brandilynn watershed assessment

Brandilynn Watershed

Assessment

January, 2014

By: Robinson Engineering Company

5751 Westminster Drive, Suite B

Cedar Falls, IA 50613

Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 2 February 2013 – January 2014


Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 5

2. GIS Assessment ...................................................................................................................................... 7

2.1. Location and Area ............................................................................................................................ 7

2.2. Hydrology ........................................................................................................................................ 8

2.3. Topography .................................................................................................................................... 10

2.4. Soils ................................................................................................................................................ 12

2.5. Population ...................................................................................................................................... 13

2.6. Ownership ...................................................................................................................................... 15

2.7. Historical Land Use ....................................................................................................................... 16

2.8. Current Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 21

2.9. Current Zoning ............................................................................................................................... 23

2.10. Future Zoning ............................................................................................................................... 24

2.11. Geology ........................................................................................................................................ 25

2.12. Climate ......................................................................................................................................... 25

2.13. Threatened & Endangered Species .............................................................................................. 25

2.13.a. Endangered and Threatened Species Tabulation ................................................................... 26

2.13.b. Special Concerns Species Tabulation ................................................................................... 27

2.13.c. Endangered Species Descriptions ......................................................................................... 28

2.13.d. Threatened Species Descriptions .......................................................................................... 30

2.14.e. Special Concern Species Descriptions .................................................................................. 34

3. Physical Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 35

3.1. Methodology – RASCAL Protocol ................................................................................................ 35

3.2. Methodology – Field Data ............................................................................................................. 35

3.4. RASCAL Results ........................................................................................................................... 35

3.4.1. Assessment Points ................................................................................................................... 35

3.4.2. Land Use ................................................................................................................................. 36

3.4.3. Livestock Access..................................................................................................................... 38

3.4.4. Canopy Cover ......................................................................................................................... 38

3.4.5. Bank Stability .......................................................................................................................... 39

3.4.6. Riparian Zone ........................................................................................................................... 40

3.4.7. Bank Heights ............................................................................................................................ 42

3.4.6. Storm Water Point Sources ...................................................................................................... 42

3.5. Summary of Stream Conditions ..................................................................................................... 42

4. Chemical Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 43

4.1. Previous Water Testing .................................................................................................................. 43

4.2. Water Testing Sites ........................................................................................................................ 43

4.3. Water Testing Protocol .................................................................................................................. 44

4.4. Test Results .................................................................................................................................... 45

5. Social Assessment ................................................................................................................................. 46

5.1. Purpose and Objective of the Survey ............................................................................................. 46

5.2. Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 46

5.3. Results ............................................................................................................................................ 46

6. Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 47

6.1. GIS Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 47

6.2. Physical Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 47

6.3. Chemical Assessment .................................................................................................................... 47

6.3.1. General Observations .............................................................................................................. 47

6.3.2. Weather Analysis .................................................................................................................... 47

6.3.3. Statistical Analysis .................................................................................................................. 49


6.3.4. Chlorides Analysis ................................................................................................................... 50

6.3.4. E. Coli Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 51

6.3.5. Nitrate Analysis........................................................................................................................ 52

6.3.6. Nitrite Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 53

6.3.7. Phosphorus as PO4 ................................................................................................................... 54

6.3.8. Total Phosphorus...................................................................................................................... 55

6.3.9. Herbicide Analysis ................................................................................................................... 56

6.4. WinSLAMM Analysis ................................................................................................................... 56

7. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 59

7.1. GIS Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 59

7.2. Physical Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 59

7.3 Chemical Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 60

7.4. Social Assessment .......................................................................................................................... 60

7.5. Overall Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 61

APPENDIX

A.2.4a. Soil Types by Detailed Soil Units: ........................................................................................... 67

A.2.4b. Soil Types by Soil Series: ........................................................................................................ 69

A.3.1.a. RASCAL Stream Assessment Variables ................................................................................. 70

A.4.4a. Contaminant Descriptions ........................................................................................................ 75

A.4.4b. Testing Results 78

A.4.4c. Testing Lab Reports 79

A.5.3a. Brandilynn Landowner Watershed Awareness Survey 81

A.6.4a. WinSLAMM Analysis 87


1. Introduction The Brandilynn Watershed is a small watershed in the City of Cedar Falls. As a requirement of the City

of Cedar Falls’ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit No. 2, the city

requested that the watershed be assessed. This assessment will look at a number of components to

determine the current health of the watershed and Brandilynn Creek. The assessment will look at:

The changes that have occurred over the last 80 years

What the current landowners conservation beliefs are and their awareness of environmental

problems within the watershed

The current chemical makeup of the watershed by conducting surface water tests periodically and

analyzing the results

The creek itself to determine what is physically happening to the creek based on the land around

it

After all of this information has been compiled, recommendations will be made to help protect the creek

in the years to come.


2. GIS Assessment A GIS Assessment was completed using existing information from the City of Cedar Falls, Black Hawk

County, the Iowa Department of Transportation, and the Natural Resource Geographic Information

Systems Library maintained by the GIS section of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. This

information will help to establish the watershed limits, the current and historic uses of the watershed, and

aid in identifying problem areas that need to be addressed throughout the watershed.

2.1. Location and Area

The Brandilynn Watershed is located in Black Hawk County with most of the watershed falling within

the city limits of the City of Cedar Falls. The watershed is located within the Middle Cedar Watershed

(HUC 8 No. 07080205), and the Lower Black Hawk Creek Watershed (HUC 10 No. 0708020507). In

general the watershed is located east of Iowa Highway 58, south of East Viking Road, west of Cedar

Heights Drive, and north of Ridgeway Avenue.

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IA DNR) has an interactive mapping application on their

website that can be used to determine the location of all watersheds within the State of Iowa. Currently,

the Watershed Atlas shows that the Brandilynn Watershed is actually a part of the Prescott Creek

Watershed which is actually located on the east side of Black Hawk Creek. The creek branch that flows

through the Brandilynn Watershed flows on the west side of Black Hawk Creek. This can be seen in

Figure 1. Using the watershed delineation provided by City of Cedar Falls staff the watershed covers

984.1 acres and has 3.0 miles of channelized stream.

Figure 1: Prescott’s Creek Watershed - DNR Watershed Atlas -- HUC12 No. 070802050702

Brandilynn

Location


Figure 2: Brandilynn Watershed

Of the total area, 99.6% of the watershed is located within the Cedar Falls city limits. The jurisdictions,

as seen in Figure 2, break down as follows:

980.2 acres in the City of Cedar Falls (99.6% of the watershed)

3.9 acres in Black Hawk County (0.4% of the watershed)

Due to the relatively small size of the Brandilynn Watershed, the watershed was not broken down into

subwatersheds.

2.2. Hydrology

The Brandilynn Watershed has been broken down into four distinct branches. The Main Branch is the

backbone of the creek system and runs the entire length of the watershed. The Retail Branch flows along

the western portion of the watershed. The Menards Branch flows north from the Main Branch towards

the newly constructed Menards store. (The Menards store was constructed in 2012 – 2013 and does not

appear on the aerial photographs used for this report.) The Cedar Branch flows from the Main Branch to

the north along Cedar Heights Drive. In most cases, the stream branches found currently within the

watershed can be noted as permanent channels or seasonal grassed waterways that only flow during heavy

rainfall events. For this report, only the permanent channels are used for assessment. However the

Branch Tabulation below lists both the permanent and seasonal lengths for reference, which can be seen

in Figure 3.

Branch Length Tabulation Branch Permanent Length Seasonal Length

Main Branch 1.39 miles 0.72 miles

Retail Branch 0.52 miles 0.35 miles

Menards Branch 1.09 miles 0.58 miles

Cedar Branch N/A 1.01 miles


Pond Tabulation Water Body Name Structure Type Creek Branch Water Area (acres)

John Deere North Retention Main 6.5

John Deere South Retention Main 0.6

Target Parking Detention Retail 1.2

Viking East Retention Menards 10.9

Viking West Detention Retail 0.6

Wal-Mart Parking Detention Retail 0.2

Figure 3: Hydrology

The existing ponds within the watershed are identified in Figure 3. Information about each pond is listed

in the table above the figure. Since some of the ponds are strictly for detention purposes while others

contain a level of water year-round, each pond is noted as being a detention pond or a retention pond.

Portions of Brandilynn Watershed are included in the FEMA Floodplain Mapping program. The 100 year

floodplain impacts a small portion of the watershed along the Main Channel. The 500 year flood plain

gets very close to the watershed but currently does not impact it. The FEMA Floodplain can be seen in

Figure 4.


Figure 4: FEMA Floodplain

2.3. Topography

The Brandilynn Watershed is composed gentle slopes throughout. The steeper slopes are found near the

roads in the watershed.

Current Watershed Slopes Watershed Slope Area (Acres) Percent of Total

Watershed

City:

0 to 2% 191.2 19.4%

2 to 4% 307.5 31.2%

4 to 6% 260.7 26.5%

6 to 10% 220.8 22.4%

County:

0 to 2% 0.07 0.007%

2 to 4% 3.8 0.4%

4 to 6% 0.0 0%

6 to 10% 0.03 0.003%

The watershed ranges from an elevation of 298.71 at its high point to an elevation of 261.52 at the outlet.

There is 37.2’ of elevation difference in the watershed. The channel gradient was calculated at 0.0196

ft/ft along the main branch of the creek. The steepness of the slopes in the watershed can be seen in

Figure 5. The watershed contours are shown in Figure 6.


Figure 5: Topography (Slopes)

Figure 6: Watershed Contours


2.4. Soils

The majority of the soils found in the Brandilynn Watershed are mostly loam soils with sands and clays

mixed in.

Soil Classification Tabulation

Soil Types Soil Classification Area (Acres) Percent of Total

Watershed

City:

Silty Clay Loam Dinsdale, Klinger, Maxfield, Sawmill 264.7 26.9%

Silt Loam Waukee 28.6 2.9%

Loam Aredale, Clyde, Floyd, Kenyon, Lawler 672.7 68.4%

Sandy Loam Lilah and Olin 14.1 1.4%

County:

Loam Floyd 3.9 0.4%

In general, soils within the State of Iowa were created through three different processes, either by glacial

activity, deposited by water, or deposited by the wind. Glacial deposits include soils in the Aredale,

Clyde, Donnan, Floyd, Kenyon and Lawler soil classes. Soils deposited by water fall into the Dinsdale,

Klinger, Maxfield and Sawmill soil classes. The other soil classes mentioned here are created by a

combination of these processes. The locations of the different soil types can be seen in Figure 7.

Additional information on these soil types can be found in the Appendix in section A.2.4.a. and A.2.4.b.

Figure 7: Soils


2.5. Population

Census data from 1990 and 2000 was used to determine the density of people living within the watershed.

As shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9, population density within the watershed has increase slightly since

1990. In general the population has not changed much over the past 20 years.

Using the Census information compiled for this assessment, the approximate populations in the watershed

were established. The approximate population for the watershed in 1990 was 24 people. The

approximate population in 2000 was 209. Since these populations are so small, variations may exist

between the information compiled in the census data and what occurs in real time. A mapped

representative of 1990 information can be seen in Figure 8 and the 2000 information can be seen in Figure

9.

Information from the 2010 Census is currently not available in GIS shapes, which were used to determine

the population of the watershed using calculated densities. However, information from the City of Cedar

Falls staff stated that the population of the watershed has not changed since the 2000 Census.

1990 Watershed Population Statistics Population Density

(People per Square Mile)

Area

(acres)

Percentage of

Watershed

Estimated Population for

Area

City:

0 to 50 980.2 99.6% 24

County:

0 to 50 3.9 0.4% 0

Total watershed population = 24

Figure 8: Population Density from 1990 Census


2000 Watershed Population Statistics Population Density

(People per Square Mile)

Area

(acres)

Percentage of

Watershed

Estimated Population for

Area

City:

0 to 50 873.1 88.7% 34

51 to 100 0 0 0

101 to 350 111.0 11.3% 175

County:

0 to 50 0 0 0

Total watershed population = 209

Figure 9: Population Density from 2000 Census


2.6. Ownership

The majority of the land in the Brandilynn Watershed is privately owned. The largest land owner is

Deere and Company. Additionally, there are large areas of the watershed that are owned by developers,

or could be purchased for future development. This can be seen in Figure 10.

Property Ownership Tabulation Property Ownership Area (acres) Percentage of Watershed

Private 333.1 33.8%

Private – John Deere 485.8 49.4%

Private – Developer 107.6 10.9%

State of Iowa 6.2 0.6%

City of Cedar Falls 29.6 3.0%

Unowned 21.7 2.2%

The Unowned land in the watershed includes roads that went originally unplatted. Newly platted roads in

the area of recent commercial development are now platted as property of the City of Cedar Falls. The

land owned by the State of Iowa includes the right-of-way for Iowa Highway 58.

Figure 10: Property Ownership


2.7. Historical Land Use

Aerial photographs taken in 1930, 1960, 1990, and 2005 were analyzed to determine how land use had

changed within the watershed over time.

