z... I
._

.. ..

kw. fi ,
n z. — \t
. Em r:

.r

t _ aka, . .

£943..ng _ . . ; , a

I; wmwflflwwh. “PHYS . . “a” t

5. 13.1 ,. :a , . . .. a... a...
a): J "mmhwux. Jin:iu.:
. . “ma?

h: w

. p
:8"...

a?

(It srflutd ...
fiver, fir
id. hifl 5 ,

 

.
Fm:
.. .

w. c...

l.:.\...V:...l.

.. ..... .fiéxéfimfififlfi Hawgi

 

wfiflfimw

t‘LJ

If

 

. .nota:"(lmu . . . . ..
.. Ha...” , . z.) .
. a?“ .3”.

g... .
53.0. m)...“

h
{an 4

(1.31“

r u ,

v. .5 v

“n.3,. "hr .5:
WNW.) “u

3.

r

:3“...

L .
. .J 5.:
. . Ax
. E:
h I.
p .2.

vamw:

$.11?
: x

4.. 1 l ..
Sir... . s
f

u .‘f

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
Unlversity

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ALONG TRANSMISSION RIGHTS-OF—WAY
IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

presented by

JOSEPH ANTHONY SULAK

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Masters degree in Sciengg " FOY‘EStY‘y

09.... mm

/ ,
t/

 

Major professor

Date Sf/af 6%)

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

‘t’ 8 2 7 21.10?
W

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1100 mm."

 

‘rll

I‘tllir

\EGE

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ALONG TRANSMISSION RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN
THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

By

Joseph Anthony Sulak

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Forestry

2000

 

.C)

'3;
u\_

Ofl\

ABSTRACT

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ALONG TRANSMISSION RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN
THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

By

Joseph Anthony Sulak

A survey investigating vegetation control methods along transmission rights-of-
way was sent to 220 Utility Arborist Association companies. The survey contained
questions regarding right-of-way characteristics, control methods used, total dollars spent
on vegetation management, and priorities of the vegetation management program. The
ROW area reported represented over 48% of all the investor owned ROW over 39Kv in
service, throughout the United States. Over 75% of the respondents reported using
herbicides on their rights-of-way. However, acres treated mechanically out-numbered
those treated chemically by a margin of 2.7:1. Garlon 3A and Garlon 4 topped all
herbicides with a combined 220,574 projected gallons of the projected 549,869 gallons of
herbicide applied to transmission rights-of-way in 1995. It appears that extremely low
levels of active ingredient are being applied per acre. Basal, High Volume Foliar and
Low Volume Foliar with a Backpack or Handgun applications accounted for

approximately 75% of the acres of transmission ROW treated with herbicides.

Copyright by
JOSEPH ANTHONY SULAK
2000

This thesis is dedicated to the memory of my Grandfather
Joseph Sgroi
Thanks for the inspiration and drive!

iv

Utirm‘

4 ' ,>
Ari-Chm

~I—l-I—4A—n—n

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Ultimate Thanks go to:
The Michigan Forestry and Park Association
The International Society of Arboriculture/ Hyland Johns Grant Committee
The Utility Arborist Association
Dr. J. James Kielbaso for all his assistance and guidance in completing this work.
My F arnily and friends for their support
Juli Kerr for putting up with me
John Primus of the Dupont Corporation

Additional Thanks to:
Dr. Harvey Holt
Lynn Grayson
Kevin Eckertt
Hershall Hale
Rick J ohnstone

 

 

USTOFI
USTOF?
[\TRLM;

CHAPTER
METHFK»
S;
S:
R;
Cc
B;
Pn
Se
Kt
SI:

CHAPTLR
RESLLTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................... xiii
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER 1
METHODS AND MATERIALS ........................................................................... 6
Sampling Method .................................................................................. 6
Sampling Design .................................................................................... 7
Right-of-way Characteristics ...................................................................... 8
Control Methods .................................................................................... 9
Budget ................................................................................................ 12
Priorities .............................................................................................. 13
Substation/Generating Stations ................................................................... 13
Mailing Procedure .................................................................................. 14
Statistical Analysis ................................................................................. 14
CHAPTER 2
RESULTS
Respondent Characteristics ....................................................................... l6
Right—of-way Characteristics ..................................................................... 17
Vegetation Management Practices .............................................................. 19
Herbicide Management ................................................................ 22
Section I - Herbicides Utilized ............................................. 23
Singly Applied ..................................................... 23
Herbicide Mixtures ................................................ 25
Section 2 - Application Methods ........................................... 27
Singly Applied ..................................................... 27
Basal ...................................................... 28
Cut Surface ............................................... 29
Low Volume F oliar with a Backpack
and/or Handgun ......................................... 3]
High Volume Foliar ..................................... 33
Low Volume Foliar Broadcast ......................... 35
Aerial ...................................................... 36
Herbicide Mixtures ................................................. 38
Basal ....................................................... 39
Cut Surface ................................................ 40
Low Volume F oliar with a Backpack
and/or Handgun .......................................... 42
High Volume Foliar ...................................... 44
Low Volume F oliar Broadcast .......................... 46
Aerial ....................................................... 47
Section 3 — Active Ingredient per Acre ...................................... 48
Singly Applied ....................................................... 48

vi

vii

Herbicide Mixtures ........................................................... 54
Comparison of Calculated Active Ingredient Per Acre
with the Maximum Recommended Rates of Application ............................ 58
Mechanical Management ................................................................. 61
Vegetation Management Budget ................................................................... 67
Climatic Comparisons between Different Geographical Divisions of the United States 68
Substation / Generating Stations ................................................................... 76
Singly Applied Herbicides ............................................................... 77
Herbicide Mixtures ........................................................................ 8O
Vegetation Management Program Priorities ...................................................... 82
CHAPTER 3
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................... 83
Projection to Universe ............................................................................... 83
Analysis of Results ................................................................................... 87
Vegetation Management Practices ...................................................... 87
Herbicides Utilized ........................................................................ 88
Methods of Application ................................................................... 92
Influence of Mechanical Methods ....................................................... 96
Active Ingredient per Acre Comparisons ............................................... 99
Climatic Comparisons between the
Geographic Divisions of the United States .......................................... 101
Substation / Generating Stations ...................................................... 104
CHAPTER 4
Conclusions ........................................................................................ 106
Research Recommendations ..................................................................... 110
LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................... 112

APPENDIX ................................................................................................... 1 l4

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Regional Breakdown Of The Population Sample ......................... 16

Table 2 - Total Reported Transmission Line Right-Of-Way Acreage,
Land-Type Characteristics, And Percentages For Each Region

Of The Population Sample ............................................................... 18
Table 3 - Regional Breakdown Of Companies That Use Herbicides On
Transmission Line Rights-Of-Way ...................................................... 19
Table 4 - Sample Population Companies That Have Areas Of Transmission

ROW Where Mechanical Vegetation Control Is Used Exclusively ............... 20
Table 5 - Most Increased Method Used To Control Vegetation

Along Transmission Row From 1990-1995 ........................................... 21
Table 6 - Most Common Herbicides Used By Respondents Along

Transmission Rights-Of-Way: 1995 .................................................... 23
Table 7 - List Of ‘Other’ Herbicides from Table 6 .................................... 24
Table 8 - Most Common Mixtures Reported Along Transmission

Rights-Of-Way: 1995 .................................................................... 25
Table 9 —— List of ‘Other’ Mixtures from Table 8 ....................................... 26
Table 10a - Herbicides Applied Using Basal Techniques For

All Respondents: 1995 .................................................................... 28
Table 10b - Regional Breakdown (Acres) Of Basal Applied Herbicides ......... 29

Table lla - Single Herbicides Applied Using A Cut Surface Method
For All Respondents: 1995 .............................................................. 30

Table 11b - Regional Breakdown (Acres) Of Herbicides Applied Using A
Cut Surface Method ....................................................................... 30

viii

 

Table l
Bea-clips

 

Table l
Bat‘xpa.

Table 15

Table I3

 

Table 14
Broadc as

Table 14
A Lou \‘

Table 15.
[sing A;

Table 15
A“ Aerie

Table 1(

Table 11
83531 A‘
Table I'
RIEIth.

Table 1
Cur 3m.

Tab‘e ‘
Technlc

Table 1
A L0“-

Tabre 1
“chm

ix
Table 12a - Herbicides Applied Using A Low Volume Foliar With A

Backpack Or Hand Sprayer Method: 1995 ............................................. 31

Table 12b - Regional Breakdown (Acres) Of Herbicides Applied Using A
Backpack Or Hand sprayer Low Volume F oliar Method ............................. 32

Table 13a - Herbicides Applied Using A High Volume Foliar Method: 1995.... 33

Table 13b - Regional Breakdown (Acres) Of Herbicides Applied Using A

High Volume Foliar Method .............................................................. 34
Table 14a - Herbicides Applied Using A Low Volume Foliar

Broadcast Method: 1995 ................................................................... 35
Table 14b - Regional Breakdown (Acres) Of Herbicides Applied Using

A Low Volume Foliar Broadcast Method ............................................... 36
Table 15a - Herbicides Applied Along Transmission Line Rights-Of—Way

Using An Aerial Method .................................................................. 37
Table 15b - Regional Breakdown (Acres) Of Herbicides Applied Using

An Aerial Method ......................................................................... 37
Table 16a - Herbicide Mixtures Applied Using A Basal Technique: 1995 ....... 39

Table 16b - Regional Breakdown (Acres) Of Herbicide Mixtures As
Basal Applications ........................................................................ 39

Table 17a - Herbicide Mixtures Applied Using A Cut Surface
Method: 1995 .............................................................................. 40

Table 17b - Regional Breakdown (Acres) Of Herbicide Mixtures As
Cut Surface Applications ................................................................. 41

Table 18a - Herbicide Mixtures Applied Using A Low Volume F oliar
Technique With A Backpack Or Hand Sprayer: 1995 ............................... 42

Table 18b - Regional Breakdown (Acres) Of Herbicide Mixtures As
A Low Volume F oliar With A Backpack Or Hand Sprayer Applications. . . . . 43

Table 19a - Herbicide Mixtures Applied Using A High Volume F oliar
Technique: 1995 ........................................................................... 44

Table 19b - Regional Breakdown (Acres) Of Herbicide Mixtures As
High Volume Foliar Applications ....................................................... 45

Table 20 - Herbicide Mixtures Applied Using A Low Volume F oliar
Broadcast Method, All In The Southern US: 1995 .................................... 46

Table 21 - Herbicide Mixture Applied Using An Aerial Method,
All In The North Central US. : 1995 ..................................................... 47

Table 22 - Average Active Ingredient Per Acre (Gal / Acre) For
Singly Applied Herbicides Using A Basal Method: 1995 ............................. 49

Table 23 - Average Active Ingredient Per Acre (Gal / Acre) For
Singly Applied Herbicides Using A Cut Surface Method: 1995 ..................... 50

Table 24 - Average Active Ingredient Per Acre (Gal / Acre) For
Singly Applied Herbicides Using A Low Volume Foliar Technique
With A Backpack Or Hand Sprayer: 1995 ............................................. 51

Table 25 — Average Active Ingredient Per Acre (Gal / Acre) For
Singly Applied Herbicides Using A High Volume F oliar Method: 1995 .......... 52

Table 26 - Average Active Ingredient Per Acre (Gal / Acre) For
Singly Applied Herbicides Using A Low Volume Foliar Broadcast Method: 1995 53

Table 27 - Average Active Ingredient Per Acre (Gal / Acre) For
Singly Applied Herbicides Using An Aerial Method: 1995 ......................... 53

Table 28 - Average Active Ingredient Per Acre (Gal / Acre) For
Herbicide Mixtures Applied Using A Basal Method,
In The Northeast United States: 1995 ................................................... 54

Table 29 - Average Active Ingredient Per Acre (Gal / Acre) For
Herbicide Mixtures Applied Using A Cut Surface Method,
In The North Central United States: 1995 .............................................. 54

Table 30 - Average Active Ingredient Per Acre (Gal / Acre) For
Herbicide Mixtures Applied Using A Low Volume Foliar Method
With A Backpack Or Hand sprayer: 1995 .............................................. 55

Table 31 - Average Active Ingredient Per Acre (Gal / Acre) For
Herbicide Mixtures Applied Using A High Volume Foliar Method: 1995 ......... 56

Table 32 - Average Active Ingredient Per Acre (Gal / Acre) For
Herbicide Mixtures Applied Using A Low Volume Foliar Broadcast Method,
In The Southern United States: 1995 .................................................... 57

 

Table 3.
Active 1'

Table 30
Mowing

Table 361

Table 3'7;
The Perce

 

Table 376

Table 38 .
The Rfiiah

‘luh

Table 39 -
\hes‘l‘lauor

Table 40 .
\iegelaUOr

Table 41 .

Table 42 .
Control \3

Table 43 .
ubstailOr‘

xi

Table 33 - Average Active Ingredient Per Acre (Gal / Acre) For
Herbicide Mixtures Applied Using An Aerial Method,
In The North Central United States: 1995 ...............................................

Table 34 - Recommended Maximum Limits Of Active Ingredient Per Acre
(Gal / Acre) For The Most Commonly Used ROW Herbicides ......................

Table 35 - Ratio Comparisons Of Actual To Recommended

Active Ingredient Per Acre For All Respondents .......................................

Table 36a - Regional Breakdown Of ROW Acres Treated With

Mowing And Hand Equipment: 1995 .....................................................

Table 36b - Regional Breakdown Of Total Acres Treated Mechanically; 1995

Table 37a - Regional Breakdown Of Side Trim Methods Used And
The Percentage Of Respondents That Do Not Use Each Method ..................

Table 37b - Regional Breakdown Of Total Row Miles Side Trimmed: 1995

Table 38 - Individual Mechanical Methods Reported As ‘Other’ And
The Relative Miles Or Acres Treated ...................................................

Table 39 - Ranking Of Reasons Given As To Why Mechanical Methods Of
Vegetation Control Were Used Rather Than Herbicide Methods ...................

Table 40 - Regional Breakdown Of The Average Budget Allotted For

Vegetation Control From 1990-1995 .....................................................

Table 41 - Precipitation Categories For The Geographic Divisions Of The

United States Based On Annual Rainfall .................................................

Table 42 - Divisional Breakdown Of Dollars Spent Per Acre To

Control Vegetation On Transmission Rights-Of-Way .................................

Table 43 - Company Responsibility For Vegetation Control At

Substation/Generating Stations, By Region .............................................

Table 44 - Herbicide Use At Substation / Generating Stations For Companies

With Vegetation Control Responsibilities, By Region .................................

Table 45 - Most Common Herbicides Used At Substation / Generating Stations

Table 46 - Regional Breakdown (Acres) Of Herbicides Applied To

Substation / Generating Stations ..........................................................

57

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

72

73

76

77

78

79

" 21—“- ..u— _ '

 

177

Table 4
Substa:
1

Table 4!
AI Subs

 

 

Table 4‘
Based (7

Table 51.
Region (

Table 51
0f lures:

 

Table 52
In Table 5

Table S3 .
Ranked B:

 

xii

Table 47 - Herbicide Mixtures Reported Applied At
Substation/Generating Stations: 1995 ..................................................... 80

Table 48 - Regional Breakdown (Acres) Of Herbicide Mixtures Used
At Substation / Generating Stations ........................................................ 81

Table 49 - Regional Vegetation Management Program Priorities For 1995,
Based On A Scale Of 1-8 .................................................................... 82

Table 50 - Mile Conversions Of Total Sample Acres Reported For Each
Region Of The United States ............................................................... 84

Table 51 - Estimated Land-Type Characteristics Of The 338,587 Miles
Of Investor Owned Utility Transmission Line With Voltage Greater Than 22KV 85

Table 52 - Investor Owned ROW Land-Types Converted To Acres From Miles
In Table 51 .................................................................................... 86

Table 53 - Herbicide Application Methods, And Their Selectivity,
Ranked By Total Acres Treated ............................................................ 93

 

 

 

Figure
HCTblCI.

“fl”:
Along T

Figure 3
for Gar}. I

Figures 4
Delineat;

Diusmns

 

 

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Comparison of Application Methods for Singly Applied
Herbicides Along Transmission ROW:1995 ............................................ 27

Figure 2 - Comparison of application Methods for Mixtures
Along Transmission ROW: 1995 ......................................................... 38

Figure 3 - Sample Calculation of Maximum recommended Application Rate
for Garlon 3A using a LVFwBH Method ............................................... 59

Figures 4a & 4b - Normal Annual Precipitation and Temperature

Delineations of the United States, with Thesis Geographic
Divisions Superposed ...................................................................... 71

xiii

 

 

 

 

 

 

compan

preterit

the dex c.
methods
control,
In an a:
forestry
uith Ii‘u
fer Eye
“35' It
manag
maria-g
0f ser
Stow
gefiera

task r

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

In order to deliver electricity to their customers on a reliable basis, utility
companies must control the vegetation growing within their rights-of-way (ROW) to
prevent power outages. A significant sector of the arboriculture industry is dedicated to
the development and implementation of more efficient, longer lasting and less expensive
methods to control this vegetation. Despite efforts devoted to creating these methods of
control, little is known about the current practices being employed by the utility industry.
In an attempt to inform the public about vegetation control issues, a team of utility
forestry representatives, the Vegetation Management Task Force (VMTF), in partnership
with the Edison Electrical institute, developed the Environmental Stewardship Strategy
for Electric Utility Rights-of-Way in August 1995. The “Strategy” was developed as a
way to explain the purposes and practices of a modern right-of-way vegetation
management program. The strategy states, “the long-term goal of a vegetation 4»
management program is to provide for public and worker safety and to provide reliability
of service by converting right-of-way plant communities from predominantly tall
growing plant species to communities dominated by low growth plant species.” In
general, there are two methods of vegetation control presently used to accomplish this
task, namely mechanical control and herbicidal control.

Mechanical control refers to any management practice involving the use of either
mechanical mowing or mechanical cutting. Mowing shears saplings at ground level and
also shreds the stems. Cutting targets saplings and large trees, but the material is usually

stacked or processed into wood chips (Luken 1991). Mowing or cutting of target

 

teach:

a

bitiililgi t

 

in alter
from Iii".

in'ni'rnti'1

“:
\C‘gl‘" ”do
maintai n
Ofidfgc
Com’JUY

UUDCfiL

iLngn

vegetation perpetuates the growth of incompatible, tall-growing species because of the
biological response of sprouting (VMTF 1995). As a result of carbohydrate stores located
in already established root systems, multiple sprouts can grow from the severed stumps or
from the roots (J ohnstone 1990).

