FHWA-WFL/TD-11-001 JANUARY 2011

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

Current and Innovative 

Solutions to Roadside 

Revegetation Using 

Native Plants

A DOMESTIC SCAN REPORT
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

FHWA-WFL/TD-11-001

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Current and Innovative Solutions to Roadside Revegetation 

Using Native Plants

A domestic scan report

5. Report Date

January 2011

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Amit Armstrong, Ph.D., P.E., Western Federal Lands, Federal Lands Highway 

Division, Federal Highway Administration;

Thomas C. Roberts, Parsons Brinckerhoff;

Robin Christians, Parsons Brinckerhoff

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Parsons Brinckerhoff

555 17th Street, Suite 500

Denver, CO 80202 USA

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

 Federal Highway Administration

 Western Federal Lands Highway Division

 610 East 5th St.

 Vancouver, WA 98661

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report 2011

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

HFL-17

15. Supplementary Notes

COTR: Amit Armstrong, Ph.D., P.E.

This technology deployment was funded under the FHWA Federal Lands Highway Coordinated Technology 

Implementation Program (CTIP).

16. Abstract

The use of native plants in roadside revegetation has evolved as more and more resource management agencies 

prescribe the practice as a much better approach for ecosystem. However, this practice is not widely used by 

state and local agencies that are responsible for building majority of the roads. The goals and priorities of those 

responsible to successfully complete roadside revegetation projects are as diverse as the methods used to 

accomplish them. Even for the most seasoned revegetation professional, achieving success is not guaranteed. A 

domestic scan was initiated by the Federal Highway Administration to facilitate understanding about the processes 

and techniques used in successful and innovative projects that used native plants for roadside revegetation.

This report summarizes the observations, discussions and broad conclusions of nationally-recognized revegetation 

specialists during the 2009 scan tour. A key finding was that there are many interconnected elements involved 

in both the technical and non-technical aspects of the revegetation process – all of which should be addressed in 

a project revegetation plan. Notably, the non-technical aspects—planning, design, implementation, monitoring, 

and maintenance—were found to be just as critical to the success of revegetation projects as the technical aspects.

17. Key Words

Roadside Revegetation, Native Species, Scan

18. Distribution Statement

No restriction. This document is available to the 

public from the sponsoring agency at the website 

http://www.wfl.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/td/publications

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

72

22. Price

$0.00

 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

Current and Innovative 

Solutions to Roadside 

Revegetation Using 

Native Plants

A domesticscan report

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

January 2011 Report Number: FHWA-WFL/TD-11-001
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

1

Current and Innovative Solutions to Roadside Revegetation using Native Plants

A domesticscan report

January 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List Of Figures 3

List Of Acronyms 4

Executive Summary 5

Introduction 6

Scan Process 7

Host Site Locations 8

Scan Participants 8

Project Site Trips 8

Revegetation Project Sites 9

Route 9 Reconstruction Project – Searsburg To Wilmington, Vermont 9

Project Summary 10

Decision Making Process 10

Revegetation Approach 10

Results Of The Revegetation 13

Lessons Learned 13

Cascade Lakes Pass, New York 14

Project Summary 14

Decision Making Process 15

Revegetation Approach 16

Results Of The Revegetation 17

Lessons Learned 17

Blaine Road, Oregon 18

Project Summary 18

Decision Making Process 18

Revegetation Approach 19

Results Of The Revegetation 22

Lessons Learned 22

Sandlake Road Reconstruction, Oregon 24

Project Summary 24

Revegetation Approach 24

Results Of The Revegetation 25

Lessons Learned 25

Setters Road Construction, Worley, Idaho 26

Project Summary 26

Decision Making Process 26

Revegetation Approach 27

Results Of The Revegetation 27

Lessons Learned 28
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

3

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

2

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Scan site locations visited in 2010

Figure 2 US Route 9 from Searsburg to Wilmington

Figure 3 Planting pocket showing tree planting, with Harriman Reservoir in background

Figure 4 Embankment planting on Route 9 near Wilmington, VT

Figure 5 Geogrid sub-base stabilization planting near Wilmington, VT 

Figure 6 Wetland mitigation site near Wilmington, VT 

Figure 7 Critter crossing underpass near Wilmington, VT 

Figure 8 Cascade Lakes Pass

Figure 9 Route 73 at Cascades Lakes Pass showing steep slopes with rocky soils

Figure 10 Coir log planting along Route 73 with Cascade Lakes in the background

Figure 11 Living snow fence area at Cascade Lakes Pass; small spruce trees planted for the eventual snow fence

Figure 12 Blaine Road

Figure 13 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Retaining Wall planting

Figure 14 Vegetated mechanically stabilized earth wall on Blaine Road

Figure 15 Application of compost over rip rap

Figure 16 Compost over riprap at culvert prior to plantings

Figure 17 Compost over riprap at culvert after plantings

Figure 18 Compost berm

Figure 19 Plant installation on Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall

Figure 20 Sandlake Road reconstruction

Figure 21 Example of hydroseeding without using blown in place mulch on Sandlake Road

Figure 22 Example of seeding on steep slope and using blow-in-place compost on Sandlake Road

Figure 23 Setters Road construction

Figure 24 North facing slope with rock mulch and vegetation on Setter’s Road

Figure 25 Cut slope on Setter’s Road three years after revegetation efforts 

Figure 26 Setters Road rock mulch and revegetation

Figure 27 Smith Creek reconstruction and revegetation

Figure 28 An example of a successful revegetated cut slope along US-95

Figure 29 Revegetated cut slope on US-95 

Figure 30 Revegetated cut slope on US-95 

Figure 31 Native Plant Research Project transects 

Figure 32 Native Plant Research Project reference site

Figure 33 Survey results: successful roadside revegetation attributes

Figure 34 Survey results: unsuccessful roadside revegetation attributes

Figure 35 Survey results: parameters of successful roadside revegetation

I-95 Reconstruction And Revegetation – Smith Creek, Idaho 29

Project Summary 29

Decision Making Process 30

Revegetation Approach 30

Results Of The Revegetation 31

Lessons Learned 31

Native Plant Research Project, Worley, Idaho 32

Project Summary 32

Decision Making Process 33

Revegetation Approach 33

Results Of The Revegetation 33

Lessons Learned 33

Discussion 34

Conclusions 38

Additional Information 39

Appendix A: Scan Panel Biographies 40

Scan Expert Panel 40

Host Site Participants 41

Vermont 41

New York State 41

Oregon 41

Idaho 41

Appendix B: Scan Survey Questionnaire 42

Appendix C: Example Revegetation Plan From The National Park Service 66
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

5

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Native roadside revegetation involves establishing or re-establishing appropriate plant material on areas disturbed by road 

construction projects. The process has gained increased attention as agencies realize the many benefits it provides, including 

soil and slope stabilization, improved water quality, aesthetics, carbon sequestration, weed suppression, and enhanced 

wildlife habitat. However, when revegetation efforts fail, the costs and consequences can be equally significant, resulting in 

erosion and slope failures, water contamination, weed infestations, decreased landscape aesthetics, and costly redesign and 

implementation efforts.

One of the main challenges in achieving successful roadside revegetation is that there is no one-size-fits-all technique or 

approach that can be applied to every project. A domestic scan was initiated by the Federal Highway Administration to 

facilitate understanding about the processes and techniques used in successful and innovative projects that used native 

plants for roadside revegetation.

The scan included eight project sites observed by an expert panel of six, nationally-recognized experts with relevant expertise 

in roadside revegetation using native plants. The participants included revegetation specialists representing the Federal 

Highway Administration, the US Forest Service, the National Parks Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Colorado 

Department of Transportation. The end result of the scan was a detailed report, which documents practices at each project 

site, summarizes the observations and conclusions of the expert panel, and provides a discussion of common themes and 

practices about roadside revegetation using native plants.

A comprehensive online questionnaire (distributed to over 500 key Federal, state, and county agencies and Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations in all 50 states) was used to identify in-progress roadside revegetation using native plants projects with 

innovative practices and/or success stories. Host project sites for the scan were selected based on (a) diversity in geography 

and project sponsor, type, and size, and project details as described in the survey response; and (b) a telephone discussion to 

clarify survey responses. The survey results are included as an appendix and summarized in the report. 

