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.

07039-014 Miners Creek Final Report

This project brings together rural and urban partners to address the impairment of Miners Creek, a cold water trout stream in Northeast Iowa. It eliminates point source pollution contributions from the City of Guttenberg, decreases non-point source pollution and increases in-stream and near stream habitat in the Miners Creek Watershed. It specifically eliminates sewage and storm water runoff from the City of Guttenberg into Miners Creek; it develops, enhances and preserves wetlands; reduces direct livestock access to the. stream through rotational grazing systems; completes stream bank stabilizatio11 and in-stream habitat creation; targets upland land treatment; and promotes targeted application of continuous CRP and forestry practices. This project recognizes that non-point source pollution improvements could be hampered by point source pollutants ihat inhibit biologic reproduction and survival. It takes appropliate measures to improve all aspects of the stream ecosystem.

Investigation of Plastic Pipes for Highway Applications, HR-373A, Phase II, 1997

It is generally accepted that high density polyethylene pipe (HDPE) performs well under live loads with shallow cover, provided the backfill is well compacted. Although industry standards require carefully compacted backfill, poor inspection and/or faulty construction may result in soils that provide inadequate restraint at the springlines of the pipes thereby causing failure. The objectives of this study were: 1) to experimentally define a lower limit of compaction under which the pipes perform satisfactorily, 2) to quantify the increase in soil support as compaction effort increases, 3) to evaluate pipe response for loads applied near the ends of the buried pipes, 4) to determine minimum depths of cover for a variety of pipes and soil conditions by analytically expanding the experimental results through the use of the finite element program CANDE. The test procedures used here are conservative especially for low-density fills loaded to high contact stresses. The failures observed in these tests were the combined effect of soil bearing capacity at the soil surface and localized wall bending of the pipes. Under a pavement system, the pipes' performance would be expected to be considerably better. With those caveats, the following conclusions are drawn from this study. Glacial till compacted to 50% and 80% provides insufficient support; pipe failureoccurs at surface contact stresses lower than those induced by highway trucks. On the other hand, sand backfill compacted to more than 110 pcf (17.3 kN/m3) is satisfactory. The failure mode for all pipes with all backfills is localized wall bending. At moderate tire pressures, i.e. contact stresses, deflections are reduced significantly when backfill density is increased from about 50 pcf (7.9 kN/m^3) to 90 pcf (14.1 kN/m^3). Above that unit weight, little improvement in the soil-pipe system is observed. Although pipe stiffness may vary as much as 16%, analyses show that backfill density is more important than pipe stiffness in controlling both deflections at low pipe stresses and at the ultimate capacity of the soil-pipe system. The rate of increase in ultimate strength of the system increases nearly linearly with increasing backfill density. When loads equivalent to moderate tire pressures are applied near the ends of the pipes, pipe deflections are slighly higher than when loaded at the center. Except for low density glacial till, the deflections near the ends are not excessive and the pipes perform satisfactorily. For contact stresses near the upper limit of truck tire pressures and when loaded near the end, pipes fail with localized wall bending. For flowable fill backfill, the ultimate capacity of the pipes is nearly doubled and at the upper limit of highway truck tire pressures, deflections are negligible. All pipe specimens tested at ambient laboratory room temperatures satisfied AASHTO minimum pipe stiffness requirements at 5% deflection. However, nearly all specimens tested at elevated pipe surface temperatures, approximately 122°F (50°C), failed to meet these requirements. Some HDPE pipe installations may not meet AASHTO minimum pipe stiffness requirements when installed in the summer months (i.e. if pipe surface temperatures are allowed to attain temperatures similar to those tested here). Heating of any portion of the pipe circumference reduced the load carrying capacity of specimens. The minimum soil cover depths, determined from the CANOE analysis, are controlled by the 5% deflection criterion. The minimum soil cover height is 12 in. (305 mm). Pipes with the poor silt and clay backfills with less than 85% compaction require a minimum soil cover height of 24 in. (610 mm). For the sand at 80% compaction, the A36 HDPE pipe with the lowest moment of inertia requires a minimum of 24 in. (610 mm) soil cover. The C48 HDPE pipe with the largest moment of inertia and all other pipes require a 12 in. (305 mm) minimum soil cover.

09032-017 Miller Creek Watershed Final Report

Miller Creek is on the 2006 Section 303d Impaired Waters List and has a 19,926 acre watershed. All indicators, as reported in the Miller Creek assessment, show that the impairment is due to sediment and nutrient delivery from upland runoff which contributes to elevated water temperatures, excessive algae, and low dissolved oxygen levels within the stream. In an effort to control these problems, the Miller Creek Water Quality Project will target areas of 5 tons per acre or greater soil loss or with 0.5 tons per acre or greater sediment delivery rates. The assessment revealed these targeted priority lands make up 32% or 6,395 acres of the Miller Creek watershed. Priority lands include cropland, pasture land, timber, and sensitive riparian areas. It is the goal of this project to reduce sediment delivery by 70% on 60% or 3,837 acres of these priority lands. This will be accomplished through installation of strategically placed structural practices, rotational grazing systems, and buffer strips. These practices will reduce soil loss, reduce sediment delivery, improve water quality, and improve wildlife habitat in the watershed. Utilizing partnerships with NRCS and IDALS-DSC will be important in making this project successful. In addition to using matching funds from EQIP, WHIP, and CRP, the Monroe SWCD is committed to prioritizing local cost share funds through IFIP and REAP for use in the Miller Creek Watershed.