2005 report on roadside vegetation management equipment & technology

The objective of this report is to provide Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) personnel with recommendations concerning the utilization of new technologies that will enable more effective management of Oklahoma roadside right-of-ways. Industries responsible for technological advances in the roadside vegetation management (RVM) industry segment are increasingly aware of tight of maintenance budgets and environmental issues. Two new technologies that ODOT has access to and could benefit from are 1.) Norstar Industries, Inc. 揕ong Shot� Articulating Boom and 2.) U-Teck 揥eedEnder� Technologies.N

2004 report on roadside vegetation management equipment & technology

The objective of this report is to provide Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) personnel with recommendations concerning the utilization of new technologies that will enable more effective management of Oklahoma roadside right-of-ways. Two new technologies that ODOT has access to and will benefit from are 1.) The Oklahoma Mesonet System and 2.) the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry抯 (ODAFF) acquisition of a Liquid Chromatography, Mass Spectrometry / Mass Spectrometry (LCMS/MS) unit. Additionally, we wish to notify ODOT of the sale of formerly recommended equipment technology, and the resulting new equipment name and new distributor.N

2008 report on roadside vegetation management equipment & technology

The objective of this report is to provide Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) personnel with recommendations concerning the utilization of new technologies that will enable vegetation managers to provide safe travel corridors for Oklahoma抯 motoring public. ODOT highway easement managers continue a long term integrated roadside vegetation management (IRVM) program. This program maintains suitable vegetation to stabilize soil, allow for surface drainage and allow suitable site distance for the motorist. The integrated program is based on use of suitable vegetation types and its long-term maintenance through mowing and herbicide use. These practices are used to not only keep vegetation within the height requirements but reduce competition from undesirable weeds that compete with low growing grass vegetation. A wide range of soil types, climatic variation and plant species are present on roadsides. Consequently, ODOT personnel must utilize many different herbicidal tools for specific management goals. Regardless of which herbicidal tool is employed, the means of transferring an herbicide product between its original container and the spray tank has remained basically unchanged for many years. Two concerns have always been present for herbicide product end-users: 1. What to do with the empty container? 2. What can be done to lower handler/mixer exposure risk? When ODOT selects a liquid herbicide product, the product has typically been packaged in non-refillable high density polyethylene (HDPE) containers of varying size by the manufacturer. Manufacturers supplied these products to distributors, whom then sold the product to their clients (ODOT). At the 2008 National Roadside Vegetation Management Association (NRVMA) meetings, Nancy Fitz of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) presented information concerning current and future regulation affecting herbicide manufactures. These regulations encourage the use of refillable containers in agricultural or professional specialty herbicide markets. More specific information can be found in the US EPA Pesticide Container and Containment Rule, October 2008 at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/containers.htm. Recently a partnership has arisen between forward thinking herbicide manufactures and custom blending/repackaging services to facilitate EPA goals of reducing the number of improperly rinsed HDPE herbicide containers sent to land-fill sites. Additionally, end-users of herbicide products are actively employing new transfer technology (closed-loop systems) that minimize employee exposure. Additionally, the mechanized transfer systems that use various pumping configurations are reported by the manufacturers as saving time, labor costs and reduce heavy lifting related injury claims.N

