Table of Contents

Table of Contents...... i. Background and Introduction ...... 1. A Brief Look at the Natural History of the Study Area...... 4. Land Cover Classification Methodology...... 8. Land Cover Classification Results...... 13. Natural Areas Survey Results ...... 14. Water Resources Analysis ...... 32. Environmentally Sensitive Lands Summary ...... 38. Recommendations ...... 40. General Management Strategies for Natural Areas ...... 46.

Appendices Appendix A Plant Community Survey Data Appendix B Glossary of Technical Terms

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey i Bonestroo, Inc. September 2007

Background and Introduction Cedar Falls is a vibrant community located along the Cedar River in northeast Iowa. It serves as a regional center for business and cultural events, and higher education.

The city and surrounding area host a range of desirable natural features, including the Cedar River, Dry Run Creek, various wetlands and floodplains, quality natural communities, and rare plants and animals. In addition to their intrinsic value as natural areas, these open spaces also provide passive and active recreational opportunities such as hiking, biking, canoeing, and nature observation. If well planned for during the development process, these areas can also reduce flooding, reduce infrastructure and its long-term maintenance cost, provide buffers for wildlife and water quality, and others.

Importantly, natural areas found in Cedar Falls contribute to the scenic character of the landscape in this region – simply put, natural areas contribute to the unique identity and quality of life here, helping Cedar Falls attract and retain quality businesses and residents.

Cedar Falls has experienced increased growth pressure in the last ten to fifteen years. The city staff, elected officials and residents recognize the pressure that this growth will place on its natural resources, and is moving proactively to identify sensitive natural features and opportunities to develop planning policies that balance growth with appropriate protection of natural areas and water resources.

In order to successfully incorporate natural areas and water resources into the planning process, the city also recognized the need for a survey of the location and type of existing resources. This Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey (ESLS) provides a solid set of information that can be used to guide a variety of land use planning efforts and policy decisions.

Pre-existing natural resource background information for this ESLS occurred at the local, county, state, and federal level. However, with the exception of data from IA DNR on rare plant and animal populations and data from the Black Hawk County Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) related to Dry Run Creek, nearly all of these data sets were over 20 years old and often based on aerial photo analysis (and thus were not field verified).

Wisely, the city has a strong desire to base its planning decisions on accurate information. To accomplish this, the city retained Bonestroo in spring of 2007 to conduct a field-based survey of natural areas and water resource features within the city and the area approximately one mile west of the current city limit.

Goals and Objectives of the Survey The Goals and Objectives for this project were to: • Identify and survey significant natural areas, and gather on-the-ground data where property access was available. • open space with public value • Natural areas with restoration potential • Field survey natural areas using a proven natural community classification and qualitative ranking methodology (the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS)) • Conduct an evaluation of water resource features such as floodplains, floodways, wetlands and streams. • Identify opportunities to maintain or improve the quality and function of natural areas and water resource features in previously developed areas, or areas yet to be developed.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 2 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

• Rank and prioritize sites for possible public acquisition, conservation easements, or similar measures. • Guide policy development • Enable protection, connection and restoration of important natural areas • Provide information for parks, open space, trails, and greenway planning

Within most communities there is a strong interest on the part of citizens to maintain a high quality of life. The preservation of natural communities and open spaces is an important component of this goal. Such areas provide opportunities for active and passive recreation, wildlife habitat, scenic vistas and buffers between developed areas, and can serve as landmarks or distinguishing features for the local community. It has also been shown that property values increase in close proximity to natural open spaces, and that effective planning for natural resources can benefit all parties.

Residential and commercial development is also important to the well being of many communities; however, where growth occurs in environmentally sensitive areas, the potential to negatively impact wildlife, natural areas, soils and water resources are high. The Cedar Falls ESLS will serve as a tool to effectively manage and protect natural resources while allowing appropriate growth to occur. Likewise, it can help the city prioritize where to make investments in its natural resources. Completion of this ESLS may also be advantageous to the city when applying for grants and other funds for management and protection of natural resources. Often grants are available to help communities prioritize projects and planning efforts that are based on a natural resources inventory or similar data.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 3 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

A Brief Look at the Natural History of the Study Area

The particular resource elements present in any area and their patterns in the landscape are the result of historical processes, including climate, hydrology, plant and animal migrations and interactions, and human decisions and activities. This section very briefly describes the role these interactions have played in determining the present day composition of natural communities and landscapes in the study area.

Bedrock Geology and Glacial Landscapes The majority of the region is mantled by debris deposited by glaciers and glacial rivers; beneath this, the bedrock that is closest to the surface in Cedar Falls is comprised of limestone and dolomite from the Middle and Late Devonian age (355-385 million years old). Although there is little bedrock at the surface in the Cedar Falls area, these strata contain numerous fossils, especially corals and brachiopods.

The topography of the area was most heavily influenced by several eras of glacial activity extending some 1.5 million years into the past. The last period of intense glacial cold, 21,000 to 16,000 years ago, had pronounced effects across northern Iowa, which was not far from the glacier front.

The most recent glacial advances into the region are known to have Source: Iowa DNR, Geology of Iowa occurred in several glacial periods comprising of the pre-Illinoian evens, and then Illinoian and Wisconsin periods. Although much of the material directly deposited in the Cedar Falls region was deposited by pre-Wisconsin ice sheets, the activities directly associated with the Des Moines lobe of the Wisconsin ice sheet approximately 35 miles to the west and the periglacial environment strongly influenced what the landscape of the region looks like today.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 4 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

Cedar Falls

Source: Landforms of Iowa, Jean C. Prior 1991

A lobe of the Wisconsin ice sheet advanced as far south as Des Moines and then began retreating northward in a series of minor advances, stagnation, and larger retreats about 10,000 years ago. During this event, glaciers sculpted the landscape of central and eastern Iowa and left behind a variety of deposits, including drift/till and outwash composed of sand and gravel, and windblown deposits of very fine sands and silt known as loess. With each advance and retreat of the ice sheet, the melting ice sheet deposited immense piles of sand and gravel along its margins, and massive rivers of glacial meltwater carried additional sand and sediment across the area, some of it carried in meltwaters though rivers we now know as the Cedar, Wapsipinicon, Iowa, Upper Iowa and others to be reworked by wind and water.

Tundra and permafrost conditions persisted in the area. Hilly landscapes succumbed to episodes of mass- weathering and leveling as materials were loosened and moved in the frigid landscape. The result was the Iowan Surface of northeastern Iowa, a landscape dominated by gently rolling terrain with glacial boulders scattered across the landscape. This landscape also supports a number of northwest to southeast trending loess-mantled hills known as pahas, which stand above the surrounding plain, the closest of which is found at Hickory Hills Park south of Waterloo.

After the glaciers Fossil pollen studies from the western Great Lakes region of the upper Midwest, including Iowa, indicate that after the glaciers melted, spruce trees and tundra immediately colonized the periglacial environment throughout much of the upper Midwest. This was later followed by pine barrens and mixed boreal forests with a bracken fern-dominated ground layer. As the climate of the region warmed dramatically about 9,000 years ago in what is referred to as the hypsithermal period, pines began to decline, and prairie expanded into the region, along with elm and oak forests. The climate remained in this warm period until about 7,000 years ago, when midgrass prairie reached its maximum extent reaching to within about 50 miles of Lake Superior in Minnesota. In Iowa, fossil pollen studies completed about 1990 in northeast Iowa indicate that the change from mixed hardwoods to prairie may have occurred in as little as 100 years.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 5 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

About 4,000 years ago, the climate gradually became cooler and moister in the upper Midwest. With this moderation in climate, oak thicket woodlands began to expand their range, establishing footholds in ravines, and along larger streams, rivers, and wetlands. Still, the region was wholly dominated by tallgrass prairie. About 300 years ago, the climate in this region of the upper Midwest became especially moist and cool, and fires became less frequent. As a result, larger tracts of forest developed on select landscapes in the previously prairie dominated areas of Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Still, in Black Hawk County the landscape remained dominated by tallgrass prairie with woodlands and forests largely confined to the margins of streams, rivers, and larger wetlands. With this, the major patterns of vegetation in the area at the time of European settlement were in place.

Influence of Landform and Climate on Vegetation Types Plant communities that exist in any given area are the result of numerous biological and physical factors. These work in concert to influence plant communities in subtle ways, and sometimes in dramatic and immediate ways such as drought, or a tornado. Biological factors include such varied things as the presence or absence of pollinators, burrowing activities, herbivory, or over utilization of an area by a single species or number of species.

Of the physical factors, two have a consistently strong influence in the shaping of plant communities. These are climate and landform. The climate in Black Hawk County, Iowa is considered continental and subhumid, with long, cold winters and relatively brief, warm summers. Wide fluctuations in temperature and precipitation strongly influence the plant communities present in the region and cause plants to be adapted to extremes, rather than averages. Landforms also have a profound impact on the type of plant communities found in any area. As previously discussed the landforms of the area are primarily glacial in origin. Direct glacial modification of the landscape, such as the deposition of till and moraine, and the influence of periglacial processes such as outwash and mass-weathering, have formed the vast majority of the landforms in this region. Most of the deposited materials associated directly with glaciers are unsorted, and consist of mixed materials which range in size from clay and fine sand to large boulders. Materials deposited in the region form soils that vary widely from somewhat poorly-drained to very well-drained landscapes.

In addition to the influences of climate and landform, landscape position also has a profound impact on the type of plant communities supported. Slope steepness, position, and aspect (direction a slope faces) all strongly influence the plant species that can occur in an area. Slope aspect plays a significant role since it can exaggerate the influence of the sun; for example, the of water plants lose through their leaves on south- and southwest-facing slopes make these areas more hospitable to prairie or dry oak communities. North-facing slopes tend to be moister and have a tendency to be occupied by woodlands/forests.

Historic Influence of Humans on the Landscape Ideas about the history of Native Americans and their influence on the landscapes of North America and the upper Midwest are still evolving. Native Americans have probably inhabited and hunted in the area for over 10,000 years. While their impacts were not as great as those of European settlers, Native Americans used a wide variety of plants and animals for food, altered vegetation patterns for cultivation, set fire to broad expanses of landscape. Native Americans used fire to hunt game; create desired habitat; clear the landscape for travel, communication and defense; and obtain firewood. While some fires in the region would have occurred naturally, the activities of Native Americans undoubtedly accounted for the vast majority of fires.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 6 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

Prairies, savannas, and oak forests are fire-dependent plant communities, and would most likely not have been present in the Cedar Falls area at the time of European settlement without these fires.

Vegetation at the Time of Settlement According to the original land survey notes (compiled in this area around 1850), the vegetation was dominated by tallgrass prairie. There were areas of timber (likely open floodplain forest) along the Cedar River. Interestingly, since General Land Office surveys typically occurred prior to land being divided and sold, there was apparently some advance cultivation occurring in the Cedar Falls area (shown as green). A photo of tallgrass prairie and floodplain forest as it would have likely appeared in the Cedar Falls area is shown later in this section.

Post-Settlement Influences on the Landscape As the City developed, increasingly intense human activities began to change the landscape and natural communities. In the city of Cedar Falls today, over 90% percent of the native landscape has been substantially impacted by human activities. Examples of changes since European settlement include the following: • Roads and the railroads began to fragment forests and other natural communities. • Agriculture affected hydrology by draining wetlands and altering creeks. Vegetation was altered through clearing, plowing, cessation of regular fires, and grazing. These effects are evident in the reduction of native vegetation diversity in meadow and forest understory and substitution with natural communities of low diversity dominated by non-native plants. Soil erosion increased where native cover was removed, adding sediments to creeks, wetlands and lakes. Vegetation at about the time of settlement in Cedar Falls • Urbanization continues to fragment natural communities further with the addition of more roads, streets and utilities. Construction of all types alters and compacts soils, and changes the local hydrology. Large areas of impervious surface and drainage of wetlands increases the amount of stormwater runoff and pollutants carried to local waters. • Non-native, aggressive species like European buckthorn have been added as landscape materials. Changes in habitat and the increasing presence of humans in the landscape has brought changes in animal populations, decreasing or eliminating some species like bluebirds and bison, and favoring others such as English sparrows and white-tail deer. • Specialized uses such as the closed landfill also have the potential to influence the surrounding area and land use.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 7 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

Land Cover Classification Methodology This Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey Land Cover Classification and Natural Areas Inventory project was conducted for natural and semi-natural areas in select areas within the 34 square mile project area shown in the preceding section. A brief summary of the methodology is provided below.

Gather and Review Background Information To provide a more detailed understanding of the study area, ecologists working on the project collected and reviewed available information on natural resources. This included information about vegetation at the time of European Settlement, biological survey information for Black Hawk County, wetland and water resource information, information about existing corridors, and the Black Hawk County soil survey.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources - Natural Areas Inventory The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IA DNR) keeps records on the occurrence of unique natural areas and rare species. John Pearson of the IA DNR was contacted to gather Natural Areas Inventory database records for the Cedar Falls area. There were a number of rare plant and animal records for the areas, some of which were historical. For instance, there is a rare butterfly record from an area in the city that has since been developed and the habitat that previously supported the species has obviously been converted to an urban setting. Conversely, there are a number of rare plant and animal records for the Cedar River itself, as well as the floodplains, forests and prairies, mostly on the north side of the city. This data was provided to the city in the form of a GIS shapefile as part of the results of this effort.

Other Natural Resource Information A variety of other natural resources information relevant to this survey effort was gathered, including: • Streams • Waterways (mapped by NRCS) • Conservation & Recreation Lands (from IA GIS server) • 2005 true color aerial photo (FSA MrSID) • 2002 color infrared photo (digital, spring flight) • GIS parcel base map in AutoCAD or Arc shapefile format (City) • Digital topographic data (City and/or USGS DRGs) • National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps • Black Hawk County Soil Survey digital data • Landform data from the IA Geological Survey/IA DNR • Historic air photos (digital 1930s black & white)

Preparation of Field Base Maps After review of background information, project ecologists plotted field maps using 2005 Farm Services Administration (FSA) true-color low altitude aerial photographs. Available electronic data layers such as the National Wetlands Inventory, the floodplains/floodways, geopolitical boundaries, parcel boundaries, transportation information, and DNR Natural Areas Inventory data were also included on these plotted maps to assist in the field review.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 8 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

Landowner Notification Information about the location of natural areas was used to identify parcels where field review by a plant ecologist was appropriate. City staff sent each of these landowners a letter in the spring of 2007 to provide information about the project and request access to the property. Resident response was good and access was gained to most areas where it was requested, enabling adequate field verification/survey.

Field Survey Field survey work and land cover classification using the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) took place in June and July of 2007. Where property access was not available, sites were viewed from nearby roads or adjacent properties where access was permitted. In many cases, natural communities crossed multiple properties and partial access to a site could still be obtained. On-the-ground survey efforts focused on private lands with natural areas and/or streams/waterways.

This project was not intended to survey publicly-owned lands (e.g. city, county, state, or university) or land under private ownership that is unlikely to be considered for (re)development in the foreseeable future (e.g. John Deere engineering facility), although some mapping was done for select areas in these categories that that the project team had prior knowledge of.

During the field review, a 5-digit MLCCS code was assigned to the natural and semi-natural areas. Other pertinent data was also recorded including notations using MLCCS Modifiers and Field Check Levels (see below). The field survey also included identification of dominant plant species within a given natural community. Intensity of inventory effort was related to the overall quality of an area. In general, good quality natural communities were more thoroughly inventoried and more extensive searches conducted for uncommon or rare species. The field inventory emphasized gathering data on the composition, structure and function of natural communities, including disturbance indicators such as exotic species and erosion. This information provides a solid starting point for assessing the current condition of the community and can be used to develop management recommendations.

Land Cover Classification Methodology The Minnesota Land Cover Classification System, Version 5.4 was used to classify land cover within the project area. A brief explanation of the method and its application to this project is provided below. The complete 273 page MLCCS Manual can be viewed and/or downloaded on the MN DNR website at the following address: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mlccs/index.html .

MLCCS has a five-level hierarchical system of land cover codes to describe natural, semi-natural, and cultural land cover types. It is GIS-based and includes a data table that was linked to a Bonestroo-custom developed Microsoft Access database for this project.

Natural land cover types include areas such as forests, prairies, wetlands, shrublands, and other similar areas. Semi-natural areas are those dominated by nonnative plant species, but are not actively planted/maintained by humans through activities such as mowing/cutting. Cultural land cover types are areas that can be thought of as developed or substantially impacted by humans. Cultural land cover types typically include paved (impervious) areas, agricultural fields, frequently/heavily impacted grasslands, quarries, and others. The Cedar Falls ESLS project focused on natural areas and select semi-natural areas with habitat value for land cover mapping.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 9 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

Progression through each of the five levels of the system represents an increased level of detail in land cover classification. In this framework, Level 1 is the least detailed and Level 5 is the most detailed. For the purposes of this project, all natural and semi-natural areas within the city were classified to the greatest level of detail practical (typically, Level 4 or Level 5).

MLCCS Modifier Codes Several ‘classes’ of MLCCS modifiers were assessed in the field during this survey effort. These modifiers were assessed based on the methodology and definitions provided in the MLCCS training manual. Once assessed, the modifier values were entered into the GIS database for each land cover polygon. Below is a brief summary of the most commonly used MLCCS modifiers for this project.

Natural Community Quality Modifier (M_34x) The M_34x modifier was developed as part of MLCCS methodology as a cursory method to assess the general natural quality of natural community and semi-natural land cover types. This modifier has four general categories. The assessment method is based on general ecological variables, and is applied in the same manner for all natural community types. The following is the description of the M_34x modifier from the MLCCS training manual:

34X - Modifiers for natural community quality ranking. Natural plant community sites (those dominated by native plant species) can be given a natural quality ranking. Non-native, altered and disturbed communities were only be given a nonnative dominated code (NN) or nonnative dominated, with native species present code (NA). Quality ranking codes include: • A = highest quality natural community, no disturbances and natural processes intact. Site must be visited entirely or partially to accurately assess its natural quality at this level (fld_level = 3 or 4). Modifier code = 341 • B = good quality natural community. Has its natural processes intact, but shows signs of past human impacts. Low levels of exotics. Site must be visited entirely or partially to accurately assess its natural quality at this level (fld_level = 3 or 4). Modifier code = 342 • C = moderate condition natural community with obvious past disturbance but is still clearly recognizable as a native community. Not dominated by weedy species in any layer. Minimally, the site must be visited from the edge to accurately assess its natural quality at this level (fld_level = 2, 3 or 4). Modifier code = 343 • D = poor condition of a natural community. Includes some natives, but is dominated by non-natives and/or is widely disturbed and altered. Herbaceous communities may be assessed with this ranking from a distance (fld_level = 1) if large masses of invasive species are present and the entire community is visible. Modifier code = 344 • NA = Native species present in an altered / non-native plant community. This NA ranking can only be used if the site is field checked from the edge or to a greater degree (fld_level 2, 3, or 4), thus confirming the presence of native species within a non-native community. Modifier code = 345 • NN = Altered / non-native plant community. These semi-natural communities do not qualify for natural quality ranking. Using NN signifies the site has been field checked and confirms it is a semi-natural community. Modifier code = 346 NOTE: there are several areas that were unranked in the Cedar Falls ESLS. Many of these were not ranked because they are dominated by nonnative species. However, several areas could not be accessed for the inventory and could not be viewed from roads (e.g. MLCCS code 61200). These areas should be field checked at a future date to verify their cover type and quality.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 10 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

Invasive Species Modifiers (M_4xx) The invasive species modifier codes represent invasive plant species occurring within land cover polygons. This data was recorded in the MLCCS GIS spreadsheet/database for the project. For the purpose of this project, the percent cover of each species of interest was estimated. These species are important to have information about due to their invasive nature and potential threats to native plant communities and biological diversity of native habitats. The cover classes used to assess invasive species aerial cover (i.e. as viewed from above) is a follows:

Cover Class/Estimated Percent Cover for Invasive Species Cover Class Description 0 Unknown, or if field checked, plants not observed 1 Observed, unknown quantity 2 1 – 5% Coverage 3 6 – 25% Coverage 4 26 – 50% Coverage 5 51 – 75% Coverage 6 76 – 100% Coverage

The following is a list of invasive plant species modifier numbers. Where these may have been encountered within native plant communities, they were recorded with a cover class code. 400 - Overgrown prairie/savanna 401 - Overgrown woodland 402 - Purple loosestrife 405 – Flowering rush 406 - Narrow-leaf cattail 407 - Crown vetch 408 – Common and glossy buckthorn 409 - Leafy spurge 410 - Tartarian honey suckle 411 – Garlic mustard 412 - Reed canary grass 413 - Smooth brome 414 - Spotted knapweed 415 – Exotic thistle 416 - Siberian elm 417 – Phragmites 419 - Amur maple 420 - Black locust 421 – Absinthe sage 422 – Dame’s rocket 499 – Other

Field-Check Level

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 11 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

The field-check level indicates the degree to which an individual polygon was checked in the field during the land cover assessment. Where access was permitted, most of the natural area polygons within this project were visited wholly/partially or viewed from edge. The following is a list of field check modifier values and their associated description: • 0 = site not visited • 1 = viewed the site from a distance Unable to walk the site, but able to discern the dominant vegetation. Masses of invasive species may be visible, and thus were recorded (buckthorn, reed canary grass, crown vetch, etc). Depending on the perceived quantity of invasive species, a natural quality ranking of D may or may not be discernable. • 2 = visited the edge of the site Walked or drove to the edge of the site, and was able to inventory some invasive species and speculate on its natural quality. Depending on the perceived quantity of invasive species, a natural quality ranking of C or D may or may not be discernable. • 3 = visited part of the site walked into the site and was able to confidently inventory most invasive species present and assess its natural quality - A, B, C or D. Wetlands that are inventoried from the edges in several places should be given this field check level. • 4 = visited the entire site Able to inventory all invasive species present and assess the site's natural quality - A, B, C or D.

