This forum is intended primarily as a venue to present viewpoints on issues relevant to roadside vegetation management.  We welcome original postings, responses to current postings, as well as updates.  To submit an entry, click HERE

Summary of the 16th Annual Roadside Vegetation Management Conference

Presentations, 7/18/01

Pesticide Container Recycling
Net Present Value - Vegetation Control Cost Analysis
Interaction of White-tailed Deer and Roadside Vegetation

Field Day, 7/19/01

Pesticide Container Recycling-chipper/bagger
Peripheral Mower
Pot-in-Pot Nursery Stock Production
Quick and Dirty Rooting Demonstration
Interchange Ailanthus Removal and Beautification
Crownvetch as a Weed in Formula L Conversions
Selective Thistle Management in Crownvetch, Revisited
Dry Herbicide Injector Demonstration
SR 6026 Landscaping Installation Issues
Planting Design
Plant Material Inspection
Seed Mixes for Slopes
Brown Brush Monitor Demonstration
Hydro-Ax Brush Mower Demonstration
Gyro-Trac Brush Mower Demonstration
Brown Tree Cutter Demonstration
Asplundh Right-of-Way Trimmer Demonstration

Presentations, 7/20/01

Significant Natural Communites along PA Roadsides
Guidelines for Landscape Inspection during Construction
Perry County Ailanthus Removal Project Update

SUMMARY

16th Annual Roadside Vegetation Management Conference
July 18-20, 2001
State College, PA

WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, THE ATHERTON HOTEL

Tree Identification Workshop

      Dr. Robert Nuss, retired Professor of Ornamental Horticulture at Penn State provided a 60 minute indoor session, and three-hour outdoor session on tree identification, focusing on oaks and needle-leaved evergreens.

PDA Pesticide Container Recycling Program - Phil Pitzer, PA Department of Ag.

Phil provided an update on PDA's pesticide container recycling program.

• - no cost to participants
  - only for #2 HDPE pesticide containers that are visibly pesticide residue-free
  - PDA provides the dumpster-like storage container, and delivers to your site
  - The storage container can hold 800-1000 2.5 gallons jugs
  - When the on-site storage container is full, PDA comes and chips the jugs
  - The chips are sold and reenter the material-stream for plastics manufacture
  

Net Present Value: Vegetation Management Cost Analysis - Sam Quattrocchi, Dow AgroSciences

Sam provided a conceptual framework for incorporating deferred cost analysis into vegetation management programming.

Basic Premises:

• - vegetation management is necessary to maintain obstacle clearance, sight distance, surface drainage
      integrity, and road surface integrity.
  - in the life-span of a road surface (interval between reconstruction) vegetation will invariably
      continue to expand horizontally and vertically, and encroach on the travel corridor.
  - It costs more to control large vegetation than small vegetation, and this cost increase over time,
      particularly for trees, is exponential in nature (greater than a linear increase).
  - Vegetation management programming should incorporate the increased future cost of operations that
      are deferred into the budgeting and planning process.
  
  

The presentation was conceptual in nature, but Sam offered to work individually with each District and implement a deferred-cost budgeting analysis, utilizing the District's current data.

Interaction of White-tail Deer and Roadside Vegetation - George Kelly, Deer Biologist, PA Game Commission

      Deer will be in the vicinity of the travel lanes either because they need to cross the road to get to where they want to be, or because of foraging opportunities by the road. Grass is not a preferred food source for deer at any time of year, but in the absence of more palatable foods, they will graze tender shoots. Keeping the corridor adjacent to the roadway as a grass area will:

• - eliminate woody browse that will attract deer in the dormant months
  - eliminate the screening effect of brush, and provide more reaction time for motorists
  

THURSDAY, JULY 19 - FIELD DAY

Stop One - Penn State Landscape Management Research Center

Pesticide Container Recycling Demonstration

      Phil Pitzer arranged for the container chipping unit to be on-site, and demonstrated the unit in action. The chipper produces a fine particle, less than 0.25 in, which allows for fairly dense packaging of the chips. A plastic-mesh 'Super Sack' is used, and when full, holds several hundred pounds of chipped #2 HDPE.

