Restoration of a Wet Prairie Ecosystem

on the Kuhl Century Farm

ENVR 396 – Seminar on Creation Stewardship

May, 2005

Christo Haarhoff, Todd Rowenhorst, Nate Sneider, Emily Van’t Hul, and Jennie Van Velzen

Advisor: Prof. De Haan

OUTLINE I. Introduction A. Overview of project B. Rationale and importance II. Examples of successful projects A. St. Olaf College

B. Northwestern College III. Description of the property (historical and current)

A. Soil types and soil formation B. Hydrology and water quality C. Vegetation D. Animals E. Native American and European settlements IV. Project goals with associated rationale and implementation plans

A. Restore a wet prairie ecosystem B. Manage water runoff from campus C. Create multiple educational and research opportunities D. Develop and maintain community interest and involvement E. Obtain adequate funding for establishment and maintenance F. Promote similar restoration projects in the region V. References VI. Conclusion VII. Appendices A. Soil Test Data B. Water Quality Data C. Plant Species D. Animal Species E. Management Plan F. Seed Sources G. Seed Costs

H. Detention Pond Calculations I. Diagram of Water Control Valve J. Diagram of Property and Ponds K. Learning Opportunities for Dordt Students L. Community Involvement M. Diagram of Property and Filter Strips N. Project Budget

2

Introduction (JVV)

This semester, the Environmental Studies 396 class has chosen to focus their efforts on the development of a wetland restoration plan for the Dord College campus. This project is an integration of our previous studies in Biology, Chemistry, Economics, Philosophy, General Education, and Environmental Studies. As Christians who have some understanding of ecosystems, we find that there is a great need for creation care. This kind of care includes habitat restoration, prevention of water and air pollution, education, and land use practices involving urban and rural areas. The project we are working on specifically deals with the opportunity for habitat restoration on the Kuhl property, a piece of land recently acquired by Dordt College.

After talking with representatives of the college and the community, it soon became apparent to us that the Kuhl property needs to be managed to meet multiple objectives. These objectives are to restore a functioning natural ecosystem, manage water runoff from campus, create multiple educational and research opportunities, develop and maintain community support, obtain adequate funding for the project, and promote similar restoration projects in the region. Our class has been working cooperatively with an ad hoc committee composed of Dr. Del Vander Zee, Mr. Ron Oostra, Mr. Arlan Neederhof, Mr. Stan Oordt, and Mr. Harlan Muilenberg to come up with a landscape design and implementation plan that will enable the college to meet the objectives described above. The committee has focused on the upland area, whereas our class has focused on the wetland area. The two tasks are closely related and there is some overlap.

Wetlands are ecosystems that commonly occur at the edges of aquatic or terrestrial systems (Galatowitsch and van der Valk 1994). They may be wet part of a day or all year long. They contain unique hydrologic, soil, and biotic conditions which support a number of different benefits or functions. These benefits include healthy fisheries, support for birds and other wildlife, high biological productivity, biodiversity protection, erosion control, flood damage reduction, good water quality, and aesthetics and recreation (Galatowitsch and van der Valk 1994). The three types of wetlands that occur in Northwest Iowa are prairie potholes, fens, and sedge meadows. Prairie potholes are depressional wetlands that were formed by glaciation. These may be temporarily wet and are home to numerous species of waterfowl and marsh plants. Fens are a unique landform that are peat forming, receiving their nutrients from upslope sources through drainage form surrounding mineral soils and from groundwater movement (US EPA 2005). The third type of wetland, sedge meadows, are most like what we currently have on the Kuhl property. These are areas that are low-lying on the landscape and tend to collect runoff water. The waters in these areas often stand for long periods of time, creating rich habitats for a variety of water-loving grasses, sedges, rushes, wildflowers. The nutrients available in this environment provide “vital food and habitat for many insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals” (US EPA 2005).

Over the past 200 years, more than 50 percent of the wetlands in the coterminous U.S. have been lost (Galatowitsch and van der Valk 1994). It is important from an ecological standpoint to restore some of these unique and functional ecosystems. The primary goal of this project specifically is to reestablish the natural ecological processes that have taken place historically on the Kuhl property. Not only would the restoration of this wetland be beneficial to the nonhuman creation, it would also be of use to the human community

3

surrounding it. It would be a great educational tool for Dordt and surrounding schools, it would be a place for reflection and relaxation for the Sioux Center community, and could be designed to provide an adequate solution to the problem of water runoff from campus. The emphasis on creational restoration with this project causes us to take a closer look at a common theme throughout the Old Testament books of the prophets. Restoration was a promise often made by God to his fallen people. No matter how many times the Israelites broke their relationships with God, their fellow man, and creation, the Lord promised to restore their land and give forgiveness (Ezekiel 36, Amos 9, Malachi 3, Zechariah 10). As Christians in an age of brokenness and degradation, this Godly quality should be evident in our lives as well (Genesis 1:27-28, Colossians 1:15-23, Hosea 4:1-3, Leviticus 25). These truths mesh very well with Dordt’s mission statement (as found in the strategic plan) which says that the purpose of the college is to encourage students to develop a biblical understanding of creation and culture, discern the pervasive effects of sin throughout our world, celebrate and proclaim the redemptive rule of Christ over all of life and all of creation, and nurture a commitment for challenging the forces that distort God’s good creation and all of human activity. The class believes that restoring the wetlands on the Kuhl property would be an effective way to live out our Christian faith and to enable all of creation to praise the Creator (Psalm 19:1).

Examples of Successful Projects

Can Dordt college actually carry out a successful restoration project and meet the objectives that we have articulated? Have other institutions been able to do so? If so, how have they done it? What are the keys to successfully establishing and maintaining high quality natural areas on college campuses? The following examples help answer these and other questions. St. Olaf College (JVV and NS) The restoration project at St. Olaf College in Northfield, Minnesota is a great example of what our project at Dordt could be like. Not only have they done work on restoring wetlands they have also been highly active in restoring native prairie and woodlands. They currently have more than 25,000 trees representing 20 species of hardwoods, 45 acres of prairie, and over 15 acres of surface water for wetlands (Anonymous 2000). As expressed by Gene Bakko, director of these projects, “while the primary goal in restoring these natural habitats is for the intrinsic value of the original ecosystems, the educational value to the St. Olaf community has exceeded everyone’s expectations. This thoughtful stewardship of the land enables the students of today and tomorrow to enjoy a special living legacy.” The restoration project began in 1981, when a student at the time was working on a senior project, and came up with the idea of St. Olaf as a ‘Nature Area’. By 1988, St. Olaf was able to enroll some of their farmland into the Conservation Reserve Program. Over the years, while working along side of the college administration, about 135 acres of woodlands, prairies, and wetlands have been restored (Anonymous 2000). Today there are approximately 300 acres of campus and an additional 600 acres of land dedicated to natural habitat and sustainable farming practices. They have 12 wetlands on the campus, and they have all been created or restored since 1992 (Bakko 2005). Their

4

largest wetland is nine acres of surface water and considerably larger than any thing that we could establish at Dordt. This largest wetland can be drained completely which aids the college in maintaining the wetlands, carrying out experiments, and managing the wetland. However they also have many smaller ones which they call scrapes. These were made by taking a bulldozer and basically just making a scrape in the ground that seasonally fills with water and stays wet most of the year. These ponds are used by migratory birds, as well as many local species. The larger ponds are also home to muskrats and other mammals. The restored land enables the college to continually educate their students on how to properly maintain a restored wetland. The students are involved in shaping the wetlands by helping with prescribed burning of the restored areas. This is done every spring by the professor students. This gives the students experience in burning that they could probably not get elsewhere and is of true value for future employment. Also many students use the area for their own independent studies. Since the area surrounds the campus it is relatively easy for the students to complete their studies without having to travel to other natural areas. This closeness to the restored wetlands also allows classes from different courses to use the area to further their studies. The athletic, chemistry, biology, art, environmental studies, philosophy, religion, and psychology departments were all making use of the restored natural areas during the past year. The entire Northfield community is able to use this area also. The students organize projects which the community can participate in and enjoy the natural area, as well as helping to maintain it. The trails that go through the area are also used for walking, running, cross-country skiing, and bird watching (Anonymous 2000). St. Olaf was also able to put easements on some of their land in which it was jointly cared for with the Fish and Wildlife Service. This land can never be taken out of the USFWS wetland easement program for future building. With this program, St. Olaf received $2500 per acre for the last 100 acres they enrolled in the program, giving them a total of $250,000. This amount of money was more than the money they put into restoring the wetland. Some of their funding also came from being able to put some of their land in to CRP (Bakko 2005). St. Olaf’s project as said before, is run by Mr. Gene Bakko. He, over the last 10 years, has been in charge of the budget and other management costs. He has said that in his experience, establishing a prairie costs at least $1000 per acre. Most of that goes into purchasing seeds. What is left goes into land preparation and planting. All of their land preparation is done by a local farmer and the application of RoundUP herbicide is done by the local farm coop. All of their planting is hired out. Another large cost of their project is hiring student labor. They hire four full-time students each summer. This costs the college $12-14,000 per year. There is also cost involved for them by providing chemicals, spot sprayers, and fire burning equipment (2 drip torches, 4 swamp mats, 4 backpack water sprayers, and 6 fire resistant overalls) (Bakko 2005). With the construction of their wetland areas, the land was excavated and water level control devices were put into place. The water control devices are put into the wetlands because draining can be “good and stimulating”. According to Bakko “a drought to a wetland is like a fire to a prairie”. Burning plays an important role in the maintenance of the prairies. This requires St. Olafs to apply for a burn permit with their local Safety Center (which is free of cost). Mr. Bakko says that the permit is usually good for a 2 to 3 week period and he is required to call the Safety Center the morning that he plans to burn. He also contacts the physical plant,

5

campus security, and the administration on is campus so that they know what is going on the day of the burn. The wetlands of St. Olaf are thriving and look beautiful. Much of their success can be attributed to the care and the outreach by the St. Olaf community. The project is also strongly supported by the campus administrators and physical plant director. A lot of hard work has gone into the project and it has paid off.

Northwestern College (RDH)

Northwestern College in Orange City, Iowa provides another example of a successful restoration effort. Northwestern’s 21 acre tall grass prairie was started in 1999 by Nate De Jager, who was then a student. The prairie is located two miles east of Hawarden, Iowa in the northwest corner of section five, Washington township. Funding for the restoration project was obtained from Pheasants Forever, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources Resource Enhancement and Protection (REAP) program, and the USDA Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The prairie serves as a laboratory for the college’s ecological science students and has been used for studies investigating plant pollination, water quality, natural succession, and the impact of burning on prairie plant composition. Management of the prairie involves mowing, prescribed burns, and hand weeding (Furlong 2005). According to Dr. Laurie Furlong, the prairie is great educational resource, but its distance from campus makes it harder to manage and use than an on-campus natural area would be. Description of the Property

Before making alterations to a particular landscape it is helpful to understand what the landscape is like today, and how it came to be that way. The following sections provide some of that background information for the Kuhl property. We will take a look at soil types and formation, hydrology and water quality, vegetation, animals, and human settlements.

Soil History (CH and EVH)

Materials from numerous glacial advances cover different parts of Iowa and bury most of the sedimentary bedrock foundation (shown below) from view. Other materials near the land surface also accumulated during glacial episodes, including loess (deposits of wind-blown silt) and alluvium (sand and gravel transported by glacial meltwater streams) (Iowa DNR Geological Survey 2005). It is helpful to think about these landscapes in terms of their control on the distribution of native plant and animal habitats, on various soil types, on the potential for archaeological remains, and on patterns of historic settlement. Learning more about the features of Iowa’s landscape increases our understanding and appreciation of the views around us and the ground beneath our feet.