Four initial project sites were selected and included:

· Route 9 Reconstruction Project – Searsburg to Wilmington, Vermont; Vermont Agency of Transportation

· Cascade Lakes Pass Revegetation Project – Keene to Lake Placid, New York; New York State Department of 

Transportation

· Blaine Road Reconstruction – Blaine, Oregon; US Forest Service and Federal Highway Administration

· US-95 Road Reconstruction – Electrical Substation to Smith Creek, Idaho; Idaho Transportation Department

In addition, three of the four host agencies invited the expert panel to visit additional revegetation projects located within 

driving distance from the originally-identified project sites (no more than one hour):

· Route 9 Reconstruction Wetland Mitigation – Wilmington, Vermont; Vermont Agency of Transportation

· Sandlake Road Reconstruction – Hemlock, Oregon; Federal Highway Administration

· Setters Road Construction – Worley, Idaho; Idaho Transportation Department

· Native Revegetation Experimental Survey Station – Worley, Idaho; University of Idaho and the Idaho Transportation 

Department

For most projects observed during the scan, several key characteristics were noted by the host agency and expert panel as 

contributing factors in achieving overall success (i.e., early planning, clear project objectives, collaboration among stakeholders, 

contractor commitment to revegetation, monitoring/maintenance). The results of the scan survey, a precursor to the scan tour, 

also confirmed the importance of these characteristics in revegetation process success. 

The final report summarizes the observations, discussions and broad conclusions of the expert panel during the 2009 roadside 

revegetation using native plants scan. A key understanding is that there are many interconnected elements involved in 

both the technical and non-technical aspects of the revegetation process – all of which should be addressed in a project 

revegetation plan. Notably, the non-technical aspects—planning, design, implementation, monitoring, and maintenance—

have been found to be just as critical to the success of revegetation projects as the technical aspects, such as knowledge of the 

plantings, seeding, and soils.

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

LIST OF ACRONYMS 

APA Adirondack Park Agency

BMP Best Management Practice

DEC Department of Environmental Conservation

ITD Idaho Transportation Department

MSE Mechanically Stabilized Earth

NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation

ROW Right-of-Way

US United States

USFS United States Forest Service

VTrans Vermont Agency of Transportation
Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

7

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

6

SCAN PROCESS

The planning and coordination of the scan first began with identification of qualified revegetation experts willing to participate 

on the expert panel. The expert panel was comprised of nationally-recognized experts with relevant expertise and experience 

in roadside revegetation, who could provide insight and feedback about the projects observed during the scan (Appendix A). 

The expert panel consisted of both Federal and state employee representatives.

Next, an online questionnaire was distributed to over 500 key Federal, state, and county agencies and Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations in all 50 states to identify in-progress native roadside revegetation projects; agencies included Departments of 

Transportation, the National Park Service, the National Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and others. A total of 64 

responses were received (approximately 13% response rate).

The survey questions were designed to identify agencies with active revegetation projects and elicit innovative practices, 

lessons learned and/or success stories with their roadside revegetation using native plants. Survey respondents included 

engineers, environmental planners, landscape architects, botanists, revegetation specialists, ecologists, weed specialists, and 

project administrators.

Due to schedule and budget constraints, comprehensive geographic coverage and project diversity was not feasible; the scan 

included two, one-week trips within a one month period. Each trip visited a single geographic location for which multiple 

project sites were within driving distance. Host project sites for the scan were selected based on (a) diversity in geography and 

project sponsor, type, and size, and project details as described in the survey response; and (b) a telephone discussion to clarify 

survey responses, and confirm both host site interest in participating and appropriateness of project to the scan.

Appendix B includes the complete online questionnaire template and responses received, including detailed project 

descriptions of native revegetation projects and comments/feedback on native revegetation processes.

INTRODUCTION

Native roadside revegetation involves establishing or re-establishing appropriate plant material on areas disturbed by road 

construction projects. It has gained increased attention as people realize the many benefits it provides, including soil and 

slope stabilization, improved water quality, aesthetics, carbon sequestration, weed suppression, and enhanced wildlife 

habitat. Furthermore, given the sheer number of road and highway improvement projects conducted annually by local, state, 

and federal agencies, these benefits are realized on a very large scale. However, when revegetation efforts fail, the costs and 

consequences can be equally significant, resulting in erosion and slope failures, water contamination, weed infestations, 

decreased landscape aesthetics, and costly redesign and implementation efforts.

One of the main challenges in achieving successful roadside revegetation using native plants is that there is no one-size-fits-all 

technique or approach that can be applied to every project. Designers and contractors must have specific knowledge of local 

conditions and techniques; however, this may not be sufficient to ensure a successful revegetation effort. Oftentimes, the nontechnical aspects of the process are equally important, such as good planning, communication, oversight, and monitoring.

Sharing information about the processes and techniques used in successful and innovative projects is one way to improve 

and advance the field of roadside revegetation. To contribute to the concept of sharing information and advancing the field, 

a domestic scan for roadside revegetation using native plants was initiated by Federal Highway Administration (scan). The 

objective was to assemble a group of revegetation specialists and review innovative and successful projects from across the 

United States.

For the scan, an expert panel of six revegetation specialists was convened to travel to eight individual project sites located 

in Vermont, New York, Oregon, and Idaho. The expert panel was comprised of experts representing the Federal Highway 

Administration, the US Forest Service, the National Parks Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Colorado Department 

of Transportation.

This report summarizes the observations and conclusions of the expert panel from the roadside revegetation scan and offer 

insight to assist other agencies with revegetation efforts.

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

9

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

8

REVEGETATION PROJECT SITES

The site locations for the scan included one trip each to the Northeast United States and Northwest United States. Figure 1 

illustrates the scan site locations across the United States (US) visited by the scan expert panel.

Figure 1. Unites States Scan Site Locations

ROUTE 9 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT – SEARSBURG TO WILMINGTON, VERMONT

Figure 2. US Route 9 from Searsburg to Wilmington

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

HOST SITELOCATIONS

Four initial project sites were selected after a preliminary and included the following locations:

· Route 9 Reconstruction Project – Searsburg to Wilmington, Vermont; Vermont Agency of Transportation

· Cascade Lakes Pass Revegetation Project – Keene to Lake Placid, New York; New York State Department of 

Transportation

· Blaine Road Reconstruction – Blaine, Oregon; US Forest Service and Federal Highway Administration

· US-95 Road Reconstruction – Electrical Substation to Smith Creek, Idaho; Idaho Transportation Department

In addition to these four locations, three of the four host agencies invited the expert panel to visit additional revegetation 

projects located within driving distance from the originally-identified project sites (no more than one hour). The expert panel 

included these additional project sites in their observation and discussion for the roadside revegetation scan. The additional 

sites included the following locations:

· Route 9 Reconstruction Wetland Mitigation – Wilmington, Vermont; Vermont Agency of Transportation

· Sandlake Road Reconstruction – Hemlock, Oregon; Federal Highway Administration

· Setters Road Construction – Worley, Idaho; Idaho Transportation Department

· Native Revegetation Experimental Survey Station – Worley, Idaho; University of Idaho and the Idaho Transportation 

Department

In total, the expert panel observed eight individual revegetation sites in areas with distinctly different conditions. Although the 

scan did not include travel to the desert southwest, a Midwest prairie community, or a sub-tropical zone such as Florida, the 

observations at the eight project sites generated significant discussion on the subject of revegetation, which could potentially 

be extrapolated to revegetation sites nationwide. 

SCAN PARTICIPANTS

Six individuals were selected for participation on the expert panel, and included representation from Federal and State 

agencies (Appendix A). These individuals were selected for their expertise in the field of revegetation, botany, and/or biology 

and their ability to share insight and expertise regarding roadside revegetation in a meaningful and constructive manner 

during the scan site visits.

PROJECT SITETRIPS

Two one-week trips were scheduled in Fall 2009. The first trip, which included site visits to Vermont and upstate New York, was 

conducted September 15 -18, 2009. The second trip, which included site visits to Oregon and Idaho, was conducted October 

5-9, 2009. 
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

11

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

10

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Planting Pockets – It was determined that the 12-inches of topsoil above the riprap on the slopes would not be adequate 

for long term survival of the trees and shrubs. Their roots would require a greater depth, so a design was developed where 

eight-foot long by eight-foot wide “planting pockets” were excavated out of the riprap to a depth of approximately three 

feet to provide additional planting depth (Figure 3). The size of the planting pockets were kept small—so as to not impact 

the integrity of the slope protection gained from using the riprap—and they were placed throughout the project site.

Figure 3. Planting pocket showing tree planting, with Harriman Reservoir in background

Embankment Plantings – Not all slopes required riprap protection as described above. Much of the roadside area did 

require planting on steep slopes; however, much of this landscape required only additional topsoil over the sub-soil (Figure 

4). This technique facilitated planting of trees and shrubs in larger groups rather than the limitations imposed by planting 

pockets.

Although embankment plantings are not an innovative technique, these areas established quite successfully and provide 

large masses of native vegetation that contribute to the overall project objectives. The vegetation in these areas also 

includes the same native grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees that were installed in the planting pockets, but the vegetation 

was installed in areas exceeding 100 feet in length and twenty feet in width.

