Current Impediments for New England DOTs to Transition to Sustainable Roadside Practices for Strengthening Pollinator Habitats and Health

Abstract

Government agencies whose work impacts the environment have sought more sustainable policy changes that require the use of native plants for revegetation. However, New England DOTs have encountered hurdles in attempts to transition from using cool-season turfgrass to implementing the more complicated management practices required to establish native plant communities. Two of the most significant barriers have been the slow transition to mainly using native plants for revegetation and the lack of genetically appropriate ecotypic native plant material (ENPM) produced in the Northeast. Growers of ENPM have resisted increasing production because they struggle to gauge demand due to substantial communication gaps between local producers and end users. Therefore, we organized focus groups with New England state DOTs, Departments of Environmental Protection, and Fish and Wildlife Services to determine their demand for ENPM and to explore their relationships with producers. We determined that the subcontracting of DOTs hinders their ability to develop relationships with producers because it leaves seed source selection in the hands of third parties. Another impediment was found to be the resistance of some maintenance departments to adopt sustainable management practices, such as reduced mowing. In summary, we determined that DOTs would benefit from establishing more direct relationships with producers to communicate their ENPM needs.

1. Introduction

In an era of shrinking government resources and a growing awareness of the environmental impacts of various practices, government, academic, and nonprofit organizations whose work impacts ecosystems and ecological conservation have sought alternative management practices that are more sustainable than those previously implemented. In particular, ecologists have realized that transportation and right-of-way corridors represent some of the most extensive networks of linear habitats on Earth, collectively constituting significant opportunities for connecting previously fragmented habitats and landscapes [1,2]. The U.S. National Highway System in the contiguous U.S. consists of more than 262,400 km (163,055 miles) of roads bordered by nearly 1.38 million hectares (3.41 million acres) of unpaved, vegetated land along rights-of-way [3]. Research estimates that roads ecologically impact between 15% and 20% of the US [4], considering the extent to which roadsides impact adjacent land, whether in the form of noise and chemical pollution, disruptions of hydrological cycles and water quality, or the introduction of noxious and invasive weeds. These extensive corridors provide important ecosystem services, such as runoff filtration, carbon sequestration, air quality improvement, and aesthetics [5,6,7], and they support a diversity of wildlife by providing shelter, food, and breeding opportunities for many species including presently threatened pollinators [8,9].

As a result, over the last few decades, policy changes on the federal and local levels have sought to require the use of native plants for revegetation in situations where introduced and invasive species were previously used. In 1999, President Clinton released Executive Order 13112—Invasive Species [10], which established the National Invasive Species Council and ordered the preparation of a National Invasive Species Management Plan that would review federal policies to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species, such as along roadsides. In 2016, President Obama built upon this Executive Order with Executive Order 13751—Safeguarding the Nation from the Impacts of Invasive Species [11], which established the National Invasive Species Council. In addition, in 2014, President Obama released Presidential Memorandum—Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators [12], which established the Pollinator Health Task Force and National Pollinator Health Strategy to review governmental policies that impact pollinator health, including increasing and improving pollinator habitats along rights-of-ways.

More recently, state and local governments have passed legislation to increase the use of native plant material (NPM) to benefit pollinators and wildlife while also mitigating the effects of climate change. In 2016, Connecticut passed Public Act No. 16–17: An Act Concerning Pollinator Health [13], a portion of which encouraged the increased use of native plants to benefit pollinator habitats and health. On November 8, 2022, voters in New York state passed the $4.2 billion Environmental Bond Act—Proposal 1, which includes $300 million for open space land conservation. On the local level, municipalities are passing measures that further the usage of native plants. For example, in May 2021, Somerville, Massachusetts, passed a Native Planting Ordinance that requires the use of only native plants and trees when planting on city-owned parks, open spaces, and streets.

Native plants provide greater ecological benefits than introduced and exotic plant species due to several factors. Because native plants have evolved with local climate and social conditions, they generally require fewer resource inputs and less maintenance after establishment [14,15]. Compared with introduced cool-season turfgrass (ICST), which requires more frequent mowing regimens, native warm-season grasses (NWSGs)—the backbone of most biodiverse native seed mixes—can be mowed less frequently, reducing maintenance costs [16]. NWSGs have longer life spans and deeper, more extensive root systems than ICST [17], thus improving long-term slope stability and increasing regional biodiversity [18]. Native plant communities (NPCs), consisting of native grasses, forbs, and woody plants, provide long-term defense against invasive and noxious weeds. In addition, research has found that native forbs and flowering shrubs, which have co-evolved with native arthropods, provide superior nutrition for pollinators and other arthropods compared with non-native flowering plants [19,20].