6

Iowa’s bedrock geology map (Prior 2005) shows rocks from younger periods partly covering older rocks. Most of the rock units are dipping gently to the southwest, and this bedrock structure, coupled with a long history of surface erosion, contributes to the irregular bedrock surface crossing rock units of different ages. A noteworthy feature interrupts this general bedrock pattern, the far northwest corner of Iowa, where an ancient ridge of silica-cemented sandstone pokes to the land surface. At 1.6 billion years of age (Precambrian), these scattered outcrops of hard, reddish Sioux Quartzite are the oldest bedrock exposed anywhere in Iowa. Elsewhere beneath the state, the Precambrian rocks are usually igneous and metamorphic types, and they lie deeply buried by the thick sedimentary strata (Prior 2005).

The present land surface across Iowa is dominated by loose materials much younger than the bedrock beneath (Prior 2005). These materials consist of sediment originating from ice sheets, meltwater streams, and strong winds during a series of glacial events between 2.5 million and 10,000 years ago. This common “dirt” consists of pebbly clay, sand, gravel, and abundant silt, which over time have weathered into Iowa’s productive loamy soils. These easily eroded “Ice Age” deposits account for the gently rolling appearance of much of the Iowa (and Midwestern) landscape (Prior 2005).

According to the information presented in the Soil Survey of Sioux County, the parent materials which formed most of the soils in Sioux County are loess, alluvium, glacial drift, and sandy eolian material. Loess covers about 75% of the county, and overlays the glacial till and glacial outwash. Loess was probably carried by the wind from the floodplain along the Missouri and Big Sioux rivers. Alluvium is sediment deposited by water along the

7

major and minor streams and drainage ways. In Sioux County the main sources of alluvium are loess and outwash deposited by glacial meltwater. Historically, four glaciations have been acknowledged in the United States, which are Wisconsinan, Illinoian, Kansan, and Nebraskan. Glacial drifts belonging to the Wisconsinan and pre-Illinoian have been identified in Sioux County. Glacial till is not a general parent material in this county because most of the till is buried beneath a layer of loess between 6 to more than 20 feet thick (USDA SCS 1990, p 81-82).

The area of Sioux County that we are focusing on is composed of soils of the Galva-Primghar Association. These soils are “level to gently sloping, well drained and somewhat poorly drained, silty soils formed in loess; on uplands” (USDA SCS 1990, p 146). Most of the surface layer of Galva soils consists of black silty clay about 9 inches thick, which turns to a yellowish-brown at a depth of 60 inches. Primghar soils are black silty clay about 11 inches thick which turns into dark yellowish brown and slight brownish grey at 60 inches (USDA SCS 1990, p 6). The Kuhl property, which contains a waterway or wetland area falls under the Primghar series, which mostly consist of somewhat poorly drained, moderately permeable soils on broad divides and in drainage ways on uplands. These soils formed in loess. The native vegetation consisted of mixed prairie grasses (USDA SCS 1990, p 82).

Soil Test Results (EVH)

Soil samples were taken from the northwest, southeast, and north central areas of the field on the Kuhl property and sent into Midwest Laboratories for analysis. Refer to Appendix A for soil test results. The tests showed that there were high phosphorous, potassium, magnesium, and calcium concentrations in some areas, which could be due to prior fertilizer use. The highest results for phosphorous and potassium were found in the north central area, which will become the prairie region. These levels are all higher than in natural prairie areas because of the addition of nutrients from outside the ecosystem during the past 100 years. These nutrient concentrations are higher than needed for native species, and will allow more weedy species to flourish. The soil also had pH results ranging from 6.2-6.5, which is lower than most prairies. This could be due to its being farmed and not being limed in the last few years. There was no sodium in the tests due to the large amount of rain that falls and the fact that it leaches easily (Goedhart). These nutrients could affect the success of prairie and wetland restoration efforts if not accounted for. With careful planning, however, they need not present any insurmountable challenges.

Historical and Present Hydrology (NS and EVH)

Hydrology is the study of properties, distribution, and effects of water on the earth’s surface, in the soil and underlying rocks, and in the atmosphere. The historical hydrology of this area is important because it can help us understand what has occurred to make this ecosystem what it is today.

The historical hydrology of the Kuhl property can be found by analysis of the soil type in this area. The soil type in the waterway of the Kuhl property is 91B, or Primghar silty clay loam (USDA SCS 1990, sheet 55). This soil shows that there has been a history of a high water table in this area and that it was also the major natural drainage for the area.

8

However this has never been an area of large volumes of water or fast moving water. The Glacial till is at a depth of approximately 30 to 60 inches, which shows that there has never been constant fast moving water in the area, as fast moving water would have eroded all of the glacial till. Basically it has always been a wet or boggy area since the glaciers have retreated from the area. Once the Glaciers retreated from the area they left it to be much more hilly than it is currently. However over time these low areas have been filled in by erosion, and erosion has also lowered the tops of the nearby hills. Hence at one time the current wetland area could possibly have been deeper than what it is currently, and much wetter. It has since been filled by the erosion of the nearby hills. The hydrology of this area would have been able to support ponds and their ecosystems in the past, along with sedge meadows or wet prairies. During the dust bowl years in the 1930’s, the well on the Kuhl property never went dry, which was quite remarkable for that time (Van Dyke 1998) and indicates the wet nature of the draw.

The present hydrology of the area is characterized by small streams that split and converge to make up a slow moving water system (Van Dyke 1998). This flow starts by the drain from the BJ Haan building and travels to the south end of the pasture until it meets the pasture. There is also special tile located underneath the soccer field that takes water from the NE corner of the field to the SE corner of the field and then to the wetland area. “There the stream consolidates briefly before spreading out again over the marshy east end of the pasture,” which makes this area great place for a wetland restoration project.(Van Dyk 1998).

The water table is still very high and is above ground in many areas on the property. Professor Vander Zee, who lives close to the Kuhl property, hit gravel with water running through it at depths of 10 ft when he was digging his own well. The groundwater in the Kuhl property comes from the large Dakota aquifer. The surface water from this area becomes a small stream later on and eventually drains into the West Branch of the Floyd River. This eventually drains in to the Big Sioux River, which makes its way to the Missouri River along with the Mississippi River and finally the Gulf of Mexico.

Through sampling and testing the water--from the runoff of the B.J. Haan, runoff from the soccer field, and the water by 1st street--we found out the quality of the water that flows through the wetland varies due to the runoff from the BJ Haan and the soccer field. Iowater sampling protocols were followed for these tests (Iowater 2005). Nitrates can only be found in the first sampling site, which is right behind the BJ Haan. There are differences in nitrite which could be due to the weather on the different dates. We can see through the nitrate and chloride tests how the wetland naturally cleans the water as it goes through it and the concentrations decline. Compared to the Floyd River and Big Sioux River, which are rivers of low/moderate quality, there are fewer contaminants in the Kuhl wetland (Appendix B). EPA guidelines are met in all cases except for the phosphate tests (US EPA Water Quality 2005). The nitrites and nitrates could be from fertilizer or from runoff from the BJ Haan. Dissolved oxygen levels of less than 5mg/L are too low to maintain an ecologically healthy waterway (US EPA Water Quality 2005). Low levels of dissolved oxygen are often caused by the decomposition of organic matter. Phosphate levels above .05 mg/L endanger the health of freshwater ecosystems and may cause algal blooms. This is typically due to fertilizers entering the water supply.

The water tests show that it is possible for this wetland area to support life. It has lower nutrient and pollutant levels than the Floyd River or the Big Sioux River and both of them are able to support numerous invertebrate and plant species.

9

Historical Vegetation (NS) Historical vegetation for the Kuhl property would most likely have consisted of that which you would find in a palustrine wetlands system. A palustrian wetland system is defined as being nontidal wetlands covering less than 20 acres and never deeper than 6.6 feet deep. This type of wetland also has seasonal fluctuations in water level that reflects the annual rainfall and drought cycles. There are four types of palustrine wetlands. The wetland on the Kuhl property is a type II palustrine wetland system (Thompson 1992). This is described more specifically as a freshwater meadow where soil remains waterlogged within inches of the surface and standing water is present during the spring and after heavy rainfalls. Wetland areas are some of the most productive ecosystems in the world. Their production of biomass is rarely matched by any other type of ecosystem.

A list of the plant species that currently exist on the Kuhl property can be found in appendix C. Plants common in this type of ecosystem include prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), common reed (Phragmites australis), manna grass (Glyceria spp.), sedges, rushes (Juncus spp.), and mints (Mentha spp.) (Thompson 1992, p 81). Prairie cordgrass flowers from June through October. It is a rhizome-bearing grass that has a flat, one flowered spikelets crowded into two rows on one side of the branchlets. Its stems are erect, usually unbranched, and smooth up to six feet tall. Its leaves are long, narrow and rough, and up to a foot long. Reed canary grass is a highly variable species. It is often looked upon as a weed. Reed canary grass is native to most of North America. However, it threatens the diversity of plants in many wetland areas because it grows together so densely that it can displace other species. It is particularly competitive in environments with relatively high nutrient concentrations. It can grow up to six feet tall, and its leaves are flat and hairless. The common reed is a tall, coarse perennial with stout rhizomes. The stems are up to 4 meters tall; the leaves are flat and stiff. Manna grass is a perennial grass with solitary erect stems that grow to the height of about one meter. Its leaves are three to eight mm wide and its flowers become three to five mm. broad at maturity. Sedges look a lot like grass however their main difference is that they have triangular stems as opposed to round or flat stems like grasses. Sedges are very important to this type of environment. They provide food and habitat for a wide range of species, assist with aeration of the sediments and filter pollutants, particularly nutrients that entered the ecosystem. In addition they play an important role in stabilizing banks and minimizing erosion. Their root mass binds the soil, while their stems reduce the speed of water flowing past them. Rushes typically have a round stem that contains a pith. They have minute papery green or brown flowers that cluster at the stem tips. This plant is an important nesting material for birds, as well as food and shelter for many insects, birds, and mammals (Cronk and Fennessy 2001).

In the past this area would have looked much like the sedge meadow areas of the Steele prairie area. There would be tall grasses that would create habitat for songbirds; dense clumps of vegetation would serve as nesting sites. There would also be green sedges that would reside in the wettest areas of the wetland. In the spring this area would be one of the first to turn green and in the fall it would be the last to become brown. In the past wild fires would have periodically burned much of the wetland. This would cause rapid regrowth and new life in the wetland. This area would have been a source of water for buffalo as they

10

passed through. Migrating birds would have found rest here as they journeyed from their nesting grounds to their wintering ground. This area would have been teeming with animal and plant life.

Wildlife History (CH, EVH)

Joseph Street said it well in 1833 when he described the area of northern Iowa as a country full of game. He was surveying the land that was set-aside in 1825 to separate two groups of Native Americans. This trip took him across the Turkey and Wapsipinicon rivers and to the Cedar River. On his return, Street wrote of his trip: “I had never ridden through a country so full of game.” Street’s observations are consistent with those explorers who preceded and followed him: Iowa had an abundance of wildlife (Dinsmore 1994).

Before 1900, there were only a few laws or regulations that governing hunting wild animals in this country. Most species, which included non-game species, were hunted year-around. Market hunters harvested hundreds of thousands of animals to sell to an increasing population. They killed animals and marketed the meat for food, hides for clothing or trading, and feathers for decoration. Some of these species include robins, waterfowl, and deer. Eventually, regulations were passed to protect wildlife from market hunting. These laws prohibited the use of punt guns, baiting, ambush, and the use of live decoys. The other problem was that the settlers that moved into the areas plowed prairies, drained wetlands, and built towns, and by doing this changed the wildlife habitat (IA DNR Education 2005). These actions, and unregulated hunting, caused a drastic decline for many wildlife species in areas where settlers established themselves. Not only did they shoot for survival, but they also shot predators, since they were seen as vermin and a threat to domestic sheep, chickens, cattle, and game animals.

