Iowa Department of Transportation Major Items - Preliminary Quantity Report, June 19, 2012; With Addendums

Weekly letting report.

Iowa Department of Transportation Major Items - Preliminary Quantity Report, July 17, 2012; With Addendums

Weekly letting report.

List of Bid Proposal Holders, June 19, 2012

List of Bid Proposal Holders

Greenhouse Gas and Nitrogen Fertilizer Scenarios for U.S. Agriculture and Global Biofuels, June 2011

This analysis uses the 2011 FAPRI-CARD (Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute–Center for Agricultural and Rural Development) baseline to evaluate the impact of four alternative scenarios on U.S. and world agricultural markets, as well as on world fertilizer use and world agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. A key assumption in the 2011 baseline is that ethanol support policies disappear in 2012. The baseline also assumes that existing biofuel mandates remain in place and are binding. Two of the scenarios are adverse supply shocks, the first being a 10% increase in the price of nitrogen fertilizer in the United States, and the second, a reversion of cropland into forestland. The third scenario examines how lower energy prices would impact world agriculture. The fourth scenario reintroduces biofuel tax credits and duties. Given that the baseline excludes these policies, the fourth scenario is an attempt to understand the impact of these policies under the market conditions that prevail in early 2011. A key to understanding the results of this fourth scenario is that in the absence of tax credits and duties, the mandate drives biofuel use. Therefore, when the tax credits and duties are reintroduced, the impacts are relatively small. In general, the results show that the entire international commodity market system is remarkably robust with respect to policy changes in one country or in one sector. The policy implication is that domestic policy changes implemented by a large agricultural producer like the United States can have fairly significant impacts on the aggregate world commodity markets. A second point that emerges from the results is that the law of unintended consequences is at work in world agriculture. For example, a U.S. nitrogen tax that might presumably be motivated for environmental benefit results in an increase in world greenhouse gas emissions. A similar situation occurs in the afforestation scenario in which crop production shifts from high-yielding land in the United States to low-yielding land and probably native vegetation in the rest of the world, resulting in an unintended increase in global greenhouse gas emissions.

State Park & Institutional Roads, 2011

Parks, Institutional Road Projects Planning Program produced by the Iowa Department of Transportation.

Federal Highway Administration Finding of No Significant Impact for the Council Bluffs Interstate System Improvements Project, August 23, 2012

FHWA and the Iowa Department of Transportation are proposing geometric and capacity improvements to the Interstate 29 and Interstate 80 mainline in Segment 3 and the I-80/I-29 East System interchange, the South Expressway interchange, the U.S. Highway 275 interchange, and the Madison Avenue interchange to to safely and efficiently of transportation in the City of Council Bluffs, the Iowa DOT is also proposing to eliminate several railroad alignments and to develop new, consolidated tracks in Segment 3.

U.S. 61 From the Muscatine County Line to Two Miles south of Grandview Louisa County, Iowa NHS-61-3(48) - -19-58, October 19, 2011

The Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century mandated environmental streamlining in order to improve transportation project delivery without compromising environmental protection. In accordance with TEA-21, the environmental review process for this project has been documented as a Streamlined Environmental Assessment. This document addresses only those resources or features that apply to the project. This allowed study and discussion of resources present in the study area, rather than expend effort on resources that were either not present or not impacted. Although not all resources are discussed in the EA, they were considered during the planning process and are documented in the Streamlined Resource Summary.

