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.

Evaluation of DuroTrim Vegetation Control Mats, HR-2090, 2002

The routine maintenance along Iowa's highways and roadways during the summer growing season is a time consuming and costly endeavor. Trimming around guardrail posts and delineator posts is especially costly due to the handwork required. Trimming costs account for approximately 50% of the shoulder mowing costs according to expense figures obtained from the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT), Office of Maintenance. The FY 2001 statewide trimming costs for the Iowa DOT was approximately $430,000 ($305,000 labor, $125,000 equipment and materials). This product would be required to perform well for 9-21 years, on average, in order to recoup the cost of installation. This includes the durability of the product, but not the cost of repair due to traffic damage, snowplow and wing damage, or damage caused by mowing operations. Maintenance costs associated with vegetation creep over the mats and repair costs would extend the required service life. As a result of resource realignment, the Iowa DOT roadside maintenance policy, for FY 2003 and the future, will be to eliminate trimming around delineator posts unless the reflector is obstructed. This policy change will effectively eliminate the need for weed control mats due to the significant reduction in trimming. The use of the weed control mats could be justified in areas that are dangerous to maintenance workers such as guardrail installations in high traffic areas. Because the delineator posts are further from the edge of the traveled roadway, there is a reduced risk to the maintenance workforce while hand trimming. Because the DuroTrim Vegetation Control Mats appear to have performed adequately in the field trial, they could be considered for use, where safety conditions warrant. That use should be limited, however, due to the considerable initial cost and changes in Iowa DOT roadside maintenance policy. Application should be limited to instances where the use of the DuroTrim Vegetation Control Mats would have a significant impact on the safety of the roadside maintenance workers. The cost savings, due to the elimination of the trimming and mowing alone, is not enough to justify their use in most situations at their current cost. The test sections will continue to be monitored periodically so that approximate service life can be determined.

Successful Tree Planting, March 2002

Advance planning, proper species selection, site preparation, careful handling of tree seedlings, and a good weed control program will help assure a successful tree planting. A commitment to plant with care, is an important first step that leads to successful establishment of tree and shrub seedlings.

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.

Portable School Stop Signs and Other Non-Uniform School Stop Control Devices, HR-190, 1978

Portable (roll-out) stop signs are used at school crossings in over 300 cities in Iowa. Their use conforms to the Code of Iowa, although it is not consistent with the provisions of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices adopted for nationwide application. A survey indicated that most users in Iowa believe that portable stop signs provide effective protection at school crossings, and favor their continued use. Other non-uniform signs that fold or rotate to display a STOP message only during certain hours are used at school crossings in over 60 cities in Iowa. Their use does not conform to either the Code of Iowa or the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Users of these devices also tend to favor their continued use. A survey of other states indicated that use of temporary devices similar to those used in Iowa is not generally sanctioned. Some unsanctioned use apparently occurs in several states, however. A different type of portable stop sign for school crossings is authorized and widely used in one state. Portable stop signs similar to those used in Iowa are authorized in another state, although their use is quite limited. A few reports in the literature reviewed for this research discussed the use of portable stop signs. The authors of these reports uniformly recommended against the use of portable or temporary traffic control devices. Various reasons for this recommendation were given, although data to support the recommendation were not offered. As part of this research, field surveys were conducted at 54 locations in 33 communities where temporary stop control devices were in use at school crossings. Research personnel observed the obedience to stop control and measured the vehicular delay incurred. Stopped delay averaged 1.89 seconds/entering vehicle. Only 36.6 percent of the vehicles were observed to come to a complete stop at the study locations controlled by temporary stop control devices. However, this level of obedience does not differ from that observed at intersections controlled by permanent stop signs. Accident experience was compiled for 76 intersections in 33 communities in Iowa where temporary stop signs were used and, for comparative purposes, at 76 comparable intersections having other forms of control or operating without stop control. There were no significant differences in accident experience An economic analysis of vehicle operating costs, delay costs, and other costs indicated that temporary stop control generated costs only about 12 percent as great as permanent stop control for a street having a school crossing. Midblock pedestrian-actuated signals were shown to be cost effective in comparison with temporary stop signs under the conditions of use assumed. Such signals could be used effectively at a number of locations where temporary stop signs are being used. The results of this research do not provide a basis for recommending that use of portable stop signs be prohibited. However, erratic patterns of use of these devices and inadequate designs suggest that improved standards for their use are needed. Accordingly, nine recommendations are presented to enhance the efficiency of vehicular flow at school crossings, without causing a decline in the level of pedestrian protection being afforded.