Other Modifier Codes that were recorded in the MLCCS GIS spreadsheet/database, where practical: • 247 - Trails • 6XX series – Forestry modifiers • 72X series - Water modifiers, Built features • 73X series - Water modifiers, Wetland features • 74X series - Water modifiers, Stream features • 75X series - Water modifiers, Spring feature

In summary, after each natural area was assessed by a field ecologist, a code for each of the modifiers listed above was determined. Having these modifier codes assigned to each of the natural areas in the city, an ecologist can quickly look at their site notes and determine the community quality, the presence and quantities of invasive species, how thoroughly the area was assessed, etc. just by a looking at a few specific letters and numbers described above. For example if the notes for site 1-1 contain the modifier codes 34C and 410 (2), we know the community is of moderate quality and has 1-5% cover of tartarian honeysuckle.

Search for Rare Plant Species Where natural areas occur, particularly those of better quality, there is the potential for the occurrence of rare species. Recognizing this, the plant ecologists from Bonestroo who conducted field inventory work made an effort to search habitats with a likelihood of supporting rare plants.

It is also important to note that although plant ecologists searched areas that appeared likely to host rare plants, limited property access, and one-time visit to natural areas means that some previously undocumented rare plant populations may still be present in the study area, but were not evident during the field visit.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 12 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

Land Cover Classification Results A total of 2,599 acres of natural and semi-natural areas were mapped within portions of the city selected for land cover mapping, representing 229 individual polygons.

These polygons represent a variety of natural and semi-natural community types including forest, woodland, shrubland, herbaceous wetlands, grasslands, areas of open water (lakes and ponds), and impervious surfaces. The following text describes the major categories encountered within the city; a graph at the end of this section illustrates the percent cover that each of these categories occupies within the city.

Forest (30,000s) represents an important part of natural areas in north Cedar Falls and along stream courses, Native dominated/remnant forest cover types (30000’s) within the study area included oak forest, lowland hardwood forest, and floodplain forest. Non-native forest types within the city were predominantly disturbed second growth forest types comprised of elm, box elder, ash, cottonwood, and occasional basswood, maple, and oak. Woodlands (40,000s) although some acreage is degraded much is oak woodland with varying amounts of brush encroachment. Degraded woodlands are mostly dominated by elm, box elder, ash, and cottonwood, or less commonly red cedar as well as second growth oak woodland/brushland. Shrublands (50,000’s) the majority of this cover type was associated with wetland systems and also commonly had significant densities of nonnative species, such as reed canary grass. Herbaceous vegetation types (60000’s) This cover type series includes natural communities such as wet meadows, cattail marshes, rich fens, mixed emergent marshes, and prairies, as well as non-native dominated cover types such as reed-canary grass dominated wetlands, agricultural old-fields, and other fallow land. Open water habitats (90000’s) mapped include quarry lakes and the borrow site at Prairie Lakes. These are important features for the City of Cedar Falls –as they are primarily fed by groundwater they represent some outstanding opportunities for management of high to very high quality resources. They should be planned for and managed with care.

MLCCS Level 1 Summary MLCCS Level Description Occurrence Acres 10000 Artificial surfaces 2 8.4 20000 Planted, maintained, or cultivated vegetation 4 48.9 30000 Forest 68 1,088.4 40000 Woodland 35 227.7 50000 Shrubland 14 151.5 60000 Herbaceous 85 828.0 90000 Water 21 245.9 Total 229 2,598.8

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 13 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

Natural Areas Survey Results A total of 87 natural areas were documented, totaling 1,224 acres.

These natural areas represent a variety of distinct natural community types including forest, woodland, shrubland, herbaceous wetlands, grasslands, and areas of open water (lakes and ponds). The following pages include a summary of the major natural community types encountered in the City, with generalized community profiles/ descriptions. It is important to note that there are other natural community types that occur less frequently in the city.

Descriptions for the most frequently encountered or significant natural community types in the study area were adapted from the MLCCS User Manual and provided below. Original descriptions for communities listed below, or for other community types documented but not described below can be found in the MLCCS User Manual referenced earlier in this report. Where relevant, common and scientific names of plants are provided within the community descriptions.

Natural Areas of High and Moderate Quality The map on the following page includes High and Moderate Quality natural areas identified during the inventory (along with semi-natural areas). It is important to note that due to lack of access to some natural areas within the city, a few high quality sites may not be listed here. We recommend that appropriate field work be conducted to determine the quality/composition of natural areas not accessible for this project prior to development.

High and moderate quality natural areas are sites that demonstrate one of several significant characteristics, including natural area quality, aesthetics, or other features. We suggest that these high quality sites be considered for protection and/or management using appropriate tools, such as ordinances, park dedication, conservation easement, or similar.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 14 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

See Appendix A for community descriptions associated with Site ID

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 15 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

Natural Community Descriptions Below are descriptions of natural communities from the study area. These include community descriptions, a summary of total acreage, and the number of a particular natural community type encountered during the inventory. Please also note that the map on the preceding page includes Site ID codes associated with plant species lists in Appendix A of this report. Likewise, the GIS (MLCCS) database provided to the City also includes a wide variety of information and field data.

Forest (Upland) Oak Forest (Mesic subtype) (MLCCS Code 32112) One oak forest was documented at 11.9 acres in size.

Northern red oaks (Quercus rubra), white oaks (Quercus alba), or bur oaks (Quercus macrocarpa) dominate mesic stands of oak forest. These stands tend to occur on sites that would have experienced fewer severe fires before European settlement than the sites on which dry mixed oak forest occurs. Mesic stands have tall (> 20 meters), straight, single-stemmed trees that lack spreading lower branches. Mesic, fire-sensitive tree species are present with the oaks in these stands, especially in the understory and may include basswood (Tilia americana), green ash (Fraxinus americana), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis) big-toothed aspen (Populus grandidentata), and butternut (Juglans cinerea).

Dry oak forest tends to have pin oak (Quercus ellipsoidalis) bur oak (Q. macrocarpa), and white oak (Q. alba) more common as Oak Forest with interrupted fern canopy trees. As well, the subcanopy of dry oak forests may dominated ground layer support other, fire-sensitive tree species. The shrub layer in mesic stands is generally sparser than in dry stands and, correspondingly, the forb layer is denser and more diverse and there are more graminoid species. Often, there is little oak regeneration in these forests as oak seedlings have a requirement for high light levels. Therefore, many of the mesic oak forests in the region appear to be succeeding to stands dominated by shade tolerant species such as green ash, basswood, hackberry, sugar maple, and others. Heavy selective logging of the oaks in mesic stands may accelerate this trend, producing young stands of mixed hardwood forest. The mesic stands of oak forest often grade into drier stands of maple-basswood forest, but differ from them by having a somewhat denser shrub layer and the herbs woodrush (Luzula multiflora) and pointed-leaved tick-trefoil (Desmodium glutinosum) in their understory.

Natural stands of oak forest are somewhat common in the region on infrequently flooded terraces of the Cedar River and its larger tributaries. Drier stands of oak are also present on sediment deposits along rivers that result in droughty, well-drained soils as well as on steep/dry, south-facing slopes. Many of the drier stands of oak forest (and oak woodland-brushland) in the Cedar Falls area likely resulted from overgrowth of dry oak savanna after removal of fire and/or grazing.

Maple Basswood Forest

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 16 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

(MLCCS Code 32150) One maple-basswood forest remnant was documented within study area, 10.9 acres in size. This particular forest was dominated by basswood and lacked sugar maple. However, the maple-basswood classification represented the “best fit”.

Maple-basswood forest is a mesic community. The tree canopy of Maple-basswood forests is dominated mostly by basswoods (Tilia americana), sugar maples (Acer saccharum), and (formerly) American elms (Ulmus americana). Other mesic trees, such as slippery elms (Ulmus rubra), northern red oaks (Quercus ellipsoidalis), bur oaks (Quercus macrocarpa), white ashes (Fraxinus pennsylvanicum), and green ashes (Fraxinus americanum) are sometimes dominant locally. The canopy is very dense, with tall, straight, relatively narrow-crowned trees. The understory is multi-layered and patchy. It is composed of saplings and seedlings of the canopy species (especially sugar maple), along with American hornbeam, ironwood, bitternut hickory, pagoda dogwood, and others.

Because the tree canopy permits so little light to reach the forest floor during the summer, Maple-basswood forests have a suite of forb species that bloom, produce seeds, and die back in May and early June before tree leaves are fully developed. These species--the spring ephemerals and the winter annuals--include spring beauties (Claytonia sp.), Dutchman's breeches (Dicentra cucullaria), trout-lilies (Erythronium spp.), and cleavers (Galium aparine). Other herbs, such as the sedge Carex pedunculata, and bottlebrush grass (Hystrix patula), are commonly present in the ground-layer but usually not abundant.

Maple-basswood forests occur on fire-protected sites, where catastrophic forest crown fires were rare historically. It develops most commonly on well-drained loamy soils that lack mottling or other evidence of water-table levels within the tree-rooting zone. Maple-basswood forest is a late-successional community, tending to succeed mixed oak forest (and other forest types) on mesic sites. It is self-perpetuating in the absence of catastrophic disturbance and climate change because the dominant tree species readily reproduce by gap-phase replacement. The very shade-tolerant sugar maple seedlings and saplings, especially, may exist in a suppressed state in the understory for many years until the death of a mature tree when one or a few grow rapidly into the canopy gap. Maple-basswood forests often develop into old-growth forests, because catastrophic disturbances are rare in the community and because the dominant tree species are long- lived (> 250 years). The trend in most stands of maple- basswood forest is toward greater dominance by sugar maple. Maple-basswood forest in spring Maple-basswood forest grades into oak forest where the frequency of fire increases in the landscape. It grades into lowland hardwood forest in low areas where elms and ashes become more abundant and where the water table is at least seasonally within the tree rooting zone. Undisturbed stands of maple-basswood forest are rare and likely would not have occurred prior to settlement in the Cedar Falls area, or only on highly protected north-facing slopes. The soils of these forests were suitable for cultivation, and as a result much of these presettlement communities had been cleared for cropland. Remaining stands have often been grazed or selectively cut for lumber or fuel wood. Heavy grazing causes compaction of the

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 17 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

soils and the almost complete destruction of the understory, resulting in even-aged woodlots with large mature trees in the canopy, little reproduction, and few native shrubs and herbs. Selective logging of the less shade- tolerant species (northern red oak, white oak, bitternut hickory, and walnut) has been common since European settlement, and hastens dominance by sugar maple and basswood in many stands. The composition of the community has also been altered throughout its range by Dutch elm disease, which has killed most of the mature elm trees, and in many stands by the loss of interior ground layer species following forest fragmentation. Common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) and Tartarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica) sometimes invade stands of maple-basswood forest, but rarely attain the high densities they may have in oak forest. Maple-sugaring is one human activity associated with maple-basswood forests that appears to have little impact on the structure and composition of the community, as some of the best remaining tracts of maple- basswood forest have long histories of maple sugar production.

Forests (Lowland) Lowland Hardwood Forest (MLCCS Code 32220) 16 lowland hardwood forests totaling 170.3 acres were documented within the study area.

Lowland hardwood forest is a wet-mesic forest that is transitional between the upland and wet forests, occurring on sites with seasonally high water tables (within the tree-rooting zone) that generally do not flood regularly and have mineral rather than peat soils. In accordance with the poorly drained sites on which the lowland hardwood forests occur, species tolerant of periodic soil saturation dominate the tree canopy. Most stands have mixed species canopies, with American elm (Ulmus americanus), slippery elms (Ulmus rubra), rock elms (U. thomasii) , basswoods, bur oaks, hackberries (Celtis occidentalis), and green ashes (Fraxinus pensylvanica) as important species. The tall-shrub layer is usually discontinuous and is composed of a mix of upland and lowland shrubs. The ground layer is composed mostly of upland herbs that do not root to the water-table.

Lowland hardwood forest with Virginia Lowland hardwood forest usually occurs in fire-protected areas, bluebells (Mertensia virginica) dominant in although even in unprotected areas the community burns the ground layer infrequently because the woody vegetation is usually hydrated, especially in the spring. Lowland hardwood forest soils differ from hardwood swamp forest soils by being mineral rather than peaty and from the mineral soils of other mesic upland forest types by being seasonally saturated (at depths greater than 0.5 meters). Lowland hardwood forest is often composed of late- successional species, but few stands have old canopy trees, presumably because of wind throw and infrequent episodes of killing floods. (e.g., on river terraces above normal flood levels with loamy soils).

Floodplain Forest (MLCCS Codes 32210, 32211)

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 18 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

15 floodplain forests were recorded in the study area, totaling 564.3 acres. These were largely associated with the Cedar River and its floodplain, with one occurrence in the Black Hawk Creek area on the southeast side of the city.

Floodplain forest is a seasonally wet forest community that occurs on the active floodplains of major rivers and their tributary streams. The canopy of the community is dominated by deciduous tree species tolerant of inundation, abrasion, and other disturbances associated with flooding. The canopy is variable in composition, either composed of a mixture of tree species or strongly dominated by a single tree species.

The species composition of floodplain forests varies both geographically and in relation to such features Floodplain forest (photo: WI DNR) as substrate type or flood cycles. Silver maples (Acer saccharinum), black willows (Salix nigra), and cottonwoods (Populus deltoides) are common canopy dominants. They occur either in nearly pure stands or in mixed stands. Scattered individuals or patches of river birch, American elm, slippery elm, green ash, and swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor) are also common. The tree canopy cover is highly variable within floodplain forests. The canopy is continuous in some stands while other stands have open areas caused by repeated erosion, ice-scouring, and soil and debris deposition, all of which prevent the growth of trees and shrubs. In recent decades, Dutch elm disease has also caused significant canopy openings in floodplain forests. Areas beneath tree-canopy openings in the forests are either dominated by herbaceous plants that are adapted to frequent disturbance (often short-lived) or, where erosion and disturbance from flooding tend to be frequent and severe, remain unvegetated.

Woodlands Oak Woodland-brushland (MLCCS Code 42120)

No occurrences of Oak Woodland- brushland were documented in the study area, although one deciduous woodland was noted. Oak woodland-brushland occurs on dry to mesic sites. It is floristically and structurally intermediate between oak savanna and oak forest, with a patchy tree canopy and an understory dominated by shrubs and tree saplings. Oak Woodland-brushland in winter

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 19 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

The principal species in the tree canopy are bur oak, northern pin oak, white oak, and northern red oak. In some instances, aspens may form up to 70% of the tree canopy cover. The brush layer varies widely in density from sparse, to nearly impenetrable thickets. It is often especially dense in openings between clumps or groves of trees. Most of the floristic diversity in the community exists in the brush layer, commonly composed of blackberries and raspberries (Rubus spp.), gooseberries (Ribes spp.), dogwoods (Cornus foemina), cherries (Prunus spp.), hazelnuts (Corylus spp.), prickly ashes (Zanthoxylum americanum), oak sprouts (Quercus spp.) and quaking aspen. Prairie vegetation, if present, tends to occur only in small openings in the tree or shrub canopy that offer adequate light levels for their survival. Except in these scattered prairie openings, the herbaceous layer may be sparse and floristically poor, particularly if canopy closure was recent. It is usually composed of woodland species capable of surviving in the dense shade beneath the brush layer.

Oak woodland-brushland is a fire-maintained community. On rich sites where trees and shrubs grow well, recurrent fires and/or grazing prevented the formation of true forest. Historically, Oak Woodland-Brushland was probably common in northeast Iowa, comprising much of the vegetation described by General Land Office surveyors as oak barrens, brushland, and thickets. The fires that maintained oak woodland-brushland usually started on nearby prairies. Following the conversion of these prairies to agricultural land, oak woodland- brushland burned less frequently and in the absence of grazing rapidly succeeded to oak forest. Oak woodland-brushland is defined broadly enough here to also include communities in which the predominant cover is oak brush or oak-aspen brush (that originated following fire or limited human disturbance) instead of a well-developed tree canopy.

In some areas of northeast Iowa, oak woodland-brushland is present on southwest-facing slopes, blufflands and on outwash terraces of major rivers and their tributaries. Bur oaks are common canopy dominants and northern red oaks are common associates. White oaks are common canopy dominants on coarse textured soils; pin oaks, basswoods, and black cherries may also occur in the canopy. Chokecherries are common in the shrub layer, with shrub cover averaging 30-50%. On droughty sites with thin soils or steep slopes these woodlands may persist even in the absence of fire.

Mesic Oak Savanna (MLCCS Code 62130) Although no occurrences of this plant community type were recorded during this survey effort, it is described here because it would have been a historically important plant community type and may represent a type of restoration to be considered on areas such as out-of-play areas on golf courses, portions of parks not actively used, or buffers along trail corridors, or similar. A mesic oak savanna. The characteristic trees of mesic

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 20 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

oak savanna are bur oaks and to a lesser extent northern pin oaks and white oaks. Quaking aspens were probably common as sprouts in mesic oak savannas. The stature and spacing of the oaks can vary considerably, primarily with differences in fire and grazing history. Grubs and small, gnarly, open-grown trees can be common, particularly on droughty soils.

The distribution of trees ranges from evenly spaced to strongly clumped. Shrub cover, likewise, was probably quite variable. The shrub layer may include chokecherries (Prunus virginiana), juneberries (Amelanchier spp.), gray-bark dogwoods (Cornus racemosa), American hazelnuts (Corylus americana), hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), and on lighter soils, prairie willows (Salix humilis) and New Jersey tea (Ceanothus americanus). Leadplant (Amorpha canescens) was always present. The herbaceous vegetation was dominated by species typical of mesic prairie, but herbs typical of oak woodland and oak forest are often present as well, especially beneath tree or shrub canopies.