The amount of agricultural land within the watershed has steadily been reducing. These lands where

initially delineated as industrial lands when the John Deere Product Engineering Center was constructed

in the southeast portion of the watershed. In later years, more commercial developments have been built

in the northwest portion of the watershed along Iowa Highway 58. Additional development is anticipated

since the improvements have been made to East Viking Road.

NOTE: For consistency, the city limit line shown on these historical land use maps is the current Cedar

Falls city limit line.

1930 Land Use Tabulation

1960 Land Use Tabulation Land Use Area (Acres) Percent of Total

Watershed

Agricultural 915.0 93.0%

Residential 15.6 1.6%

Roads 14.6 1.5%

Industrial 38.9 4.0%


Watershed


Roads 14.6 1.5%



Watershed


Roads 25.2 2.6%

Commercial 30.5 3.1%


Aerial photographs and mapped representations of the land use for each of these years can be seen in the

following pages from Figure 11 to Figure 18.

Land Use Area (Acres) Percent of Total

Watershed


Residential 16.5 1.5%

Roads 14.9 1.5%


Figure 11: 1930 Aerial Photo of Watershed

Figure 12: 1930 Land Use


2.8. Current Land Use

The City of Cedar Falls provided information on the Current Land Use within the watershed. This

information, shown in Figure 19, shows that a large majority of the watershed is still used for agricultural

use.

Figure 19: Existing Land Use

2011 Land Use

Agriculture

Commercial - Vacant

Commercial

Industrial

Office

Public Utility

Residential - Vacant

Residential

Right of Way



Watershed

City:


Commercial 28.3 2.9%

Commercial - Vacant 27.2 2.8%


Office 2.6 0.3%

Public Utility 4.5 0.5%

Retail 37.9 3.9%

Residential – Vacant 0.5 0.05%

Right of Way 33.7 3.4%

No Data 21.8 2.2%

County


To easily compare the changes in the watershed, the following tabulation was put together. This shows

that there were only slight changes in the land use between 1930 and 1960. The major change in the

watershed during this time was the construction of the John Deere Product Engineering Center. As the

Product Engineering Center continued to develop, additional commercial areas began to develop in more

recent history. Overall, the watershed is still mostly used for agricultural uses. However, other

commercial and industrial development of the watershed land has occurred in recent years.

Comparison of Land Uses by Year

Land Use

1930 Land Use 1960 Land Use 1990 Land Use 2005 Land Use Current Land Use

Area

(acres)

Percent

watershed

Area

(acres)

Percent

watershed

Area

(acres)

Percent

watershed

Area

(acres)

Percent

watershed

Area

(acres)

Percent

watershed

Agricultural 954.5 97.0% 915.0 93.0% 842.4 85.6% 755.7 76.8% 716.1 72.8%

Residential 14.6 1.5% 15.6 1.6% 0.5 0.05%

Roads 14.9 1.5% 14.6 1.5% 14.6 1.5% 25.2 2.6% 55.4 5.6%

Industrial 38.9 4.0% 127.1 12.9% 172.7 17.6% 111.5 11.3%

Commercial 30.5 3.1% 100.5 10.2%


2.9. Current Zoning

The current zoning ordinances of both the City of Cedar Falls and Black Hawk County show a picture of

the watershed similar to that seen when looking at the existing land uses. Agricultural zoning within the

city limits is currently at 50% of the watershed. The remaining areas of the watershed within city limits

are currently zoned for commercial, industrial, and residential purposes. County zoning show a consistent

agricultural percentage slightly below 20%. The current zoning areas can be seen in Figure 20.

Figure 20: Current Zoning

Watershed Zoning Zoning Areas (Acres) Percent of Total

Watershed

City:

Agricultural 307.9 31.3

Highway Commercial 133.7 13.6

Light Industrial 5.0 0.5

Mixed Use Residential 106.1 10.8

Planned Heavy Industrial 405.6 41.2

None 21.8 2.2

County:

Agricultural 3.9 0.4


2.10. Future Zoning

The future zoning map from the City of Cedar Falls shows that city will allow these agricultural lands to

be developed into a variety of uses. For the most part, as seen in Figure 21, the watershed will be zoned

for Industrial uses.

Figure 21: Future Zoning

2012 Current Zoning

Agriculture

Highway Commerical

Light Industrial

Mixed Use Residential

Planned Heavy Industrial

County

None


Watershed Zoning Zoning Areas (Acres) Percent of Total

Watershed

City:

Commercial Corridor 32.5 3.3%

Community Commercial 91.9 9.3%

Greenway – Floodplain 8.5 0.9%


Medium Density Residential 32.6 3.3%

Office – Business Park 40.6 4.1%

Planned Development 86.6 8.8%

Roads 41.4 4.2%

County:


2.11. Geology

According to the Soil Survey of Black Hawk County, Iowa, Black Hawk County is located in the Iowan

Erosional Surface. Erosion on a large scale is the key to the geological origins of this surface. The

landscape was last glaciated in Pre-Illinoisian time (more than 150,000 years ago) and has since lain

exposed to various episodes of weathering and erosion.

Specifically, the Brandilynn Watershed falls into the Cedar Valley Geological Group, according to the

Iowa Geological and Water Survey Department of the Iowa DNR. The Cedar Valley Group is composed

primarily of limestone. This limestone layer can be between 250 and 350 feet thick in northern Iowa.

2.12. Climate

The climate within the watershed varies dramatically from season to season. The average lowest

temperature is seen in January at around 15 degrees Fahrenheit. The average highest temperature each

year is seen in July at 73 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperatures can vary from -25 degree Fahrenheit in the

winter to 98 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer months. Annual precipitation includes 33.7” of

precipitation and 31.8” of snow annually. The growing season for the area averages 154 days. This

information can be found in the Soil Survey of Black Hawk County, Iowa, published by the United States

Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS).

2.13. Threatened & Endangered Species

There are a number of species of plants, amphibians, reptiles, and birds that may be found within the

Brandilynn Watershed that are on the threatened and endangered species list for Black Hawk County,

Iowa. Additionally, there are a number of species that are noted as Special Concerns for the same area.

These species are not listed as threatened and endangered, but they are very close to meeting the

threatened and endangered criteria. The tabulations that follow lists all species on the threatened,

endangered and special concerns lists for Black Hawk County, Iowa. Pictures and habitat descriptions of

many of these species are included after the tabulations.


2.13.a. Endangered and Threatened Species Tabulation

Threatened and Endangered Species Common Name Scientific Name Class State Status

Barn Owl Tyto alba Birds Endangered

Blue-spotted Salamander Ambystoma laterale Amphibians Endangered

Northern Panicgrass Dichanthelium boreale Plants Endangered

Plains Pocket Mouse Perognathus flavescens Mammals Endangered

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Birds Endangered

Silky Prairie Clover Dalea villosa Plants Endangered

Spotted Skunk Spilogale putorius Mammals Endangered

Yellow Sandshell Lampsilis teres Freshwater Mussel Endangered

Wood Turtle Clemmys insculpta Reptiles Endangered

American Brook Lamprey Lampetra appendix Fish Threatened

Black Redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei Fish Threatened

Blanding’s Turtle Emydoidea blandingil Reptiles Threatened

Bog Birch Betula pumila Plants Threatened

Bog Willow Salix pedicellaris Plants Threatened

Brittle Prickly Pear Opuntia fragilis Plants Threatened

Central Newt Notophthalmus viridescens Amphibians Threatened

Creek Heelsplitter Lamigona compressa Freshwater Mussel Threatened

Creeper Strophitus undulates Freshwater Mussels Threatened

Cylindrical Papershell Anodontoides ferussacianus Freshwater Mussel Threatened

Henslow’s Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Birds Threatened

Kitten Tails Besseya bullii Plants Threatened

Leathery Grape Fern Botrychium multifidum Plants Threatened

Little Grape Fern Botrychium simplex Plants Threatened

Mudpuppy Necturus maculosus Amphibians Threatened

Narrowleaf Pinweed Lechea intermedia Plants Threatened

Ornate Box Turtle Terrapene ornata Reptiles Threatened

Pink Milkwort Polygala incarnate Plants Threatened

Prairie Bush Clover Lespedeza leptostachya Plants Threatened

Sweet Indian Plantain Cacalia suaveolens Plants Threatened

Western Sand Darter Ammocrypta clara Fish Threatened

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Platanthera praeclara Plants Threatened

Woodland Horsetail Equisetum sylvaticum Plants Threatened

Wooly Milkweed Asclepias lanuginose Plants Threatened


2.13.b. Special Concerns Species Tabulation

Species Under Special Consideration Common Name Scientific Name Class

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Birds

Bent Milk-vetch Astragalus distortus Plants

Broad-winged Skipper Poanes viator Insects

Bullsnake Pituophis catenifer sayi Reptiles

Cleft Phlox Phlox bifida Plants

Dion Skipper Euphyes dion Insects

Earleaf Foxglove Tomanthera auriculata Plants

Field Sedge Carex conoidea Plants

Flat Top White Aster Aster pubentior Plants

Glade Mallow Napaea dioica Plants

Green’s Rush Juncus greenei Plants

Hawksbeard Crepis runcinata Plants

Hill’s Thistle Cirsium hillii Plants

Ledge Spikemoss Selaginella rupestris Plants

Marsh-speedwell Veronica scutellata Plants

Meadow Onion Allium mutabile Plants

Northern Adder’s-tongue Ophioglossum pusillum Plants

Pearly Everlasting Anaphalis margaritacea Plants

Pipevine Swallowtail Battus philenor Insects

Prairie Moonwort Botrychium campestre Plants

Pretty Dodder Cuscuta indecora Plants

Purplish Copper Lycaena helloides Insects

Ragwort Senecio pseudaureus Plants

Regal Fritillary Speyeria idalia Insects

Sage Willow Salix candida Plants

Sessile-leaf Tick-trefoil Desmodium sessilifolium Plants

Silver Bladderpod Lesquerella ludoviciana Plants

Slender Sedge Carex leptalea Plants

Small White Lady’s Slipper Cypripedium candidum Plants

Tall Cotton Grass Eriophorum angustifolium Plants

Toothcup Rotala ramosior Plants

Valerian Valeriana edulis Plants

Vasey’s Rush Juncus vaseyi Plants

Violet Viola macloskeyi Plants

Water Milfoil Myriophyllum verticillatum Plants

Water Shield Brasenia schreberi Plants


2.13.c. Endangered Species Descriptions

Barn Owl (Tyto alba)

Habitat: The Barn Owl is a savanna species that nests and

roosts in dark, secluded places. Historically, it nested in

tree cavities, specifically in silver maple, American

sycamore, and white oak. Today, barn owls are often

found roosting and nesting in old barns or abandoned

buildings. Barn owls hunt in grassland habitats along field

edges, fence-rows, and wetland edges where their favored

prey is most available.

Blue-spotted Salamander (Ambystoma laterale)

Habitat: The blue-spotted salamander is a forest dweller.

Moist soils with small ponds are important habitat

elements. They are very secretive and take shelter under

fallen, rotten logs, in leaf litter, moss, and other debris

provided the soil is damp.

Plains Pocket Mouse (Perognathus flavescens)

Habitat: Large open prairie with dry loess or sandy soils. Plains

pocket mice prefer loose sand for burrows and grooming habits.

Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus)

Habitat: Required at least 250 acres of medium-to-mature, even-aged

floodplain forests dominated by maple or cottonwood trees that have not

been logged in 45 to 55 years.

Slough sandshell (Lampsilis teres)

Habitat: Muddy sloughs and pond-like areas of rivers

where the water moved slowly.

Figure 23 - Blue-spotted Salamander

Figure 24 - Plains Pocket Mouse

Figure 25 - Red-shouldered Hawk

Figure 26 - Slough sandshell

Figure 22 - Barn Owl


Spotted Skunk (Spilogale Putorius)

Habitat: Spotted skunks prefer savanna habitat; areas

with a combination of trees and grassland. They need

rocky areas with coarse soils. Spotted skunks use the

rocky areas as dens sites.

Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta)

Habitat: From November through April wood turtles

use rivers and streams with sandy or gravel bottoms;

from May through October Wood turtles use grassland,

lightly wooded areas, and agricultural field edges within

800 yards of river habitat. During summer, frequent

trips to water are common, prompting movement

through wooded or grassy corridors.

Figure 27 - Spotted Skunk

Figure 28 - Wood Turtle


2.13.d. Threatened Species Descriptions

American Brook Lamprey (Lampetra appendix)

Habitat: Small, high quality streams and mid-sized rivers.

Black Redhorse (Moxostoma duquesnei)

Habitat: Require good water quality in mid-size

streams with clean, coarse substrates with minimal

disturbance of channel form or riparian vegetation.

Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii)

Habitat: Blanding’s turtles most commonly inhabit

areas with shallow, slow-moving water and

abundant aquatic vegetation. Emergent vegetation

is very important. Small juveniles primarily use

emergent sedge (Carex) habitat, larger juveniles use

sedge/water interfaces and the largest juveniles are

found in open water. Therefore, diverse vegetation

is necessary to support Blanding’s turtle

populations. Suitable nest sites for Blanding’s

turtles are upland areas with well drained, sandy

loam or sandy soils.

Central Newt (Notophthalmus viridescens)

Habitat: Well-vegetated woodland ponds, roadside

ditches and riverside pools.

Figure 29 - American Brook Lamprey

Figure 30 - Black Redhorse

Figure 31 - Blanding's Turtle

Figure 32 - Central Newt


Creek Heelsplitter (Lasmigona compressa)

Habitat: Creeks and the headwaters of small to

medium rivers in fine gravel or sand.

Cylinder (Anodontoides ferussacianus)

Habitat: Small creeks and the headwaters of larger

streams in mud and sand.

Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii)

Habitat: Tall, dense grass with a well-developed

litter layer with little to no woody vegetation. These

birds are primarily found in grasslands greater than

100 acres.

Kitten Tails (Besseya bullii)

Habitat: Mesic to dry sand prairie, limestone bluffs and sandy cemeteries

Figure 33 - Creek Heelsplitter

Figure 34 - Cylinder

Figure 35 - Henslow's Sparrow

Figure 36 - Kitten Tails


Mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus)

Habitat: Medium to large rivers and lakes. Found in

permanent water bodies at least three feet deep.

Prefer to live on the floor of its aquatic habitat under

sunken logs or rocks.

Ornate Box Turtle (Terrapene ornate)

Habitat: Sand habitat is very important for nesting

and over wintering. Sand dunes need to be open,

shifting and unstable. The rest of the year they will

use tall grass prairie when available. If only short

gross prairie is available they will prefer shrubs in

order to keep cool form the sun. They eat fruits such

as blackberries, wild strawberries, and wild plums.

Strange Floater (Strophitus undulates)

Habitat: Small to medium clear streams and

occasionally in large rivers. Strange floaters can

be found in mud, sand, and gravel.

Figure 37 - Mudpuppy

Figure 39 - Strange Floater

Figure 38 - Ornate Box Turtle


Prairie Bush Clover (Lespedeza leptostachya)

Habitat: Well drained to moderately drained soils dominated

by tall grass prairie species.

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera praeclara)

Habitat: Mesic to wet tallgrass prairies and sedge

meadows. Often found in prairies dominated by big

bluestem and northern dropseed..

Western Sand Darter (Ammocrypta clara)

Habitat: Prefer large streams or rivers with slight to

moderate current with a sandy bottom.

Figure 41 - Western Prairie Fringed Orchid

Figure 42 - Western Sand Darter

Figure 40 - Prairie Bush Clover


2.14.e. Special Concern Species Descriptions

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Habitat: Found near water such as rivers, reservoirs

and lakes. Nest in large trees with open crowns;

especially cottonwood and white pine trees along

riparian areas.

Bullsnake (Pituophis catenifer sayi)

Habitat: Open tracts of native grassland and sand prairies.

They prefer loose sandy soil for burrowing

Figure 43 - Bald Eagle

Figure 44 - Bullsnake


3. Physical Assessment

A physical assessment of Brandilynn Watershed was completed to determine the existing physical health

of the creek. This work was completed in December of 2013. The physical assessment was completed on

foot using the RASCAL methodology.

3.1. Methodology – RASCAL Protocol

The NRCS1, IDALS

2 and the Iowa DNR

3 have developed and standardized a set of tools and protocol for

assessing a Watershed. This is known as the Rapid Assessment of Stream Conditions Along Length

(RASCAL) Protocol. A RASCAL assessment was completed along the established portion of the creek

running through the Brandilynn Watershed. A number of parameters were assessed, including channel

flow and condition, canopy cover, stream bank stability, and identified points of interest like beaver dams.

These parameters where assessed at a minimum of 100’ intervals along the length of the permanent

channel of the creek. The assessment was terminated when the seasonal portion of the creek was reached.

Information on the RASCAL Protocol can be found in the Appendix in section A.3.1.a.

In general, the assessment was completed from the east to the west, looking upstream. Therefore, the

north side of the creek is considered the right bank and the south side of the creek is considered the left

bank.

3.2. Methodology – Field Data

Field data was collected using a tabular system due to the small scale of the watershed. Other methods of

collecting the data are available for larger watersheds, including GPS equipment.

3.4. RASCAL Results

Using the data obtained during the water assessment, maps were produced. Calculations are based on the

actual areas that were assessed by the RASCAL, not on the entire watershed. For this watershed, the

main branch was assessed. The only property owner that allowed the assessment on their land was the

Deere and Company. Later, permission was received to enter the McKinstry Farms properties to

complete a RASCAL assessment. However, by the time this approval was received there was snow on

the ground and an assessment was no longer feasible.

3.4.1. Assessment Points

The Brandilynn Watershed was assessed at 40 different locations approximately 100 feet apart. These

assessment points were chosen in the field. The locations of these points can be seen in Figure 45.

1 Natural Resources Conservation Service 2 Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship 3 Iowa Department of Natural Resources


Figure 45: Watershed Assessment Points

3.4.2. Land Use

The observed land use on both banks of the creek is mostly row crop. The drainage-ways are planted

with grasses that help to limit erosion. Although the owner of the land, a large corporation, cannot enroll

the conservation practices in the CRP program, the land is noted as being CRP due to the similarity with

other private landowners who use similar practices. Additionally, the land along the large pond along the

south side of the creek, near Cedar Height Drive, has mowed grass around it. (NOTE: Bank side is

identified by looking upstream from a given location.)

Observed Land Use (Right Bank) Tabulation Land Use Stream Length (feet) Percent of Assessed

Watershed

CRP 1,269’ 32.9%

Row Crop 2,584’ 67.1%

Observed Land Use (Left Bank) Tabulation Land Use Stream Length (feet) Percent of Assessed

Watershed

CRP 494’ 12.8%

Grass (Mowed) 1,404’ 36.4%

Row Crop 1,955’ 50.7%

Figure 46 shows the location of the observed land uses on the right bank. Figure 47 shows the location of

the observed land uses on the left bank.


Figure 46: Land Use Right Bank

Figure 47: Land Use Left Bank


3.4.3. Livestock Access

At the time of the assessment, no livestock had access to the creek. (NOTE: Access to the creek means

that livestock of any kind have direct contact with the creek water at the given location.) However, it was

observed that a large number of birds were using the large pond on Deere and Company land. These

birds were leaving a large quantity of fecal matter in the mowed grass around the pond. Other types of

wildlife were noted during the assessment; however they had little impact to the creek.

3.4.4. Canopy Cover

The amount of canopy cover, or degree of woody or herbaceous canopy, was noted along the creek during

the assessment. The observations show that most of the assessed length has no canopy cover. There are

some locations with up to 50% cover. In general, the creek either has a lot of cover (up to 50%) or very

little cover (0%). Only 14.7% of the creek length falls between 0% and 50% canopy cover. These areas

can be seen in Figure 48.

Figure 48: Canopy Cover

Canopy Cover Tabulation Category Length (feet) Percentage of Assessed

Watershed

0% to 10% 2,408’ 62.5%

10% to 25% 567’ 14.7%

25% to 50% 878’ 22.8%

In general, it is recommended that tree cover along creeks be around 25% canopy. This will allow light to

reach the creek water and provide some heating, as well as providing shaded areas for biodiversity. Trees

should be kept away from the main creek flows so that high water does not erode the soils around the tree

roots.


3.4.5. Bank Stability

The stability of the streambank was assessed. Most of the streambank is currently rated as unstable. The

entire stretch of the creek has streambanks with exposed soils and no cover. In many areas it appears that

erosion is an ongoing problem. The bank stability for the Right and Left sides of the stream can be seen

in Figure 49 and Figure 50, respectively. (NOTE: Bank side is identified by looking upstream from a

given location.)

Figure 49: Bank Stability RT

Streambank Stability (Right Bank) Tabulation Category Length (feet) Percent of Assessed

Watershed

Stable Slopes 0’ 0%

Minor Erosion 2,302’ 59.7%

Moderate Erosion 1,089’ 28.3%

Severe Erosion 462’ 12.0%

Streambank Stability (Left Bank) Tabulation Category Length (feet) Percent of Assessed

Watershed

Stable Slopes 0’ 0%

Minor Erosion 2,498’ 64.8%

Moderate Erosion 1,093’ 28.4%

Severe Erosion 262’ 6.8%

Bank Stability within the Brandilynn Watershed is impacted by a number of different factors, including

tiling, converting farmland into commercial and residential land, more frequent intense rainfall, the lack

of buffer areas, and other factors too numerous to mention. This type of development tends to be

associated with flashiness in stormwater flows, causing flooding and additional erosion.


Figure 50: Bank Stability LT

3.4.6. Riparian Zone

The Riparian Zone is an area of vegetation that allows stormwater runoff to slow down and filter into the

soils around a body of water. This zone also reduces the impact of any water that reaches a creek by

reducing the flows velocity as it enters the creek. In general, the larger the riparian zone, the less impact

to the creek. (NOTE: Bank side is identified by looking upstream from a given location.)

Riparian Zone (Right Bank) Tabulation Category Length (feet) Percent of Assessed

Watershed

Less than 10’ 1,414’ 36.7%

10’ to 30’ 917’ 23.8%

30’ to 60’ 1,522’ 39.5%

Over 60’ 0’ 0.0%

Riparian Zone (Left Bank) Tabulation Category Length (feet) Percent of Assessed

Watershed

Less than 10’ 1,573’ 40.8%

10’ to 30’ 1,958’ 50.8%

30’ to 60’ 0’ 0.0%

Over 60’ 322’ 8.4%

In the watershed, the Riparian Zones on the Right Bank can be seen in Figure 51. The Riparian Zone on

the Left Bank can be seen in Figure 52. In general, most areas in the watershed have a lot of Riparian

land between row crops and the creek. However, there are a few places that could use more.


Figure 51: Riparian Zone RT

Figure 52: Riparian Zone LT


3.4.7. Bank Heights

Overall, the assessed portion of the Brandilynn Creek had cut banks along the creek that are quite tall.

Many of these streambanks could be a safety concern depending on the amount of access that is available

to the creek. Drop-off of 5’ or more were noted in many locations. Bank Height locations can be seen in

Figure 53.

Figure 53: Streambank Stability

Streambank Stabilization Tabulation Category Length (feet) Percent of Assessed

Watershed

0 to 2’ Bank Height 444’ 11.2%

2’ to 4’ Bank Height 1,601’ 40.3%

4’ to 8’ Bank Height 1,928’ 48.5%

3.4.6. Storm Water Point Sources

No storm water point sources were found in the area that was assessed. This was probably due to the fact

that the area that was assessed was mostly used for agricultural purposes. There were a four field tile

locations that were noted along the right bank during the assessment. However, since tile outlets are

small and can be easily hidden in the heavy grass along the creek, there is no way of knowing if all tile

outlets were found. Therefore, four tile outlets were found per 4000 lineal feet of creek.

3.5. Summary of Stream Conditions

Overall, the assessment showed that Brandilynn Creek is a typical rural creek with the addition of some

potentially high, fast, stormwater flows from commercial development in the upper reaches of the

watershed. Streambanks heights are quite high in some locations and could cause safety issues if access

to the creek itself becomes more important. Many areas have large Riparian Zones that protect the creek

well.


4. Chemical Assessment A chemical assessment of the Brandilynn Watershed was completed to determine if the water flowing

through the watershed is considered a healthy habitat for wildlife. This work was completed by

completing chemical testing twice a month at two locations in the watershed. This chemical testing

included test for Nitrates, Nitrites, Total Phosphate, Ammonia, E. Coli, and Chlorides. Additionally,

when chemical samples were obtained, testing using the IOWATER protocols were completed at each

sample site. To determine any impacts that agricultural land use may cause, 4 tests were performed to

determine if herbicides or pesticides could be found within the water flowing through the watershed.

4.1. Previous Water Testing

Public water testing records were searched to determine if any water testing had been done within the

watershed. The IOWATER Volunteer database has no record of any testing being completed within the

Brandilynn watershed.

4.2. Water Testing Sites

In reviewing the watershed two testing locations were identified by Robinson Engineering and City of

Cedar Falls personnel. The following is a summary of field observations and has been provided to be

used as a guide for future testing. The locations of the two sites are shown in Figure 54 and described in

detail on the next page.

Figure 54: Water Sampling Locations


T1-Site:

Site T1 is located along East Viking Road. The sampling point is the retention pond located south of

the Menards building. Access to this testing point was achieved by entering the area around the pond

from a field entrance located along the eastern edge of the pond. Samples were taken when flowing water

was present. During the Summer months, dry conditions prevailed. No testing was completed when

there was little or no water present.