I-74 Iowa/Illinois Corridor Study Aesthetic Design Guideline April 6, 2009

The I-74 Aesthetic Design Guideline (ADG) document has two primary goals: To establish and identify an overall design theme To prioritize enhancement opportunities within the framework of corridor elements The recommendations of this report have been developed based on an “unconstrained” framework for future corridor–wide enhancements. Future funding availability, along with the recommendations of this report, will guide the final design process. ADG Future Uses: This document is intended to be used as a reference to future processes in the following ways: Guidance for I-74 final design teams Reference document for future local community redevelopment initiatives Inspiration for identification and development of other I-74 corridor aesthetic enhancement opportunities Process: As illustrated in Figure 1.3, the overall process for corridor aesthetics began traditionally with inventory and identification of potential aesthetic applications. The ADG does not document all the reports and presentations related to these early design stages, but has incorporated these efforts into the design theme, guiding principles and prioritized enhancements shown on the following pages of this report. The I-74 final design phase will incorporate these recommendations into the project. The consultant design team and representatives of the DOTs have worked with the CAAT members to facilitate community input and have helped develop recommendations for improving I-74 corridor aesthetics. CAAT recommendations have been advanced to the I-74 Advisory Committee for review and endorsement. Both DOTs have reviewed the CAAT recommendations and have endorsed the contents of this report. Figure 1.4 illustrates the status of corridor aesthetic design development. As of the date of this report, aesthetic design is approximately 50% complete. Future detailed design, cost evaluation, feasibility and prioritizations all need to occur for this process to be successfully completed.

Council Bluffs Interstate System Improvements Project Pottawatomie County, Iowa and Douglas County, Nebraska Project Number: IM-029-3(62)54-13-78, November 2004

The Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT), Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are proposing to improve the interstate system around Council Bluffs with improvements extending across the Missouri River on I-80 to east of the I-480 interchange in Omaha, Nebraska, see Figure 1-1. The study considers long-term, broad-based transportation improvements along I-80, I-29, and I-480, including approximately 18 mainline miles of interstate and 14 interchanges (3 system1, 11 service), that would add capacity and correct functional issues along the mainline and interchanges and upgrade the I-80 Missouri River Crossing. These improvements, once implemented, would bring the segments of I-80 and I-29 up to current engineering standards and modernize the roadway to accommodate future traffic needs. In 2001, Iowa DOT and FHWA initiated the Council Bluffs Interstate System (CBIS) Improvements Project. The agencies concluded that the environmental study process would be conducted in two stages; that is, a tiered approach would be applied. The project is being conducted pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1502.20, and FHWA 23 CFR Part 771.111, that permit tiering for large, complex NEPA studies. Tier 1 is an examination of the overall interstate system improvement needs, including a clear explanation of the area’s transportation needs, a study of alternatives to satisfy them, and broad consideration of potential environmental and social impacts. The Tier 1 evaluation is at a sufficient level of engineering and environmental detail to assist decision makers in selecting a preferred transportation strategy. Tier 1 includes preparation of a draft and final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that would disclose the potential environmental and social effects (evaluated at a planning level that considers a variety of conceptual designs) of the proposed improvements. The final EIS will conclude with a Record of Decision (ROD) that states the preferred plan for improvements to be implemented. Essentially, the Tier 1 document will establish the planning framework for the needed improvements. Because the scope of the overall system improvements is large, the interstate improvements would be implemented as a series of individual projects that fit into the overall planning framework. The Tier 1 Area of Potential Impact, which is discussed in detail in Section 4 is an alternative that considers a combination of the most reasonable concepts that have been developed, buffered by approximately 100 or more feet to ensure that any Tier 2 design modifications would remain inside the outer boundary.

Record of Decision Council Bluffs Interstate System (I-29, I-80 and I-480) Improvements Project TIER 1 Environmental Impact Statement Council Bluffs, Iowa to Omaha, Nebraska FHWA-IA- EIS-04-01F Project Number: IM-029-3(62)54—13-78 Submitted Pursuant to 42 USC 4332(2)(c) and 49 USC 303, October 2008

