and Water Laboratory
2400 College Station Road
Athens GA 30607 Athens, GA 30602
Soil Samples phone: 706-542-5350
Completed: February 15, 2016 e-mail: soiltest@uga.edu
http://aesl.ces.uga.edu
Mehlich 1 lbs/acre lbs/A %
Lab Sample
LBC 1
(ppm
CaCO3/
pH)
pH
CaCl2
2
Equiv.
water
pH
Ca K Mg Mn P Zn
NO3-
N
OM
3
29961 1 442 5.71 6.31 2861 490.5 357.5 36.17 160.22 50.25 21.01 4.74
29962 2 414 5.64 6.24 2545 299.5 295.9 38.74 97.13 147.67 13.30 4.37
29963 3 526 5.75 6.35 4464 257.7 430.8 57.43 168.39 34.02 18.99 5.78
29964 4 487 5.93 6.53 4669 270.5 379.0 39.08 140.93 33.58 30.57 6.52
29965 5 516 5.42 6.02 3215 272.5 357.1 46.46 72.04 18.98 23.75 6.27
29966 6 496 5.13 5.73 2417 239.8 293.7 32.77 89.33 28.63 15.47 6.28
29967 7 445 5.61 6.21 2876 266.6 322.0 46.16 56.13 21.76 11.16 4.99
1. Soil Testing: Measurement of Lime Buffer Capacity
(http://www.caes.uga.edu/Publications/displayHTML.cfm?pk_id=7335)
2. Soil Testing: Soil pH and Salt Concentration
(http://www.caes.uga.edu/Publications/displayHTML.cfm?pk_id=7336)
3. Organic Matter is determined by the "loss on ignition" method for 3 hours at 360º C. Results are reported in percent by
weight.
Sample 1 is representative of Paddock 1
Sample 2 is representative of White Dog pasture and Paddock 2
Sample 3 is representative of Goldfish pasture
Sample 4 is representative of Brown Bear and Green From pastures
Sample 5 is representative of Hundred Acre Woods pasture
Sample 6 is representative of Red Bird pasture
Sample 7 is representative of Yellow Duck and Black Sheep pastures

39
APPENDIX C - Limestone, Nitrogen, Phosphate, and Potassium recommendations for ideal
rye grass growth conditions in pastures at Butterfly Dreams Farm in Oconee County,
Georgia. Provided by UGA Soil, Plant, and Water Laboratory located in Athens, Georgia.

47
APPENDIX D – Summary of total scores from zero to three for funding sources based on
Butterfly Dreams Farm Board Member Taylor Adams’ (MPA) analysis of their suitability.
Name of
Organization
Organizational
Mission Matches
Overall Goals of
Grant Maker
Matches
Location
(Geographic
Focus)
Matches
Target
Population/
type of
Project
Project
Matches
Typical
Award
Size
Grant Seeker
Capacity
matches
Award
Structure Total
Community
Foundation
for
Northeast
Georgia
3 3 3 2 3 14
David, Helen
and Marian
Woodward
Fund (Wells
Fargo)
2 3 3 3 2 13
The Ford
Fund Capital
Grant
2 2 2 3 2 11
Build-A-Bear
Workshop
Bear Hugs
Foundation
3 3 2 2 0 10
The Rich
Foundation
2 1 3 2 0 8

48
APPENDIX E – Scoring of the top five funding sources for Butterfly Dreams Farm by
Taylor Adams (MPA).
Funder Name: Community Foundation for Northeast Georgia
https://www.cfneg.org/2016_Grant_Coversheet_and_Guidelines_POSTED_1.1.16[5].pdf
Criteria Score
(0= Not at all or barely, 1=
Could argue it fits with a
straight face, 2= Good fit,
3= Perfect!)
Comments
Organizational Mission Matches
Overall Goals of Grant Maker
3
Matches Location
(Geographic Focus)
3
Matches Target
Population/Type of Project
3 Funding priority is children
Project Matches Typical Award
Size
2 Impact Grant request for
capacity building project of us
to $25,000. Also has an option
for a challenge grant (i.e.
matching at a 1:1 2:1 or 3:1
ratio). Typical grant is $2-5k.
Grant Seeker Capacity Matches
Award Structure(Match
Requirements, Reimbursement
Schedule)
3 Organization has until
December to raise funds for a
challenge (matching) grant.
Evaluation Methods Compatible
(Required Process?)
N/A Not Listed
Overall Comments or Changes
Needed
“We look for proposals from organizations with a well-
planned approach to issues and needs, with a demonstrated
base of support, committed leadership, and the involvement of
individuals with the skills necessary to carry out the work. We
are interested in those organizations that can demonstrate that
they have planned their projects in light of overall community
need. The fields of interest covered by our grants are social
services, education, community and civic affairs, arts and
culture, and health. “

