Regional Approach to Landslide Interpretation and Repair, TR-430, 2001

The objective of this report is to provide Iowa county engineers and highway maintenance personnel with procedures that will allow them to efficiently and effectively interpret and repair or avoid landslides. The research provides an overview of basic slope stability analyses that can be used to diagnose the cause and effect associated with a slope failure. Field evidence for identifying active or potential slope stability problems is outlined. A survey of county engineers provided data for presenting a slope stability risk map for the state of Iowa. Areas of high risk are along the western border and southeastern portion of the state. These regions contain deep to moderately deep loess. The central portion of the state is a low risk area where the surficial soils are glacial till or thin loess over till. In this region, the landslides appear to occur predominately in backslopes along deeply incised major rivers, such as the Des Moines River, or in foreslopes. The south-central portion of the state is an area of medium risk where failures are associated with steep backslopes and improperly compacted foreslopes. Soil shear strength data compiled from the Iowa DOT and consulting engineers files are correlated with geologic parent materials and mean values of shear strength parameters and unit weights were computed for glacial till, friable loess, plastic loess and local alluvium. Statistical tests demonstrate that friction angles and unit weights differ significantly but in some cases effective stress cohesion intercept and undrained shear strength data do not. Moreover, effective stress cohesion intercept and undrained shear strength data show a high degree of variability. The shear strength and unit weight data are used in slope stability analyses for both drained and undrained conditions to generate curves that can be used for a preliminary evaluation of the relative stability of slopes within the four materials. Reconnaissance trips to over fifty active and repaired landslides in Iowa suggest that, in general, landslides in Iowa are relatively shallow [i.e., failure surfaces less than 6 ft (2 m) deep] and are either translational or shallow rational. Two foreslope and two backslope failure case histories provide additional insights into slope stability problems and repair in Iowa. These include the observation that embankment soils compacted to less than 95% relative density show a marked strength decrease from soils at or above that density. Foreslopes constructed of soils derived from shale exhibit loss of strength as a result of weathering. In some situations, multiple causes of instability can be discerned from back analyses with the slope stability program XSTABL. In areas where the stratigraphy consists of loess over till or till over bedrock, the geologic contracts act as surfaces of groundwater accumulation that contribute to slope instability.

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.

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.