2007 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Selected Iowa Source Categories

The Department’s 2007 Greenhouse Gas Inventory is a refinement of previous statewide inventories. It is a bottom-up inventory of two sectors – fossil fuel combustion at federally-recognized major sources of air pollution and fossil fuel combustion and ethanol fermentation at dry mill ethanol plants. This is the first bottomup greenhouse gas inventory conducted for Iowa and the first bottom-up greenhouse gas inventory of ethanol plants in the nation that the Department is aware of. In a bottom-up inventory, facility-specific activity data is used to calculate emissions. In a top-down inventory, aggregate activity data is used to calculate emissions. For example, this bottom-up inventory calculates greenhouse gas emissions from the fossil fuel combustion at each individual facility instead of using the total amount of fossil fuel combusted state-wide, which would be a top-down inventory method. The advantage to a bottom-up inventory is that the calculations are more accurate than a top-down inventory. However, because the two methods differ, the results from a bottom-up inventory are not directly comparable to a top-down inventory.

2008 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Selected Iowa Source Categories

This report is the second inventory of point source-specific greenhouse gas emissions conducted by the Department of Natural Resources, covering more industrial sectors and greenhouse gas pollutants than the previous year. This report is required by Iowa Code 455B.851 to be submitted annually to the Iowa General Assembly and the Governor,

2009 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Selected Iowa Source Categories

This objective report is the third inventory of point source-specific greenhouse gas emissions conducted by the Department of Natural Resources. This report is required by Iowa Code 455B.851

Evalution of Hot Mix Asphalt Moisture Sensitivity Using the Nottingham Asphalt Test Equipment, July 2005

Moisture sensitivity of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) mixtures, generally called stripping, is a major form of distress in asphalt concrete pavement. It is characterized by the loss of adhesive bond between the asphalt binder and the aggregate (a failure of the bonding of the binder to the aggregate) or by a softening of the cohesive bonds within the asphalt binder (a failure within the binder itself), both of which are due to the action of loading under traffic in the presence of moisture. The evaluation of HMA moisture sensitivity has been divided into two categories: visual inspection test and mechanical test. However, most of them have been developed in pre-Superpave mix design. This research was undertaken to develop a protocol for evaluating the moisture sensitivity potential of HMA mixtures using the Nottingham Asphalt Tester (NAT). The mechanisms of HMA moisture sensitivity were reviewed and the test protocols using the NAT were developed. Different types of blends as moisture-sensitive groups and non-moisture-sensitive groups were used to evaluate the potential of the proposed test. The test results were analyzed with three parameters based on performance character: the retained flow number depending on critical permanent deformation failure (RFNP), the retained flow number depending on cohesion failure (RFNC), and energy ratio (ER). Analysis based on energy ratio of elastic strain (EREE ) at flow number of cohesion failure (FNC) has higher potential to evaluate the HMA moisture sensitivity than other parameters. If the measurement error in data-acquisition process is removed, analyses based on RFNP and RFNC would also have high potential to evaluate the HMA moisture sensitivity. The vacuum pressure saturation used in AASHTO T 283 and proposed test has a risk to damage specimen before the load applying.

Iowa Adult Basic Education Program Benchmark Objective for Program Year, 2002

The benchmark objectives for Program Year 2002 are designed to improve Iowa's basic skills literacy program in those instructional programs, educational functioning levels, and follow-up categories which did not achieve the negotiated benchmark levels for Program Year 2001. The instructional programs, educational functioning levels and follow-up categories in which the attained benchmarks met or exceeded the negotiated benchmarks for Program Year 2001 should not be allowed to fall below the Program Year 2001 levels for Program Year 2002.