Peripheral Mower

      John Darden of Peripheral Mower, Inc., demonstrated two mowers, a 48-inch unit mounted on a zero-turn radius landscape mower, and a 60-inch three-point hitch unit on a 25 hp tractor. The peripheral mower features a gang of blades on a horizontally-oriented shaft (like a flail mower) that reduces the mowers ability to throw struck objects, both due to both to the small radius from axle to cutting surface-and therefore reduced blade speed, as well as the ability of the individual blades to slip on the axle when then they strike an object providing sufficient resistance. Another proposed benefit of this design is reduced power requirements. The energy savings is partly due to not needing power to generate the 'suction' effect utilized by rotary mowers. The mower was demonstrated at a fairly low (2 inches), as well as a high (4 to 5 inches) cut. The unit was certainly capable of producing an acceptable quality of cut for utility areas at either setting, but did fail to cleanly cut switchgrass clumps (about 42 inches tall, 8 inches across at base) at the higher setting - the side of clump away from the approaching mower was pushed down before it could be cut cleanly. Smaller grasses such as previously unmowed tall fescue or fine fescues were cut cleanly, however.

Pot-in-Pot Nursery Stock Production

      Jim Sellmer, Rick Bates, and Larry Kuhns of Penn State's Department of Horticulture established a pot-in-pot (PIP) nursery at the LMRC in the spring of 2001. Larry Kuhns explained the production system to the group, and some of the potential benefits in terms of species availability for roadside plantings. PIP is a hybrid of container and field nursery production that features benefits from both systems. The system features pots that slip inside pots sunk into the soil. The pot the tree is in can be treated with a copper-based product called Spin-Out® that prevents circling roots and promotes a fibrous root system, even in normally taprooted species such as oaks and hickories. The growing medium is soilless, and is therefore much lighter than soil. The PIP system then provides an easier to handle plant, a wider species selection, no root loss at 'harvest', and a shorter production cycle. Potential drawbacks are increased watering requirements after planting due the soilless growing medium, and (currently) reduced availability of larger stock sizes.


Quick and Dirty Rooting Demonstration

      Soil clumps from crownvetch (Formula C), fine fescue (Formula L), and big bluestem (part of the proposed new-and-improved Formula A) were dropped to demonstrate the capacity of the different root systems to hold the soil together. Though very qualitative in nature, the demonstration clearly showed that the grasses are superior at holding soil together compared to crownvetch. Crownvetch's strength as a reclamation plant is soil surface coverage, rather than soil binding.

      The root architecture of crownvetch is characterized by relatively few, thickened roots that comprise most of the mass. Grasses on the other hand feature many fine roots that explore the same volume of soil more thoroughly, providing better binding of the soil. Warm-season grasses such as big bluestem, little bluestem, Indiangrass, or switchgrass are better adapted to lower quality, disturbed sites than cool-season grasses such as the fescues, and root more deeply and extensively. They are planted at lower densities however, and will tend to provide less percent soil cover than a crownvetch planting. One of the objectives of our ongoing investigations into reclamation mixes will be trying to develop warm-season grass-based mixtures that will provide the groundcover of Formula C, while providing the superior soil-stabilization of grasses.

Stop Two - SR 26 and University Drive interchange

Interchange Ailanthus Removal and Beautification

      The northeast quadrant of the SR 26/University Drive interchange is the site of an effort to convert an ailanthus infestation to a 'beautified' interchange featuring native woody and groundcover species.

      The ailanthus was cut and stump-treated by District 2-0 contract forces during January, 2000. In March, 2000, Penn State Project personnel removed woody debris from the site, consolidated wood chip piles, and broadcast little bluestem at 5 lb PLS/ac after the soil surface was loosened using the teeth with a skid-steer bucket. The intent of the seeding was try to get the little bluestem established prior to the crownvetch regrowth developing a full canopy, then treating the crownvetch with selective herbicides to leave the young grasses. The crownvetch was treated May 24, using Garlon 4, Vanquish, and Plateau at 24, 8, and 4 oz/ac, respectively, applied at 5 gal/ac using Thinvert. The crownvetch control was good, but this establishment attempt saw only limited success, and is not an approach we would recommend. The existing undesirable vegetation should be eliminated prior to seeding warm season grasses when a uniform stand is desired. This operation is an example of the borderline futility to be experienced when trying to replace an existing stand of crownvetch. Clearly, you must be truly dedicated to having non-crownvetch to accomplish this. Existing crownvetch is a difficult to control perennial plant, and older stands have a tremendous seed bank. We anticipated difficulty with the crownvetch, and this is why there are no forbs in the seeding mixtures. If forbs are introduced in the future, they will be established plants placed in clusters.

      The ailanthus resprouts and crownvetch were treated June 16, 2000, using a mix of Garlon 4, Vanquish, and SilWet L-77 at 64 oz/ac, 16 oz/ac, and 0.1% v/v, respectively; applied in 15 gal/acre using backpack sprayers. Ailanthus sprouts were treated, and the native trees and shrubs were planted in September, 2000, by students in Penn State's Landscape Contracting major, as part of a class project. All woody plantings were mulched with black plastic with a layer of wood chips on top.

