brandilynn watershed assessment
Post on 16-Oct-2021
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 3 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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 4 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 5 February 2013 – January 2014
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.
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 6 February 2013 – January 2014
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 7 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 8 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 9 February 2013 – January 2014
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.
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 10 February 2013 – January 2014
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.
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 11 February 2013 – January 2014
Figure 5: Topography (Slopes)
Figure 6: Watershed Contours
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 12 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 13 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 14 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 15 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 16 February 2013 – January 2014
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%
1990 Land Use Tabulation Land Use Area (Acres) Percent of Total
Watershed
Agricultural 842.4 85.6%
Roads 14.6 1.5%
Industrial 127.1 12.9%
2005 Land Use Tabulation Land Use Area (Acres) Percent of Total
Watershed
Agricultural 755.7 76.8%
Roads 25.2 2.6%
Commercial 30.5 3.1%
Industrial 172.7 17.6%
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
Agricultural 954.5 97.0%
Residential 16.5 1.5%
Roads 14.9 1.5%
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 17 February 2013 – January 2014
Figure 11: 1930 Aerial Photo of Watershed
Figure 12: 1930 Land Use
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 18 February 2013 – January 2014
Figure 13: 1960 Aerial Photo of Watershed
Figure 14: 1960 Land Use
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 19 February 2013 – January 2014
Figure 15: 1990 Aerial Photo of Watershed
Figure 16: 1990 Land Use
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 20 February 2013 – January 2014
Figure 17: 2005 Aerial Photo of Watershed
Figure 18: 2005 Land Use
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 21 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 22 February 2013 – January 2014
2011 Land Use Tabulation Land Use Area (Acres) Percent of Total
Watershed
City:
Agricultural 712.2 72.4%
Commercial 28.3 2.9%
Commercial - Vacant 27.2 2.8%
Industrial 111.5 11.3%
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
Agricultural 3.9 0.4%
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%
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 23 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 24 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 25 February 2013 – January 2014
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%
Industrial 646.1 65.7%
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:
Agricultural 3.9 0.4%
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.
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 26 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 27 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 28 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 29 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 30 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 31 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 32 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 33 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 34 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 35 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 36 February 2013 – January 2014
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.
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 37 February 2013 – January 2014
Figure 46: Land Use Right Bank
Figure 47: Land Use Left Bank
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 38 February 2013 – January 2014
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.
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 39 February 2013 – January 2014
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.
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 40 February 2013 – January 2014
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.
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 41 February 2013 – January 2014
Figure 51: Riparian Zone RT
Figure 52: Riparian Zone LT
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 42 February 2013 – January 2014
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.
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 43 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 44 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 45 February 2013 – January 2014
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.
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 46 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 47 February 2013 – January 2014
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.
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 48 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 49 February 2013 – January 2014
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.
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 50 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 51 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 52 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Site 1 Site 2 All Sites
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 53 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Site 1 Site 2 All Sites
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 54 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Site 1 Site 2 All Sites
Ph
osp
ho
rus
Le
vel (
mg/
l)
Testing Site
Phosphorus as PO4 Test Results
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 55 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Site 1 Site 2 All Sites
Tota
l Ph
osp
ho
rus
(mg/
L)
Testing Locations
Total Phosphorus Test Results
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 56 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 57 February 2013 – January 2014
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)
Aerial Photography Year For Analysis
Annual Sediment Loss From Brandilynn Watershed
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 58 February 2013 – January 2014
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)
Aerial Photography Year For Analysis
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 59 February 2013 – January 2014
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,
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 60 February 2013 – January 2014
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.
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 61 February 2013 – January 2014
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.
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 62 February 2013 – January 2014
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 63 February 2013 – January 2014
...
APPENDIX
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 64 February 2013 – January 2014
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 65 February 2013 – January 2014
Appendix -- Detailed Data
Soil Classifications
RASCAL Method Information
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 66 February 2013 – January 2014
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 67 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 68 February 2013 – January 2014
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 69 February 2013 – January 2014
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.
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 70 February 2013 – January 2014
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.
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 71 February 2013 – January 2014
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.
25-50% of stream segment
is shaded or covered by overhead vegetation
growth.
50-75% of stream segment
is shaded or covered by overhead vegetation
growth.