Considering these ecological benefits and concern about adapting to possible droughts resulting from climate change, the New England Transportation Consortium (NETC), a research cooperative funded by all six New England state Departments of Transportation (DOTs), commissioned a study in 2013 to find the most affordable, reliable, and expeditious methods for establishing biodiverse NPCs along New England roadsides. The findings from this research were compiled in a manual, Effective Establishment of Native Grasses on Roadsides in New England (EENG) [21], which guided state DOTs’ efforts to transform their roadside revegetation management practices. The NETC realized that transitioning to revegetation practices that use shorter-growing species of New England NWSGs would provide local governments with revegetation choices that would not only require less long-term maintenance than for ICST but also, because of their warm-season growth cycles, be better able to survive droughts. Since these NWSG species grow to between 0.3 and 0.9 meter (1 and 3 feet) tall at maturity and maintain strong vertical habits, they require less frequent mowing regimens—as few as once a year or even once every other year. Less frequent mowing schedules not only save money on labor, fuel, and machine wear but also subject workers to less exposure to dangerous work conditions, thus contributing to healthcare, disability, and insurance savings [22,23,24]. In addition, since these NWSGs are native to New England, they have adapted to the regional climate and soil profiles. Their deeper root systems enable more rapid recovery after frequent disturbances—an important quality considering the need for vehicles to occasionally pull off onto the side of the road [19,23].

Despite the ecological, environmental, and economic benefits NPCs can provide to New England roadsides, transitioning from established long-standing practices would likely encounter significant bureaucratic hurdles. Many past attempts by other state and federal agencies to integrate native species into roadside revegetation efforts have faltered or failed [25,26,27], resulting from multiple missteps, including the poor integration of roadside revegetation strategies in infrastructure planning, a lack of cooperation and information sharing among agencies involved in road construction, and the use of cheaper, faster-establishing exotic species misidentified as native species [28,29]. In addition to these bureaucratic hurdles, DOTs would likely encounter technical difficulties with the establishment of biodiverse NPCs. ICST establishes far more rapidly, taking as little as 4 to 6 weeks compared with NWSGs, which often take 3 to 5 seasons to form a dense, stable stand. Despite requiring less long-term maintenance, the initial installation of NPCs demands more laborious and time-intensive effort than monocultural ICST. Finally, any changes in maintenance practices require time for DOT bureaucracies to adapt to new regimes [24].

One of the other major concerns the authors of EENG found was the lack of ecotypic native seed supplies for the New England region. Ecotypic native plants are native plant species that have adapted to the climatic conditions of a region and share the genetic markers of local native plant species. To maintain their genetic composition, local ecotypes are grown within the specific seed transfer zones within which they originated [30]. There are two definitions of seed transfer zones. Empirical seed zones are areas within which plant materials can be transferred with minimal risk of poorly adapting to their new location, and they are developed by combining species specific information on local adaptation with environmental information. Provisional seed transfer zones are also believed to enable the transferability of native plant materials, but they are developed using climatic and other data, not species-specific information. [31]

Research has shown the importance of prioritizing the use of local ecotypes over non-local ones for restoration purposes [32,33,34]. First, native ecotypes have evolved to adapt to local environmental conditions. Therefore, they are more likely to successfully establish themselves and persist. For example, a red maple that has evolved in the deep South, where winters are milder and summers are more humid, would not fare as well in more northern climates, where winters are harsher and soil may be more acidic [30]. Second, native ecotypes co-evolve with local pollinators and wildlife populations, which depend on NPCs for food, nesting, and shelter. Research has shown that non-local ecotypes frequently have different phenological cycles than local ones. This difference can result in the misalignment of the presentation of foraging resources with the emergence of native pollinator populations [30,34]. Third, ecotypes are more resistant to disease and local herbivores [35]. Lastly, introduced genotypes could be established to such an extent that they become problematic. The interaction between introduced plants from remote provenances and local native populations could result in species interbreeding, which may result in problems such as founder effects, genetic swamping and outbreeding depression [36].

The chronic commercial shortage of locally harvested and grown ecotypic native bulk seed in New England presents a serious challenge. Therefore, several stakeholders whose work involves NPM in the Northeast have made coordinated efforts to rectify this lack of supply. In 2020, the Connecticut Northeast Organic Farmers Association (CT NOFA) initiated the Ecotype Project, which involved recruiting a collective of organic farmers to grow founders’ plots to increase ecotypic seed harvested in ecoregion 59 (https://www.eco59.com/ Accessed 9 February 2023) by botanists using Seeds of Success protocols. This effort led to the creation of a commercial seed production company, eco59. While eco59 joins the Wild Seed Project in Maine (https://wildseedproject.net Accessed 9 February 2023)) as sources of ecotypic seed harvested and grown in two different seed transfer zones, both do not yet grow seed in volumes large enough to meet the needs of DOTs or other government agencies working with NPM.