The Kuhl property was once a farm outside of town but as the town grew people moved around the farmstead and this urbanization caused most of the larger wildlife to leave the area. Turning everything into agriculture also did not help much. Since the area is secluded from most other wildlife areas it can be seen a habitat island. The species that are there will stay there if everything else stays the same and no new species will establish themselves unless introduced.

The variety of animals once found in Iowa is much greater than most Iowans would guess. Just among the vertebrates more than 450 species lived and bred in Iowa when the Europeans arrived and another 190 bird species migrated through Iowa (Dinsmore 1994). Most of Iowa’s bigger game species, which included bison and white-tailed deer nearly disappeared by the late 1800s. Once people realized this, laws were passed to help protect game species by limiting hunting and setting hunting seasons. State game wardens were hired in the early 1900s to enforce these laws (IA DNR Education 2005). Most of the funding for early wildlife management efforts came from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses and federal excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment, one of them being Duck stamps. Duck stamps were produced in 1934 as the federal licenses required for hunting migratory waterfowl. The money gathered from these stamps is also used for conservation programs (US FWS Duckstamps 2005).

Many game populations continued to suffer, so managers tried to increase populations by adding animals that were raised in captivity, but this didn’t work very well (Iowa DNR Education 2005). Biologists carried out research to better understand species’ needs and

11

realized habitat was a significant factor for wildlife survival, so efforts increased to expand and enhance wildlife habitat and therefore wildlife populations.

Habitats were conserved for game species, but these areas also contained non-game species, which benefited from the conservation. Funding for non-game species was not provided until 1981 when the "Chickadee Checkoff" was placed on Iowa tax forms (Iowa DNR Education 2005). Donations from this tax check-off were used to fund the Non-game Program (now Wildlife Diversity), which is responsible for all non-game animals. National initiatives including "Teaming with Wildlife" and the "Conservation and Reinvestment Act" to provide long-term, stable funding for management of all wildlife species have not been implemented in the state (Iowa DNR Education 2005).

Biologists now try to manage from a landscape perspective. This takes into consideration all plants and animals in an area, in contrast to management for a single species. Key indicator species are monitored, but the objective is to enhance the whole biological system. For example, landscape management strives to conserve an entire prairie system, complete with prairie chickens, skipper butterflies, pale purple coneflowers, and prairie rattlesnakes (Iowa DNR Education 2005).

As recently as the mid 1800’s, the Kuhl property was home to bison, elk, black bear, and wolves. The same events that affected the rest of Iowa also affected the Kuhl property, and these species are no longer present, nor will they be in near future. However, there are many wildlife species left, and others that could be re-introduced. According Wendy Van Dyke, the wetlands area is the most diverse region of the Kuhl property when it comes to plants and animals. “It (the wetlands) contains a large variety of plant species and provides habitat for many different birds, from tiny hummingbirds and marsh wrens to the larger partridges, and pheasants. The tall reeds provide nesting areas for red winged blackbirds. Mammal life is not as abundant, restricted mostly to deer mice, field mice, and short-tailed shrews (Van Dyk 1998).” Appendix D contains a complete list of the animal species that can be found on the Kuhl property today. The History of Sioux County (JVV)

11,000 ago, there were people living on the land now known as Sioux County, Iowa. These people were far different from the current inhabitants. One could only imagine what it must have been like to coexist with mammoths, horses, camels, and bison. These peoples were considered advanced for their time. They lived in villages, hunting small game and living off of berries and nuts (Nieuwenhuis 1983 p 9). They had tools such as stone projectiles, points, skin scrapers, and bone whistles—all of which were excavated near Cherokee in 1973. About 10 A.D., the Woodland people of Illinois made their move to Iowa. These people were known for their decorative pottery and for burying their dead in large circular mounds, otherwise known as effigy mounds, which can be seen in eastern Iowa. Other tribes, such as the Great Oasis, the Oneota, and the Mill Creek, lived in Northwest Iowa. Many of these tribes lived along the rivers and formed small villages. Because of their river settlement, French-Canadian fur traders were some of the first Europeans to come in contact with these tribes and begin trading with them. A ring and spoon have been found in Northwest Iowa and dated to the period of 1670 to 1700, the time during which Iowa was part of the Louisiana Territory and under the control of France (Nieuwenhuis 1983).

12

“With the coming of the European traders into the Central Plains in about 1700, the prehistoric period is considered to have come to a close. A new era begins which finds seven great Indian tribes belonging to the Sioux nation dwelling in the region” (Nieuwenhuis 1983, p 12). In 1640 Jean Nicolet, a French explorer and trader, came in contact with the Chippewa Indians and first heard about the Sioux, or Naduwessioux, Indian tribe. They were a very large and powerful group of people that were made up of seven larger tribes, each of which had their own subdivisions. Some of these include the Santee, Tetons, Yanktonais, Yanktons, Ogalala, Brule, Sissetons, and Blackfoot. The Yanktons, at about the time of the exploration by the French, were pushed out of their homeland in Minnesota to the lands now known as the Big Sioux and Missouri River valleys. This tribe met the French and began to trade with them, acquiring firearms and horses useful in their hunt for buffalo. It was said by Doane Robinson of this tribe that there were “no people more attached to the land of their birth and to the graves of the kindred than are these Indians, and they have willingly sacrificed their lives in the defense of their homes or in the protection of what they deemed their rights” (Robinson 1904). In 1804, Lewis and Clark came up the Missouri River and encountered the Sioux. The expedition met with 70 Yanktonian tribal members. Lewis and Clark told them that they were under the authority of the United States government and presented the Sioux with an American flag. “Most of the land making up Sioux County was acquired by the federal government from the Indians through a treaty which was concluded on July 15, 1830, when most of western Iowa was ceded by the Sioux, Sac, Fox, and other tribes. Later that year, a small portion of Sioux County which still belonged to the Santee Indians was transferred to the United States by a treaty” (Neiuwenhuis 1983, p 13). On June 25, 1838, the United States Congress passed an act that created the Territory of Iowa, and on December 28, 1846, Iowa was declared a federal state. In 1851, fifty counties, including Sioux County were established. Among the first settlers to come to Sioux Center, Iowa were five Dutch farming families along with a couple of German families, including the Frederick Kuhl family. They soon established a postal service, a schoolhouse, and a Reformed Church. The settlement began to grow, and in 1880, Rev. James De Pree became the first resident pastor. De Pree and Charles Lewis surveyed the land and completed the plat, which they named Sioux Center. During the winter of 1889, a railroad was laid about three-fourths of a mile from this town (Neiuwenhuis 1983).

Along with this railroad came great hope for business and success. The townspeople voted to become incorporated in 1891, and elected Peter Egan Jr. as the first mayor. At the first meeting, the council appointed H.C. Kuhl (Harry’s grandfather) as its first Town Marshall. By 1895, the population of Sioux Center had reached 614. “Sioux Center acquired its first concrete sidewalks in 1896 and also that year acetylene street lights were installed, giving the town, as the newspaper editor wrote, ‘metropolitan airs’”(Niuewenhuis 1983, p 158).

Sioux Center was the home of the Wandscheer Manufacturing Corporation, which was founded in 1910. Shortly thereafter, Wandscheers invented the very first corn-picking machine. It was said at this time, by the Rev. De Pree that: “Less than half a century ago it (Sioux County) was the roaming place and home of the buffalo, elk, prairie wolf, etc., while now hardly one square foot of unbroken prairie can be found within its borders. Its entire space has been turned into beautiful and most productive farms, with luxurious homes,

13

extensive and commodious barns and stables, and well filled granaries protected and nestled behind artificial groves” (Nieuwenhuis 1983). This intensive farming practice has led over the years to an “artificial” landscape that is now present on the Kuhl farmland. This landscape must be considered as we develop a restoration plan. The town of Sioux Center continued and continues to grow. Business firms, banks, and law offices were set up. People such as the Te Paskes, Dr. De Mot, and Mr. Den Herder contributed to their community by providing their services and helping to make Sioux Center the town that it is today. Among those families contributing to the development of a successful community was the Kuhl family. Mr. and Mrs. Frederick Kuhl were among the original 37 homesteaders to settle in Sioux Center. They came in 1872. They were originally from Germany, settling first in Muscatine, Iowa. They made the 400 mile journey from Muscatine to Sioux Center by wagon. Their first home was a dugout, but later they built a farmstead. Their family attended the Reformed Church of Sioux Center. Frederick and Fredericka Kuhl had seven children. Two of the children had been born prior to settling in Sioux Center, and three of them died in 1880 due to diphtheria.

On December 21, 1881, Frederick Kuhl Jr. was born. He grew up on his parent’s farm. On December 4, 1902, Frederick Jr. was married to Hattie Vander Ploeg by the Rev. De Pree. They built a homeplace in 1921, where they raised their 7 children. Frederick Kuhl Jr. died on July 14, 1954 and his wife Hattie died on February 13, 1957.

Frederick and Hattie’s youngest son Harry was born on April 19, 1919. He attended school in Sioux Center. When he was young, he worked at the egg plant and at Wandscheer Manufacturing. He entered the army, and in 1945 was sent to Germany, where he stayed for a year. On March 11, 1948, Harry married Gertrude Meendering of Hull. Soon after they were married, Gertrude came down with rheumatoid arthritis; which left her in a wheelchair. During that time, Harry took care for his wife as well as farming and house keeping. Harry bought the farmhouse on January 8, 1958, after the death of his parents,. He and his wife resided at the Kuhl Century Farm until their deaths just a few years ago. Mr. Harry Kuhl – 1960’s photo

14

15

Restoring a Native Wet Prairie Ecosystem (TR) As a class, we have identified six major goals that we believe the restored wetland project should meet. The first major goal that we listed was to restore a functioning wet prairie ecosystem. We believe that this is a very important goal for a variety of reasons.

First, restoring a native functioning wet prairie ecosystem would be a great educational tool to show students and the community what the landscape in Sioux Center looked like before it was settled. Secondly, we believe that restoring native wetlands is important as very few native wetlands are left in this area of the country. It is estimated that 20-60 percent of northwest and north central Iowa were wetlands prior to European settlement (Restoring Prairie Wetlands 1994, p 16). Today, very few of these native wetlands still exist. A third reason that we believe this goal is important is because it is consistent with the wishes of Mr. Kuhl. In Mr. Kuhl’s will he specifically says that he wants Dordt to “use any property purchased in accordance with the suggestions outlined pertaining to establishing a “Kuhl Memorial Century Farmstead” as outlined in correspondence from Dordt College dated may 12, 1992”. While the 1992 document does not specifically talk about wetland restoration, natural ecosystem restoration is clearly a part of the proposal. Lastly, and most importantly, we believe that it is our job as appointed stewards of creation, to restore some of the land in Sioux County to its natural beauty and provide habitat for a diverse assemblage of species. This was described in more detail in the introduction.

Under the main goal of restoring a native functioning prairie ecosystem, the class listed three sub-goals. The first is to find a reference ecosystem to look to as an example of what a native, functioning wet prairie ecosystem should look like. We found this example in the Steele Prairie in Cherokee county. The Steele Prairie is a good example to look at because it is a native prairie that has never been tilled (Pearson and Fleckenstein 1987). It also contains the same soil type as the Kuhl property, which is a good indication that the Kuhl property would naturally contain the same species as the Steele Prairie.

By studying the Steele Prairie we were able to get a good idea of how a native wet prairie ecosystem would have functioned on landscapes such as the Kuhl property. The wet prairie area in the Steele Prairie has very slow moving water flowing through a wide area for much of the year. During dry summers the wet prairie may completely dry up, which is beneficial because it allows many of the wetland species to reestablish themselves.

A second sub-goal is to support a diversity of native plant and animal species and to help to conserve local genotypes. There are a wide variety of plant species found in the Steele Prairie wet prairie. A large portion of the wet prairie is covered in a sedge meadow. Some of the other common species of plants that can be found in the native wet prairie include, cord grass (Spartina pectinata), cup plant (silphium perfoliatum), and swamp milkweed (Asclepius incarnata). For a complete list of plant species found at Steele Prairie refer to Appendix C.

