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.

Optimization and Management of Materials in Earthwork Construction, TR-501, 2010

As a result of forensic investigations of problems across Iowa, a research study was developed aimed at providing solutions to identified problems through better management and optimization of the available pavement geotechnical materials and through ground improvement, soil reinforcement, and other soil treatment techniques. The overall goal was worked out through simple laboratory experiments, such as particle size analysis, plasticity tests, compaction tests, permeability tests, and strength tests. A review of the problems suggested three areas of study: pavement cracking due to improper management of pavement geotechnical materials, permeability of mixed-subgrade soils, and settlement of soil above the pipe due to improper compaction of the backfill. This resulted in the following three areas of study: (1) The optimization and management of earthwork materials through general soil mixing of various select and unsuitable soils and a specific example of optimization of materials in earthwork construction by soil mixing; (2) An investigation of the saturated permeability of compacted glacial till in relation to validation and prediction with the Enhanced Integrated Climatic Model (EICM); and (3) A field investigation and numerical modeling of culvert settlement. For each area of study, a literature review was conducted, research data were collected and analyzed, and important findings and conclusions were drawn. It was found that optimum mixtures of select and unsuitable soils can be defined that allow the use of unsuitable materials in embankment and subgrade locations. An improved model of saturated hydraulic conductivity was proposed for use with glacial soils from Iowa. The use of proper trench backfill compaction or the use of flowable mortar will reduce the potential for developing a bump above culverts.