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.

Hydraulics of Slope-Tapered Pipe Culverts, HR-398, 2001

This report updates the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) design procedures for circular, slope-tapered concrete culverts. The current practice is to use the design coefficients for a square-edged, circular concrete culvert with a headwall that are found in Hydraulic Series No. 5 (HDS-5). New inlet control design constants and entrance loss coefficients were calculated for the slope-tapered culverts and then compared with the HDS-5 coefficients (square edge). In addition, various reducer lengths and taper ratios were also studied to determine what impact, if any, they have on the design coefficients. All of the laboratory testing was done at the Federal Highway Administration�s Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center located in McLean, Virginia.

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.