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approves the selection of the Reconstruction of All or Part of the Interstate (Construction Alternative) as the Preferred Alternative to provide improvements to the interstate system in the Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan area, extending across the Missouri River on Interstate 80 to east of the Interstate 480 interchange in Omaha, Nebraska. The study considered long-term, broad-based transportation improvements along Interstate I-29 (I-29), I-80, and I-480, including approximately 18 mainline miles of interstate and 14 interchanges (3 system, 11 service), that would add capacity and correct functional issues along the mainline and interchanges and upgrade the I-80 Missouri River Crossing. FHWA also approves the decisions to provide full access between West Broadway and I-29, design the I-80/I-29 overlap section as a dual-divided freeway, and locating the new I-80 Missouri River Bridge north of the existing bridge. Improvements to the interstate system, once implemented, would bring the segments of I-80 and I-29 (see Figure 1) up to current engineering standards and accommodate future traffic needs. This Record of Decision (ROD) concludes Tier 1 of the Council Bluffs Interstate System (CBIS) Improvements Project. Tier 1 included an examination of the area’s transportation needs, a study of alternatives to satisfy them, and broad consideration of potential environmental and social impacts. The Tier 1 evaluation consisted of a sufficient level of engineering and environmental detail to assist decision makers in selecting a preferred transportation strategy. During Tier 1 a Draft EIS (FHWA-IA- EIS-04-01D) was developed which was approved by FHWA, Iowa DOT, and Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) in November 2004 with comments accepted through March 15, 2005. The Draft EIS summarized the alternatives that were considered to address the transportation needs around Council Bluffs; identified reconstruction of all or part of the interstate, the “Construction Alternative,” as the Preferred Alternative; identified three system-level decisions that needed to be made at the Tier 1 level; and invited comment on the issues. The Final EIS (FHWA-IA- EIS-04-01F) further documented the Construction Alternative as the Preferred Alternative and identified the recommended decisions for the three system level decisions that needed to be made in Tier 1. This ROD defines the Selected Alternative determined in the Tier 1 studies.

Council Bluffs Interstate System Improvement Project Tier 2, Segment 3 Pottawatomie County, Iowa Environmental Assessment, March 2011

This Tier 2 Environmental Assessment (EA) presents the results of studies and analyses conducted to determine the potential impacts of proposed improvements in Segment 3 of the Council Bluffs Interstate System (CBIS) in the Council Bluffs metropolitan area. This document is tiered to the Tier 1 Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) that evaluated impacts of the overall CBIS Improvements Project, which includes five segments of independent utility1 This EA on Segment 3 of the Project is divided into the following sections: and encompasses 18 mainline miles of Interstate and 14 interchanges along Interstate 80 (I-80), Interstate 29 (I-29), and Interstate 480 (I-480). More information about the tiering process is found below under Project Background. • Section 1 provides background information on the Project and discusses the relationship between the earlier Tier 1 EIS and this Tier 2 EA. It also discusses the proposed action and the area studied, the purpose of the Project, and the need for the Project based on transportation problems that currently exist or are expected in the future. • Section 2, Alternatives, identifies the range of alternatives considered for Segment 3 to address the transportation problems identified in Section 1. It also identifies the alternatives retained for further study in this EA and the preferred Segment 3 alternative. • Section 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences, describes the general environment for each resource affected by the proposed improvements. It also describes the potential environmental impacts of the Segment 3 Project and methods to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts. • Section 4, Disposition, lists the agencies and organizations that will receive copies of this EA and the locations at which this EA will be available for public review. • Section 5, Comments and Coordination, summarizes the agency coordination and public involvement efforts in conjunction with the Segment 3 Project. • Section 6, Conclusion and Recommendation, summarizes resource impacts. • Section 7, References, lists the sources cited in this EA. For Segment 3, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) determined that an EA is the appropriate level of Tier 2 study to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. The primary purpose of an EA is to clearly establish the significance of a project’s environmental impacts. That analysis is included in this document.

Federal Highway Administration Finding of No Signification Impact, September 2011

Description of the Proposed Action The Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) propose to improve a 3.9-mile segment of Iowa Highway 86 (IA 86) from Iowa Highway 9 (IA 9) to near the Minnesota border within Dickinson County, Iowa (the Project). The existing IA 86 has narrow travel lanes and shoulders, steep foreslopes, and poor vertical alignment. Environmental Assessment Availability The Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project was signed on June 30, 2011, and distributed to selected federal, state, and local resource agencies on July 5, 2011, for review and comment. A Notice of Public Hearing and Environmental Assessment Availability was published in the legal section of the Estherville Daily News on July 5, 2011, and the Ocheyedan Press-Melvin News and Dickinson County News on July 6, 2011. Review and Comment Period A review and comment period was established for receipt of comments on the EA, with an expiration date of August 8, 2011. A public hearing for the Project was held at the Dickinson County Courthouse on July 21, 2011. The public hearing used a combined open forum and formal format. A transcript of this meeting has been prepared and is available upon request.