Mechanical methods are unfortunately, not completely viable techniques for
inhibiting deciduous forest regeneration. The resulting stands of nearly impenetrable
vegetation severely limit accessibility, and require frequent cutting of new vegetation to
maintain safe distances between trees and power-lines (Luken 1991). In addition, the use
of large equipment during mechanical control introduces soil heterogeneity into the
corridors. This heterogeneity, created by the presence of stumps, detritus, and exposed
mineral soil, provides adequate germination sites for a variety of undesirable tree species
(Luken 1991).

Herbicidal control methods are the primary emphasis of the Stewardship Strategy.
This is a result of their emergence as a valuable tool in the utility forester’s arsenal.
Unlike mechanical methods, herbicides attack both the above ground and below ground
systems of the target vegetation. An economic advantage occurs since resprouting does
not occur as frequently on an herbicide treated ROW as it does on one that is
mechanically controlled. This results in lower maintenance costs in the future because
management cycles are extended (Dow Elanco 1996). In addition to the economic
benefits associated with herbicide control, a number of studies have portrayed some
environmental benefits as well.

In Pennsylvania, it was shown that herbicides can be used to promote the

establishment of cover-types resistant to tree seedling invasion (Bramble et.al. 1992). In

 

these 5am
population
An unewe
population
control pru
also more 3
herbicide .1;
\i3 selectin
methods is \
applied In. I
Piant speck,

COmparjnu ti-

these same right-of-way corridors, population studies on bird and small mammal
populations were conducted comparing mechanically and herbicidally controlled areas.
An unexpected result of the former study was the retention of a large and diverse bird
population in the herbicide treated areas. The shrub cover type, developed via selective
control provided cover for the birds (Bramble 1994 a). Small mammal populations were
also more abundant and diverse when a combination of cover types were produced using
herbicide applications (Bramble 1994 b). In both cases, the retention of vegetative cover
via selective herbicide treatments, versus the total destruction of habitat via mechanical
methods is what allowed wildlife populations to remain. In Canada, herbicide treatments
applied to power line rights-of—way produced a plant community that contained more
plant species than adjacent non-treated areas (Geier et.al. 1992). A Massachusetts study
comparing the impacts of both control methods on wetland sites, showed that mechanical
treatments resulted in relatively higher physical impacts to the surrounding environment
than did selective herbicides. Also, chemical analysis of the soil and surface water
identified petroleum residuals from mechanical equipment, whereas no herbicide
residuals were found in the wetland surrounding the herbicide treated right-of-way
(Nickerson 1992).

Not all aspects of herbicide application are positive. The public perception of
herbicide use is not favorable. Past discoveries of detrimental side effects to non-target
species, including humans, caused by chemicals has created a feeling of ‘chemophobia’ in
the population (Worrnan 1991). This negative perception has resulted in increased
interest in the utility industry‘s vegetation management practices, especially on the part of

State and Federal Government agencies. In some jurisdictions, regulations have even

 

been lml‘ki
prOTCCiiOn‘
Chemicals.
herbicides ti
registered I"
chemicals :1.“
herbicide mu

Health Admi

 

determine the
protectiw me:
1991).

This ii‘:
unlit} rights-u
amounts 0f he
Underdistiibut

Its imt
"egetatiun mar
Tigh15~0f ~\\ :1} ,
con'

drilled steu

been implemented to completely ban herbicide application. In addition to environmental
protection, there is growing concern regarding worker safety when applying these
chemicals. Current EPA regulations search to remedy these concerns by requiring
herbicides be tested for their toxicity, carcinogenicity and epidemiology before they are
registered for use in the United States. These test results help determine whether
chemicals are classified as either general or restricted use herbicides. Each registered
herbicide must contain a label detailing these results. The Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) then uses these classifications to set regulations that
determine the amount of training each worker must have to use the chemical and what
protective measures must be followed when applying the chemical (Worman 1991) (Lu
1991).

This thesis is one of a two-part, descriptive study of vegetation control on electric
utility rights-of-way, specifically for transmission lines with an emphasis on the types and
amounts of herbicides being applied. The second part will address the methods used
under distribution lines.

Its intent is three fold. Primarily, it will provide an initial identification of
vegetation management practices currently used by utility companies along transmission
rights-of-way. Regional comparison of these methods is valuable data from which
continued stewardship can be directed.

The second intent is related to public concerns of potential secondary toxicity
risks associated with herbicide use. To address the concerns of herbicide risk, the
Stewardship Strategy focuses on, “minimizing the amount of active ingredient of a

particular product (or products) per acre rather than reducing the total volume of products

 

med (\‘Ml
herbicide \‘
calculations
reduction iii
compared tr-
measure the t

The 3‘
\egetation cor
It is suspected

takes place. T

 

control. based t
not The 0nl\ me
COmPJTISUns (II

Ulllll} companir

used (VMTF 1995).” Calculating the active ingredient per acre applied for each reported
herbicide will assess the current risks to the environment and the public. These
calculations will provide the base line data needed to determine whether or not a further
reduction in active ingredient per acre is necessary. In addition, these rates will be
compared to the EPA approved, manufacturer recommended maximum rates in order to
measure the compliance factor of herbicide application.

The final intent of this thesis is an investigation into possible differences of
vegetation control intensity between companies in different regions of the United States.
It is suspected that this intensity differs with the geographic area in which the control
takes place. The focus is to compare the reported dollars spent per acre for all vegetation
control, based on regional precipitation and temperature differences. Dollars per acre are
not the only measure of intensity. However, in the current atmosphere of deregulation,
comparisons of dollars spent per acre could be important and useful information for
utility companies as competition increases. Specifically, two hypotheses were created

that will be considered by these comparisons.

Ho: Precipitation differences have no influence on dollars spent per
acre (vegetation management intensity)

H1: There is an influence
Ho: Temperature differences have no influence on dollars spent per
acre (vegetation management intensity)

H1: There is an influence

 

SAMPUXU

A sur‘.

stud} («ppm

 

 

 

 

 

the transmissir
sunej contain
control methot
tegetation ma:
management J
completion. I
Objectite prm
herbicide com-
the S‘mOTlll'l cr
Vegfliflitm m [11
time: from \\ h

T‘ . \
ere income”

CHAPTER II: METHODS AND MATERIALS

SAMPLING METHOD

A survey was developed that would solicit the information needed to conduct the
study (Appendix A). Respondents were to give information on various characteristics of
the transmission line rights-of-way for which their companies were responsible. The
survey contains five categories of questions; they are: right-of-way characteristics,
control methods used, total dollars spent on vegetation management, priorities of the
vegetation management program, and substation/ generating station vegetation
management data. The primary concern in development of the survey was ease of
completion. Therefore, all questions had to be direct and readily comprehendible. This
objective proved to be challenging because of the difficulty in separating mechanical and
herbicide control for both transmission and distribution utility rights—of-way. Following
the 5-month creation period, the survey was sent for review to various members of the
vegetation management task force as a pilot study. A total of four pilot studies were
done; from which, various suggestions, regarding both content and ease in completion

were incorporated to create the final version.

 

SAIIPLN

The

 

 

l'tilit} lib. .
intestor our

ptminces of

concluded 1h.

 

 

It‘Cipi-cnts \lcr,
Shhiitidcd tn!
CI‘Tl’Espond ill
Rt’airml} .
K
0'0 _
Rim
BOTH}
DTITH}
ReOionz .
\
Dfl'isl't

Dil’iw"

59% .
Di”) it.

Dil’isl'a

“7.31.0

SAMPLING DESIGN

The study was accomplished via a census of all the companies represented by the
Utility Arborist Association. A total of 220 UAA companies consisting primarily of
investor owned utilities were identified. These companies represented 49 states and 4
provinces of Canada. Owing to competitive advantage concerns in the industry, it was
concluded that all data acquired would be reported only as group data. Thus, all
recipients were organized into one of five regions depending upon their location, and then
subdivided into divisions for organization purposes. Except for Canada, these categories

correspond to the US. Census designations, as follows:

Region 0 - Represents all Canadian respondents
Region I - The Northeast United States:

Division 1- Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut,
Rhode Island
Division 2- New York, New Jersey & Pennsylvania.

Region 2 - The North Central United States:

Division 3- Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana,
Division 4— Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas,
Minnesota and Iowa

Region 3 - The Southern United States:

Division 4- Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Georgia, Florida,

Division 5- Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama,

Division 6- Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma & Texas.

 

Mimi

 

Di t't \

Dim

R

’ )

1H I401: ~ \‘

 

The ti
transmission 1
asked for the
Thesurtc} m
the ROW cor
int‘omntion ul
next chxtiun t
total Ron. I
Percent of the

ma ‘1'! I
ndskmcl‘ll It

T93 ' ‘
Ptlndent 5pc

Region 4 - All returns in the Western United States:
Division 7- Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico,

Arizona,
Division 8- Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska & Hawaii.

RIGHT-OF-WAY CHARACTERISTICS

The first category, right-of-way characteristics, dealt with descriptions of the
transmission line rights-of-way (ROW) that the company owned. The first question
asked for the total acres or miles of ROW for which the companies were responsible.
The survey was designed to solicit width of the ROW or, altematively. the percentage of
the ROW corresponding to that width if the first answer was given in miles. This
information allowed conversion of miles of ROW into acres for later calculations. The
next question dealt with the land type corresponding to the ROW and its percentage of the
total ROW. Four options were given: percent of the ROW requiring vegetation control;
percent of the ROW used as agricultural/grazing land; percent of the ROW open with no
management required (lakes. roads, yards, parking lots etc); and percent ‘other’, with the

respondent specifying type.

 

\Viti"
categor} of
control that
and mechan
question; “ci.
“3}?“ Lead;
Hrivndtx A.
Used. tot-,1] acr
3PPlicd. and 2}

six choices. ail

 

methods \\

ere:
a hand gun. lt
sprajing llnClUL
radiarc. etc. i.
an} other appl ic;
Eachul‘t
Indittduat Plant
All indit
titllotting an ,‘m-I

CONTROL METHODS

With the percentage of ROW requiring vegetation control established in the first
category of questions, the second category of questions relate to the methods used to
control that vegetation. This category is divided into two parts, herbicide control methods
and mechanical control methods. Information on herbicide use was queried with the
question; “do you use herbicides to control vegetation on transmission line rights-of-
way?” Leading from a ‘yes’ answer is the Transmission Line Herbicide Report Form
(Appendix A. 3). This report form requested four types of information, name of herbicide
used, total acres or miles to which the herbicide was applied, the amount of herbicide
applied, and the method used to apply the herbicide. Methods used were selected from
six choices, all of which are accepted practices in the vegetation control industry. The six
methods were: basal treatment, cut surface treatment, high volume foliar application with
a hand gun, low volume foliar application with a backpack or hand sprayer, aerial
spraying (including herbicide side trim), and low volume foliar broadcast (fixed boom,
radiarc, etc.). An additional category of ‘other’ was added with the respondent specifying
any other application methods not listed as a choice.

Each of the six methods can be separated into one of three management strategies:
Individual Plant Treatment, Low Volume F oliar treatment and Broadcast F oliar treatment.

All individual plant treatments (IPT) apply herbicides to target vegetation
following an initial brush clearing. This clearing is done either mechanically or

chemically. IPT is divided into three types, Basal Bark, Cut Surface, and Soil Applied.

 

\li'.

taruc‘l W"

 

theliW-"si-T
(‘ut
Cambium \‘3
. . - I
application »
herbicide IL:

nutrient flow

 

\l'ith .\
liouid form at
moisture. Dc"

motility lit;

\

to be affected

the 501 l

4;“
substation get
not included ;

Simii;

ShilUld b2 LIX

With a Basal Bark treatment, herbicides are applied to the lower portion of the
target plants. Generally, the herbicide penetrates the bark and is translocated to the rest of
the living plant.

Cut Surface applications are basal techniques that administer herbicide to the
cambium of freshly or recently cut trees. This method is the most flexible because
application is possible any time of the year except during periods of heavy sap flow. The
herbicide translocates to the established root system and disrupts water and stored
nutrient flow, thereby reducing the potential for stump sprouting of the undesirable tree.

With Soil Applied methods of application, herbicide is administered in granular or
liquid form at the base of the target plant and then transported to the roots via the soil
moisture. Desired results of this method require chemicals with a moderate to high soil
motility. High soil motility of chemicals increases the chances for non-target vegetation
to be affected by the application. It became apparent in the pilot studies of the survey that
the soil applied. method was the primary one used to control vegetation at
substation/generating stations where bare ground situations are preferred. Thus, it was
not included as a ROW method on the report form (APP A3).

Similar to the IPT strategy of herbicide application, Low Volume Foliar methods
should be used to maintain a site after it has been cleared. The term low volume refers to
the amount of water that the herbicide is diluted with, not the amount of herbicide used.
The best sites for this method are those with low stem density (1500-2000 stems/acre)
and a low average stem height (ideally 4-7ft). The most popular of these techniques

employs the use of a backpack or hand sprayer to apply the herbicide. Low volume foliar

 

 

techniques
target etl‘ct “

A 5!
the use of a
long and SUE‘

techniques e,

 

 

 

l—Wcred eq ui

methods {3;}
treatments m.
than 2,500 5!:
high‘P‘mcrcd
meaning. all p
Aerisj
alICT3fi_ (JUld

damage. :\ k

techniques allow the applicator to be more selective, resulting in substantially fewer off-
target effects.

A second type of low volume foliar method is a broadcast method incorporating
the use of a hydraulic pump to deliver the herbicide instead of a backpack. The use of
long and sometimes flexible booms allows for the selectivity needed to keep low volume
techniques economically feasible. This method allows applicators to use existing high-
powered equipment.

The third strategy of herbicidal vegetation control is Broadcast application. Two
methods fall within this category, High Volume Foliar and Aerial application. These
treatments are best suited for reclamation work on rights-of-way with stem density greater
than 2,500 stems/acre. High volume foliar application is a ground-based method using
high-powered hydraulic pumps to deliver herbicides in a sweeping, non-selective manner;
meaning, all plant life is treated regardless of species or growth form.

Aerial methods incorporate the use of a helicopter or, sometimes, fixed wing
aircraft. Guidance systems are used to navigate the vehicles in order to minimize off-site
damage. Aerial application methods can only be used in stable, non-inversion
atmospheric conditions, with little to no wind to minimize drift of the herbicide. Both
broadcast methods generally require areas where sensitive borders do not exist, so as to
prevent non-target damage.

If herbicides were ‘not’ used, the respondent was directed to the next question,
and asked if there were areas of the right-of-way where mechanical methods were used
exclusively. Again, leading from a ‘yes’ answer was a report form named the

Transmission Line Mechanical Brush Control Report Form (App A-4). This form

 

‘lucfli‘d a 1:
mm a com
W, and h
the) had a “A"
manons “7
bucket ITUC‘k
an the meth‘
additional '01

mechanical n1

 

The th
but important
methods that t
methods did e‘
last question it

has increased ti
BL'DGET

The thir

\’ A'- '
egeldtion conti

\fi” '
allallon Con“

C .
Untamed lthe
3 I

sDen
10“ mecham

queried a list of five mechanical vegetation control methods commonly used by utilities.
with a corresponding unit of area or distance. The first two methods, mowing (i.e. Hydro
Axe) and hand equipment (clearing) are used to clear all or some part of the ROW; thus
they had a corresponding area unit designated in acres. The next three methods listed are
variations of side trimming: side trim with use of a helicopter, side trim with use of a
bucket truck and side trim using manual tools. Since side trimming is a linear procedure,
all the methods listed had a corresponding distance unit designated in miles. Four
additional ‘other’ entries were possible with the respondent specifying the other type of
mechanical maintenance.

The third and fourth questions included in the Control Methods category are small
but important. The third question allowed the respondents to add additional control
methods that didn’t fall within the herbicide or mechanical control categories. If such
methods did exist, the respondents were asked to identify and explain the method. The
last question in this category asked, “of all the above control methods used, which one

has increased the most over the last five years (1990-1995)?”

BUDGET

The third category of questions was concerned with the budget allotted for the
vegetation control program. Respondents were asked for the average expenditures for
vegetation control under transmission lines over the last five years. The question
contained three parts: total dollars spent, percent spent on herbicide control, and percent

spent on mechanical control.

 

 

 

 

 

 

PRIORI T11

The
managemer'

priorit) head

 

 

 

Bioduersit},
Herbicide (5

Habitat.

SL’BST.~\’I‘I(1

PRIORITIES

The fourth category of questions was concerned with the priorities of vegetation
management programs along transmission line rights-of-way. This question listed eight
priority headings that were ranked from 1-8 in the vegetation management program
(1 being most important and 8 being least important). The priorities are: Aesthetics,
Biodiversity, Customer Satisfaction, Lengthen Vegetation Control Cycle, Minimize
Herbicide Usage, Reduce Liabilities, Safety and Reliability of Service, and Wildlife

Habitat.

SUBSTATION / GENERATING STATIONS

The last category of questions deals with substation / generating station vegetation
control methods. This category was included to obtain a complete picture of herbicide
use by utilities, rather than strictly herbicides used beneath transmission or distribution
rights-of-way. Two questions were asked. The first being whether or not the company
was responsible for vegetation control at their substations/generating stations. A response
of ‘yes’ led to the second question; “Do you use herbicides to control vegetation at
substations/generating stations?" Following a ‘yes’ answer to the second question was a
small table asking for the following input: name of the herbicide(s) used, rate (gal/acre,
lb./acre, oz/acre) at which the herbicide was applied, and the total acres to which the

herbicide was applied.

 

MAILING

 

A It
Each mailtf
imponance

encouraging

 

current presi
[pm
the mailing ‘

and data frot

STATISTIC

Stati:

Bell statistic

l4

MAILING PROCEDURE

A total of five mailings were sent to the Utility Arborist Association companies.
Each mailing contained a copy of the survey, a letter explaining the background and
importance of the study, and a business reply envelope for returning the survey . A letter
encouraging completion and prompt return of the survey from Mr. James Downey, the
current president of the UAA was also included

Upon receiving the completed survey, the respondent’s name was removed from
the mailing list. The survey was identified and categorized as to the appropriate region,

and data from the survey was entered into a computer data file.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Statistical procedures and data manipulations were performed with the Anderson

Bell statistical program AbStat® using a Gateway 2000 version G6-180 computer. All
data were coded and entered as variables established in the program.

The analyses in this thesis are of a descriptive nature. Procedures used include
cross tabulation of the several variables and the five regions, with a primary emphasis on
herbicide methods, as identified in the Stewardship Strategy. An additional long-term
goal of the Stewardship Strategy is to quantify the active ingredient of herbicide per acre

of ROW. Therefore, calculations of active ingredient per acre (gal/acre) were performed

.1,

 

dependent

regarded ct‘

 

dependent on the information given by the respondents. Incomplete information was

regarded as missing and calculations were performed accordingly.