2006 report on roadside vegetation management equipment & technology

The objective of this report is to provide Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) personnel with recommendations concerning the utilization of new technologies and/or adaptations of existing technology. This will enable vegetation managers to comply with ODOT抯 need to provide safe travel corridors for Oklahoma抯 motoring public. In recent years, Oklahoma agricultural producers have been exploring the production of non-traditional, high value crops to circumvent the low returns per acre from traditional crops such as wheat. Some of new cropping options include grape production and organic crop/livestock production on small to large acreages adjacent to or in close proximity to ODOT managed rights-of-way. Grapes along with some other crops have been labeled as 搖ltra sensitive� to some herbicides used for vegetation management on ODOT easements. Consistent with the ODOT 揋ood Neighbor� policy, ODOT has initiated a 搉o spray� buffer around vineyards. These buffer zones may be of varying sizes. Additionally, the buffer zone concept may also be expanded to include other sensitive crop areas such as those containing cotton. Widespread presence of sensitive crops and subsequent no-spray buffer zones will necessitate a different approach to management of non-desirable vegetation in these zones. The option for use of the Speidel Weed Wiper was elaborated upon in the report �99 Annual ODOT Report on Roadside Vegetation Management Equipment: Project 2130: Section 2� that was presented to ODOT as part of the joint continuing effort between the Oklahoma State University RVM (Roadside Vegetation Management) Program and ODOT. The main focus of the findings in that report where the need for ODOT to control switchgrass infestations in clear zones/safety zones and johnsongrass in wildflower plantings. Both issues continue to be management concerns for ODOT to this day and wiper recommendations are contained in the current Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service circular E-958, September 2006. In addition to switchgrass and johnsongrass concerns, wiper use with glyphosate has new possibilities for reducing the potential of herbicide drift onto adjacent ultra-sensitive crops. Due to the very low volatility of glyphosate, vapor drift is virtually nonexistent. The Speidel Weed Wiper, because of its design to wipe rather than spray glyphosate, can be safely used in areas immediately adjacent to sensitive crop sites. Some ODOT herbicide applicators may have concluded that the Speidel Wiper technology was not very practical or viable. This conclusion may have been drawn based on the following assumptions: 1.) Long wiper booms (10� were cumbersome and did not conform to easement surface contours, both concave and convex situations, which resulted in gaps in the wiping pattern or the wiper bar possibly 揵ottoming out� and hitting the soil surface. 2.) The operator may have had to dismount from the tractor and manually adjust the wiper height to successfully apply the glyphosate to the weed target due to a frequent need to change the height of wiper boom. 3.). Due to the long turning radius of conventional tractors, movement within the highway easement was restricted and this may have required the operator to traverse the highway surface which increases the risk of motorist vehicle-tractor operator collision. ACR Sales (Norman, OK) has developed a simple mounting bracket system for ATV/utility vehicles that enables the ATV operator to make wiper-bar height adjustments without dismounting the ATV. This ability saves valuable man-hours and increases the acres per hour treated as well as the acres per application event treated. The relatively tight turning radius of these types� vehicles also allows the operator more safety by allowing them to stay in the easement and off of the highway itself. The multi-tasking capabilities of the utility vehicles are also a very appealing feature that has perpetuated their use in the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) maintenance fleet. The TXDOT utilizes approximately 30 utility vehicles state-wide for vegetation management (personal consultation, Steve Prather, TxDOT, December 11, 2006 and Robert Watts, District Vegetation Manager, TxDOT Odessa District, December 12, 2006).N

Final report on the 2004-2006 Oklahoma Department of Transportation sprayer equipment assessment & calibration workshops