75-100% of stream segment
is shaded or covered by overhead vegetation
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 72 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 73 February 2013 – January 2014
A.4.4. Detailed Testing Results
Contaminant Descriptions
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 74 February 2013 – January 2014
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 75 February 2013 – January 2014
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/
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 76 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 77 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 78 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 79 February 2013 – January 2014
A.4.4c. Testing Lab Reports
Full lab reports are on file with the
City of Cedar Falls Engineering Department
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 80 February 2013 – January 2014
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 81 February 2013 – January 2014
A.5.3a. Brandilynn Landowner Watershed
Awareness Survey
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 82 February 2013 – January 2014
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 83 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 84 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 85 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 86 February 2013 – January 2014
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 87 February 2013 – January 2014
A.6.4a. WinSLAMM Analysis
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 88 February 2013 – January 2014
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 89 February 2013 – January 2014
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
Wisconsin monitoring data
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
Wisconsin monitoring data
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
1960 (From Aerial Photography)
Areas:
915.0 acres of Agricultural Land
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
Year Annual Sediment Losses
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 90 February 2013 – January 2014
1990 (From Aerial Photography)
Areas:
842.4 acres of Agricultural Land
14.6 acres of Roads
127.1 acres of Industrial Land: 57.2 acres Roof, 57.2 acres Parking Lot
12.7 acres of Landscaping
Year Annual Sediment Losses
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
2005 (From Aerial Photography)
Areas:
755.7 acres of Agricultural Land
25.2 acres of Roads
30.5 acres of Commercial: 13.7 acres Roof, 13.7 acres Parking
3.1 acres of Landscaping
172.7 acres of Industrial: 77.7 acres Roof, 77.7 acres Parking
17.3 acres of Landscaping
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
2011 (From Aerial Photography)
Areas:
716.1 acres of Agricultural Land
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
10.1 acres Landscaping
Year Volume of Sediment
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 91 February 2013 – January 2014
Fully Developed Watershed
Areas:
12.4 acres of Agricultural Land
41.4 acres of Roads
165.0 acres of Commercial Land: 74.3 acres of Roof, 74.3 acres of Parking
16.4 acres Landscaping
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
64.7 acres Landscaping
Year Volume of Sediment
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
10% Of Watershed as Pervious Practices
Bioretention Cells:
5.8 acres accepting drainage from Industrial Roofs (252,648 ft2)
0.8 acres accepting drainage from Roads (34,848 ft2)
1.0 acres accepting drainage from Residential Roofs (43,560 ft2)
2.2 acres accepting drainage from Commercial Roofs (95,832 ft2)
9.8 acres total
Permeable Pavements:
61.6 acres accepting drainage from Industrial Roofs
8.4 acres accepting drainage from Residential Roofs
18.6 acres accepting drainage from Commercial Roofs
88.6 acres total
Calculated sediment losses = 4.299x107 ft
3 or 436,759 lbs
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 92 February 2013 – January 2014
20% Of Watershed as Pervious Practices
Bioretention Cells:
11.6 acres accepting drainage from Industrial Roofs (505,296 ft2)
1.6 acres accepting drainage from Roads (69,696 ft2)
2.0 acres accepting drainage from Residential Roofs (87,120 ft2)
4.4 acres accepting drainage from Commercial Roofs (191,664 ft2)
19.6 acres total
Permeable Pavements:
123.2 acres accepting drainage from Industrial Roofs
16.8 acres accepting drainage from Residential Roofs
37.2 acres accepting drainage from Commercial Roofs
177.2 acres total
Calculated sediment losses = 2.792x107 ft
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