CHAPTER III: RESULTS

Respondent Characteristics:

A total of 8] utility companies, 37% of those solicited, representing 2,600,487
acres of transmission right-of-way, responded to the survey (Table 1). Four companies
responsible for 777,414 acres of transmission ROW represent Canada. Twelve
companies responsible for 211,876 acres of transmission ROW represent the Northeast
United States. Twenty-two companies responsible for 627.518 acres of transmission
ROW represent the North Central United States. Twenty-nine companies responsible for
824,101 acres of transmission ROW represent the Southern United States. Lastly.
fourteen companies responsible for 159,578 acres of transmission ROW represent the

Western United States (Table 2).

Table 1: Regional Breakdown of Population Sample

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recipients of Number Returned “/0 Returned Per
Survey Region
CANADA 9 4 44
NORTHEAST 39 l 2 3 1
NORTH CENTRAL 59 22 37
SOUTH 70 29 40
WEST 43 14 30
Totals 220 81
% ReturnedOverall 37

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rutt' ('th

SN,

”1' ‘l I
represcntw
RU“. JUC‘

are Open l's.‘

 

("3.167 acre
conductors d
and open Lint

'There
designations.
their contrih

additionai ac.

ROW Characteristics

Sixty-nine percent (1,790,682 acres) of the total transmission ROW acres
represented requires vegetation control. Twenty-two percent (528,793 acres) of the
ROW acres are used for Agricultural/grazing purposes. Seven percent (165,450 acres)
are Open land (parking lots, yards, roads, lakes) that require no management and 3%
(73,167 acres) represents ‘other’ land use, such as submarine and subsurface cables,
conductors designed with greater than 100' clearance, and a combination of agricultural
and open land not requiring management (Table 2).

There are an additional 63,456 acres that were reported without the land-type
designations. These acres represent approximately 4% of the total acres reported. Since
their contribution to the study, in terms of land-type designation is minimal, the

additional acres were left out of Table 2.

Table 2. Total Reported Transmission Line Right-of-Way Acreage, Land Type Characteristics,
and Percentages for Each Region of the Population Sample

 

 

l8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

monu<
a... m .. «N 3 .89.. .c .x.
o ¢ ¢ 9 r J a a MQLU<
Se .59 N in 3 mm: a: an» new mac :3. — .83.
39%. c ON. C. Sow. mm 2...... mm 0mm..m hmma
5.6% c Swamm o. moofim m. Seam. 00 392% IHDOm
. . t . - . . t.<~.th.U
3m 56 . mo. 0 w on. cm 3 m... mom mm mwm mom 1.5.02
. . . . ...m<m.
at. ..m o o v .3 w o. 93 em on omm .3. 1.5.02
3.3: m... on .4V m.m m .cKm E .945. mm 8.83 <Q<Z<U
.80... .80... .80.. .80...
:o&3.
. :o&3. moco< 5&3. mouo< 5&3. mouo< =o&3. moco< 20.0mm
5 88¢. 80% . . . .
. .o o\° .0 o\c .0 .x. .0 Ax.
DmDmmZ 907:). OZ.N<MO Dmammz 40”....200
mm.>... DZ<4 ”.mIHO OZ 1...? Zm...O \ 5.3.5.5206. ZO...<...m.0m.>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vegetation Management Practices:

Seventy-five percent of the responding companies stated that they used herbicides
on those transmission ROW acres that required vegetation control. Furthermore, the
majority of respondents in all of the regions except the Western United States, reported

using herbicides on their ROW (Table 3).

Table 2: Regional Breakdown of Companies that use Herbicides on Transmission Line Rights-of-way

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REGION Use % Of I Do Not Use % Of Total Number
Herbicide Respondents Herbicides Respondents Of Respondents
CANADA 3 75 1 25 4
NORTH EAST 10 81.8 2 18.2 12
NORTH ,
CENTRAL 16 70 6 30 22
SOUTH 25 88 3 12 28
WEST 5 39 8 62 13
Totals 59 20 79
0/o of All 1‘"
Respondents L 75 25 100

 

 

 

 

 

J .
¥

3!.

CK

 

lath
\f'gt

20

However, of those same companies, the vast majority (89%) stated there were
areas of their transmission ROW where mechanical control methods were used

exclusively to control vegetation (Table 4).

Table 4. Sample Population Companies that have Areas of Transmission ROW Where Mechanical

Vegetation Control is used Exclusively

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exclusive Mech. Non-Exclusive Mech.
l
i # of % of # of i % of Tm" Number
REG'ON I'Res onses Re ion Res onseSi Re ion Of
' p g p ‘ 9 Respondents
CANADA 4 100 0 , 0 4
NORTH EAST 11 1 90.9 1 ‘ 9 12
NORTH CENTRAL 19 l 85 3 ‘ 15 22
1
SOUTH 25 i 88 3 12 28
WEST 12 . 92 1 2 8 13
--_____,_“_W_ .__--___i __fi ___ _.__._ ___ _._____- ___
TOTALS : 71 8 . 79
7.? 3:1?me I T T 3 T T ,1 ‘ m ‘ "T" Tl " W—
Respondents } L 89 j 11 l 100

 

 

 

 

R.
increased
chose no
stated h.

tTahle 5

Table 5, '

From 19

7

‘_ A

7*— v—

V
—9

PT

 

21

Respondents were also asked whether herbicide or mechanical control had
increased the most from the period from 1990 — 1995. Six percent of the respondents
chose not to answer. Of those that did respond, 35% stated there was no change; 33%
stated herbicides had increased and 26% stated mechanical methods had increased

(Table 5).

Table 5. Most Increased Method used to Control Vegetation along Transmission ROW

From 1990-1995

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REGION No Response Herbicide Mechanical Same
CANADA 0 1 2 1
NORTH EAST 0 2 4 6
NORTH CENTRAL 1 6 5 10
SOUTH 0 17 2 9
WEST 4 2 6 1
Totals 5 28 , 19 27
-1--- -___. I -1 L - L- z
‘70 Of A" l l '
Respondents l 6 33 26 35

 

 

22

HERBICIDES

To best reflect the current trends in herbicide vegetation control used by utilities.
all herbicide information has been divided into two groups. These groups are singly
applied herbicides (referred to as Herbicides in tables) and herbicide mixtures (referred to
as Mixtures in tables). Singly applied herbicides are those that are used by themselves to
control vegetation. It should be noted that herbicide mixtures marketed under a single
name are considered singly applied herbicides, and all necessary calculations were made
to all ingredients. An example is Tordon 101M, which contains both Picloram and 2,4-D.
Herbicide mixtures represent two or more chemicals mixed together and then applied to
control vegetation. Mixtures are encouraged by most manufacturers to increase the
potential of effective brush control. The number of herbicides available for use allows
for a seemingly limitless number of combinations. Both groups of herbicide are reported
in three different formats: 1) Herbicides Used, 2) Methods of Application, and 3)

Calculated Active Ingredient of Herbicide per Acre.

23

Section 1: Herbicides Used

Singly Applied Herbicides

Since some returned surveys contained incomplete information regarding amounts
of herbicide applied, projected total gallons of each herbicide were calculated for the top

11 herbicides and then ranked by gallons applied (Table 6).

Table 6. Most Common Herbicides Used by Respondents along Transmission Rights-of-way: 1995

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H2222 2'
eported
Garlon 3A 10 130,304 8 16,288 162,880
Garlon 4 19 39,475 13 3,037 57,694
Accord 14 36,3 83 12 3,032 42,447
Arsenal 10 19,143 10 1,914 19,143
Krenite S 9 7.829 8 979 8,807
Tordon 101M 3 6,774 3 2,258 6,774
Escort 7 3,658 7 523 3,658
Pathway 3 3.518 3 1,173 3,518
Spike 6 2,635 4 659 3,953
Tordon K 4 194 4 49 194
Pathfinder 3 53 2 27 80
Others 10 31,483 31,483
Totals 89 281,449 340,631

 

 

24

Garlon 3A was the most applied herbicide with 162,880 projected total gallons.
Garlon 4 was second with 57,694 projected gallons, while Accord with 42,447 projected
gallons and Arsenal with 19,143 projected gallons were third and fourth, respectively.
An alphabetical listing of all singly applied herbicides reported as ‘other’ in Table 6, and
their frequency are listed in Table 7. The ‘other’ category represents 7 herbicides
mentioned only once or twice in the survey. These herbicides are most commonly used
in agricultural situations where only broad leaf weed control is desired. Complete

information on all reported chemicals is supplied in Appendix 3.

Table 7. List of ‘Other’ Herbicides from Table 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FRE UENCY
HERBICIDE “301“,“)

2,4 -D 2
Access 1
Banvel 2
Diuron 80 DF 1
Round up 1
Simazine 1
Weedar 64 1
Tordon 101 R 1

TOTAL 10

 

 

 

 

25

The Herbicide 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid) was reported as a singly
applied herbicide by two different companies. This listing is separate from other singly

applied chemicals that are sold as a mixture containing 2,4-D, such as, Pathway and

Tordon 101M.

Herbicide Mixtures

Herbicide mixtures were not as frequently reported as those singly applied.
totaling only 28. The mixture of Accord/Arsenal was the most common among the

respondents. with 32,349 total projected mixed gallons applied (Table 8).

Table 8. Most Common Mixtures Reported along Transmission Rights-of-way: 1995

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

# with Projected
. . Frequency Total Avg.
Herbicide Re 0 rte d Gallons Gallons Gallons Total
p Reported Gallons
Accord / Arsenal 9 24,950 7 3,594 32,349
Garlon 4 / Banvel 2 8,500 1 8,500 17,000
mm K/
Garlon 3A 3 11,1 18 2 5,559 16,677
Garlon 4 / Access 2 5,080 2 2,540 5.080
Others 12 6,246 6.246
T(Itals 28 55,894 77,352

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

26

As with the singly applied herbicides, those mixtures categorized as ‘other’ are

listed in Table 9. In each case the respondents reported the mixtures only once.

Table 9. List of ’other’ Mixtures from Table 8

 

FREQUENCY

HERBICIDE REPORTED

 

Accord / Arsenal / Escort
Accord / Escort

Garlon 3A / Escort

Garlon 3a / Tordon 101M
Garlon 3A / Tordon K / Arsenal
Garlon 4 / Arsenal

Garlon 4 / Weedone

Garlon 4 / Weedone / Escort
Krenite S / Arsenal

Krenite S / Tordon K
Pathway / Vanquish

Tordon 101 M / Vanquish

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_flflgflfl_~fl-~

 

TOTAL

p—n
N

 

 

 

 

 

Section

of app‘.
H1081 0
113.1 at
methtt‘
iligtrz
Applic

1011 \'

Figure
Along

27

Section 2: Application Methods

The second means of herbicide analysis relates herbicides used with the methods
of application. For singly applied herbicides, High Volume Foliar application was the
most common, representing 33% (30,654 acres) of the total acreage to which herbicide
was applied. Cut surface was second, representing 22% and a Low Volume Foliar
method using a backpack or hand sprayer was third, representing 21% of the total acres
(Figure l). The acronyms LVFwBH, HVF, and LVFB are short for Low Volume Foliar
Application using a Backpack or Hand Sprayer. High Volume Foliar Application, and

Low Volume Foliar Broadcast Application. respectively.

Figure I. Comparison of application Methods for Singly Applied Herbicides
Along Transmission ROW: 1995

Cut Surface
22%

 

LVFwBH
21%

28

Two tables represent each of the 6 application methods. The first table labeled
with an 'a', presents an alphabetical listing of all the herbicides applied using each
method, a proportional analysis of each herbicide used, and the percent of each herbicide
in relation to its total use across ALL methods. The second table, labeled with a "b", is
the regional breakdown (measured in acres) of each herbicide applied using the same

treatment method.

Basal Application

Only four herbicides were applied by basal application. Garlon 4 was the most
frequently reported, and represented the largest area treated, with 12,240 acres (Table
10a). There were no reported basal applied herbicides in either Canada, or the Western
region of the United States. The majority of Garlon 4 was applied in the North Central

US (Table 10b).

Table 10a. Herbicides Applied Using Basal Techniques for all respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1
mm“ lH°rbi°id° M51556 Hglbiztltgtfll... Ams % 57:51:“
i i .
___—___..-4...__- m--. _ M--- ___—-— l - 4
Basal 1 Accord 625 T 4.35 1 660 , 4.9
1 Arsenal 625 l 588 495 i 3:5...
77771Garton 3A1“ 125" 1 1667 7 171—607;“ 13
77 Garton4l * 75 l 7367 “224011 90.2 .
l l l .
Total 1 l 100 l13576l 100

 

 

 

Table 10b. Regional Breakdown (acres) of Basal Applied Herbicides*

29

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Northeast North Central South Totals
Accord 0 O 660 660
Arsenal 0 0 495 495
Garlon 3A 0 40 141 181
Garlon 4 245 8676 3319 12240
Totals 245 8716 4615 13576
% of Total 2 64 34 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Canada and West reported no basal applications

Cut Surface Application

Seven brands of herbicides were applied by a cut surface method. Garlon 4 was
again the most frequently reported, and was applied to 28.9% (5887 acres) of all the
transmission ROW acres treated with this method (Table 11a). Although it was the
second most frequent herbicide reported, Pathway was applied to the most acres (7781)
with the majority of those acres (55%) represented in the Northeastern United States
(Table 11b). Canadian companies did not report the use of a cut surface method to apply

herbicides.

30

Table 11a. Single Herbicides Applied using 6 Cut Surface Method for all respondents: 1995

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . °/e of % ofTotaI l% ofTotal
"“Md H°'b'°"'° Method Herbicide Use “”8 l Acres
Cut Surface 1
Access 4.3 50 1 6 1 0.04
1 Accord 6.7 1 6.7 a 1900 l 9.3
__,- 1. ___. .2--- ___. ___-.1-.- .-, _ ._ E _l, . -.__ _1_ _.__. _._-
1 Banvel 4.3 1 50 1 ND 1
l 1
lGarlon 3A 1 6.7 1 16.67 1 259 1 1.3
l; l ' l l
1 Garlon 4 ' 522 l 38.7 1 5666 1 26.9
__, —— W;- — W- W W- _ W » ~——— — —1- —-~-———— .. W W ~——-——
1 Pathfinder 8.7 71 66.67 1 4545 1 22.3
Pathway 13.1 1 100 1 7761 l 36 2
Total 1001 20361 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 11b. Regional Breakdown (acres) 01' Herbicides Applied Using 6 Cut Surface Method*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Northeast (39:21; South West Totals
Access ., 0 0 0 8
Acgfl1__.-l___-__1?_9_° -1 ._-2_ 1 9 -1 0_ “.1292...
Banvel 1 ND 1 0 ' 0 1 0 0
Garlon 3A l 0 1 0 259 1 0 259
Gem” 4 l 1726 1 1355 ' 670 ‘ 2136 5666
pathfinder l 0 l 0 . O 1 4545 454.25..
Pathway 7621 l 160 0 0 7781
Tota|s 11247 _1 1515 937 668..Zi2._-3.0,3_81__
°/e of Total 55 j 7 l 5 1 33 100

l

 

 

* Canada Reported no Cut Surface Applications

31

Low Volume Foliar Application with a Backpack or Hand Sprayer

Accord and Arsenal were reported with the same frequency, and a combined 52%
of all herbicides applied using a Low Volume Foliar method with a backpack or hand
sprayer. However, Arsenal was applied to 35% (6917 acres) of all reported transmission
ROW acres treated using this method (Table 12a). All Regions of study used some form

of this Low Volume Foliar method, with the significant majority being used in the

Northeast, North Central and South United States regions (Table 12b).

Table 12a. Herbicides Applied Using a Low Volume Foliar with a
Backpack or Hand Sprayer Method: I995

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M°th°d H°'bi°id° Magda deb‘izizztflse “"8 °/..Ao:;ostal
-11 1- 1-_1_.
LVFwBH 1 Access 3.7 1 50 392 1 2
___ _ 1---.53291L. 12.39 _‘ _ 139143 _ 1-113.412.3111 13215. 1.
Arsenal 1 259 1 41.16 116916 1 35.3““
1 Escort 1 7.4 1 22.22 1 222 1 1.1
-__ - 68101351114 1 19.9111 13: 11-0.31..-
__ -1 1 ]_-1_G_a_.£'°_'_‘_‘1_-_-_1____7-4 ___L_ 9,-5.2. _ ___1- 33.511 __9_-_‘?‘__ 1
1 KreniteS 1 14.9 1 40 1 5413 1 27.7
P" 7' 92.111135371 3.7 1 7 33133 _ 72"" 1 0.017
Spike 3.7 100 1 265 * 1.4
1
Total 100 1 19574 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

32

Table 12b. Regional Breakdown (acres) of Herbicides Applied Using a Backpack
or Handsprayer Low Volume Foliar Method

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1Canada Northeast (2:23;. South West Totals
Acce;:1 0 1 0 0 392 o 392
chgLL L .1- 9:91 3§9L :LLL682 44291:.
Arsenal 1 0 11__2_9___ 2513 _1: 4365 1 0 6916
E_L__ 1 10111-9- - 1 123-2-1L-L _1___ 0 222
Garlon 3A1 o 1 o 52 1 0 1 0 52
Garlon 4 19:71 : E73: :_:Ci:_:1:-_§"_:1___:L_- :33:-
Krenites 1- L 1- 59-3., - 0- -1i -9- -1- _-_9-.-__- {>51}..-
pathfinder 0_j1_ -_-_2 o o .'1-__0 2
Spike o 0 o 265 o 265
Totals 247 7095 5290 6260 662 19574
% °f ”t‘" 11 36 27 32 4 100

 

 

 

 

 

33

High Volume F oliar Application

Accord was the most frequently reported singly applied herbicide using a High
Volume Foliar method, but Garlon 3A was used to treat the most (7929) acres of
Transmission ROW (Table 13a). High Volume foliar application was not used by
Canadian respondents. The North Central and South US used a High Volume Foliar

method to apply herbicides on a combined 28,563 acres. 85% of all acres reported for the

method (Table 13b).