There is also a diverse collection of animal species that make up the wet prairie ecosystem. Many bird species depend on prairie wetland areas including waterfowl, wading birds, wrens, and red-winged blackbirds. Mammals such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and raccoon (Zapus hudsonius) can also be found in wet prairies. See appendix D for a list of animal species found at Steele Prairie.

Our third sub-goal is to focus on the long term management of the restored wet prairie. In order to make sure that the wet prairie ecosystem will continue to be functional,

16

maintenance guidelines are important. It is also important to make sure that there is opportunity for Dordt to make campus alterations without compromising the wetland’s ability to function.

We believe that it is very important that the wetland area of the Kuhl property be restored in such a way that it will function as native prairie wetland ecosystems did in the past. Not only will it provide numerous educational opportunities, but it will also be a practical way for Dordt to lead by example; by undertaking a project that clearly flows from our desire to obey God’s calling to be stewards of his creation. Implementation Plans (TR)

In order to achieve the goal of restoring a functioning wet prairie ecosystem, both short-term and long-term management plans need to be considered. The short-term implementation plan will be the most labor intensive. Once the wet prairie ecosystem is established there is much less work involved. The biggest key to maintaining a high quality, functional wet prairie is finding someone to be responsible for this area as well as the upland prairie. This person needs to have experience in managing and restoring prairies, and must be able to facilitate research projects and educational opportunities.

In addition to the overall manager of the restored prairie, there should also be an advisory committee that can meet one or two times per year to discuss management issues, budget issues, as well as determine if the goals for the project are being met. We suggest that the advisory committee have representatives from maintenance, the community, and the Agriculture, Biology, and Environmental Studies Departments. The management plan that we are suggesting (Appendix E) is based on information from Allen Wade at Prairie Moon Nursery, Galatowitsch and van der Valk in “Restoring Prairie Wetlands,” and the Steele Prairie Management Plan.

The first management activity is to plant oats in the filter strip areas. This will help to prevent soil erosion, and will prevent many weeds from establishing themselves in those areas. The oats can be harvested for hay in July and planted again in August. These tasks could be done by personnel from the Agriculture Stewardship Center.

The first major challenge in restoring a functioning wet prairie ecosystem is getting rid of the unwanted, exotic species that currently dominate the wetland area. The most problematic species found in the Kuhl wetland area include reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and smooth brome (Bromus inermis). It is important to get rid of these invasive species before the native species are planted, because the invasive species are extremely competitive and would not allow the native species to grow. This would dramatically reduce the chances of successfully restoring a native wet prairie ecosystem.

In addition to the invasive grasses, some of the trees should also be thinned out in order to make the restored wet prairie look and function more like a native ecosystem for this area. This is a job that either the Dordt maintenance crew could do, or Dordt could hire someone else to do it. We suggest keeping a few trees around the ponds, but cutting down many of the trees that are in rows north of the ponds. The unwanted trees should be removed before the dirt work for the ponds is done.

After the crops adjacent to the wetland have been harvested, a controlled burn should be done in the wetland area. An initial burn will accomplish many things. First, it is an important first step in getting rid of the unwanted species. The burn will also be very

17

important to clear the area so that the native species can be planted. We are suggesting a fall burn so that the seeds of the unwanted species will be burned along with the plants.

The manager of the restoration project should be in charge of the burn, but volunteers should also be used. These volunteers would include students and professors, who want to gain valuable experience in prescribed burns. The Sioux Center Fire Department should be notified before conducting the burn. The following year, the invasive species will come up again. The area should be sprayed before the invasive species begin to flower, which is usually in June. The herbicide used should be effective at killing grasses, but not have long residual effects (Restoring Prairie Wetlands 1994, p 118). The spraying process will most likely have to be repeated a couple of times as there is likely a large seed bank of invasive species in the soil. Because of the size of the wetland in the Kuhl property, a small sprayer would work well. The manager of the restoration projects could receive help from maintenance or personnel from the Agriculture Stewardship Center. The second major step in restoring a functioning wet prairie ecosystem is planting the native species. We believe that the plant species found in the Steele Prairie are a good reference for plants that should be planted on the Kuhl property. Some of the most common wet prairie plants found in the Steele Prairie include Cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum), Swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata), Cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), and various sedges (Carex sp.). A complete list of plant species we recommend planting can be found in appendix C.

We strongly recommend that the seeds used for the restoration project be from a local source. This is important because the plants need to be adapted to the specific environmental conditions in our area. If the seeds come from areas with different soil types, or temperatures they will easily be out competed by invasive species. Using local sources of seed is also very important in conserving genetic diversity.

There are not any sources of seed for many of the native species in the immediate area, so we are recommending that we attempt to get seeds from a company that is directly east or west of Sioux Center. According to Allen Wade, obtaining seed from similar latitudes is much more critical than longitude. A short list of potential seed suppliers can be found in Appendix F. There are many different methods that could be used when planting the wet prairie. We believe that the methods we are suggesting will do a very good job of establishing a healthy, native wet prairie ecosystem as well as providing great opportunities for education and research. However, there are many other methods of planting the wet prairie that could work very well. A class such as Conservation Biology could further research planting methods that could be used. Restoring Prairie Wetlands (Golatowitsch and van der Valk 1994) is a good source of information. It describes methods such as using hay from native prairies, using donor soil, and transplanting seedlings.

The method that we are suggesting is mechanical planting and possibly hand broadcasting in areas that are too wet. This method is the most proven method and the area is too large to really do some of the other methods very effectively. We are recommending that Dordt purchase seed mixes that are specifically designed for wet prairies. Examples of seed mixes from Prairie Moon Nursery can be seen in appendix G. The seeds for the rest of the plant species will have to be harvested from local sources. One very good source is the Steele Prairie as it contains a very high diversity of native wet prairie species, and has the same soil

18

type as the Kuhl property. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources holds the title to the Steele Prairie, so they would need to be contacted to get permission to collect seeds. An additional source that was recommended by Nelva Huitink at the NRCS office is Evan De Groot. Volunteers would be able to collect seeds from specific native grasses and forbs. In August of the second year oats could be planted in the entire wetland area. A drill can be used for the dry areas and the seed can be broadcast by hand in the wet areas. The oats will prevent soil erosion, and the frost will kill the oats, so the native seed can be planted right into the oats in late October. In order to be able to compare different types of planting methods, we are suggesting that the area be divided into four sections so that two sections can be planted in the fall and the other two can be planted in the spring. Each of these four parcels can be split in half and be planted with two different mixes. One mix will be a mix of very aggressive native species, and the other mix will have a larger diversity of native species. This will provide an opportunity to compare how well each type of mix is able to compete against invasive species. In April of the following year, the two parcels that did not get planted in the fall should be harrowed, if it is dry enough. They can then planted in May with the same combination of mixes that were planted in the fall. If the area is dry enough the seed can be planted with a drill and then be cultipacked. If it is too wet, the seeds will have to be hand broadcast, and incorporated into the soil using a harrow pulled by an ATV. For the first two years after planting native seeds, the area will need to be mowed whenever the weeds get to be 10-12 inches tall. This is important because it will prevent many of the weeds from producing seed, and it will prevent the weeds from shading out the native seedlings. Burn lines and the walking trail will also need to be mowed. Another major management tool will be spot spraying the invasive species. This will have to be done whenever patches of invasive species start to get established. The manager of the restored areas will need to monitor the invasive species, so that they can be sprayed before they produce seeds. One of the most important long-term management tools is the use of prescribed burning. Three years after the wet prairie is planted, the area should be divided into two sections to be burned in alternating years. This will help to control invasive species as well as stimulate growth of the native grasses.

After four years of burning the wet prairie in this way, the wet prairie and upland prairie can be divided into four smaller sections so that each section gets burned once every four years. These burns should be done in the month of April. Planning for a burn each year has the advantage that it gives more flexibility, in case the weather does not allow for a burn one year. Like the initial burn, the manager of the restored areas will plan these burns and, professors, students, and community volunteers may be allowed to help. This could even be integrated into classes like Wildlife Ecology and Stewardship and Conservation Biology.

There may be some community opposition to the prescribed burns, so it is important that Dordt works closely with the Sioux Center Fire Department to write up a safe and mutually agreeable burn plan. Dordt will also have to work with the surrounding community by letting them know in advance when the burns are going to take place, describing the importance of the controlled burns, and assuring the community that the burns will only be done when the conditions are safe. Another major long-term management tool is the use of drawing down the water in the wetland areas. According to Gene Bakko, manager of the natural lands at St. Olaf

19

College, a drought is to wetlands as fire is to prairie. Approximately every other year the ponds should be drained in order to reestablish emergent plant species. The methods for draining the ponds are described in the runoff management section. Runoff management (NS)

One of the goals for this project is to create a viable way to slow water exiting Dordt property to bring it within the limits set by Sioux Center. At the moment Dordt exceeds the amount of water that is allowed to exit the property through the culvert located at the south end of the Kuhl property. To fix this problem a detention pond or other means of slowing water must be created. The maximum allowable runoff from Dordt College is equal to that of a rainfall intensity of two inches per hour. The amount of water that must be retained is the difference between the allowable runoff and a 100 year rainfall event. This means that for every acre of impervious surface there must be .215 acre-feet of detention. Dordt College must retain water for the 1.91 acres which they do not have retention for. This means that they must retain at least .4107 acre-feet of water; this converts to 17,888 cubic feet of water (Kurth). The calculations can be seen in appendix H.

It should be fairly simple to set up a structure which allows the college to be able to retain water in the wetlands and allow it to slowly drain even in times of heavy rain. From the south end of the property berms must be built around the lowest lying area in what would be approximately a half circle. This berm would be able to hold in all excess water which would be necessary for Dordt College’s water retention needs. However this should also be built with Dordt College’s future in mind; this means that this pond should be able to hold approximately 70,000 cubic feet at its maximum with the ability to easily expand the pond if necessary. This extra 52,000 cubic feet would be able to support an extra 5.5 acres of impervious surface on Dordt College’s campus. This berm can best be built with the use of a bulldozer. The existing soil can be used to build the berm. The base of the berm will be approximately eight feet with a center rise of approximately four feet which will become shorter as it goes north. This will cause the deepest part of the detention pond to be on the south end and the shallowest part to be on the north end. This area will be fitted to release no more water that what is allowed by law. To do this the detention pond will also have a diameter pipe that will not allow more than the approved amount of water to escape through it. The end of the pipe that will be in the pond will extend up and have an adjustable height control which can control the depth of the water in the pond and drain all excess water. In this way the detention pond will never allow a release of water which will be unlawful according to the Sioux Center code and can still retain enough water so as to ensure a healthy ecosystem. A similar berm should also be created for the city water that is released on to the property. However, this is not within the scope of this proposal.

It is important to remember that the land area inside the berm creating the detention pond will be dry most of the time. Only following heavy rains will the detention pond contain water, and even then it will only be for a few hours at a time.

We are also proposing the creation of a permanent pond on the north end of this area. There is currently a pond in this area, however it should be excavated to approximately three feet deep to allow for a better area of study. The water in this pond is currently about eight inches deep. North of this pond there is the possibility for two variable depth ponds. These

20

ponds will be able to be flooded, completely drained, or anywhere in between. This will be a great educational tool. These ponds however will likely need berms which would be similar to the first one described, however they will not be nearly as large. These basins can be supplemented with water from the Kuhl well. To pump this water we are suggesting that the old wind pump be repaired so that it can supply the water using a renewable energy source. The permanent pond can be fed with water in the same way. Both the permanent pond and the variable ponds will have variable drains that are very similar to the one described above. This will enable them to maintain an appropriate water level, or to be completely drained. This management tool will assist students in creating experiments that will be easy to monitor and control, as well as giving them an opportunity that would be very unique to Dordt. This is also an important management tool to help establish emergent plant growth.