Figure 4. Embankment planting on Route 9 near Wilmington, VT

PROJECT SUMMARY

The first roadside revegetation project observed by the expert panel was located along 3.67 miles of US Route 9 from 

Searsburg to Wilmington, Vermont (Figure 2). This site was a two-year highway reconstruction project that impacted many 

acres of roadside landscape and wildlife habitat corridors. The main purpose of the road reconstruction project was to widen 

the highway, upgrade conditions, and improve safety. As a designated National Highway System road, US Route 9 is held to 

a high standard of design to accommodate interstate transportation; US Route 9 was accepted for designation as a Vermont 

Scenic Highway.

The sinuous alignment of US Route 9 and the existing topography presented difficult design challenges for engineers and 

landscape architects. The roadway is wedged between steep, wooded slopes and the edge of the Deerfield River and Harriman 

Reservoir, and in some sections where slopes needed to be cleared to the water’s edge, stone riprap was placed on steep 

1:1.5 and 1:2 slopes for stability. Native topsoil was used to cover these slopes to promote revegetation, and then the use of 

innovative landscape measures was implemented to help restore native plant species despite unfavorable growing conditions.

The difficult task of replanting steep slopes in minimal soil over stone fill was the primary challenge for this roadside 

revegetation project. Innovative slope planting methods were developed by the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) 

and used successfully throughout the project to revegetate the extreme slopes adjacent to the water bodies.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

The revegetation design of this project began after road construction had begun; therefore, the designers did not work 

collaboratively with the engineers as they designed the roadway. In this case, the revegetation plans were developed solely 

as a response to the final road construction plans. The landscape architects had to work closely with the VTrans road project 

manager and the state and federal regulatory agencies to develop three unique revegetation solutions that used plants native 

to the area. These methods were approved by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources staff, including their wildlife and 

aquatic biologists, and the Army Corps of Engineers, for integration into the final design and construction schedule. 

There was a lengthy road design process that included input from local officials and residents, as well as state and federal 

regulatory agencies, and environmental groups. During this process, the Vtrans roadway engineers were able to make 

significant changes to the overall roadway design that were intended to minimize the impact to the Deerfield River in response 

to environmental concerns. Large segments of riparian and wooded vegetation ended up being left untouched with these 

changes in the roadway design.

In addition to the landscape architect, the VTrans project manager was very influential in the decision making process. 

Although now retired and not present on the scan, his effort and commitment to the revegetation on the project, as cited by 

the landscape architect, was critical in the successful outcome. He understood that revegetation was an important component 

of road design and he was very adamant that it was done correctly. 

REVEGETATION APPROACH

The landscape architect’s office was located in Montpelier, which is over a three-hour drive from the Wilmington, so it 

was impractical to have her on site regularly during the construction phase. Therefore, a full-time field representative was 

specifically hired to work with the contractors during the installation of the landscape revegetation. The field representative 

was trained by the landscape architect to ensure that the design intent would be realized in the field during her absence, work 

collaboratively with the contractor, and provide daily oversight. This approach was invaluable to the success of the project, as 

answers to questions and field decisions could be made immediately by a qualified individual, which prevented costly delays 

and mistakes. 

One of the revegetation objectives was to establish healthy stands of native grasses and forbs on the steep slopes for the 

purpose of providing erosion control, water quality, wildlife habitat, and improved aesthetics. This objective was accomplished, 

in part, by seeding a conservation mix over the disturbed and newly constructed areas. This seed mix was quite successful due 

to the appropriate selection of species in the mix itself, and the added benefit of ample precipitation throughout the first 

growing season. In order to prevent erosion while the seed became established, jute netting was installed on the slopes.

Topsoil was salvaged prior to construction activities and stockpiled, and later spread over the disturbed and riprap areas to 

a depth of 12 inches. This technique is a standard practice in Vermont and they refer to it as using “soil grubbings”, which is 

another term for using buried riprap with native, salvaged soils that come from the project site.

A second revegetation objective was to establish woody plantings in selected locations among the seeded areas. In order to 

determine the appropriate native species in the planting plan, the designers inventoried the site prior to construction and 

used these same trees and shrubs in the design. The following paragraphs describe the techniques that were developed by 

the landscape architect to get these woody plants established on the steep slopes.
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

13

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

12

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Wildlife Underpass Crossings – There are many incidents involving wildlife and traffic encounters in this area, so designers 

worked closely with staff from the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife to provide for animal passage under the 

bridges. These pathways were called “Critter Crossings” and were specially designed to allow animals, both large and small, 

the opportunity to pass under the bridges on stable footing (Figure 7). While this technique didn’t have a significant impact 

on the revegetation process, it is worth noting as a technique to improve safety for both humans and wildlife along State 

and Federal highways.

Figure 7. Critter crossing underpass near Wilmington, VT

Results of the Revegetation

Although the revegetation plans were designed after roadway construction had begun, the project was successful. After 

approximately five years from plant and seed installation, the positive results of the revegetation efforts are evident; healthy 

stands of grasses and forbs have present with nearly 100% coverage in the seeded areas. The trees and shrubs have established 

and are continuing to thrive.

The methods used by the Vermont Agency of Transportation in this revegetation project were somewhat experimental, but 

with their success, their methods have formed a model for statewide use in similar conditions. Further, the plant installations 

and seed did exceptionally well despite difficult growing conditions.

LessonsLearned

Planting pockets demonstrated that trees and shrubs can be established on a buried riprap slope if they are given additional 

room to expand their root systems. Since this project is less than five years old, the long term success of these plants remains 

to be seen; however, at the time of observation, there is no indication that they will fail. The decision to use this particular 

method will roadway engineer review to confirm that excavating from embankment riprap will not compromise the integrity 

of the erosion protection.

Project success may also be partially attributed to the fact that the agency was able to hire a full-time field supervisor who 

was given authority to act as an owner’s representative. This arrangement was beneficial for the project in that it increased 

the amount of daily contact with the contractors. Questions regarding the plans could be answered immediately and field 

adjustments could be made without delay, since this person was onsite during the entire revegetation process.

The various treatments devised for vegetating the slopes demonstrate that revegetation is not a “once-size-fits-all” practice. 

Identifying site conditions prior to developing a design revealed that several different techniques would be necessary to 

establish plants.

The VTrans landscape architect emphasized the importance and benefit of having pre-construction conversations with the 

construction contractor to ensure they understood the importance of revegetation in the overall success of the road project; this 

communication does not always happen when working with contractors. In this project, the construction contractor approached 

the task with a commitment to working with the designers and project liaison to ensure the revegetation was approached properly 

and following the intent of the design. Having this level of dedication from a contractor on a project is invaluable to achieving the 

objectives. Additionally, the experience and imagination of the designers cannot be overlooked when discussing why this project 

was successful, as it was critical to their successful interaction and collaboration with the contractors.

Another project-specific lesson was regarding the use of irrigation during the vegetation establishment period. The design specified 

that hand watering each plant was to be completed four times per month. This level of watering seemed excessive and the line item 

cost was entered as a lump sum of $30,000 for one season. The rainfall during this first growing season was above normal and the 

plants did not require much, if any, supplemental watering. This high cost could have been revised and funds applied elsewhere on 

the project if a revegetation plan was provided that analyzed the average precipitation rates for the area.

Geogrid Sub-Base Stabilization Plantings – A third planting technique was required for steep slopes created during road 

construction, when the sub-base of the road was built up in lifts of approximately 18”. Instead of using riprap to stabilize the 

slopes, the engineers developed a method where the soil lifts were wrapped and contained in a geogrid material (Figure 

5). However, the geogrid not only created a stabilizing structure for the embankment soil, but also created a barrier for root 

growth. Therefore, the landscape architect developed a specialized planting plan for these areas that only included grasses, 

forbs, and shrubs. Trees were not used because of the potential damage to both the geogrid material and to the tree roots 

themselves.

Figure 5. Geogrid sub-base stabilization planting near Wilmington, VT

Wetland Mitigation – Another component to this project observed by the expert panel included a wetland mitigation site 

(Figure 6). This site was constructed under requirements set forth by the US Army Corps of Engineers for impacts to existing 

wetlands that occurred during construction of the road. Due to the lack of adequate on-site mitigation, all of the wetland 

mitigation was conducted at an off-site location that was approximately 15-miles from the town of Wilmington. The site was 

approximately 10-acres and located in abandoned gravel mine.

Figure 6. Wetland mitigation site near Wilmington, VT
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

15

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

14

CASCADELAKES PASS, NEW YORK

Figure 8. Cascade Lakes Pass

PROJECT SUMMARY

The New York project was located in the Adirondacks in an area called Cascade Lakes, which is on a mountain pass between 

Keene, NH and Lake Placid, NY (Figure 8). A two-lane highway runs adjacent to the Cascade Lakes at an elevation of approximately 

2,200 feet above sea level. Winters in this area are notoriously cold, windy, and wet, creating dangerous driving conditions with 

drifting snow and ice build up on the roads that require frequent maintenance activities to keep them clear. Sand has not been 

used in this area for snow and ice control for a number of years; rather, control now consists of salt and other anti-icing and 

de-icing products. Historically, sand was used in larger quantities and contributed to vegetation die-back. 