Table 13a. Herbicides Applied Using a High Volume Foliar Method: 1995

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1
mm“ H°wi°id° M51556 1136515331., Am” 1:25:22:
Hm: : Accord 1: 25 - 47.63 4752 1 15.54%
:— ": :7§e_n_a1 1 13.6 1 35:29 :7 2266 7.5
Banvel 1 2.3 1 50 1 61 1 0.2
Escort 1 9.1 1 44.44 1 2237 ‘ 7.3
Garlon 3A 1 9.1 * 33.33 1 7929 1 25.9
Garlon 4 1 9.1 1 12.9 1 620 1 2.7
1 KreniteS 9.1 1 40 g 1009 1 3.3
1 Tordon101M l 6.6 100 1 6692 1 22.5
1 Tordon101R 1 2.3 1 100 1 439 1 1.4
::_1 TordonK 1 _ 6.6 1 _:75 : _1;2064 1116.71“
2,4-D 1 4.5 . 1 100 ‘ 600 2.6
::_-: Diuron 8° DF1 -2-3 I __“L-TEW --_4 4 -
1 1
Total 100 1 30654 100

 

 

 

 

 

Table 13b. Regional Breakdown (acres) of Herbicides Applied using a High Volume Foliar Method*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Northeast (1:21; South West Totals
Accord 1 10 290 2988 1364 4752
Arsenal 0 303 1985 0 2288

Banvel 0 0 61 0 61

Escort 100 0 2137 0 223 7
Garlon 3A 940 6300 689 0 7929
Garlon 4 O 800 20 0 820
Krenite S 0 373 636 0 1009
Tordon 101M 240 6300 352 0 6892
Tordon 101 R 0 0 439 0 439
Tordon K 700 303 1061 0 2064
2,4-D 0 800 0 0 800
Diuron 80 DF 0 0 0 1364 1364

Totals 2,090 15,469 10,368 2,728 30,655
% of Total 7 51 34 9 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Method not reported from Canada

 

35

Low Volume F oliar Broadcast Application

In contrast to the 19,574 acres treated using a Low Volume Foliar Application
with a Backpack or Hand Sprayer, herbicides applied using a Low Volume Foliar
Broadcast method were only reported used on 3187 acres. Arsenal, Escort, and Garlon
3A were all reported with the same frequency for a combined 417 acres. Accord,
although reported less frequently, was applied to more acres than either Garlon 3A or
Escort. However, the herbicide Velpar topped all herbicides applied using this method
with 2500 acres. Krenite S was reported as used, but any other information was not
provided (Table 14a).

Ninety-six percent of all acres treated using a Low Volume Broadcast method
(3054 acres) were in the Southern US. In addition, this method was not reported as used
in Canada, and the Western US. Although the method was reported as used in the

Northeast US. insufficient data was given (Table 14b).

Table 142. Herbicides Applied Using a Low Volume F oliar Broadcast Method: 1995

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"an“, H°rbi°id° Mz‘thfid "36:12:31,... “”3 1 %X:rTe:tal
______ 1 1__ 1 :-
LVFwB 1 Accord 1o 1 4.35 1 204 L 6.4

151531‘1 may: "-76 1 2E: 74.-
_-,__, _Esf-E’IL 20 LL 33:23 1 105 33
1 1 Garlon 3A 20 16.67 1 74___+___‘_#2'.3__k__ _4
::::51:659—EEE if __ 10. _L_ 1.9 ,1 NE

1 TordonK ‘ 10 ' 25 1 66 21
W ___-Yslee'LL- 1L1. ___199__ 2599--- -78-5 _

1
Total ' 100 1 3187 100

 

 

 

 

 

36

Table 14b. Regional Breakdown (acres) of Herbicides Applied using
a Low Volume Foliar Broadcast Method”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Northeast C1222] South Totals

Accord 0 0 204 204
Arsenal 0 33 204 237
Escort 0 33 73 106
Garlon 3A 0 0 74 74
Krenite S ND 0 0 ND
Tordon K 0 66 0 66
Velpar 0 0 2500 2500
Totals 0 132 3055 3187

% of Total 0 4 96 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Canada and West reported no Low Volume Broadcast Applications

Aerial Application

A11 herbicides applied with an aerial method were reported with the same
frequency. Arsenal was used to treat 42% (2140 acres) of all the transmission ROW
controlled using this method. Incomplete information was given regarding acres treated
with Garlon 4. Thus, Garlon 4 was not considered in the acre calculations even though it

was reported as applied with an aerial method (Table 15a).

37

Table 15a. Herbicides Applied along Transmission Line Rights-of-way using an Aerial Method

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 .
. . Act %of Total 1 %of Total
Method Herblclde 1 Method Herbicide Use Acres 1 Acres
Aerial _ Accord 20 h_ ___4.35 g _ 1192 __ 23.2__
, Arsenal _ 20 __- 5.88 2140 41.7 -
L ___. £500" _ 20 L111: _66_7__4 J3
I Garlon 4 20 1 3.23 ND
_ _ KreniteS 1; _20_w_______ 10 1132 1 22.1
Total 100 5131 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only the North Central US reported using an aerial application for herbicide
vegetation control. Accord was reported in Canada, but the corresponding acre

information was incomplete (Table 15b).

Table 15b. Regional Breakdown (acres) of Herbicides applied using an Aerial Method

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Canada 012:; Totals
Accord ND 0 0
Arse—Hal o 1 192 1 192
Escort o 2140 2140 “—
Garlon 4 O 667 667
W Krenite s o 1132 1132
Totals H o 5131 513.1. -
% of Total 1 100 100

 

 

38

Herbicide Mixtures

Figure 2 is a comparison of the six methods used to apply Herbicide Mixtures in
terms of total acres applied by each. The acronyms LVFwBH, HVF, and LVFB are
short for Low Volume Foliar Application using a Back pack or Hand Sprayer, High
Volume Foliar Application. and Low Foliar Broadcast Application, respectively. The
highest percentage (43%) of all acres treated with herbicide mixtures was applied using a

basal method. Canadian Companies did not report using herbicide mixtures.

Figure 2. Comparison of Application Methods for Mixtures Along Transmission ROW: 1995

Aerial LVFB 788 A

HVF
13%

    

2226 A

  
 

11474A

    

Basal
43%

 
 

20656 A

   

LV Fw BH
24%

Cut Surface
16%

39
Basal Application
Two herbicide mixtures were applied using a basal method. The mixture of
Garlon 4/Access was used on 32,523 acres (Table 16a). Only the Northeast and North

Central United States reported applying herbicide mixtures using a basal method. with

99% of the total transmission ROW acres treated located within Region 1 (Table 16b).

Table 16a. Herbicide Mixtures Applied using a Basal Technique: I995

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . °/o of °/o of Total % of Total
Method Herbicide Method Herbicide Use Acres Acres
Basal
Garlon 4 / Access 50 50 36.523 99.3
Garlon 4 / Banvel 50 33.33 262 0.7
Totals 100 36,785 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 16b. Regional Breakdown (acres) of Herbicide Mixtures as Basal Applications

 

 

 

 

 

NORTHEAST nggfl TOTALS
Garlon 4 / Access 36.523 0 36,523
Garlon 4 / Banvel 0 262 262
Totals 36,523 262 36,785
% of Total 99 l 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

40

Cut Surface Application

Herbicide mixtures applied using a cut surface technique were all reported with
the same frequency. The mixture of Garlon 4/Banvel was applied to 94% (12,834 acres)
of the total transmission ROW reported for this method (Table 17a).

Only Companies in the North Central and South United States reported using
herbicide mixtures to treat ROW acres with a cut surface method. The acres reported for
the South represents less than .01% of the total ROW acres reported. The mixture of

PathwayNanquish was applied only with this method (Table 17b).

Table 17a. Herbicide Mixtures Applied using a Cut Surface Method: 1995

 

 

 

 

 

. °/o of % of Total % of Total
Method HerbiCIde Method Herbicide Use Acres Acres
Cut Surface __,-,
Garlon 4 / Banvel 25 33.33 12,834 94
Pathway / Vanquish 25 100 790 5.8
Garlon 4 [Access 25 50 ND
Garlon 4 / Weedone 25 50 20 0.2
Totals 100 13,644 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

41

17b. Regional Breakdown (acres) of Herbicide Mixtures as Cut Surface Applications*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Northeast 01:2; South Totals
Garlon 4138139 _ 1, __ 3 12834.4 0 12834 -
Pathway/ VanquileI i 9- ‘ 1_ 790 a _0“ #790 --
Garlon 4 /Access ND 0 0 0
Garlon 4 / Weedone 0 0 20 ZOE—T
Totals 0 1 3624.4 20 1 3644
% of Total — 100 0 100 A

 

 

 

* The West companies did not report using herbicide mixtures with cut surface techniques

42

Low Volume Foliar Application Using a Backpack or Hand Sprayer

A combination of Accord/Arsenal was the most frequent herbicide mixture

applied using Low Volume Foliar. The mixture was applied to 72% (14,898 acres) of the

total acres treated. The only other mixture reported more than once for this method was

Tordon K/Garlon 3A (Table 18a).

Table 18a. Herbicide Mixtures Applied using a Low Volume Foliar Technique
With a Backpack or Hand sprayer: 1995

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 1
W .222. °’°22.2'

LVflvBH L -_“ m . _

___ 1Accord/ Arsenal w ___fi # “42.11 1 8O 1 - 14,898 .L_- 731 _
1Accord / Escort 5.26 100 14 0.06
1Acoord [Arsenal / Escort 5.26 100 1,900 9.2

JGarlon 4 / Arsenal 5.26 50 10 0.04

_ #Garlon 4 / Escort 5.26 50 163 ELL
1Garlon 4 / Weedone 5.26 50 1 980 4.7

%___A ___ 1Car|on 4/ Weedone / Escort 1 - 5-25 __ 100 ; 24W _Ojfl
LKrenite/Arsenal 5.26 . M4100 1,011 1 4.9
1Krenite / Tordon 5.26 100 661 3.2
lTordon 101M / Vanquish 5.26 100 1 900 4.4
1Tordon K/ Garlon 3A 10.54 40 1 95 0.5
Totals 100 1 20,656 100

 

 

43

All of the United States regions reported applying an herbicide mixture with a
LVFw/BH method. Herbicide mixtures with this method were most common in the
North Central and Northeast US, representing 55% (11,312 acres) and 40% (8,154 acres)

respectively. of all reported transmission ROW acres (Table 18b).

Table 18b. Regional Breakdown (acres) of Herbicide Mixtures as a Low Volume Foliar with
Backpack or Hand Spraver Application

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Northeast C1221; South West Totals
Accord [Arsenal _ 1762—0 _1 11,192 166 0 14.898
Accord I Escort__ _ 1 -LL0___-_ W _-0‘____1__9___ - _14 14
Accord IArsenal / Escort 1 1.900 ‘ 0 0 O 1.900
Garlon 4 /Arsenal h L __“0 {__r0 _ __19 1 L 10 7%
Garlon 4 / Escort 1 162 1 0 ' 0 1 0 163
Garlon 4 IWeedone _f _ 1 _____Q_ ”#0 ,- _98__(_)#_ _ Owwmfggwh
Garlon 4 IWeedone / Escort 1 0 24 0 0 24
Krenite S IArsenal 7 ,_ __1.M01_1 _ 1 __ 0 _ 0 0 1,011
Krenite / Tordon 1 661 0 0 0 661
Tordon 101M /Vanqui_s-h_fip 1 900 O O O 900
Tordon K / Garlon 3A 1 0 95 O 0 95
TotaL. 1 8,154 11,312 1,176 14 20,656
°/o of Total 1 39 55 6 O 100

 

44

High Volume Foliar Application

High volume foliar applied herbicide mixtures were applied to 11,474 acres of
transmission ROW. The herbicide mixture of Tordon K/Garlon 3A was applied to 80%

(9,190 acres) of those acres. All other mixtures were reported with the same frequency.

(Table 196)

Table 19a. Herbicide Mixtures Applied using a High Volume Foliar Technique : I995

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . %or %ofTotal %ofTotaI

W made Nhthod HerbicideUse “"35 Acres
I'M: ,. _ _ .4
___ m’m -2-..._1‘3;3__ 1- -210 1 409212.33

Gaion3A/Tordon101M , 14.3 1 100 1,711 14.9

1”— Gar10n4/Arsenal 1 14.3 "1 so ’ U i 24 __L 0.2
Ga1m4/6ameli " 1743—1 ‘"3'3.—33—MT-41 1 6.4”"
Gar10n4/Esoort Tl 14.3 50 106—T36,"

Tordon mom—on? _- 26.5 40 _ .2 97166 80.1

Totals 100 11,474 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

45

Utility companies in the Western United States did not report any herbicide
mixtures applied using a High Volume foliar method, while companies in North Eastern
United States accounted for 89% of the ROW acres treated. The only Herbicide that was

reported in two different regions was Tordon K / Garlon 3A (Table 19b).

Table l9b. Regional Breakdown (acres) of Herbicide Mixtures as High Volume Foliar Applications

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l
' Northeast North South Totals
Central
Accord / Arsenal _ __f 0 0 400 400%
Garlon 3A / Tordon 101M 1 1,711 4 0 0 1,711
a 4 . V.___ _ _ Wk _ __
Garlon 4 / Arsenal I 0 j 0 24 #24
Garlon 4 / Banvel ! 0 l 41 0 41
a _ _ ,_ _ a _ a m”__l
Garlon 4 / Escort # W 108 _ 0 0 108*
Tordon K / Garlon 3A 8,331 859 0 9,190
Totals 10,150 900 424 1 1 ,474
°/o of Total 39 3 100

 

 

 

46

Low Volume Foliar Broadcast Application

The only herbicide mixture reported applied with a Low Volume F oliar broadcast
method was the combination of Accord/Arsenal (Table 20). The mixture was only

applied to 788 acres in the Southern United States.

Table 20. Herbicide Mixture applied using a Low Volume Foliar Broadcast Method, all in
the Southern U.S.: I995

 

 

 

 

 

 

M" I .. %of l °/oofTotal l %ofTotal
”mm“ Method 1 HerbicideUse Am” Acres
LVFwB % __ L
Accord/Arsenal _ 100 3 _r¥_1o #3 788 __ 100 "g

 

 

 

 

 

47

Aerial Application

Tordon K/Garlon 3A was the only herbicide mixture reported that was applied
using an aerial method (Table 21). All of the treated acres (2,226) are located in the

North Central United States.

Table 2]. Herbicide Mixture applied using an Aerial Method,
all in the North Central U. 8.: I995

 

l

M II I II I' 'I %of , %ofTolal I %ofTotal
thhod ‘ harbiddeLlse Acres

Aerial l
T

Tordon K/Gerlo_n3A 100 20 2226 100

l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48

Section 3: Active Ingredient Per Acre

The third examination of data is in direct response to the use risk reduction
strategy noted in the Stewardship Strategy for Electric Utility Rights-of—way. The
minimization of the amount of active ingredient per acre applied, rather than total volume
of products used, is the primary focus. To assist in the analysis of risk, the average active
ingredient per acre for each herbicide reported was calculated and listed in the following
tables. Dilution rates of herbicides prior to application differ for each method used;
therefore, the results are separated by method for all the sample regions. The main
purpose of these tables is to list the calculation results. They are not comparison tables.
Comparisons between different chemicals applied by the same method are not valuable
since each chemical is mutually exclusive. Tables 22-27 present the singly applied
herbicides used and the calculated average Active Ingredient per Acre. Tables 28-33
present the same information, but for the herbicide mixtures. Each entry in the tables is
the average of all reported uses for that herbicide.

The calculations were executed using the following steps. Gallons of product
applied were multiplied by the suggested percent dilution rate and then by the percent of
active ingredient contained in the product; for herbicide mixtures, the percentage mix rate
of each herbicide ingredient was also multiplied by the total gallons. The result was then

divided by the acres treated to obtain the final average.

49

Table 22. Average Active Ingredient Per Acre (Gal/Acre) for Singly Applied Herbicides
Using a Basal Method: I995

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BASAL INSSEIEYEENT N81?“ ESSEX SOUTH ”£533“
ACCORD Glyphosate 0.08788 0.0879
ARSENAL Imazapyr 0.27556 0.2756
GARLON 3A Triclopyr 22.2* 0.27143 0.2714
GARLON 4 Triclopyr 0.03673 0.0418 0.06087 0.0465

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* The calculated amount for Garlon 3A in the North Central region, was not included in
the final average calculation, because the value was so high it was considered an outlying

value.

50

Table 23. Average Active Ingredient per Acre (gal/acre) for Singly Applied Herbicides

Using a Cut Surface Method: 1995

 

 

 

 

 

ACTIVE NORTH 1 NORTH Avg Call
a” SURFACE INGREDIENT EAST CENTRAL l sou I H " EST Acre
l

ACCORD Glyphosate 0.0916 l 0.1200
PANVEL Dimmba ND l
GARLON 3A Tnclopyr T 2.7751 l 2.7800
___. . ,,_ at _- _ ___.- ___—___ .. ___—___ .L——-——~
GARLON 4 Tnclopyr 0.0349 0.0419 3 0.0879 0.0151 0.0449
HAk- fl. _- A. _ ___. ___? ._ .22 . _ ...... fl- m, ___ . _____ F .~_.-..__#
PATHFINDER Tnclopyr 1L l ND 4

Picloram & 0.0428/ I 0.0428/
ACCESS Triclopyr 0.0813 1 0.0813

Picloram& 0.0103/ 0.69375/ l 0.3520/
PATHWAY 2,4—D 0.0403 2.675 1 I.3576

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

51

Table 24. Average Active Ingredient Per Acre (gal /acre) for Singly Applied Herbicides Using A Low
Volume F oliar Technique with a Backpack or Hand Sprayer: I995

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LVFwBH 1112;621:111: Canada 13;" $2331 South West 8X57

ACRE
ACCORD Glyphosate 0.25000 0.01466 0.18418 0.02287 0.1179
ARSENAL Imazapyr 0.06000 0.001 19 0.02166 0.0276
ESCORT Methyl-2* 0.00002 0.0000
GARLON 3A Triclopyr 1.74875 1.7488
GARLON 4 Triclopyr 0.08097 0.0810
KRENITE S lFosamine 0.02518 0.0252
PATHFINDER Triclopyr 3.5000 3.5000
SPIKE Tebuthiuron 0.37736 0.3774
P112120: 0.11:; 1.121.:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Abbreviation for: Metsulfuron methyl {MethylZ-[[[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-I,3,5-triazin-2-y|)
amino]-carbonyl]-amino]sulfonyl]benzoate}

 

52

Table 25. Average Active Ingredient Per Acre (gal/acre) for Singly Applied Herbicides
Using a High Volume Foliar Method: 1995

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"VF INSEEISYENT ”EARS?“ £31151. SOUTH 6.371%...
ACCORD Glyphosate 0.00982 0.01084 0.0843 0.0350
ARSENAL Imazapyr ND 0.00017 0.0044 0.0023
BANVEL Dicamba 0.31 15 0.3115
ESCORT Methyl-2 ’ 0.00001 0.0005 8 0.0003
GARLON 3A Triclopyr 0.00166 0.00167 0.03996 0.0144
GARLON 4 Triclopyr 0.17325 0.1733
KRENITE S Fosamine ND 0.12377 0.00098 0.0624
TORDON K Picloram 0.00023 0.00013 0.00002 0.0001
m... M “8:18: . 0:: 0.9.0:: :::
2,4-D 2,4-D 37.5 38

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53

Table 26. Average Active Ingredient Per Acre (gal/acre) for Singly Applied Herbicides Using a Low
Volume Foliar Broadcast Method: 1995

 

 

LVFB [N83618: $3.821 SOUTH “if?"
ACCORD Glyphosate 0.031250 0.0313
ARSENAL Imazapyr 0.000900 0.000539 0.0007
ESCORT Methyl-2' 0.000420 0.000003 0.0002
GARLON 3A Triclopyr 0.012162 0.0122
TORDON K Picloram 0.000378 0.0004
V ELPA R Hexazinone 1.400000 1.4000

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 27: Average Active ingredient per Acre (gal/acre) for singly applied herbicides using an
Aerial Method: 1995

 

 

 

 

 

 

AERIAL [NSEEISYENT 1382388126
ACCORD Glyphosate 0.0167
ARSENAL Imazapyr 0.0013
ESCORT Methyl-2’ 0.0001
KRENITE S Fosamine 0.1026

 

 

 

 

 

54

Herbicide Mixtures

The following tables are the calculated active ingredients per acre for the
herbicide mixtures given in the survey. As with the singly applied herbicides, the 11 gures
are not to be compared between herbicides. Instead, the tables are provided for
organization of the chemicals used. The only valid comparison would be between values

of different application techniques for the SAME herbicide.