Remnant mesic oak savanna is remarkably rare in the upper Midwest. Historically, mesic oak savanna occurred on dry-mesic to wet-mesic, gently undulating to moderately sloping sites, often on glacial till or outwash. Soil texture generally ranges from clay loam to sandy loam. Mesic Oak Savanna generally occurred on sites where fire and/or grazing were or are frequent enough to prevent trees and shrubs from forming closed canopies, thereby permitting sun-loving prairie plants to dominate the ground layer. Native grazing and browsing animals may also have helped maintain the open character of mesic oak savanna. Within the deciduous forest-woodland zone, where landscape character reduced fire frequency on a large scale, mesic oak savanna often covered larger areas. With settlement and the suppression of prairie fires, savannas in the deciduous forest-woodland zone that escaped clearing and cultivation quickly succeeded to woodland unless heavily and continuously grazed. Very few high quality examples of mesic savanna are known to remain in the upper Midwest.

Dry Oak Savanna (MLCCS Codes 62120, 62122) No occurrences of dry oak savanna were documented in the study area. However, it would have occurred in select areas of Cedar Falls and therefore a description provided. Dry Oak Savanna occurs on the same kinds of landforms as Dry Prairie. The best local example of this community type in the region is Cedar Bend Savanna, just north of Cedar Falls and the study area.

The barrens subtype of dry savanna occurs on the same kinds of sand deposits as the Barrens Subtype of Dry Prairie. On dune blankets it tends to be favored over prairie in areas of sharper relief. Bur and pin oaks are generally the prevalent trees. Small, gnarly, open-grown trees are common in these barrens savanna, although in moister spots, or in heavier soils, larger trees can be common. Trees range in spacing from sparse and evenly spaced to Dry oak savanna/barrens prairie on semi-dormant sand dunes. strongly grouped. The shrub layer is usually

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 21 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

sparse; the most common species in the shrub layer are oaks (in the form of grubs), with chokecherry, American hazel, smooth sumac, prairie willow, bush juniper (Juniperus communis) and New Jersey tea (Ceanothus americanus) often present. The herbaceous vegetation present in open areas is similar to that of the Barrens Subtype of Dry Prairie. In the Cedar Falls area, these prairie and savanna types support several state-listed species, including cleft phlox (Phlox bifida) and bent milkvetch (Astragalus distortus).

The presence of savanna rather than prairie tends to indicate a history of lower fire and/or grazing frequency or intensity (or both) than in prairie. Thanks to the influence of droughty soils, Dry Oak Savanna requires less frequent fire than Mesic Savanna for maintenance. However, in the complete absence of fire, woodland will eventually replace Dry Oak Savanna. Grazing and browsing animals also played an important role in the maintenance of Dry Oak Savanna. Many pastures in northeast Iowa have scattered oaks, and a limited amount of other tree and shrub cover thanks to grazing. These sites, particularly those that have not been plowed recently or frequently, are good candidates for cost-effective restoration efforts. Because Dry Oak Savanna occurs on sites that are not as suitable for cultivation as Mesic Oak Savanna sites, and because succession in the absence of fire is not as rapid, more examples remain of Dry Oak Savanna tend to persist through time than of Mesic Oak Savanna.

Shrublands Wet Meadow - Shrub Subtype (MLCCS Code 52420) One occurrence of wet meadow-shrub subtype was encountered, being 1.8 acres in size.

This wet shrub meadow type may occur along broad, shallow swales and stream courses, adjacent to lakes or in upland depressions. Soils are wet mineral, muck, or shallow peat (<0.5 m). Standing water is present in the spring and after heavy rains, but the water table draws down by mid-summer. Seepage areas may also occur. Shrub cover is at least 25 percent but does not become thick. Dominant species include red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), Bebb’s willow (Salix bebbiana), pussy willow (Salix discolor), slender willows(Salix petiolaris), and meadowsweet (Spiraea alba). Herbaceous species are typical of wet herbaceous meadows, and include several species of sedges (Carex aquatilis, C. atherodes, C. haydenii, C. lacustris, C. lanuginosa, C. rostrata, and C. stricta), or grasses such as Canada blue joint (Calamagrostis canadensis) and reedgrass (Calamagrostis stricta). Forbs include swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata), lance-leaved aster (Aster lanceolatus), New England aster (A. novae-angliae), swamp aster (A. puniceus), turtlehead (Chelone glabra), joe-pye weed (Eupatorium maculatum), and common mint (Mentha arvensis).

Wet meadow shrub subtype is a wetland community comprised of 50-70% cover by tall shrubs where peat is <0.5m deep and gaps are not dominated by emergent species >1m tall. The leaves of typical grasses and sedges within this community are >3mm wide (such as Canada blue joint (Calamagrostis canadensis), lake sedge (Carex lacustris), and tussock sedge (C. stricta)).

Willow Swamp (MLCCS Code 52430) One occurrence of willow swamp 2 acres in size was noted in the study area.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 22 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

Willow swamp is a minerotrophic wetland with a canopy of medium to tall (>1m) shrubs dominated by willows (especially pussy willow, slender willow, and Bebb's willow) and red-osier dogwood. Other shrubs, such as speckled alder (Alnus rugosa), bog birch, poison sumac (Rhus vernix), and alder buckthorn (Rhamnus alnifolia) may be common in the tall shrub layer, although speckled alder is never the most abundant species present. Herbaceous species (especially graminoids) characteristic of wet meadow/fen communities are common in the more open occurrences of the community. However, in willow swamps, unlike wet meadow/fen communities, these graminoid-dominated patches are poorly separated from clumps of shrubs. The most common herbs are tussock sedge (Carex stricta), prairie sedge (Carex prairea), lake-bank sedge (Carex lacustris), broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia), Canada blue-joint grass, northern marsh fern (Thelypteris palustris), and jewel-weed (Impatiens capensis).

Willow swamps dominated by bog birch are closely related to the shrub subtype of rich fen but have more minerotrophic indicator species [such as speckled alder, holly (Ilex verticillata), jewel-weed, and horehound (Lycopus uniflorus)] than are present in Rich Fens. Following fire in conifer swamps or in the shrub subtype of rich fens there may be initially a dense cover of willows (usually balsam willow and bog willow), but these stands are best classified as successional stages of conifer swamp or rich fen rather than as willow swamp. The dense groves of sand-bar willow or juvenile black willow that occur on sand bars along rivers are not considered shrub swamp communities but instead river beach communities, as they occur on mineral rather than peat or muck substrates.

Willow swamp occurs on seasonally flooded soils with <30% tree cover and >50% cover by tall shrubs (not dwarf-shrubs), where <50% of the shrubs are alders and gaps are dominated by emergent species >1m tall.

Herbaceous Wetlands Wet Prairie MLCCS Code 61310 4 wet prairie areas totaling 11 acres were documented in the study area, most of which were associated with current or former pastures. The quality level correlates to current and former grazing and the amount of degradation caused by it, as well as drainage, ditching, and other similar human practices.

Wet Prairie is dominated by grasses, but sedges are also important in the community. The major cover-forming grasses in wet prairies are prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata) and blue-joint Calamagrostis canadensis). Other common grasses are switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), fowl meadow grass (Poa palustris), and sweet grass (Hierocloe odorata). The introduced grass redtop (Agrostis stolonifera) is often present on disturbed sites. Common Wet Prairie sedges are Carex lanuginosa, C. haydenii, C. laeviconica and others. Forbs are abundant in Wet Prairies, but on the whole fewer forb species occur in Wet Prairie than in Mesic Prairie. Common widespread Wet Prairie forb species are panicled aster (Aster lanceolatus), New England aster (A. novae-angliae), ragwort (Senecio sp.), giant goldenrod (Solidago gigantea), ironweed (Vernonia fasciculata), sawtooth sunflower (H. grosseserratus), sneezeweed (Helenium autumnale), gay-feather (Liatris pycnostachya), blazing-star (L. ligulistylis), grass-leaved goldenrod (Euthamia graminifolia), cupplant (Silphium perfoliatum), golden alexanders (Zizia aurea), bottle gentian (Gentiana andrewsii), yellow star-grass (Hypoxis hirsuta), marsh vetchling (Lathyrus palustris), tall meadow rue (Thalictrum dasycarpum), prairie loosestrife (Lysimachia quadriflora), Virginia mountain-mint (Pycnanthemum virginianum), swamp lousewort (Pedicularis lanceolata), and northern bog violet (Viola neprophylla). Shrubs such as willows (pussy willow and other willow species) and meadowsweet are common in the community; willow and aspen trees are also sometimes present.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 23 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

Wet Prairie is a fire-dependent community, with shrub and tree cover increasing in the community in the absence of fire (though regular haying will also prevent increased shrub and tree cover in the community.) Wet Prairie occurs in low areas (such as depressions, stream margined/floodplains and drainage ways) where the water table remains within the plant rooting zone for several weeks during the growing season, but where inundation occurs only infrequently and briefly. In some Wet Prairies groundwater seepage causes soils to be very moist or wet. Wet Prairie is especially common on broad, poorly drained flats. In the deciduous forest-woodland zone, Wet Prairie exists on broad, nearly level river terraces or in shallow depressions on outwash. The soils within the community are mainly mollisols (aquolls). They range in texture from silty clays to fine sands and are somewhat poorly drained to very poorly drained. Impermeable subsurface layers impede soil drainage on some sites, and a thin layer of muck may be present at the ground surface on Wet Prairies in seepage areas. Most soils are calcareous.

Cattail Marsh (MLCCS Codes 61510, 61610, 61710, 61810) No cattail marshes were mapped within the study area. For the purposes of most natural area surveys, cattails marshes do not typically include monotypic (i.e. single species) stands of the nonnative narrow-leaf cattail with very low species diversity. Wetlands within Cedar Falls comprised primarily of narrow-leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) were considered non-native dominated herbaceous wetlands (MLCCS codes 61330, 61480, 61530, and 61630). Several large cattail/reed canary grass monotypes were observed within the city, as well as numerous medium to small disturbed basins containing a monotype or combination of invasive species.

Cattail marsh is an emergent marsh dominated by cattails (including broad leaved cattail (Typha latifolia) less frequently narrow leaved cattail (T. angustifolia), and very often their hybrids T. glauca). Cattail marshes occur most commonly along low spots in side-swale slopes on the Iowan Surface, near seeps, and less frequently in shallow basins and river backwaters. Slope drainage cattail marshes typically have a muck-bottom zone, where cattails are rooted in the bottom substrate, and intergrade with wet meadow. Where groundwater seepage is present, a semi- suspended buoyant peaty mat may occur. Associated species vary widely, particularly where cattail marsh intergrades with wet meadow, but may commonly include 5-10 species of sedges of the genus Carex (C. haydenii, C. stricta, C. lanuginosa and others), bulrushes (Scirpus americanus, S. acutus, and S. atrovirens), and broad-leaved herbs such as cupplant, swamp milkweed, ironweed (Vernonia fasciculata), sneezeweed (Helenium autumnale), broad-leaved arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia), mad-dog skullcap (Scutellaria lateriflora), marsh skullcap (Scutellaria galericulata), and blue vervain (Verbena hastata).

Wet Meadow (MLCCS Code 61540) One wet meadow totaling 1.2 acres was documented in the study area.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 24 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

The ground layer of wet meadow communities are composed of dense, closed stands of predominately wide- leaved sedges (e.g., lake sedge, tussock sedge, water sedge (Carex aquatilis), beaked sedge (C. rostrata), and Haydens sedge (C. haydenii) or grasses (e.g., Canada blue joint grass, (Calamgrostis canadensis). Forb cover and diversity usually are high. Forbs such as spotted joe-pye weed (Eupatorium maculatum), common mint (Mentha arvensis), turtlehead (Chelone glabra), and swamp milkweed are conspicuous. Shrub cover in wet meadows ranges from 0 to 70% and is composed of Bebb's willows and Wet Meadow in the study area, along trail, just north of Hwy. 20 pussy willows. Mosses are rare or absent.

Wet meadow occurs on wet mineral soil, muck, or shallow peat (<0.5 m). Standing water is present in the spring and after heavy rains, but the water table is generally below the soil surface for most of the growing season. The drawdown of the water table as the growing season progresses enables the oxidation of dead organic matter that has accumulated on the ground surface from previous years. This process makes available nutrients for some of the plant species present in the community that would otherwise be unable to thrive here. Occurrences of wet meadow along stream courses may have fairly constant water levels while those occurring on sideslopes tend to have less consistent water levels unless they are associated with seeps.

Wet meadow tends to succeed to shrub swamp communities in the absence of fire, grazing, haying, or cutting. Water-table lowering caused by drought or by ditching causes conversion of wet meadow to shrub swamps. Wet meadows on organic soils, like other communities that occur on organic soils, recover very slowly, if at all, once altered by artificial flooding or draining. Historically, sedge/wet meadow would have been common and intermixed with wet prairie on sideslope swales in the study area. Ditching, tiling, dozing (re-shaping) of waterways, and siltation from adjacent agricultural fields have resulted in near total loss of this plant community type from the study area in the last 150 years.

Mixed Emergent Marsh (MLCCS Codes 61520, 61620) No emergent marshes were documented in the study area; however, they would have likely occurred prior to alteration of the landscape after settlement and are therefore included by description here. Within most of the mixed emergent marsh remnants in the study area, reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) is a common invasive species. This is especially true adjacent to agricultural lands that have high sediment and nutrient load in their runoff.

Mixed emergent marsh is a broad community type, encompassing all marshes dominated by species other than cattails. Bulrushes are the most common dominants, especially hard-stemmed bulrush (Scirpus acutus),

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 25 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

river bulrush (Scirpus fluviatilis), softstem bulrush (Scirpus validus), Scirpus americanus, and Scirpus heterochaetus. Common reed grass (Phragmites australis), spike rushes (Eleocharis spp.), and (in some river backwaters) prairie cord grass (Spartina pectinata) are less common dominants.

In general, mixed emergent marsh tends to occur on harder pond, lake, or river bottoms than cattail marsh and is less likely to contain the forbs that grow on the floating peat mats present in many cattail marshes. Broad-leaved arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia) and aquatic macrophytes are the most common non-graminoid associates. Many mixed emergent marsh species are sensitive to fertilizer run-off and other artificial disturbances, and disturbed mixed emergent marshes (especially in the Prairie Zone) tend to convert to cattail marshes or become strongly dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) or common reed grass (Phragmites australis), species that increase in abundance with disturbance.

Upland Grasslands Mesic Prairie (MLCCS Code 61110) Three small remnant mesic prairies were documented in the study area totaling 4.3 acres.

Mesic prairie is a dry-mesic to wet-mesic grassland that historically represented the single greatest land cover type in the Cedar Falls area, and Iowa. Big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans), and prairie drop seed (Sporobolus heterolepis) are the major native species on most sites, with little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) and porcupine grass (Stipa spartea) important on drier sites, and prairie cord grass (Spartina pectinata), sedges, and to a lesser degree switch grass (Panicum virgatum) more common on wetter sites.

Forb species composition varies with site moisture, although some forb species occur on almost all sites, moist or dry. Several low shrub or sub-shrub species are common on Mesic Prairie; the most characteristic is leadplant (Amorpha canescens). Taller brush and trees are absent or scattered, however brush or woodland areas may be interspersed with prairie, usually in association with topographic and aquatic features that provided protection from fire.

The most important cause of variation in species composition in prairie communities is variation in soil moisture. The local soil moisture regime is determined by slope, aspect, proximity to the water table, and soil texture. Prairies occur on a range of landforms in the region, from nearly flat landscapes to steep morainal slopes.

Fragmentation of upland prairie Hayden Prairie State Preserve, Howard County, Iowa shows an example of a mesic since European settlement has prairie similar to what may have historically occurred as the dominant land cover reduced fire frequency throughout type in the study area.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 26 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

the prairie and most prairie remnants have more brush and trees than were present in the past. The introduced grass Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) is present at most sites, along with other nonnative pasture grasses such as smooth brome (Bromus inermis) and quackgrass (Elytrigia repens).

Forbs are abundant in remnant mesic prairie and have high local diversity. Common forb species include purple prairie-clover (Dalea purpureum), white prairie-clover (D. candidum), compass plant (Silphium laciniatum), blazingstars (Liatris spp.), showy goldenrod (Solidago speciosa), stiff goldenrod (S. rigida), rattlesnake master (Eryngium yuccifolium), prairie thistle (Cirsium flodmanii), smooth aster (Aster laevis), showy sunflower (Helianthus laeteriflorus), white wild indigo (Baptisia lactea), smooth rattlesnake-root (Prenanthes racemosa), white sage (Artemisia ludoviciana), golden alexanders (Zizia aurea), prairie coreopsis (Coreopsis palmata), prairie phlox (Phlox pilosa), hoary puccoon (Lithospermum canescens), tall cinquefoil (Potentilla arguta), alum-root (Heuchera richardsonii), betony (Pedicularis canadensis), northern bedstraw (Galium boreale), prairie bird-foot violet (Viola pedatifida), showy tick trefoil (Desmodium canadense), pale purple coneflower (Echinacea pallida) and others. Leadplant, prairie rose, and prairie willow are common shrub species. Trees and taller brush such as quaking aspen often occur along the margins of wetlands, and areas infrequently grazed or hayed.

The soils in mesic prairie are predominantly mollisols with thick, dark mineral surface layers that have high base saturation. They range in texture and drainage from silty and somewhat poorly drained to sandy and somewhat excessively drained, with moderately well-drained to well-drained, loamy soils being most common. Mesic prairie can grade into wet prairie on moister sites and into the dry prairie on droughtier soils.

Prairie Plantings (Prairie Restorations) MLCCS Code 61110 – Modifier Code 301 According to the key used for MLCCS prairie plantings, also referred to as prairie restorations, are assigned the same code as remnant prairie. Importantly, prairie plantings/restorations are assigned a modifier code of “301 – planted”, differentiating them from remnant prairies (those here prior to settlement and not planted).

Several high quality prairie restorations/prairie plantings have been previously conducted around Cedar Falls – making it a leading community in the upper Midwest in this regard. These offer outstanding opportunities for education, passive recreation, wildlife habitat and also provide other benefits. A partial list of some of the known highest quality prairie plantings in the Cedar Falls area include: ƒ Big Woods - Rotary Prairie, ƒ The 12th Street Prairie (on the south side of Walter’s Ridge par-3 golf course) ƒ Sid Morris Prairie ƒ Prairie Lakes (particularly the restoration area at the corner of Viking and Hudson Roads) ƒ UNI Campus Prairie ƒ Storm pond south of University Avenue, west of Hudson Road (because of the large area planted)

Also, several large, but less diverse (species-rich) prairie plantings occur in several areas of Cedar Falls, including a large planting at the John Deere Engineering Test facility and on city park land around Prairie Lake. While these are less diverse than those listed immediately above, they are still important as they provide large blocks of grassland habitat and landscape vistas.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 27 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

It is also important to note that because prairie remnants are so rare in Iowa, prairie restorations/ reconstructions (plantings) are remarkably important for a variety of reasons. Prairie restorations that focus on planting a highly diverse seed mix with a majority of seeds planted being forbs results in aesthetically pleasing restorations that require less maintenance than turf areas. They also provide valuable wildlife habitat, water quality benefits, and others. Although a variety of garden type “prairie wildflower” mixes are readily available from discount stores and commercial turf seed suppliers, these mixes DO NOT include species/ecotypes native to the area.

Successful prairie plantings begin with obtaining seed from a reputable native seed supplier that can provide seeds of species native to the area and of local origin. There are a number of locations on city land where “prairie wildflower” plantings have been conducted using discount store style “prairie wildflower” seed. At best, these plantings inaccurately represent prairie and often give the public a poor opinion after they inevitably become dominated by nonnative and/or noxious weeds – further hindering efforts in the area to conduct quality prairie restorations using local ecotype native species.

Dry Prairie (MLCCS Code 61210, 61211, 61213) There were no occurrences of dry prairie recorded within the properties included for field inventory. However, dry prairie does occur along railroad rights-of-way on the north side of the city, and along sandy deposits on terraces adjacent to the Cedar River. Additionally, Cedar Hills Sand Prairie, located 10 miles northwest of Cedar Falls on Butler Road North is an example of this community type. Therefore, a community type description is included in this report.