T2-Site:

Site T2 is located where Brandilynn Creek crosses Cedar Heights Drive. A concrete box culvert

allows Brandilynn Creek to flow under the road. This allows easy access to the creek water from the top

of the box culvert without having to travel into the roadway ditch.

4.3. Water Testing Protocol

All water testing was done using the IOWATER4 protocol and follows the sample collection, sample

transport and streamside procedures as outlined in the IOWATER QAPP5 and the Johnson and Iowa

County Watershed Coalition QAPP6. Sampling was completed by Robinson Engineering staff. Chain of

Custody for lab samples was the responsibility of Monica Smith or Melissa Smith, for Robinson. Those

in charge of sampling were also responsible for all samples and paperwork until relinquishment of the

samples to the lab technician at Keystone Laboratories, Inc. in Waterloo, Iowa. Keystone staff then

completed the testing that could be completed in Waterloo, Iowa. All other samples were transported to

Keystone’s main lab in Newton, Iowa to complete the testing.

Water samples were collected at both testing locations twice a month starting on April 15, 2013. No

samples were obtained on Fridays or before a holiday, since Keystone Laboratories does not complete E.

Coli testing for samples obtained before a day that the offices are closed. All samples were tested for the

IOWATER testing analysis in the field and basic lab analysis items by Keystone Laboratories.

Additionally, pesticide and herbicide analysis were run on the samples obtained on May 15, May 30, June

13 and June 27, 2013.

Four types of testing were defined by Robinson Engineering staff:

Basic Lab Analysis – Samples were collected for Ammonia, Total Phosphate, Chloride, Nitrate-

N, Nitrite-N and E coli.

Pesticide Analysis – Samples were collected for Lab Analysis for Acetochlor, Alachlor, Atrazine,

Butachlor, Butylate, Cyanazine, EPTC, Metolachlor, Metribuzin, Pendimethalin, Propachlor,

Simazine, Terbufos, Trifluralin,

Herbicide Analysis – Samples were collected for Lab Analysis for Dalapon, Dicamba,

Dichlorprop, 2,4-D, 2,4,5-TP (Silvex), Chloramben, 2,4,5-T, Dinoseb, Picloram, Bentazon, 2,4-

DB, DCPA, Acifluorfen, Pentachlorophenol, 3,5-Dichlorobenzoic acid

IOWATER Testing Analysis – pH, Nitrates, Nitrites, Dissolved Oxygen, Phosphate, Chloride

(Additional information on these chemicals can be found in the Appendix on page A.4.4.a.)

4 www.iowater.net

5 http://www.iowater.net/Publications/QAPP.htm

6 http://www.jaicwc.org/current_web_site/web_pages/qapp.html


4.4. Test Results

All samples were tested by Keystone Laboratories of Newton, Iowa. Testing result reports can be found

in the Appendix. The concentrations of many of the chemicals tested for were reported as being below

the lowest level that can be detected with acceptable precision and accuracy. Tests that show “<0.1”,

“<0.2”, “<0.61”, “<1.0” or anything similar had measured levels below the lowest concentration that can

reliably be distinguished from a 0 concentration. This level of concentration is known the Method

Detection Limit or MDL.

The maximum allowable levels for each chemical that was tested for is also noted for reference. These

levels, if established for the State of Iowa, are noted in the Iowa State code, Chapter 61, “Water Quality

Standards”. Class C waters are protected as raw water sources for potable water. Test results above the

allowable levels are noted in bold text below.

Lo

cati

on

Tes

t D

ate

Nit

rate

Nit

rite

To

tal

Pho

sph

oru

s

Pho

sph

oru

s

as P

O4

Chlo

rid

es

Am

mon

ia

E.

Co

li

Max Detectable Level 0.1 0.1 0.20 0.61 1 1 1

Max Allowable Level

for Class C Waters

10 1 250 126

Site 1 4/15/2013 1.7 < 0.1 0.58 1.79 39.1 < 1.0 14

4/30/2013 2.9 0.3 0.36 1.10 40.6 < 1.0 23

5/15/2013 2.2 < 0.1 < 0.20 < 0.61 42.9 < 1.0 13

5/30/2013 1.5 < 0.1 1.37 4.20 20.6 < 1.0 1990

6/13/2013 0.6 < 0.1 0.52 1.58 12.7 < 1.0 10900

6/27/2013 1.8 0.1 0.20 0.61 23.6 < 1.0 770

11/14/2013 0.6 < 0.1 0.42 1.28 17.2 2.1 770

Site 2 4/15/2013 6.3 < 0.1 0.29 0.89 56.7 < 1.0 24

4/30/2013 3.2 < 0.1 0.24 0.72 56.3 < 1.0 113

5/15/2013 5.9 < 0.1 < 0.20 < 0.61 42.1 < 1.0 63

5/30/2013 8.6 < 0.1 0.27 0.83 22.7 < 1.0 613

6/13/2013 6.1 < 0.1 0.22 0.66 23.3 < 1.0 6630

6/27/2013 5.1 0.1 < 0.20 < 0.61 26.9 < 1.0 308

7/15/2013 0.6 < 0.1 < 0.20 < 0.61 20.5 < 1.0 204

7/31/2013 0.5 < 0.1 0.21 0.65 20.0 < 1.0 548

8/15/2013 0.3 < 0.1 0.23 0.70 18.5 < 0.1 154

8/29/2013 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.59 1.80 16.8 < 1.0 240

9/16/2013 0.2 < 0.1 < 0.20 < 0.61 20.9 < 1.0 276

9/30/2013 0.2 < 0.1 0.38 1.15 17.6 < 1.0 71

10/15/2013 0.9 < 0.1 0.31 0.94 20.8 < 1.0 387

10/31/2013 0.5 < 0.1 0.26 0.78 23.9 < 1.0 196

11/14/2013 0.8 0.2 < 0.20 < 0.61 23.5 < 1.0 56

11/26/2013 1.1 0.2 0.40 1.21 27.4 < 1.0 108

Test results from the Pesticide and Herbicide Analysis showed only one trace of on chemical for all four

testing dates. This information is listed in detail in the Appendix – Section A.. Additionally, Iowater test

reports, and Keystone Labs test reports can be found in the Appendix – Section A.4.4b.


5. Social Assessment A social assessment was mailed to all twenty-five landowners within the watershed. Eight landowners

responded and their responses were analyzed.

5.1. Purpose and Objective of the Survey

The purpose of this study was to measure the awareness and opinions of the Brandilynn watershed

landowners. Landowners were asked about their opinions regarding water quality and possible pollutants

that may come from storm water runoff. Landowners were asked to note their interest in modern storm

water management practices.

5.2. Methodology

Due to the small size of the Brandilynn Watershed, all landowners received the survey. Since two social

surveys have already been completed on the neighboring Sink Creek Watershed, a similar format was

used for the Brandilynn survey.

5.3. Results

A complete copy of the survey with the average responses noted is in the Appendix of this document. In

general, the following information was found:

50% respondents were rural residents and 50% respondents were industrial residents

75% respondents were males and 25% respondents were females

Average age of respondents was 52.8

On average the property owners had owned their property between 6 and 15 years

The respondents were willing to participate in conservation practices at a minimum

Respondents believe:

o New construction and development have increased soil loss

o Run off from paved surfaces, including parking lots, affect water quality

o Water contamination is an important environmental issue

o Fertilizers do not have a significant impact to water quality

Respondents wanted additional information on:

o Permeable Paving

o Filter Strips

o Waterways

o Terraces

o Rock Check Dams


6. Data Analysis

6.1. GIS Assessment

The GIS Assessment shows that the Brandilynn Watershed has been under development since the 1930’s.

Much of the watershed is zoned for industrial use, but due to the unique requirements of the local land

owners it continues to be used as agricultural land. Portions of the watershed have seen large amounts of

commercial development in recent years. This results in many of the branches of the creek being defined

as “seasonal streams” or only flowing during high water events.

The soils and topography show a rolling land with high quality loam soils. As these lands are developed

for commercial or industrial uses, as they are currently zoned, the construction site may require large

amounts of fill to create a level building pad. The loam soils may need to be stockpiled for later use so

that stronger soils could create a stable building foundation. These types of construction practices result

in large amounts of heavy, compacted soils which tend to limit stormwater infiltration and create

flashiness in local streams.

Although the population within the watershed has varied over the years, the current zoning regulations

within the watershed would limit the amount of residences in this area. Much of the watershed is zoned

for commercial or industrial uses, thus limiting population growth in this area.

6.2. Physical Assessment

The Physical Assessment shows that much of the watershed is still very agriculturally based. The creek

itself reflects this by having riparian areas along the length of the main branch and covering most of the

seasonal branches of the creek. The stability of the streambanks and the bank heights were found to be

somewhat unstable since most of the streambanks consist of bare soil with bank heights reaching up to 8’

in height. Additionally, the amount of canopy cover and land uses were very typical for agricultural lands

in the area.

6.3. Chemical Assessment

6.3.1. General Observations

Testing was completed monthly for the entire length of the project at two different locations within the

watershed. Since one testing location was a detention pond, samples were not obtained from this location

when stormwater was not free flowing. This occurred during the summer when dry conditions prevailed.

6.3.2. Weather Analysis

To understand any natural conditions that may have affected the water samples collected and tested for

this project, a short analysis of the weather patterns should be completed. Overall, the daily temperature

and the amount of rainfall received in 2013 were relatively normal. However, the rainfall events tended

to be fewer with a lot of precipitation at one time. The daily high temperatures tended towards average

throughout the year.

To obtain weather data from an observation location that was close to the Brandilynn Watershed, two

different sources were used. Both sources can be found on the website wunderground.com. All yearly

information, for both temperature and rainfall, were obtained from the Weather Underground website

using equipment located at the Waterloo Municipal Airport. The previous 24 hour rainfall information

was obtained using equipment located at Micah’s House from the Weather Underground website. This

location is very close to the Brandilynn Watershed for accuracy.


An overview of the high temperatures throughout the year 2013 shows a pattern that tends to reflect the

areas average temperature. This can be seen from the graph below. Notice that the blue information is

the actual high temperature recorded on each day while the red information is the yearly average high

temperature for a given day. This graph shows that the high temperatures tend to be lower than average

for much of the early part of the year. Later in the year the high temperatures appear closer to average.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Tem

pe

ratu

re (F

)

Date

2013 High Temperature vs Average High Temperature

2013 Average

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Rai

nfa

ll (i

n)

Month

2013 Monthly Precipitation vs Average Monthly Precipitation

2013 Average


The rainfall that occurred during 2013 varied from the average. As can be seen in the graph below, the

month of April and May had almost double the average amount of rainfall. Additionally, rainfall amounts

began to be below average starting in June and proceeding through October. During this period of time

draught conditions persisted. It was also during this time period that sampling could not be completed at

Site 1, the detention pond.

6.3.3. Statistical Analysis

The results from the chemical analysis were analyzed to determine how accurately they represent what is

really in the water of Brandilynn Creek. Only those chemicals which had measurable results were

analyzed. This includes Nitrate, Total Phosphorus, Phosphorus as PO4, Chlorides and E. Coli. The test

results from Nitrite and Ammonia where not analyzed due to their lack of measureable results.

For each set of test results, the mean and standard deviation were calculated. In general, a large standard

deviation means that the measurements taken vary greatly. In looking at the calculations, shown below,

the E. Coli count varies greatly and results in a very large standard deviation. In general, more

measurements at each individual site will allow a statistical analysis to be performed at each site, giving a

better picture of the changes in concentration throughout the watershed.

Basic Statistical Analysis of Contaminates By Sampling Location Contaminant All Sites

Mean

All Sites

Stand. Dev.

Site 1

Mean

Site 1

Stand. Dev.

Site 2

Mean

Site 2

Stand. Dev.

Chlorides 27.6 12.4 28.1 12.4 27.4 12.8

E. Coli 1064.0 2550.2 2068.6 3958.2 624.4 1610.7

Nitrate 2.3 2.5 1.6 0.8 2.7 2.9

Nitrite 0.18 0.08 0.2 0.14 0.17 0.06

Phosphorus as PO4 1.1 0.9 1.6 1.4 0.9 0.4

Total Phosphorus 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.1

The following analysis also lists an upper limit and lower limit for each contaminate considering testing

results at both locations. This limit means that if 100 samples were taken at each site, 95 of the

measurements would fall within the upper and lower limits. Or, if 100 samples were taken then only 5 of

the samples would fall outside of the given limit range. The range in the upper and lower limits is

directly related to the standard deviation number. A large standard deviation will result in a larger limit

range.