Table 28. Active ingredient per Acre (gal/acre) for Herbicides Mixture Applied
Using a Basal Method. in the Northeast United States

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BASAL REGION NORTHEAST

ACTIVE INGREDIENT l 2
(”"0" 4/ Triclopyr & Access* 0.01426 0.001 /0.002
Access

 

 

Access is a discontinued herbicide produced by DowElanco that contains
formulations of both Picloram and Triclopyr.

Table 29. Average Active ingredient per Acre (gal/acre) for Herbicides Mixture
Applied using a Cut Surface Method. in the North Central United States.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CUT SURFACE REGION NORTH CENTRAL
ACTIVE INGREDIENT l 2

Pathway / Picloram / 2,4-D &

Vanquish 3.6-Dicloro-2-anisic acid 0'03“ I (”505 0'40622

 

Table 30. Average Active Ingredient Per Acre (gal/acre) for Herbicide Mixtures Applied Using
a Low Volume Foliar Method with a Backpack or Hand Sprayer

55

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«8... m3... N885 _ w _. .9356:
N v o a. 8393me reomm \ Eo8<
. . . . .3205. v :otmO
m9. N can c m? m com o 6% Ego—0E \ v. ~5th
. . .. . . . raga”:—
25 c 2: c coco o 36° 0 3.25 o a: _ o 5% Eamon—Q30 _mcom..< \ EOUQ<
. . . . .0356:
:53 e :5 a :58 o mmoco o a. Sac—0th teemm \ v :230
. . 2:98 2:95
E; «new. oEod «a: an > a. z . >
3.3 : 335 o Qé N \ EEO—o5 :22: .5th
. . . . tags:
88 a 8.. a N58 o $58 a. 65:58... .282. \ 2:52.;
. . . . E8205 v. 590%
88 c as e 325 o 225 o a 65538 \ BERG.
#29de02—
N _ N _ N _ m _ N _ m>:U< Iain—>4
mdU< \ 4<0 O>< Emu? IHDOm 4<MHZmU hm<mIH¢OZ 290.“;

 

 

 

IHmOZ

 

 

 

 

 

Table 31. Average Active Ingredient per Acre (gal/acre) for Herbicide Mixtures Applied using a
High Volume Foliar Method.

56

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . . Sage—d. 3:33.
58 a SE a Boo c N. z: o o 2305920 \Eooo<
. . . . 3885 _ozam
mu; 5 32 a 33 o SN. o 6% $9205. :6 c286
_885 32:. _885 9.85 .~-_§62 roam
a. Sac—0th \ v 5.50

.83. . 88.3 . aim \ £825 2 :: SEE.
\ 38.: _mg a \ 2386 m. moo o a. baa—or... \ <m c230
. . . . . . 636.65 v 8:3
3.3 c coon c 9.3 o coon o ovma o seem o as EEOBE 3. .820...

#230552.
N _ m _ N _ m _ m>FU<
mdod.
:PDOm AEHZmU IHMOZ Hm<m IBM—OZ ZO—Omm m>=

\ A<O O><

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

57

Table 32. Average Active ingredient per Acre (gal/acre) for an Herbicides Mixture Applied using
a Low Volume Foliar Broadcast Method in The Southern United States

 

LVFB SOUTH
ACTIVE INGREDIENT l 2

 

 

 

Accord / Arsenal Glyphosate & Imazapyr 0.0001 0.00001

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 33. Average Active Ingredient per Acre (gal/acre) for Herbicides Mixture Applied using an
Aerial Method. in the North Central United States

 

AERIAL NORTH CENTRAL

 

 

ACTIVE INGREDIENT l 2

 

Tordon K / Garlon 4 Picloram & Triclopyr 0.3657 0.9236

 

 

 

 

 

 

58

Comparison of Calculated Active Ingredient Per Acre with the Maximum
Recommended Rates of Application

The Environmental Stewardship Strategy for Electric Utility Rights-of-way stated
that the pesticide use/ risk reduction strategy for United States utilities is aimed at
“minimizing the amount of active ingredient of a particular product (or products) per acre
rather than reducing the total volume of products used.” Simply calculating the active
ingredient per acre only provides half of the information required to evaluate if reduction
is necessary. Comparison of the active ingredient per acre for the most common
herbicides with the maximum recommended application rates will reveal if there is
indeed a potential exposure risk to humans and the environment. As with the preceding
calculations, the different dilution rates for each herbicide affect the rates for each
application method. The herbicide labels provide a range of values for the application
rate, the applicator decides on a rate depending on the situation. The maximum rates
were used for comparison because it is easier to ascertain compliance. Basal and Cut
Surface comparisons are excluded because the rates of application are based on a per tree
or per stump basis and not ‘per acre.” Herbicide mixtures are also excluded because the
variability in mixture possibilities eliminates a standard from which comparison can be
made. The maximum rates of application in terms of gallons of active ingredient per acre
were calculated as follows.

1) The mean of the recommended dilution from the label was calculated as

percent of product contained in the final herbicide solution.

2) This number was then multiplied by the maximum recommended gallons per
acre given on the label.

3) The

59

calculated product amount per acre was multiplied by the percentage of

active ingredient contained in the product to obtain the values in Table 34. An
example is located in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Sample Calculation of Maximum Recommended Application Rate for Garlon 3A
Using a LVFwBH Method.

1) 4-5 gal / 100 gal H20 = 4.5% = 0.045 of product

2) Recommended rate = 10-20 gal / acre,

THUS, .045 * 20 = 0.9 gallons of Garlon 3A / acre

3) Garlon 3a contains 44.4% of Triclopyr

THUS, .444 * 0.9 = 0.3996 gallons of Triclopyr / acre

Table 34. Recommended Maximum Limits of Active Ingredient Per Acre
(gal/acre) for The Most Commonly-used ROW Herbicides

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

METHOD OF APPLICATION

HERBICIDE LVFwBH HVF LVFB Aerial
Garlon 3A 0.3996 1.332 1.332 1.332
Garlon 4 0.4928 1.232 1.478 1.232
Accord 1.038 1.038 1.038 1.038
Arsenal 0.215 0.215 0.215 0.215
Krenite S 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.245
Escort 0.00703 0.01875 0.00703 0.0035
Tordon K - 0.122 0.122 -
Tordon 101M - 0.204 / 0.792 - -

 

 

 

 

 

 

60

The ratio comparisons were calculated using the average active ingredient per

acre calculations from the previous section and the above maximum recommended rates

(Table 35).

Table 35. Ratio Comparisons of Actual to Recommended Active Ingredient Per Acre for All Respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

METHOD OF APPLICATION
HERBICIDE LVFwBH HVF LVF B Aerial
Actual : Recom Actual : Recom Actual : Recom Actual : Recom

Garlon 3A 4: 1 1 :93 1 : 109 -
Garlon 4 1 ; 6 1 ; 7 - -
Accord 1:9 1:29 1:33 1:62
Arsenal 1 : 8 1 :93 1 : 307 1 : 165
KreniteS 1:65 1:26 - 1:12
ESCOl't 1:35 1:63 1:35 1:35
Tordon K - 1 : 2 l : 305 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only Garlon 3A had a higher ratio to the recommended rate, all other resulted in

ratios far below the recommended. Tordon 101 M was not included in the table but its

ratios are: Picloram - 1 actual : 255 recommended and 2,4-D — 1 actual : 240

recommended.

'Il'I.
-. . .4

Mechanical Methods

61

Mechanical Methods were divided into two categories, treated ROW acreage and

linear side trim of ROW. Treated acreage is represented by two methods: mowed acres

and hand treated acres (Table 36a). Mowed acres represents 80% (394,997 acres) of all

mechanically treated ROW. There were a considerable amount of respondents in all

regions that neither mowed nor used hand equipment to treat transmission line ROW.

Companies in Canada and the Southern United States reported 94% of all ROW acres

treated mechanically. Fifty-six percent of all reported mechanically treated acres were

located in the southern United States (Table 36b).

Table 36a. Regional Breakdown of ROW Acres Treated with Mowing and Hand Equipment: 1995

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOWING HAND EQUIPMENT

0 0 0 0
REGION Acres /0 of Total /0 that Do Acres /o of Total /0 that Do

acres not Mow acres not Mow

Canada 13 5,000 43 .8 75 46,500 65 50
Northeast 1.3 86 0.5 46 4,152 6 27.2
North 6,202 2 55 1 1,004 15 70
Central
South 249,253 52.7 24 22,505 10 60
West 3,156 1 50 2,610 4 42
Totals 394,997 86,771
% of Total 82 18

 

 

62

Table 36b. Regional Breakdown of Total Acres Treated Mechanically: 1995

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Re ion Total Acres % 01' Total
g Mechanically Treated Acres

Canada 181,500 38
Northeast 5,538

North Central 17,206 4
South 271,758 56
West 5,766 1
Totals 481,768 100

 

The second type of mechanical control is a linear method known as a Side Trim.
Typically, side trim methods fall into three categories, side trim with a bucket truck, side
trim manual, and side trim with a helicopter. Side Trim with a bucket truck, was used on
50% of the reported side trim miles, interestingly, this method was not used by any of the
Canadian respondents (Table 37a). A total of 16,773 miles of transmission line ROW

was treated using a side trim method (Table 37b).

Table 37a. Regional Breakdown of Side Trim Methods used and the Percentage of Respondents
that do not use each Method

63

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a NE 3 was on 28 285

R 2 :2 mm m m: S m :2 .83

N: am 9% 6m 2 :2 2 9. R 38 5.8:

o: : § mm _m 2 a 3 t 2: .2280 £82

a m cm: on a. 3mm :8 N E 88:52

m: mm 8: m: to on 8: o o .835
3:82 8:2 2:82 2:82
8.: 82 .88: 8: 82 8:2 8: 82 8:2

.5 ex. 2 .x. 8:2 .5 .x. .86.: 2 .x. 8:2 .5 .x. .88.: 2 .x. 8:2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmHmOUEmI

 

A<DZ<Z

 

¥UD~EI HmMUDm

 

 

 

64

Table 37 b. Regional Breakdown of Total ROW miles Side Trimmed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total ROW % of
Miles Side Total
Trimmed Miles
7.5:. 630 4
Northeast 3637 ' 22
North Central 3703 22
South 8110 , 48
West 693 4
Totals—m" 16773 100

 

 

 

 

Four additional mechanical control methods were given in an ’other' category in
the survey. Three of these methods, Shearblade, Brontosaurus, and Mowing Kershaw,
were used to control 8550 acres of transmission ROW. The fourth method is a Side Trim

method using a machine known as a Jaraff, totaling 486 treated miles treated (Table 38).

65

Table 38. Individual Mechanical Methods Reported as ‘Other’ and the Relative Miles Or Acres
Treated

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Method Canada Northeast (21%;; South
Shearblade 350 Acres
Brontosaurus 4900 Acres
Mowing Kershaw 3300 Acres
Side Trim Jaraff 486 Miles

 

 

Public Perception and Characteristics of brush were the two most frequently used
reasons given to explain the use of mechanical control methods instead of herbicide
methods. In the North Central United States, the cheaper cost of mechanical control
methods as compared to herbicide methods was the second most popular reason for
mechanical preference (Table 39). The numbers in Table 39 are tabulations of the
reasons given and are ranked according to the number of times the response was given.

For example, sites being protected or sensitive was given as a reason a total of 18 times.

66

Table 39. Ranking of Reasons given as to why Mechanical Methods of Vegetation Control
were used Rather than Herbicide Methods

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

___ _ __ 3 _ _ l ___WSEE'EW L...
REASON Canada Northeast m ‘South Met Totals
-____, - .IB'EL_-__-__M
Bibllcierfeption _ 2 _ . 8 8 l , 12 5 36 J
Charaden'stitsomesh l 4 7 w 3 19
,............3~ .7: 3: ___ ..
RONAgeen'entRestndsl-lerbuodas l 4 *1 5 *3 +1_.-_ 13”:
8.3.6; H T? _ 1 g 1 6 2 1o
9"“ Safety _, - _3.-- 1 i 1'— ._?___.EL_ E___4___
“3818081918 - ; -3 1 2-- , ___}: 1
AstheticConoerns 1 l 1 1 1 3
“MBSEEM; _ 1T ” ”IMF—”WWW ”1 "3
TéraT-ETW'” W—W 3 3
VJSFOQaRW‘ ' T TWW(SEWW‘WTWzW
Eeronn'entalConoems : l 1 1 i 2
ReluctanoetoChangem W — I" W ‘ g " 2 “"2”“
qu~§1§35£63 7 l filfi 3'2 “2‘ W
:lobCreation _ -24“: 7 4 .‘3_._- ‘__ 1
Wildlife 1 1 1 1

 

 

 

 

 

“ This category includes environmental Regulations set by the EPA

These responses do not represent all the respondents. In fact, there were a number

of responses that did not contain a response to this query.

67

Vegetation Management Budget

A total of $ 81,636,098 dollars was spent among all respondents for their
vegetation management program. Sixty-six percent of this amount was allotted to
mechanical control, while 34% was allotted towards herbicide control. Canadian dollars
were converted to United States currency with an exchange rate of $.75 Canadian: $1

American (Table 35).

Table 40. Regional breakdown of the Average Budget Allotted for Vegetation Control
From 1990-1995

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0/0 0f 0 0
. Herbicide Total Mechanical A of Total Total A of
Region . region Total
Dollars Region Dollars Dollars
Dollars Dollars
Dollars

Canada 2,405,625 34 4,625,625 66 7,031,250 13
Northeast 7,395,490 57 5,431,510 43 12,827,000 1 7
NM" 9,126,802 29 17,805,546 71 26,932,348 31
Central
South 8,039,400 3 1 22,846,100 69 30,885,500 34
West 3 81,920 10 3,578,080 90 3,960,000 5
Tom 27,349,237 54,286 861 81 636 098
Dollars v 9 9
% of Total 34 66 100
Dollars

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

68

Climatic Comparisons between United States Divisions

As stated in the Introduction, two hypotheses have been developed to investigate
possible differences of vegetation control intensity (based on dollars spent per acre) in
different regions of the United States. The first hypothesis deals with precipitation
differences.

Ho: Precipitation differences have no influence on dollars spent per

acre (vegetation management intensity)

H1: There is an influence

The theory is that areas with low annual rainfall averages (<25”) would require
less dollars spent per acre for vegetation control, since these ecozones have climax
vegetation with a maximum height and density that is compatible to a ROW environment.

Conversely, areas with high annual rainfall averages (>40”) would require more dollars
spent per acre to control the vegetation, since the climax vegetation becomes a potential
outage threat in a shorter time span.
The second hypothesis is concerned with temperature differences between
different areas of the United States.
Ho: Temperature differences have no influence on dollars spent per
acre (vegetation management intensity)

H1 : There is an influence

69

The theory is that as the mean temperature increases, meaning a longer growing
season, the potential for outage threats increases. With a longer growing season the
intensity to control the vegetation would seem to increase. An increase in intensity is
reflected in more dollars spent per acre. However, an alternate scenario is possible; the
longer growing season also increases the management season. Therefore, an area with
access year round could allow for a control program that can be paced over a twelve-
month period, thereby saving money.

The comparisons between United States divisions are also based on the
precipitation — effectiveness index. The precipitation-effectiveness index is an aridity
index measurement computed as ten times the sum of the monthly precipitation to
evaporation ratio at a given location (Fairbridge 1987). Aridity is a function of the
interplay between rainfall, temperature and evaporation. This index categorizes the
different ecozones of the United States so growth pattern and vegetation types can be
predicted (Little 1971).

TO keep with the format of the study, the United States census divisions are used
for comparisons. These Divisions are,

Division 1- New England (NE) Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire,

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island

Division 2— Mid-Atlantic (MA) New York, New Jersey & Pennsylvania.

Division 3- East North Central Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana
(ENC)

Division 4- West North Central Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota,
(WN C) Nebraska & Kansas Minnesota, Iowa

70

Division 5— South Atlantic Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia,
(SA) Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Florida

Division 6- East South Central Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama
(ESC)

Division 7- West South Central Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma & Texas
(WSC)

Division 8- Mountain (MNT) Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Nevada,
Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona

Division 9- Pacific (PAC) Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska &
Hawaii.

Three rainfall categories were developed. They are 1) areas averaging less than 25
in/ year, 2) areas averaging between 25-45 in/year and 3) areas averaging over 45in/ year.
For the states east of the Mississippi River, correlation of the divisions and amount of
precipitation was relatively easy, but for the states west of the Mississippi, precipitation
levels depend not only on the geographical location of the area, but on elevation of the
area, as well. Therefore, certain divisions include two or three different precipitation
categories. Figure 4 contains a map of the normal precipitation levels and the normal
temperature levels of the United States; the geographical divisions are listed in Table 41
with their corresponding precipitation category and precipitation-effectiveness index

rating.