Dry Prairie is a type of Upland Prairie usually dominated by grasses. The tall grasses, big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) and Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), are the major dominants on moist sites. Prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis) is common on both dry and moist sites. Forbs typically are abundant (but usually not as common as grasses) and may have high local diversity. Forb species composition varies with site Dry sand prairie with rough blazingstar, cottonweed, moisture, although some forb species occur on needlegrass, grey goldenrod and others. almost all sites, moist or dry. Several low shrub or sub-shrub species are common to Dry Prairie; the most characteristic is leadplant (Amorpha canescens). Taller brush and trees are absent or scattered, however brush or woodland areas may be interspersed with prairie, usually in association with topographic and aquatic features that provide protection from fire.

Dry Prairies occur on a range of landforms, from nearly flat glacial lakeplains, gravelly outwash/stream deposits, dunal sand features, and steep morainic slopes. It is a dry to dry-mesic herbaceous community

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 28 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

dominated by grasses and sedges. It occurs throughout the prairie zone and sporadically in the deciduous forest-woodland zone. Dry Prairie has considerable variation in species composition, reflecting interactions of local climate, soils, and topography. In general, Dry Prairies have a greater component of Great Plains species than Mesic Prairies, such as sand reedgrass (Calamovilfa longifolia). Big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) is always present in the community and usually important, but it does not achieve the dominance it typically has in Mesic Prairie. Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans) is more limited in occurrence, generally appearing only where conditions approach mesic. Mid-height and short grasses and sedges are usually dominant in Dry Prairie. Among the more common are porcupine grass (Stipa spartea), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), side-oats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), prairie June-grass (Koeleria macrantha), and sun-loving sedge (Carex heliophila).

Forb variation within the community is more pronounced. Some widespread, characteristic species are, pasque flower (Pulsatilla nuttalliana), stiff sunflower (Helianthus rigidus), silky aster (Aster sericeus), green milkweed (Asclepias viridiflora), stiff goldenrod (Solidago rigida), gray goldenrod (Solidago nemoralis), Missouri goldenrod (Solidago missouriensis), and narrow-leaved puccoon (Lithospermum incisum). Dry Prairies share many forb species with Mesic Prairies, including rough blazing star (Liatris aspera), buffalo-bean (Astragalus crassicarpus), tooth-leaved evening primrose (Calylophus serrulatus), silverleaf scurfpea (Psoralea argophylla), thimbleweed (Anemone cylindrica), Louisiana sagewort (Artemisia ludoviciana), prairie larkspur (Delphinium virescens), heartleaved alexanders (Zizia aptera), purple prairie-clover (Petalostemon purpureum), hoary puccoon (Lithospermum canescens), and prairie smoke (Geum triflorum).

The sub-shrubs leadplant (Amorpha canescens), prairie rose (Rosa arkansana), typical in Mesic Prairies are also generally present in Dry Prairie. Soil-encrusting lichens and the fern-ally rock-spikemoss (Selaginella rupestris) are often common in Dry Prairie. Brush, and sometimes trees, may be present in hollows and draws. Brambles (Rubus spp.), Bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), wild plum (Prunus americana), and smooth sumac (Rhus glabra) are the most widespread woody species. Other woody species more limited in distribution in the community are northern pin oak (Quercus ellipsoidalis), black oak (Quercus velutina), and hazel (Corylus americana).

Dry Prairies are maintained by fire, grazers, and/or wind scouring, but require less frequent fires than mesic and wet prairies because the droughty conditions within Dry Prairies slow or prevent the growth of woody species. Dry Prairie occurs on a variety of landforms, including sand dune blankets of mid-Holocene origin, glacial lake beach ridges, outwash deposits, ice-contact features (kames, eskers), morainic hills, erosional slopes in glacial drift, and bedrock-cored bluffs. Soils range from nearly pure sand with little profile development, to mollisols, although the latter have a much thinner organic-rich surface horizon than the soils of Mesic Prairie. All overlie deep glacial till except for those on bedrock bluffs, which are formed in a thin layer of loess, or bedrock residuum. Soils are well drained to excessively-drained. Depending upon the degree of slope, the slope aspect, and the soil composition, Dry Prairie intergrades with Mesic Prairie.

Other Plant Assemblages (MLCCS Semi-natural Community Types) There are a number of plant assemblages in the study area that do not have native sufficient species composition, three-dimensional structure, or overall function to be considered natural communities as defined by MLCCS and other guidance documents upon which it is based. These “semi-natural” communities are assigned community codes/names according to the MLCCS key/definitions. Semi-natural areas were included

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 29 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

as part of the inventory as a way of creating a more complete picture for the permanent habitats within the study area. Although they are not natural areas by definition, semi-natural areas often possess one or several characteristics that contribute to their value as wildlife habitat at a landscape-level due to proximity and often have good potential for restoration with native species. Sometimes large semi-natural areas (such as Conservation Reserve Program plantings) may represent the only large block of habitat in the area and are therefore important.

The names assigned to these MLCCS communities are standardized, descriptive in nature, and give an indication of the structure of an area, as well as the water regime. Some examples of common semi-natural MLCCS community type names included in this report are:

Altered/Nonnative Deciduous Forest MLCCS Code 32170 This upland deciduous forest is not dominated by oaks, aspens, balsam poplars, paper birches, yellow birches, sugar maples, or basswoods. Boxelder, green ash, and cottonwood are typical canopy dominants, sometimes together and sometimes singly. Elms are common associates. Hackberries, aspens, oaks, and basswoods may also be present. The shrub layer is often dominated by buckthorn and Tartarian honeysuckle, but gooseberries and elderberries can also be common. The ground layer is also dominated by species tolerant of disturbances, including white snakeroot, motherwort, and garlic mustard. Occasionally, when higher quality forests are nearby, the understory can be more diverse.

Disturbed Deciduous Woodland MLCCS Code 42130 These upland areas have 10-70% tree cover, of which less than 25% is by conifers. Aspens comprise <70% of tree cover and oaks comprise less than 30%. Herbaceous species comprise less than 30% of the non-tree cover. Boxelder, green ash, and cottonwood are typical canopy dominants, sometimes together and sometimes singly. Elms are common associates. Hackberries, aspens, oaks, and basswoods may also be present. The shrub layer is often dominated by buckthorn and Tartarian honeysuckle, but sumacs, gooseberries and elderberries can also be common. The ground layer is also dominated by species tolerant of disturbances, including white snakeroot, motherwort, and garlic mustard. Occasionally, when higher quality forests are nearby, the understory can be more diverse.

Medium-tall grass nonnative dominated grassland MLCCS Code 61220 These are often plantings of smooth brome grass like those planted for the Conservation Reserve Program in the 1980’s, or some other nonnative pasture grass. This upland grassland is generally less than 1m tall, with less than 10% tree cover and less than 50% shrub cover, and is dominated by non-native species, such as brome, Kentucky bluegrass, reed canary grass, and spotted knapweed.

Saturated to Seasonally flooded nonnative dominated graminoid vegetation MLCCS Codes 61480, 61530, 61630 These wetland areas are typically disturbed by one of several human activities such as draining and/or planting of nonnative grasses, as well as grazing. These areas typically occur in the same settings that wet meadows or shallow marshes would occur and tend to be dominated by the nonnatives reed canary grass and/or narrow-leaf cattail).

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 30 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

Grassland with sparse deciduous trees – nonnative dominated MLCCS Code 62140 These areas typically occur as former oak savannas where the ground cover was planted to nonnative pasture grasses, or more commonly abandoned agricultural fields planted to perennial nonnative grasses and later colonized by pioneer tree species. This upland vegetation has 10-70% cover by trees (of which less than 25% is conifer), where more than 30% of non-tree cover is herbaceous and dominated by non-native species. The ground layer is often dominated by brome or Kentucky bluegrass. Common shrubs include sumac and Tartarian honeysuckle. Almost any tree species can be found here, but elms, cottonwoods, green ashes, boxelders, and bur oaks are common.

It is important to note that although they do not meet the criteria to be classified as remnant natural communities, these “semi-natural” plant assemblages can and do provide important habitat for wildlife. They can also be important in the landscape, providing water quality benefits and act as buffers between developed and intensively farmed areas. In some cases, such as “Grassland with sparse deciduous trees” areas, there may be opportunity to easily restore a natural community such as Mesic Oak Savanna that is exceptionally rare in the Upper Midwest.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 31 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

Water Resource Analysis This portion of the project is intended to provide guidance to the City on their stormwater management program, including how best to meet the watershed assessment requirement in the City’s NPDES MS4 permit. The section is laid out in the following manner:

1. Key Elements of Community Stormwater Programs Section - provides an overview of how various communities with which we are familiar address stormwater management. The discussion focuses on several major elements which often form key “building blocks” for community stormwater management programs. 2. NPDES MS4 Watershed Assessment Section - discusses the watershed assessment requirement in the City’s NPDES MS4 permit and presents several options for meeting that requirement in view of the lack of guidance from the Iowa DNR. 3. Stormwater Management Program Improvement Recommendations Section - contains recommendations for the City to consider in improving its stormwater management program based on a review of the City’s ordinances and policies, NPDES permit, and limited discussions with City staff and others about future hopes and expectations for the program.

Key Elements of Community Stormwater Programs In working with various communities since the 1990’s, there are many different elements that are incorporated to various degrees as basic building blocks for municipal stormwater management programs. We have chosen several of these elements because they reflect components that the City of Cedar Falls may want to consider incorporating into their stormwater management program as adjustments/refinements are made in the future. Each element is presented and discussed briefly below.

1. Inventory/classification of water features. Many communities begin the development of a stormwater program and planning efforts with a field-based inventory of the water features within the community. As part of this inventory, they look at the type of resource, the location, and the condition. The driving force behind this element – like that behind the City’s environmentally sensitive land survey – is that one can’t protect something without knowing that it exists. The inventory information provides the basis to classify and prioritize those resources for appropriate uses and for protection/ restoration efforts. Factors taken into account in classification/prioritization are customized for each community, but often revolve around the following core elements: • Existing or planned degree of public access. • The existing condition of the resources. Easier and often less costly to protect high quality resources than restore a degraded one. • Habitat value. Takes into account both the quality of the habitat associated with that particular feature as well as its degree of connectivity with other habitat. • Priority with other resource management agencies, including whether any of the resources are listed as impaired and how future management or development-related activities could affect that impairment. 2. Sizing criteria for structural best management practices. Flood control and stormwater conveyance has for a long time been considered a quantitative endeavor. Technical tools have existed for many years that allow reasonably accurate estimation of flood elevations and peak flows, and that information often provides the basis for design of structural components needed to manage

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 32 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

stormwater quantity in a community. Over the last two decades, however, technical tools have also been developed to aid in the sizing and design of stormwater quality management components as well. Detention basins have been the primary stormwater quality treatment features employed by most communities since the 1990’s (although infiltration practices are becoming much more prevalent). There are available simple spreadsheet models that have been developed in the upper Midwest and provide a quick and easy method to guide sizing of detention basins. For example, W.W. Walkers PONDSIZE model is based on providing sufficient wet volume (i.e. volume of water below the normal water level of the pond) to hold designated volumes of water for specified periods of time to achieve pollutant removal through settling and biological uptake. Other relatively simple models are available to quantify system removal efficiencies for networks of detention basins as well. There are also sizing protection for channel protection, which have evolved over the last 10 years. The Iowa State Stormwater Management Manual (ISSMM) (February 2007) provides unified sizing criteria accepted in Iowa for a wide variety of structural BMPs and is the most appropriate technical reference manual for establishing sizing criteria applicable to Cedar Falls. 3. Performance standards for best management practices. Over the past several years, many communities in Minnesota have moved from a criteria based on sizing of a preferred BMPs (mainly detention basins) to one geared toward achieving a specified level of performance for target pollutant removal and, increasingly, runoff volume control. A number have adopted a two-pronged approach, where land development activities above a certain size or impervious threshold are required to meet either a target removal efficiency or incorporate BMPs so that post-development target pollutant loadings are not increased above a pre-development baseline condition, whichever is more restrictive. This approach is taken in an effort to improve on a pre-development condition that might be somewhat degraded already. Further, the focus on end points provides the opportunity to use many non-pond BMP’s that are often actually more effective in resource protection. An example would be the use of infiltration techniques, which not only control phosphorus and total suspended solids but convert surface water runoff into groundwater which can help sustain baseflow in adjacent stream systems. Standards developed in some parts of the Twin Cities Metro area, for example, recognize that infiltration of just ½” of runoff from the impervious area of a development yields a benefit of 60% reduction in average annual TP and runoff volume. Infiltration of 1” of runoff from the same area yields a reduction of 85% in average annual TP load and runoff volume. These reductions can relatively easily be translated into performance related to TSS removal, which is more of an issue for the Cedar Falls area than nutrients like phosphorus. 4. Custom management plans for high priority resources. Community stormwater management programs often provide a set of fairly broad, basic requirements that land alteration activities must comply with to mostly “hold the line” in the protection of the community’s resources. Frequently, however, there are high priority resources in a community that merit more in-depth evaluation and a more intensive, focused effort for protection or improvement. This higher priority is often because the resource in question is a recreational asset prized by the community or because the water body has been listed as impaired by state or federal regulatory agencies. In these cases, a customized management plan is prepared. Unlike a community-wide stormwater management plan, a resource- specific management plan usually involves at least some basic sampling/assessment of the resource to determine resource condition as well as a more detailed evaluation of the contributing watershed to look for opportunities for targeted “retro-fit” projects that can improve the resource condition. TMDL projects, such as the one currently being carried out for Dry Run Creek, are good examples of

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 33 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

this element. A similar but less intensive approach might also be considered for other significant community features, such as Prairie Lakes. 5. Quantitative system assessment with modeling. Many of the stormwater management programs involving larger communities (i.e., often those with populations over 20,000) involve preparation of community-wide models that are used to estimate high water levels, peak flows, flow velocities, and other important information for specific locations in the system for specific design precipitation events. While this undertaking goes well beyond the minimum control measures for the NPDES permit, it can be especially helpful in setting high water levels for networks of ponds as well as for determining what’s needed to meet specific discharge rates to protect the integrity of open channels. However, it also requires a detailed knowledge of storm drainage system, such as watershed boundaries and watershed land use at for key features/points, watershed outlet characteristics (pipe diameters, weir dimensions, etc.), stage/storage relationships above pond normal water level or stream banks, overflow elevations, flow routing in the system, etc.

NPDES MS4 Watershed Assessment Part II Section E Item 4 of the City of Cedar Falls Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit under NPDES states the following:

“Watershed Assessment Program – A watershed assessment program and comprehensive land use plan shall be developed which outlines measures to be implemented which reduce flooding, reduce erosion in ditches and streams, improve water quality and reduce degradation of habitat for fish and wildlife. The permitee shall implement the program whenever possible to meet these goals.”

Guidance from the State of Iowa is lacking on what constitutes compliance with this permit requirement, nor could Iowa DNR program personnel furnish any examples of what other Iowa communities have done to comply with the requirement. Thus, there is no clear metric on what constitutes compliance. However, it appears the City could take several approaches to meet the requirement. The first option is to assert that the basic permit requirement is met with the passage of Ordinance 2569 – Stormwater Management Program in February 2006 and the completion of the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey (ESLS). It is important to note that the ESLS includes both upland as well as water resource features, such as wetlands, seeps, and riparian corridors. The legitimacy of the ESLS in meeting the permit requirement will be enhanced to the degree that the results are incorporated into the City’s land use plan. This means that key areas should be shown as environmentally sensitive and that special requirements may have to be adopted to protect the integrity of those areas. The City of Ames, IA has pursued this approach for their community.

Another option to further enhance the City’s standing in meeting the permit requirement is to consider incorporating the work that is being conducted by IA Department of Natural Resources (IA DNR) and the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) for the TMDL on Dry Run Creek as part of the stressor identification phase. This information will subsequently be used to develop the TMDL itself, which is essentially a watershed plan showing how the loads of the key pollutant(s) will be reduced to meet the standard, identifying which parties will be responsible for achieving those reductions, and setting a timeline for implementation of the agreed upon measures. The Dry Run Creek TMDL project area covers approximately 80% of the City. At the time of preparation of this report, the project was still in progress and not expected to be completed for at least another 12-24 months. It should be noted that two other drainages in the City – Black Hawk Creek and the watershed of the Un-named Stream in the northwestern portion of the City- are not included in the Dry Run Creek TMDL project.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 34 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

However, the issues are expected to be much the same. Thus, the completion of the Dry Run Creek TMDL may provide enough information so that assessments of the other stream systems – if necessary at all – can be streamlined to help show compliance with the watershed assessment permit requirement.

Stormwater Management Program Improvement Recommendations In reviewing stormwater management issues affecting the City of Cedar Falls, several factors stand out as being of paramount importance in making recommendations for adjustments of the program: 1. Sediment/total suspended solids control is the key water quality issue. Based on preliminary findings from the stressor identification project on Dry Run Creek, high sediment loads are the primary cause of impairment to the system. There are likely two main sources of sediment affecting Dry Run Creek; sediment carried into the stream system from runoff and sediment generated by bank erosion due to unstable channels. 2. Treatment of urban runoff prior to discharge is part of the solution. In an urban context, high loads of sediment exported to the stream from urban runoff are often a result of erosion from construction sites as well as inadequately treated runoff from impervious surfaces like roadways and parking lots. Installation of post-construction watershed BMPs (such as properly sized detention basins) and execution of an effective construction site erosion and sediment control program are key management measures to control this source of sediment. 3. Protection of the stability of natural channels is very important. Changes in the hydrologic regime of Dry Run Creek and its tributaries caused by both agricultural and urban development has de-stabilized a number of the natural channels in the area. Sediment export due to eroding channel banks and bottoms is likely to be a significant source of the overall sediment load. As urban developments replace agricultural land uses, it will be important to incorporate practices into those urban developments that help restore a hydrologic regime that helps the system become more stable. 4. The Dry Run Creek TMDL and future TMDL’s could impose additional requirements on the City’s stormwater management program. Careful execution of urban BMPs as development proceeds has the potential to improve the condition of Dry Run Creek through the treatment of stormwater prior to release and by tightly controlling the discharge rate (and perhaps runoff volume) from small storms (< 1 year recurrence interval). If possible, these measures should be implemented as new developments go in (rather than as retro-fit projects) to maximize the potential for both social acceptability and proper allocation of the costs to the development causing the impact. 5. The Iowa State Stormwater Management Manual (ISSMM) is an important complement to the City’s stormwater management ordinance. This manual, published in February 2007, contains up-to-date information on design guidance-including sizing criteria- for many different kinds of urban stormwater BMPs, including those for detention basins, infiltration practices, and low impact development approaches. The manual is similar in quality to the State of Minnesota’s Stormwater Manual, and contains much of the same information, but is customized for Iowa where it is appropriate. This document is an excellent complement to the City’s stormwater management ordinance because it provides the technical detail to support the management objectives outlined in the ordinance.

Following are the highest priorities for adjustments in the City’s stormwater management program:

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 35 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

Adopt the channel protection criteria in the ISSM. Historically, two-year peak discharge control has been used by many communities to control channel erosion. Two-year peak control is intended to keep the post-development peak discharge for the 2-year 24-hour event at pre-development rates. The reasoning behind this criterion is that the bank-full discharge for most streams has a recurrence interval of between 1 and 2 years, with approximately 1.5 years as the most prevalent (citation), and maintaining this discharge rate should act to prevent downstream erosion. Recent research, however, indicates that two- year peak discharge control does not protect channels from downstream erosion and may actually contribute to erosion since banks are exposed to a longer duration of erosive bank-full and sub-bankful events (citation). The recommended channel protection criteria in both the ISSMM as well as the Minnesota Stormwater Manual is to provide 24 hours of extended detention for the runoff generated by the 1-year 24-hour design storm. The runoff volume generated is stored in the extended detention pool (above any wet detention pool) and gradually released over a 24-hour period so that critical erosive velocities in downstream channels are not exceeded over the entire storm hydrograph. As a rule of thumb, the extended detention storage capacity needed to provide channel protection is about 60-65% of the one-year storm runoff volume. There are some practical limitations in applying channel protection criteria to small development sites because orifice diameters or weir sizes become extremely small and are prone to clogging. As a result, it is recommended that the requirement be waved for small sites that have less than 3 acres of impervious coverage. Also, the criteria need not be applied at sites that have a discharge condition that will not likely cause a local channel erosion problem, such as sites that discharge directly to 4th order or higher streams/rivers (like the Cedar River).