Basic Statistical Analysis of Contaminants At All Sites Contaminant Mean Standard Dev. Upper Limit Lower Limit

Chlorides 27.6 12.4 48.0 7.2

E. Coli 1064.0 2550.2 5259.0 0.0

Nitrate 2.35 2.46 6.39 0.0

Nitrite 0.18 0.08

Phosphorus as PO4 1.13 0.90 2.61 0.0

Total Phosphorus 0.40 0.30 0.90 0.0

Additional analysis was completed to determine how many samples would be needed to find an average

for the watershed within a given margin of error. In most cases the margin of error used in this analysis

would be the laboratory’s detection limit for each given test. In some cases, the standard deviation is so

high that using detection limit as a margin of error would require thousands of tests to be run. This would

be unrealistic and very costly. For this reason, in some cases a margin of error is picked based on the

current standard deviation for the measurements. For the five contaminants which had measureable test

results, the sample size determinations are shown below.


Statistical Sample Sizes for Contaminants Contaminant Standard Dev. Lab Detection Limit Margin of Error Sample Size

Chlorides 12.4 1.0 1.0 591

5.0 24

E. Coli 1064.0 1.0 1.0 24983923

250 400

750 45

Nitrate 2.35 0.1 0.1 2401

0.8 38

Nitrite 0.08 0.1 0.1 3

Phosphorus as PO4 0.9 0.61 0.61 9

Total Phosphorus 0.3 0.2 0.2 9

This analysis shows that to determine the mean as “Mean ± Margin of Error”, a determined number of

samples will need to be obtained and analyzed. For example, if 24 samples were tested for Chlorides,

then 95% of the time the mean would be the calculated mean ± 5. If the mean was determined to be 12.4

mg/l, then 95% of the time the actual Chloride concentration in Brandilynn Creek would be between 7.4

mg/l and 17.4 mg/l.

6.3.4. Chlorides Analysis

Chloride levels were found to be higher in the Spring at Site 2, the creek crossing at Cedar Height Drive,

than were found in the detention pond, Site 1. These levels dropped off as Summer heat began to take

over the weather patterns. Throughout the Summer and Fall months the Chloride levels were fairly

consistent, between 15 and 25 mg/l.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Ch

lori

de

(m

g/l)

Sampling Date

Comparison of Chloride Levels By Site

Site 1 Site 2


Further analysis, as shown in the above box and whisker plots, show that those high levels in the early

Spring appear to be outliers. Additional testing in years to come can confirm the outlier status, or show

that these higher levels are due to seasonal changes in the watershed. The above box and whisker plot

shows the mean as the diamond marker and outliers as round markers.

6.3.4. E. Coli Analysis

Analysis of the E.Coli readings shows a high spike in the early Summer and then a fairly consistent level

throughout the dry season that prevailed through the late Summer and Fall.

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

Site 1 Site 2 All Sites

Ch

lori

de

Le

vels

(m

g/L)

Testing Location

Chloride Test Results

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

E. C

oli

(MP

N/1

00

)

Sampling Date

Comparison of E. Coli Levels By Site

Site 1 Site 2


Analysis of the data shows that each site had an outlier reading. These readings are shown as round

markers on the above box and whisker plot. As shown before, the diamond markers represent the mean

for each testing location.

6.3.5. Nitrate Analysis

Since Nitrate is soluble in water, the Nitrate levels were plotted with the rainfall amounts. As anticipated,

the higher Nitrate levels tended to be found when rainfall was the heaviest. However, Nitrate levels were

still detectable during the dry summer and fall months. Additionally, it can be seen that the water in

detention pond (Site 1) tended to be much lower than those found in the creek itself during the Spring and

early Summer.

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000


E. C

oli

(MP

N/1

00

)

Testing Location

E. Coli Test Results

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Mo

nth

ly R

ain

fall

(in

)

Nit

rate

Le

vels

(m

g/L)

Sampling Date

Nitrate Levels Compared with Rainfall

Site 1 Site 2 Rainfall


The box and whisker plots show that the Nitrate levels found in the detention pond are fairly consistent

while those in the creek vary greatly, which producing an outlier. Further testing could confirm that the

Nitrates come from the lands around the creek, generally used for agricultural purpose, rather than the

developing areas that flow into the detention pond.

6.3.6. Nitrite Analysis

Nitrite levels were found rarely during the water testing completed. The levels found were fairly low so

this may be something that could be discontinued if surface water testing continues.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0


Nit

rate

Le

vel (

mg/

L)

Testing Location

Nitrate Test Results

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Nit

rite

Le

vel (

mg/

l)

Sampling Date

Nitrite Test Results

Site 1 Site 2


6.3.7. Phosphorus as PO4

Phosphorus as PO4 is the form that usually exists in nature. Phosphorus is also a form of nutrients that

tend to occur in excess in rural areas. Testing completed in the Brandilynn Watershed shows that

Phosphorus as PO4 tends to show up quite often, even during dry conditions.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Ph

osp

ho

rus

Leve

l (m

g/l)

Sampling Date

Phosphorus as PO4 Test Results

Site 1 Site 2

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5


Ph

osp

ho

rus

Le

vel (

mg/

l)

Testing Site

Phosphorus as PO4 Test Results


The box and whisker plot shows that there are a lot of variations in the testing results from Site 1. Since

the levels vary and are not consistent, more testing should be completed to fine any patterns in the

Phosphorus as PO4 levels.

6.3.8. Total Phosphorus

The Total Phosphorus that was measured included inorganic and organic Phosphorus. As can be seen

below, the test results for Total Phosphorus mimic the results that were obtained from the Phosphorus as

PO4 results. Therefore, only one of these should be tested for in the future to reduce costs.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Tota

l Ph

osp

ho

rus

(mg/

L)

Testing Dates

Total Phosphorus Test Results

Site 1 Site 2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2


Tota

l Ph

osp

ho

rus

(mg/

L)

Testing Locations

Total Phosphorus Test Results


6.3.9. Herbicide Analysis

Since only three chemicals were detected in the Herbicide testing, very limited analysis was completed on

this information. As can be seen below, only about half of the test results produced results. This shows

that some of the Herbicides used in the fields is getting to the creek water.

Herbicide Test Results

Test Date

Atrazine Metolachlor Acetochlor

Site 1 Site 2 Site 1 Site 2 Site 1 Site2

5/14/2013

5/30/2013 0.4

6/13/2013 0.2 0.4 33 9 0.6 0.2

6/27/2013 0.7 0.5 8.4 1.3 0.9

Herbicide Statistical Analysis Contaminant Mean Standard Dev. Upper Limit Lower Limit

Atrazine 0.44 0.182 0.74 0.14

Metolachlor 12.93 13.83 35.68 0

Acetochlor 0.57 0.35 1.14 0

6.4. WinSLAMM Analysis

To aide in the analysis of nonpoint source pollutant loading, a computer program called WinSLAMM was

created. This program was created based largely upon Dr. Robert Pitt’s research and studies conducted in

the United States and Canada. WinSLAMM was developed to evaluate nonpoint source pollutant

loadings in urban areas using small storm hydrology. The model determines the runoff from a series of

normal rainfall events and calculates the pollutant loading from each individual source area created by the

rainfall events. The user is able to apply a series of stormwater control practices, such as

infiltration/biofiltration, street sweeping, wet detention ponds, grass swales, porous pavement, catch

basins, or various proprietary devices to determine how effectively these practices remove pollutants.7

WinSLAMM analysis was completed on the Brandilynn watershed to determine the impact to the creek

as the land within the watershed has been converted from agricultural to commercial and industrial uses.

This analysis was completed in a number of different ways. First of all, the analysis was run using all of

the rainfall data to see if there are any extreme variations in that data. Additionally, an analysis was run

on each year that land use was quantified to determine the annual amount of sediment lost. Finally, areas

of permeable pavement and bioretention cells were placed within the watershed to determine the amount

of sediment that could be saved by a variety of sizes of these practices.

To determine what rainfall interval to use for this analysis, each analysis year was run using all of the

rainfall data, and the data broken down by decade. This information was then compared to determine an

acceptable rainfall interval that would allow analysis to be run efficiently and accurately. The chart

below show the sediment losses that were calculated using the entire rainfall data file, from 1953 to 1999.

information used within WinSLAMM can be found in the appendix of this document. This analysis

shows that the levels of sediment loss increase between each analysis year, which was an expected result.

However, to determine if a small rainfall span could be used, each year of analysis was run on a decade

basis as well. This can be seen by the chart below.

7 http://winslamm.com


This chart shows that the 1960’s had large amounts of rainfall resulting in the largest sediment losses. On

the other hand, the 1980’s appears to have the lowest amounts of rainfall resulting in a lower level of

sediment loss. By associating the analysis year with the corresponding rainfall decade, the chart below

shows that annual losses from the watershed by analysis year. Analysis of data from years later than 1999

were run using the rainfall from the 1990’s. (Portions of this analysis beyond the date of 12/31/99 should

be rerun using more appropriate rainfall data when it becomes available.)

Additionally, an analysis was completed assuming the entire watershed was constructed using the zoning

categories currently in place. This analysis, when compared to the sediment losses over the years, shows

that the sediment loss will increase dramatically if the watershed experiences full urbanization without

including stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the development plans. This can be seen in

the chart below.

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

1930 1960 1990 2005 2011 FullDev

Po

un

ds

of

Sed

ime

nt

Lost

Pe

r Y

ear

Aerial Photography Year For Analysis

Sediment Losses From WinSLAMM

1953 - 1959

1960 - 1969

1970 - 1979

1980 - 1989

1990 - 1999

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

1930 1960 1990 2005 2011An

nu

al S

ed

ime

nt

Loss

(lb

s)


Annual Sediment Loss From Brandilynn Watershed


To determine the impact of BMPs on sediment loss in the watershed, the fully developed watershed

scenario was run through WinSLAMM with 5% of watershed using pervious BMP practices. Analysis

was completed using 10% and 20% of the watershed using pervious BMPs as well. Permeable pavement

and Bioretention cells were used as the BMP practices within the watershed. Details of this analysis can

be found in the Appendix. The chart below shows the reduction in sediment loss at the various

percentage of pervious area. Comparing this information to the amount of sediment loss from 2011

shows that more than 20% pervious area would need to be included in a fully developed watershed to

reduce sediment losses to the 2011 levels.

Analysis was completed on the current watershed development, using the 2011 watershed model, to see

what kind of sediment reductions could be constructed today. By adding Bioretention cells and

permeable pavement the sediment loss from today’s watershed could be reduced to levels seen in the

1990’s.

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

1930 1960 1990 2005 2011 Full Dev

An

nu

al S

ed

ime

nt

Loss

(lb

s)


Annual Sediment Loss From Brandilynn Watershed

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

0 5 10 20

An

nu

al S

ed

ime

nt

Loss

(lb

s)

Percent Pervious Area in Watershed

Sediment Loss vs Percent Pervious Area in Brandilynn Watershed


7. Conclusions

7.1. GIS Assessment

The GIS Assessment showed that the Brandilynn Watershed started out as an agricultural area. As time

has gone on the watershed has been changing to a more commercial and industrial land use. These

changes have impacted the creek by creating more identifiable branches and over the years creating a

longer stream with permanent flow.

7.2. Physical Assessment

The Physical Assessment showed that Brandilynn Creek is a typical rural creek. Some areas have no

canopy cover while other areas have a lot of cover. Riparian zones can be seen along a majority of the

creek; however some row crop areas are very close to the top of the streambank. Streambank stability is a

concern due to large cut banks and the lack of vegetation on most streambanks. Some conservation

practices are in place, but more practices could improve the water quality and habitat of Brandilynn

Creek.

Canopy cover should be modified so that cover is around 25% for entire permanent length of the creek.

This will allow better habitat for creatures in the creek. This could be achieved by planting additional

trees in the areas where no canopy is present. Period maintenance practices should be in place to make

sure that, over time, the trees do not overgrow resulting in more than the desired canopy cover.

Riparian zones along the creek should be maintained at a minimum of 10’. This should allow agricultural

practices to maximize their potential yields while protecting the creek at the same time. This is especially

critical in the area where less than 10’ of riparian zone was noted. Land owners should always be

encouraged to create larger riparian zones, if possible, while maintaining the 10’ in all areas.

Streambank stabilization should occur in any areas that have large bank heights. These areas are located

on the left side (south side) of the creek along the length of the pond where the meander of the creek has

created outside curves. In general, these areas would be better protected in a number of ways. The slope

of the banks could be reduced to a 3:1 slope allowing for more water to be carried by the creek resulting

in lower velocities and less erosion. Additionally, regrading the streambanks to a flat surface and seeding

the slopes, preferably with native species of plants, could be combined with a Turf Reinforcement Mat

(TRM) installed over the seeded area. This would allow reinforcement of the plant root systems and

protect the underlying soil during high water events once the plants have established. Although the area

along the pond would be a higher priority for these practices, they should be considered for all areas of

the creek with exposed soils along the streambanks. Habitat enhancements, such as fish bank hides or

riffles, could be installed to encourage the establishment of a diverse ecosystem.

All field tile outlet locations should be identified and practices installed to limit erosion from these point

sources. The outlets could be lowered to enter the stream at the bottom of the streambank, reducing the

potential for erosion. Outlets that daylight at the top of the streambank should have practices installed at

to reduce the potential for erosion. These practices may include rip rap or native grasses with TRM

reinforcement.