The landscape that lies between the roadway and the lakeshore is very narrow and steep with poor topsoil (Figure 9). There 

is evidence of soil erosion caused by stormwater runoff that flowed off of the road and into the lake. Additionally, the sand 

and salt used to control the ice have washed off the road, smothering the bases of trees, shrubs, and grasses at this site. One 

species in particular was noticed to be experiencing a higher than normal (and unexplained) mortality rate - the white birch 

(Betula papyrifera).

Figure 9. Route 73 at Cascades Lakes Pass showing steep slopes with rocky soils

In 2003, the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) initiated a transportation research project to analyze 

the environmental impacts of snow and ice removal efforts (a) on the water quality of regional lakes; and (b) as a potential 

cause of the white birch dieback. It was hypothesized that the trees were dying off due to their age, environmental stressors, 

soil erosion around their roots, and possibly from the salts used for ice control. The study was funded with Federal Statewide 

Planning and Research money.

The study was conducted by engineering, biology, and natural resources professors from Clarkson University in Potsdam, NY, 

and Paul Smiths College near Saranac Lake, NY. From the study, the professors submitted a variety of conclusions and one 

recommendation pertaining to revegetation. They suggested that NYSDOT should revegetate the roadside shoulder between 

Route 73 and the lake to limit shoulder runoff and protect water quality and aquatic fauna, including the endangered round 

whitefish that inhabits the Cascade Lakes.

To accomplish the revegetation tasks based on study recommendations, NYSDOT decided to tap into their own resources to 

not only fund the entire project, but also provide the design and implementation. The designers developed a revegetation 

plan that included native plant species that were salt resistant, sustainable, and would minimize maintenance to the greatest 

extent possible. The NYSDOT provided the labor and machinery necessary for the installation of these plants.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

Since all of the funding, design, and construction of the project were completed with resources within the NYSDOT through a 

special grant program, the project team encountered unique circumstances pertaining to decision making. While the project 

was most self-contained, there were a few regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over the project that had to be consulted prior 

to initiating the work. The NYSDOT staff shared their revegetation plan with the Adirondack Park Agency (APA), a State agency 

that regulates development in the Adirondacks, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), 

which manages Forest Preserve lands adjoining Route 73, and the Ausable River Association, which is a citizen’s group that also 

wished to contribute to the improvement of the Pass.

This project was funded with money from a New York State program called the Green and Blue Highways Initiative. This is an 

environmental initiative where maintenance staff identify activities with environmental significance and then implement them 

with their own staff. The Office of Transportation Maintenance started Green and Blue Highways in 2005 as a grassroots effort 

within the NYSDOT to capitalize on field staff insights and capabilities. The initiative encourages a stewardship/operations/

maintenance synergy. When staff or managers address an issue that could potentially result in conflicts among operations, 

safety, and environmental concerns, Green and Blue Highways offers a process and resources to develop a solution that 

minimizes the conflict and leads to a mutually beneficial outcome.

When the recommendation to revegetate between the shoulder and the lake was made, the staff thought this approach 

would be a good candidate for Green and Blue Highways funding. In all, the program provided $20,000 in funding for materials 

and construction.

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

17

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

16

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

RESULTS OF THE REVEGETATION

After two complete growing seasons the results are mostly successful. The coir logs have created hospitable conditions for 

plant materials on the upslope side and along with the imported topsoil have effectively held water. The planting benches also 

support good growth of the trees, shrubs, grasses, and forbs that were installed by the crew. Following is a list of species that 

were planted from container plantings:

· White spruce Picea Glauca

· Tamarack Larix laricina

· White birch Betula papyrifera

· Grey birch Betula populifolia

· Red osier dogwood Cornus sericea

· Dwarf sand cherry Prunus pumila

· False sunflower Heliopsis helianthoides

· Wild bergamot Monarda fistulosa

· Grey goldenrod Solidago nemoralis

· Little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium

· Freshwater cordgrass Spartina pectinata

One documented problem is that three of the white spruce did not survive or appear to be extremely stressed. The NYSDOT 

replaced these species with additional tamarack (Larix laricina), which will function similarly to the white spruce. Subsequent to 

the site visit, NYSDOT determined that most of the white spruce did not survive—likely a result of the wet planting conditions 

near the lake—and they have been replaced with tamarack.

LESSONS LEARNED

Occasionally, roadside revegetation projects are initiated and funded by means other than a road reconstruction project. In 

this case, the revegetation was conducted at the suggestion of participants in the transportation research study and the work 

was completed by NYSDOT maintenance workers and community volunteers. The ability to hold a contractor accountable for 

any failures was not possible.

Although this project presented a unique staffing situation, in that citizen groups aren’t often involved in roadside revegetation 

when the funding is coming from a governmental agency, the volunteer groups were found to be a valuable resource that 

contributed to project success. Local citizens are often very interested in pitching in their time and effort to improve the 

aesthetics, ecology, and safety of their communities.

Due to the steep slopes and inaccessibility for heavy equipment on the site, the coir logs were installed by hand by the work 

crews. However, although the logs were manageable by hand when the materials were dry, they were almost unmovable 

when they became wet. 

NYSDOT reported that using imported topsoil can pose risks with weed infestations if the soil is not properly selected and/or 

treated. In this case, topsoil was brought in that contained farm weed seed and for many years following installation, NYSDOT 

has provided hand weeding to preserve the native plantings. The ability to screen topsoil and guarantee that it is weed-free 

presents a challenge.

REVEGETATION APPROACH

The designers established a plant and seed palette that consisted of native species, which would tolerate the harsh roadside 

conditions and the elevation of the Pass. In addition, these plants had to be able to withstand the saline from salt and sand 

treatments used by the maintenance crews and washed off the road and onto plants. With budget limited and a large project 

area, the agency had to prioritize individual sites to maximize the benefits from the revegetation efforts.

The following paragraphs describe the two revegetation techniques used at the project.

Coir Log Planting Bench – Several of the planting locations were on very steep grades with extremely poor topsoil. 

Revegetation would have been nearly impossible without the use of a method to create more favorable planting conditions 

on these extreme slopes. Additionally, the area was located in a narrow area that was wedged between the highway and 

the lakeshore. Working the site with heavy equipment and attempting to install plants on near vertical slopes would have 

been impractical; therefore, coir logs were installed by hand and then topsoil was placed behind them to create a planting 

bench (Figure 10). This method created a stable planting area with good water holding capacity on an otherwise harsh site.

Coir logs were constructed of rolled coconut fiber that were approximately 20 inches in diameter and 20 foot in length. The 

coir logs were staked into the slopes using metal rebar and wood stakes, and then the topsoil was imported from an offsite 

source and placed behind the coir logs. 

Figure 10. Coir log planting along Route 73 with Cascade Lakes in the background

Living Snow Fence – The snow and ice that accumulates on the road in winter creates a very dangerous situation for drivers 

and presents a constant challenge for the maintenance crews. Wind blows through the valley and across the frozen lake, 

depositing drifting snow and ice across the roads. One of the study recommendations was to install a living snow fence 

created by planting native evergreen trees (Figure 11). Although the plants that were installed are only approximately 3’ in 

height, it is anticipated that eventually the plants will reach sufficient height to provide a barrier and prevent excess snow 

and ice from accumulating on the roads.

White spruce (Picea glauca) trees were planted due to their ability to withstand wind, heat, cold, drought, and crowding. In 

addition, these species are salt tolerant and are native to the Adirondacks.

Figure 11. Living snow fence area at Cascade Lakes Pass; small spruce trees planted for the eventual snow fence
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

19

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

18

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

· Budget and timelines

· Strategies for monitoring achievement of desired future conditions

· Strategies for correcting shortcomings based on monitoring information

There were several regulatory agencies that had jurisdiction over this project and all played a role in the revegetation decision 

making process; their collective input had a significant impact on revegetation planning. For example, the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service addressed revegetation concerns that would impact two endangered species that inhabit the area (Western 

Spotted Owl, Marbled Murrelet). The US Army Corps of Engineers enforced 404 Permit terms for impacts incurred within the 

floodplain of the Nestucca River, including the installation of drainage culverts and riprap protection at approximately sixtyfour individual locations. In turn, the Army Corps of Engineers mandated these areas be vegetated at a rate of 12 individual 

plants per 100 square feet of riprap.

The Wild and Scenic River designation for the adjacent Nestucca River was also a driver for portions of the revegetation efforts. 