71

Figures 4a & 4b. Normal Annual Precipitation and Temperature Delineations of the United
States. with Thesis Geographic Divisions Superposed

 

 

4a

 

Normal annual
' precipitation (in.).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4!)

Normal annual
temperature ('1‘) .

 

 

 

 

Maps reproduced firm the Climatic Atlas of the United States (Visher I954).

72

Table 41. Precipitation categories for the geographic divisions of the United States
Based on annual Rainfall

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Division P AY‘Vg‘.’ P . . . Precipitation -
regpltatron recipitatton Category Effectiveness Rating
ange

NE 25-45” 2 Humid

MA 25-45” 2 Humid

ENC 25-45” 2 Humid

WNC <25” 1 Humid

SA >45” 3 Humid

ESC >45” 3 Humid/ subhumid

WSC 20-45 2 & 3 Humid/ subhumid

MTN <20 filth 1 & 2 Semiarid / subhumid
exceptions

PAC 20-60+” 1, 2 & 3 Super humid overall

 

The west south central states (Division 7) can be divided into two sections.
Louisiana and Arkansas are humid regions receiving over 45” of rain annually.
Oklahoma and Texas, on the other hand, are part of the plains states where the annual
rainfall is less, ranging 15” on the western front to between 35-40 inches of rainfall, on
the eastern front. In the western states, it is hard to separate entire divisions into
respective rainfall categories. The Rocky and Cascade Mountains have a dramatic effect
on the patterns of rainfall. In general, the mountain states receive less than 20” of rain
annually. However, the Rocky Mountain areas of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and
Colorado receive between 25-45 inches annually. The Pacific states are highly affected
by the Cascade and Rocky Mountain ranges to the north and the Sierra Nevada and

Rocky Mountain ranges to the south. Meteorological dynamics of weather behavior,

73

dictates that the western face of these mountains average over 60 inches and the eastern
face average less than 25 inches. The valleys between the mountain ranges average about
30” per year.

Overall dollars per acre were calculated in two steps. First the dollars spent per
acre for each company in a given geographic division was calculated; then the mean for
all the company-calculated values was obtained. It is that mean value which is reported
in Table 42. The percentage of dollars spent on either herbicide or mechanical methods

is provided for comparison.

Table 42. Divisional Breakdown of Dollars Spent Per Acre To Control Vegetation
on Transmission Rights-Of-Way

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Division Average Vegetative Dollars/ Percent of S Percent of 8
Expenditure Acres Acre Herbicide Mechanical

1 - NE 8 4,150,000 96,923 61 64 36

2 - MA 8 8,667,00 71,332 137 55 45

3 - ENC $ 19,927,247 25,677 44 39 61

4 - WNC 8 7005.100 56,796 76 18 82

5 - SA 3 14,597,000 220,163 188 29 71

6 - ESC $ 5,720,000 68,928 236 15 85

7 - WSC $ 10,650,000 269,762 50 27 73

8 - MTN 8 551,000 39,630 35 37 63

9 - PAC 8 3,559,000 53,256 114* 5 95

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* $ 3,832.75 is excluded

74

Companies in the NE and MA states reported that the majority of vegetation
control dollars were spent on herbicide methods, whereas, those in the ENC states were
the opposite with the majority of dollars being spent on mechanical methods. Companies
in the West North Central states averaged $76 dollars per acre for vegetation control.
The vast majority (82%) of their vegetation management budget was spent on mechanical
control. For companies in the SA and ESC states, the average dollar per acre spent
annually were $188 and $236, respectively. The respondents in both divisions reported
that the majority of their dollars were being used for mechanical control. All companies
located in the West South Central states (Division 7), averaged $50 per acre spent to
control vegetation. The companies in Division 7 also reported that the majority of the
vegetation control dollars were spent on mechanical methods.

Three fourths of the respondents in the Mountain States (Division 8) failed to
report ROW widths when they reported the amount of ROW miles their company
maintained. Therefore, the vegetation miles in this division were multiplied by the
average ROW width for the western United States (85.2911), to convert the miles to acres.
The three responding companies located within this Division averaged $35 per acre.
With only three companies providing information for the MTN states, the confidence
level Of this amount is low. Further comparisons based on annual precipitation were not
performed so as to prevent company identification. California member companies did
not respond to the survey. Thus, any comparisons made of Pacific States include only
Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii. The average dollars spent per acre to control

vegetation was $579. This figure is heavily influenced by a company whose average cost

f1 . ~‘J-nmfii-
a
'.

75

per acre for vegetation control was approximately $3,800. With this number removed
from the analysis. the average cost / acre for the remaining companies in the division
averaged $114 per acre. The vast majority (95%) of the vegetation control budget in the
Pacific States was spent on mechanical methods. Of all 81 respondents, 10 companies

did not know or care to divulge their average expenditures.

76

Substation/Generating Stations:

Substation queries were specifically designed to solicit herbicide information.
The majority (60%) of the respondents stated that they were responsible for vegetation
control at substation/generating stations, 37% stated they were not and 5 respondents
(3%) gave no response to the question (Table 43). Of the 60% who are responsible,

98% use herbicides to control the vegetation (Table 44).

Table 43. Company Responsibility for Vegetation Control at Substation/Generating

 

 

 

 

 

Stations, by Region
%at Not ’ %at

W W. W W . Raspauaas T“

OM34 4 100 0 0 4
WFORTHEJSTF 9 73‘ ” I "3' ‘ ' ‘ 27 ’ "12
MRIHCENIRA. ” " 11 '50 ‘ '11 50 ' W22

SOUTHT 17 60 11 40 ’ 28

'WEST ‘ 7 545 4 " 31 ””13
"7a: a w 78 73—
W‘AdToEF W a)“ R " 37 F F1111]

 

 

 

 

”.1

:3.”-
0

77

Table 44. Herbicide Use at Substation / Generating Stations for Companies with
Vegetation Control Responsibilities, by Region

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Region Use. % of Don’t use % 01' Totals
Herbicides Respondents Herbicides Respondents
Canada 4 100 0 0 4
Northeast 8 88 1 13 9
2:3?“ 11 100 0 0 11
South 17 100 0 O 17
West 7 100 0 0 7
Totals 47 1 48
% of Total 98 2 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As with the ROW analysis, herbicides used at substation/generating stations are

divided into singly applied and herbicide mixtures.

Singly Applied

The seven most common singly applied herbicides used at substations are listed in

Table 45. Oust was the most frequently used, representing 21.7% of the herbicides

reported, Roundup was second representing 17.4% , Karmex represented 15.2%, and

Arsenal and Diuron 80DF tied with 6.5%.

Ni

78

Table 45. Most common Herbicides used at Substation / Generating Stations

0
Total

Herbicide Count

us
oun up
armex
rsena
uron
cco
rovar

All Others

21"

 

O S

Herbicides are applied to substations to maintain a bare ground environment. The
most common methods used to establish this objective are, soil applied techniques and
broadcast techniques. A total of 7,592 acres of Substation / Generating station vegetation
were controlled. In terms of acres treated, Dycleer, Roundup, and Karmex topped all
other herbicides. Dycleer was only reported by the Canadian companies surveyed. Table
46 is the regional breakdown of each herbicide used at substation/ generating stations and

the amount of acres to which each was applied.

79

Table 46. Regional Breakdown (acres) of Herbicides applied to

Substation / Generating Stations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Herbicide Canada North North South West Total % or
East Central Acres Total
Accord 30 35 65 0.9
Arsenal 127 675 47 849 1 1.2
Casoron 4G 70 70 0.9
Diuron
80DF 300 2 302 4
Dycleer 1856 1856 24.4
Escort 30 30 0.4
Garlon 3A 47 47 0.6
Karmex 30 1045 186 1261 16.6
Krovarl 128 128 1.7
Krovar II ND ND
Oust 60 200 486 7 753 9.9
Pramitol 3 3 0.04
Predict 35 35 0.5
Princep 10 10 0.1
Rodeo 10 10 0.1
Round up 1393 369 84 2 1848 24.3
Surflan 25 25 0.3
Weedar 64 300 300 4
Totals 3376 150 2490 1475 101 7592 100
% of Total 45 2 33 19 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80

Mixtures

Karmex/Oust was the most frequently reported herbicide mixture used at
substation/generating stations (Table 47). The mixture was applied to 78% (2,050 acres)
of the total substation acres. Although Accord/Pendulum 3.3 is listed as an herbicide
utilized, the appropriate acreage data was incomplete; thus, it was not used in the acre

calculations located in Table 48. Companies in the western United States did not report

using mixtures at their substation/ generating stations.

Table 47. Herbicide Mixtures Reported Applied at Substation/ Generating Stations: 1995

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Herbicide R1323; % of Total
Accord / Pendulum 3.3 1 16.7
Hyvar/ Pendulum 3.3 1 16.7
Karmex/ Oust 2 33.3
Karmex/ Oust / Roundup 1 16.7
Oust / Diuron 1 16.7
Totals 6 100

 

 

81

Table 48. Regional Breakdown (acres) of Herbicide Mixtures

Used at Substation / Generating Stations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mixture 1:30;: C1313] South Total Acres %X::;:tal
Accord/Pendulum 3.3 ND ND 0
Hyvar/Pendulum 3.3 11 11 0.4
Karmex/Oust 450 1600 2050 78.2
Karmex/Oust/Roundup 1 20 120 4.6
Oust / Diuron 440 440 16.8
Totals 570 1600 451 2621 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

82

Vegetation Management Program Priorities:

Not unexpectedly, safety and reliability of service was ranked the highest in terms
of vegetation management priorities among all respondents, with customer service ranked

second in importance. These rankings are a result of multiplying the value of a ranking

(1-8) by the frequency of the ranking. The results are listed in Table 49.

Table 49. Vegetation management program Priorities for 1995, by Region, based on a Scale of 1-8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1:23;: Resplo‘: den ts Canada Northeast Gigi; South West
1 S&R S&R S&R S&R S&R S&R
2 Cust Sat Cust Sat Red Liab L Veg Cust Sat Red Liab
3 L Veg Red Liab L Veg Cust Sat L Veg Cust Sat
4 Red Liab L Veg Cust Sat Red Liab Red Liab L Veg
5 Aest Min Herb Aest Aest Aest Aest
6 Wildlife Aest Min Herb Min Herb Wildlife Wildlife
7 Min Herb Biod Wildlife Wildlife Biod Min Herb
W 8 Biod Wildlife Biod Biod Min Herb Biod
S&R= Safety and Reliability of Service Wildlife = Wildlife habitat
C ust Sat = Customer Satisfaction Min Herb= Minimize Herbicide Use
Lveg = Lengthen Vegetation Control Cycle Biod= Biodiversity
Red Liab = Reduce Liabilities Aesth = Aesthetics

83

CHAPTER IV: DISCUSSION

PROJECTION TO THE UNIVERSE

The Edison Electric Institute estimated that there were 672,177 miles of Electric
Transmission line of 22 KV and above in service, throughout the United States in 1995
(Statistical Yearbook of Electric Utilitieszl995). In order to determine the amount of this
total represented by the sample, a number of steps are necessary. First, the 2,600,487
acres listed in Table 2 must be converted to miles, so that both sources are comparable.
This is done using the mean ROW widths calculated for each region to attain the linear
units. In most cases, the voltage of the utility line directly influences ROW width; in
other cases, width is dependent on legalities involved with original ROW agreements and
easement rights. Table 50 lists the mean ROW width used to convert acres to miles for
each sample region and the corresponding mile values. In addition, the number of miles
reported without ROW widths are listed. The sum of the converted miles and these
additional miles represents the total miles reported in the study. For example, a company
in the Northeast reported being responsible for 1400 miles of transmission ROW, which
was then added to the 13,656 converted miles (from acreage) to obtain the 15.056 miles

of transmission ROW located in the Northeast region.

“'a‘-
‘ -‘ ..

84

Table 50. Mile Conversions of Total Sample Acres Reported for each Region of the United States

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Miles
REGION Total Acres ‘32:?!“ cox/Fig“ £36]! 10313;;
Northeast 211,876 128 ft 13,656 1,400 15,056
North Central 653,196 93.97 ft 57,347 1,300 58,647
South 859,879 90.72 ft 78,197 5,200 83,397
West 161,578 85.29 ft 15,629 14,950 30,579
TOTALS 1,886,529 164,829 22,850 187,679

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The converted miles above represent 28% of the estimated EEI miles for all utility
companies. However, this is not an accurate representation of the study sample. The
majority of member companies in the Utility Arborist Association, the sample universe
for this study, are investor owned. A separate listing, provided by EEI, estimates that
there were 541,022 miles of investor owned transmission electric line of 22 KV and
above, in service in 1995 (Appendix 6). An additional adjustment to this figure was
needed because fewer than 2% of the transmission ROW reported contained information
from lines with less than 40 KV of power. Therefore, in order to increase the accuracy of
the sample representation, the amount of investor owned miles with less than 40 KV
(152,436 miles) were subtracted from the total, resulting in 388,587 miles. With these
corrections, the 187,679 sample miles are compared with the total miles of investor
owned transmission line above 40Kv, resulting in a 48% sample representation.
Extrapolation of land type characteristics for the 388,587 investor owned miles are

calculated using the United States adjusted percentages from Table 2. and are listed in

H-

85

Table 51. Canadian companies were excluded from the extrapolations because the

Edison Electrical Institute only reports United States ROW miles.

Table 51. Estimated Land-type Characteristics of the 338,587 miles of Investor Owned Utility
Transmission Line with Voltage Greater than 40KV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VEG AG / Total
REGION CONTROL GRAZING OPEN OTHER Miles :7-
U n itcd States I
Land-type 64 "/o 2.50/0 8"/o 3" o 100"/u i
Percentages L1
Northeast 37,304 7,772 1,865 0 46,941 I
North 77,095 43,716 10,259 1,166 132,235
Central
South 124,348 26,230 15,854 10,376 176,808
West 9,948 19,429 3,109 l 17 32,603
TOTALS 248,695 97,147 31,087 11,658 338,587

 

To better comprehend the area of land encompassed by the 248,695 miles of
investor owned transmission ROW requiring vegetation control; the miles are converted
back to acres. Again, the mean ROW widths for each region are used for the conversions

and the resulting acres are listed in Table 52.

86

Table 52. Investor owned ROW land-types converted to acres from miles in Table 51

 

 

 

 

 

 

REGION (2012:3011 GRfZII/NG OPEN OTHER
Northeast 578,777 120,583 28,936 0
North Central 878,135 497,938 116,853 13,281
South 1,367,376 288,435 174,336 1 14,098
West 102,844 200,861 32,141 1,210
TOTALS 2,927,132 1,107,817 352,266 128,589

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With an estimated 2,927,132 acres of investor owned transmission ROW
requiring vegetation control, a better understanding of the techniques employed becomes
increasingly important.

The remainder of this chapter is composed of three sections, each corresponding
to the intents mentioned in the introduction. These sections will try to identify certain
trends in the vegetation management strategies. The first section is an analysis of the
results listed in Chapter 3. The second section addresses the concern of risk reduction by
analyzing the results of the active ingredient per acre calculations and the comparisons of
those figures with the maximum recommended application rates obtained from the
manufacturer labels. The third part has an ecological focus and will attempt to relate the
intensity of vegetation control (cost/acre) with ecological land type based on temperature

and precipitation variation within the United States.

87

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Vegetation Management Practices

The field of ROW vegetation control has become inundated with information and
products praising the effectiveness and economic savings associated with herbicide
application. At the same time, mechanical techniques are noted as causing a proliferation
of undesirable target vegetation, which creates higher management costs because of
shorter cutting cycles, decreased access, and increased labor intensity

Preliminary analysis of Table 3 would suggest that, with 69% of the respondents
reporting herbicide use, the above stated philosophies do indeed influence management
behavior. However, closer examination of the results provides insight into the actual
condition of United States utility transmission rights-of-way. Recall that according to the
‘Stewardship Strategy’. a utility company has three objectives in terms of vegetation
control:

-To provide safe and reliable service
-To minimize interruptions by trees and other vegetation

-To maintain a harmonious relationship with varied land uses and the
environment (VMTF 1996).

The compliance of management practices to these objectives is revealed through

three areas of investigation. These areas are: the most common herbicides used by

‘3‘:-

88

utilities; the most common methods of herbicide application; and the influence of

mechanical methods in the process of vegetation control.

Herbicides Used

Information in this section is taken from the required labels and MSDS forms that
accompany all herbicide sales.

Garlon 3A and Garlon 4 were the most common herbicides (in terms of frequency
reported and total projected gallons) used for ROW vegetation control. Garlon 3A has a
precautionary statement of Danger; its active ingredient, Triclopyr as the triethyl amine
salt, has been shown to cause irreversible eye damage in laboratory test situations when
undiluted (DowElanco 1994). Garlon 4 has a precautionary statement of Caution; its
active ingredient is Triclopyr as a butoxyethyl ester formulation, which is toxic to fish
(DowElanco 1995). Although possible, both of these consequences can be avoided if a
knowledgeable applicator takes the proper precautions prior to, and during application.
Besides the toxicity to fish, the environmental impact of Triclopyr is small since it has
high soil affinity and is decomposed quickly by resident microorganisms; both of these
characteristics reduce the potential of off-target damage. However, in most cases, these
herbicides are diluted with a petroleum-based product. Petroleum based carriers increase
the probability of penetration into the target plants. If these carriers are contaminated or
are improperly applied, they can cause serious environmental damage by leaching into

water sources and sterilizing the surrounding soil.

89

Accord and the mixture of Accord/Arsenal were the third and fourth most
commonly applied herbicides. Both herbicides, separately and as a mixture, are diluted
in a water-based solution prior to application. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in
Accord, has a high soil affinity, a short half-life, and is listed as slightly toxic to a variety
of organisms (Monsanto 1996). The active ingredient in Arsenal, Isopropylamine salt of
Imazapyr, also has high soil affinity, a short half-life and is listed as slightly toxic
(Cyanamid 1994). Both Glyphosate and Imazapyr have a precautionary statement of
Caution and are effective at low rates of application if applied properly. Chemicals in the
‘Slightly Toxic’ classification have an oral and/or dermal LD50 in the range of 500-
5000mg/kg (Lu 1991). Krenite S is the fifth ranked chemical in terms of projected
gallons. It has a precautionary statement of Caution; its active ingredient, fosamine
ammonium, has high soil affinity, a very short half life (less than 1 — 5 days), and is listed
as practically non—toxic with an oral LD50 greater than 5,000 mg/kg (DuPont 1996).
Tordon 101M was the next most applied herbicide. It is a restricted use pesticide since
one of its active ingredients, Picloram, has rapid soil motility. This motility can result in
serious off-target damage to adjacent vegetation, if poorly applied. Tordon 101M also
contains the herbicide 2,4-D, which broadens the spectrum of species controlled. The
herbicide carries a precautionary statement of Warning; the mixture of active ingredients
is considered ‘slightly toxic’ with an oral LD50 in rats at 2598 mg/kg (DowElanco 1994).