This report notes the potential for a number of different threatened or endangered species to be found

within the watershed. Great care must be taken to ensure the watershed has the habitats required by these

animals so that a diverse watershed can be maintained. In general, the area along Brandilynn Creek can

provide these habitats by maintaining tree growth along the entire length of the permanent creek,


providing prairie like areas in the riparian zone along the creek banks, and maintaining healthy creek

water.

7.3 Chemical Assessment

The Chemical Assessment shows a variety of results. Overall, all of the chemicals that were tested for are

detrimental to aquatic life and can cause illness in humans. Therefore, continued efforts should be made

to limit their entrance into the waters of the Brandilynn Watershed.

The Chemical Assessment showed above allowable levels of E.Coli levels that varied greatly. Additional

testing will help to determine if the patterns of high E.Coli levels in the June are related to heavier rainfall

or some other factor. More tests would also help to quantify the average E.Coli levels, reduce the

statistical standard deviation, and result in a more reliable calculated average E.Coli level.

Chloride levels in Brandilynn Creek tended to be higher in April and May and then held fairly steady

throughout the rest of the year. Analysis also showed that higher Chloride levels were found in the

detention pond than in the creek testing site. This could be due to the use of city water to help establish

grass on the newly constructed commercial developments on the north side of Viking Road. More testing

could confirm this.

Nitrate levels tend to be higher during wetter periods of time and lower during dry seasons because of its

soluble nature. Additionally, Nitrate levels were highest in the Spring and early Summer months, which

tend to be when crops are planted in agricultural areas. Additional sampling throughout the year could

help to determine if high levels of Nitrate will always occur during the planting season and where the

lower levels are coming from later in the year. These levels will become more important in the future as

the State of Iowa’s nitrate reduction policies are established.

Phosphorus levels varied throughout the sampling period. More samples are needed to help determine

why these levels varied so dramatically throughout the watershed and where the phosphorus comes from.

Overall, water testing should continue within the Brandilynn Watershed to confirm contaminant levels

throughout the year and determine patterns that may result from changes in weather. It would be

recommended that Nitrite testing be discontinued since levels were noted only rarely. Phosphorus as PO4

and Total Phosphorus testing could be reduced to just testing for Total Phosphorus since the results

shown in this report for both chemicals closely mimic each other. Pesticide and Herbicide testing should

continue to be completed only during the planting season.

7.4. Social Assessment

The Social Assessment shows that, of the responses received, half were from rural property owners and

half were industrial property owners. In general the respondents believe that additional paving in the

watershed and continued construction creates higher stormwater flows. They also believe that fertilizers

do not affect the water quality of Brandilynn Creek.

The Social Assessment showed that landowners in the watershed are interested in learning more about

some conservation practices. On the urban side, landowners were interested in information on permeable

pavement. On the rural side landowners were interested in filter strips, waterways, terraces and rock

check dams. Information on these practices and funding sources could encourage landowners to install

these types of practices. Additionally, landowners in the watershed need a better understanding of how

their actions can affect the water quality, in general, and in Brandilynn Creek specifically.


7.5. Overall Conclusions

Overall, the Brandilynn Watershed is a typical agricultural watershed that is being converted into

industrial, commercial, and residential uses. The creek has unstable streambanks, areas of no canopy

cover, and minimal riparian zones at various locations. Chemical analysis showed high levels of E.Coli,

variable Phosphorus levels, Herbicide levels that were notable during the planting season and Nitrate

levels that will need to be monitored closely as the state’s nitrate reduction policies are established.

Education efforts within the watershed should concentrate on permeable pavements for landowners with

parking lots, and agricultural conservation practices with rural lands as well as funding sources for all.

The watershed should be reassessed on a regular basis to continue to identify problem areas so that repairs

can be made in a timely manner, while keeping the watershed as close to natural as possible and making

the Brandilynn Creek an asset to all living in the watershed.


...

APPENDIX


Appendix -- Detailed Data

Soil Classifications

RASCAL Method Information


A.2.4a. Soil Types by Detailed Soil Units:

Silty Clay Loam:

184 – Klinger Silty Clay Loam, 1 to 3% Slopes

377B – Dinsdale Silty Clay Loam, 2 to 5% Slopes

382 – Maxfield Silty Clay Loam, 0 to 2% Slopes

933 – Sawmill Silty Clay Loam, 0 to 2% Slopes

4377B – Dinsdale-Urban Land Complex, 2 to 5% Slopes

4933 – Sawmill, Occasionally Flooded-Urban Land Complex, 0 to 2% Slopes

Silt Loam:

178 – Waukee Loam, 0 to 2% Slopes

4178 – Waukee-Urban Land Complex, 0 to 2% Slopes

Loam:

83B – Kenyon Loam, 2 to 5% Slopes

83C – Kenyon Loam, 5 to 9% Slopes

83C2 – Kenyon Loam, 5 to 9% Slopes, Moderately Eroded

198B – Floyd Loam, 1 to 4% Slopes

391B – Clyde-Floyd Complex, 1 to 4% Slopes

426B – Aredale Loam, 2 to 5% Slopes

426C – Aredale Loam, 5 to 9% Slopes

426C2 – Aredale Loam, 5 to 9% Slopes, Moderately Eroded

1226 – Lawler Loam, 24” to 40” to Sand and Gravel, 0 to 2% Slopes

4083B – Kenyon-Urban Land Complex, 2 to 5% Slopes

4083C – Kenyon-Urban Land Complex, 5 to 9% Slopes

4391B – Clyde-Floyd-Urban Land Complex, 1 to 4% Slopes

4426B – Aredale-Urban Land Complex, 2 to 5% Slopes

Sandy Loam:

408B – Olin Fine Sandy Loam, 2 to 5% Slopes

408C – Olin Fine Sandy Loam, 5 to 9% Slopes

776C – Lilah Sandy Loam, 2 to 9% Slopes


A.2.4b. Soil Types by Soil Series:

Aredale – The Aredale series consists of gently and moderately sloping, well drained soils formed in

loamy surficial sediments and loam glacial till. These soils are on uplands. Slopes are convex. The

native vegetation was prairie grasses.

Clyde – The Clyde series consists of nearly level to gently sloping, poorly drained soils in

drainageways and lower concave positions on uplands. These soils formed in 30 to 50 inches of

moderately fine textured surficial sediment and the underlying glacial till. A pebble band generally

separates the glacial till and the overlying material. The native vegetation was prairie grasses and sedges.

Dinsdale – The Dinsdale series consists of gently sloping to moderately sloping, well drained soils on

convex slopes on uplands. These soils formed in 24 to 40 inches of loess and underlying glacial till. The

native vegetation was prairie grasses.

Floyd – The Floyd series consists of gently sloping, somewhat poorly drained soils on the concave

head slopes of upland waterways or on the side slopes along drainageways. These soils formed in 30 to

45 inches of loamy surficial sediment and coarse loamy or sandy sediment, as a stratified combination of

both, and the underlying firm glacial till. The native vegetation was prairie grasses.

Kenyon – The Kenyon series consists of gently sloping to strongly sloping, moderately well drained

soils on uplands. These soils formed in 14 to 24 inches of loamy surficial sediment and the underlying

firm glacial till. They are on ridgetops and side slopes. The native vegetation was prairie grasses.

Klinger – The Klinger series consists of nearly level to gently sloping, somewhat poorly drained soils

on broad ridges and side slopes on uplands. These soils formed in loess and the underlying firm glacial

till. The loess ranges from about 24 to 40 inches in thickness. The native vegetation was mixed prairie

grasses.

Lawler – The Lawler series consists of nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soils on stream

benches. These soils formed in loamy alluvial material 24 to 40 inches thick over coarse textured

material. The native vegetation was mixed prairie grasses.

Lilah --

Maxfield – The Maxfield series consists of nearly level, poorly drained soils on upland divides or at

the heads of broad, shallow drainageways on uplands. These soils formed in 24 to 40 inches of loess and

the underlying glacial till. The native vegetation was prairie grasses and sedges.

Olin --

Sawmill – The Sawmill series consists of nearly level, poorly drained soils on flood plains and in the

lower part of upland drainageways. These soils formed in moderately fine textured alluvial deposits. The

native vegetation was water-tolerant prairie grasses and sedges.

Waukee – The Waukee series consists of nearly level to gently sloping, well drained soils on alluvial

terraces. These soils are underlain by sand and gravel at a depth of 32 to 40 inches. The native

vegetation was prairie grasses.


A.3.1.a. RASCAL Stream Assessment Variables

RASCAL Stream Assessment Variables:

Channel Variables:

Flow: The volume of water carried by a stream, relative to average, at the time of assessment.

Losing Flow: Primarily a function of karst geology, losing flow is characterized by stream segments

losing flow to cracks in bedrock or stream sinks.

Yes No

Stream segment

loses some or all of

its flow to cracks in bedrock or stream

sinks. Normally

occurs only in karst regions.

Stream segment

does not lose

flow.

Channel Pattern:

Straight Braided Meandering

Channel Condition:

Stream Type:

Riffle Run Pool/Glide Pond Dry Channel

Shallow, broken water, fast

moving, usually with

coarse substrate.

Shallow or deep moving

water, surface is not

broken, higher velocity than Pool/Glide.

Deeper water area, surface

is not broken, velocity is

slow, often times an area of deposition.

Section of stream that is

impounded by natural or

unnatural causes.

Dry segment of stream with

no flow of water.

In-Stream Habitat: Examples of in-stream habitat include logs, fallen trees, backwater pools, deep

pools, overhanging vegetation, riffles, floating leaf matter, aquatic vegetation, root mats, undercut banks,

etc.

Excellent Average Poor

Many examples of in-stream habitat exist; aquatic species (insects and fish)

are present. This type of segment

appears significantly better than other segments surveyed.

Some examples of in-stream habitat are present.

Very few to no examples of in-stream habitat exist in stream

segment. Few fish or aquatic

insects are present. This type of segment appears worse than

other segments surveyed.

Number of 3’ Pools: Pools are defined as areas of slow moving water with depths greater than three feet.

Surveyors should enter the number of pools since previous assessment point.

Low Flow Normal Flow High Flow No Flow

Water levels are below normal, dry

or drought conditions are occurring

in the watershed.

Water levels appear to be at normal

levels, no recent rains have

significantly impacted water levels.

Water levels are above normal,

recent rain or melt-water has raised

water levels.

Stream bed is dry, could be a result

of extreme drought or karst

geology causing streams to disappear or flow underground.

Natural Channel Past Channel Alteration Recent Alteration Artificial

No dikes or artificial structures are present limiting flow of

floodwaters also stream has not

been straightened.

Channel exhibits signs of dikes or structures but significant stream recovery has taken

places to allow for some natural stream

migration and flooding.

Stream shows evident signs of alteration, for example, straitening,

dikes, levees, etc.


Number of Riffles: Riffles are defined as areas exhibiting shallow, broken, fast moving water, usually

with coarse substrate. Surveyors should enter the number of riffles since previous assessment point.

Substrate: The dominant material that forms the bed of the stream segment.

Bedrock Boulder Cobble Gravel Sand Clay/Hard Pan Silt/Mud

Bedrock substrate

occurs when streams flow directly on

bedrock; often large

flat limestone slabs indicate bedrock is

present.

Boulder substrate is

characterized by the presence of rocks

larger than cobbles

but do not form bedrock.

Cobble substrate is

characterized by rock ranging in size

from 1” in diameter

to 10.” Cobble can be picked up with

one hand.

Gravel substrate

characterized by rock smaller than 2’

in diameter and

larger than sand particles.

Sand

substrate is fine rocky

material than

does not include silt

or soil

particles.

Hardened soil layer,

typically found where streambed erosion has

exposed a compacted

soil layer, often times clay.

Fine

particles of soil.

Sediment Deposition (aka Embededness): Degree to which stream segment is covered by silt or fine

sediment.

Water Clarity: Clarity of the water at time of survey

Canopy Cover: Percent of stream channel area shaded or covered by vegetation during full leaf-on

conditions.

0-10% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%

0-10% of stream segment is

shaded or covered by overhead vegetation

growth.

10-25% of stream segment

is shaded or covered by overhead vegetation

growth.



growth.



growth.



growth.

Riparian Variables

Riparian Zone Width: The width of the transition zone between the water and the upland zone,

typically the width of natural vegetation (trees or grass). If pasture select ‘<10 Feet’

<10 Feet 10-30 Feet 30-60 Feet >60 Feet

No Sediment 0-25% of Segment 25-50% of Segment 50-75% of Segment 75-90% of Segment Entire Segment

Rocky substrate is free of silt or fine sediment.

Of this entire segment less than 25% of the

length is covered with

sediment

Of this entire segment less than 25-

50% of the length is

covered with sediment

Of this entire segment less than 50-75% of the

length is covered with

sediment

Of this entire segment less than 75-

90% of the length is

covered with sediment

Rocky substrate is completely

surrounded by or

covered with silt or fine sediment.