Other stakeholders working with NPM have started efforts to strengthen the Northeast NPM supply chain network. In particular, Eve Allen, a master’s in City Planning candidate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with financial support from the Ecological Health Network, conducted research on developing practicable solutions to increase native plant diversity in urban ecological restoration projects [37]. Drawing upon literature from the fields of supply chain management (SCM) and social network analysis (SNA), her research mainly focused on analyzing the current state of and best methods to strengthen the NPM supply chain network (SCN) in the Northeast. Allen approached her research with the belief that it is important to analyze and describe the network of actors who engage in NPM SCNs—government agencies, academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, private companies, and local citizens—to understand how to optimize processes that ensure adequate supplies of NPM to meet current and future demands. Therefore, she reached out to these stakeholders in an effort to gain feedback as to how best to foster more effective collaboration. It was through this outreach that our team eventually became engaged with NPM SCN stakeholders.

In 2021, the NETC released a request for proposal that sought solutions for the lack of ecotypic seed supply in New England and awarded the grant to the authors of this article for a proposal titled “Initiating Seed Production for Effective Establishment of Native Plants on Roadsides in New England.” The research team defined two overall objectives: promote ecotypic seed production for the effective establishment of native plants on roadsides in New England and expand management practices that result in the proliferation of existing native plant communities along roadsides in New England.

2. Roundtable Discussions

Over the course of our team’s research on native plants, we developed close working relationships with stakeholders working with native plant material (NPM), whom we decided to leverage. We collaborated with Ms. Allen to organize two virtual roundtables of 11 members each to share perspectives, facilitate connections, and explore and encourage opportunities for collaboration. Stakeholders included end users, producers, and intermediaries in the Northeast NPM supply chain network (SCN) representing academia, Departments of Transportation (DOTs), Departments of Environmental Protection (DEPs), nurseries, farmers, landscape designers, and conservation organizations. The organizers defined producers, end users, and intermediaries as follows:

PRODUCERS: Any actors who play a key role in any of the steps related to the collection, storage, propagation, or distribution of native plant materials, e.g., farmers, nurseries, and growers.

END USERS: Any actor who plays key role in the planning, design, implementation, or monitoring and maintenance of restorative activities or are the beneficiaries of those activities, e.g., landscape designers, conservation organizations, residential and commercial consumers, and governmental agencies such as DOTs and DEPs.

INTERMEDIARIES: Any actor who supports or could support the activities of two or more actors who are engaged in SCN processes or in the planning, design, implementation, or monitoring and maintenance of restorative activities. Sometimes, intermediary actors such as academics, botanists, and conservation organizations are not directly engaged in SCN processes or restorative activities but have unique expertise and resources that could be leveraged to advance restoration outcomes and strengthen the supply chain.

The roundtable discussions helped us to realize that a substantial communication gap exists between producers and end users, especially in the sector of the production of ecotypic NPM. Through efforts such as the Ecotype Project, an initiative started by the Connecticut chapter of the Northeast Organic Farmers Association, farmers and nurseries in the region have begun raising awareness of the benefits and have encouraged production of the use of ecotypic NPM. However, small-scale ecotypic native seed companies such as eco59 in Connecticut and the Wild Seed Project in Maine had difficulty recruiting farmers to grow seed on plots larger than founders’ fields because they were uncertain of the demand that exists in the market. Without this knowledge, growers were reluctant to make the investments needed to expand the number and amount of species grown. To bridge this gap, the team identified six substantial next steps to address regional needs. These included:

• A Regional Strategy Document: This document would draw inspiration from the National Seed Strategy and provide regionally applicable strategies for strengthening seed and plant material supply chains in the Northeast.
• Impact Map: This web-based map would show the georeferenced locations of supply chain end users, producers, and intermediaries.
• Regional Seed and Plant Material Needs Directory: An online portal or marketplace where end users and other seed and plant material buyers could share their confirmed and projected seed and plant material needs with producers.
• Regional Lobby Organization: A formalized lobbying group that brings together conservation organizations, government agencies, farmers, and other stakeholders so they can team up together and lobby regional state governments to direct funds toward these supply-chain-strengthening efforts and to coordinate policy around such issues as seed quality regulations.
• Regional quasi-governmental organization or regional non-governmental organization: The formation of a governmental or non-governmental agency to step in and play a coordinating role, namely, the regional state Departments of Environmental Protection and organizations such as the DOT’s New England Transportation Consortium (NETC), where they could pool their research dollars to find regional solutions related to our issues.
• More roundtables, working groups, and meetings to bring together end users and producers: The generation of more opportunities to bring the largest end users such as DOTs, DEPs, and conservation organizations together with growers so they can better understand how each of their organizations work so they can better meet each other’s needs.

From the roundtable discussions, the authors concluded that DOTs and other governmental agencies, such as Departments of Environmental Protection (DEPs) and Fish and Wildlife Services (FWSs), are among the most substantial end users of NPM, and determining the existing demand for these regional agencies would go far in closing the information gap between end users and producers. Therefore, the authors decided to organize focus groups with regional DOTs, DEPs, and FWSs to achieve three overriding goals:

• Estimate the demand for NPM that exists for these agencies.
• Explore the lines of communication that exist between these agencies and producers.
• Determine the progress DOTs have made to transition to revegetating roadsides with NPCs.

