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.

Multiflora rose and its control,1992

This pamphlet describes Multiflora Rose and how to control it.

Liability and Traffic Control Considerations for Low Water Stream Crossings, HR-218, 1981

The current shortage of highway funds precludes the immediate replacement of most of the bridges that have been evaluated as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete or both. A low water stream crossing (LWSC) affords an economical alternative to the replacement of a bridge with another bridge in many instances. However, the potential liability that might be incurred from the use of LWSCs has served as a deterrent to their use. Nor have guidelines for traffic control devices been developed for specific application to LWSCs. This research addressed the problems of liability and traffic control associated with the use of LWSCs. Input to the findings from this research was provided by several persons contacted by telephone plus 189 persons who responded to a questionnaire concerning their experience with LWSCs. It was concluded from this research that a significant potential for accidents and liability claims could result from the use of LWSCs. However, it was also concluded that this liability could be reduced to within acceptable limits if adequate warning of the presence of an LWSC were afforded to road users. The potential for accidents and liability could further be reduced if vehicular passage over an LWSC were precluded during periods when the road was flooded. Under these conditions, it is believed, the potential for liability from the use of an LWSC on an unpaved, rural road would be even less than that resulting from the continuing use of an inadequate bridge. The signs recommended for use in advance of an LWSC include two warning signs and one regulatory sign with legends as follows: FLOOD AREA AHEAD, IMPASSABLE DURING HIGH WATER, DO NOT ENTER WHEN FLOODED. Use of the regulatory sign would require an appropriate resolution by the Board of Supervisors having responsibility for a county road. Other recommendations include the optional use of either a supple mental distance advisory plate or an advisory speed plate, or both, under circumstances where these may be needed. It was also recommended HR-218 Liability & Traffic Control Considerations for Low Water Stream Crossings that LWSCs be used only on unpaved roads and that they not be used in locations where flooding of an LWSC would deprive dwelling places of emergency ground access.

Heat Dissipation and Crack Control in Massive Concrete at the Burlington Bridge, MLR-94-1, 1995

The large concrete placements at the Burlington Bridge were expected to cause great temperature differentials within the individual placements. In an attempt to reduce cracking due to the large temperature differentials, the Iowa Department of Transportation required that contractors continuously monitor the temperatures and temperature differentials in the concrete placement to assure that the temperature differentials did not exceed 35 deg F. It was felt that if temperature differentials remained below 35 deg F, cracking would be minimized. The following is a summary of the background of the project, and what occurred during individual concrete placements. The following conclusions were drawn: 1) Side temperatures are cooler and more greatly affected by ambient air temperatures; 2) When the 35 deg F limit was exceeded, it was almost exclusively the center to side differential; 3) The top temperature increases substantially when a new pour is placed; 4) The use of ice and different cement types did seem to affect the overall temperature gain and the amount of time taken for any one placement to reach a peak, but did not necessarily prevent the differentials from exceeding the 35 deg F limit, nor prevent cracking in any placement; and 5) Larger placements have a greater tendency to exceed the differential limit.