      On May 9, 2001, broadleaved weeds were spot treated with a mixture of Garlon 3A plus Vanquish at 4 plus 1 percent, v/v, using backpack sprayers. The site was disked twice and seeded to a mix of little bluestem, big bluestem, Indiangrass, deertongue, purpletop, Canada wildrye, and hairy wildrye, at 16 lb PLS/acre, on May 22, 2001. Bank areas were seeded to a mix of hard fescue, creeping red fescue, and annual ryegrass (Formula L - 55, 35, and 10 percent, respectively) at 100 lb/acre. The results of the May 9 application were disappointing, and retreatment was necessary. On July 11, the areas planted to the native grasses were treated with Garlon 3A plus Vanquish at 32 plus 8 oz/acre, respectively.

      In the week prior to the field day, the taller weeds in the tree and shrub area, primarily plumeless thistle and Canada thistle, were cut using motorized trimmers. Herbicide application was limited in close proximity to the small trees to limit injury, particularly since the weeds were fairly tall. Trying to spray tall weeds around small trees with broadleaf herbicides is a recipe for disaster, and there were instances from the May application where herbicide injury symptoms were noticeable on the foliage of the young trees.

      The planting is not at a stage yet where it is 'ornamental'. The native grasses are not well established, and the trees are small. The ailanthus is still respouting, but has been held in check. None of the elements employed will provide instant impact, and we are fine with that. It was understood from the outset that with the resources that were available, it would be several years before the plan would come to visible fruition.

Stop Three - stayed on bus

Crownvetch as a Weed in Formula L Conversions

      We viewed a site (from the bus) on SR 322 at the end of the Mt Nittany Expressway that looked like an old crownvetch planting with Canada thistle in it. It was. It was also an area that had been converted from crownvetch/Canada thistle to Formula L in the fall of 1993, and seen during the field day in 1994. In the intervening period, the successful conversion was overrun by crownvetch, and has returned to its original thistle- infested state, with almost no trace of the fine fescue to be found.

      It's like the game rock-paper-scissors. Canada thistle beats crownvetch, crownvetch beats Formula L, and Formula L beats Canada thistle. You
have to choose the weed you want to manage in this situation. Is it easier to manage crownvetch as a weed in your grass, or Canada thistle as a weed
in your crownvetch?

      We would argue that managing dicots (broadleaf weeds) in grass is somewhat easier than managing thistle in crownvetch. Some of this is agronomic, some of this is institutional.

      You can mow grass when you have weeds in it. There is an institutional bias against mowing crownvetch, but you can do it - you really can.

      Herbicide selection for use in crownvetch is largely limited to Velpar and Plateau. Velpar effectively topkills Canada thistle in crownvetch, and if used persistently over several seasons should eventually provide control. Velpar also has a fairly broad species spectrum, and will control biennials thistles and poison hemlock, annuals such as mile-a-minute, and will at least defoliate most brush. Plateau will top-kill thistle in crownvetch in the spring, and should be even more effective in the fall. Our use has been limited to one late-October evaluation and that wasn't effective. The advantage of a grass groundcover is that there are several systemic herbicides available that will provide control of Canada thistle, other broadleaved weeds, and brush and not injure the turf. These herbicides are more effective than Velpar because they translocate to the root system, and cause greater injury to the thistle.

Stop Four - SR 322 W/SR 45 interchange

Selective Thistle Management in Crownvetch, Revisited

      Canada thistle management in crownvetch was one of the primary objectives of the research project at its initiation in 1985. After several years of investigation, we decided that Velpar seemed to be the best selective tool, but that it was not good enough - it would have to be applied annually. Our efforts transitioned to replacing the crownvetch/thistle complex with Formula L, whereupon we discovered that the Formula L would require nearly annual maintenance to prevent crownvetch from re-establishing from it's seemingly bottomless seedbank. Crownvetch grows above the low-growing fine fescues and smothers them. Once the crownvetch is re-established, thistle can become reestablished (see previous stop). This then puts the question of approach into these terms - which weed do you want to manage? Do you want to manage thistle in crownvetch, or crownvetch in Formula L? Neither would be the preferred option, but once thistle appears in crownvetch, the 'neither' option only works until somebody calls the Department of Agriculture about your thistle garden. Then you have to choose.

      This stop demonstrated selective herbicide options and the effect of mowing on Canada thistle seed production.

      The herbicide plots were Velpar DF at 21 oz/acre, Plateau at 12 oz/acre, or the combination of Velpar DF and Plateau at 21 plus 12 oz/acre, respectively. These three plots were applied at 80 gal/acre, on June 7, 2001. The fourth herbicide plot was Velpar DF at 21 oz/acre in Thinvert, applied at 5 gal/acre, applied June 8, 2001.

