Tree and Brush Control For County Road Right-of-Way, Ocotober 2002

This manual summarizes the roadside tree and brush control methods used by all of Iowa's 99 counties. It is based on interviews conducted in Spring 2002 with county engineers, roadside managers and others. The target audience of this manual is the novice county engineer or roadside manager. Iowa law is nearly silent on roadside tree and brush control, so individual counties have been left to decide on the level of control they want to achieve and maintain. Different solutions have been developed but the goal of every county remains the same: to provide safe roads for the traveling public. Counties in eastern and southern Iowa appear to face the greatest brush control challenge. Most control efforts can be divided into two categories: mechanical and chemical. Mechanical control includes cutting tools and supporting equipment. A chain saw is the most widely used cutting tool. Tractor mounted boom mowers and brush cutters are used to prune miles of brush but have significant safety and aesthetic limitations and boom mowers are easily broken by inexperienced operators. The advent of tree shears and hydraulic thumbs offer unprecedented versatility. Bulldozers are often considered a method of last resort since they reduce large areas to bare ground. Any chipper that violently grabs brush should not be used. Chemical control is the application of herbicide to different parts of a plant: foliar spray is applied to leaves; basal bark spray is applied to the tree trunk; a cut stump treatment is applied to the cambium ring of a cut surface. There is reluctance by many to apply herbicide into the air due to drift concerns. One-third of Iowa counties do not use foliar spray. By contrast, several accepted control methods are directed toward the ground. Freshly cut stumps should be treated to prevent resprouting. Basal bark spray is highly effective in sensitive areas such as near houses. Interest in chemical control is slowly increasing as herbicides and application methods are refined. Fall burning, a third, distinctly separate technique is underused as a brush control method and can be effective if timed correctly. In all, control methods tend to reflect agricultural patterns in a county. The use of chain saws and foliar sprays tends to increase in counties where row crops predominate, and boom mowing tends to increase in counties where grassland predominates. For counties with light to moderate roadside brush, rotational maintenance is the key to effective control. The most comprehensive approach to control is to implement an integrated roadside vegetation management (IRVM) program. An IRVM program is usually directed by a Roadside Manager whose duties may be shared with another position. Funding for control programs comes from the Rural Services Basic portion of a county's budget. The average annual county brush control budget is about $76,000. That figure is thought not to include shared expenses such as fuel and buildings. Start up costs for an IRVM program are less if an existing control program is converted. In addition, IRVM budgets from three different northeastern Iowa counties are offered for comparison in this manual. The manual also includes a chapter on temporary traffic control in rural work zones, a summary of the Iowa Code as it relates to brush control, and rules on avoiding seasonal disturbance of the endangered Indiana bat. Appendices summarize survey and forest cover data, an equipment inventory, sample forms for record keeping, a sample brush control policy, a few legal opinions, a literature search, and a glossary.

Cultural Heritage and Records Retention Task Force Report, August 2008

The Rebuild Iowa Cultural Heritage and Records Retention Task Force respectfully submits its report to the Rebuild Iowa Advisory Commission (RIAC) for its consideration of the impacts of the tornadoes, storms, and flooding on Iowans and their cultural, historical, and arts institutions and organizations and records collections and archives. As the RIAC fulfills its obligations to guide the recovery and reconstruction of Iowa, the cknowledgement that culture and records as Iowa’s identity is important, and that if these items of cultural heritage vanish from Iowa’s landscape, the items that Iowans associate with their history, traditions, and sense of place also disappears. Iowa is certainly not the only state that has experienced this type of disaster; however, many states have not recognized culture and records as critical concerns as part of the recovery and rebuilding process. When rebuilding Iowa stronger, smarter, and safer, quality of life is an important consideration for attracting new residents, making it a necessity to keep culture alive and thriving in Iowa. Additionally, the cultural arts constitute a vital economic industry, providing employment to thousands of Iowa’s citizens and generating millions of dollars in local and government revenue across the state. In the case of records, these items are irreplaceable and provide important information for the daily workings of government and life in our state, and maintain vital records of Iowa’s heritage and traditions. This report provides background information on the damages incurred in Iowa from the disasters and additional context for policy and rebuilding discussions. It also offers recommendations to the RIAC for steps that might be taken to address the significant and important challenges faced by Iowa’s cultural, historical, and arts institutions and organizations; individual artists and other cultural workers; and records retention entities and officials.