Highway Maintenance Concept Vehicle, June 2002

This report documents Phase IV of the Highway Maintenance Concept Vehicle (HMCV) project, a pooled fund study sponsored by the Departments of Transportation of Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. This report provides the background, including a brief history of the earlier phases of the project, a systems overview, and descriptions of the research conducted in Phase IV. Finally, the report provides conclusions and recommendations for future research. Background The goal of the Highway Maintenance Concept Vehicle Pooled Fund Study is to provide travelers with the level of service defined by policy during the winter season at the least cost to taxpayers. This goal is to be accomplished by using information regarding actual road conditions to facilitate and adjust snow and ice control activities. The approach used in this study was to bring technology applications from other industries to the highway maintenance vehicle. This approach is evolutionary in that as emerging technologies and applications are found to be acceptable to the pooled fund states and as they appear that to have potential for supporting the study goals they become candidates for our research. The objective of Phase IV is to: Conduct limited deployment of selected technologies from Phase III by equipping a vehicle with proven advanced technologies and creating a mobile test laboratory for collecting road weather data. The research quickly pointed out that investments in winter storm maintenance assets must be based on benefit/cost analysis and related to improving level of service. For example, Iowa has estimated the average cost of fighting a winter storm to be about $60,000 to $70,000 per hour typically. The maintenance concept vehicle will have advanced technology equipment capable of applying precisely the correct amount of material, accurately tailored to the existing and predicted pavement conditions. Hence, a state using advanced technology could expect to have a noticeable impact on the average time taken to establish the winter driving service level. If the concept vehicle and data produced by the vehicle are used to support decision-making leading to reducing material usage and the average time by one hour, a reasonable benefit/cost will result. Data from the friction meter can be used to monitor and adjust snow and ice control activities and inform travelers of pavement surface conditions. Therefore, final selection of successfully performing technologies will be based on the foundation statements and criteria developed by the study team.

Concrete Pavement Construction Basics, June 2006

General principles • Everyone at the construction site, particularly foremen and supervisors, is responsible for recognizing and troubleshooting potential problems as they arise. • Batches of concrete should be consistent and uniformly mixed. • A major cause of pavement failure is unstable subgrade. The subgrade should consist of uniform material, and the subgrade system must drain well. • Dowel bars are important for load transfer at transverse joints on pavements with high truck volumes. Dowels must be carefully aligned, horizontally and vertically, to prevent pavement damage at the joints. • Stringlines control the slipform paver’s horizontal and vertical movement and ensure a smooth pavement profile. Once stringlines are set, they should be checked often and not disturbed. • Overfinishing the new pavement and/or adding water to the surface can lead to pavement surface problems. If the concrete isn’t sufficiently workable, crews should contact the project manager. Changes to the mixture or to paver equipment may reduce the problem. • Proper curing is critical to preventing pavement damage from rapid moisture loss at the pavement surface. • A well spaced and constructed system of joints is critical to prevent random cracking. • Joints are simply controlled cracks. They must be sawed during the brief time after the pavement has gained enough strength to prevent raveling but before it begins to crack randomly (the “sawing window”). • Seasonal and daily weather variations affect setting time and other variables in new concrete. Construction operations should be adjusted appropriately.

Guide Specification for Highway Construction Texturing Concrete Pavement for Reduced Tire/Pavement Noise using Diamond Grinding, March 1, 2011

This document provides language that can be used by an Owner-Agency to develop materials and construction specifications with the objective of reducing tire/pavement noise. While the practices described herein are largely prescriptive, they have been demonstrated to increase the likelihood of constructing a durable, quieter concrete surface.