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
9.3 acres accepting drainage from Commercial Roofs
40.1 acres total
Calculated sediment losses = 173,718 lbs
10% Of Watershed as Pervious Practices
Bioretention Cells:
5.8 acres accepting drainage from Industrial Roofs (252,648 ft2)
0.8 acres accepting drainage from Roads (34,848 ft2)
2.2 acres accepting drainage from Commercial Roofs (95,832 ft2)
8.8 acres total
Permeable Pavements:
30.8 acres accepting drainage from Industrial Roofs
18.6 acres accepting drainage from Commercial Roofs
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 93 February 2013 – January 2014
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:
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 94 February 2013 – January 2014
1960 WinSLAMM Analysis
Rainfall Data: IA Dubuque 5199.RAN Winter Season Range: N/A
Residential Land Use: Roof1: Area: 7.8 acres Flat or Pitched Connected or Disconnected
Street Area1: Area: 14.6 acres
Total Street Length (curb-miles): 10 Est. Street Width (ft): 24.1'
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: 915.0 acres Sandy – Silty – Clayey
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
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 95 February 2013 – January 2014
1990 WinSLAMM Analysis
Rainfall Data: IA Dubuque 5199.RAN Winter Season Range: N/A
Residential Land Use: Street Area1: Area: 14.6 acres
Total Street Length (curb-miles): 10 Est. Street Width (ft): 24.1'
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: 842.4 acres Sandy – Silty – Clayey
Industrial Land Use: Roof1: Area: 57.2 acres Flat or Pitched Connected or Disconnected
Paved Parking/Storage1: Area: 57.2 acres Connected or Disconnected
Large Landscaped Area1: Area: 12.7 acres Connected or Disconnected
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 96 February 2013 – January 2014
2005 WinSLAMM Analysis
Rainfall Data: IA Dubuque 5199.RAN Winter Season Range: N/A
Residential Land Use: Street Area1: Area: 25.2 acres
Total Street Length (curb-miles): 15 Est. Street Width (ft): 27.7'
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: 755.7 acres Sandy – Silty – Clayey
Industrial Land Use: Roof1: Area: 77.7 acres Flat or Pitched Connected or Disconnected
Paved Parking/Storage1: Area: 77.7 acres Connected or Disconnected
Large Landscaped Area1: Area: 17.3 acres Connected or Disconnected
Commercial Land Use: Roof1: Area: 13.7 acres Flat or Pitched Connected or Disconnected
Paved Parking/Storage1: Area: 13.7 acres Connected or Disconnected
Large Landscaped Area1: Area: 3.1 acres Connected or Disconnected
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 97 February 2013 – January 2014
2011 WinSLAMM Analysis
Rainfall Data: IA Dubuque 5199.RAN Winter Season Range: N/A
Residential Land Use: Roof1: Area: 0.25 acres Flat or Pitched Connected or Disconnected
Street Area1: Area: 55.4 acres
Total Street Length (curb-miles): 30 Est. Street Width (ft): 30.5'
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: 716.1 acres Sandy – Silty – Clayey
Large Landscaped Area1: Area: 0.25 acres Connected or Disconnected
Industrial Land Use: Roof1: Area: 50.2 acres Flat or Pitched Connected or Disconnected
Paved Parking/Storage1: Area: 50.2 acres Connected or Disconnected
Large Landscaped Area1: Area: 11.1 acres Connected or Disconnected
Commercial Land Use: Roof1: Area: 45.2 acres Flat or Pitched Connected or Disconnected
Paved Parking/Storage1: Area: 45.2 acres Connected or Disconnected
Large Landscaped Area1: Area: 10.1 acres Connected or Disconnected
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 98 February 2013 – January 2014
Fully Developed WinSLAMM Analysis
Rainfall Data: IA Dubuque 5199.RAN Winter Season Range: N/A
Residential Land Use: Roof1: Area: 23.85 acres Flat or Pitched Connected or Disconnected
Street Area1: Area: 41.4 acres
Total Street Length (curb-miles): 30 Est. Street Width (ft): 22.8'
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: 12.4 acres Sandy – Silty – Clayey
Large Landscaped Area1: Area: 71.5 acres Connected or Disconnected
Industrial Land Use: Roof1: Area: 290.7 acres Flat or Pitched Connected or Disconnected
Paved Parking/Storage1: Area: 290.7 acres Connected or Disconnected
Large Landscaped Area1: Area: 64.7 acres Connected or Disconnected
Commercial Land Use: Roof1: Area: 74.3 acres Flat or Pitched Connected or Disconnected
Paved Parking/Storage1: Area: 74.3 acres Connected or Disconnected
Large Landscaped Area1: Area: 16.4 acres Connected or Disconnected
Brandilynn Watershed Assessment 99 February 2013 – January 2014
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
top related