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was created by Congress in 1968 to preserve certain rivers with outstanding 

natural, cultural, and recreational values in a free-flowing condition for the enjoyment of present and future generations. The 

Act is notable for safeguarding the special character of these rivers, while also recognizing the potential for their appropriate 

use and development. It encourages river management that crosses political boundaries and promotes public participation 

in developing goals for river protection (www.rivers.gov). Therefore, providing a consistent vegetative cover over areas of 

disturbance was critical in determining the extent of revegetation. 

During the design portion of Phase 1, engineers with the State of Washington were consulted to provide bioengineering 

design plans for the steep slopes. The intent was for revegetation to occur with the use of “soft” soil stabilization techniques 

such as the installation of a coir blanket and coir logs on steep slopes. The project team also decided that a revision to the 

Revegetation Plan was necessary before Phase One completion, to address the growing cost of the original plan. During the 

time period spent on design, volunteer vegetation established on the slopes and the project team decided that the installation 

of the coir logs and blankets would most likely cause more damage than good, and a redesign was necessary to accommodate 

changed conditions.

REVEGETATION APPROACH

During the visit to Blaine Road, the expert panel observed three aspects of the revegetation efforts on this project, which 

included the vegetated mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls, vegetated riprap areas, and compost berms. The 

first two techniques were developed in response to policies mandated by the state and federal agencies with jurisdiction over 

this project. The compost berm was developed to create a low-impact water quality best management practice (BMP) that 

addressed the difficulty of installing a regular silt fence into rocky soils.

For these revegetation techniques, seed and plant material had to be obtained from local sources for proper propagation. 

During the summer and fall of 2007, seed was gathered by a local botanist from nearby plant populations and sent to the 

United States Forest Service (USFS) Bend Seed Extractory for cleaning. USFS Dorena Genetic Resource Center sowed seed the 

following winter into RL 10 containers and grew the plants until the fall of 2008. The sword fern was the only species on the 

plant list not grown from seed; rather, it was transplanted from wildings into half-gallon round containers.

Vegetated Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Retaining Walls – As the road project required several areas where cuts 

were made into the existing slopes, the visual impact of any type of retaining wall was a major concern due to the proximity 

of the Nestucca River and its status as a Wild and Scenic River. Therefore, special regulations were enacted regarding the 

treatments to the surrounding landscape aesthetics, and included the requirement to provide permanent vegetative 

screening of the walls. The project team determined that providing a vegetated retaining wall would be the best option to 

blend into the existing landscape.

Figure 13. Mechanically Stabilized Earth Retaining Wall planting

BLAINE ROAD, OREGON

Figure 12. Blaine Road

PROJECT SUMMARY

This road improvement project for Blain Road begins near the town of Blaine, OR and travels approximately four miles through 

lands owned by the US Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and lands that are held by private land owners (Figure 

12). These lands border the Nestucca River, which is designated as an Oregon State Scenic Waterway and plays a significant 

role in the revegetation efforts. The first 1.5 miles of the road project traverse a broad valley of private land and then enters a 

steep canyon of federal land.

The planning of this project lasted more than ten years because of several design revisions resulting from budgetary changes and 

adjustments to project objectives. The initial objectives were to widen the road and improve the road surface for improved safety. 

The roadway quality had degraded over the years with heavy use by logging trucks transporting timber from nearby harvest sites.

The road reconstruction was built in two phases. Phase one was constructed in the upper reaches of the project site, which 

was located in a steep canyon area. The intent of this phase was to widen the road, which would have significant impacts to 

the steep slopes of the canyon walls. Since the soils in the canyon were typically gravelly loams over fractured volcanic bedrock 

ranging from three to six feet deep, it made the slopes very unstable in certain areas.

The result was a wider and straighter road that did meet engineering objectives, and didn’t minimize impacts to the adjacent 

landscape. Additionally, the cut slopes were even more unstable after construction, especially during periods after heavy rains, 

which led to several large landslide events that shut down the road altogether. 

One local resident, who was upset by the impacts to the existing landscape, became very vocal after the first phase of 

construction was completed and strongly suggested that the FHWA reconsider the road improvement plans for Phase 2 if 

they were similar in approach to Phase 1. The design and planning teams agreed and Phase 2 of the road reconstruction was 

redesigned to better incorporate lower impact solutions. In general, Phase 2 became more of a road rehabilitation effort that 

minimized the disturbance to existing vegetation rather than a total road reconstruction. Although the adjacent landscape 

impacts were minimized, slope revegetation was required where retaining walls and culverts were located.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

The Forest Service begin planning for the revegetation project during site assessments and information gathering that took 

place several years before construction. During the initial planning stage, they were able to obtain important information 

regarding site conditions such as soil types and chemistry, existing vegetation, solar aspect, slopes, average precipitation data, 

as well as any limiting factors that would inhibit plant establishment.

This information was used to develop the site Revegetation Plan, which documents the existing conditions and also states the 

revegetation objectives for the project. This plan represents the culmination of the extensive planning process and included 

the following information:

· Revegetation objectives

· Description and map of each revegetation unit

· Desired future conditions for each revegetation unit

· Analysis of site attributes (limiting factors and resources) and type of vegetation

· Description of mitigating measures

· Description of the revegetation strategy, including plant materials/stock types and application methods for each unit

· Key contacts and responsibilities
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

21

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

20

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussions

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Figure 16. Compost over riprap at culvert prior to plantings

Figure 17. Compost over riprap at culvert after planting

The MSE wall is a modular wall that uses welded wire material and geogrid fabrics in combination with both structural 

soils and topsoil to create a modular system (Figure 13). The topsoil is placed on the inside face of the walls to a depth of 

approximately 12 inches to ensure the face of the wall and the stepped ledges are capable of supporting plant materials. 

Container plants and grasses were installed by hand to create the vegetative screening along the wall structure.

Figure 14. Vegetated mechanically stabilized earth wall on Blaine Road

Vegetated Riprap Areas – Because of the strict revegetation standards set forth by the regulatory agencies pertaining to 

riprap areas around the culverts, an innovative approach had to be developed that would allow plants the opportunity to 

properly establish (Figure 14). Riprap was installed to prevent soil erosion in steep areas and along drainage culverts, but 

the shortage of adequate topsoil for cover over the riprap was a constraint. Further, some of the sites that were on very 

steep slopes would have present complications in the installation of topsoil, even if adequate topsoil were available.

The project team determined that a blown-in-place compost material could be applied that would provide plants with a 

favorable growing medium over the riprap. The consistency and relative ease of application made this a good choice to fill 

the voids and to build up a five- to ten-inch layer above the rock material. Not only was the ease of application a plus for the 

project, but the material itself is a very nutrient-rich compost that is made out of recycled organics containing beneficial 

bacteria, mycorrhizal fungi, and a binding agent to prevent wind and water erosion. The compost was blown in place 

through a low impact, pneumatic method and was mixed with the native grass seed mix in one application process.

Figure 15. Application of compost over rip rap

In January of 2009, approximately 2,800 tree and shrub materials were planted by hand to meet the desired future condition 

of twelve native shrub or tree species per 100 square feet (Figure 15). This plant material was able to survive even during the 

drier summer months because the compost held an ideal moisture level throughout the year (Figures 16 and 17).
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

23

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

22

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

The compost with tackifier was stable through several very intense rainstorms and held the soil even without the use of a 

surface erosion fabric. Moisture in compost remained relatively high during August without supplemental irrigation.

Figure 19. Plant installation on Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall

When ledges on which people can stand are built into the MSE wall, it is much easier to install plants. Oftentimes, these walls 

are designed and constructed without any ledge and it makes it extremely difficult to install plants. Further, plants must be 

installed at an angle, which makes establishment difficult (Figure 19).

The compost met the original specifications; however, the soils appeared to require more coarse organic matter because 

existing soils did not drain well after a rainstorm. In fact, some of the dibble holes filled up with water and did not drain 

overnight, which can be detrimental to seedling survival and growth.

Finally, a critical lesson learned was that originally-proposed “soft” engineering techniques (bioengineering) can actually cause 

more damage during installation than would be expected. Some of these original bioengineering plans were redesigned once 

the extent of adverse impact was realized.

Compost Berm. As an alternative to using a silt fence, project managers decided to install a compost berm between the 

construction zone and the adjacent Nestucca River as a means to prevent sediment runoff. Due to the rocky soils, the use of 

a silt fence would have caused unnecessary damage to the landscape during installation (Figure 18). However, the compost 

berm was a reliable option without causing harm to the riparian zone. In addition, the berm itself was planted with a native 

seed mix that ultimately provided visual screening of the BMP when the grasses began to establish.

Figure 18. Compost berm

RESULTS OF THE REVEGETATION

Each of the planting techniques was successful and provided an innovative method to establish vegetation in extremely 

difficult growing conditions. While there were some areas that did not establish as intended, the overall success rate on the 

seeding and planting areas was over 80%.