3. Materials and Methods

We conducted virtual focus groups to interview participants and collect information and data from the state Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) managers concerning demand for and use of NPM during the summer of 2022. Focus group data were used to inform recommendations provided by our team to state DOTs regarding the best methods for transitioning to roadside revegetation using native plant material (NPM).

3.1. Focus Groups

Our experience has shown that the most effective means to collect information about managers’ experiences is to use an open phenomenological approach that focuses on each participant’s individual experience navigating bureaucratic work structures [38]. We chose the semi-structured, life-world approach afforded by the focus group format [39] because we have found that this technique elicits the most comprehensive set of data and encourages an interplay of opinions among group participants [40]. Focus groups depend on the “negotiated order” method for studying organizations developed by Anselm Strauss [41]. This specific interactionist theory emphasizes that “any change arising within or imposed on the order will require renegotiation to occur” [42].

3.2. Ethical Considerations

Before conducting the focus group, we first asked participants’ permission to record our sessions before we read an opening statement that described the goals and intent of our research and focus groups. Our statement made clear several points:

• Participation was voluntary, and interviewees were not obligated to answer any questions with which they felt uncomfortable and could withdraw from participation at any time.
• Participant contributions would remain confidential unless researchers later specifically requested permission to reveals sources by name.

Before conducting the focus groups, we received approval of the interview script by the University of Connecticut Institutional Review Board (IRB) to ensure that the inquiry of human subjects was conducted in accordance with legal requirements and ethical principles of Respect for Persons, Beneficence and Justice.

3.3. Setting and Data Collection

All focus groups were virtually conducted using Webex or Microsoft Teams videoconferencing programs. We allocated and asked permission to conduct the focus groups for 90 min.

We conducted the focus groups of DOT managers using a semi-structured survey instrument—a script—composed to explore the following topics related to demand for NPM and BMPs:

• True Need for Native Plant Material.
• History of Use of Native Plant Material.
• Topic of Ecotypic Seed.
• Procurement Process for Native Plant Material.

  a.

  Interaction with Growers.

  b.

  Prices for Native Plant Material.

• Mowing Regimens and Strategies.
• Invasive Species Removal.
• Expectations of How Our Team Could Assist.

The script for the DOTs consisted of 47 questions (Appendix A). The script for the DEP and FWS managers had the same topics, except for topic 1, 4, and 5, and consisted of 29 questions (Appendix B). Questions included both open-ended and Likert-scale queries that explored the demand for and use of NPM, subject knowledge, beliefs, behavior, barriers to implementation, and existing resources and processes.

We recorded each focus group and used Descript, a transcription software, to transcribe each recording. Our team reviewed transcripts for accuracy and studied the recordings when the transcription indicated inaudibility.

3.4. Participants

Our team organized focus groups by corresponding with key individuals in state DOTs, DEPs, and FWSs. Key informants for DOTs were asked to select managers involved in landscape design and roadside maintenance. Key informants for DEPs and FWSs were asked to select managers involved in NPM procurement, who were usually wildlife biologists. For state DOTs, we were able to arrange focus groups for five of the six New England states—Connecticut (CT), Massachusetts (MA), New Hampshire (NH), Rhode Island (RI), and Vermont (VT)—that consisted of 11 participants in total. For state DEPs and FWSs, we were able to arrange focus groups for all six states. Each focus group only consisted of individuals from each agency.

3.5. Data Analysis

Our team analyzed the qualitative data of the focus groups using Kvale and Brinkmann’s approach of meaning condensation (2009), an empirical phenomenological-based method consisting of five steps:

• Thoroughly read transcripts to gain an overall sense of the whole.
• Identify natural meaning units within the transcripts.
• Decode the main themes articulated by participants.
• Relate themes to the focus of the research.
• Connect themes to construct descriptive statements.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Problems with Lines of Comunication between Producers and State Agencies

The most important priority for conducting these focus groups was to estimate the level of demand that exists for native plant material (NPM) among Departments of Transportation (DOTs), Departments of Environmental Protection (DEPs), and Fish and Wildlife Services (FWSs). We thought that the best way to make this determination would be to request that each agency review their records from the last five years. Realizing it would take each agency time to collect such data, we submitted the following requests to each agency for these records before conducting the focus groups: “Please collect five years of data on previous use of native plants in roadside revegetation projects. Include species composition and estimates of the amount of seed and propagules used.” However, we discovered that fulfilling this request was very difficult, if not impossible, for the DOTs. While the work of DEP and FWS agencies centers around the use of plant material to conduct conservation and restoration, the revegetation of roadside landscapes is more ancillary to the DOT focus than the construction of hardscapes, such as roads and bridges. In addition, unlike DEPs and FWSs, DOTs usually subcontract roadside revegetation projects to private entities. To ensure that DOTs do not favor one NPM source over another, the selection of NPM sources is left to the discretion of the subcontractors as long as the NPM selection meets prescribed specifications. This subcontracting approach requires projects be put out to bid and is usually awarded to the lowest bidder. As a result, accessing accurate records for DOTs becomes challenging. In addition, because DEPs and FWSs prioritize the use of ecotypic NPM out of an abundance of caution to preserve the genetic integrity of specific ecosystems, they either work closely with growers or propagate their own NPM. On the other hand, DOT landscape designers, who keep records of projects, are several steps removed from interacting with producers.

