Evaluation of the Iowa Department of Transportation's Compensatory Wetland Mitgation Program, August 30, 2004

The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Program at the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) in terms of regulatory compliance. Specific objectives included: 1) Determining if study sites meet the definition of a jurisdictional wetland. 2) Determining the degree of compliance with requirements specified in Clean Water Act Section 404 permits. A total of 24 study sites, in four age classes were randomly selected from over 80 sites currently managed by the Iowa DOT. Wetland boundaries were delineated in the field and mitigation compliance was determined by comparing the delineated wetland acreage at each study site to the total wetland acreage requirements specified in individual CWA Section 404 permits. Of the 24 sites evaluated in this study, 58 percent meet or exceed Section 404 permit requirements. Net gain ranged from 0.19 acre to 27.2 acres. Net loss ranged from 0.2 acre to 14.6 acres. The Denver Bypass 1 site was the worst performer, with zero acres of wetland present on the site and the Akron Wetland Mitigation Site was the best performer with slightly more than 27 acres over the permit requirement. Five of the 10 under-performing sites are more than five years post construction, two are five years post construction, one is three years post construction and the remaining two are one year post construction. Of the sites that meet or exceed permit requirements, approximately 93 percent are five years or less post construction and approximately 43 percent are only one year old. Only one of the 14 successful sites is more than five years old. Using Section 404 permit acreage requirements as the criteria for measuring success, 58 percent of the wetland mitigation sites investigated as part of this study are successful. Using net gain/loss as the measure of success, the Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Program has been successful in creating/restoring nearly 44 acres of wetland over what was required by permits.

Process and Outcome Evaluation of the STAR (Sisters Together Achieving Recovery) Program, September, 2010

In July of 2009, the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) received Byrne Justice Assistance Grant/American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding from the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy to conduct a process and outcome evaluation of the STAR (Sisters Together Achieving Recovery) program housed at the Iowa Correctional Institution for Women (ICIW) in Mitchellville, Iowa. The STAR Program is a licensed inpatient substance abuse treatment program that utilizes a Therapeutic Community model (TC). All offenders exiting the STAR program between October 1, 2004 and June 30, 2008 were included in the study (n=173). A comparison sample was drawn of offenders exiting the ICIW during the same release time frame with identified but untreated substance abuse needs (n= 173). March 31, 2010 was designated as the cut-off date for the study. This yielded an average post-program follow-up time of 3.1 years. The STAR group was further divided into two groups by time of program exit. Participants exiting the program between October 1, 2004 and June 30, 2006 were designated as STAR 1 (n=78) and those exiting the program between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2008 were designated as STAR 2 (n=95). In order to have comparable tracking time between STAR groups, tracking time for STAR 1 concluded July 31, 2008. This yielded an average post release follow-up time of 2.4 years for both groups. Demographic, Program, Intervention, and Outcome data were examined. Comparisons were made between groups as well as categories of participation.

Scour Around Bridge Piers and Abutments, HR-30 and Iowa Highway Research Board Bulletin No. 4, 1956

Man’s never-ending search for better materials and construction methods and for techniques of analysis and design has overcome most of the early difficulties of bridge building. Scour of the stream bed, however, has remained a major cause of bridge failures ever since man learned to place piers and abutments in the stream in order to cross wide rivers. Considering the overall complexity of field conditions, it is not surprising that no generally accepted principles (not even rules of thumb) for the prediction of scour around bridge piers and abutments have evolved from field experience alone. The flow of individual streams exhibits a manifold variation, and great disparity exists among different rivers. The alignment, cross section, discharge, and slope of a stream must all be correlated with the scour phenomenon, and this in turn must be correlated with the characteristics of the bed material ranging from clays and fine silts to gravels and boulders. Finally, the effect of the shape of the obstruction itself-the pier or abutment-must be assessed. Since several of these factors are likely to vary with time to some degree, and since the scour phenomenon as well is inherently unsteady, sorting out the influence of each of the various factors is virtually impossible from field evidence alone. The experimental approach was chosen as the investigative method for this study, but with due recognition of the importance of field measurements and with the realization that the results must be interpreted so as to be compatible with the present-day theories of fluid mechanics and sediment transportation. This approach was chosen because, on the one hand, the factors affecting the scour phenomenon can be controlled in the laboratory to an extent that is not possible in the field, and, on the other hand, the model technique can be used to circumvent the present inadequate understanding of the phenomenon of the movement of sediment by flowing water. In order to obtain optimum results from the laboratory study, the program was arranged at the outset to include a related set of variables in each of several phases into which the whole problem was divided. The phases thus selected were : 1. Geometry of piers and abutments, 2. Hydraulics of the stream, 3. Characteristics of the sediment, 4. Geometry of channel shape and alignment.