The Vegetated Mechanically Stabilized Earth Retaining Walls exhibited mostly favorable results. One of the three walls was 

installed with native grass seeding with the intent of having both grasses and shrub plantings, while the other two walls 

contained only shrubs for vegetative cover. Approximately 80% of the wall face was covered by grass species. The shrubs were 

in the early stages of establishment during observation. 

The Vegetated Riprap Areas have produced favorable results with both the success of the seeding and the high survival rates 

of the planted container materials.

The Compost Berms provided an erosion control measure that was very low impact compared to what would have occurred 

had a silt fence been installed in the rocky soils. The success of these berms can be measured by the fact that they perform their 

function of keeping sediment out of the river by providing a stable vegetated barrier. The grasses established on these berms 

blend well into the existing landscape.

LESSONS LEARNED

The early planning process and development of a revegetation plan allowed project managers to make informed decisions 

regarding the best methods to revegetate the site. Acknowledgement of the importance of the revegetation by the project 

engineer also facilitated revegetation implementation.

Given the complexity of the project and the number of regulatory agencies involved with oversight, good communication 

between all parties was a critical factor in the success of this project. Whether communication between the contractor and 

the designer or with all of the regulatory agencies involved, good communication was key in keeping everyone apprised of 

relevant issues.

A preliminary stakeholders meeting was held to gather the referral agencies in one room along with the designers and 

contractors. This meeting allowed each of the agencies to discuss their interest in the project in front of the others, where they 

could coordinate efforts and understand the different levels of complexity involved with the project.

The compost used on the riprap was a very effective, although costly material for the establishment of plants and seed. The 

cost of the compost to install was approximately five-times the cost of a traditional hydroseeding application. Hydroseeding 

typically costs $0.03/s.f. while the compost costs roughly $0.15/sf. The cost may not outweigh the benefits in all revegetation 

situations, but for this project, where the need to establish plants directly on riprap and steep slopes was required, the cost 

was considered justified.
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

25

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

24

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

RESULTS OF THE REVEGETATION

The success rates of the seeding efforts are striking. The north side of the road (south facing slope) exhibited a more dense 

and consistent cover of grasses than the opposite side of the road. While the hydroseeded side of the road did not necessarily 

demonstrate a poor success rate, it paled in comparison to the success of the blown-in-place compost application (Figure 22).

The lower quarter of the slope with the compost demonstrated a very dense stand of grasses that was very different than 

the top three quarters of the slope. It had the appearance of seed that may have washed down the slope and settled in the 

lower regions, but upon further exploration, it was determined that there is most likely a seep in the cut slope that provides 

additional moisture to the bottom quarter of the slope.

Figure 22. Example of seeding on steep slope and using blow-in-place compost on Sandlake Road

LESSONS LEARNED

The revegetation methods used to revegetate the two opposite sides of the road revealed significant contrasts in establishment. 

The compost provided a beneficial growing medium for the grasses to establish and, in fact, led to a healthier and denser 

stand of vegetation on a southwest-facing slope than on the northeast-facing slope. This results was surprising given the 

similar seeding applications.

The cost of the compost and seeding is at least 2 to 3 times that of a basic hydroseeding application, but in this project, led to 

a highly successful result.

SANDLAKE ROAD RECONSTRUCTION, OREGON

Figure 20. Sandlake Road reconstruction

PROJECT SUMMARY

The Sandlake Road Reconstruction was conducted by the FHWA near the town of Hemlock, Oregon and consisted of several 

miles of roadway construction efforts that included widening and resurfacing (Figure 20). There were many revegetation 

locations along its route, but the scan only stopped at one location, where two cut slopes on opposite sides of the road could 

be observed.

This particular site provided the expert panel an excellent contrast between two different revegetation techniques on roadside 

cuts that were located directly across the four-lane road from each other. Sandlake Road runs in a northwest to southeast 

direction, giving the two cut slopes a northeast and southwest exposure on the opposite sides of the road. For reasons 

unknown to the host site engineer at the time of the visit, the side of the road with the northeast exposure was revegetated 

only with a hydroseed application directly on native soils. The opposite side of the road with the southwest exposure was 

revegetated with seed mixed in with a two-inch layer of blown-in-place compost.

REVEGETATION APPROACH

A two-inch layer of compost (tackifier) and seed was blown onto the north side of the road to provide a better substrate than 

soil for the seed to establish. This method was similar to the blown-in-place compost that was used on the Blaine Road project, 

except that the depth on the Blaine Road sites was eight inches. In contrast, the south side of the road was revegetated with a 

hydroseed application directly on topsoil and without any blown-in-place compost (Figure 21). The exact same seed mix was 

used for each application, so the only differences were in the solar aspect of the cut slope and the presence or absence of the 

compost.

Figure 21. Example of hydroseeding without using blown in place mulch on Sandlake Road
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

27

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

26

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

REVEGETATION APPROACH

Due to the prior and pending lawsuits, the main goal of this roadside revegetation application was to ensure sediment wouldn’t 

run off into the roadside ditches where it could make its way to a body of water. To achieve this objective, a rock-armoring base 

was applied to the entire slope, much the same way topsoil would be spread. The rock came from a local source that was not 

specified to be clean rock and was approximately 4 to 6 inches diameter or smaller. The rock was spread to approximately 12 

inches in depth. The load of rock was dumped at the base of the slopes and then pushed up into place by using loaders and 

dozers (Figure 24).

After the rock was pushed into place, the area was seeded with a hydroseed mixture that contained twelve species of woody 

shrubs and was applied at 30lbs per acre. Additionally, two annual grasses were applied at 8lbs per acre over the rock mulch. 

A bonded-fiber matrix was then sprayed on the rock to secure the seed in place. While the majority of the surface area was 

covered by rock mulch, approximately 15% of the surface was covered by gaps in the rock and soil. This soil eventually filtered 

down into the rock after several rain storms. In fact, the runoff after the first several precipitation events was running clear and 

little to no sediment was running into the roadside ditches. The goal of stabilizing the slopes and preventing any sediment 

was achieved almost immediately.

As dirt washed away and/or settled into the voids in the rock mulch, the shrub seeds also settled into pockets between the 

rocks. Eventually, the seeds with ideal conditions began to germinate.

Figure 25. Cut slope on Setter’s Road three years after revegetation efforts 

At the time of the site visit, the project was a little over three years old and there were many specimens of shrubs that were at 

least 4 feet in height and many more that were beginning to emerge (Figure 25). In addition, there were volunteer species of 

shrubs and perennial grasses that had begun to establish.

RESULTS OF THE REVEGETATION

This revegetation technique has been used on other areas of the US-95 reconstruction project and also produced successful 

results. According to the ITD designers, the vegetation at this site is filling in at a rate similar to other ITD sites, and the area is 

expected to demonstrate similarly successful results.

Currently, the majority of the cut slopes on this project are comprised of rock mulch with perennial grasses and shrubs covering 

less than 10% of the area. As the shrub material continues to grow and fill in, it is anticipated that the majority of the site will 

contain full aerial coverage of shrub material and grasses (Figure 26). The project has fulfilled its two objectives, which were to 

prevent soil erosion and provide revegetation. As an aesthetic element to the roadside, the rock will eventually become less 

visually prominent, but still remain functional in preventing erosion.

SETTERS ROAD CONSTRUCTION, WORLEY, IDAHO

Figure 23. Setters Road construction

PROJECT SUMMARY

Roadside revegetation at the Setters Road site was located approximately 5 miles north of the town of Worley, Idaho (Figure 

23). This effort was part of the on-going statewide reconstruction of US-95. Setters Road is approximately 1,000 linear feet of 

new roadway constructed to extend and connect the existing portion of Setters Road to US-95. The revegetation within the 

observed area covered both sides of the newly constructed roadway, which is oriented in an east/west direction, giving the 

new cut slopes a north and south aspect.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

The roadside revegetation approach on this stretch of highway was conducted in this unique manner due to a sedimentation 

event and project failure on an Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) roadside project located within this region, north 

of the city of Coeur D’Alene. The other project resulted in a large amount of sediment entering into Lake Pend Oreille. The 

revegetation did not provide adequate slope stabilization. The slopes were seeded and mulched, but for unexplained reasons 

did not stabilize the slopes. ITD determined that the contractor was at fault for lack of adequate performance.

Several multi-million dollar court settlements were paid out by both the ITD and the contractor involved in the project to land 

owners in the Mica Bay area of Lake Pend Oreille. The lawsuits were not yet completed at the time of the scan. However, a 

consent decree with the Environmental Protection Agency to cease activities alleged by the government to be illegal in return 

for an end to the charges.

With the lawsuits resulting from the unwanted sedimentation and the need for roadside revegetation on other highway 

construction efforts, an alternative method of roadside revegetation was developed by ITD. This method was employed at the 

Setter’s Road site and observed by the scan.