Supplemental Information to the August 2008 Cultural Heritage and Records Retention Task Force Report, August 2008

The Rebuild Iowa Cultural Heritage and Records Retention Task Force respectfully submits its report to the Rebuild Iowa Advisory Commission (RIAC) for its consideration of the impacts of the tornadoes, storms, and flooding on Iowans and their cultural, historical, and arts institutions and organizations and records collections and archives. As the RIAC fulfills its obligations to guide the recovery and reconstruction of Iowa, the cknowledgement that culture and records as Iowa’s identity is important, and that if these items of cultural heritage vanish from Iowa’s landscape, the items that Iowans associate with their history, traditions, and sense of place also disappears. Iowa is certainly not the only state that has experienced this type of disaster; however, many states have not recognized culture and records as critical concerns as part of the recovery and rebuilding process. When rebuilding Iowa stronger, smarter, and safer, quality of life is an important consideration for attracting new residents, making it a necessity to keep culture alive and thriving in Iowa. Additionally, the cultural arts constitute a vital economic industry, providing employment to thousands of Iowa’s citizens and generating millions of dollars in local and government revenue across the state. In the case of records, these items are irreplaceable and provide important information for the daily workings of government and life in our state, and maintain vital records of Iowa’s heritage and traditions. This report provides background information on the damages incurred in Iowa from the disasters and additional context for policy and rebuilding discussions. It also offers recommendations to the RIAC for steps that might be taken to address the significant and important challenges faced by Iowa’s cultural, historical, and arts institutions and organizations; individual artists and other cultural workers; and records retention entities and officials. Supplement to main report.

Multiflora rose and its control,1992

This pamphlet describes Multiflora Rose and how to control it.

Liability and Traffic Control Considerations for Low Water Stream Crossings, HR-218, 1981

The current shortage of highway funds precludes the immediate replacement of most of the bridges that have been evaluated as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete or both. A low water stream crossing (LWSC) affords an economical alternative to the replacement of a bridge with another bridge in many instances. However, the potential liability that might be incurred from the use of LWSCs has served as a deterrent to their use. Nor have guidelines for traffic control devices been developed for specific application to LWSCs. This research addressed the problems of liability and traffic control associated with the use of LWSCs. Input to the findings from this research was provided by several persons contacted by telephone plus 189 persons who responded to a questionnaire concerning their experience with LWSCs. It was concluded from this research that a significant potential for accidents and liability claims could result from the use of LWSCs. However, it was also concluded that this liability could be reduced to within acceptable limits if adequate warning of the presence of an LWSC were afforded to road users. The potential for accidents and liability could further be reduced if vehicular passage over an LWSC were precluded during periods when the road was flooded. Under these conditions, it is believed, the potential for liability from the use of an LWSC on an unpaved, rural road would be even less than that resulting from the continuing use of an inadequate bridge. The signs recommended for use in advance of an LWSC include two warning signs and one regulatory sign with legends as follows: FLOOD AREA AHEAD, IMPASSABLE DURING HIGH WATER, DO NOT ENTER WHEN FLOODED. Use of the regulatory sign would require an appropriate resolution by the Board of Supervisors having responsibility for a county road. Other recommendations include the optional use of either a supple mental distance advisory plate or an advisory speed plate, or both, under circumstances where these may be needed. It was also recommended HR-218 Liability & Traffic Control Considerations for Low Water Stream Crossings that LWSCs be used only on unpaved roads and that they not be used in locations where flooding of an LWSC would deprive dwelling places of emergency ground access.

Heat Dissipation and Crack Control in Massive Concrete at the Burlington Bridge, MLR-94-1, 1995

The large concrete placements at the Burlington Bridge were expected to cause great temperature differentials within the individual placements. In an attempt to reduce cracking due to the large temperature differentials, the Iowa Department of Transportation required that contractors continuously monitor the temperatures and temperature differentials in the concrete placement to assure that the temperature differentials did not exceed 35 deg F. It was felt that if temperature differentials remained below 35 deg F, cracking would be minimized. The following is a summary of the background of the project, and what occurred during individual concrete placements. The following conclusions were drawn: 1) Side temperatures are cooler and more greatly affected by ambient air temperatures; 2) When the 35 deg F limit was exceeded, it was almost exclusively the center to side differential; 3) The top temperature increases substantially when a new pour is placed; 4) The use of ice and different cement types did seem to affect the overall temperature gain and the amount of time taken for any one placement to reach a peak, but did not necessarily prevent the differentials from exceeding the 35 deg F limit, nor prevent cracking in any placement; and 5) Larger placements have a greater tendency to exceed the differential limit.