Constructing the ponds on the southern third of the property means that there will be little need for development on the northern two-thirds of the property besides planting and creating trails. This creates a simple solution to the water runoff problem that Dordt College faces. Students will also be able to use this area for study and enjoyment, as well as the rest of the community. The layout can be seen in appendix J. Joe’s Ready Mix was asked approximately how much the dirt work would cost for these projects and they came up with an estimate of eight thousand dollars (Sandbulte 2005). This includes laying the pipe for the drains, creating the berms, and digging out the ponds. The PVC pipe will cost approximately five hundred dollars. Water level control devices will cost approximately one thousand dollars each. On this project I would suggest the use of at least three of these devices. I would also suggest using a design that is purely mechanical. I have looked at some options and I believe that a company called Hancor has some products which could be very useful (Hancor Company 2005). The nearest dealer is located in Sioux Falls, South Dakota (Kurth 2005). A diagram of the product is in appendix I. Educational Goals (EVH)

The restored wetland and prairie on the Kuhl property will offer many educational opportunities. This property will provide learning opportunities in the development as well as the ‘completed’ stages. Dordt College students will be able to utilize the area for course work and research activities. It can also be used by local elementary and high schools for outdoor settings for environmental learning and “Field days.”

Implementation

This project could “give opportunities for students to learn as the property is being developed” (Vander Zee 2005). Starting with the beginning of the process students can learn about seed collection by going to an area prairie, such as Steele Prairie, and harvesting their own seeds and then planting them. Sections of the wetlands and prairie can be planted and managed in different ways and different times, thereby setting the stage for student research projects for years to come. The Conservation Biology class could give input and possibly use the area as a long-term development and care site where microhabitat work and service learning could take place (Vander Zee 2005).

Dordt professors would be able to use the area for many different classes, and students will be able to use the area for different projects and directed research studies. The project would save classes like Local Flora and Ecology from travel to local nature areas to look at different plants and ecosystems (Vander Zee 2005). The area itself can be used for

21

labs ranging from prescribed burning (Wildlife Ecology) to GIS land use patterns (GIS). See appendix K for more examples(De Haan, Mahaffy, Stutz, Vos 2005). There is also the possibility for labs such as zoology and ecology to get samples of aquatic species from the pond, botany to get plant species for dissection, and many different organic material samples (such as leaves, petals, roots, etc.) can be taken from it and used back in the science labs. Directed research could use the pond, wetlands, and prairie to test a wide range of hypotheses. Dordt could also offer a summer naturalist internship, which would take care of the area and possibly help with field days.

Area schools can use this resource instead of traveling to other natural areas. Students can get an idea of what wetlands and prairie look like, how they work, and just enjoy a nature hike that does not require a drive. This area would also offer many resources for testing and sampling for the community. Labeling a range of plant species in the wetland and prairie ecosystems would allow students to explore the differences between the types of plants (ex. Monocots vs dicots, wetland vs upland). The set-up and signs could be done as extensions of class work in several classes including education classes (Vander Zee 2005). Teachers would also be able to take samples back to their classrooms for examination. Testing of water and soil could be done right on the site. Lucy Marsky, a 6th grade teacher at Sioux Center Middle School, says that having a nearby wetland would allow her to show her class how vegetation naturally cleanses the water. This close natural area would save time on field trips and allow for field trips that were not otherwise possible.

Community involvement (CH) "Restoration is a starting point in the long and laborious job of building a permanent and mutually beneficial relationship between civilized men and a civilized landscape" (Leopold 1933). "The time has come for science to busy itself with the earth itself. The first step is to reconstruct a sample of what we had to begin with" (Leopold 1933). Community involvement is necessary for this wetland restoration project to succeed. The community in the area of a wetland restoration project is key to how the area will be developed and sustained over the years. If the area receives great interest from the community it would be an incentive for Dordt College to keep the area in a pristine condition whereas if it fails to get recognition Dordt College might abandon the restoration project and put it back into agricultural fields. Most of the people we talked to are keen on the idea of having a wetland and prairie system so close, not only for educational experiences but also for recreation. Short Term Implementation: The goal is to get as much community involvement as possible, so that community members make a meaningful contribution during the decision-making process. We need to gather as much information as we can regarding what the community would like to see from the restoration project, and determine what they believe is important. We also need to share our dreams for the property and help the community members understand them. Appendix L contains a list of steps to be followed.

22

We should also consider the rest of the Kuhl property to get a general picture of the project as a whole. Mr. Kuhl wanted his land to be developed into an area the community could come to and learn something about nature and about farming in the early 1900’s. We need to keep that community learning goal in mind. Long term:

When considering restoration, it is important to realize that people are also a part of the ecosystem. Attempting to restore a degraded area to a pristine, pre-human condition is often unrealistic and unattainable (Williams, Wood, Dombeck 1997). We must take the desires of communities and the presence and influence of people into consideration when evaluating restoration methods. The restored prairie can be used by the community for bird watching, butterfly observation, prairie learning sessions, and other activities hosted by the community. Another option we could follow to increase community involvement is electing a community member to serve on the board that would decide the future of the area; this would also strengthen the bonds between the city, the committee, and Dordt College. We need to emphasize the importance of a wetland for ecological reasons, but we also need to communicate the Christian basis for our restoration project. This could be done using signs and/or handouts or brochures. Obtain Adequate Funding (JVV) Goals for property/project:

One of the goals for this wetland restoration is to obtain adequate funding sources for the wetlands project. We chose to seek funding because of the large initial expense of the project and because of the educational opportunities in seeking federal assistance. Not only will this decrease the cost for Dordt College, but it will also utilize the valuable resources available from the Natural Resource Conservation Service and the Federal government.

One way we chose to meet this goal was by exploring multiple funding sources. We visited the Natural Resource Conservation Service in Orange City, IA and talked to Nelva Huitink about our options. We also did some research on the internet and talked to Gene Bakko from St. Olaf’s in Minnesota to explore more options and find out what had worked on other land similar to the Kuhl property. Implementations:

In a discussion with Nelva Huitink, we found that there are several possibilities for the funding of the wetland area of the Kuhl property. These options include using the Conservation Reserve Program by putting in a filter strip, establishing a riparian buffer, or putting in a field windbreak. Our other option is using REAP (Huitink 2005). There are a number of limitations and stipulations that go along with each option. While there are other programs that may seem applicable to the wetland restoration, Iowa does not have adequate funding to supply the needs of all of the counties. One option for funding is with the Resource Enhancement and Protection-Conservation Education Program. “These funds are available to landowners for soil and water conservation and enhancement projects and practices. Project money is directed towards protecting the state's surface and ground water resources from point and non-point sources of contamination. Money is directed towards practices such as reforestation,

23

woodland protection and enhancement, wildlife habitat preservation and enhancement, protection of highly erodible soils, and water quality protection. Soil Conservation Districts designate high priority watersheds in which REAP funds can be expended. Districts may also designate animal waste management as a priority” (IA DNR REAP 2005). Another funding option that is possible for Dordt College is through that United States Fish and Wildlife Service. This program is part of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. This program is similar to the program that St. Olaf has. Registration for this program requires a four year plan of action with a grant request between $50,000 and $100,000. Otherwise a small grant may be applied for, which is a request for less than $50,000.

The Conservation Reserve Program is a Federal Government sponsored program. It was established in 1985, and “encourages farmers to voluntarily plant permanent areas of grass and trees on land that needs protection from erosion. This vegetative cover also serves as a windbreak and improves water and soil quality. This cover is also crucial in maintaining healthy wildlife populations by providing food and habitat” (USDA FSA CRP 2005). There are different buffer practices that are offered through the CRP program. “To be eligible, landowners must have owned the acreage for at least one year. Upon meeting eligibility requirements, acres are automatically accepted into the program at a per-acre rent according to soil type. Landowners may sign up at any time during the year. Eligible land includes cropland that is physically and legally capable of being cropped in a normal manner, that has been planted with an agricultural commodity during any 4 of the 6 years from 1996-2001” (USDA FSA CRP 2005). See NRCS Wetland Restoration web site for details regarding criteria and considerations for Wetland Restoration (USDA NRCS Wetland Restoration 2005). An option within the Conservation Reserve Program includes a riparian buffer. Riparian buffers are “streamside plantings of trees, shrubs, and grasses that can intercept contaminants from both surface water and ground water before they reach a stream and that help restore damaged streams” (USDA FSA CRP 2005). A second option is a field windbreak. Field windbreaks are a row or rows of trees, shrubs, or other plants used to reduce wind erosion, protect young crops, and control blowing snow. Shelterbelts also provide excellent protection from the elements for wildlife, livestock, houses, and farm buildings. Field windbreaks are similar to shelterbelts but are located along crop field borders or with in the field itself. They may also be called hedgerow plantings in some areas. The number of tree rows planted cannot exceed five (USDA NRCS). Our most reasonable choice for the Kuhl property would be to put in a filter strip through the Conservation Reserve Program. Filter strips are “strips of grass used to intercept or trap field sediments, organics, pesticides, and other potential pollutants before they reach a body of water” (USDA NRCS). Filter strips work best when surface runoff is evenly distributed and enters the strip as a sheet flow. Filter strip installation may include up to a 120 foot wide area of land on each side of the stream or wet area. This allows for vegetation to be well established and to aid in the protection of water quality. This amount of land would go into a 10 to 15 year contract. This contract is not set in stone and may be changed if need be.

With the installation of a filter strip, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, through funding by the Federal Government, would pay 90 percent of the cost of

24

establishment. The cost includes seeds, new, donated, or used materials, services and labor from the participant or others, and sales tax. Following that, each consecutive year, Dordt would receive a payment of $150 per acre (Huitink 2005). If the land on both sides of the wetlands were put into filter strips, approximately 7.5 acres of land could be enrolled in the program. With this amount of land, Dordt would receive about $1125 per year. See appendix M for a diagram of the property with the filter strips in place. Promote similar restoration projects (CH)

What we need to realize is that the restoration of wetlands cannot replace the loss of natural wetlands, so we need to protect the wetlands we have. Positions are changing in rural America about wetlands and their significance, and the wetland restoration program has played a major role in this process. In contrast to just a few years ago, these natural resources are being recognized for their contributions to a healthy environment. We need to build support for this program at the local level, but we can also form partnerships with county soil and water conservation districts.

So how can the college promote this project so that others can learn from our experience? The easiest way to get our project known would be through the local media, which includes the radio stations in the area, local TV stations, and newspapers. To reach other schools we should have a web page within Dordt Colleges’ website for anybody to view. This site should include pictures and current status of the area that are updated regularly for visitors to view. The site should also include the plans on how the area was established as well as the future of the area. Field days can also be used to attract the local community and schools and encourage them to visit and explore the area. If the promotion of this restoration project is successful it will give Dordt College additional motivation to invest in this restoration project because the project will be benefiting the community as well as the college.

Conclusion (RDH) The acquisition of the Kuhl property has given Dordt College a unique opportunity to live out its convictions, enhance student learning, and make an important contribution to the larger community. With support from students, faculty, staff, and administrators the college has an opportunity to develop a truly unique and beautiful wetland and prairie ecosystem right on campus – what an opportunity! It is our prayer that this proposal can help us move from opportunity to reality.

25

References

[Anonymous]. 2000 Spring. Stewards of our natural land. St. Olaf - The magazine of St. Olaf College. Northfield, MN. p 10-15.

Bakko G. 2005. Personal interview. St. Olaf College, Biology Dept. Feb. Bowers N, Bowers R, Kaufman K. 2004. Mammals of North America. New York: Houghton

Mifflin. 352 p. Cronk JK and Fennessy SM. 2001. Wetland Plants: Biology and Ecology. Boca Raton, FL:

Lewis Publishers. 462 p. De Haan R. 2005. Personal Interview. Dordt College Environmental Studies Department.