This report documents the findings of herbicide sprayer calibration workshops conducted as a part of the 2004-2006 Joint Project 2156: ROADSIDE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT TRAINING, CONSULTATION & DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNING RESOURCES. This Joint Project was between the Oklahoma State University (OSU) and the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT). Early on in this Joint Project, two project initiatives were identified as very closely related training and assessment issues. These were Work Activity #4: Conduct Workshops on Equipment Trouble Shooting and Calibration of Spray Equipment and Work Activity #8: the Assessment of the Status of Each ODOT Field Division抯 Herbicide Application Equipment/Preparation of an ODOT Herbicide Equipment Inventory Report. Seeing an opportunity to improve productivity and efficiency, in January of 2005 OSU RVM personnel requested and were granted permission to combine these two activities into one assessment & training effort. The objectives of the combined Initiatives #4 and #8 on Joint Project 2156 became: 1.) review each ODOT Herbicide spray crew抯 application equipment, 2.) report on the condition of that equipment, 3.) make recommendations concerning improving the performance of the equipment and 4.) train each crew on the proper sprayer calibration procedures and use of speed adjustment charts. In 2004 � 2006, OSU RVM personnel visited each ODOT division. This Final Report was generated to document the individual and overall findings on the status and condition of equipment. We assessed, inventoried and calibrated a total of 82 ODOT roadside spray rigs. We discussed and reported on the design and function of each spray rig component to the respective spray crew to which the unit was assigned. A detailed discussion of the individual findings is covered in Sections 2.0 � 9.0 of this report. A state-wide summary of the findings is covered in Section 10. A 搑eport card� (Appendix A.) was generated and sent back to the field unit within 2 weeks of the calibration workshop. A total of 269 ODOT herbicide applicators received 揾ands on� calibration training on their respective spray rigs. This included training on proper sprayer calibration procedures and use of speed adjustment charts (Appendices B. and C.). In previous Joint Project spray-equipment-inventories the respondents (ODOT herbicide applicators) merely filled out survey sheets to describe the number but most importantly the condition of pieces of equipment. In this Joint Project, OSU RVM personnel were able to physically access all available ODOT spray rigs. This had not occurred during previous equipment inventories. Over the years the most important outcome of the original herbicide equipment inventory surveys was to allow ODOT insight into what equipment needed to be replaced or brought back to operational status. With this in mind, we feel that the most important outcome of our physical access to the equipment on this Joint Project has been the ability to facilitate an immediate assessment of the condition of herbicide application equipment such that ODOT maintenance divisions were able to respond to suggestions on a timely basis. In 2005, ODOT herbicide applicators treated 98,556 acres (2005 Annual Oklahoma Department of Transportation Herbicide Program Report) of highway easement. Most of those acres were treated utilizing large capacity, truck mounted roadside sprayers. These sprayers consist of large spray tanks and necessary components that are 搒kid� mounted in the back of ODOT trucks. Due to the physics involved in proper sprayer operation, several basic components are required on properly functioning spray rigs. These being: 1) a tank to hold the herbicide solution (herbicide and carrier). 2) a pump generating pressure to move the herbicide and carrier through a piping system. 3) a delivery system consisting of those parts installed past the pumping system to include pressure regulators and spray nozzles that deposit the herbicide/carrier on targeted weeds. 4) a digital speedometer capable of readouts in tenths of a mile. Currently, ODOT spray trucks are using either Boombuster nozzles or solid stream tip systems and most spray rigs use centrifugal pumps for pressure generation. Motors powering the pumps are either hydraulic or auxiliary gasoline (gas) engines. At this point it is important to note that OSU Roadside Vegetation Management (RVM) personnel are professionals and proficient in assessing the status of the sprayer components. However, our expertise is limited in the area of truck hydraulic system mechanics or gasoline engine mechanics. If all of the required sprayer components are in place and functioning properly, these sprayers can be calibrated to deliver accurate rates of herbicides. Deliver of accurate herbicide rates is critical to achieving effective weed control. To make an accurate roadside herbicide application, applicators must know how many gallons per acre (GPA) they need to deliver from the sprayer (indicated on the herbicide label), what the effective spray pattern width (SW) is and how many gallons per minute (GPM) the sprayer delivery system is putting out. Knowing these parameters allow applicators to determine what speed the truck operator must maintain to deliver an accurate and desired rate (Appendix C.). Comments from ODOT applicators attending this training were very positive and OSU RVM recommendations were made in a sincere effort to allow applicators to operate their spray rigs in a confident, knowledgeable and accurate fashion. Most spray rigs had small individual problems that could be fixed by the field crews. Major issues were addressed in reports to respective division maintenance engineers. We would like to thank the divisions for their participation in this training and assessment endeavor. Without their cooperation, the scope of this report would have been dramatically limited. We encourage suggestions as to how this report can be made more informative and useful. As always we welcome and encourage input from all levels & branches within ODOT.N