      The mowing treatment was initiated on June 8, 2001, when the Canada thistle was still in bud stage. This area was mowed with a rotary mower set at a five-inch cutting height.

      All four herbicide treatments provided encouraging results. The Velpar at 80 gal/acre plot had some Tartarian honeysuckle, which was treated and largely defoliated. The Velpar/Thinvert plot was a mixed stand of crownvetch and grass, and showed the phytotoxicity of Velpar to grasses. The control of Canada thistle and the biennial plumeless thistle was very good.

      The mowing treatment greatly reduced flowering of the thistle, and showed no apparent detriment to the crownvetch. It was shorter than the adjacent unmowed plot, but had regrown vigorously. Based on this area, on observations relayed from District 3-0, as well as flowering behavior of other perennials, there is a definite optimum timing to mow Canada thistle to prevent flowering and seed set. Our timing was a little early to completely prevent flowering, but was effective. Our guess it that there is a two to three week window where mowing will effectively reduce seed set, ranging from early bud to late bloom stage. Plants mowed early in the window will send up new shoots and some will flower. At the late bloom stage, many plants will already have nearly ripened seed. Mowing will effectively prevent further maturation of the seed, but most likely will not damage intact flower heads, which will probably still open after they've been cut.

      There is enough crownvetch in mowable terrain in thistle-plagued areas of the state that mowing could be implemented as a regular practice.

Stop Five - SR 6026, Section C05 Construction Project

Dry Herbicide Injector Demonstration

      Ed Bell of Mid-Atlantic Vegetation Management, Inc., graciously provided the services of his Operations Manager, Jim Weikel, and their spray truck equipped with the FlowServe dry injection unit. Their unit was factory configured to be added to a Mid-Tech controller (configuration for a Raven system is another option). This unit allows for the in-line injection of dry herbicides. The current capacity of the unit allows for up to 1.33 lbs of dry herbicide over a 20 ft swath width. The manufacturer is in the development stages of increasing the units capacity so that diuron could be used at current application rates. Two similar units have been used in the southeast U.S. for Oust applications, and Mid-Atlantic has used their unit extensively for applications of Velpar DF at 21 oz/acre, and Escort applications up to 0.5 oz/acre. Jim demonstrated the calibration of the injector unit, which follows the same procedure as liquid injector calibration, except of course that you measure your pump output with a portable digital scale, rather than with a graduated cylinder.

      Increasing the unit's capacity to handle diuron herbicides at current use rates (up to 8 lbs/acre) will provide the first all-injection scenario that does not require any pre-handling (i.e. slurry preparation) of herbicides, liquid or dry.

SR 6026 Landscaping Installation Issues

      Kevin Hoover, Inspector-in-Charge, provided an overview of the scope of this segment of the I-99 construction. The CO5 segment is due for completion in October, 2001. This segment runs from the new bridges spanning SR 144, to the interchange with the Bellefonte Bypass (SR 26).

      Several issues were addressed as tour participants walked among several of the plantings. Clearly, we understand that many of the difficulties associated with landscape development on construction projects are due to the very minor role that the landscaping plays in an eight-to-nine figure construction projects. Clearly, the inspection expertise on a project has to be oriented towards the elements contributing directly to the integrity of the roadway.

      This, however, does not excuse us from identifying inadequacies and trying to devise means to address them within the current scheme of things, as well as trying to develop a better scheme to accomplish quality landscape implementations within the scope of huge highway construction projects.

Planting Design

      Two issues come to mind here - planting location and layout of the planting.

      This project demonstrated both desirable and undesirable locations. Taking advantage of open space at interchanges, in areas where drivers have an opportunity to safely glance at the landscape is a desirable feature. Undesirable locations tended to be planting salt-sensitive white pine too close to the roadway, and attempts to 'soften' bridge structures. These structure-softening plantings were in locations that were not readily viewed by motorists, either due to obscurement due to landscape location, or because the planting were in locations where drivers should not be looking away from the road. In addition to this, some the plantings were placed so that they would be extensively shaded by the bridge. It is not practical to try to soften the appearance of a 1000 foot long bridge with shrub beds and several shade trees, even large-growing species such as London planetree. This bridge exists on a visual scale that cannot be impacted by ornamental plantings.

      Put plantings where they can be seen and enjoyed, at a safe distance from the travel lanes.