For stormwater quality treatment, consider moving to a performance-based system focusing on TSS removal. The ISSMM identifies many different kinds of BMPs that can be used to achieve a given level of pollutant removal performance. By focusing on stormwater treatment system performance to achieve a post-development TSS load reduction of 80% (for example), there is flexibility for developers to take conventional as well as more innovative approaches to achieve the standard depending on the conditions of their site, the type of development they want to create, and other factors. Where soil conditions are suitable, for example, low impact development practices emphasizing infiltration could be a way of achieving multiple objectives, including: • reducing overall runoff volume from the site • protecting or enhancing baseflow in adjacent stream systems • providing aesthetic amenities that complement the development (such as rainwater gardens) • reducing TSS loading from the service area of the infiltration feature in proportion to the over all reduction expected in average annual runoff volume. • Reducing the size of any additional BMP’s downstream that may be needed for rate control pertaining to channel protection The burden of proof should be on the developer to show that the TSS performance standard as well as any other appropriate performance standards (rate control for channel protection as well as flood protection for higher magnitude events) are met.

Periodically evaluate and, if necessary, adjust the City’s ESC program. The strong emphasis on TSS control for the City of Cedar Falls and the relatively high level of development and infrastructure improvement activity in the area underline the importance of developing and implementing a sound erosion and sediment control program. Sediment export from a construction site for a single storm can be

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 36 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

many times the load exported from the same area in a fully developed condition for an entire year. Evaluation of the technical aspects of the program are beyond the scope of this project. However, our experience is that there are several keys to an effective program, including the following: • Sound technical standards for erosion and sediment control practices • Making sure that developers and others engaging in land disturbing activities understand those practices and know what’s expected of them in applying them to a particular site • Implementation of some method of financial guarantee to enhance enforcement if necessary • Consistent field inspection and documentation on the condition of the ESC measures required • Persistent follow-up to correct deficiencies • Willingness on the part of the City to set a good example for developers in its own land disturbing activities.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 37 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

Environmentally Sensitive Lands Summary The overarching goal of this project was to identify Environmentally Sensitive Lands in areas likely to develop in the near future, within and approximately one mile to the west of current city limits.

The composite map on the following page, seeks to identify Environmentally Sensitive Lands, through mapping. The map includes areas that were identified in the natural areas inventory (MLCCS) and water resources analysis, and also incorporates other natural resources data/information that can help city staff and other land use stakeholders evaluate a variety of potential actions,

The components considered for the large format Environmentally Sensitive Land Summary map with this report are broken into two levels. The areas shown with darker colors in the first tier are those features thought to be most sensitive to human development activities while those shown in lighter color are those that should be considered during development review as they may limit/influence how a site may be developed. For example, hydric soils are shown as a lighter color in the map. Although development may occur on hydric soils, there may be limitations for buildings and how runoff is managed (i.e. hydric soils generally make poor locations for infiltration features). The levels for sensitive features as shown on the map are as follows:

Tier I – Most Sensitive Land Features ƒ Natural Areas (and Semi-natural areas) ƒ Rare Species occurrences (IA DNR) ƒ Floodways and Floodplains (FEMA) ƒ Streams ƒ Drainageways/waterways (USDA NRCS) ƒ Open water bodies (including quarry lakes) Tier 2 - Potentially Sensitive Land Features ƒ Steep slopes (mapped by soil type) - this includes slopes most sensitive to erosion/those over 10%. ƒ Hydric soils (USDA NRCS)

This information can be used by City staff and residents for the purposes of: ƒ Prioritizing natural areas for protection/management ƒ Park dedication decision-making ƒ Plat review ƒ Water resources protection/evaluation ƒ Decision making and siting Best Management Practices ƒ Applying appropriate Low Impact Development and Conservation Development strategies

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 38 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 39 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

Recommendations

Develop Conservation-compatible Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Language Overview The ESLS provides the City data on the location and quality of pre-existing natural resource features in areas of the the city anticipated for development in the future. The City can use this information as a basis for updating its current ordinances, or for developing new approaches for protecting and enhancing its natural resources. Future growth, changes in land use, and development of infrastructure can impact the health and function of natural communities and natural systems. The City, through its zoning and subdivision authority can avoid or minimize these impacts, and provide appropriate incentives for developers and landowners to protect or restore natural resources.

One key tool is having parks and open space dedication language within the city code. Based on the Iowa Code, Chapter 354 Platting, Section 354.19 Dedication of Land allows cities to require that land be dedicated for the purposes of streets, utilities, walkways, parks, open area, school property, or other public uses. The city of Ankeny IA can be used as a successful example of acquiring parkland and funds as new developments occur throughout the community. Criteria and dedication options have been set and can be referenced in Chapter 16.24 of their subdivision ordinance.

What follows are recommendations to consider for changes and/or additions to the City’s existing code/ordinances. Many or all of these recommendations could be incorporated into a new Public and Open Space Land Ordinance.

Develop Ordinance Language to Allow Dedication of Natural Areas as Park Land, Open Space, and School or other Public Facilities (Park Dedication Ordinance) The City should update ordinance language to allow natural areas identified on the ESLS maps to be dedicated as parks or open space through the park dedication process. In other words, dedication of these areas would count towards parkland dedication. The City may also consider adding language to the park dedication ordinance that specifically states park dedication funds may be used for the purposes of restoring natural areas as part of park“development”. This would allow for necessary management of purchased or existing natural areas. The City already has a number of natural areas under their ownership that would benefit from this approach as some areas currently not managed could benefit a great deal from only a little management.

Require Individual Dedication Requirements for Distinct Types of Open Space/Public Space Developing separate dedication requirements for parkland, open space, and school or other public facilities allows for preservation of more useable spaces, and creation of a larger park or open space areas instead of small pockets of leftover space.

Establish Criteria for Park Dedication Requirements and Compensation As part of creating a parks dedication ordinance, clearly defined guidelines need to be established to determine the amount of dedication required. The City should develop a formula for park dedication requirements for residential development that help implement the ESLS map and City park and recreational needs.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 40 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

In some situations, a cash fee may be appropriate in lieu of the park dedication of land, especially in circumstances where there are no lands identified within the ESLS or within the city Parks and Trails Plan within a proposed development. In other situations, a combination of cash and land may be appropriate. The city should develop criteria for cash in-lieu-of parkland and open space or a cash and land combination that can be used for acquisition and /or the development of park and open space to serve area residents.

Maintain Up-to-Date Plans for Parks, Open Space, Trails, and Future Public Facilities Using current plans for parks and open space helps to ensure that as subdivisions and other development occurs, a set of “green infrastructure” is maintained that reflects the current and projected needs of the city and its residents. It is recommended to update the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan for Cedar Falls as the community grows and the needs change (during periods of rapid growth, this may be as frequently as every 2- 4 years).

Develop a Trails Ordinance A Trails Ordinance is an effective companion to a Park Dedication Ordinance, and can be a useful tool for developing a trail/greenway corridor system (discussed below.) Alignments for Trails can include utility easements, drainageways, streams, and existing natural features, as well as connections between existing parks, open space areas, and public facilities. This would appear to be a logical extension of the substantial effort Cedar Falls has already made to put together a high quality trail system, and provide another tool to continue building on a high quality trail system.

Include ESLS/Natural Resource Data in Preliminary and Final Plat Submittals Information required from project development proposers may require that submittals include mapped natural resource data/categories from the ESLS as part of the standard submittals for a proposed project. Including this data as part of the standard submittals/drawings can serve to further improve efficiency for City staff (saving time for busy staff). It also has the added benefit of clarifying expectations for all entities considering development, and demonstrates fairness in dealing with various developments and developers.

Importantly, having ESLS features as part of standard submittals allows City staff from various departments to quickly reference how environmentally sensitive land features may or may not influence desired short- and long-term land use, public amenities, natural resources, location and maintenance of infrastructure, and similar.

Include Parks, Open Space, and School/Public Space Data in Preliminary and Final Plat Submittals Similar to including ESLS data in the plat submittals, including the Parks, Open Space, and Public Space data in the plat submittals will streamline the development review process, help the city achieve its park and open space goals, and clarify expectations for all persons considering development.

Consider Using PUD (Planned Unit Development) Approach for Developments with Natural Resource or Sensitive Resource Areas Protection of valuable natural areas often requires redirecting development within certain pieces of land - a form of clustering development. In order to ensure efficient development and preserve the rights of landowners while protecting natural resources, planned unit development or PUD should be considered as a

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 41 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

tool for planning and reviewing subdivision development. For example, contrast a conventional two-acre lot subdivision with homes located on sensitive but buildable land with a layout that concentrates buildings in the least sensitive areas, and protects sensitive areas as open space. Figure A* illustrates a conventional development, while Figure B* depicts a development that protects and incorporates sensitive lands.

*Illustration from Randall Arendt’s “Rural by Design”

The City could adopt regulations that require that natural areas, wetlands, stream corridors, steep slopes, their related buffers and setbacks, and other sensitive resources be put under easement or deed restriction while allowing the same amount of density overall for the development. To some degree, this is occurring with requirements for plats to allow for drainage and channel maintenance, but the existing language is vague and should be clarified and expanded to include, stream corridors, buffers of minimum width, natural areas, and other environmentally sensitive features.

Future developments could maintain the existing overall density desired by the City by allowing higher housing density within portions of a particular site while limiting or eliminating development on sensitive areas. This approach can protect natural resources and preserve the development rights of the landowner. The same total amount of land is used, but individual lot sizes are smaller and sensitive areas are put under permanent protection. This requirement could be implemented in conjunction with park dedication, or implemented independently.

Developments with more than 50% open space/natural areas are considered to be Conservation Developments. This conservation development approach expands on the concept of clustering. Combining the PUD/Conservation Development approach with restoration of natural areas, site-appropriate stormwater

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 42 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

BMPs, and siting of recreational features (trails/parks) will serve to provide residents access to desirable amenities while also minimizing the City’s long-term infrastructure maintenance cost by reducing road miles, road width/total area, feet of pipe, etc.

Environmentally Sensitve Lands Overlay Zone Overlay districts are commonly used in zoning ordinances to identify special areas and requirements applied to these areas. An Environmentally Sensitive Areas overlay district could provide protection for a full range of natural community types—woodlands, prairies, wetlands, and shorelands. The areas may also include natural resource corridors or greenways identified in the community.

The adoption of an environmental sensitive areas overlay ordinance requires that the community’s resources have been inventoried. Cedar Falls’ ESLS meets this need. In some cases, two zones are established— Environmental Protection Zones with the highest level of protection for high quality resources, and Environmental Conservation Zones for resources of somewhat lower quality that require a lower standards of protection. The protection zone or zones would be mapped on official city zoning maps and/or information made available in prospective developer packets, just as the FEMA floodplain zones are mapped.

The City of Portland, Oregon, has adopted a detailed environmental protection zone ordinance that provides a good example of such ordinances. In the Portland ordinance, development is mostly prohibited in the “environmental protection zone”, and environmentally-sensitive development is allowed in the “environmental conservation zone.” Typically, existing development, repairs and maintenance, and provision of public infrastructure and utilities, public trails, and similar items are allowed in the protection and conservation zones. The Portland ordinance or a similar Model Ordinance from the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board can serve as examples of this approach.

Other Tools for Protection and Management of Natural Areas Ordinances are mainly a regulatory (“stick”) approach for protecting and managing natural resources. They can also provide incentives (“carrots”) to natural resources protection. Many communities use a combination of carrots and sticks in protecting and managing natural resources. The regulatory approach assures that some priority resources will be protected, but is limited by laws that prohibit the “taking” of private property without adequate compensation. The “carrot” approach may be more politically acceptable in some cases than the “stick” approach, and may be more viable when potential “taking” is an issue.

In addition to changes in existing ordinances or adoption of new ordinances, the City can consider a variety of “carrot” approaches to encourage city residents to protect the natural resources on their properties, including the following: • The City already has a natural heritage registry of sorts on its books, with only one property currently included. This program could be reactivated and updated to include other natural heritage sites in the community. This is a relatively inexpensive form of honoring the commitment of landowners and building community pride and “sense of place”. This approach is successfully used by a number of other communities in the upper Midwest as well as nonprofit organizations such as the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation and The Nature Conservancy. These groups might be looked to as an example and/or partners in reinvigorating Cedar Falls’ program. • Provide information and education to homeowners about the special features on their properties. Many landowners take great pride in knowing that they have something special on their land, and

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 43 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

are eager to learn about how best to manage it. In Cedar Falls, this may take the form of the value of informational brochure(s) about stream/shoreline buffers to protect water quality (perhaps most often related to storm ponds in new developments), remnant prairie, and others. The Black Hawk County NRCS office may be a good partner in this effort. • Inform property owners in undeveloped areas of the City about options to donate sensitive natural areas land as parks and open space, or protect it with a conservation easement. For some property owners, donation of land or easements provide financial and tax benefits. • Alone, or with other governmental agencies, work with developers and property owners to encourage Conservation and Low Impact Development Design strategies that protect and improve the quality of resources. True conservation developments (>50% open space) may require that a “conservation development” ordinance be considered, should PUD and other similar tools be inadequate. • The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources website contains the resource Land Protection Options, a Handbook for Minnesota Landowners http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/assistance/landprot.pdf. This handbook is an outstanding tool to help individual landowners better understand their options, and also for City staff as a resource to help positively engage interested property owners. The Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation (INHF) has a similar document and in some instances also provides staff support to work with landowners for permanent protection. • A great how-to resource to help private landowners manage woods, wetlands/ponds, and prairie is the publication Beyond the Suburbs: a Landowner’s Guide to Conservation Management. It guides landowners through the process of creating and implementing a vision and natural resources management plan for their land. This resource is on the MN DNR website at: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/beyond_suburbs.pdf • Importantly, the City can set a good example for other landowners by protecting, actively managing, or restoring natural areas, buffers, and stormwater Best Management Practices on city-owned properties.

Develop Conceptual Greenways System For the purpose of this report, a greenway is defined as “privately or publicly owned corridors of open space which often follow natural land or water features which are primarily managed to protect and enhance natural resources”.

In practice, greenways encompass natural areas, but can and often do incorporate active or passive recreational trails, active recreational spaces (such as athletic fields or golf courses), water resource and other public open spaces that may provide some level of ecological functions and values. Cedar Falls has made a commendable effort to develop a community-wide and regionally admired trail system. It will be beneficial to develop a Conceptual Greenways system, particularly for areas yet to develop that integrates natural/water resource features “greenfrastructure”, recreational features, and traditional infrastructure.

Co-aligning natural areas, surface water treatment systems, trails, parks and other similar features into a trails and greenways plan provides the opportunity to not only provide important recreational and natural features for the community, it also has the potential to reduce long-term infrastructure maintenance costs for the city.

A Conceptual Greenway Corridor Plan may be as simple as creating a map, or may be a separate written plan. Existing advisory group(s) may be utilized to gather input and refine the maps, and public input may be

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 44 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

sought as a means of refining plan/map elements. Greenway Corridor Plans often include the following guiding elements: • High and Moderate quality natural areas • Semi-natural areas that occur adjacent to or near natural areas • Bodies of water, wetlands, floodplains and complexes of water features • Natural corridors with natural/semi-natural areas (e.g. streams, drainageways, ridges) • Areas that would serve as logical links between natural and semi-natural areas, particularly those that have potential to be restored to native habitats

Greenways/corridors can be developed by hand, identified through modeling with GIS, or some combination of these. During a greenway/corridor planning process, we suggest that the city consider the following elements (as a minimum) part of more detailed greenway/corridor planning within the city:

• Public ownership – where possible, use corridors to connect publicly owned open spaces • Remnant natural areas – provide connectivity between natural areas, especially those of high quality and/or potential for hosting rare species. • Incorporate semi-natural communities – into the greenway system as corridors to connect and/or buffer the highest quality remaining natural areas within the city. • Restore/reconstruct natural areas – to provide connectivity between natural or semi-natural areas (especially good quality sites) suitable for inclusion with greenways. Buffering existing remnant natural areas through restoration of immediately adjacent areas is also important. • Incorporate floodplains, water resources and wetland systems. Wetlands, lakes, and streams provide beneficial wildlife habitat and are not likely suitable for development and therefore good candidates for greenway systems. • Consider opportunities for recreation and pedestrian movement through the greenway system. Co- aligning natural and recreation features should be done in a manner that ensures no negative impacts to sensitive natural areas. Also, aligning features such as trails, roads, or maintained turf on the outer edges of existing/restored natural areas can provide a buffer from neighboring development (and residential disturbances) and enable cost-effective natural resource management,

Within the City of Cedar Falls, there are many opportunities to develop a coaligned Trails & Greenways System. Planning for a multi-faceted surface water management system that incorporates trails and greenways might also be partially supported by funds from the City’s Stormwater Utility fund. Considering storm water, trails, and natural areas together has the potential to provide benefit for the whole of the community that is greater than the sum of benefits from any one of these parts alone.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 45 Bonestroo, Inc. November 2007

General Management Strategies for Natural Areas Maintain and Link Together Larger Tracts of Significant Natural Areas Connectivity and size are both important factors affecting the function of natural areas. As a general rule, the larger an area is, the greater the diversity of plants and animals present. Ecologists refer to this as the “edge to interior ratio”. That is to say, larger natural areas are also more stable and able to withstand the affects of naturally occurring events such as drought, insects and disease, and windstorms. For these reasons, the largest high quality natural areas should be given the highest priority for protection and management. Smaller patches of natural communities and sites with good restoration potential should then be used to link larger areas together. Linkages should consider corridors and natural areas outside the city as well as features within the city.

Establish and Maintain Undisturbed Vegetative Natural Area Buffers A buffer of undisturbed vegetation can provide a variety of benefits to both the natural area and the area intended for buffering (i.e. development, active recreation area, roadway, etc.). The buffer should consist of a mixture of native vegetation, with the species planted to the buffer dependent on the specific site. Buffers reduce the impacts of surrounding land uses by stabilizing soil to prevent erosion, filter pollutants, providing habitat areas and cover for animals, and reduce problems related to human activities by blocking noise, glare from lights and reducing disturbance. Even relatively narrow buffers of undisturbed vegetation can provide some benefits, but wider buffers will provide additional screening, water quality, and habitat benefits. Buffers are most effective when they are installed or maintained on permanently protected ground by a common group such as the City, another public agency, or a group such as a Homeowners Association. Co-aligning greenfrastructure with infrastructure can also be beneficial. For instance, creating a buffer to a woodland that can also serve as a swale to manage/treat runoff, along with installation of a trail can allow for multiple benefits to the city and its residents.

Promote the Use of Plant Species Native to the Area. Native trees, shrubs, grasses and forbs can be planted in landscapings as a means of complementing natural area vegetation and also serve as an extension of habitat for welcome species of wildlife. Species planted should be indigenous to the region. Plant species should be chosen based on the specific characteristics of the site including soils, slope, aspect and adjacent natural community types and quality. If possible, restore the site to replace the species composition, three-dimensional structure, or some function of the original natural community type that existed before conversion. For instance, use of native perennial prairie plants in landscaping can serve to provide some habitat value for songbirds and other species of wildlife.