Since we had determined from our roundtable discussions that the best way for producers to meet end user demand required improved lines of communication, we realized that the way DOT projects develop made communicating the NPM needs of DOTs to producers challenging. Unlike DEP and FWS projects, which are plant-centered, DOT projects are hardscape-centered. Designing roadside revegetation frequently occurs toward the end of the DOT infrastructure planning process. We concluded that, if possible, DOTs would benefit from moving roadside planning to earlier in the planning process so that DOTs could communicate their needs to producers early enough for the producers to meet their needs.

Since our team hypothesized that lines of communication would benefit from the implementation of two mechanisms (a Regional Seed and Plant Material Needs Directory and roundtables, working groups, and/or meetings to bring together end users and producers), we asked questions to explore the likelihood that DOTs would utilize such tools. We first explained to the focus group participants that producers had expressed reluctance to invest in producing large volumes of NPM unless they believed that they could predict that each species was in demand. We then asked: “On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not likely and 5 being very likely, how likely would your department be to opening lines of communication with native plant and seed growers about your native plant needs?“ While Massachusetts and Vermont both answered with 5s, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island expressed reluctance that such mechanisms would work. New Hampshire managers pointed to their subcontracting approach as an impediment since the choice of sources remains in the hands of the subcontractors. Since the Rhode Island DOT presently uses little to no NPM for revegetation and has a similar subcontracting structure to New Hampshire, it could not understand why it would need to open lines of communication with producers.

We then explained how a Needs Directory would work and asked: “On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not likely and 5 being very likely, how likely would your department be to using a Regional Seed and Plant Material Needs Directory for growers to assess what needs to be grown to meet your native plant needs?” Once again, the New Hampshire and Rhode Island DOT managers cited their subcontracting systems and current lack of use of NPM for revegetation as reasons why they believe neither would use such a directory. While the other three states expressed a greater openness to using such a tool, they also cautioned that they leave roadside revegetation designing toward the end of infrastructure planning, thus possibly preventing them from giving producers enough time to meet their needs.

Since regional seed zones transect political boundaries of each state and, therefore, state DEPs and FWSs share ecotypic NPM, we thought that it would be helpful if state DEPs and FWSs shared their NPM needs with one another to better determine and communicate their collective needs with producers. In addition, since New England DEPs and FWSs do not have the political and governmental financial resources of their Western USA counterparts, which are subsidized by the Bureau of Land Management, we thought that it would benefit them to pool their resources and political voices. Therefore, we asked questions that explored the likelihood that they would participate in lobbying efforts and pooling research dollars: “New England DOTs pool their research funds and use an organization called the New England Transportation Consortium to conduct research on various aspects of infrastructure. Do regional DEPs have a similar organization?” A participant from the New Hampshire FWS mentioned the Northeast Regional Conservation Needs Program (NRCNP), which pools 4% of regional research and conservation funding to address critical landscape wildlife conservation needs. The participant gave the example of states pooling their resources to conserve the endangered New England cottontail rabbit. However, the fact that no other DEP or FWS participant cited the NRCNP suggests that such agencies would need prompting to leverage such an organization.

We then asked the following question: “On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 be not likely and 5 being very likely, how likely do you believe your department would be to participating in a political lobbying organization with other stakeholders to lobby for greater government funding to increase the use of native plants in government projects?” Almost none of the DEP and FWS participants could cite such an organization. In fact, several mentioned that they could not lobby their legislatures by law. However, a participant from the Maine FWS mentioned that there are both Northeast and National Association of Fish and Wildlife Agency lobbying groups for just such purposes. Nevertheless, the fact that only one participant knew of these organizations indicated to us that these agencies have not felt the need to pool their voices to meet their NPM needs.

4.2. Lack of Urgency and Limited Knowledge

Although we believe that the lack of communication between DOTs and the producers regarding their NPM prevented the producers from meeting the needs of these agencies, our focus groups also revealed that a lack of urgency and limited knowledge regarding ecotypic NPM has contributed to the lack of progress in transitioning to the revegetation of roadsides using NPM.

Concerning the knowledge and use of native plants for roadside revegetation, we implemented a two-level approach. First, we explored the DOTs’ true need for native plant material. Second, we explored their knowledge of and motivation to use ecotypic plant material. Our first question concerning the departments’ true need was the following: “On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not important and 5 being of high priority, how would you rate the importance your state DOT places on transitioning to the use of native plant material, whether seed or plants, for the revegetation of roadsides?” Representatives from two states, Connecticut and Massachusetts, gave ratings of 5. However, the other three interviewed states gave responses of 3 or lower, raising concerns about the state of such a transition. Two representatives from the Vermont DOT, one from landscape design and one from maintenance, gave ratings of 3. However, a third representative from landscape design answered: “I would love it if we were 3 or even higher, but my perception is I was going to actually say 2 because you’re asking about the mix of seed and other plant material…we try to do a really good job of making sure we’re selecting native plants. But by and large, most of our revegetation when we have construction projects we’re putting down our standard seed mixtures, which really are not natives. So, for that reason I’m skewing it to a 2.”