      The second issue is planting layout, specifically spacing. In general, plantings feature too much space between trees. The reasons for this are several, but they are arguably immaterial. There is no good reason to isolate trees in a beautification planting because there are too many benefits to clustered plantings, including:

• - preventing death-by-maintenance, when mowers run between, and into trees
  - enhanced aesthetic impact - more of a focal point
  - planting in beds with shared rooting space free of competing vegetation promotes more vigorous growth
  - ease of maintenance - it's easier to maintain one large bed than multiple tree circles
  - ease of establishment - it's easier to prepare and improve the soil in a large bed than many planting holes.
  

      Let's review situations where non-optimal plantings have resulted.

      Literal translation of construction plans - we hear of situations where tree placement is done to precisely match plant placement as shown on construction diagrams, regardless of quality of the site after earth moving. This is not a good practice. Planting designs are put on the plan before earth has been moved. Planting designs are not properly scaled because the circles indicating individual trees are too big (they anticipate mature size on good sites), and we are told that they cannot overlap in the CAD layout. Planting locations and layouts on highway construction plans must be regarded as suggested. If inspectors are going to literally interpret plans (particularly in Districts where Roadside Specialists are not involved in construction projects), then a different method of drafting needs to be employed. Rather than placing circles for each and every plant on the map, simply indicate the approximate planting location, a square footage for the planting bed preparation (see below), and a list of plants. This provides all the detail needed for bid specifications, but allows for an adaptive plant layout to be employed.

      Lack of site preparation - adoption of clustered plantings should also then entail implementation of Shrub Bed Preparation as described in Section 808.3(c) of Publication 408. Prior to incorporation of organic material or compost, the planting area should be loosened. Common landscape-quality, tractor-mounted rototillers may not be rugged enough to loosen construction site soils sufficiently.. Our experience on this project site indicated that a grader-mounted ripper/scarifier is ideal, and brutally quick. After loosening with the scarifier, and removal of the large rocks, a rototiller could be used to incorporate the soil amendments. After bed preparation, there would be no need for planting hole amendments. Additionally, the holes could be dug very quickly in the loosened, prepared soil; compared to the effort of trying to dig a series of holes in disturbed, compacted, and destroyed soils.

      Tree/Shrub Species Selection - This will always be a source of disagreement because there are many philosophies of planting design. However, following a few basic principles will prevent many planting failures.

      Salt sensitivity - there only a few species that are highly salt-sensitive, but white pine is one of them. Keep white pines out of the corridor where salt spray is prevalent.

      Alkaline-induced iron deficiency - pin oak and scarlet oak are susceptible to this. Many PA soils are limestone derived. Planting bottomland species on dry, high pH sites is a recipe for failure.

      Post-construction soils tend to be shallower, more compact, and have less organic matter than the soils present prior to construction. Tree and shrub species selection should focus on plants adapted naturally to drier, low-quality sites, regardless of what might be considered an appropriate plant for a locality prior to construction.

Plant Material Inspection

      There instances on-site where trees were tagged with incorrect species names, or incorrect cultivar names. These tags were generic, handwritten tags, and suggested premeditated misidentification. Plant material should have tags from the nursery with the nursery's name and location. In addition, the Department should implement a more intensive inspection, either by using a specialist-inspector when the plants arrive on site, or actually mark the plants in the nursery with a numbered tag system that would allow tracking of each plant. A checklist scheme could be developed that any diligent inspector, regardless of horticultural training, could use on site.

      Plants need to be inspected for both aboveground and belowground quality. Simply relying on the one year guarantee will not suffice. Low quality plants can survive the required one year on site. These plants rarely become vigorous plants. It is important to be able to locate the root flare at the base of the trunk. As we saw on the construction site, with both pin oaks and London planetree, it is possible for viable plants to show up on site with their original root flare being buried nine inches deep. Such trees have even less of their root system than a properly cultured ball-and-burlap tree, and are much more likely to come to an untimely end, after the guarantee period.

      On-site inspection needs to be made with trunk tape removed, to prevent obscurement of stem defects.

Seed Mixes for Slopes

      This construction project featured no use of Formula C (crownvetch with annual ryegrass cover crop). There are arguments for not using crownvetch, such as its weediness, or the superior soil-binding of perennial warm season grasses. However, there are currently no alternatives to Formula C in Publication 408 for highly disturbed sites. Formulas D, L, or W are not adapted to the poor site conditions typical to cut and fill slopes. These seedings will provide less cover than would be achieved with Formula C, and may simply fail to establish.

      We have established two trials on one of the fill slopes on the project to evaluate a warm-season grass-based mixture. This mixture (we refer to this as Formula A) contains big bluestem, little bluestem, Indiangrass, Canada wildrye, and showy ticktrefoil.