Clear Tea Colored Cloudy Turbid/Muddy


Riparian Zone Cover: Land cover in the transition zone between the water and the upland zone.

Grass Trees Pasture CRP-Trees CRP-Grass Residential Commercial

Adjacent Land Use: Land cover in the upland areas outside the riparian zone.

Row

Crop Trees Grass Pasture CRP Residential Commercial Farmstead Cliff Other

Livestock Access: Specifies livestock accessibility to stream segment.

Yes No

Livestock have unrestricted access to the

stream segment being assessed.

Livestock do not have access to the

stream segment.

Bank Variables

Bank Vegetation: Type of vegetation covering streambanks, if any.

None Overhanging Only Dislodged

Partially

Established

Well

Established

Bank Erosion: If eroding streambanks are present, where are they located.

None Both Banks Alternate Banks Random

No streambank erosion is present

Streambank erosion is present on both stream

banks, often associated

with a down-cutting stream

Streambank erosion is present on alternating

banks, often associated

with a meandering stream

No pattern to the location of eroding streambanks

Stream Bank Height: The high bank distance in feet from the bottom of the stream channel to the top of

the stream bank (not necessarily the high water mark).

Stream Bank Stability: This characterizes the stability of the banks and reflects the degree to which the

bank is laterally eroding.

Stable Minor Erosion Moderate Erosion Severe Erosion Artificially Stable

Banks are

protected by

natural vegetation and are not

showing signs of

lateral erosion.

Banks are mostly protected by

natural vegetation; the bank is

showing some signs of minor erosion.

Natural vegetation is not

protecting major portions of the

stream, outside banks are showing signs of erosion, some

signs of trees and/or vegetation

falling into stream segment.

Some straight reaches and

inside bends are actively

eroding as well as outside bends, trees and

vegetation has fallen into

stream, little to no natural vegetation is protecting

the bank.

Bank has been stabilized by

the placement of rip-rap or

other stabilizing material.

Stream Bank Material: This defines the dominant material that makes up both stream banks.

Rock/Rip Rap Cobble/Gravel Sand Soil/Silt


A.4.4. Detailed Testing Results

Contaminant Descriptions


A.4.4a. Contaminant Descriptions

Information listed found at

http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/wqm/Glossary/definitions_of_parameters.htm#antimony

unless otherwise noted.

BASIC CHEMICALS:

E.Coli:

Escherichia coli (E. coli) - A type of coliform bacteria present in the gastrointestinal tract of warm-

blooded animals. The concentration of E. coli bacteria is an indicator of the probability of contamination

of surface water by microbial pathogens. Reported in Colony Forming Units/100 mL of sample

(CFU/100 mL).

Nitrate & Nitrite:

Oxidized, inorganic forms of nitrogen in water which result from the biochemical process of nitrification.

Nitrite is an intermediate product which is typically present only in minute quantities in surface waters.

Sources include fertilizer, sewage and animal wastes. Measured in mg/L or ppm. The MCL (Maximum

Contaminant Level) is 10 mg/L for NO3-N.

Phosphate:

The total amount of phosphate, including dissolved and particulate forms, reported as phosphorus (P).

Measured in mg/L or ppm.

Ammonia:

(NH4-N) - The concentration of ionized and un-ionized ammonia in water; Ionized (NH4+) and un-ionized

(NH3) forms are products of the decomposition of organic matter. Reported as NH4-N or ammonia as

nitrogen (mg/L). Measured in mg/L or ppm.

PESTICIDES:

Acetochlor (Harness):

A selective pre-emergent soybean herbicide in the chloracetanilide family. Measured in µg/L or ppb.

Alachlor (Lasso):

A common herbicide that is an acetanilide. Measured in µg/L or ppb. The MCL for Alachlor is 2 µg/L or

ppb.

Atrazine (AAtrex):

A common corn herbicide that is in the triazine family of herbicides. Measured in µg/L or ppb. The

MCL for atrazine is 3 µg/L or ppb.

Butachlor:

A selective pre-emergent herbicide for rice and is used to control annual grasses and broadleaf weeds. 8

Butylate (Sutan):

A selective herbicide used for grassy weeds. Measured in µg/L or ppb.

Cyanazine (Bladex):

8 http://www.ewg.org/tap-

water/whatsinyourwater/MN/CityofMinneapolisWaterDepartment/1270024/Butachlor/2076/

http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/wqm/Glossary/definitions_of_parameters.htm#antimony


A common corn herbicide that is in the triazine family of herbicides. Cyanazine is being phased out of

production by 2001. Cyanazine has a Health Advisory Level of 1 µg/L or ppb. Measured in µg/L or ppb.

EPTC:

EPTC is a pre-emergence and early post-emergence thiocarbamate herbicide used to control the growth of

germinating annual weeds, including broadleaves, grasses, and sedges.9

Metolachlor (Dual):

A common herbicide in the chloracetanilide family of herbicides. Measured in µg/L or ppb. Metolachlor

has a Health Advisory Level of 100 µg/L or ppb.

Metribuzin (Sencor):

A common herbicide in the triazinone family of herbicides. Used to control grasses and broadleaf weeds.

Measured in µg/L or ppb.

Pendimethalin:

A herbicides used in premergence and postemergence application to control annual grasses and certain

broadleaf weeds.10

Propachlor (Ramrod):

Propachlor (2-Chloro-N-isopropylacetanilide) is a herbicide first marketed by Monsanto. Monsanto

voluntarily discontinued its manufacture in 1998.11

Simazine (Princep):

A herbicide in the triazine family that is used to control annual grasses and broadleaf weeds in corn,

lawns, golf courses, tree farms, etc. Measured in µg/L or ppb. The MCL for simazine is 4 µg/L or ppb.

Terbufos (Counter):

An organophosphate that is a systemic insecticide and nematicide for corn root and soil insects.

Measured in µg/L or ppb.

Trifluralin (Treflan):

A common pre-emergent herbicide in the dinitroaniline family of herbicides. Measured in µg/L or ppb.

HERBICIDES:

Dalapon (2,2-Dichloropropionic Acid):

Dalapon is an herbicide and plant growth regulator used to control specific annual and perennial grasses,

such as quackgrass, Bermuda grass, Johnson grass, as well as cattails and rushes.12

Dicamba (Banvel):

A benzoic acid herbicide that is used to control perennial broadleaf weeds. Measured in µg/L or ppb.

Dichlorprop:

Dichlorprop is a chlorophenoxy herbicide similar in structure to 2,4-D that is used to kill annual and

perennial broadleaf weeds.13

9 http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0064fact.pdf

10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendimethalin

11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propachlor

12 http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/carbaryl-dicrotophos/dalapon-ext.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbicides

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbicide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto

http://medbib.com/Herbicide

http://medbib.com/2,4-D


2,4-DB:

2.4-DB-based (2.4 dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) herbicides are selective for controlling wide-leaf

underbrush in consociated pastures with leguminous, alfalfa, peanut and soybean species.14

DCPA:

DCPA is a pre-emergent herbicide used to control annual grasses and broadleaf weeds on ornamental turf

and plants, strawberries, seeded and transplanted vegetables, cotton, and field beans.15

Acifluorfen:

Acifluorfen is a contact diphenolic ether herbicide used to control broadleaf weeds and grasses in

soybeans, peanuts, peas, and rice16

Pentachlorophenol (PCP):

A chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticide and fungicide. It is primarily used to protect timber from fungal

rot and wood-boring insects, but may also be used as a pre-harvest defoliant in cotton, a general pre-

emergence herbicide, and as a biocide in industrial water systems.

13

http://medbib.com/Dichlorprop 14

http://www.atanor.com.ar/eng/domestic_business/agrochemicals/herbicides/24db.php 15

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0270fact.pdf 16

http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/24d-captan/acifluorfen-ext.html


A.4.4b. Testing Results

Pesticides Test Results

Lo

cati

on

Tes

t D

ate

EP

TC

Bu

tyla

te

Pro

pac

hlo

r

Tri

flu

rali

n

Ter

bu

fos

Atr

azin

e

Sim

azin

e

Ala

chlo

r

Met

rib

uzi

n

Met

ola

chlo

r

Pen

dim

eth

alin

Bu

tach

lor

Cy

anaz

ine

Ace

toch

lor

Method Detection Limit 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.2 Max. Contaminant Level 0.003* 0.004* 0.002*

Site 1 5/14/2013 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.1 < 0.2

Site 2 5/14/2013 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.1 < 0.2

Site 1 5/30/2013 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.4 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.1 < 0.2

Site 2 5/30/2013 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.1 < 0.2

Site 1 6/13/2013 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.2 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 33.0 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.1 0.6

Site 2 6/13/2013 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.4 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 9.0 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.1 0.2

Site 1 6/27/2013 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.7 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 8.4 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.1 0.9

Site 2 6/27/2013 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.5 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 1.3 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.1 < 0.2

Herbicides Test Results

Lo

cati

on

Tes

t D

ate

Dal

apo

n

3,5

-Dic

hlo

rob

enzo

nic

Aci

d

Dic

amb

a

Dic

hlo

rpro

p

2,4

-D

Pen

tach

loro

ph

enol

2,4

,5-T

P (

Sil

vex

)

Ch

lora

mb

en

2,4

,5-T

2,4

-DB

Ben

tazo

n

Pic

lora

m

Din

ose

b

DC

PA

Aci

flu

orf

en

Method Detection Limit

Max. Contaminant Level 0.2* 0.07* 0.001* 0.05* 0.5* 0.007*

Site 1 5/15/2013 < 2.0 < 1.0 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 2.0 < 0.2 < 0.5 < 1.0 < 0.5 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 0.5 < 1.0 < 1.0

Site 2 5/15/2013 < 2.0 < 1.0 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 2.0 < 0.2 < 0.5 < 1.0 < 0.5 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 0.5 < 1.0 < 1.0

Site 1 5/30/2013 < 10.0 < 5.0 < 2.5 < 2.5 < 10.0 < 1.0 < 2.5 < 5.0 < 2.5 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 2.5 < 5.0 < 5.0

Site 2 5/30/2013 < 10.0 < 5.0 < 2.5 < 2.5 < 10.0 < 1.0 < 2.5 < 5.0 < 2.5 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 2.5 < 5.0 < 5.0

Site 1 6/13/2013 < 2.7 < 1.3 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 2.7 < 0.3 < 0.7 < 1.3 < 0.7 < 1.3 < 1.3 < 1.3 < 0.7 < 1.3 < 1.3

Site 2 6/13/2013 < 2.7 < 1.3 < 0.7 < 0.7 < 2.7 < 0.3 < 0.7 < 1.3 < 0.7 < 1.3 < 1.3 < 1.3 < 0.7 < 1.3 < 1.3

Site 1 6/27/2013 < 2.0 < 1.0 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 2.0 < 0.2 < 0.5 < 1.0 < 0.5 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 0.5 < 1.0 < 1.0

Site 2 6/27/2013 < 2.0 < 1.0 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 2.0 < 0.2 < 0.5 < 1.0 < 0.5 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 0.5 < 1.0 < 1.0

*National Primary Drinking Water Regulation Levels


A.4.4c. Testing Lab Reports

Full lab reports are on file with the

City of Cedar Falls Engineering Department


A.5.3a. Brandilynn Landowner Watershed

Awareness Survey


Brandilynn Watershed Survey – Average Responses

Section A

your level of awareness with the following statement.

Aware

Not

Sure

Unaware

Are you aware of the current water quality issues

regarding the Brandilynn watershed today?

Different people will have different concerns and attitudes about various non-point source pollutants. Please

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Not

Sure

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Do you believe that the water quality of the

Brandilynn Watershed is declining?

Water contamination is an important environmental

issue in the Brandilynn Watershed

Agriculture fertilizers have significantly impacted the

water quality in the Brandilynn Watershed

Lawn fertilizers have significantly impacted the water

in the Brandilynn Watershed

Poor water quality in the Brandilynn Watershed

affects economic development in this area of Iowa

New construction and development have increased

the amount of soil loss in this area

Septic systems can affect the water quality of the

Brandilynn Watershed

Livestock production contributes to the reduction of

water quality of the Brandilynn Watershed

Run off from paved surfaces, including parking lots,

affect the water quality of the Brandilynn Watershed

We are approaching the limits of how much

contamination the Brandilynn Watershed can handle

Regulations protecting the Brandilynn Watershed

limit my choices and personal freedom

I would be willing to spend a few hours a month of

my own time helping to reduce any of the Brandilynn

Watershed pollution problems

Landowners should bear the cost of improving the

watershed

Taxpayers should bear the cost of improving the

watershed


owing

conservation practices for the Brandilynn watershed:

Interested but

need more

information

No

interest

Not

Applicable

to my property

Already

Adopted

Practice

Wetland restoration

Private septic system upgrades

Conservation cover

Native landscaping/Wildflower gardens/Rain gardens

Permeable Paving (Alternatives to traditional paved surfaces

that provide the support but allow water to infiltrate)

Backyard conservation/Wildlife habitat improvement

Filter strips along the creek

Waterways

Inlet protection for storm sewers

Urban construction control

Terraces

Minimal use of lawn and garden fertilizers & pesticides.