Promote Control of Invasive Exotic Species Several nonnative species (sometimes called “exotics”) are either currently a problem or have potential to be problems in the Cedar Falls area. These include garlic mustard, European buckthorn, Tartarian honeysuckle, Siberian elm, reed canary grass, smooth brome, wild parsnip, leafy spurge, and purple loosestrife. These plants invade native plant communities and can rapidly take over, eliminating native plants – leading to a loss of plant diversity and wildlife habitat.

Often, disturbances from new road or home site construction serve as a pathway for nonnative species into a natural community not yet invaded by exotic species. To control invasion by exotics, minimize disturbance to natural areas and surrounding buffer areas as much as possible, and avoid planting or providing openings for exotics to invade. Small populations of exotics may be controlled by hand removal or through direct

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 46 Bonestroo, Inc. September 2007

application of appropriate herbicides. Early detection and treatment are important and cost-effective.

Maintain and Place Habitat Structures Where Appropriate Natural areas provide important habitat for many species of wildlife. Adding bluebird and wood duck nest boxes and other types of nesting structures can augment habitat. On storm ponds and manmade lakes, retaining or adding a limited number of stones or logs as resting sites in natural areas and buffers can provide additional habitat for many species of reptiles, amphibians, birds and mammals. The books Lakescaping for Wildlife and Water Quality and Landscaping for Wildlife by Carroll Henderson are useful guides for improving habitat with plantings and structures in developed areas.

Management Recommendations, by Community Type Below are general management strategies for prairie, savanna, wetland and forest communities. These management strategies are intended to be generic; therefore more specific management recommendations may be necessary for individual natural communities and sites.

Prairie and Savanna Management The health of prairie and savanna plant communities common in eastern Iowa prior to European settlement were maintained by grazing and fires. Some fires would have certainly occurred naturally. However, most were intentionally set by Native Americans. Fires maintained the open structure of prairies by controlling the growth and spread of trees and shrubs, removing accumulated plant litter, warming the soil in spring, and returning nutrients to the soil. With the spread of agriculture and urban development, fires have been suppressed, leading to the spread of shrubs, trees, and exotic plants in prairie and savanna communities, and loss of diversity of native grasses and forbs. The activities of large and small mammals and insects also helped to maintain prairie communities by spreading seeds, burrowing to loosen soils, and pollinating prairie grasses and forbs.

In addition to the suppression of fires, prairies and savannas have been degraded by inappropriate levels of grazing, which reduces forb diversity and encourages the dominance of clonal plants (such as golden rod) that are unpalatable to livestock. Other factors responsible for the decline of prairie and savanna communities include development, ill-advised tree planting, plowing, and too frequent mowing.

Far less than one percent of the prairie and savanna landscapes that once existed in northeast Iowa remain. The goal for managing the remaining remnants should be to maintain or restore as much of the original diversity as possible, through re-establishing or mimicking the processes that helped to maintain these plant communities.

Prairie and savanna management should consider the following actions, as appropriate for each site: • Remove exotic species with appropriate methods. Cutting and herbicide treatment are often most appropriate for tree and shrub species such as black locust, sumac, and buckthorn. Repeated herbicide treatments or biological controls may be needed for other exotic species such as leafy spurge, purple loosestrife, and spotted knapweed. • Monitor and manage disturbance problems where possible. For example, close trails where erosion is occurring, or reduce/rotate grazing to maintain plant populations.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 47 Bonestroo, Inc. September 2007

• Use prescribed burns to control cool season grasses and other exotics, remove accumulated plant litter, encourage recruitment of prairie plants from the seed bed, and to maintain the health of prairie and oak- dominated natural areas for the long term. Vary the burn regime over the long-term to include burns during various seasons other than just spring. Burn only a portion of a prairie at any one time to minimize risk to fire-sensitive species and maintain high biodiversity. • Restoration plantings and landscaping that utilize plants native to the region should use native seed of local wild type origin (ecotype). • Mowing can be a useful tool if used properly. Mowing somewhat mimics the effect of grazing and can give many of the effects that prescribed burning can. Proper timing and techniques in mowing can be used to maintain a healthy balance between grasses and forbs. • Management of native communities, especially prairie, must also consider effects on the animal populations that are dependent on the community. The influence of management activities (i.e. burning) are not completely understood on animals such as butterflies and other invertebrates. To minimize the potential for devastating impacts on community obligate species and/or fire sensitive species, management should be carried out so as not to influence the entire area upon which these species depend on. An example would be not burning an entire prairie at once; this would leave refugia for the species of concern and allow for potential recolonization of burned areas. • Monitor the effectiveness of management activities, and any changes in plant and animal species in managed areas. Adjust activities as-needed based on monitoring results. This is a very important part of sound natural resource management.

Protecting Wetlands, Streams and Other Surface Waters Wetland and streambank plant communities are frequently altered or degraded by changes in hydrologic regimes associated with agricultural and/or urban development. Farming and urban development alter the quantity and quality of stormwater entering wetlands by increasing runoff and associated sediments, nutrients, and by draining, filling and ditching wetlands.

Goals for wetland and stream buffers should include maintaining or restoring native plant communities and diversity by re-establishing or approximating original hydrology and natural processes. Some wetland types that have naturally fluctuating water levels, such as floodplain forests, cattail marshes and wet meadows, may be relatively easy to restore or enhance, while more specialized communities like fens and seepage swamps can be remarkably difficult to restore if hydrologic conditions have been excessively altered. Some strategies for enhancing or restoring native plant communities in wetlands include the following: • When possible, maintain or restore the natural hydrologic regime - limit “bounce” from storm events and maintaining ground water flows. • Use infiltration and vegetation strategies such as rain gardens to reduce runoff from that drains to wetlands and streams • Utilize ponding in association with other best management practices to moderate storm flows, and remove sediments and nutrients from stormwater before it enters wetlands and streams. • Remove or control invasive exotic species. Repeated herbicide treatments may be necessary to control reed canary grass and purple loosestrife. Biological controls, such as weevils, have also shown promise recently in managing purple loosestrife. NOTE: Use herbicides that are labeled for use in wetland areas. • Establish buffers of native vegetation around wetlands, ponds, and stream/floodplain areas. These buffers filter runoff, slow stormwater flows, and provide essential habitat needed by many species that

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 48 Bonestroo, Inc. September 2007

use both wetlands and uplands as habitat during their lifecycles. Discourage or prohibit cutting, dumping of yard waste in, or other alteration of buffers. • Plant native wetland and upland plants in constructed wetlands and buffers. Plantings should use locally native species, and may include aquatic plants, grasses, forbs, shrubs and trees to provide structural diversity and improve habitat. • Monitor management efforts and revise strategies as needed to meet goals.

Forest Management Most of the forests in the area have been grazed at varying levels, and in some cases were logged. Forest communities are often associated with ravines and steep slopes near the Cedar River and are therefore sensitive to the impacts of erosion and sedimentation. In addition, roads and trails frequently fragment forest communities. All of these activities encourage invasion by aggressive exotic species-particularly buckthorn and Tartarian honeysuckle. Fragmentation also reduces the value of the forest community for wildlife species such as migratory songbirds that require “interior” forest areas that are well buffered from human disturbances. Following are management strategies for maintaining and restoring the diversity and health of forest communities: • Avoid cutting trees in areas containing exotic shrub species. Where cutting trees is necessary, cut exotic shrubs and treat with a basal application of an appropriate herbicide. Where developments are proposed within or adjacent to forest areas, removal and treatment of exotic shrubs could be incorporated into the overall site preparation process. • Slow growing and mast-bearing trees such as oak and hickory have special value due to their production of high quality food and shelter for wildlife. Other trees, through their seeds or buds, also serve as important food sources for wildlife; these include maples, elms, aspens, basswood and birch. • Large trees, dead standing, and down trees particularly those containing cavities, should likewise not be removed unless they present a safety hazard (meet the definition of a “hazard tree”). While humans perceive a forest with dead trees as messy, dead trees are important because they are able to foster a high diversity of plants and animals throughout their decomposition cycle. However, sanitation cuts should be considered necessary where oak wilt, Dutch elm disease or similar pathogens are present. • Encourage removal of weedy and/or exotic tree species such as Siberian elm, boxelder, Russian olive, black locust and eastern red cedar. Should maintaining forest cover be the long-term goal, plant higher value native trees and shrubs back into the area. • Oak forest communities are adapted to fires and can often be improved through prescribed burns. Prescribed burns will generally increase diversity of grasses and forbs, encourage oak seedling germination and kill or set back back exotic/invasive shrub species. • Where oak forest communities occur adjacent to prairie and savanna communities, fires from prescribed burns should be allowed to burn into the oak forest areas. Include both spring and fall burns in the management regime. • Maple-basswood and lowland hardwood forest communities are generally not adapted to fires and should be burned only infrequently (every 20+ years).

Oak wilt has not been of particular concern in the Cedar Falls area. Despite this, it has the potential to sweep through forests causing remarkable mortality, particularly among pin and red oaks on light soils. Its spread is enabled by construction activity or other root/top damage during the growing season. Canopy openings created by oak wilt can augment invasion by exotic species if not replanted or managed to restore oak

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 49 Bonestroo, Inc. September 2007

woodlands. Oak trees should not be cut, pruned or injured between April 15 and July 1 of each year. Exposed roots injured by construction activities can facilitate the spread oak wilt infection. A vibratory plow can be used to sever roots along the edge of any construction area prior to beginning work. This can prevent the transfer of oak wilt fungus between individuals through their shared (grafted) roots and allow for regeneration at the point of cutting. If vibratory plowing is used, the disturbed ground should be restored to pre-plow contours and planted with an appropriate native seed mix to prevent invasion by nonnative shrubs and weeds. Also, in areas that are being restored to savanna and prairie oak wilt may be viewed as beneficial, as it makes more light available for prairie and savanna plants.

Establish tree protection zones at construction sites. These should be fenced to prevent entry or compaction by construction equipment. Soil and construction materials should not be stored within the tree protection zone, as this can result in contamination of the tree protection zone and/or other construction sites.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey 50 Bonestroo, Inc. September 2007

Appendix A

Plant Community Survey Data

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey Bonestroo, Inc. September 2007

Natural Resources Inventory - By-Community Species *Please note that Area IDs below corresp

Area* 1-1 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Mesic prairie 6111 C Canopy Shrub ond to Site IDs listed on the 11x17Forbs Graminoid Ulmus americana American elm Vitis riparia Wild grape Ambrosia trifida var. trifida Great ragweed Bromus inermis Smooth brome Salix exigua Sandbar willow Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash Rosa arkansana Prairie rose Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass var. pennsylvanica Rosa arkansana Prairie rose Taraxacum officinale Common dandelion Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass Parthenocissus quinquefolia Woodbine Verbena stricta Hoary vervain Andropogon gerardii Big bluestem Populus deltoides var. Cottonwood Lonicera tatarica Tartarian honeysuckle occidentalis EupatoriumESLS rugosum map on pageWhite snakeroot 15 of this report Monarda fistulosa Wild bergamot Verbena stricta Hoary vervain Lespedeza capitata Round-headed bush clover Berteroa incana Hoary alyssum Echinocystis lobata Wild cucumber

Area 1-3 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Altered/non-native deciduous woodland 4213 NA Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Juglans nigra Black walnut Vitis riparia Wild grape Monarda fistulosa Wild bergamot Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass Parthenocissus quinquefolia Woodbine Eupatorium rugosum White snakeroot Bromus inermis Smooth brome Juniperus virginiana var. Eastern red cedar Rubus idaeus var. strigosus Red raspberry Eupatorium rugosum White snakeroot Bromus inermis Smooth brome virginiana Rubus idaeus var. strigosus Red raspberry Campanula americana Tall bellflower Andropogon gerardii Big bluestem Lonicera tatarica Tartarian honeysuckle Celtis occidentalis Hackberry Quercus rubra Northern red oak

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-1 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

By-Community Species

Area 1-4 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Oak forest mesic subtype 3211 C Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Quercus alba White oak Parthenocissus quinquefolia Woodbine Campanula americana Tall bellflower Carex blanda Charming sedge Lonicera tatarica Tartarian honeysuckle Eupatorium rugosum White snakeroot Carex intumescens Bladder sedge Ulmus americana American elm Cornus racemosa Gray dogwood Eupatorium rugosum White snakeroot Carex intumescens Bladder sedge Vernonia fasciculata Bunched ironweed Quercus rubra Northern red oak Ribes americanum Wild black currant Circaea lutetiana var. Common enchanter's Carya cordiformis Bitternut hickory Desmodium glutinosum Pointed-leaved tick trefoil Viola sp Species of violet Prunus serotina Black cherry Scrophularia lanceolata Lance-leaved figwort

Area 2-1 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Floodplain forest silver maple subtype 3221 B Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Quercus alba White oak Vitis riparia Wild grape Campanula americana Tall bellflower Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye Cornus racemosa Gray dogwood Toxicodendron radicans var. Common poison ivy Carex lacustris Lake sedge Acer negundo Box elder Sambucus racemosa Red-berried elder Toxicodendron radicans var. Common poison ivy Carex lacustris Lake sedge Rudbeckia subtomentosa sweet coneflower Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass Juglans nigra Black walnut Stachys tenuifolia Narrow-leaved hedge nettle Carex intumescens Bladder sedge Acer saccharinum Silver maple Scutellaria lateriflora Mad dog skullcap Asclepias incarnata var. Swamp milkweed Populus deltoides var. Cottonwood occidentalis Lobelia siphilitica Great lobelia Verbena urticifolia White vervain Viola sp Species of violet Eupatorium purpureum Sweet Joe pye weed Silphium perfoliatum var. Cup plant

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-2 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

By-Community Species

Area 3-1 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Altered/non-native deciduous woodland - seasonally flooded 4241 NA Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash Cornus racemosa Gray dogwood Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass var. pennsylvanica Lonicera tatarica Tartarian honeysuckle Pastinaca sativa Wild parsnip Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass Gleditsia triacanthos Honey locust Rhamnus cathartica Common buckthorn Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle Bromus inermis Smooth brome Pilea fontana Black-fruited clearweed Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye Acer negundo Box elder Alliaria petiolata Garlic mustard Carex pensylvanica var. Sun-loving sedge Populus tremuloides Quaking aspen Eupatorium rugosum White snakeroot Carex intumescens Bladder sedge Parthenocissus quinquefolia Woodbine Amphicarpaea bracteata Hog peanut Campanula americana Tall bellflower Ambrosia trifida var. trifida Great ragweed Rudbeckia hirta var. Black-eyed Susan

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-3 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

By-Community Species

Area 3-2 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Lowland hardwood forest 3222 C Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Quercus macrocarpa Bur oak Rhamnus cathartica Common buckthorn Eupatorium rugosum White snakeroot Carex blanda Charming sedge Ribes americanum Wild black currant Viola sp Species of violet Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye Prunus serotina Black cherry Lonicera tatarica Tartarian honeysuckle Viola sp Species of violet Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye Trillium grandiflorum Large-flowered trillium Carex pensylvanica var. Sun-loving sedge Celtis occidentalis Hackberry Vitis riparia Wild grape Polygonatum biflorum Giant Solomon's seal Cornus racemosa Gray dogwood Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash Sambucus racemosa Red-berried elder Alliaria petiolata Garlic mustard var. pennsylvanica Sambucus racemosa Red-berried elder Arisaema triphyllum Jack-in-the-pulpit Populus deltoides var. Cottonwood Urtica dioica ssp. gracilis Stinging nettle occidentalis Desmodium glutinosum Pointed-leaved tick trefoil Quercus rubra Northern red oak Geranium maculatum Wild geranium

Acer negundo Box elder Gleditsia triacanthos Honey locust Populus tremuloides Quaking aspen Quercus alba White oak Tilia americana Basswood

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-4 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

By-Community Species

Area 3-4 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Floodplain forest silver maple subtype 3221 C Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Gleditsia triacanthos Honey locust Cornus racemosa Gray dogwood Agastache foeniculum Blue giant hyssop Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye Vitis riparia Wild grape Laportea canadensis Wood nettle Carex intumescens Bladder sedge Ulmus americana American elm Laportea canadensis Wood nettle Carex intumescens Bladder sedge Viola sp Species of violet Tilia americana Basswood Campanula americana Tall bellflower Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash Lysimachia ciliata Fringed loosestrife var. pennsylvanica Pilea fontana Black-fruited clearweed Acer negundo Box elder Acer saccharinum Silver maple Populus deltoides var. Cottonwood occidentalis

Area 3-5 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Grassland with sparse deciduous trees - altered/non-native dominated vegetation 6214 NA Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Juglans nigra Black walnut Salix exigua Sandbar willow Monarda fistulosa Wild bergamot Bromus inermis Smooth brome Zanthoxylum americanum Prickly ash Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass var. pennsylvanica Eupatorium rugosum White snakeroot Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye Campanula americana Tall bellflower Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass Ulmus americana American elm Artemisia ludoviciana var. White sage Coronilla varia Crownvetch

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-5 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

By-Community Species

Area 3-6 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Maple-basswood forest 3215 C Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Acer negundo Box elder Cornus racemosa Gray dogwood Asarum canadense Wild ginger Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye Ribes americanum Wild black currant Toxicodendron radicans var. Common poison ivy Carex sp Species of sedge Ulmus americana American elm Lonicera tatarica Tartarian honeysuckle Toxicodendron radicans var. Common poison ivy Carex sp Species of sedge Sanguinaria canadensis Bloodroot Tilia americana Basswood Parthenocissus quinquefolia Woodbine Quercus rubra Northern red oak Populus deltoides var. Cottonwood occidentalis Prunus serotina Black cherry

Area 4-1 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Lowland hardwood forest 3222 C Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-6 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

By-Community Species

Area 4-2 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Mesic prairie 6111 C Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Juniperus virginiana var. Eastern red cedar Silphium perfoliatum var. Cup plant Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass virginiana Ratibida pinnata Gray-headed coneflower Sporobolus asper var. asper Rough dropseed Cornus racemosa Gray dogwood Anemone virginiana Tall thimbleweed Panicum virgatum Switchgrass Rubus idaeus var. strigosus Red raspberry Rhus glabra Smooth sumac Asclepias syriaca Common milkweed Bromus inermis Smooth brome Prunus americana Wild plum Pastinaca sativa Wild parsnip Morus alba White mulberry Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod Rosa arkansana Prairie rose Helianthus tuberosus Jerusalem artichoke Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive Euphorbia esula Leafy spurge Aster lateriflorus Side-flowering aster Helianthus grosseserratus Sawtooth sunflower Teucrium canadense Germander Solidago rigida Stiff goldenrod Melilotus alba White sweet clover Aster pilosus var. pilosus Awl aster Campanula americana Tall bellflower Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed Verbena hastata Blue vervain Aster ericoides Heath aster

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-7 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

By-Community Species

Area 6-1 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Native dominated disturbed upland shrubland 5212 B Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Ulmus pumila Siberian elm Verbena stricta Hoary vervain Panicum virgatum Switchgrass Juniperus virginiana var. Eastern red cedar Melilotus alba White sweet clover Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass virginiana Aster ericoides Heath aster Bromus inermis Smooth brome Acer negundo Box elder Vitis riparia Wild grape Asclepias syriaca Common milkweed Bromus ciliatus Fringed brome Cornus racemosa Gray dogwood Conyza canadensis var. Horseweed Achillea millefolium Yarrow Berteroa incana Hoary alyssum Silene latifolia White campion Monarda fistulosa Wild bergamot Toxicodendron radicans var. Common poison ivy