      One trial is a comparison of Formula A and Formula C. The other trial is a comparison of Formula A with and without switchgrass. Switchgrass is the most vigorous of the grasses we are considering for reclamation seedings, but we have concerns about its weediness in the future. Where present along highways, it seems to readily colonize behind guiderails. As long as it is behind the guiderail, this is fine. However, should switchgrass or any other perennial warm season grass become established in front of the guiderail.

      These trials were seeded in May, 2001. They will be viewed during the 2004 Field Day.

      We are investigating alternative mixtures to Formula C because we feel a warm-season grass mix has advantages over crownvetch. Warm-season grasses are more tolerant of drought and low pH than crownvetch. Grasses bind soil together better than crownvetch, and a stand of warm-season grasses provides better wildlife cover and food value than crownvetch. Also, these grasses are native and highly aesthetic. The Department can only benefit if it is able maintain roadway functionality while improving aesthetics and biodiversity along the state's highways.

      An issue that will have to be addressed in seed mix evaluations is groundcover. As pointed out during the first stop (see 'Quick and Dirty Rooting Demonstration' above), crownvetch is very effective at covering the soil surface, and less effective at holding soil together. The warm-season grasses are very effective at holding the soil together, and less effective at completely covering the soil at their preferred planting density. Once warm-season grasses are fully established, they will provide the soil cover year round with their persistent residue. However, during the first few seasons after seeding, additional cover will need to be provided by some other component of the mix. A short-lived, low growing species would be ideal. We will be investigating several approaches, such as weeping lovegrass; short-lived legumes; perennial cool-season grasses such as the fescues, which would establish, then fade on some sites; and perhaps even reduced seeding rates of crownvetch. Crownvetch will peacefully co-exist with several of the warm-season grasses. If it is necessary to treat broadleaf weeds in a crownvetch/warm-season grass seeding, the crownvetch could be sacrificed - by the time weeds could become problematic, the grasses would be well established and the crownvetch would not be needed any more.

      Stay tuned. We will be searching for sites to conduct these seed mix evaluations. If you are aware of good sites in your district, either due to revitalization, construction, or reconstruction, please let us know.

Stop Six - SR 26 N, Bellefonte Bypass

Brown Brush Monitor Demonstration

      This demonstration was made possible the generosity and efforts of Dow AgroSciences, Arborchem, and Asplundh.

      The Brown Brush Monitor is a recent development in the industry's efforts to combine mowing and herbicide application into a single pass operation. The Brush Monitor combines the technology of Brown's tractor-mounted, three point hitch brush mower line with an application system that brushes an herbicide solution onto the just-cut stumps. This approach differs from the Lucas-64 and the Burch Wet Blade. The Lucas-64 sprayed herbicide solution under the mower deck and it was deposited on all surfaces under the deck, including the vegetation. The Burch Wet Blade system relies on the aerodynamic qualities of its blades to keep herbicide solution on the lower surface of the blade, which is deposited on the surface of the cut stem as the blade passes through it.

      The Brush Monitor relies on two chambers - the cutting and discharge chamber, and the herbicide application chamber. This system keeps the herbicide application equipment separate from the flying debris in the cutting chamber. The application chamber features nozzles directed at the cut stems, as well as scrapers and brushes to further expose and treat cambium tissue on the remaining stumps.

      The Brush Monitor can handle brush up to three inches in diameter. Herbicides solution is supplied to the mower at a fixed flow rate, so application rate is dependent upon ground speed. Where brush density is low, ground speed will be faster, and application rate will be lower. Conversely, where brush density is high, ground speed will be reduced, and application rate will be higher.

      The area where the unit was demonstrated was marginal in terms of brush size. The Tartarian honeysuckle and staghorn sumac were in the effective size range, but some of the ailanthus was at the large end of the spectrum. To be in the suitable size range, the tractor must be able to readily push over the brush to be mowed. This mower does not have the cutting capacity of the Brown Brush Cutter, which allows the operator to hydraulically lift a corner of the mower deck to expose the blade and back into larger stems. The Brush Monitor could serve a role in reclaiming a moderately overgrown corridor, in conjunction with a chainsaw crew to get the stems that were too large. This could serve as a precursor to implementing a wide-area mowing program to prevent brush reinfestation of mowable terrain. Data reported from Georgia utility trials indicated 80 percent reduction of resprouting compared to mowing alone, and a 25 percent reduction in cost compared to mowing followed by a separate herbicide application.

Stop Seven - SR 26 S, Bellefonte Bypass

Hydro-Ax Brush Mower Demonstration

      We are very thankful to Dave Fetzer, of Lyons Equipment for committing the considerable effort and expense to demonstrate two substantial pieces of brush clearing equipment - the Hydro-Ax and the Gyro-Trac.