The risk of these chemicals to humans is relatively low. Each herbicide is
required to undergo US Environmental Protection Agency analysis and approval in order
to become registered for public use. The low toxicity of these herbicides results from the

mode of action of the active ingredients. The majority of herbicides mentioned inhibit

9O

enzymes found only in plants; therefore, organisms without these enzymes (i.e. animals)
are not adversely affected. An example is the herbicide Arsenal. Imazapyr inhibits the
enzyme AHAS (acetohydroxyacid synthase). The enzyme is used for amino acid
synthesis without which the plant will die (Cyanamid 1994). Unless they are improperly
applied and/or proper precautions are not taken, these herbicide formulations pose little
threat to workers and those living adjacent to the ROW.

The environmental impacts of these chemicals are also small if proper application
procedures are followed. Effects on the surrounding environment play just as important a
role in herbicide classification as human risk from exposure. An example is Tordon
herbicides, which are categorized as restricted because of their high soil motility and
potential off-target effects, not because of their toxicity to humans. The biggest threat of
environmental damage is from the oil-based carriers of some herbicides and not the
chemicals themselves. The widespread use of water based herbicides such as, Accord,
Arsenal, Tordon 101M and Krenite, suggests that a shift from oil based carriers is
occurring. Water based chemicals allow selective control of target species, while having
little effect on the surrounding soil. which in turn. helps establish a low growing, tree

invasion resistant community.

Acres of Treated Right-of-way

Although toxicity concerns should be paramount when discussing herbicide use,

product information alone does not provide adequate insight into the current vegetation

management trends. To better reflect these trends, an additional investigation into the

g..—-—‘—'q-_-_—___
L. .4 u--. 1 '1- i‘
\'\

91

amount of acres treated either herbicidally or mechanically was completed. Recall that
1,790,682 acres of transmission ROW required vegetation control. However, the results
show that only 566,117 (32%) acres were represented by a specific treatment. Herbicide
techniques accounted for 10% of the total and mechanical control for 22%. The
remaining 68% were not accounted for even though vegetation control was required.

There are two possible explanations for this discrepancy. The first is that the
survey results misrepresent the sample population. This is feasible since reporting
herbicide and/or mechanical techniques was difficult for a number of companies. This
became apparent when a number of respondents supplied incomplete information
regarding the amounts of ROW treated.

A second explanation may relate to the concept of a vegetation control cycle.
Although a company is responsible for vegetation control on all the reported area, only a
percentage can actually be treated per year. Most companies incorporate a rotation cycle,
usually from 3-5 years, at the end of which the entire ROW area is treated. Since this
survey only requested 1995 information, it is likely that only a percentage of the total
acres reported were treated. Thus, the entire ROW would not be represented.
Unfortunately, questions regarding rotation cycles were not included in the survey.
Therefore, an average management cycle cannot be calculated. However, with almost
33% of the total ROW requiring vegetation control represented, it could be assumed that
a 3-year rotation cycle is the norm. In addition to the acres given, an additional 17,110
miles were reported treated without a ROW width. In all actuality, it is most likely a
combination of both scenarios that caused the discrepancy. With this in mind, the

following observations are made.

i wan-.12»... . .'
..

92

Methods used.

In general, there are two types of herbicide application techniques, selective and
non-selective (Table 53). Each of the methods used in the survey fall into one or both
types. Selective techniques, such as Basal and Low Volume Foliar methods, target only
the undesirable vegetation, leaving behind herbaceous and low growing woody plants to
establish shrub dominated communities resistant to tree seedling invasion (Niering 1974)
(Bramble 1991). Cut surface techniques can be either selective or non-selective
depending on the situation, since a mechanical cutting of brush is required. Non-
selective techniques, such as High Volume Foliar and Aerial methods, are used to
reestablish control of the right-of-way vegetation. These broad sweeping techniques,
used in areas containing over 2,000 stems/acre, generally kill all vegetation within a
given ROW area creating a ‘clean slate’ where desirable vegetation can become
established. In most cases, a period of intensive maintenance following non—selective
techniques is required in order to achieve the desired results. If the maintenance is not
performed, the ROW will revert back to its original problem state. Except in the case of
aerial application, most non-selective techniques require the use of heavy equipment.
This, coupled with eradication of most vegetation, actually produces soil conditions that
can benefit the establishment of the undesirable vegetation. However, these effects are
not exclusive to non-selective herbicide techniques; they also exist following a
mechanical clearing of brush (Luken 1991 ).

Selective techniques can only be used effectively on areas where stem densities

are low and tree size is small (DowElanco 1994)(DuPont 1996). These are typically

93

areas of the transmission ROW that are in transition to, or exist as, a stable low growing
plant community. This situation exists as a result of previous maintenance or the climatic
conditions of the area.

Notice in Table 53, that at least 53% of herbicide methods reported were
selective. Since it can be assumed that most companies would not employ techniques
that are ineffective, a good proportion of the transmission ROW acres treated contain
utility line compatible vegetation. However, the presence of non-selective techniques
also suggests that a substantial amount of acres do not contain stable, low growing
communities and, in fact, require some sort of reclamation technique in order for control
of the vegetation to be reestablished. This is also evident in the following section on
mechanical control. Despite the disadvantages of non-selective treatments, high volume
foliar methods were the most common, after basal treatments. In fact, if the one case of
36,523 acres treated with a basal method is removed from the analysis; the most common

application method would be high volume foliar.

94

Table 53. Herbicide Application Methods, and Their Selectivity, ranked by Total Acres Treated

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% OF

METHOD TYPE ACRES TOTAL
Basal Selective 50,363 28
High Volume Foliar Non-Selective 42,128 24
Low Volume F oliar with a .
Backpack or Hand Sprayer Selectlve 40’231 23
Cut Surface Non'se'efnve/ 34,025 19

Selectwe
Aerial Non-selective 7,357 4
Low Volume F oliar Broadcast Selective 3,974 2
Totals 178,078 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

Low Volume Foliar applications are relatively new techniques. The most
common is Low Volume F oliar with a Backpack or Hand Sprayer. The major advantage
of this method is the increased selectivity and accessibility. However, to ensure correct
target plant identification and safe and effective herbicide application, both time and
money must be invested.

Low Volume Broadcast techniques are less common. The equipment involved
can pose problems in terms of cost, inaccessibility, and site impacts that can expose
mineral soil which favors seed germination and establishment of some tree species

(Smith 1986).

95

Aerial techniques are less likely to be used because of the threat of damage to
adjacent areas due to drift.

Cut surface methods are unique because they require a combination of mechanical
and herbicidal techniques. In terms of selectivity, the variable is the type of mechanical
control used. Mowing is non-selective, whereas, cutting can be very selective. The most
popular method of cut surface application is cut stump or cut stubble. These methods
require a clearing of vegetation before the herbicides are applied to the cut stems, which
complete the kill.

The continued use of non-selective methods can be viewed from two different
perspectives. The first is from the perspective of cost. Non-selective techniques initially
cost less than selective techniques. While the short-term total vegetation control solution
is inexpensive, the high intensity maintenance required to establish the desired vegetation
dynamics is expensive (DowElanco 1994). Therefore, long term management should be
the goal; not short-term savings. The repeated use of non-selective methods creates a
situation where vegetation control is only possible if the same techniques are repeated.
For example, transmission ROW treated periodically with a High Volume foliar
technique will continually produce undesirable plants, since the efforts to establish
compatible vegetation cover resistant to tree seedling invasion are not attempted.

The second point of view is from the perspective of nostalgia. High Volume
foliar techniques were the industry standard for a number of years. The shift in methods
takes time since some companies may be reluctant to give up old methods that are

effective.

96

The issue of costs cannot be ignored when herbicides are used. In a heavily
wooded area, initial investments for the conversion of ROW will be high regardless of
the methods used (Abrahamson et.al. 1991). However, the need for intensive, selective
techniques decrease as the desired communities are established; thus, costs decrease.
Non-selective techniques are still popular and are irreplaceable for certain situations. The
presence of selective techniques such as basal and low volume foliar with backpack or
hand sprayer would suggest that serious efforts are being made to establish utility

compatible vegetation communities that have the probability of cost savings in the future.

Influence of Mechanical Methods

As mentioned earlier, mechanical cutting of hardwood stumps, either with
equipment or by hand, can perpetuate the undesirable species in the ROW via the process
of stump sprouting in deciduous hardwoods. However, 89% of the companies that
responded, stated there were areas of their ROW where mechanical methods were used
exclusively. In fact, the amount of acres treated mechanically was 2.3 times greater than
the total acres treated chemically. This data would suggest that despite the current pro
herbicide philosophy, utility companies are continuing to rely on mechanical techniques
to maintain vegetation. A number of reasons exist as to why the mechanical methods are
preferred.

The most common reason given regarding mechanical, instead of chemical,
control was public perception. This refers not only to the individuals who reside adjacent

to the rights-of-way but the general public as well. Herbicides carry such a powerful

97

stigma that some companies are unwilling to take on the challenges of educating their
customers to the benefits. This perception has influenced every facet of herbicide
application procedure, from customer notification, to government regulations regarding
permit acquisitions. These added procedures and specifications also increase the cost of
herbicide programs.

The next reason for mechanical methods being preferred over chemical control
was the characteristics of the brush being treated. Most herbicide techniques are
relatively ineffective on extremely dense or tall brush. The non-selective nature of
mechanical treatment eliminates all brush, but creates an ideal stump-sprouting hardwood
environment that dictates more frequent cutting. In most cases the very dense vegetation,
treatable only by mechanical techniques, is the result of the continual cutting back of the
ROW area.

The higher cost of herbicide control compared with mechanical was another
reason given. This reason seems to focus on the short term costs of the treatment, while
the benefits and long term control of selective herbicide applications are not considered.
As mentioned earlier, the initial investments and treatments can be expensive.
(Abrahamson eta]. 1991). Capital is needed to purchase new equipment and facilitate
worker hiring and training. Most companies that do use herbicides contract out the
spraying to specialized firms to try to save capital. The negative public perception of
herbicides has increased costs by creating an environment of government regulations that
dictate funds be allocated for legal assistance. Also, the creation of support crews is
necessary to inspect and monitor the spray program, inform customers and obtain consent

to spray from individuals adjacent to the ROW being treated. If the perspective is long-

98

term, then the benefits of a stable shrub community resistant to tree invasion, outweigh
the costs. Additionally, as the vegetative communities become more resistant, less
intense maintenance is required, which results in less costs and higher profits in the
future.

Another reason given for mechanical control preference was that herbicide use
was forbidden on certain lands. These restrictions are for protected or sensitive sites and
pertain mainly to the Western United States where the majority of utility transmission
rights-of-way are located on either Bureau of Land Management or USDA Forest Service
land. These agencies prohibit any pesticide or herbicide use; therefore, companies have
no choice but to mechanically manage the areas.

None of the above reasons are mutually exclusive. In most cases, they influence
or create each other. The biggest problem facing herbicide use is the current public
perception. A shifl in attitudes, based on legitimate research, can create a situation where

minimal amounts of control, either mechanical or herbicidal, are needed.

99

Active Ingredient per Acre Comparisons

The analysis of the previous section indicates that the most common herbicides
used are relatively non-toxic to humans and are environmentally safe, assuming they are
applied at the recommended rates. Ratio comparisons between actual and maximum
recommended active ingredient per acre (Table 35) were contrary to what was expected.
The original concern was that the calculations would reveal an over-application of
herbicides on transmission ROWs. Instead, these herbicides were applied below the
maximum recommended rate. In some cases, these ratios were two orders of magnitude
less. Only Garlon 3A, applied using a low volume foliar technique with a backpack or
hand sprayer exceeded the recommended maximum active ingredient per acre. Before
progressing any further, it should be remembered that a number of respondents failed to
provide the information necessary to completely represent all reported herbicides applied
using a specific method. Therefore, the ratios should be viewed as possible trends in
application, and not absolute for all areas.

Depending on the effectiveness of the herbicide control program, these low ratios
can be assessed in one of two ways. If the programs are effective, then the increased
acceptance of herbicide application as a viable vegetation management technique is
possible. Examples of effective programs with low application rates dispel the need for
herbicide reduction since the risk factors are low. In turn, a small potential risk will
reduce the negative perception of herbicides, currently held by the public. The fact that
some herbicides are applied below the recommended maximum rates, with desired

results, can only improve upon the current negative image.

mama—I

13KB r.

 

100

If the herbicide programs are ineffective, then the perceived cost of herbicide
control is altered. Recall that the higher cost of herbicide programs was a common
reason some utility companies preferred mechanical methods. Low application rates may
cause decline symptoms on the targets without administering a lethal dose. Poor control
of target species requires reapplication, which results in additional cost. Some utility
companies try to pass these additional costs on to the contractor by implementing a 100%
control policy. In most cases, these policies require a visual inspection of areas for
missed targets. Those individual plants that display symptoms of decline are not
retreated. Future problems arise when these targets recover from the application and
reestablish themselves as outage threats. The contractors incur all costs if a ROW area
needs to be treated again. These added costs are reflected in the next bid to treat new
areas. Thus, ineffective herbicide programs result in target retreatment either after the
initial spraying or after a number of years, creating a double payment for the same target.
These higher costs, due to herbicide program inefficiency, could explain the
dissatisfaction of some members of the industry regarding herbicide vegetation control.

A possible explanation for these low ratios is that the information given regarding
herbicide application was purposely unrepresentative. The motive for this type of action
is most likely the possibility of company policy being revealed publicly. As the industry
becomes more competitive, this could be perceived as giving other companies an edge.
Although the possibility of false information is mentioned here, the hope is that

professional integrity was used during completion of the survey.

 

101

Climatic Comparisons between United States Geographic Divisions

Overall, the budgets allotted for vegetation management were primarily spent on
mechanical control; only two, of the nine geographic divisions, included companies
where the majority of vegetation control dollars was spent on herbicide techniques. These
divisions are located in the Northeast United States. This budget allotment seems
contrary to the notion mentioned earlier, of mechanical methods being preferred because
they are less costly than herbicides. However, these numbers should be expected, since
total acres treated mechanically were in excess of twice the amount of acres treated
chemically.

Comparison of the dollars spent per acre for certain geographic divisions based on
precipitation and temperature will provide insight into the influence that climate has on
vegetation management intensity. The first hypothesis investigates differences in dollars
spent per acre for divisions within the same temperature range but different precipitation
category. The first comparison is between the East North Central states (Division 3)
which average 25-35” of rainfall annually and the West North Central states (Division 4)
which average 15-25” of rainfall per year. Both divisions have a precipitation —
effectiveness index rating of humid. The companies in Division 3 spend an average $44
per acre with 61% of the budget spent on mechanical methods. In contrast, companies in
Division 4 spend an average $76 per acre with 83% of the budget being spent on
mechanical control. A similar comparison can be made between the East South Central
states (Division 6) and the West South Central states (Division 7). Division 6 is a humid
area averaging over 45” of precipitation annually and, Division 7 is a humid — subhumid

area averaging 25-45” annually in Louisiana and Arkansas. to less than 25” 0f

 

102

precipitation annually at the western front of Texas and Oklahoma. Analysis of the
companies in Division 6 & 7 reveal the opposite scenario than the former comparison.
Division 7 spends on average $50 per acre for vegetation control, with 73% of their
budget allotted to mechanical control, while Division 6 spends $236 per acre, with 85%
of the vegetation control budget also allotted to mechanical control (Table 37).
Identifying possible trends of control intensity (dollars/acre) based on precipitation
differences proved difficult; since the above investigations have revealed both an increase
and a decrease in dollars spent per acre as the mean rainfall levels decrease.

The second hypothesis investigates differences in dollars spent per acre for areas
within the same precipitation category but different temperature ranges. The West North
Central states (Division 4) and The West South Central states (Division 7) receive
approximately the same average annual precipitation ranging from 15-30” annually.
Division 7 has a normal annual temperature 10-15 °F warmer than Division 4. Division 4
spends on average $76 per acre, while Division 7 spends $50 per acre. A comparison
between the mid-Atlantic States (Division 2) and the South Atlantic States (Division 5) is
equally insightful. The majority of both divisions are humid areas averaging 40-50” of
precipitation annually. The normal annual temperature in Division 5 is 25-30 °F warmer
than Division 2. The companies in the Mid-Atlantic States reported spending on average
137 dollars per acre for vegetation control, whereas the South Atlantic states spent 188
dollars per acre on average. As with the precipitation comparisons above, identification
of possible trends in control intensity (dollars/acre) based on temperature differences
proved difficult; since the investigations have shown both an increase and decrease in

dollars spent per acre as the temperature increased.

103

However, an overall examination of all the divisions reveals that those divisions
receiving 40” of rainfall or more a year, Divisions 2,5 & 6, spend more on vegetation
control per acre than the other divisions analyzed. The higher amounts of rainfall
promote the establishment of forest vegetation that, by nature, requires a more intensive
management scheme than areas that receive moderate of low levels of rain. The
exceptions are the Northeast division, which averages $64 per acre and the West South
Central states (Division 7), which average $50 per acre. Whether or not the smaller cost
in the Northeast is due to herbicide use can only be speculated. The difference in
Division 7 is most likely due to the variation in precipitation levels from east to west.
However, to accurately decipher the cause, an in depth economic analysis of costs is
needed, which is beyond the scope of this study.

Another point of interest is the original average dollars spent per acre in the
Pacific states (Division 9). An initial average of $579 per acre, although large, is not
surprising. This division includes terrain that is inaccessible and requires large amounts
of time or expensive equipment to maintain.

It should be remembered that these trends are not statistically significant and are
based on generalizations of figures calculated from a sample of the entire Utility Industry
population in the United States. More respondents and more precise information are
needed before a clear understanding of the effects that climate variation has on vegetation
control can be achieved. In reality, the variability in climate and terrain create vegetative
control situations unique to each division. Grouping of the divisions by climate is not
representative of the macro and microenvironments each utility company must face. in

order to maintain a service it is required to provide.

