Division of Soil Conservation Soil and Water Quality Review, October 2007

What is in this review produced by The Iowa Department of Agricultural and Land Stewardship: Special Points of Interest: • CREP wetlands remove 40-90% of the nitrate and 90+% of the herbicide in tile drainage water from upper- lying croplands. • The watershed approach is comprehensive, efficient and effective resource management. • The Mines & Minerals Bureau, through the AML Program, worked with various watershed groups to secure an additional $1 million dollars in funding for the construction on AML projects in Marion and Mahaska counties. • Iowa Learning Farm is Building a Culture of Conservation: Farmer to Farmer—Iowan to Iowan.

A Research Report on Roadside Vegetation Management, December 1975

According to prevailing ecological theory one would expect the most stable vegetation on sites which are least disturbed (Odum 1971). According to theory one would also expect the most diversity of species on undisturbed sites (Odum 1971). This stable and diverse community would be produced over a period of many years through a process of plant succession where annual herbs are replaced by perennial herbs and finally woody plants would come to dominate and perpetuate the community. Another ecological theory holds that the complexity (structure and species diversity) of a plant community is dependent upon the amount of disturbance to which it is subjected (Woodwell, 1970). According to this theory the normal succession of a plant community through its various stages may be arrested at some point depending upon the nature and severity of the disturbance. In applying these theories to roadside vegetation it becomes apparent that mass herbicide spraying and extensive mowing of roadsides has produced a relatively simple and unstable vegetation. It follows that if disturbances were reduced not only would the roadside plant community increase in stability but maintenance costs and energy usage would be reduced. In this study we have investigated several aspects of reduced disturbances on roadside vegetation. Research has centered on the effectiveness of spot spraying techniques on noxious weed control, establishment of native grass cover where ditch cleaning and other disturbance has left the bare soil exposed and the response of roadside vegetation when released from annual mass spraying.

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.