      The Hydro-Ax model demonstrated was an articulated loader-type tractor with 150 hp. The hydraulically-driven flail-type cutting head was 8 ft in diameter, and was equipped with hardened blades capable of knocking down (with some effort) trees up to 12 inches in diameter. This unit made light work of the ailanthus on site, handled even large boxelder quite well, and negotiated the slope readily in the recommended up and down (in reverse) direction.. The flail head mounts to the loader arms, and can be lifted to cut large branches off of trees before they are mowed. The unit falls within the 8.5 ft width limit, so no 'wide load' provisions are necessary for its transport. One point of consideration for Districts is that this unit could be purchased to serve several stockyard or maintenance functions in addition to brush clearance, since several implements are available, and the tractor already has the auxiliary hydraulic capacity to run them.

      The Hydro-Ax would be well-suited for reclaiming severely overgrown corridors, once again in conjunction with a chainsaw crew to handle very large stems. Driving away from the road while cutting is recommended, as the unit does throw a considerable amount of debris, particularly when the cutting head is lifted to debranch trees prior to cutting them down, or when the cutting teeth strike the soil.

Gyro-Trac Demonstration

      The Gyro-Trac is a tracked vehicle equipped with a hydraulically-driven flail-type head. The power unit and cutting capacity of the Gyro-Trac was very similar to the Hydro-Ax. Primary differences are in the vehicle configuration. The Hydro-Ax featured rubber tires and considerable ground clearance, while the Gyro-Trac is a tracked vehicle with less ground clearance, but a lower center-of-gravity. This unit had no difficulty negotiating the slope at the demonstration site. The Gyro-Trac exerts less than 3 psi on the soil surface, and is capable of working in soft, wet soils. The Gyro-Trac is 8.5 ft wide, and therefore does not require wide load provisions.

      The Gyro-Trac is a high capacity unit that would be well suited for corridor reclamation, much like the Hydro-Ax, and would provide the flexibility to work in wetter areas without the rutting that could occur with rubber-tired vehicles.

Brown Tree Cutter Demonstration

      We would like to thank Gary Menocher of Penn Line Services for transporting and demonstrating their unit, and Mike Maurer for his assistance with choosing the appropriate mower and making the initial contact to Penn Line Services.

      The Brown Tree Cutter differs from the Brush Monitor in that it can handle much larger brush, and does not apply pesticide while cutting.

      The Brown Tree Cutter is a three-point hitch mounted, PTO driven mower that comes in five models. The unit demonstrated is one of two that feature hydraulically-actuated rear decks that allow the operator to back into standing trees to cut them down, or to close the deck to maximize the chipping action and limit discharge. Depending on the model, the Tree Cutter can handle 6 to 8 inch stems.

      The highest capacity Tree Cutter has a 72 inch deck, a 625 lb flywheel, and requires a 90 hp tractor. On the demonstration site, ailanthus up to 4-5 inches could be knocked over by the tractor and cut and mulched with the mower deck closed. Larger stems were backed into to be cut, then driven over. Penn Line commonly equips tractors with a brush rake that mounts like a front end loader. This allows the larger brush to pushed away if desired, and also makes it easier for the tractor to push over smaller stems.

      The Tree Cutter has been used extensively in Districts 3 and 12 for corridor reclamation, in both median and shoulder situations. The hydraulically actuated rear deck covers significantly reduces the chance of flying woody debris compared to the open-backed units previously employed.

Stop Eight - SR 3005, State College

Asplundh Right-of-Way Trimmer

      Asplundh went to considerable effort and expense to bring this unit to the meeting. We are indebted to Tom Mayer, and the crew that travels with the unit for their considerable effort, both quantitative and qualitative.

      The Asplundh Right-of-Way Trimmer (ROW Trimmer) was observed by some of the Specialists at a demonstration in Juniata County in 1996, when it was handled by a company out of Florida, and known as the 'Eliminator'.

      The ROW Trimmer features an articulated two-section boom equipped with seven, overlapping, 30-inch circular blades. Four blades are mounted on the lower boom section, three on the upper. Fully extended, the ROW Trimmer can provide 30 feet of vertical clearance. The boom can be oriented anywhere between vertical and horizontal, and can very effectively clear roadside banks. The blades will cleanly cut limbs from one to eight inches in diameter.

      This unit is appropriate for large volume clearance. It is commonly employed with a follow-up trimming crew to remove stubs, and a ground crew with a chipper and a skidsteer with a brush claw to provide turn-key corridor clearance. Such a unit could be employed in mileage-type work where most of the overhanging volume can removed mechanically, with the trimming crew doing clean-up cutting.