Figure 24. North facing slope with rock mulch and vegetation on Setter’s Road
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

29

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

28

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

I-95 RECONSTRUCTION AND REVEGETATION – SMITH CREEK, IDAHO

Figure 27. Smith Creek reconstruction and revegetation

PROJECT SUMMARY

The project consisted of alignment improvements to 6.6 miles of US 95 in Benewah and Latah Counties (Figure 27). The project 

area extends through the Palouse Prairie consisting of Palouse Prairie vegetation and organic soils, as well as mixed pine and 

Douglas fir. Most of the project is within rolling terrain, while mountainous terrain exists for approximately 1.8 miles of the 

project as the roadway passes over the Marsh Hill summit at the county line. Significant improvements were made to the 

horizontal and vertical alignments of the roadway to improve safety for travelers and maintenance crews. Some of the project 

Figure 26. Setters Road rock mulch and revegetation

LESSONS LEARNED

The addition of the annual grass seed mixture was likely unnecessary due to the success of the rock mulch in stabilizing the 

slopes. The annual grasses did grow, but they did not significantly contribute to slope stabilization. In hindsight, a perennial 

grass seed mixture should have been applied to the slopes in place of the annuals; the grasses would have grown just as well 

and would have returned year after year. In fact, perennial grasses from volunteer species are now beginning to appear, which 

indicates that the conditions are favorable for at least some of these species.

The host site agency indicated the shrub seed was beginning to establish in rock areas and not so much in areas where the 

ground cover was mostly soil. This indicates that as the rock is “cleaned” by precipitation and the loose soil settles into the 

voids between the rock mulch, the areas where more dirt has accumulated has likely buried seeds too deep for germination. 

The area where the rock mulch is not entirely covered with soil indicates these are the ideal conditions for the seed to begin to 

establish. In hindsight, it would have been more beneficial to flush the slopes and rock mulch with a water truck to help settle 

some of the loose soils and then apply the seed via hydroseeding methods.
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

31

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

30

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

RESULTS OF THE REVEGETATION

The seeded areas were mostly successful in that healthy stands of grass were able to establish in areas where the soils were 

stable. However, in several areas the seeding wasn’t able to establish due to excessive soil moisture and the movement of the 

soils. After several of these events, it was determined that applying rock mulch similar to that described earlier at the US-95 

Setter’s Road project was needed. The 6-inch rock was spread over these problem areas with a dozer and loader to a depth of 

approximately 12 inches. These areas were then seeded via hydroseeding methods directly over the rock and the seed with 

the expectation that the soils would fill the gaps between the rocks and the seed would begin to germinate within these areas. 

Again, this technique has proven to be very successful for soil stabilization and revegetation (Figure 29). The voids between the 

rocks provide ideal conditions for the seed to establish.

Figure 29. Revegetated cut slope on US-95

LESSONS LEARNED

Twelve inches of topsoil placed on top of heavy clay soils is very susceptible to saturation that produces slope slides. According 

to the ITD staff on site, better soils information and an enhanced method of anchoring the topsoil would have improved 

revegetation. Many of the stabilization techniques, such as the use of straw wattles, did not prevent soil movement in many of 

the slide sites, which required continuous effort to stabilize, a result of subsurface water movement.

This project was another example of how a combination of rock mulch and hydroseeding techniques is successful. The areas 

where this method was used have provided a stabilizing effect with the added benefit of vegetation within the rock. During 

the time of the site visit, it did not appear that the grasses had established well, however, the representative from the host 

agency indicated that during the growing season, forbs covered approximately 80% of the slope. Eventually, the vegetation is 

expected to provide more dense aerial cover over the rock mulch, but ITD is presently satisfied with the results of this effort.

The project was in progress for three winter seasons and various methods were used to prevent the loss of top soil and erosion 

during construction. One technique included covering large areas of topsoil with black plastic during the winter months. 

These areas required quite a bit of maintenance due to wind and weather, but the topsoil protected the surface and had the 

additional benefit of creating a greenhouse effect, which promoted growth even during the colder months.

features included adding shoulders, incorporating right-turn lanes at road intersections, constructing climbing lanes on both 

sides of the summit, and incorporating a left-turn lane at one.

The existing narrow, winding, two-lane roadway was reconstructed and realigned with a new two-lane roadway with shoulders 

that meet current highway design standards. Safety improvements were made primarily by improving sight distances, adding 

width to the lanes and right-of-way (ROW), eliminating substandard horizontal curves, and improving the existing “roller 

coaster” vertical profile. The largest cut was approximately 75 feet and the largest fill was approximately 90 feet. 

Much of the revegetation process entailed standard Idaho Transportation Department (IDT) specifications and design 

standards. This design work was completed by an outside engineering consulting firm, but the plans and specifications were 

reviewed and approved by IDT. The roadside revegetation was quite extensive and included stabilizing and seeding over 

55-acres of both cut and fill slopes along US-95 (Figure 28). A variety of stabilization techniques were employed, but for the 

most part, this was a typical revegetation project for ITD.

Figure 28. An example of a successful revegetated cut slope along US-95

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

The project was funded by the Federal Highway Administration and was a design-bid-build project mostly performed by 

outside design consultants and construction contractors. In-house oversight, inspection, surveying, and monitoring were 

conducted by ITD staff; typical of how this agency conducts roadside projects. 

The recommendations for stabilization techniques to apply at each area were first suggested by the design consultant and 

reviewed by ITD staff. During the course of the project, there were several areas of slope that continuously demonstrated 

problems with instability and alternative applications were employed. This project was a collaborative effort between the 

design consultant and ITD.

REVEGETATION APPROACH

Approximately 35-acres of seeding were originally planned for the roadway project design within the right-of-way limits of 

which, approximately 25-acres required seed bed preparation. An additional 20 acres of seeding were also included at two 

sites within the project’s immediate vicinity.

Two different seeding mixes were used for seeding within the right-of-way. One of the mixes was used exclusively for the 

slopes and ditches.

Hydroseeding was applied to all areas of the roadway right-of-way and the majority of the waste sites. However, a small 

amount of drill seeding was applied to one of the waste sites due to equipment availability and the site configuration. Most of 

the project slopes were 1:3 or greater.

The seed application was scheduled between September 15th and May 15th to take advantage of optimal moisture conditions 

for establishing the seed. This is standard ITD specification for seeding and followed whenever possible.
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

33

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

32

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

The revegetation plan was developed in conjunction with the University of Idaho study and implemented with help from an 

outside contractor. The objectives were to establish a healthy stand of native grasses, forbs, and shrubs on the project site 

that matched the adjacent reference site. The goal of the study was to scientifically monitor and evaluate the success rates of 

individual species and the overall success of the site in general. This included documenting the weed species and any other 

problems such as erosion.

REVEGETATION APPROACH

The first step in seed bed preparation was to apply the stripped and stockpiled topsoil to a depth of six inches and then anchor 

it by tracking up and down the slopes with heavy equipment. The seed mix and rates of application were developed after an 

inventory of the species present on the reference site.

The monitoring and study of the site involved setting up twenty equally-spaced transects that spanned the entire length 

of the sampling areas. The first transect was located randomly and then the subsequent transects were laid out at equal 

intervals from the projected line, perpendicular to the former road edge. A diagonal orientation was implemented to account 

for the differences in width of the study areas and to create a more balanced representation. Each transect contained five, 

individually-spaced quadrates that were outlined using a four square-foot measurement square.

RESULTS OF THE REVEGETATION

The seeded areas are beginning to establish native grasses, although, these areas are not comparable yet to the reference sites 

(Figure 32). The current site coverage for native species is approximately 13%. The current site coverage for non-seeded species 

is approximately 14%. This demonstrates an overall coverage of approximately 27% after one year of monitoring.

Figure 32. Native Plant Research Project reference site

LESSONS LEARNED

Lessons learned are on-going with the numerous University of Idaho studies that are underway at this site. Often, even with 

a monitoring plan, the results of a revegetation project are not studied in depth like as is occurring at this site. For most 

revegetation projects, simply having visible aerial coverage of plant material is sufficient to determine project success. For 

this project, there will be the added benefit of sustained monitoring with a compilation of several years of closely monitored 

revegetation data.

A great deal of emphasis was placed on matching the species and conditions of the adjacent reference site for this project. This 

does not always happen when determining a plant and seed palette for many roadside revegetation projects, but would be 

beneficial when feasible. 

NATIVE PLANT RESEARCH PROJECT, WORLEY, IDAHO

Figure 30. Native Plant Research Project at Worley, Idaho

PROJECT SUMMARY

The Native Plant Research Project is located 0.5-mile west of the US-95 / SH-58 interchange in Worley, ID (Figure 30). This native 

revegetation site consists of an approximate 2-acre area that was the location of the former SH-58 prior to its realignment. 

During the project, the contractor was responsible for the installation of the native seeding, live plantings, mulch, tackifer, and 

fertilizer.