Area 6-2 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Lowland hardwood forest 3222 B Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Acer negundo Box elder Cornus racemosa Gray dogwood Monarda fistulosa Wild bergamot Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye Lonicera tatarica Tartarian honeysuckle Geranium maculatum Wild geranium Calamagrostis canadensis Bluejoint Populus deltoides var. Cottonwood Spiraea tomentosa var. rosea Steeplebush Geranium maculatum Wild geranium Calamagrostis canadensis Bluejoint occidentalis Spiraea tomentosa var. rosea Steeplebush Stachys tenuifolia Narrow-leaved hedge nettle Scirpus cyperinus Woolgrass Salix exigua Sandbar willow Asclepias incarnata var. Swamp milkweed Bouteloua curtipendula Side-oats grama Ulmus americana American elm Pycnanthemum virginianum Virginia mountain mint Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash Heliopsis helianthoides var. Ox-eye var. pennsylvanica Eupatorium maculatum Spotted Joe pye weed Celtis occidentalis Hackberry Veronicastrum virginicum Culver's root Acer saccharinum Silver maple Monarda fistulosa Wild bergamot Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive fern

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-8 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

By-Community Species

Area 6-3 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Lowland hardwood forest 3222 B Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Acer negundo Box elder Salix exigua Sandbar willow Impatiens capensis Spotted touch-me-not Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass Salix serissima Autumn willow Asclepias incarnata var. Swamp milkweed Scirpus atrovirens Dark green bulrush Juglans nigra Black walnut Asclepias incarnata var. Swamp milkweed Scirpus atrovirens Dark green bulrush Verbena hastata Blue vervain Carex bebbii Bebb's sedge Lycopus uniflorus Northern bugleweed Juncus canadensis Canada rush Lobelia siphilitica Great lobelia Mimulus ringens var. ringens Blue monkey flower Iris virginica var. shrevei Southern blue flag Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Vernonia fasciculata Bunched ironweed Scutellaria lateriflora Mad dog skullcap

Area 7-1 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Floodplain forest 3221 C Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Acer negundo Box elder Campanula americana Tall bellflower Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass var. pennsylvanica Asclepias incarnata var. Swamp milkweed Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye Anemone canadensis Canada anemone Carex lacustris Lake sedge Acer saccharinum Silver maple Rudbeckia subtomentosa sweet coneflower Populus deltoides var. Cottonwood Vernonia fasciculata Bunched ironweed occidentalis Aster ericoides Heath aster Fraxinus nigra Black ash Lycopus uniflorus Northern bugleweed Toxicodendron radicans var. Common poison ivy Impatiens capensis Spotted touch-me-not

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-9 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

By-Community Species

Area 9-1 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Altered/non-native deciduous forest 3217 NA Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Celtis occidentalis Hackberry Ribes americanum Wild black currant Ambrosia trifida var. trifida Great ragweed Bromus inermis Smooth brome Rhamnus cathartica Common buckthorn Viola sp Species of violet Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye Acer saccharinum Silver maple Viola sp Species of violet Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye Urtica dioica ssp. gracilis Stinging nettle Populus deltoides var. Cottonwood Hydrophyllum virginianum Virginia waterleaf occidentalis Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod Tilia americana Basswood Parthenocissus quinquefolia Woodbine Juniperus virginiana var. Eastern red cedar Desmodium glutinosum Pointed-leaved tick trefoil virginiana Arctium minus Common burdock

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-10 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

By-Community Species

Area 10-1 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Altered/non-native temporarily flooded deciduous forest 3224 NA Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Acer negundo Box elder Aster ericoides Heath aster Bromus inermis Smooth brome Vitis riparia Wild grape Ambrosia trifida var. trifida Great ragweed Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye Salix nigra Black willow Oenothera biennis Common evening primrose Echinochloa crusgalli var. Cockspur barnyard grass Daucus carota Queen Anne's lace Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Conyza canadensis var. Horseweed Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle Melilotus alba White sweet clover Monarda fistulosa Wild bergamot Rudbeckia hirta var. Black-eyed Susan Helianthus grosseserratus Sawtooth sunflower Polygonum lapathifolium Nodding smartweed Verbena hastata Blue vervain Amphicarpaea bracteata Hog peanut Verbena urticifolia White vervain Plantago major Common plantain

Area 10-2 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Lowland hardwood forest 3222 D Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Salix nigra Black willow Cornus racemosa Gray dogwood Ambrosia trifida var. trifida Great ragweed Setaria glauca Yellow foxtail Acer negundo Box elder Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye Viola sp Species of violet Echinochloa crusgalli var. Cockspur barnyard grass Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash var. pennsylvanica

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-11 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

By-Community Species

Area 10-3 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Medium-tall grass altered/non-native dominated grassland 6122 NN Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Ambrosia trifida var. trifida Great ragweed Bromus inermis Smooth brome Daucus carota Queen Anne's lace Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Conyza canadensis var. Horseweed

Area 11-7 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres

Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid

Area 14-1 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Lowland hardwood forest 3222 C Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Salix nigra Black willow Daucus carota Queen Anne's lace Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass Acer negundo Box elder Impatiens capensis Spotted touch-me-not Bromus inermis Smooth brome Asclepias syriaca Common milkweed Populus deltoides var. Cottonwood Solidago gigantea Giant goldenrod occidentalis Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Populus tremuloides Quaking aspen Asparagus officinalis Asparagus Pastinaca sativa Wild parsnip Monarda fistulosa Wild bergamot Eupatorium maculatum Spotted Joe pye weed Ratibida pinnata Gray-headed coneflower

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-12 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

By-Community Species

Area 14-2 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Saturated altered/non-native dominated graminoid vegetation 6148 NA Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Daucus carota Queen Anne's lace Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass Impatiens capensis Spotted touch-me-not Bromus inermis Smooth brome Asclepias syriaca Common milkweed Solidago gigantea Giant goldenrod Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Asparagus officinalis Asparagus Pastinaca sativa Wild parsnip Monarda fistulosa Wild bergamot Eupatorium perfoliatum var. Common boneset Ratibida columnifera Prairie coneflower

Area 20-1w MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Altered/non-native deciduous forest 3217 Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Acer saccharinum Silver maple Vitis riparia Wild grape Polygonum virginianum Virginia knotweed Sambucus canadensis Common elder Phryma leptostachya Lopseed Juglans cinerea Butternut Ribes cynosbati Prickly gooseberry Phryma leptostachya Lopseed Solanum dulcamara Bittersweet nightshade Celtis occidentalis Hackberry Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. Green ash Sanicula marilandica Maryland black snakeroot pennsylvanica Sanicula marilandica Maryland black snakeroot Acer negundo Box elder Parthenocissus quinquefolia Woodbine Rubus occidentalis Black raspberry

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-13 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

By-Community Species

Area 20-1e MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Altered/non-native deciduous woodland - temporarily flooded 4221 NN Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid

Area 22-1 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Lowland hardwood forest 3222 C Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Juglans nigra Black walnut Vitis riparia Wild grape Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod Bromus inermis Smooth brome Sambucus canadensis Common elder Aster ontarionis Ontario aster Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass Acer negundo Box elder Aster ontarionis Ontario aster Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass Solanum dulcamara Bittersweet nightshade Dactylis glomerata Orchard grass Morus rubra Red mulberry Asclepias syriaca Common milkweed Populus deltoides var. Cottonwood Helianthus tuberosus Jerusalem artichoke occidentalis Physalis virginiana Virginia ground cherry Apocynum cannabinum American hemp

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-14 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

By-Community Species

Area 22-2 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Temporarily flooded altered/non-native dominated grassland 6133 B Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Salix nigra Black willow Sambucus canadensis Common elder Sagittaria latifolia Broad-leaved arrowhead Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass Prunus americana Wild plum Asclepias incarnata var. Swamp milkweed Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye Ulmus rubra Red elm Acer negundo Box elder Asclepias incarnata var. Swamp milkweed Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye Helianthus tuberosus Jerusalem artichoke Bromus inermis Smooth brome Acer negundo Box elder Morus rubra Red mulberry Solidago gigantea Giant goldenrod Carex vulpinoidea Fox sedge Cornus racemosa Gray dogwood Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash Ambrosia trifida var. trifida Great ragweed Carex sp Species of sedge var. pennsylvanica Thalictrum dasycarpum Tall meadow-rue Glyceria grandis Tall manna grass Prunus serotina Black cherry Helianthus grosseserratus Sawtooth sunflower Echinochloa crusgalli var. Cockspur barnyard grass Aster lateriflorus Side-flowering aster Polygonum pensylvanicum Pennsylvania smartweed Teucrium canadense Germander Vernonia fasciculata var. Bunched ironweed Pilea pumila Dwarf clearweed Bidens frondosa var. frondosa Leafy beggarticks Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed Verbena hastata Blue vervain Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-15 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

By-Community Species

Area 25-1s MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Wet prairie 6131 B Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Epilobium leptophyllum Linear-leaved willow herb Spiraea alba White meadowsweet Monarda fistulosa Wild bergamot Carex adusta Browned sedge Prunus americana Wild plum Silphium perfoliatum var. Cup plant Calamagrostis canadensis Bluejoint Rorippa palustris Icelandic yellow cress Salix exigua Sandbar willow Silphium perfoliatum var. Cup plant Calamagrostis canadensis Bluejoint Mentha arvensis var. Common mint Juncus canadensis Canada rush Vitis riparia Wild grape Helianthus grosseserratus Sawtooth sunflower Scirpus atrovirens Dark green bulrush Ribes americanum Wild black currant Impatiens capensis Spotted touch-me-not Scirpus fluviatilis River bulrush Cornus racemosa Gray dogwood Sambucus canadensis Common elder Sanicula marilandica Maryland black snakeroot Poa palustris Fowl bluegrass Verbena hastata Blue vervain Carex stricta Tussock sedge Bidens frondosa var. frondosa Leafy beggarticks Glyceria grandis Tall manna grass Solidago gigantea Giant goldenrod Asclepias incarnata var. Swamp milkweed Acorus calamus Sweet flag Artemisia serrata Leafy mugwort Hackelia virginiana Virginia stickseed Typha latifolia Broad-leaved cattail Stachys tenuifolia Narrow-leaved hedge nettle Sagittaria latifolia Broad-leaved arrowhead Eupatorium perfoliatum var. Common boneset Thalictrum dasycarpum Tall meadow-rue Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed Helianthus tuberosus Jerusalem artichoke Scrophularia lanceolata Lance-leaved figwort

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-16 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

By-Community Species

Area 27-1 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Lowland hardwood forest 3222 B Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Acer saccharinum Silver maple Sambucus canadensis Common elder Sanicula marilandica Maryland black snakeroot Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye Prunus virginiana Chokecherry Campanula americana Tall bellflower Carex blanda Charming sedge Juglans nigra Black walnut Parthenocissus quinquefolia Woodbine Campanula americana Tall bellflower Carex blanda Charming sedge Arctium minus Common burdock Celtis occidentalis Hackberry Osmorhiza claytonii Clayton's sweet cicely Rosa multiflora Multiflora rose Viola sp Species of violet Lonicera dioica Wild honeysuckle Prunus americana Wild plum Hackelia virginiana Virginia stickseed Geum canadense White avens Eupatorium purpureum Sweet Joe pye weed Epilobium angustifolium Fireweed Typha latifolia Broad-leaved cattail Polygonum virginianum Virginia knotweed Echinochloa crusgalli var. Cockspur barnyard grass Eupatorium rugosum White snakeroot

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-17 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

By-Community Species

Area 27-2 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Wet prairie 6131 C Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Impatiens capensis Spotted touch-me-not Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass Silphium perfoliatum var. Cup plant Carex vulpinoidea Fox sedge Asclepias syriaca Common milkweed Scirpus atrovirens Dark green bulrush Helianthus grosseserratus Sawtooth sunflower Agrostis stolonifera Redtop Pastinaca sativa Wild parsnip Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Veronicastrum virginicum Culver's root Asclepias incarnata var. Swamp milkweed Vernonia fasciculata Bunched ironweed Monarda fistulosa Wild bergamot Verbena hastata Blue vervain Aster lateriflorus Side-flowering aster Erigeron annuus Annual fleabane Teucrium canadense Germander

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-18 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

By-Community Species

Area 29-1 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Medium-tall grass altered/non-native dominated grassland 6122 NA Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Salix nigra Black willow Lonicera tatarica Tartarian honeysuckle Urtica dioica ssp. gracilis Stinging nettle Bromus inermis Smooth brome Salix exigua Sandbar willow Helianthus strumosus Woodland sunflower Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass Populus deltoides var. Cottonwood Helianthus strumosus Woodland sunflower Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass occidentalis Ambrosia trifida var. trifida Great ragweed Setaria glauca Yellow foxtail Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Acer saccharinum Silver maple Vitis riparia Wild grape Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash Solidago gigantea Giant goldenrod var. pennsylvanica Asclepias syriaca Common milkweed Pastinaca sativa Wild parsnip Arctium minus Common burdock Chenopodium album White lamb's quarters Glechoma hederacea Creeping Charlie Abutilon theophrasti Velvet leaf

Area 29-2 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Altered/non-native deciduous woodland - temporarily flooded 4221 NA Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Populus deltoides var. Cottonwood Ulmus pumila Siberian elm Ambrosia trifida var. trifida Great ragweed Bromus inermis Smooth brome occidentalis Morus rubra Red mulberry Daucus carota Queen Anne's lace Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass Pinus strobus White pine Juniperus virginiana var. Eastern red cedar Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass virginiana Picea abies Norway spruce Parthenocissus quinquefolia Woodbine Aster ericoides Heath aster Plantago major Common plantain Quercus alba White oak Rudbeckia hirta var. Black-eyed Susan Trifolium pratense Red clover Rudbeckia subtomentosa sweet coneflower Polygonum lapathifolium Nodding smartweed Helianthus strumosus Woodland sunflower

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-19 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

By-Community Species

Area 30-1 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Saturated altered/non-native dominated graminoid vegetation 6148 C Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Salix exigua Sandbar willow Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod Bromus inermis Smooth brome Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass Ambrosia trifida var. trifida Great ragweed Carex sp Species of sedge Aster ericoides Heath aster Juncus canadensis Canada rush Lactuca canadensis Canada wild lettuce Urtica dioica ssp. gracilis Stinging nettle Helianthus grosseserratus Sawtooth sunflower Verbena hastata Blue vervain Scirpus atrovirens Dark green bulrush Asclepias incarnata var. Swamp milkweed Eupatorium perfoliatum var. Common boneset

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-20 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

By-Community Species

Area 35-1s MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Lowland hardwood forest 3222 C Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Ulmus americana American elm Viburnum trilobum Highbush cranberry Stachys tenuifolia Narrow-leaved hedge nettle Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye Vitis riparia Wild grape Sanicula marilandica Maryland black snakeroot Bromus inermis Smooth brome Acer negundo Box elder Prunus virginiana Chokecherry Sanicula marilandica Maryland black snakeroot Bromus inermis Smooth brome Aster lateriflorus Side-flowering aster Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass Salix nigra Black willow Salix exigua Sandbar willow Pilea pumila Dwarf clearweed Carex stricta Tussock sedge Sambucus canadensis Common elder Populus deltoides var. Cottonwood Prunus americana Wild plum Solidago gigantea Giant goldenrod Spartina pectinata Prairie cordgrass occidentalis Prunus americana Wild plum Cornus racemosa Gray dogwood Urtica dioica ssp. gracilis Stinging nettle Celtis occidentalis Hackberry Helianthus tuberosus Jerusalem artichoke Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed Asclepias syriaca Common milkweed Pastinaca sativa Wild parsnip Physalis virginiana Virginia ground cherry Equisetum arvense Field horsetail Polygonum pensylvanicum Pennsylvania smartweed Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Vernonia fasciculata Bunched ironweed Apocynum cannabinum American hemp Verbena hastata Blue vervain

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-21 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

By-Community Species

Area 35-1n MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Mesic prairie 6111 D Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Conyza canadensis var. Horseweed Elymus canadensis Nodding wild rye Ambrosia trifida var. trifida Great ragweed Bromus inermis Smooth brome Rudbeckia hirta var. Black-eyed Susan Bouteloua curtipendula Side-oats grama Ratibida pinnata Gray-headed coneflower Andropogon gerardii Big bluestem Trifolium pratense Red clover Bromus ciliatus Fringed brome Verbascum thapsus Common mullein Taraxacum officinale Common dandelion Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle Aster ericoides Heath aster

Area 35-2 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Native dominated disturbed upland shrubland 5212 D Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Ulmus pumila Siberian elm Conyza canadensis var. Horseweed Elymus canadensis Nodding wild rye Ambrosia trifida var. trifida Great ragweed Bromus inermis Smooth brome Rudbeckia hirta var. Black-eyed Susan Bouteloua curtipendula Side-oats grama Ratibida pinnata Gray-headed coneflower Andropogon gerardii Big bluestem Trifolium pratense Red clover Bromus ciliatus Fringed brome Taraxacum officinale Common dandelion Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Aster ericoides Heath aster

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-22 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

By-Community Species

Area 35-3 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Altered/non-native deciduous forest 3217 NA Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Juniperus virginiana var. Eastern red cedar Zanthoxylum americanum Prickly ash Plantago major Common plantain Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass virginiana Ribes americanum Wild black currant Verbena urticifolia White vervain Ulmus pumila Siberian elm Lonicera tatarica Tartarian honeysuckle Verbena stricta Hoary vervain Rosa multiflora Multiflora rose Artemisia ludoviciana var. White sage Juglans nigra Black walnut Eupatorium rugosum White snakeroot Ulmus americana American elm Agastache foeniculum Blue giant hyssop Quercus macrocarpa Bur oak Taraxacum officinale Common dandelion

Tilia americana Basswood Gleditsia triacanthos Honey locust Celtis occidentalis Hackberry Quercus alba White oak

Area 35-4 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Wetland-open water (palustrine) 9300 Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-23 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

By-Community Species

Area 35-5 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Floodplain forest 3221 D Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Quercus macrocarpa Bur oak Lonicera tatarica Tartarian honeysuckle Verbena urticifolia White vervain Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye Rosa multiflora Multiflora rose Laportea canadensis Wood nettle Carex intumescens Bladder sedge Ulmus americana American elm Ribes americanum Wild black currant Laportea canadensis Wood nettle Carex intumescens Bladder sedge Circaea lutetiana var. Common enchanter's Juniperus virginiana var. Eastern red cedar Vitis riparia Wild grape virginiana Juglans nigra Black walnut Tilia americana Basswood Celtis occidentalis Hackberry Populus deltoides var. Cottonwood occidentalis

Area 35-6 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Grassland with sparse deciduous trees - altered/non-native dominated vegetation 6214 NA Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Acer saccharinum Silver maple Salix nigra Black willow Taraxacum officinale Common dandelion Populus tremuloides Quaking aspen Verbena stricta Hoary vervain Verbena urticifolia White vervain Juniperus virginiana var. Eastern red cedar Berteroa incana Hoary alyssum virginiana Quercus macrocarpa Bur oak Salix nigra Black willow

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-24 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

By-Community Species

Area 35-7 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Aspen forest - saturated soils 3233 D Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Populus tremuloides Quaking aspen Taraxacum officinale Common dandelion Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass Vernonia fasciculata Bunched ironweed Verbena stricta Hoary vervain Verbena urticifolia White vervain

Area 35-8 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Altered/non-native deciduous forest 3217 Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Prunus serotina Black cherry Lonicera tatarica Tartarian honeysuckle Parthenocissus quinquefolia Woodbine Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye Vitis riparia Wild grape Toxicodendron radicans var. Common poison ivy Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass Acer negundo Box elder Cornus racemosa Gray dogwood Toxicodendron radicans var. Common poison ivy Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass Eupatorium rugosum White snakeroot Juglans nigra Black walnut Rubus idaeus var. strigosus Red raspberry Desmodium glutinosum Pointed-leaved tick trefoil Gleditsia triacanthos Honey locust Ambrosia trifida var. trifida Great ragweed Verbena stricta Hoary vervain Ulmus pumila Siberian elm

Area 35-9 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Saturated altered/non-native dominated graminoid vegetation 6148 NA Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Polygonum lapathifolium Nodding smartweed Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass Vernonia fasciculata var. Bunched ironweed Verbena hastata Blue vervain Plantago major Common plantain

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-25 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

By-Community Species

Area 35-10 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Tall grass altered/non-native dominated grassland 6112 NA Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Ambrosia trifida var. trifida Great ragweed Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass Plantago major Common plantain Setaria glauca Yellow foxtail Asclepias syriaca Common milkweed

Area 36-1 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Altered/non-native deciduous forest 3217 NA Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Celtis occidentalis Hackberry Lonicera tatarica Tartarian honeysuckle Parthenocissus quinquefolia Woodbine Ulmus americana American elm Eupatorium rugosum White snakeroot Vitis riparia Wild grape Juniperus virginiana var. Eastern red cedar Campanula americana Tall bellflower virginiana Ulmus pumila Siberian elm Acer negundo Box elder

Area 36-2 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Wetland-open water (palustrine) 9300 Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-26 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

By-Community Species

Area 36-3 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Altered/non-native deciduous forest 3217 NA Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid

Area 36-4 MLCCS Code Qualitative Rank Acres Saturated altered/non-native dominated graminoid vegetation 6148 NA Canopy Shrub Forbs Graminoid Polygonum amphibium Water smartweed Bromus inermis Smooth brome Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle Echinochloa crusgalli var. Cockspur barnyard grass Conyza canadensis var. Horseweed Panicum virgatum Switchgrass Stachys tenuifolia Narrow-leaved hedge nettle Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass Polygonum lapathifolium Nodding smartweed Scirpus cyperinus Woolgrass Ratibida pinnata Gray-headed coneflower Rudbeckia hirta var. Black-eyed Susan Monarda fistulosa Wild bergamot Verbena hastata Blue vervain Ambrosia trifida var. trifida Great ragweed Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Echinacea pallida var. Narrow-leaved purple coneflower

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive A-27 Lands Survey o e t o , Ic September 2007Bonestroo, Inc.