April. Dinsmore J. 1994. A Country so full of game: The story of wildlife in Iowa. Iowa City:

University of Iowa Press. 249 p. Furlong L. 2005. Northwestern’s tallgrass prairie. Available at

www.nwciowa.edu/biology/prairie.aspx Accessed 2005 June. Galatowitsch SM, van der Valk AG. 1994. Restoring prairie wetlands – an ecological

approach. Ames (IA): Iowa State University Press. 246 p. Goedhart C. 2005. Personal communication. Hancor Company. 2005. Available at: www.hancor.com/product/water_control.html

Accessed 2005 April. Iowa Department of Natural Resources Education. 2005. Wildlife management. Available

at: http://www.iowadnr.com/education/wldmang.html Accessed 2005 April. Iowa Department of Natural Resources Geogolical Survey. Available at:

http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/ Accessed 2005 April. Iowa Department of Natural Resources Resource Enhancement and Protection (REAP).

2005. Available at http://www.iowadnr.com/reap/index.html Accessed 2005 April. Iowater. 2005. Available at http://www.iowater.net/defaultExp.htm Accessed 2005 April. Kurth G. 2005. Personal Interview. Hancor Company. 19 Apr. Leopold A. 1933. Game Management. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons. 481 p. Mahaffy J. 2005. Personal Interview. Dordt College Biology Department. April. Marsky L. 2005. Personal Interview. 6th Grade teacher at Sioux Center Community School.

April. Menzel BW, Kane K. 2000 Nov. Checklist of Iowa mammals [internet]. Available from:

http://www.ag.iastate.edu/centers/cfwru/iowagap/iowamammals.htm Accessed April 2005.

Midwest Laboratories. 2005. Available at https://www.midwestlabs.com Accessed 2005 April.

Nieuwenhuis GN. 1983. Siouxland, a history of Sioux county, Iowa. Orange City, Iowa: Pluim Publishing. 341 p.

Pearson J and Fleckenstein J. 1987. Management Plan for Steele Prairie. Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

Prairie Moon Nursery. 2005. Available at www.prairiemoon.com Accessed 2005 April. Prior JC. Iowa Department of Natural Resources Geogolical Survey. Available at:

http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/Browse/landscap/landscap.htm Accessed 2005 April. Robinson D. 1904. A History of the Dakota or Sioux Indians from their earliest traditions and

first contact with white men to the final settlement of the last of them upon

26

27

reservations and consequent abandonment of the old tribal life. Aberdeen, South Dakota: News Printing Co., 1904) (Minneapolis: Ross & Haines, 1956) (Ross & Haines, 1967).

Sandbulte J. 2005. Personal Interview. Joe’s Ready Mix, Sioux Center IA. 21 Mar. Stutz M. 2005. Personal Interview. Dordt College Environmental Studies Department. April. Thompson, Janette R. 1992. Prairies, Forests, and Wetlands: The Restoration of Natural

Landscape Communities in Iowa. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa Press. 139 p. United States Department of Agriculture - Farm Service Agency - Conservation Reserve

Program. 2005. Available at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/crp.htm Accessed April 2005.

United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service – Plants Database. Available at: http://plants.usda.gov/index.html Accessed May 2005.

United States Department of Agriculture – Soil Conservation Service. 1990. Soil Survey of Sioux County, Iowa.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Water Quality Criteria. Available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria Accessed April 2005.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Wetland Types. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/types/wmeadows.html. Accessed 2005 April.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Federal duck stamp program. Available at: http://duckstamps.fws.gov/Info/Stamps/stampinfo.htm Accessed 2005 April.

Vander Zee D. Personal Interview. Dordt College Biology Department. April. Van Dyke W. 1998. Kuhl Century Farm Study. ENVR 380 - directed research project. Dordt

College, Sioux Center IA. Vos R. 2005. Personal Interview. Dordt College Agriculture Department. April.

APPENDIX A – Soil Test Data

REPORT NUMBER 5-096-0277 PAGE 1/1 ANALYSIS DATE APR 6, 2005 REPORT DATE MAY 27, 2005 ACCOUNT NO. 2226

COPY TO GROWER

DORDT COLLEGE AG DEPARTMENT

CHRIS GOEDHART

498 4TH AVE NE SIOUX CENTER IA 51250-1606

SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT NEUTRAL AMMONIUM ACETATE (EXCHANGEABLE)

PHOSPHORUS POTASSIUM MAGNESIUM CALCIUM SODIUM pH PERCENT BASESATURATION (COMPUTED)

ORGANIC MATTER

P1 P2 BICARBONATEP

K Mg Ca Na SOIL BUFFER

CATIONEXCHANGECAPACITY

WALKLEY BLACK WEAK BRAY1:7

STRONG BRAY

1:7

OLSEN pH INDEX C.E.C.

%K

%Mg

%Ca

%H

%Na

LAB NUMBER

SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION

PERCENT RATE ppm RATE ppm RATE ppm RATE ppm RATE ppm RATE ppm RATE ppm RATE 1:1 meq/100g 6415410 KUHL 1 3.4 M 19 M 31 M 249 VH 570 VH 2080 M 5.5 6.5 21.3 3.0 22.3 48.8 25.9 6415411 KUHL 2 3.7 H 28 H 36 M 267 H 646 VH 2118 L 5.2 6.2 25.5 2.7 21.1 41.5 34.7 6415412 KUHL 3 3.8 H 35 VH 46 H 294 VH 516 VH 2082 M 5.5 6.5 20.9 3.6 20.6 49.8 26.0

DTPA Extraction

NITRATE-N (FIA)

Surface Sub 1 Sub 2 Total

SULFURS

ICAP

ZINC Zn

MANGANESE Mn

IRON Fe

COPPERCu

BORONB

SOLUBLE SALTS

1:1

Sample ID

ppm lbs/A depth IN

ppm lbs/A depthIN

ppm lbs/A depthIN

lbs/A ppm RATE ppm RATE ppm RATE ppm RATE ppm RATE ppm RATE

EXCESSLIME RATE

mmhos/cm

RATE

KUHL 1 KUHL 2 KUHL 3

28

29

Water Quality Comparison Kuhl Farm Wetland Site 1-runoff from B.J. Haan Site 2-runoff from soccer field Site 3-culvert under road

Date Site No. pH

Nitrate (ppm)

Nitrite (ppm)

Chloride (ppm)

Temp (F)

D.O. (ppm)

Phosphate (ppm)

Feb. 22, 2005 1 7 4 0 34 40 9 0 2 6 0 0 16 30 3 03 6 0 0 16 26 6 0

March 24, 2005 1 8 1 0.15 34 41 8 0.1 2 7 0 0.15 28 39 4 03 7 0 0.15 28 37 5 0.1

April 22, 2005 1 7.5 1 0.15 28 48 8 0.3 2 7 0 0.15 16 46 4 03 7 0.5 0 22 48 4 0

Floyd River 9 5 0.15 NA NA 12 0.2Big Sioux River 9 5 0 NA NA 10 0Data collected by Jennie Van Velzen - summer, 2004

EPA Guidelines

6.5-8.5 <10 <10 <250 NS >5 <.05

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria

APPENDIX B – Water Quality Data

APPENDIX C – Plant Species (TR) Native or introduced – USDA NRCS Plants Database 2005 Present or absent at Kuhl Farm – Van Dyke 1998 Present or absent at Steele Prairie – Pearson and Fleckenstein 1987 Wet, Mesic, or Dry – Prairie Moon Catalog 2005 1=Yes 2=No Common Name Scientific Name Native Present Desired Wet Mesic Dry SteeleVelvetleaf Abutilon theophrasti X Box elder Acer negundo X X Silver Maple Acer saccharinum X X Yarrow Achillea millefolium Y&N X X X Quackgrass Agropyron repens X X Western wheatgrass Agropyron smithii X X X X X Wheatgrass Agropyron trachycaulum X X X X X X Redtop Agrostis alba X Redtop Agrostis gigantean X Wild prairie onion Allium stellatum X X X X X Giant ragweed Ambrosia trifida X X X Leadplant Amorpha canescens X X X X X Hog peanut Amphicarpa bracteata X X X Big bluestem Andropogon gerardii X X X X X X Canada anemone Anemone canadensis X X X X X Windflower Anemone cylindrica X X X X X Ladies’ tobacco Antennaria plantaginifolia X X X X X Ground nut Apios americana X X X Indian hemp Apocyanum cannabinum X X X White sage Artemisia ludoviciana X X X X X Swamp milkweed Asclepias incarnata X X X X X Sullivant’s milkweed Asclepias sullivantia X X X X X Common milkweed Asclepias syriaca X X X X X X X Butterfly milkweed Asclepias tuberosa X X X X X Green milkweed Asclepias viridiflora X X X X Heath aster Aster ericoides X X X X X Smooth aster Aster laevis X X X X X X Panicled aster Aster lanceolatus X X X Silky aster Aster sericeus X X X X Aster Aster simplex X X X Milkvetch Astragalus canadensis X X X X X X Groundplum Astragalus crassicarpus X X X X Beggar’s-ticks Bidens vulgata X X Sideoats grama Bouteloua curtipendula X X X X X Smooth brome Bromus inermis X X Great Indian plantain Cacalia plantaginea X X X Bluejoint Calamagrostis canadensis X X X X X X Marijuana Cannabis sativa X

30

Shepherd’s purse Capsella bursa-pastoris X Spring cress Cardamine bulbosa X X X Musk thistle Carduus nutans X Sedge Carex bicknellii X X X Carex sp. X X X X X X New Jersey tea Ceanothus americanus X X X X X Redroot Ceanothus herbaceus X X X Water hemlock Cicuta maculate X X X X Tall thistle Cirsium altissimum X X X Canada thistle Cirsium arvense X X Flodman’s Thistle Cirsium flodmanii X X X Bastard toadflax Comandra umbellata X X X X X Creeping jenny Convolulus arvensis X Horseweed Conyza canadensis X X Prairie coreopsis Coreopsis palmata X X X X X Red Osier Dogwood Cornus stolonifera X X X X X Small white lady’s slipper Cypripedium candidum X X X White prairie clover Dalea candida X X X Purple prairie clover Dalea purpurea X X X Prairie larkspur Delphinium virescens X X X X Tick trefoil Desmodium canadense X X X X X X Panic-grass Dichanthelium acuminatum X X X Leiberg’s panic-grass Dichanthelium leibergii X X X Panic-grass Dichanthelium oligosanthes X X X Pale coneflower Echinacea pallida X X X X X Canada wild rye Elymus canadensis X X X X X X Virginia wild rye Elymus virginicus X X X X X Willow-herb Epilobium glandulosum X X X X X Common horsetail Equisetum arvense X X X Horsetail Equisetum hyemale X X X Smooth scouring rush Equisetum laevigatum X X X Fleabane Erigeron strigosus X X X X Rattlesnake master Eryngium yuccifolium X X X X X X Spotted Joe-pye-weed Eupatorium maculatum X X X X Boneset Eupatorium perfoliatum X X X X Flowering spurge Euphorbia corallata X X X X X Goldenrod Euthamia graminifolia X X X Wild strawberry Fragaria virginiana X X X X X X Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica X X X Northern bedstraw Galium boreale X X X X X X Bedstraw Galium obtusum X X X Bottle gentian Gentiana andrewsii X X X X X Downy gentian Gentiana puberulenta X X X Wild licorice Glycyrrhiza lepidota X X X X X X Sneezeweed Helenium autumnale X X X X Saw-tooth sunflower Helianthus grosseserratus X X X X X X Maximillian’s sunflower Helianthus maximiliani X X X X X X