Design Guide and Construction Specifications for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Site Runoff Control, 2006

According to the 1972 Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a set of regulations for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The purpose of these regulations is to reduce pollution of the nation’s waterways. In addition to other pollutants, the NPDES regulates stormwater discharges associated with industrial activities, municipal storm sewer systems, and construction sites. Phase II of the NPDES stormwater regulations, which went into effect in Iowa in 2003, applies to construction activities that disturb more than one acre of ground. The regulations also require certain communities with Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) to perform education, inspection, and regulation activities to reduce stormwater pollution within their communities. Iowa does not currently have a resource to provide guidance on the stormwater regulations to contractors, designers, engineers, and municipal staff. The Statewide Urban Design and Specifications (SUDAS) manuals are widely accepted as the statewide standard for public improvements. The SUDAS Design manual currently contains a brief chapter (Chapter 7) on erosion and sediment control; however, it is outdated, and Phase II of the NPDES stormwater regulations is not discussed. In response to the need for guidance, this chapter was completely rewritten. It now escribes the need for erosion and sediment control and explains the NPDES stormwater regulations. It provides information for the development and completion of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) that comply with the stormwater regulations, as well as the proper design and implementation of 28 different erosion and sediment control practices. In addition to the design chapter, this project also updated a section in the SUDAS Specifications manual (Section 9040), which describes the proper materials and methods of construction for the erosion and sediment control practices.

Erosion Control for Highway Applications, Phase I: Review and Synthesis of Literature, Final Report, TR-464, May 2002

The project described herein has led to a convenient, computer-based expert system for identifying and evaluating potentially effective erosion- and sedimentation-control measures for use in roadway construction throughout Iowa and elsewhere in the Midwest. The expert system is intended to be an accessible and efficient practical resource to aid state, county, and municipal engineers in the selection of the best management practices for preventing unwanted erosion and sedimentation at roadway construction sites, during and after construction.

Embankment Quality and Assessment of Moisture Control Implementation, TR-677, 2016

A specification for contractor moisture quality control (QC) in roadway embankment construction has been in use for approximately 10 years in Iowa on about 190 projects. The use of this QC specification and the development of the soils certification program for the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) originated from Iowa Highway Research Board (IHRB) embankment quality research projects. Since this research, the Iowa DOT has applied compaction with moisture control on most embankment work under pavements. This study set out to independently evaluate the actual quality of compaction using the current specifications. Results show that Proctor tests conducted by Iowa State University (ISU) using representative material obtained from each test section where field testing was conducted had optimum moisture contents and maximum dry densities that are different from what was selected by the Iowa DOT for QC/quality assurance (QA) testing. Comparisons between the measured and selected values showed a standard error of 2.9 lb/ft3 for maximum dry density and 2.1% for optimum moisture content. The difference in optimum moisture content was as high as 4% and the difference in maximum dry density was as high as 6.5 lb/ft3 . The difference at most test locations, however, were within the allowable variation suggested in AASHTO T 99 for test results between different laboratories. The ISU testing results showed higher rates of data outside of the target limits specified based on the available contractor QC data for cohesive materials. Also, during construction observations, wet fill materials were often observed. Several test points indicated that materials were placed and accepted at wet of the target moisture contents. The statistical analysis results indicate that the results obtained from this study showed improvements over results from previous embankment quality research projects (TR-401 Phases I through III and TR-492) in terms of the percentage of data that fell within the specification limits. Although there was evidence of improvement, QC/QA results are not consistently meeting the target limits/values. Recommendations are provided in this report for Iowa DOT consideration with three proposed options for improvements to the current specifications. Option 1 provides enhancements to current specifications in terms of material-dependent control limits, training, sampling, and process control. Option 2 addresses development of alternative specifications that incorporate dynamic cone penetrometer or light weight deflectometer testing into QC/QA. Option 3 addresses incorporating calibrated intelligent compaction measurements into QC/QA.