      This machine requires wide load hauling, and has a dedicated crew that travels with it.

FRIDAY, JULY 20, THE ATHERTON HOTEL

Significant Natural Communities Along PA Roads - Charles Bier, Western PA Conservancy

      Charles provided an overview of the many natural communities that exist in close proximity to PA's roads, both terrestrial and aquatic, plant and animal. It is clear that the roadside is often more ecologically complex than we realize. This complexity is enriching, and though it may make the construction and maintenance of the road system more difficult, it is worthy of our efforts to foster it.

Group Discussion - Recent Salt Damage to Roadside Trees & Extent and Course of Action

      It was apparent from the outset that no resolution could be reached on the topic by our group. Decisions on this issue will have to be made by upper management.

Guidelines for Landscape Inspection during Construction - John Whaley

      This was a timely presentation, in light of what was seen on the SR 6026 construction project the day before.

      Bottom line is training of inspectors. A centralized effort would be useful, but until the impetus exists for such a program, the next best alternative is the intervention of the Roadside Specialists, with District 6-0's Winter Inspector School being a good example of what is currently available. The Penn State project is available to the Districts as a resource in this matter.

Perry County Ailanthus Removal Project Update - Art Gover, Penn State

      This is an operational scale pilot project to remove tree-of-heaven, or ailanthus, from a heavily infested corridor, the 14 mile stretch of SR 22/322 that runs through Perry County The project entails two-phases - treatment of existing stems, and an ongoing maintenance phase. The phase-one treatments consist of an initial high-volume foliar application to treat all stems possible, to be followed with a basal bark application to treat the stems that were too tall to be covered by spray solution, or could not be accessed during the high volume application.

      At the time of the meeting, the Penn State project, and District 8's contractor, Mid-Atlantic, had applied 6200 gallons of high-volume spray solution to the SR 22/322 corridor in Perry County. The Penn State project applied another 1800 gallons the week after the meeting, and we estimate that the Mid-Atlantic crew applied another 2000 gallons, for a total of 10,000 gallons. This provided initial treatment to the entire corridor, which when you consider two shoulders and the median, accounts for 42 linear miles of target area.

      The mixture applied was glyphosate plus imazapyr, equivalent to four quarts of Dupont Glyphosate and 4 ounces of Arsenal per 100 gallons of spray mixture. This combination was chosen for its limited soil activity and low cost. The primary groundcover present is crownvetch, so a broadleaf herbicide combination would not be selective. The Arsenal rate was high enough to increase the glyphosate activity on ailanthus, but low enough to provide little soil residual activity. We are relying on natural regeneration of the understory, and will only supplement with seed if necessary. The crownvetch seed bank should be substantial since this corridor is at least 35 years old.

      The last 1800 gallons applied by the Penn State personnel also contained 0.38 ounces of Escort per 100 gallons. Experimental evaluation has demonstrated that Escort is very active on ailanthus, even at 0.5 ounces per 100 gallons. We chose the reduced Escort rate to try to benefit from the added herbicide activity while limiting soil residual activity, to promote groundcover regeneration.

      The scale of the infestation is immense, and we will be able to complete the initial treatment phase until the 2002 season. During 2002, we will implement the maintenance phase, which will be backpack low-volume foliar applications. This will be an annual undertaking, and will probably need to be on a perpetual time scale.

Group Discussion - Formation of a Roadside Research Steering Committee

      The Penn State Research Project is a resource to aid the District Roadside Specialists, as well as resource to aid Central Office in its support of the District/County programs. Although the research project is capable of identifying many of the vegetation management priorities in the Commonwealth, and is committed to being responsive to District requests for assistance, it would be useful to the project if their was a more focused means to establish research priorities. The 'squeaky-wheel' system has sufficed, but some strategic focus would be useful.

      It is our hope that a small group can be assembled to assist in this matter.

      The intent of keeping the steering committee small is not to limit input, but to focus it. The Project has well-established working relationships with all Specialists who want one, with District Environmental personnel, with BEQ, with contractors, and with manufacturer representatives. The formation of a BOMO-oriented steering committee will not reduce the influence of those whom we currently rely on for input. The intent is to focus the diverse interests of the Eleven (District Specialists), to better serve the Eleven.

      The proposed composition is three District Specialists, including those hosting upcoming summer meetings; a County Maintenance Manager; a District level manager; a Central Office representative; and the Project personnel.

      Tom Sitler volunteered to serve, and Tom Yocum was volunteered by the Project. Central Office will identify County and District personnel to serve. The first meeting is slated for the first morning of the 2002 Roadside Vegetation Management Seminar in late January.