31

Prairie sunflower Helianthus rigidus X X X Ox-eye Heliopsis helianthoides X X X X X X Alum root Heuchera richardsonii X X X X X X Holy grass Hierchloe odorata X X X X X Foxtail Barley Hordeum jubatum X X Yellow stargrass Hypoxis hirsuta X X X X X X Junegrass Koeleria crisata X X X Vetchling Lathyrus venosus X X X Rice cutegrass Leersia oryzoides X X X X Motherwort Leonurus cardiaca X Round-headed bush clover Lespedeza capitata X X X X X Rough blazingstar Liatris aspera X X X X X Blazingstar Liatris cylindracea X X X X Prairie blazingstar Liatris pycnostachya X X X X X Michigan lily Lilium michiganense X X X X X Wood lily Lilium philadelphicum X X X X X X Stiff flax Linum rigidum X X X X Hoary puccoon Lithospermum canescens X X X Great lobelia Lobelia siphilitica X X X X X Water horehound Lycopus americanus X X X X Fringed loosestrife Lysimachia ciliate X X X X X Pineapple weed Matricaria maricarioides X Wild mint Mentha arvensis X X X X X Mulberry Morus alba X Wirestem Muhly Muhlenbergia frondosa X X X Catnip Nepeta cataria X Biennial evening primrose Oenothera biennis X X X X X X Evening primrose Oenothera serrulata X X X Violet wood sorrel Oxalis violacea X X X X Witch-grass Panicum capillare X X Switchgrass Panicum virgatum X 1 X X X X Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolius X X X X Lousewort Pedicularis canadensis X X X X X X Swamp lousewort Pedicularis lanceolata X X X X Reed canary grass Phalaris arundinaceae X X X X Timothy Phleum pretense X X Prairie phlox Phlox pilsoa X X X X X X Ground cherry Physalis heterophylla X X X Ground cherry Physalis virginiana X X X Common Plantain Plantago major X X Western prairie fringed orchid Platanthera praeclara X X X Canada bluegrass Poa compressa X Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis Y&N X X Smartweed Polygonum amphibium X X X Water-pepper Polygonum hydropiper X Smartweed Polygonum pensvlvanicum X X X X Cottonwood Populus deltoides X X X X

32

Cinquefoil Potentilla arguta X X X X Rough white lettuce Prenanthes aspera X X X X Glaucous white lettuce Prenanthes racemosa X X X X X X Wild plum Prunus americana X X X X X X X Silver scurfpea Psoralea argophylla X X X Indian breadroot Psoralea esculenta X X X X

Pulsatilla patens X X Pasque flower X Mountain mint Pycnantheum virginianum X X X X X X Buttercup Ranunculus fascicularis X X X X

Ratibida columnifera Long-headed coneflower X X X X X Ratibida pinnata X Yellow coneflower X X X X

Buckthorn Ramnus cathartica X X Rosa carolina Rose X X X X X X Rubus occidentalis X Black Raspberry X X

Black-eyed Susan Rudbeckia hirta X X X X X X Rumex crispus Curly dock X X Rumex mexicanus X Prairie Dock X X

Water Dock Rumex orbiculatus X X X Salix amygdaloides Peachleaf willow X X X X X X Sambucus canadensis X Elderberry X X X X X

Little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium X X X X X Bulrush Scirpus atrovirens X X X X X Softstem bulrush Scirpus validus X X X X Prairie ragwort Senecio plattensis X X X X X Giant (Nodding) Foxtail Setaria faberii X Catchfly Silene stellata X X X X X X Compass plant Silphium laciniatum X X X X X X Cup plant Silphium perfoliatum X X X X X Blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium campestre X X X X Smooth goldenrod Solidago gigantean X X X Field goldenrod Solidago nemoralis X X X X Stiff goldenrod Solidago rigida X X X X X X Indiangrass Sorghastrum nutans X X X X X Burrreed Sparganium eurycarpum X X X X Cordgrass Spartina pectinata X X X X X X Prairie dropseed Sporobolus heterolepis X X X X X X Woundwort Stachys palustris X X X Porcupine grass Stipa spartea X X X X Buckbrush Symphoriocarpos occidentalis X X X X Common dandelion Taraxacum officinale Y&N X X Meadow-rue Thalictrum dasycarpum X X X X X Poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans X X Spiderwort Tradescantia ohiensis X X X X X X Goatsbeard Tragopogon dubius X Red clover Trifolium pratense X X White clover Trifolium repens X Common cattail Typha latifolia X X X X X

33

Slippery Elm Ulmus rubra X X Nettles Urtica dioica Y&N X X Hoary Vervain Verbena stricta X X X X Culver’s root Veronicastrum virginianum X X X X X X Vetch Vicia americana X X X Canada Violet Viola canadensis X X X X Violet Viola papillionacea X X X X X X Prairie violet Viola pedatifida X X X X X Golden alexanders Zizea aurea X X X X X X

34

APPENDIX D – Animal Species (CH and EVH) Data from Van Dyke 1998, Bowers and others 2004, Menzel and Kane 2000. Common Name Scientific Name Native Present Desired Expected BIRDS Order Peleciformes American White Pelican (circling) Pelecanus erythrorhynchos X X X X Double-crested Cormorant (flying) Phalacrocorax auritus X X X X Order Ciconiiformes Great Blue Heron (overhead) Ardea herodias X X X X Green Heron Butorides striatus X X X X Egret species (overhead) Casmerodius X X X X Order Anseriformes Canada Goose (overhead) Branta canadensis X X X X Snow Goose (overhead) Chen caerulescens X X X X Mallard Anas platyrhynchos X X X X Wood Duck Aix sponsa X X X X Blue-winged Teal Anas discors X X X Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata X X X Redhead Aythya americana X X X Order Falconiformes Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura X X X X Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus X X X X Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii X X X X Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis X X X X Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus X X X X Bald Eagle (overhead) Haliaeetus leucocephalus X X X X Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus X X X X Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus X X X X Merlin Falco columbarius X X X X American Kestrel Falco sparverius X X X X Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni X X X Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus X X X Order Galliformes Common Bobwhite Colinus virginianus X X X X Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus X X X X Gray Partridge Perdix perdix X X X X Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo X X X Order Charadriiformes

35

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus X X X X Common Snipe Common Snipe X X X X Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria X X X X Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla X X X X Ring-billed Gull (overhead) Larus delawarensis X X X X Franklin’s Gull (overhead) Larus pipixcan X X X X Forster’s Tern (overhead) Sterna forsteri X X X X Order Columbiformes Rock Dove Columba livia X X Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura X X X X Order Cuculiformes Yellow-billed Cuckoo Zenaida macroura X X X X Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus X X X X Order Strigiformes Burrowing Owl (nests) Athene cunicularia X X X Eastern Screech Owl Otus asio X X X X Great Horned Owl (nests) Bubo virginianus X X X X Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus X X X Order Caprimulgiformes Whip-Poor-Will Caprimulgus vociferus X X X X Common Nighthawk (overhead) Chordeiles minor X X X X Order Apodiformes Chimney Swift (overhead) Chaetura pelagica X X X X Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris X X X X Order Coraciiformes Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon X X X X Order Piciformes Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus X X X X Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus X X X X Red-headed Woodpecker (nests) Melanerpes erythrocephalus X X X X Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius X X X X Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus X X X X Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens X X X X Order Passeriformes Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus X X X X Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus X X X X Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe X X X X Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris X X X X Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii X X X X Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus X X X X Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens X X X X

36

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi X X X X Vermillion Flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus X X X X Horned Lark (overhead) Eremophila alpestris X X X X Tree Swallow (overhead) Tachycineta bicolor X X X X Bank Swallow (overhead) Riparia riparia X X X X Rough-winged Swallow (overhead) Stelgidopteryx serripennis X X X X Barn Swallow (breeding) Hirundo rustica X X X X Cliff Swallow (overhead) Petrochelidon pyrrhonota X X X X Purple Martin (overhead) Progne subis X X X X Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata X X X X American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos X X X Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapilla X X X X White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis X X X X Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis X X X X Brown Creeper Certhia americana X X X X House Wren Troglodytes aedon X X X X Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes X X X X Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris X X X X Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis X X X X Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos X X X X Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis X X X X Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum X X X X American Robin Turdus migratorius X X X X Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus X X X X Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus X X X X Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus X X X X Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis X X X X Blue-Gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea X X X X Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa X X X X Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula X X X X Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum X X X X Eurasian Starling Sturnus vulgaris X X Solitary (Blue-headed) Vireo Vireo solitarius X X X X Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus X X X X Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus X X X X Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus X X X X Black+White Warbler Mniotilta varia X X X X Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina X X X X Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata X X X X Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla X X X X

37

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia X X X X Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia X X X X Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata X X X X Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens X X X X Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica X X X X Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica castanea X X X X Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata X X X X Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum X X X X Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus X X X X Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis X X X X Mourning Warbler Oporornis philadelphia X X X X Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas X X X X Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla X X X X Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis X X X X American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla X X X X Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius X X X X Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula X X X X Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus X X X X Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus X X X X Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula X X X X Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus X X X X Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta X X X X Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater X X X Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea X X X X Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis X X X X Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus X X X X Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea X X X X Dickcissel Spiza americana X X X X Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus X X X X House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus X X X X Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea X X X X Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus X X X X American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis X X X X Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus X X X X Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis X X X X Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis X X X X American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea X X X X Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina X X X X Clay-colored Sparrow Spizella pallida X X X X Harris’s Sparrow Zonotrichia querula X X X X White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys X X X X

38

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis X X X X Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca X X X X Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii X X X X Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia X X X X Lapland Longspur (overhead) Calcarius lapponicus X X X X House Sparrow Passer domesticus X X X Western Kingbird Tyrannus virticalus X X X Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustolina X X X Veery Catharus fuscescens X X X American Pipit Anthus rubescens X X X Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus X X X Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor X X X Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus X X X Bell's Vireo Vireo bellii X X X Northern Parula Warbler Parula americana X X X Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca X X X Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens X X X Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus X X X Blue Grosbeak Guiraca caerulea X X X Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus X X X Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra X X X White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera X X X Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum X X X Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus X X X Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana X X X Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla X X X MAMMALS White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus X X X X Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus X X X X Short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda X X X X Fox squirrel Sciurus niger X X X X Cottontail rabbit Silvilagus floridanus X X X X White-tailed deer Odocoilius virginianus X X X X 13-lined ground squirrel Citellus tridecemlineatus X X X X Grey squirrel Scuirus carolinensis X X X X Weasel Mustela erminea X X X X Opossum Didelphis marsupialis X X X X Raccoon Procyon lotor X X X X Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis X X X X Spotted skunk Spilogale putorius X X X X

39

Badger Taxidea taxus X X X X Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus, (Kerr) X X X Hayden's shrew Sorex haydeni, (Baird) X X X Pygmy Shrew Sorex hoyi, (Baird) X X X Elliot's Short-tailed Shrew Blarina hylophaga, (Elliot) X X Least Shrew Cryptotis parva, (Say) X X X Eastern Mole Scalopus aquaticus, (Linnaeus) X X X Northern Myotis Myotis septentrionalis (Trouessart) X X X Little Brown Myotis (bat) Myotis lucifugus, (Le Conte) X X X X Indianna Bat Myotis sodalis X X Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans, (Le

Conte) X X X Eastern Pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus, (F. Cuvier) X X X Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus, (Beauvois) X X X Eastern Red Bat Lasiurus borealis, (Muller) X X X Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus, (Beauvois) X X X Evening Bat Nycticeius humeralis, (Rafinesque) X X Mexican freetail bat Tadarida brasiliensis, (I. Geof. St.-

Hilaire) X X Big Freetail Bat Nyctinomops macrotis, (Gray) X X Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus, (J.A. Allen) X X X Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus, (Linnaeus) X X X Woodchuck Marmota monax, (Linnaeus) X X X X Franklin's Ground Squirrel Spermophilus franklinii, (Sabine) X X X Richardson's Ground Squirrel S. richardsonii, (Sabine) X X Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus,

(Erxleben) X X Black-tailed Prairie Dog Cynomys ludovicianus (Ord) X X Plains Pocket Gopher Geomys bursarius, (Shaw) X X X X Plains Pocket Mouse Perognathus flavescens, (Merriam) X X X Beaver Caster canadensis, (Kuhl) X X X X Marsh Rice Rat Oryzomys palustris (Harlan) X X Western Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis,