Appendix B

Glossary of Technical Terms

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey Bonestroo, Inc. September 2007

1Glossary of Technical Terms

Acre-Foot Volume of water that would cover an acre of land to a depth of one foot (43,560 cubic feet). Alluvium Material, such as sand and gravel, deposited by running water. River terraces and outwash plains are examples of landforms composed of alluvium. Barrens Usually refers to an area with sparse vegetation or stunted plants, caused by harsh growing conditions such as infertile, droughty, or thin soils; also, a plant community that has very sparse cover or is composed of stunted plants. Bedrock Any solid rock exposed at the earth’s surface or covered by unconsolidated material such as till, gravel, or sand. Best Management Practices: Methods, measures, or practices to prevent or reduce water pollution, including but not limited to structural and non-structural controls, operation and maintenance procedures, and scheduling of specific activities. Acronym is BMPs. Blowout An area, on a dune or other sand deposit, where wind has eroded a bowl-shaped hollow in the sand. Blowouts generally are sparsely vegetated. Bluegreen algae A type of algae whose population often increases dramatically at high nutrient concentrations in lakes. They can form objectionable surface scums, cause taste and odor problems, and secrete toxins poisonous to warm-blooded animals. Bog A wetland composed of a layer of acidic peat on which grows a specialized group of herbs and low shrubs. Bogs are distinguished from closely related poor fens by extremely nutrient-poor conditions and the absence of most of the minerotrophic species that occur in poor fens. Bounce In Hydrologic references, the rise in level in a wetland or lake resulting from a rainstorm event. The difference in elevation between the normal water elevation and the peak water elevation of a pond for a given size runoff event.

Brushland An upland plant community composed of shrubs and tree sprouts. Buffer strip: A band of un-maintained, preferably native, vegetation left along the edge of a stream, lake or wetland to filter runoff and/or stabilize the shoreline Calcareous Describes a soil or substrate that contains a significant amount of calcium carbonate. Canopy Aerial branches and leaves of terrestrial plants; generally the tallest layer of foliage in a plant community. Chlorophyll a The primary photosynthetic pigment in plants, a measure of the algal biomass in lakes Colluvium A deposit of rock and soil at the base of a cliff or slope, formed by gravitational action. Colonial nesting birds Species that nest in colonies (groups or aggregations), either with others of the same species or in mixed-species aggregations. Cover The proportion of the ground shaded when the living plant canopy is projected vertically downward; also a general term used to describe any component of the habitat that conceals animals from view. DBH (diameter at breast height) – a standard measure of tree trunk diameter taken approximately 4.5 feet above the ground level. Dominant Describes a plant species that shapes the character of a community by virtue of its size, abundance, dense shade, or effects on soils. Dominant species generally influence the presence, growth, and distribution of other plant species in the community. Degradation A decrease in quality.

1 Many of the definitions used in this section are borrowed from Minnesota’s St. Croix River Valley and Black Hawk Sandplain, Wovcha et al., Minnesota DNR, 1995.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey B-1 Bonestroo, Inc. September 2007

Detention Pond A pond designed to catch and temporarily store runoff before discharging the water downstream. The volume of the pool of standing water in the pond is important in determining how effective the pond will be in treating the incoming stormwater. Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.) Oxygen that is dissolved in water. Fish and other water organisms need oxygen for respiration to survive. Depletion of oxygen from water can occur as a result of chemical and biological processes, including decomposition of organic matter. Downcutting The process by which a river or stream erodes and lowers its bed, eventually resulting in the formation of a valley or ravine. Drift (glacial) Rock material, such as boulders, gravel, sand, silt, or clay, removed from one area and deposited in another by glaciers. Drift includes material deposited directly by glacial ice, such as till, as well as material deposited indirectly, such as outwash. Ecosystem The interacting group of physical elements (such as soils, water, etc.), plants, animals, and human communities that inhabit a particular place. Emergent Describes a plant capable of surviving indefinitely with its root system and lower stem in water and its upper stem above water (e.g., cattails). Empirical Based on experiment and observation; used to describe water quality models which are developed from measured data. End moraine A typically hilly landform composed of material deposited at the margin of a glacier. Ephemeral habitat A temporary habitat created by low intensity, short-lived fluctuations in environmental factors. Epilimnion: Upper warm layer of a lake during thermal stratification. Esker A long, often serpentine hill or ridge composed of sand and gravel deposited by meltwater streams flowing in a channel in a decaying ice sheet. Eutrophication A natural process caused by the gradual accumulation of nutrients and consequent increased biological production, and resulting in the slow filling in of a basin with accumulated sediments, silt, and organic matter. Man’s activities can increase the rate at which eutrophication occurs. Eutrophic Lake: A nutrient rich lake; usually shallow, green due to excessive algae growth and with limited oxygen in the bottom layer of water. Exotic species A species that has been introduced to an area by humans or that is present in the area as a result of human-caused changes. (same as non native species.) Export Coefficient An estimate of the expected annual amount of a nutrient carried from its source to a lake. Fen a wetland community composed of sedges, grasses, forbs, and sometimes shrubs, that develops on peat in shallow basins. Floating-leaved plants Aquatic plants that root on lake, pond, or river bottoms and have leaves that float on the water surface at the end of long, flexible stems (e.g., water-lilies). Floodplain A flat area adjacent to a stream or river channel, created by erosion and deposition of sediment during regular flooding. Signs of flooding include debris caught in trees and ice scars at the bases of trees. Flushing Rate The number of times per year that a volume of water equal to the lake’s volume flows through the lake. Forb A general term for broad-leaved, herbaceous plants. Forest A plant community with a nearly continuous to continuous canopy (70 to 100% cover) of mature trees. Forest-grown tree A tree that matured within a closed-canopy forest. Forest-grown trees tend to have narrow crowns and tall, straight trunks with few lower limbs. Graminoid An herbaceous plant with linear, “grasslike” leaves that typically are oriented vertically. Graminoids include grasses, sedges, and rushes.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey B-2 Bonestroo, Inc. September 2007

Greenway or Greenway Corridor A linear open space area, usually composed of natural vegetation, or vegetation that is more natural than surrounding land uses. May include paths or recreational trails. Ground layer A vegetation layer, mostly less that 3 feet tall, of grasses, forbs, and woody plants. Ground moraine A broad and level or gently undulating landform composed of material that was deposited underneath and sometimes at the margin of a glacier as the ice sheet melted; also referred to as a till plain. Grove A general term for a patch of trees less than 2 acres in area. Grub A tree or shrub whose aboveground shoots are repeatedly killed by fire or browsing but whose root system survives and continues to send up new shoots. The root system of a grub may be several hundred years old; the above ground shoots are generally much younger. Habitat The locality, site, and particular type of local environment in which plants, animals, and other organisms live. Herb A plant lacking a persistent above ground woody stem. Herbs include broad-leaved flowering plants, ferns, grasses, sedges, and others. High Water Level (HWL) The peak water surface elevation in a ponding area as a result of a specific runoff event. Once the peak is reached, the water elevation eventually returns to its normal (standing) water level. Hydrology The science and study of water in nature, including its circulation, distribution, and its interaction with the environment. Hydrophyte A plant adapted to growing in water or on wet soils that are periodically saturated and deficient in oxygen. Hypolimnion Lower cooler layer of a lake during thermal stratification. Ice block lake A lake that occurs in a depression that was formed when a block of glacial ice was buried or surrounded by till or outwash sand, and then melted. Ice scar A scar on a floodplain tree caused by abrasion by ice floes during spring flooding. Impervious Surface A surface that is impermeable to the downward seepage of water; e.g., pavement and roof tops. Inflorescence An arrangement of flowers on a plant, such as in a cluster or along a stalk. Lacustrine Refers to features (such as sediments, landforms, plant communities, or animal communities) that were formed by or are associated with a lake. Landform A land feature, such as plain, plateau, or valley, formed by a particular geologic process. Life form Characteristic structural features and growth pattern of plant species (e.g., broad-leaved deciduous shrub). Litter layer Relatively undecomposed organic matter and debris on top of soil layer. Loading The amount of a pollutant or other substance delivered to a lake, usually expressed as a weight per unit time (i.e. pounds per year). The loading of a given constituent to a receiving water is a function of the volume of incoming water and the concentration of the constituent in the incoming water. Loess Fine material consisting predominantly of silt with fine sand and clay. Loess is often deposited by wind. Macrophytes Higher plants which grow in water, either submerged, emergent, or floating. Reeds and cattails are examples of emergent macrophytes. Marsh A plant community of shallow wetland basins, dominated by herbaceous, emergent aquatic plants such as cattails and bulrushes. Marshes usually have standing water throughout the growing season. Meltwater Water released by melting glacial ice. Mesic A general term describing upland habitats that are intermediate between wet and dry; also used to describe plants and plant communities that occur in mesic habitats. Mesotrophic Lake Midway in nutrient levels between eutrophic and oligotrophiclakes. Microhabitat A small, specialized habitat.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey B-3 Bonestroo, Inc. September 2007

Mineral soil A soil composed mostly of inorganic matter, including clay, silt, sand, and gravel. Mineral soils usually have less than 20% organic matter but may have organic surface layers up to 12 inches thick. Minerotrophic A general term describing wetlands with nutrient levels that fall between very low (such as in bogs) and very high (such as in seepage meadows). Mitigation: Actions taken to reduce an impact. Water quality mitigation measures can be non-structural (such as street sweeping, regulation of fertilizer use, and creation/protection of natural buffers to filter runoff) or structural (such as installation of detention basins). Properly designed detention basins are among the most effective and reliable measures for mitigating the water quality impacts of urban developments. Model A mathematical representation of an event or process. Moraine Rock and mineral debris deposited directly by glacial ice. Moraines most often consist of unsorted rock and mineral particles. Muck A dark-colored organic soil of highly decomposed plant material in which the original plant parts are not recognizable. Native habitat A habitat formed and occupied by native plants and animals and little modified by logging, farming, ditching, flood control, and the like. Native species A species that occurs naturally within a given region. Native vegetation Vegetation, composed of native plants, that has been little modified by human activities such as logging, farming, ditching, or the introduction of nonnative species. Natural area Geographic area in which the dominant plants and animals are native species. Natural community An assemblage that tends to recur over space and time of native plants and animals that interact with each other and with their abiotic habitats in ways that have been little modified by nonnative plant and animal species. Natural communities are classified and described according to their vegetation, successional status, topography, hydrologic conditions, landforms, substrates, soils, and natural disturbance regimes (such as wildfires, windstorms, normal flood cycles, and normal infestation by native insects and microorganisms). Nonnative species A species that has been introduced to an area by humans or that is present in the area as a result of human-caused changes. Non-Point Source Pollution: Refers to pollution other than that caused by discharge of pollutants through a pipe from a closed system to a receiving water. Pollution caused by runoff from farm fields or paved streets are examples of this non-point pollution. Normal Water Level (NWL) The elevation of the surface of the standing water pool within a pond or wetland. Generally, the NWL is the elevation of the bottom of the primary outlet pipe or overland flow channel. NPDES MS4 Permit - Stormwater discharges associated with municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) are regulated through the use of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. NPDES permits are legal documents. The Stormwater Program for MS4s is designed to reduce the amount of sediment and pollution that enters surface and ground water from storm sewer systems to the maximum extent practicable. Through this permit, the owner or operator is required to develop a stormwater pollution prevention program (SWPPP) that incorporates best management practices (BMPs) applicable to their MS4. Nutrient Budget: An itemized estimate of nutrient inputs and outputs (usually for a period of one year), taking into account all sources and losses. Nutrient Loading The input of nutrients to a lake Nutrient Trap A type of pond or wetland that is effective at removing nutrients from water. Nutrients Elements such as phosphorus and nitrogen that are required for plant growth. When excess amounts are transported in stormwater they may encourage excessive algae or other plant growth in receiving water bodies.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey B-4 Bonestroo, Inc. September 2007

Oligotrophic Lake A nutrient-poor lake, usually clear and deep with bottom waters high in dissolved oxygen. Open-grown tree A tree that has matured in an open setting, such as a prairie or savanna. Open-grown trees tend to have broad crowns and thick, spreading lower limbs. Organic soil A soil in which the upper surface layers contain more than 25% organic matter. Outcrop Bedrock that projects above the soil. Outwash plain A plain formed of sorted and stratified material-such as layers of sand and gravel-carried from an ice sheet and deposited by glacial meltwater. pH A measure of the acidic or basic nature of the water; it is defined as the logarithm of the reciprocal of the hydrogen-ion concentration in moles/liter. Parent material The weathered rock or partly weathered soil material from which topsoil develops. Parts per billion (ppb) a unit of concentration, sometimes expressed as micrograms per liter (ug/l). Parts per million (ppm) a unit of concentration, sometimes expressed as milligrams per liter (mg/l). Peat soil A dark brown or black organic soil consisting largely of undecomposed or slightly decomposed plants. Usually form where persistent excessive moisture slows or inhibits the decay of plant material. Persistent vegetation Wetland vegetation formed by emergent hydrophytic plants with stems that normally remain standing until the beginning of the following growing season (e.g., cattails and bulrushes). Phosphorus A nutrient essential to plant growth. Phosphorus is the nutrient most commonly limiting plant growth in lakes. Phosphorus Export The amount of phosphorus carried off of a given area of land by stormwater. Phytoplankton Open water algae; it forms the base of the lake’s food chain and produces oxygen. Prairie An upland plant community composed of grasses and forbs. Prairies generally lack trees; shrubs, if present, are not prominent. Presettlement A term used for convenience to denote the time period before Euro-American settlers moved into the Region. The Region was actually settled by American Indians for thousands of years before European-Americans arrived. Range (geographic) The limits of the geographic distribution of a species or group. Rate Control: A term that refers to controlling the rate at which water is discharged from a watershed. Rate control is often accomplished by creating ponds-either by excavation or berming- to temporarily store runoff, then discharging the stored water at a slower rate to downstream areas. Further reductions in the rate at which water is released from a pond can be accomplished by reducing the size of the outlet, such as through installation of a wall in the outlet structure with a hole (orifice) through it. Reintroduced species Species that had been eliminated from areas where they occurred historically and were later released back into the area by humans. Remnant A portion or fragment of a natural community that has survived while the rest of the community has been destroyed by logging, urban development, clearing of land for cultivation, and other human activities. Residence Time The amount of time it takes for water flowing into a lake to equal the lake volume. The shorter the residence time, the more incoming water the lake is receiving relative to its volume. Rhizome A horizontal underground plant stem. Savanna An upland plant community formed of prairie herbs with scattered trees or groves of trees. The canopy cover of trees in a savanna is generally between 10 and 70%. Secchi Disc A device measuring the depth of light penetration in water, typically a 9-inch, white circular plate attached to a rope. Used to measure water transparency. Sedge Any of a number of grasslike plants of the family Cyperaceae. Sedimentation The process by which matter (usually soil particles) settles on a substrate following transport by water, wind, or ice.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey B-5 Bonestroo, Inc. September 2007

Seepage The slow, diffuse oozing of groundwater onto the earth’s surface. Shallow Lake Lakes with mean depth of less than 10 feet Shrub layer A vegetation layer, usually less that 6 feet high, of shrubs and tree seedlings. Shrub swamp A wetland community dominated by a nearly continuous to continuous canopy (70 to 100% cover) of shrubs, such as willows and alders. Subcanopy A vegetation layer, composed of patches of individuals of approximately equal height, that is lower than the canopy layer; often refers to a layer of saplings, tall shrubs, or small trees between 6 and 35 feet high. Submergent Describes an aquatic plant that grows entirely under water. Substrate The surface layer of organic or mineral material-such as till, outwash, or bedrock-from which the soil is formed. Succession The change in vegetation over time. Swale A broad, shallow depression in a till plain or broad river plain. Swamp A wetland community with a fairly continuous to continuous canopy of shrubs or trees, such as speckled alder, black ash, or tamarack. Swamps generally occur in shallow basins or wet depressions. Talus Rocks and other coarse mineral debris that accumulate at the base of a cliff or steep slope. Terrace A sandy and gravelly alluvial plain bordering a river. Terraces represent former river floodplains, left stranded when the river level dropped because of channel downcutting or decreased flow. Terraces are ordinarily level or nearly level and are seldom flooded. Till Unstratified and unsorted material deposited directly by a glacier. Till consists of clay, sand , gravel, or boulders mixed in any proportion. Till plain A broad and level or gently undulating landform composed of material that was deposited underneath and at the margin of a glacier as the ice sheet melted; also referred to as a ground moraine. TMDL Program Total maximum daily load. The maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards. TMDL also refers to the process of allocating pollutant loadings among various sources. Total Phosphorus (TP) A measure of all of the different forms of phosphorus in water. Includes phosphorus dissolved in the water, suspended or incorporated in algae or other organisms. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Particulate material which floats in or is carried along in water (e.g., algae, soil particles). Transitional habitat A habitat present between two adjacent natural communities (for example, the edge of a forest along a wet meadow). Transitional habitats often have features that set them apart form the habitats formed by either of the adjacent communities. Trophic State The level of growth or productivity of a lake as measured by phosphorus content, algae abundance, or depth of light penetration. Understory The vegetation occurring below the canopy in a plant community. Vine A plant with along, weak stem that grows along the ground or climbs on other vegetation for support. Watershed: The area of land draining into a specific body of water. Water Transparency A measure of the clarity of water. The depth at which an object can be seen in water. Wetland Habitats where the soil is saturated or covered with water for part of the year. Woodland A wooded habitat characterized by an interrupted tree canopy; also used as a general term to describe any tract of land with trees growing on it. Woodland-brushland An upland plant community composed of a patchy canopy (10 to 70% cover) of mature trees and a dense understory of shrubs, tree shoots, and saplings. Usually the trees occur in scattered groves with dense thickets of brush between them.

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey B-6 Bonestroo, Inc. September 2007

Bonestroo Project Staff

John Uban, ASLA Principal-in-charge, Landscape Architect Paul J. Bockenstedt Project Manager/Ecologist Liza R. Gould Plant Ecologist, MLCCS, and GIS Beau Thunshelle Wildlife Biologist, MLCCS, and GIS Amy Carolan Plant Ecologist and GIS Ciara Schilichting Landscape Ecologist & Planner Holly Reid Landscape Architect/Park Planner Brendon Slotterback Planner

City of Cedar Falls Environmentally Sensitive Lands Survey B-1 Bonestroo, Inc. September 2007