49
Funder Name: David, Helen and Marian Woodward Fund (Wells Fargo)
https://www.wellsfargo.com/private-foundations/woodward-fund-atlanta/
Criteria Score
(0= Not at all or
barely, 1= Could argue
it fits with a straight
face, 2= Good fit, 3=
Perfect!)
Comments
Organizational Mission
Matches Overall Goals of Grant
Maker
2
Focuses on capital improvement
and project grants
Matches Location
(Geographic Focus)
3 Georgia or one of its neighboring
states with preference to Georgia
Matches Target
3 Environment, animals
Health
Human services
Size
3 $15,000-50,000 are very typical
awards
Schedule)
2 To be considered, requests must be
received by April 1 or September 1.
The distribution committee meets
semi-annually in May and
November. If a grant is awarded,
the funds are generally disbursed to
the organization 4 – 6 weeks after
the committee meeting.
(Required Process?)
N/A Could not find
Needed
Need to contact funder for information about evaluation
methods. Emphasis on Hippotherapy is a better fit since there
seems to be a heavy emphasis on providing funding to
hospitals and medical entities.

50
Funder Name: The Ford Fund capital grant
Criteria Score
(0= Not at all or barely, 1=
Could argue it fits with a
straight face, 2= Good fit,
3= Perfect!)
Comments
Matches Overall Goals of Grant
Maker
2 There is an emphasis on how
capital funding will lead to
ongoing opportunities for the
community, which BDF can
show
Matches Location
(Geographic Focus)
2 Funds only in the United States
Matches Target
2
Size
3 the average capital grant award
amount was between $25,000
and $45,000
Schedule)
2 No match requirements or
reimbursement schedule
provided
Evaluation Methods
Compatible
(Required Process?)
N/A Not listed
Needed
Required content for narrative: A brief description of the
overall project; A description of the specific project
Ford Motor Company Fund capital funding will support; Any
naming opportunities; A description of potential programmatic
ties that could be linked to this capital grant in future years

51
Funder Name: The Rich Foundation
http://richfoundationatlanta.org/
Criteria Score
(0= Not at all or barely,
1= Could argue it fits
with a straight face, 2=
Good fit, 3= Perfect!)
Comments
Matches Overall Goals of
Grant Maker
2 Focus is broad and did not present a
single cohesive theme beyond
Atlanta
Matches Location
(Geographic Focus)
1 Metro Atlanta makes it a stretch to
include Athens
Matches Target
3! primary focus has been in the field
of health and education with an
emphasis on early learning and
programs that benefit people with
intellectual/developmental
disabilities
Project Matches Typical
Award Size
2 Awards range from $5,000-
$185,000 with the majority being
$5-10k
Grant Seeker Capacity
Matches Award
Structure(Match
Requirements,
Reimbursement Schedule)
4 deadlines for submission and an
autobiographical sketch
Evaluation Methods
Compatible
(Required Process?)
N/A Not listed
Overall Comments or
Changes Needed
Letter of request must be sent prior to a proposal. It must
include: Mission of the organization, Amount of funding to be
requested, Purpose of the funding, Benefits to the community of
the specific funding, Total cost of the project in question, Fund
raising results to date of the project, including a list of the
donors to date, A copy of the IRS determination letter.

52
Funder Name: Build-a-Bear Workshop Bear Hugs Foundation
http://www.buildabear.com/html/en_US/aboutus/community/2010-Domestic-Pet-Grants.pdf
Criteria Score
(0= Not at all or barely,
1= Could argue it fits
with a straight face, 2=
Good fit, 3= Perfect!)
Comments
Organizational Mission Matches
Overall Goals of Grant Maker
3 Enhancing quality of life for
children and animals. Specifically
mentions working with animals
and horse therapy programs as
eligible.
Matches Location
(Geographic Focus)
3 Must be within 50 miles of a
Build a Bear Workshop (40 miles
from one in Buford).
Matches Target
2  H - Help communities through
volunteering.
 E - Experience the power of
teamwork.
 A - Accept people's unique
differences.
 R - Respect people and
animals.
 T - Take the lead to drive
positive change.
Size
2 Grants from $1,000 to $5,000.
Schedule)
N/a
(Required Process?)
N/a
Needed
Struggling to find information and the 2014 guidestar 990
looks fishy. However, their list of 2010 organizations is right
in line with BDF.