This response encapsulates what we found across departments: despite discussion about needing to transition to the use of NPM to revegetate roadsides, most departments are, in practice, still using quick-establishing introduced cool-season turfgrass (ICST) mixes following construction projects. A representative from Rhode Island, a landscape architect, emphasized that the two department landscape architects are also part of their environmental division and that they give the use of NPM a high priority. However, for those outside their small group, the emphasis is on funding hardscape work:

Interviewer: “In terms of allocation of funds…for the people who do allocate funding…how much of a priority is it to them?”

RI landscape architect: “Probably close to 0 right now. Unfortunately, we’re in a situation where the current group that makes a lot of those decisions about types of projects and funding are very hard material focused. Pavement and bridge work is their focus and environment and things like that are much lower down their list of priorities with the exception that something that has a permit, or we have to follow for legal reasons, federal reasons to do with our funding. And that’s so they can’t pick and choose whether or not they want to.”

This comment underlines two consistent themes we encountered throughout our interviews:

• With scarce resources, DOTs will prioritize hardscape funding over roadside landscape funding
• DOTs are more likely to change habits only when required to do so.

Concerning the second point, an environmental manager made the following point: “Say this is a mitigation project, and we’re doing wetland mitigation and we need to go through our department of environmental services required mitigation services, then we would need to look at native seed and we would need to develop a native seed mix and specify that in the contract for replanting in that area. But that would be a deviation from these normal specifications because of that particular need…Since I know we’re talking about native ecotypes…I’m not aware that these specs specify that either.” As long as the drive to transition to revegetating roadsides using NPM remains merely aspirational rather than a mandatory requirement, such a transition appears elusive.

Another impediment we discovered to transitioning to the use of NPM for revegetation was a lack of knowledge concerning ecotypic NPM and the reasons for its use. One reason we explored was whether managers knew and understood how the term ecotypic relates to the objectives of the request for proposal (RFP) funding. The Project Background portion of the RFP cites a series of next steps suggested in a manual resulting from research conducted from 2013 to 2016 by the authors, one of which was the need to develop local seed sources, which the region currently lacks. Although native seed already exists from growers outside the New England region, such sources are typically ecotypes that have adapted to other regional climates. Considering the vast size of roadsides and the ecological impact roadside NPCs can have on surrounding NPC gene pools, DOTs would be wise to source seed from local populations to prevent any unintended consequences that may occur from a more aggressive or weaker strain of a particular native plant species mixing with local populations. Therefore, we asked DOT, DEP, and FWS managers the following question: “Have you heard the term ecotypic in relation to native plant seed? If yes, what do you think the term ecotypic means?” All the DEP and FWS managers had heard of the term and could explain what ecotypic means, which is understandable since the focus of their work centers around the restoration of local NPC-based ecosystems and habitats. However, more than a third of DOT managers had not heard of the term. More concerning were the responses to the following series of questions posed to DOT managers:

• “Is there internal pressure from DOT management to use ecotypic seed for revegetation projects? If yes, from whom? What are the justifications for using ecotypic seed?”
• “Is there any external pressure outside your DOT, such as community activism or legislation, to transition to using ecotypic seed?”
• “On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not a priority at all and 5 being a high priority, what level of priority does your department give to present or future use of ecotypic seed?”

In response to question 1, no respondent could recall any internalized pressure from DOT management to use ecotypic NPM. However, a manager from Massachusetts understood the benefits of using ecotypic NPM and intentionally tries to create seed mixes with ecotypes closest in regional proximity to Massachusetts. She mentioned that one of the reasons she is concerned with ecotypes relates to the previous use of a variety of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) sourced from the Midwest that might have been engineered to grow more rapidly to better serve as biofuel. This variety rapidly spread in an aggressively invasive manner and formed roadside monocultures. Not only did their inclusion prevent other species, both grasses and forbs, from establishing a biodiverse NPC, but she also feared that this more aggressive variety would swamp the gene pool of neighboring switchgrass ecotype communities.

In response to question 2, no manager had encountered outside pressure. However, the same manager from Massachusetts did mention that several local groups with whom her department closely works, including Massachusetts pollinator working groups and networks, promote the use and benefits of ecotypic NPM.

In response to question 3, since no one could cite any internal or external pressures to transition to the use of ecotypic NPM, all answers were 2s or lower, except from the Massachusetts manager who gave a 4. Some mentioned that, even if there was pressure to use ecotypic NPM, the added expense and lack of bulk supply would probably prevent such a transition in the near future.

