Native Grassland Conversion: the Roles of Risk Intervention and Switching Costs

We develop a real option model of the irreversible native grassland conversion decision. Upon plowing, native grassland can be followed by either a permanent cropping system or a system in which land is put under cropping (respectively, grazing) whenever crop prices are high (respectively, low). Switching costs are incurred upon alternating between cropping and grazing. The effects of risk intervention in the form of crop insurance subsidies are studied, as are the effects of cropping innovations that reduce switching costs. We calibrate the model by using cropping return data for South Central North Dakota from 1989 to 2012. Simulations show that a risk intervention that offsets 20% of a cropping return shortfall increases the sod-busting cost threshold, below which native sod will be busted, by 41% (or $43.7/acre). Omitting cropping return risk across time underestimates this sod-busting cost threshold by 23% (or $24.35/acre), and hence underestimates the native sod conversion caused by crop production.

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.

Iowa Wetland Management District: Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

This Environmental Assessment documents the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for developing a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Iowa Wetland Management District (WMD, district). In general, scoping reveals issues that drive alternative ways of managing the district. Implementation of each of those alternative management styles (including the No Action Alternative) may have different effects on the physical, biological, and socio-economic environment. Analysis of these effects reveals the “preferred” alternative, which constitutes the CCP. The CCP includes goals, objectives, and strategies for the district to guide overall management for the next 15 years. The Iowa WMD consists of scattered tracts of habitat (both wetland and upland grassland) known as Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs). As of 2011, there are 75 WPAs in 18 counties in north-central Iowa totaling 24,712 acres in fee title primarily managed by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Even though district acquisition has only occurred in 18 counties to date, a larger 35-county boundary is approved. This boundary follows the historic range of the poorly drained Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) in Iowa, an area known for its waterfowl production. The district also includes 575 WPA acres and approximately 434 Farm Service Agency acres in conservation easements on private land. This plan was prepared with the intent that the strong partnership with the Iowa DNR will continue over the next 15 years.