(Baird) X X X Northern Grasshopper Mouse Onychomys leucogaster, (Wied-

Neuwied) X X X Hispid Cotton Rat Sigmodon hispidus, (Say and Ord) X X Eastern Woodrat Neotoma floridana, (Ord) X X Southern Red-backed Vole Clethrionomys gapperi, (Vigors) X X X Southern Bog Lemming Synaptomys cooperi, (Baird) X X X Prairie Vole Microtus ochrogaster, (Wagner) X X X Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus, (Ord) X X X Woodland Vole Microtus pinetorum, (Le Conte) X X

40

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus, (Linnaeus) X X X X House Mouse Mus musculus, (Linnaeus) X X Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus, (Berkenhout) X X Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius, (Zimmermann) X X X Coyote Canis latrans, (Say) X X X X Gray Wolf Canis lupus, (Say) X Swift Fox Vulpes velox (Say) X X Red Fox Vulpes vulpes, (Linnaeus) X X X X Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus,

(Schreber) X X Black Bear Ursus americanus, (Pallas) X Marten Martes americana (Turton) X X Fisher Martes pennanti, (Erxleben) X X Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata, (Lichtenstein) X X X Least Weasel Mustela nivalis, (Linnaeus) X X X Mink Mustela vison, (Schreber) X X X X Wolverine Gulo gulo, (Linnaeus) X X River Otter Lutra canadensis, (Schreber) X Feral Cat Felis catus, (Linnaeus) X X Moutain Lion Felis concolor, (Linnaeus) X Lynx Lynx canadensis, (Kerr) X Bobcat Lynx rufus, (Schreber) X X Wapiti Cervus canadensis, (Erxleben) X Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus,

(Rafinesque) X X Moose Alces alces, (Linnaeus) X Pronghorn Antilocapra americana, (Ord) X Bison Bison bison, (Linnaeus) X X REPTILES (Incomplete list) Tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum X X X X American toad Bufo americanus X X X X Various tree frogs Hyla spp X X X X Various newts Notophthalmus spp X X X X Green frog Rana clamitans X X X X Leopard frog Rana pipiens X X X X BUTTERFLIES (Incomplete list) Monarch Danaus plexippus X X X X Fritillaries Family Nymphalidae X X X X Viceroy Lemenitis archippus X X X X

41

Mourning Cloak Nymphalis antiopa X X X X Swallowtails Papilio Linnaeus spp. X X X X Pearly Crescent Phyciodes tharos X X X X

Comma Polygonia comma and Polygonia progne. X X X X

Question Mark Polygonia interrogationis X X X X Admiral Vanessa atalanta X X X X Painted Lady Vanessa cardui X X X X

Skippers Various members of Family Hesperiidae X X X X

MANY OTHER INVERTEBRATES

42

APPENDIX E – Management Plan* (TR) Timing Management Activity Year 1 April Plant oats in filter strip areas May/June Remove unwanted trees along wetland July 5-10 Harvest oats for hay August – early Field cultivate and seed oats again August/September Dirt work for ponds/berms/waterlines October - November Burn existing vegetation in waterway (reed

canarygrass) Year 2 April Seed oats or barley in filter strip areas May-Late July Spray reed canarygrass with RoundUp 3-4

times. Last application should include filter strip area.

June - October Harvest seed from native stands (w/ permission)

July - early Harvest oats in filter strip for hay July Order prairie seed for fall, next spring August Plant oats to entire wetland area. Use a NT

drill on dry ground; hand-seeding followed by dragging on wet areas

Late October Plant native species – seed by hand into frost-killed oats. Divide wetland into 4 parcels, and fall seed 2 of the 4 areas. Divide each of the seeded areas into half, and seed ½ to a simple, aggressive mix, and ½ to a more diverse mix. Do the same with the spring seeding.

Year 3 April Harrow 2 of 4 parcels May Plant 2 of 4 parcels with a mix of oats and

native seed (if planting by hand drag with atv, if drilled cultipack)

May-August Mow to 6”whenever weeds are 10-12” tall. Leave 8-10” of growth for winter cover

May-August Spot spray patches of reed canarygrass and other invasive species

Year 4 June - July Mow once to 8-10” after weeds reach 18”. No

other mowing unless weed pressure is extreme. May-August Spot spray patches of reed canarygrass and

other invasive species September Mow burn lines

43

Year 5 April Burn ½ of the area May-August Spot spray patches of reed canarygrass and

other invasive species May-August Mow walking path September Mow burn lines Year 6 April Burn other ½ of the area May-August Spot spray patches of reed canarygrass and

other invasive species May-August Mow walking path September Mow burn lines Year 7 April Burn ½ of the area May-August Spot spray patches of reed canarygrass and

other invasive species May-August Mow walking path September Mow burn lines Year 8 April Burn other ½ of the area May-August Spot spray patches of reed canarygrass and

other invasive species May-August Mow walking path September Mow burn lines Year 9 and on April Burn ¼ of area each year May Monitor prairie composition and over-seed, etc

as needed May-June Monitor invasive species – spot spray when

necessary May-August Mow walking path September Mow burn lines *We have not assigned individuals or departments to any of the management duties yet, as we would like your input.

44

Management Plan_Option #2 Timing Management Activity Year 1 Late March/Early April Remove unwanted trees April Initial burn May-August Spray with RoundUp 3-4 times June-August Dirt work for ponds/berms/waterlines September Disc wetland area if dry enough Year 2 April Harrow May Plant (if planting by hand drag with atv, if drilled cultipack) May-August Mow when ever weeds are 8-10 inches tall May-August Spot spray invasive species Year 3 – on Same as in option #1

45

APPENDIX F – Seed Sources (TR) Iowa Prairie Seed Company – (641) 892-4111 1740 220th St. Sheffield IA, 50475 Swanson Farms – (800) 772-4743 64905 190th St. Nevada, IA 50201 Custom Seed Services – (712) 784-2430 26335 510th St. Walnut, IA 51577 Diversity Farms, Inc. – (712) 683-5555 25494 320th St. Dedham, IA 51440 Prairie Moon Nursery – (507) 452-1362 Route 3 Box 163 Winona, MN 55987

46

APPENDIX G – Seed Costs (RDH) Source: Prairie Moon Nursery 2005 Catalog Available at: www.prairiemoon.com

f

47

Appendix H – Detention Pond Calculations (NS) Calculation to determine retention available from detention pond. (Acres of impervious surface) x 0.215 ac-ft./ac. = (ac-ft. of retention needed) (ac-ft. of retention needed) x 43,560 cu. ft./ ac-ft. = 17,888 cu.-ft. of retention needed Facts about the detention area Depth (Feet) Area (square feet) Cubic feet

1 20869 208692 18461 369223 3052 91564 243 972

total cubic feet 67919total area(feet) 42625

48

APPENDIX I – Diagram of Water Control Valve (NS) This is a Hancor Water Control Structure. http://www.hancor.com/product/water_control.html

49

APPENDIX J – Diagram of Property and Ponds (EVH, NS)

50

APPENDIX K – Learning Opportunities for Dordt Students (EVH) Robb De Haan: Bio 200 Island Biogeography Lab Water Quality Lab Envr 320 Prescribed Burn Lab Animal Populations Lab Envr 270 Bird I.D. Labs (2) Birdhouse Construction Lab Envr 380 Multiple Directed research opportunities Agri 370 Beneficial Insect Lab Soil Quality Lab Native Species Lab Ron Vos:

Courses in soil fertility and field crop production

James Mahaffy: Bio 101 Ponds could be used for samples in lab Bio 122 Use ponds for samples of invertebrates in lab Chris Goedhart Agr 315 Insect Collection Agr 111 Water Sampling Purification by wetlands Plant ID Lab Matthew Stutz: Envr 151/152 Exposure to wetland and prairie area Envr 161/162 Vegetation surveys and water monitoring Envr 343 GIS -studying land use patterns Del Vander Zee: Bio 115/Bio 316 Plant specimens On-site learning Bio 300 Long-term development and care site Microhabitat work Service learning

51

APPENDIX L – Community Involvement (CH) Implementation: (All the steps were taken directly from MWAC). Step One: Identify community leaders supportive of wetland protection. Enacting any ordinance is a political process. To be successful, community opinion leaders must be educated on wetland values and enlisted to support wetland protection. It is also important that the wetland protection advocate involve leaders from the regulated community (developers, contractors, Realtors, etc.) in supporting the efforts. If these individuals are not involved in the process at the beginning, they may block the process later on. Step Two: Persuade Sioux Center community to support the restoration project. Citizen wetland protection advocates should provide information to the local government officials regarding the benefits of wetlands protection at the local level, the range of regulatory and non-regulatory options, what has worked in other communities, the critical issues that must be addressed, and innovative ways to fund local wetland protection programs. In addition to the local initiatives that focus solely on regulation of wetlands, local governments can also initiate natural features ordinances, storm water management guidelines, and other resource management options that will benefit wetlands. Step Three: Educate the Sioux Center community and media. To be successful, local wetlands protection efforts must have a broad base of support. An informed citizenry is critical to ensuring this support. Since local television stations and newspapers play a very important role in forming attitudes, wetland protection advocates should make extra efforts to ensure media sources are well informed. Step Four: Encourage community to take part in the restoration project. If the school/town is serious about protecting wetlands and there is adequate public support, they will begin to engage in developing a wetland protection program. Step Five: Know your project site. Before designing a project, you will want to learn about the past and current conditions of your project site by conducting a site assessment. The goals of a site assessment are to: Understand former conditions on the site. Determine whether or not a wetland ever existed on the site. Determine what factors resulted in wetland degradation or loss. Determine the current conditions of the site. Step Six: Setting goals.

52

This should include general statements about the desired project results and should reflect your motivation for undertaking the project. The goals should also include how you will measure progress, which can be goals that you set yourself or goals from a different, similar project.

53

APPENDIX M – Diagram of Property and Filter Strips (JVV)

54

APPENDIX N – Project Budget (RDH) Wetland Restoration Expenses Component Description 2005 2006 2007 2008Sedge Meadow and Wet Prairie Restoration and Management Tree removal along wetland 1000

Field cultivate and seed oats on filter strip area 1300' x 120' x 2 = 7.2 acres at $40/A 300 300

Plant entire wetland area to oats - 13A x $40/A 520

Round-up application to reed canarygrass (3-4x in '06), spot spraying thereafter. 6 acres at $20/A/trt 500 100 100

Burn vegetation - fire dept. fee 300 300

Prairie seed - Tall sedge meadow - 3A x $1215/A 3650

Prairie seed - Tall pr for wet mesic soils - 3A x $1245/A 3750

Prairie seed - Tall pr for mesic soils - 7A x $850/A 5950

Planting - land prep and labor 200 200

Mowing - $20/A/time 1000 250 Labor - Management 4000 4000 2000 1000 Labor - Workstudy 2000 4000 2000 1000 Subtotals 7600 22870 5300 2650 Runoff Management and Ponds

Construct birm for detention pond, excavate pond basins 8000

Windmill repair and water lines to upper ponds 3000

Water level control mechanisms for ponds 1000

Subtotals 12000 Education and Research - mostly integrated into design Bird houses, feeders 500 200 Data collection equipment? Subtotals 500 200 Community Interest

55

Bike path (1st to 4th Ave) - $35/ft x 3000' - asphalt, 10' w 105,000

Bridge - rustic w/ concrete footings, timber beams, wood planks (Doon sawmill) 5000

Entrance signs - north and south ends 2000

Self-guided tour signs 1000 Subtotals 112,000 1000Yearly Totals 19600 134,870 5800 3850 Wetland Restoration Income 2005 2006 2007 2008NRCS - Filter Strip Establishment - 7.2A

Cost Share for Establishment - max. of $130/A $936

Annual Rental Payment - 10 or 15 year contract - $150/A 1080 1080 1080

56