4.3. Resistance and Impediments to Transitioning to Best Management Practices

Research has shown that particular roadside maintenance best management practices (BMPs), such as reduced and strategically timed mowing, can stimulate roadside native seed bank germination, encourage the spread of native plant communities (NPCs), and benefit the health of pollinator and wildlife habitats. Therefore, we asked a series of questions to determine the current state of DOT roadside BMPs as they relate to the exploitation of existing roadside NPCs, starting with the following: “Have there been changes in mowing strategies in the last few years? If yes, how have your mowing regimens changed and why?” Only two DOTs, those of Connecticut (CT) and Vermont (VT), cited intentional efforts on the part of their maintenance departments to reduce mowing. Massachusetts (MA) has also reduced mowing. However, this trend was resource-based rather than ecology-based since their maintenance department was short-staffed. Rhode Island (RI) had had a similar reduction in mowing because of budget cuts, but once budgets increased, the maintenance department returned to regular mowing schedules with roadsides being mowed multiple times a year. RI DOT managers claimed that their maintenance department managers frown upon reduced mowing because they fear tall grasses attract roadside dumping and that the DOT receives complaints from the public that roadsides look unkempt. New Hampshire (NH) managers have also not seen reduced mowing, but they attributed this to the fact that NH does not own its own mowers but rather rents equipment or subcontracts its mowing services. This saves money but limits its ability to adjust the timing of the mowing sessions for optimal times.

Since the timing of mows influences growth cycles and the availability of nesting and foraging resources for pollinators and wildlife, we asked the following three questions:

• What factors influence the timing of mowing?
• Does your department strategize where and when to mow? If yes, how so?
• Does your department consciously plan what sections of roadside are prioritized for mowing? If so, what sections are prioritized for reduced mowing?

For MA, the timing for mowing is most influenced by snow removal efforts and street cleanings since the same people who mow are involved in snow removal and street cleaning. Only CT and VT intentionally time their mowing regimens for ecological reasons. The Connecticut DOT has designated 116 conservation areas that it mows either once a year or every other year, except for the shoulders and perimeters. It more regularly mows the shoulders to allow vehicles to safely pull to the side of the road without causing fires and the perimeters to prevent the spread of woody plants from neighboring woodlands. The authors themselves, who reside in CT, have witnessed how DOT-reduced mowing regimes have resulted in the proliferation of previously rare and scarce species, including foxglove beardtongue (Penstemon digitalis) and various milkweeds (Asclepias spp.). In 2021, Vermont joined the Nationwide Monarch Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) for Energy and Transportation Lands, which requires those participating to adopt measures to create conservation benefits for the monarch butterfly and provides a model for other at-risk species. As a consequence, VT has reduced most roadside mowing to once every three years, with only 1/3 of roadsides getting mowed annually. Maintenance districts keep track of when they mow using a GIS-based maintenance activity tool.

To gauge the openness of DOT maintenance departments to changing their mowing strategies, we asked: “If a manual was developed outlining insect friendly mowing practices, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not willing and 5 being definitely willing, how willing would your DOT be to adopt new mowing practices? Why or why not?” CT and VT were the two states most likely to be influenced to change their mowing strategies. MA participants expressed reservations because they feared that reduced mowing could result in the encroachment of invasive species. NH saw the possibility of its department joining the CCAA, which would require its DOT to change their mowing strategies. Therefore, the managers could see the possibility that a manual could influence their mowing strategy. However, they would still encounter a problem resulting from their department not owning their own equipment. RI managers were the most definitive in believing that their maintenance departments would be less open to such changes because they characterized maintenance workers as “old school thinkers”.

Invasive species can tend to outcompete NPCs. Therefore, to explore the degree to which DOTs prioritized invasive species removal, we asked: “On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not a priority at all and 5 being one of the top priorities, what level of priority does your department give to invasive species removal?” With a rating of 3, CT gave the highest rating for invasive species removal. Both MA and NH asserted that their departments prioritized invasive species removal during construction but rarely following construction. RI managers said they prioritize the removal of Japanese knotweed, but they otherwise witness scant effort to remove other species. VT participants gave a rating of 1.

We hypothesized that, if maintenance departments were to confine mowing to times outside the growing season, they would have time available during the summer to devote to invasive species removal. Therefore, we asked: “On a scale of 1 to 5, with one being not likely to five being very likely, how likely would your department be to adopt a strategy of invasive species control during the summer when mowing is less encouraged?” Across the board, DOTs rated the likelihood as low, with lack of funding for the expansion of invasive species removal as the main reason for the resistance.

4.4. Other Impediments and Possible Solutions

We ended our focus groups with the following two questions that explored how our research could best help these agencies:

• “Considering the subjects we have covered during this focus groups, how can our team most benefit your departments through work we are doing on this grant?”
• “What steps would help your department to transition to greater use of native plant use for roadside revegetation?”

The most frequent recommendation concerned the need for seed mixes that consist of readily available, easy-to-establish workhorse species tailored to various roadside microclimates and regional seed zones. Respondents also requested an increased availability of ecotypic NPM and guidance as to where to find such seed. Two FWS managers believed that it would be helpful if we could make a more persuasive argument for the economic and sustainability advantages of using NPM for roadside revegetation, as DOTs would more likely transition to their use.