53
LITERATURE CITED
Adamson, D. Date unknown [cited April 15 2016]. Pervious Paving Illustration. Available
from: < http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/ia/newsroom/
factsheets/?cid=nrcs142p2_008524>.
Batzer, D. and R. Sharitz. 2014 [cited March 15 2016]. Ecology of Freshwater and Estuarine
Wetlands (2nd Ed).
Center for Environmental Excellence. 2016 [cited April 4 2016]. Roadside Management and
Maintenance: Beyond Vegetation. Available from:
<http://environment.transportation.org/environmental_issues/construct_maint_prac/c
ompendium/manual/10_11.aspx>.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2012 [cited March 22 2016]. Stormwater Phase II Final
Rule: Construction Rainfall Erosivity Waiver. Fact Sheet 3.1. Available from:
<https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/fact3-1.pdf>.
Georgia Cooperative Extension. 2008 [cited February 23 2016]. Soil Test Handbook for
Georgia. Special Bulletin 62. Available from:
<http://aesl.ces.uga.edu/publications/soil/STHandbook.pdf>.
Georgia Horse Council. 2016 [cited April 19 2016]. Legal Info for Horseowners. Available
from: <http://georgiahorsecouncil.com/advocacy-and-education/legal-info-for-
horseowners/>.
Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission. 2014 [cited April 5 2016]. Manual for
Erosion and Sediment Control in Georgia. Sixth Edition. Available from:
<https://gaswcc.georgia.gov/sites/gaswcc.georgia.gov/files/Manual_for_Erosion
_and_Sediment_Control_in_Georgia_Sixth_Edition_2014.pdf>.
Institute of Water Research. 2002 [cited March 2016]. RUSLE Online Soil Erosion
Assessment Tool. Michigan State University. Available from:
<http://www.iwr.msu.edu/rusle/>.
Marion, J. L. and Leung, Y-F. 1998 [cited February 9 2016]. Campsite Survey Implications
for Managing Designated Campsites at Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
Wilderness and natural areas in Eastern North America: research, management and
planning.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2012 [cited April 15 2016]. Field Book for
Describing and Sampling Soils. Version 3.0. Available from:
<http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052523.pdf>.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2016 [cited February 17, 2016]. Web Soil Survey.
Available from: <http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm>.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2016 [cited April 17 2016]. FY 2016 EQIP
Conservation Activity Plan (CAP). Available from:

54
<http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/financial/eqip/?c
id=nrcseprd401472>.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2016 [cited April 10, 2016]. Georgia FY 2016
EQIP Policy. Available from: <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/
PA_NRCSConsumption/download?cid=nrcseprd555611&ext=pdf>.
Hunt, William F. March 10 2016 [cited April 5 2016]. Urban Waterways: Maintaining
Permeable Pavements. Available from: <https://www.bae.ncsu.edu/extension/ext-
publications/water/protecting/ag-588-23-maintaining-permeable-pavements.pdf>.
NZ Drainage. 2013 [cited April 14 2016]. French Drain. Available from:
<http://www.nzdrainage.co.nz/services/french-drain/>.
Oconee County Georgia. 2016 [cited April 14 2016]. Available from:
<http://www.oconeecounty.com/>.
Our Story. 2015 [cited February 29 2016]. Watkinsville, Georgia. Butterfly Dreams Farm.
Available from: <http://butterflydreamsfarm.org/our-story/>.
Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation Version 2 (RUSLE 2). 2001 [cited January 25 2016].
USDA RUSLE Development Team. Available from:
<http://fargo.nserl.purdue.edu/rusle2_dataweb/RUSLE2_Index.htm>.
Virginia City Highlands Property Owners Association. 2006 [cited April 14 2016]. Road
Management Guidelines & Road Maintenance Plan. Available from:
<http://www.vchpoa.org/RIP_LARRI_final.htm>.
Xrite: Munsell Color Company. 2000 [cited February 22 2016]. Munsell Soil Color Chart
(Year 2000 Revised Washable Edition).

Butterfly Dreams Management Plan by Jared Bullock, Alys Hannum, and Johnathon Paynter

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Butterfly Dreams Management Plan by Jared Bullock, Alys Hannum, and Johnathon Paynter

Similar to Butterfly Dreams Management Plan by Jared Bullock, Alys Hannum, and Johnathon Paynter (20)

Butterfly Dreams Management Plan by Jared Bullock, Alys Hannum, and Johnathon Paynter