104

Substation/Generating Stations

The nature of herbicide vegetation control for a substation is completely different
than a ROW. The desired effect is a bare-ground situation, meaning that no vegetation is
allowed to grow inside and adjacent to the area. The high voltage located in these areas
dictates that they be restricted. Safety and accessibility for employees are the driving
forces behind this strategy. The presence of any animate or inanimate material within the
areas can create an electrical hazard. The majority of the herbicides used are pre-
emergent herbicides registered for controlling broad leaf weeds. Woody plant control is
not as common because most tress never become established.

The most common method of post-emergent and pre-emergent herbicide
application is the soil-applied technique. Pre-emergent herbicides are applied to the soil
and prevent the germination of weed seeds. Post-emergent herbicides are applied to the
ground surrounding the target plants, usually at higher concentrations than on ROWs.
The herbicides are translocated through the roots and affect the tree systemically. Soil
motility and product persistence should be the major considerations when selecting
herbicides for substations.

The herbicide Oust has a precautionary statement of Caution; its active ingredient,
Sulfometuron methyl, has a half-life from 15-30 days depending on the pH, moisture and
temperature of the soil. It has an oral LD50 level of greater than 5,000 mg/kg putting it in
the ‘Almost Nontoxic’ class (DuPont 1996). The herbicide Roundup also has a
precautionary statement of Caution; its active ingredient, Glyphosate as the

isopropylamine salt, has a high soil affinity, a short half-life, and is listed as slightly toxic

m 7 .QAH’AH‘JL .

It.

105

to a variety of organisms. However, a surfactant included in the Roundup formulation
(modified tallow amine) is more toxic to fish than many common surfactants (EXTONET
1994). The herbicide Karmex was applied to the most substation acres and has a
precautionary statement of Warning; its active ingredient, Diuron, has an oral LD50 level
of 1017 mg/kg putting it in the ‘Moderately toxic’ class. The soil affinity of Karmex
increases in soils with a high composition of clay and organic matter (DuPont 1996).
Negative public opinion towards substation herbicide programs is less than
Rights-of-way for a number of reasons. The risk factors of the most popular herbicides
used are low, and since most of them are pre-emergent, damages to off target plants are
diminished. The perimeters of substation/generating stations are landscaped with utility
compatible and showy vegetation to focus attention away from the bare ground
characteristics. The most important reason is that a high potential for electric shock

discourages frequent visits by humans; therefore, less attention is drawn to the area.

CONCLUSIONS

A survey to seek information about the 1995 transmission ROW vegetation
control programs, was sent to 220 Utility Arborist Association companies. The survey
contained questions regarding right-of-way characteristics, control methods used, total
dollars spent on vegetation management, priorities of the vegetation management
program, and substation / generating station vegetation management data. The project
focus was three fold. As a contrast to the majority of research in this area, its primary
purpose was to describe the current vegetation control techniques used by utility
companies. Its second objective was to quantify the active ingredient per acre of
herbicides used to assess possible secondary exposure (post dilution) risks incurred by
applicators and the environment. The third purpose of this study was to compare the
climatic regions of the United States to investigate if management intensity (in terms of
dollars spent per acre) varied with either precipitation or temperature differences. Data
from the survey, represented 37% of the sample universe. However, the ROW area
reported, represented over 48% of all the investor owned ROW over 40Kv in service,
throughout the United States. Over all, an extrapolated 2,927,132 acres of ROW require
some form of vegetation control annually.

Vegetation management generally falls into two categories, mechanical and
chemical control. Acres treated mechanically out-numbered those treated chemically by
a margin of 2.7:]. A total of 481,768 acres were treated mechanically, with an additional
16,773 miles of ROW mechanically side trimmed. An overwhelming majority (82%) of

these acres was mowed. A total of 178,078 acres were treated with herbicides.

106

107

Mechanical techniques (especially mowing) have been shown to cause a proliferation of
undesirable vegetation via the phenomenon of stump sprouting. Increased stem density
and decreased accessibility are the result, both of which are characteristics not conducive
to herbicidal techniques. Therefore, continual mowing of areas creates a situation where
only mechanical techniques can be employed.

The majority of respondents stating mechanical control reported negative public
perception as the most common reason for the preference. This perception can be
remedied through a two step initiative. The first step is the creation of educational
programs targeted at explaining utility company policies and the benefits of herbicide
techniques. The Vegetation Management Task Force and The Edison Electric Institute,
with the publication of the Environmental Stewardship Strategy for Electric Utility
Rights—of-Way, have initiated this step. Utility companies can use the information
provided to develop literature and programs that can ease any anxiety that residents have
regarding herbicide application.

The second step involves increasing the public’s confidence in the safety and
effectiveness of herbicide programs. That concern may be partially resolved by the
results of this study. However, the study results are only as strong as the information
received. The most startling fact regarding this project was the lack of knowledge some
respondents had in regards to their respective transmission ROW vegetation control
programs. This lack of knowledge (in the form of incomplete answers), was evident in
all five categories of questions. Despite some missing information, a number of
observations, concerning herbicide use, were obtained from the data.

The two most common herbicides in use, Garlon 3A and Garlon 4 pose little

108

threat to human or environmental well being if proper precautions are taken and
application is done according to the label. The biggest threat comes from the petroleum-
based carriers used to dilute these herbicides, which can cause substantial environmental
damage. Other herbicides reported such as Accord, Arsenal, Escort, and Krenite are
water-soluble and thus, are not as big an environmental threat. The majority of
herbicides used today target specific plant enzymes required for proper metabolism.
Therefore, organisms not having these enzymes (i.e. animals) are unaffected by these
chemicals. All herbicides used in the United States must undergo Environmental
Protection Agency scrutiny prior to their approval for use. In most cases, adverse effects
from these herbicides would only occur with an extremely large exposure amount (2,000-
2,500 mg/kg).

To determine whether the reported application rates posed any risks to applicants
and the public at large, comparisons of active ingredient per acre applied and the
maximum recommended application rates were performed. Contrary to what was
expected, the comparisons have resulted in extremely low levels of active ingredient
being applied. The preliminary deductions of these comparisons is that there is no need
to reduce the active ingredient applied per acre, since there is currently, no threat of over
exposure. However, two points of interest should be considered before any conclusions
are made. First, the effectiveness of these programs is not known. Effective programs
would only solidify the safety and reliability of herbicide programs, whereas, ineffective
programs would reveal over inflated costs and further deflate the public’s confidence in
herbicide techniques. The second point of interest is that the numbers used to create

these comparisons are averages of information provided by the respondents. some of

 

109

which was incomplete. Therefore, they are meant to provide a foundation from which
future research can be built.

A recurring theme throughout this thesis is the concept of cost. As investor
owned companies, most utilities have an obligation to create a profit. Unfortunately, to
meet this goal, some vegetation control programs are based solely on the cheapest
methods available. These methods involve either mechanical or chemical non-selective
techniques that clear all vegetation from the rights-of-way. Although these methods may
provide profits, they do not provide adequate control because incompatible vegetation
becomes reestablished. The prominence of non-selective techniques in the results
supports this argument. However, evidence of selective control programs does exist.
Selective herbicide techniques allow companies to establish low growing, tree seedling-
resistant vegetation that requires less frequent maintenance, thereby saving money in the
long run.

No specific patterns emerged from comparisons between precipitation and
temperature delineation and dollars spent per acre. However, those companies in areas
with a mean rainfall in excess of 40 inches per year do show evidence of having spent
more dollars per acre than the other divisions included. More respondents and more
precise information are needed before a clear understanding of the effects that climate
variation has on vegetation control can be achieved. In reality, the variability in climate

and terrain create vegetative control situations unique to each division.

G
DAM

11"“

110

Research Recommendations:

The main purpose of this thesis was to provide a descriptive analysis of the
current practices and possible philosophies of the 1995 electric utility vegetation control
programs along transmission rights-of-way. This study has provided a foundation for
additional research to be built upon. During the analysis, it became apparent that certain
areas of focus should be pursued further.

The first area is a follow up survey, similar to the first, but one that can obtain
more accurate information. The biggest problem of the previous study was incomplete
information. The next study will need to be easier in its completion and more accessible
to a larger number of respondents. This has already been undertaken by the Michigan
State University Forestry Department with the help of the Hyland Johns’ Grant provided
by the International Society of Arboriculture. The survey tool is being transformed from
a paper to an electronic document. A web-site is being constructed to allow a respondent
to send all relevant information to a database located at Michigan State University. In
addition to the increased ease in completion and accessibility to respondents, the site will
facilitate faster analysis of the data. The ultimate goal of this web-site is to quantify
vegetation management techniques for all Rights-of-Way, Utility, Railroad, Pipeline, and
Highway, in the United States and Canada.

Unfortunately, two areas of investigation were not included in the current study,
both of which would have helped in the analysis of the data. These areas are the

vegetation control cycles employed by utilities and the relative effectiveness of herbicide

111

programs. Each of these areas has been explored on a regional basis but not on a national
level. The new survey form can solicit information regarding both of these concerns. The
effectiveness of herbicide programs becomes even more important with the knowledge
that the possibility of under application exists. Also, investigation into whether the active
ingredient in Garlon 3A and Garlon 4, Triclopyr, or their petroleum-based carrier has
more of an impact on vegetation, would be useful.

A third area of investigation could focus on the adjuvants associated with the
herbicide application. A number of emulsifying, wetting, sticking, and drift control
agents are added to formulations to improve some aspect of the herbicide’s performance.
They can be added to the product either at the time of formulation by the producer or
mixed with the herbicide by the applicator prior to application. As with the case of
Roundup, a surfactant proved to be more toxic to fish than Glyphosate, the active
ingredient. Quantification of adjuvant use will provide an even clearer picture of what is
being applied to the nation’s rights-of-way to control vegetation.

The most important concern for future research is the lack of knowledge and/or
unwillingness to share information, on the part of the respondents. These actions only
complicate matters because they increase the distrust of utilities by the public. Initiatives
like the Stewardship Strategy, focused at educating the public and reducing the negative
image of herbicide techniques, will create sustainable, stable, low growth communities,
which will reduce power outages and in turn, lower the costs to both electric producers

and consumers.

st:-

112

LITERATURE CITED

Abrahamson, L.P., Nowak, C.A., Neuhauser, E.F., Foreback, C.G., Freed, H.D.,
Shaheen, 8., Stevens, C .H. 1991. Cost Effectiveness of Utility Rights-of-Way
Vegetation Management Treatments: 1 Initial Clearing. J.Arboric 17:325-327

American C yanamid Company. 1994. Arsenal Herbicide. Wayne, New Jersey.

Bramble, W.C., 1992. Breeding__Bird Population Changes Following Right-of-Way
Maintenance Treatments. J.Arboric 18:23-32

Bramble, W.C., Bymes, W.R., Hutnick, R.J., and Liscinsky, SA. 1991.
Prediction of Cover Types on Rights-of-Way after Maintenance Treatments.
J. Arboric 17:38-43

Bramble, W.C., Yaher, R.H., Bymes, W.R., and Liscinsky, S.A.l992. Small Mammals
In Plant Cover Types on an Electric Transmission Right-of-Way.
J.Arboric 181316-321

Dreyer, G. and Niering, W.A. 1986. Evaluation of Two Herbicide Techniques on
Electric Transmission Rights-of-Way: Development of Relatively Stable
Shrublands. Environmental Mngt 10:1 13-1 18

DowElanco. 1996. Formula for Financial Success. Right-of-way Vistas.
9:issue4:pp 6-7

Edison Electrical Institute Statistical Committee. 1995. Statistical Yearbook of the
Electric Utility Industry. Edison Electric Institute, Washington DC.

Fairbridge, R.W. 1987. The Encyclopedia of Climatology. Van Nostrand Reinhold
Company Inc. New York. pp102-106

Geier, R., Guggenmoos, S. and Theissen, N. 1992. Ecological Aspects of Herbicide
Usage on Power Line Rights-of-Way. J.Arboric 18:205-215

Geyer, W.A., Naughton, C.G., Long, C.E., Bruckerhoff, D.N., and Rowland, J .J . 1994.
Woody Plant Vegetation Control on Utility Rights-of-Way in Eastern Kansas:
1 Management Techniques. J.Arboric 20:282-286

Johnstone, RA. 1990. Vegetation Management, Mowing to Spraying.
J.Arboric 16:186-189

J.A-
l h--.

mm).
'.I
‘.

 

113

Little, EL. 1971. Atlas of United States Trees: Volume I. Conifers and Important
Hardwoods. United States Government Printing Office, Washington DC.

Lu. Frank C. 1991. Basic Toxicology: Fundamentals, Target Organs, and Risk
Assessment. Hemisphere Publishing Company, Washington DC.

Luken, J .O., Beiting, SW. and Kumler, R.L. 1993. Target/Nontarget Effects of
Herbicides in Power Line Corridor Vegetation. J. Arboric 19:299-302

Luken, J .O., Hinton, AC. and Baker, D.G. 1991. Assessment of Frequent Cutting as a
Plant-Community Management Technique in Power-Line Corridors.
Environmental Mngt 15 :38 l -388

._,.,.___I

Nickerson, N. 1992. Impacts of Vegetation Management Techniques on Wetlands in
Utility Rights-of-Way in Massachusetts. J. Arboric 18:102-106

5..“

fr

Niering, W.A. and Goodwin, R. 1974. CreatiOon of Relatively Stable Shrublands with
Herbicides: Arresting “Succession” on Rights-of-way and pastureland.
Ecology 552784-795

Oregon State University. 1994. Glyphosate. Extension Toxicology Network.
Ithaca, NY.

Vegetation Management Task Force 1996. Environmental Stewardship Strategy for
Electric Utility Rights-of-Way. Edison Electric Institute, 9 pp.

Visher. Steven S. 1954. Climatic Atlas of the United States. Harvard University Press.
Cambridge

Worrnan. J .J. and Gribble, G .W. 1992. Herbicides and Chemophobia.
J.Arboric 18:14—16

 

APPENDIX

114

.%.L__-.._a- '

 

 

When reporting about transmission lines is it easier to report in ACRES or MILES? [circle one]
USE THE CIRCLED UNIT (CHOSEN IN #1) THROUGHOUT THE SURVEY.

How many acres or line/pole miles of transmission line ROW is your company responsible for?

acres line/pole miles

Ifline/pole miles is given in question #2, please record the kV
of the transmission line, the width corresponding to that
voltage and the % of the total ROW miles.

E 1:: .1 am I -am I

r_

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What % of the ROW given in question #2 requires vegetation control?

Do you use herbicide to control vegetation on transmission line ROW? YES NO
[If YES, complete the “Transmission Line Herbicide Control Report Form”]
[If N0, continue with question #6]

Are there areas of your transmission line ROW where only mechanical means of control are used?
[If YES, complete the “Transmission Line Mechanical Control Report Form”]
[If NO, continue with question #7] YES NO

Are you responsible for vegetation control at substations and/or generating stations? YES NO
[If YES, continue with question #8]
[If NO, continue with to question #9]

MSL’FORI‘JG

i

It. 7.. _i’_.|_~’mt ’V'
..

—‘

 

10.

I1.

13.

Do you use herbicide to control vegetation at substations and/or generating stations? YES NO
[If YES, complete the table below]

 

I . HERBICIDE RATE ACRES |

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DIRECTIONS:

Column A - Name herbicide used.

Column B - Give the rate (i.e. gal / acre) at which herbicide in [A] was applied
Column C - Give the total amount of acres that the herbicide was applied

Are there any methods used that aren’t mentioned in questions #5 and #6? YES NO
[If YES, please explain]

Of the above control methods which one has increased the most over the last 5 years?

What is your average expenditures for vegetation control over the last 5 years?

% Herbicide
Total '
% Mechanical

What is the goal of your vegetation management program?

Do you feel your program is successfiil/efficient? Why or why not?

MSUFOR296

 

 

 

<S.1...o.....e.....o..so..o..oe.o:.§2.—

 

 

 

 

 

523-1.5:
« .1 i . .. ...... . . . .. .. . 1 .. .2554...
. . . 1. .. t. . ....Ii..L.....:....... .. ..i.....i..l .. ..
daisies. .7... . .. e .. .... 5.3.9.3....2...:. 2:51....
§a=§.....sn§....e_..ne..s.ise28i.. 223.28.... . _ Lia‘s... .. . . . ... 5.22....
6.23:. ... ......

.15 :—

.8_...O d .575.— 3...:
:23. .. .... 1:32 a
_a:92< .Q .v58< PIS. :

x2: ZC2~_C._.

2:: ZOnEO...

2,2253.

5” 23.523

$531.:

._<Z:m~.<

nuuuu<

2:. .....<

W.A.—=4

3<HOH $00: 08.5.3. DOENE F7505 so 3:9.

m
w
m
m
w
o

(A :11 33:18) HELLO

(WRLI. 3018 3013188311
N110 CIN'VH Hllm
‘dVI'IOd WTOA HDIH

Hllm HVI'IOJ EINITIOA MO'I

0.1.3 'DHVICIVH ‘WOOG craxu
'lSVOCIVOHfl XVI'IOd EIWITIOA MO'I

83$st QNVH E0 )IDVd )IDVEI

 

SEC..— Pw—Ohfifl HG—U—mflml HZ—i— loam—55733:.

TRANSMISSION LINE MECHANICAL BRUSH CONTROL REPORT FORM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

METHOD ACRES OR was
CONTROLLED

L———g-—————B———J
1 MECHANICAL (i.e. HYDRO-AXE) ""
2 HANDEQUIPW (CLEARING) '““
3 31131-2 TRIM WITH HELICOPTER “fl"
4 SIDE TRIM (i.e. BUCKET TRUCK) “fl"
5 SIDE TRIM MANUAL "i"
5 other
7 other
8 other
9 other

DIRECTIONS:

Column A - Identify the mechanical means you used in 1995 in column A.
Specify which “other" used in lines 6-9.
Column 8 - List the amount of transmission line ROW on which these methock were used.

Please indicate the two or three most important reasons why mechanical methods are used for brush control,
rather than chemical.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
.......................................................................................
....................................................................

..................

......................................................................................

MSL' FOR-I96

 

 

 

 

..... ..

11:34.... ......3...§ . (.... ... _ z... . ., ., . . , . . .

.. . . Va. i . . . ... r. . .. ... .. . . k... . ... 1 ...Ab. . a. . to q— ...a .a. i . . r:.. a . a I. «4. q . ...10 M. . Q n .11. 1 . .

5... .. 353.65. «.... z??? Fe... ......a: 1...... .. 3&1... ..awna..qnu.e.u..4a...nh .........e.......«...................... 3.23.... ..n......«.............
. . . o . .O . .r .a _ . in .71....

o .. a ..v -

  

     
  

SSSSS

\“fi'fiifi'fiflwfiflfififl‘WflW“