Rock check dams

Assistance in disposal of household hazardous waste

Contour strips

Windbreaks around dwellings

When thinking about the natural environment, I view myself as: Place negatives on one side,

positives on other

Wanting to utilize the watershed

..….!.........!.........!.........X.........!.......

Wanting to preserve the watershed

Disinterested in the watershed

..….!.........!.........!........X.........!.......

An advocate of the watershed

In cooperation with the

watershed

..….!...X...!.........!.........!..........!.......

In competition with the watershed

Detached from the watershed

..….!.........!.........!...X...!..........!.......

Connected to the watershed

Very concerned about the

watershed

..….!.........!...X...!.........!..........!.......

Indifferent about the watershed

Very protective of the watershed

..….!.........!...X...!.........!..........!.......

Not at all protective of the watershed

Superior to the watershed

..….!.........!...X...!.........!..........!.......

Inferior to the watershed

Very passionate towards the

watershed

..….!........X........!.........!..........!.......

Not at all passionate towards the

watershed

Not respectful of the watershed

..….!.........!........X........!..........!.......

Very respectful of the watershed


Independent of the watershed

..….!.........!........X........!..........!.......

Dependent of the watershed

Sentimental thinking about the

watershed

..….!.........!...X...!.........!..........!.......

Emotionless thinking about the

watershed

Section B: The following information is requested in to better understand the characteristics of our survey

participants. All of the information will be kept completely confidential and will only be reported at the group

level.

Which category best represents you?

Urban resident in the Brandilynn Watershed

50%

Rural Resident in the Brandilynn Watershed

50%

Industrial/ Commercial Business Owner

Farmer in the Brandilynn Watershed

Absentee land owner

Developer who is/has worked on projects

within/around Cedar Falls

Other:__________________________________

Sex:

Male – 75%

Female – 25%

Age: ___avg 52.8_______

How long have you owned, operated, or resided at your present location? ___ 0-5 years _X_6-15

years___>15 years

At what level would you be willing to participate in conservation practices to help improve the stream

water quality of the Brandilynn Watershed?

Minimum (e.g., learn more about conservation practices by newsletters or attending a meeting)

Moderate (e.g., participate a few hours each month by becoming a member of a watershed committee or task

force)

Maximum (e.g., commit to making a change in my conservation practices on my land/property)

None


A.6.4a. WinSLAMM Analysis


WinSLAMM Parameter Files Used:

File Name Date Created Created By Description MIDWEST.CPZ 7/17/87 Pitt Summarizes Milwaukee and Champaign-Urbana NURP

outfall particle size data

WI_GEO01.PPD 11/26/2002 Horwatich USGS/DNR pollutant probability distribution file from

Wisconsin monitoring data

WI_DLV01.PRR 7/8/2001 Horwatich USGS/DNR particulate residue reduction file for the

delivery system from Wisconsin monitoring data

WI_SL01.RSV 7/8/2001 Horwatich USGS/DNR runoff volumetric coefficient file from


WI_Res and Other

Urban May05.std

5/30/2005 Horwatich USGS/DNR street delivery file from Wisconsin monitoring

data. Use for all versions of WinSLAMM starting from v

9.0.0 for Residential and Other Urban land uses.

WI_Corn Inst Indust

May05.std

5/30/2005 Horwatich USGS/DNR street delivery file from Wisconsin monitoring

data. Use for all versions of WinSLAMM starting from v

9.0.0 for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional land uses.

Freeway.std 7/12/2005 Pitt Street delivery file developed to account for TSS reductions

due to losses in a freeway delivery system based upon early

USDOT research

WI_AVG01.PSC 11/26/2002 Horwatich USGS/DNR particulate solids concentration file from


1930 (From Aerial Photography)

Areas:

952.7 acres of Agricultural Land

14.9 acres of Roads

16.5 acres of Residential Land: 8.25 acres of Roof, 8.25 acres Landscaping

Year Annual Sediment Losses

1953 – 1959 9.519x106 ft

3 27,268 lbs

1960 – 1969 1.558x107 ft

3 36,801 lbs

1970 – 1979 8.768x106 ft

3 26,262 lbs

1980 – 1989 7.977x106 ft

3 24,233 lbs

1990 – 1999 8.098x106 ft

3 24,801 lbs

1953 – 1999 1.001x107 ft

3 27,838 lbs


Areas:


15.6 acres of Residential Land: 7.8 acres of Roof, 7.8 acres of Landscaping

14.6 acres of Roads

38.9 acres of Industrial Land: 17.5 acres Roof, 17.5 acres Parking Lot

3.9 acres of Landscaping


1953 – 1959 1.247x107 ft

3 55,081 lbs

1960 – 1969 1.948x107 ft

3 74,469 lbs

1970 – 1979 1.174x107 ft

3 53,835 lbs

1980 – 1989 1.060x107 ft

3 48,681 lbs

1990 – 1999 1.103x107 ft

3 51,806 lbs

1953 – 1999 1.309x107 ft

3 56,780 lbs



Areas:


14.6 acres of Roads

127.1 acres of Industrial Land: 57.2 acres Roof, 57.2 acres Parking Lot



1953 – 1959 1.842x107 ft

3 115,796 lbs

1960 – 1969 2.733x107 ft

3 156,490 lbs

1970 – 1979 1.769x107 ft

3 114,028 lbs

1980 – 1989 1.586x107 ft

3 102,046 lbs

1990 – 1999 1.691x107 ft

3 110,801 lbs

1953 – 1999 1.928x107 ft

3 119,921 lbs


Areas:


25.2 acres of Roads

30.5 acres of Commercial: 13.7 acres Roof, 13.7 acres Parking


172.7 acres of Industrial: 77.7 acres Roof, 77.7 acres Parking


Year Volume of Sediment

1953 – 1959 2.533x107 ft

3 152,741 lbs

1960 – 1969 3.640x107 ft

3 208,037 lbs

1970 – 1979 2.462x107 ft

3 150,643 lbs

1980 – 1989 2,198x107 ft

3 134,182 lbs

1990 – 1999 2.374x107 ft

3 146,854 lbs

1953 – 1999 2.645x107 ft

3 175,989 lbs


Areas:


0.5 acres of Residential Land: 0.25 acres Roof, 0.25 acres Landscaping

55.4 acres of Roads

111.5 acres of Industrial Land: 50.2 acres Roof, 50.2 acres Parking

11.1 acres Landscaping

100.5 acres of Commercial Land: 45.2 acres Roof, 45.2 acres Parking



1953 – 1959 2.894x107 ft

3 146,770 lbs

1960 – 1969 4.110x107 ft

3 198,344 lbs

1970 – 1979 2.826x107 ft

3 144,752 lbs

1980 – 1989 2,519x107 ft

3 129,306 lbs

1990 – 1999 2.734x107 ft

3 140,915 lbs

1953 – 1999 3.024x107 ft

3 186,863 lbs


Fully Developed Watershed

Areas:


41.4 acres of Roads

165.0 acres of Commercial Land: 74.3 acres of Roof, 74.3 acres of Parking


119.2 acres of Residential Land: 71.5 acres Landscaping

47.7 acres Paved

= 23.85 ac. Roof, 23.85 ac. Parking

646.1 acres of Industrial Land: 290.7 acres of Roof, 290.7 acres Parking



1953 – 1959 7.908x107 ft

3 577,959 lbs

1960 – 1969 1.069x108 ft

3 784,223 lbs

1970 – 1979 7.855x107 ft

3 571,476 lbs

1980 – 1989 6.957x107 ft

3 507,902 lbs

1990 – 1999 7.696x107 ft

3 558,408 lbs

1953 – 1999 8.172x107 ft

3 646,981 lbs

Best Management Practices (BMPs) in Fully Developed Watershed

5% Of Watershed as Pervious Practices

Bioretention Cells:

2.9 acres accepting drainage from Industrial Roofs (126,324 ft2)

0.4 acres accepting drainage from Roads (17,424 ft2)

0.5 acres accepting drainage from Residential Roofs (21,780 ft2)

1.1 acres accepting drainage from Commercial Roofs (47,916 ft2)

4.9 acres total

Permeable Pavements:

30.8 acres accepting drainage from Industrial Roofs

4.2 acres accepting drainage from Residential Roofs

9.3 acres accepting drainage from Commercial Roofs

44.3 acres total

Calculated sediment losses = 5.552x107 ft

3 or 501,993 lbs


Bioretention Cells:





9.8 acres total





88.6 acres total


3 or 436,759 lbs



Bioretention Cells:





19.6 acres total





177.2 acres total


3 or 328,023 lbs

% of Watershed Annual Sediment Loss

0% 601,894 ft3

5% = 49.2 acres 501,993 ft3

10% = 98.4 acres 436,759 ft3

20% = 196.8 acres 328,023 ft3

Best Management Practices (BMPs) in 2011 Watershed


Bioretention Cells:





4.9 acres total




40.1 acres total

Calculated sediment losses = 173,718 lbs


Bioretention Cells:




8.8 acres total




49.4 acres total

Calculated sediment losses = 101,040 lbs

% of Watershed Annual Sediment Loss

0% 173,718 ft3

4.6% = 45.0 acres 117,356 ft3

5.9% = 58.2 acres 101,040 ft3


1930 WinSLAMM Analysis

Rainfall Data: IA Dubuque 5199.RAN Winter Season Range: N/A

Residential Land Use: Roof1: Area: 8.25 acres Flat or Pitched Connected or Disconnected

Street Area1: Area: 14.9 acres

Total Street Length (curb-miles): 10 Est. Street Width (ft): 24.6’

Street Texture: Smooth – Intermediate – Rough – Very Rough

Street Dirt Accumulation: Use program -- Enter own Initial Dirt Loading at End Winter (lbs/curb-mi):

Undeveloped Area: Area: 952.7 acres Sandy – Silty – Clayey

Small Landscaped Area1: Area: 8.25 acres Sandy – Silty – Clayey

1953 – 1999 Results:






Total Street Length (curb-miles): 10 Est. Street Width (ft): 24.1'




Small Landscaped Area1: Area: 7.8 acres Sandy – Silty – Clayey

Industrial Land Use: Roof1: Area: 17.5 acres Flat or Pitched Connected or Disconnected

Paved Parking/Storage1: Area: 17.5 acres Connected or Disconnected

Large Landscaped Area1: Area: 3.9 acres Connected or Disconnected




Residential Land Use: Street Area1: Area: 14.6 acres











Residential Land Use: Street Area1: Area: 25.2 acres








Commercial Land Use: Roof1: Area: 13.7 acres Flat or Pitched Connected or Disconnected




Fully Developed WinSLAMM Analysis
















Bioretention Cells

B – Biofiltration Control Device: Land Use: Varies Source Area: Varies

Top Area: Varies sq ft Bottom Area: Varies sq ft

Total Depth: 5.5 feet Typical Width: 10 feet

Native Soil Infiltration Rate: 2 in/hr Bottom Rate: 2 in/hr Sides Infiltration Rate: 2 in/hr

Rock Filled Depth: 1 feet Rock Fill Porosity (0 – 1): 0.4

Engineered Soil Type: User Defined – Course Gravel – Fine Filter Sand – Loan Soil – Peat-Sand – Compost-Sand

Engineered Soil Depth: 4.0 feet Engineered Soil Porosity (0 – 1): 0.4

Weir Biofilter Outlet:

Weir Crest Length: 10 ft Weir Crest Width: 5 ft

Height from Datum to Bottom of Weir Opening: 5.0 ft

Porous Pavement Control Device

P – Porous Pavement Control Device: Land Use: Varies Source Area: Varies

Porous Pavement Area: Varies acres

Inflow Hydrograph Peak to Avg. Flow Ratio:

Pavement Geometry and Properties:

Pavement Thickness: 4 in Pavement Porosity (0–1): 0.4

Aggregate Bedding Thickness: 3 in Aggregate Bedding Porosity (0-1): 0.4

Aggregate Base Reservoir Thickness: 12 in Aggregate Base Reservoir Porosity (0-1): 0.4

Outlet/Discharge Options:

Perforated Pipe Underdrain Dia.: 4 in Perforated Pipe Outlet Invert Elev.: 4 in

No. Perforated Pipes: 1 Subgrade Seepage Rate:

Maximum Flow to In-Line Sump: cfs

Surface Pavement Layer Infiltration Rate Data:

Initial Infiltration Rate: 2 in/hr

% Infiltration After 3 Years (0-100): 75 % Infiltration After 5 Years (0-100): 60

% Infiltration Rate After Cleaning (0-100): 95 Time Until Completely Clogged: 15 yrs

brandilynn watershed assessment

Documents