Several DOT, DEP, and FWS managers stressed the need for educational campaigns both within government agencies using NPM and for the public. For government agencies, several respondents suggested expanding the knowledge base regarding the benefits of using ecotypic NPM. They believed that a strong enough case for using ecotypic NPM could persuade agencies to pay the higher prices. Others recommended that we find examples of what worked in other states, whether the most effective establishment techniques or BMPs. For the general public, some argued for educational campaigns that explained the economic and ecological benefits of reduced mowing and the change in roadside aesthetics as a result.

Finally, the most often repeated recommendation was the need for mandates and the funding to meet such requirements. Several respondents believed that educational campaigns can be persuasive but cannot match the ability of mandates to counter bureaucratic inertia to change long-standing agency behavior.

5. Conclusions

• Need for Improved Lines of Communication between DOT Managers and Producers

We concluded from the roundtable discussions we conducted preceding our initiation of focus groups that a substantial communication gap exists between producers and end users. This conclusion was re-enforced by our focus groups. We found from interviews with Department of Transportation (DEP) and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) managers that these agencies have developed closer relationships with growers because their work is plant- and landscape-centric. Because DEPs and FWSs concern themselves with preserving the genetic integrity of native plant communities (NPCs), they need to work with growers to secure ecotypic native plant material (NPM) for their restoration and conservation work. On the other hand, DOT projects are hardscape-centric, leaving roadside design for later in project timelines. We concluded that Departments of Transportation (DOTs) would benefit from developing roadside landscape design earlier in the planning process because it would allow DOTs more time to communicate their NPM needs to growers, thus providing growers more lead time to grow appropriate NPM. In addition, we deduced that the subcontracting approach for revegetation projects made it difficult for DOT landscape designers to directly work and develop relationships with growers since the current subcontracting structure leaves the selection of NPM producers to the subcontractors. The tendency to choose the lowest bid for projects tends to eliminate the use of ecotypic plant material, which tends to be more expensive for the New England region. We believe the closer the NPM choices are to the landscape designers, the greater control designers will have over NPM selections.

• Need to Prioritize Revegetation Using NPM

Before DOTs can develop closer relationships with growers, however, we realized that several New England DOTs need to prioritize the use of NPM for revegetation. At least two of the five states we interviewed still mainly use turf grass and introduced-species seed mixes rather than native seed mixes for new construction projects involving revegetation. Managers consistently indicated that transitioning to the greater use of NPM would be more likely to happen if they were required to do so. In fact, the Vermont DOT transitioned to the greater use of NPM once it decided to join the Nationwide Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurance for Monarch Butterfly (CCAA), which encourages landowners and land managers to adopt measures to create net conservation benefits for the monarch butterfly. Therefore, finding ways to mandate the use of NPM appears to be the most effective method for ensuring DOTs’ transition to the use of NPM for revegetation. Only once DOTs further increase their use of NPM for revegetation could the use of ecotypic NPM be prioritized.

• Need to Change BMPs to Exploit and Increase Existing Roadside NPCs

Aside from transitioning to the use of NPM for roadside revegetation, the cheapest, most effective method for increasing the presence of native plant communities (NPCs) along roadsides is the adoption of mowing strategies that benefit existing native plant seed banks. The simplest best management practice (BMP) to exploit existing seed banks is reducing mowing during the growing season to allow NPCs to flower and go to seed. However, even this BMP met resistance from some DOTs. For example, the Rhode Island DOT participants expressed reluctance to reduce mowing because they fear the possible dumping of garbage in tall grasses. The New Hampshire DOT managers, on the other hand, have less control over the timing of their mowing schedules because they do not own their equipment. They either rent equipment and have their maintenance departments mow or they subcontract the mowing to outside organizations. All DOTs expressed concern that reduced mowing could lead to invasive species encroachment. Our team has tried to encourage maintenance departments to prioritize invasive species removal during the growing season since mowing would be reduced. However, since departments have relied on mowing as the first line of defense against invasive species and several states have restricted the use of herbicides, designating invasive species removal during the growing season has proven problematic.

We believe there are other specific actions our research team could undertake to encourage the greater use of NPM for roadside revegetation:

• We are working with the Northeast Seed Network to develop seed transfer zones for New England and seed mixes for specific microclimates within each seed zone.
• We intend to create educational campaigns both for DOT managers and the public. For managers, we want to educate them on the benefits of using ecotypic NPM and transitioning to BMPs that benefit the persistence and spread of roadside NPCs. In terms of educational campaigns for the public, DOTs have received complaints that roadsides that receive reduced mowing tend to look unkempt. We want to educate the public on how reduced mowing benefits pollinator and other wildlife health.
• We are researching what has worked in terms of effective NPC establishment and educational campaigns. DOTs believe that they are more likely to adopt policies that other DOTs have proven to work.