The scan was invited to join members of ITD on a site visit that was led by a professor with the University of Idaho. This project 

allowed the scan to observe the effects of revegetation on an obliterated road site.

In September 2008, ITD met with the University of Idaho on the proposed project site to evaluate site conditions and discuss 

potential native plants suitable for revegetation. The native species mix and rates were developed by the University of Idaho 

and the ITD, which included native grasses, forbs, and shrubs that were applied via hydroseeding methods (Figure 31). The 

site characteristics include flat areas with gradual slopes (4:1) or flatter, and a few steeper slopes (2.5:1). A portion of the site 

contained an established riparian area created from creek drainage.

The goal of this project was to evaluate success rates of certain native plant species that can be used in roadside revegetation. 

The species in this study were selected from an undisturbed reference site located adjacent to the project. In addition to 

studying the native plants that were seeded on the project site, the study also included monitoring of non-native, invasive 

weed species that began to establish.

Figure 31. Native Plant Research Project transects
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

35

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

34

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

In response to the question “What are your parameters for defining successful revegetation?” the top three answers were 

(Figure 34):

a) Plant survival after 5 years 50%

b) Coverage meets or exceeds your success criteria after 1 year 43.8%

c) Plant coverage meets or exceeds your success criteria 37.5%

Figure 33. Survey results: successful roadside revegetation attributes

Figure 34. Survey results: unsuccessful roadside revegetation attributes

Figure 35. Survey results: parameters of successful roadside revegetation

DISCUSSION

The scan provided the expert panel with an opportunity to travel to several states and view and discuss specific native 

revegetation projects that were located in different geographic regions of the United States. Throughout this process, the 

expert panel not only observed the individual revegetation techniques applied on the projects, but also discussed first-hand 

the planning, design, implementation, and monitoring processes for each project. Additionally, multiple site visits allowed the 

panel to identify trends in revegetation processes that largely contributed to the success of the revegetation project.

For most projects included in the scan, the following characteristics were documented for each project and were specifically 

mentioned by the host agency as a contributing factor in achieving overall success. However, although many of these 

characteristics are considered standard practice in the revegetation process, both the expert panel and host agencies cited 

other projects where these characteristics were absent, which resulted in complications or project failure.

· Early Planning – Each of the host agencies stressed the importance of early planning in the revegetation process. 

Although not always possible, as exhibited with the Vermont project, it is invaluable to begin revegetation planning 

early in the construction project so the different project components are attuned to each other and conflicts can 

be avoided. Too often, revegetation is an afterthought or given insufficient attention, and a poorly-organized effort 

ensues; failure can often be avoided with early involvement and planning by the revegetation designers.

· Defining Clear Project Objectives – This is one of the most critical aspects when undertaking any type of project, not 

just revegetation. Formulating and writing out clearly-defined objectives allows the revegetation designers to work 

toward a common goal and to communicate these objectives to the contractor who will ultimately build the project. 

Having established objectives from the project start provides a benchmark for measuring the success of the project 

during and after the construction process.

· Collaboration Among Stakeholders – Project stakeholders include project owners, designers, contractors, regulatory 

agencies, and/or the public. Collaborative effort between the designers and contractors is especially important for 

maximizing the chances of success for revegetation projects. Collaboration fosters a team attitude about achieving 

project objectives and helps each side understand the perspectives and concerns of other parties. Further, potential or 

actual problems can be addressed more efficiently in a collaborative environment.

· Contractor Commitment to the Importance of Revegetation – Each of the host agencies strongly emphasized that 

one of the most critical factors contributing to project success was having contractors who understand the importance 

of, and who embrace, revegetation.

· Construction Oversight and/or Designer Availability – This is a very critical element to ensuring that the design 

intent is realized in the field. If there is no revegetation representative who can make decisions and/or immediately 

answer questions for the contractor, then the project runs the risk of moving in the wrong direction. Most contractors, 

understandably, don’t have time to stop working for any length of time if there is a question or discrepancy regarding 

the plans and the designer isn’t available. While it is understood that having a designer on site for the entire construction 

phase is not practical, having an open line of communication and flexibility in designer availability is critical.

· Monitoring and Maintenance – Given how long it takes for vegetation to germinate and/or establish from container 

plantings, success of a revegetation project cannot be measured immediately after installation. While this is no 

revelation, it emphasizes the point that consistent and on-going monitoring and maintenance efforts are critical to 

identify and mitigate problems throughout the post-construction period. Oftentimes, this means monitoring for up to 

five years or more.

To further illustrate the importance of these characteristics in revegetation process success, and to document that these 

characteristics were not specific to the scan projects, following are a sampling of results from other revegetation professionals 

in response to the roadside revegetation scan survey (Appendix A).

In response to the question “To which of the following would you attribute to your roadside revegetation success?” the top 

three answers were (Figure 32):

a) Sufficient Funding 57.8%

b) Revegetation Specialist Consultation 43.8%

c) Early Planning 42.2%

In response to the question “To which of the following would you attribute to unsuccessful roadside revegetation project?” 

the top three answers were (Figure 33):

a) Inadequate Planning 48.4%

b) Insufficient Funding 45.3%

c) Lack of Revegetation Specialist Consultation 39.1
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

37

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

36

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Reinventing the Wheel – There are pockets of experience and sophistication in the practice of revegetation and restoration, 

but practice is inconsistent within the agency because staff frequently change positions, thus the agency tends to reinvent 

the wheel time and time again. Staff are properly trained, but when they leave, new practitioners come in who must learn all 

the same processes. Increasingly, information is now available via the Internet and will hopefully end this undesirable cycle.

Deficiencies in the Revegetation Process – Following is a list of items that were noted as deficiencies often found in the 

process of roadside revegetation.

· Internal agency inertia that is resistant to change, including altering the amount of time or money spent on something 

like revegetation that is considered “peripheral’ to road building.

· Lack of respect between engineers/contractors and revegetation specialists.

· Failure to recognize that all projects will have different, unique challenges such as soils, appropriate vegetative species, 

precipitation, goals, etc., and that a close relationship with a revegetation specialist will work much better than reliance 

on a few standard specifications.

· Poor cost-benefit analysis of the long term costs of successful revegetation versus invasive species control.

· Highways, even when successfully vegetated, traverse so many property lines that invasive species frequently border 

the rights-of-way, resulting in regular introductions of weeds and a path for the weeds to invade other areas.

· There are serious deficiencies in the overall understanding of amending soils on revegetation projects. Greater 

knowledge about soils would improve revegetation success.

· Contractors are rarely held accountable for planting failures beyond one year and often, not even that long.

· Engineers and contractors already have numerous environmental commitments to track on their projects, so vegetation 

is rarely a project priority, let alone native vegetation.

· Revegetation is rarely a public priority.

During the scan, the expert panel engaged in many broad discussions amongst themselves and with site hosts about roadside 

revegetation practices that were not necessarily related to any specific project viewed during the scan. The discussions built 

upon the collective experiences and perspectives of the expert panel, and covered common problems in successful roadside 

revegetation implementation and possible solutions. Following is a synopsis of these discussions.

Revegetation Plans – Developing a revegetation plan is much more than providing a set of planting and seeding plans for 

a contractor. A revegetation plan begins with the process of identifying and gathering critical information pertaining to the 

site, and then documenting the desired outcome of the revegetation effort. Oftentimes, the construction documents are the 

first—and final—plans that are produced related to revegetation, but they represent design decisions that are not based on 

solid information about the project. The revegetation plan should be developed prior to the construction documents, when 

information about existing and desired future conditions can be gathered to make informed decisions that will maximize 

project success.

Revegetation plans must map out how project goals will be fulfilled and describe a comprehensive approach to goal fulfillment. 

The revegetation plan should include the following elements, as at minimum:

· Project background

· Roles, Responsibilities, and Contacts

· Revegetation Objectives

· Project Constraints

· Laws, Regulations, and Policies

· Noxious Weeds

· Soils

· Revegetation Schedule

· Monitoring

· Revegetation Units

Documenting this level of detail prior to developing a construction plan will provide the designer with a comprehensive 

understanding of the existing site conditions and how to get to the desired future conditions. While it isn’t always practical or 

feasible to obtain this level of detail for every project, the goal should be to find the most cost effective manner to maximize 

success and to minimize the risk of failure.

Why Contractors Don’t Always Follow the Plans and Specifications – A common frustration among revegetation designers 

and project managers is that contractors don’t always follow plans and specifications as provided in the contract. There are 

many theories as to why this occurs, but two main ideas emerged from the discussions. 

· Cost cutting on the part of the contractor – This does not pertain to all contractors, but there has been documented 

occasions where contractors have deliberately cut corners on the project plan in order to gain profit on the project. This 

can happen purposefully because the contractor may decide their approach is comparable to the proposed design or 

better when, in fact, it is detrimental to the project. Another instance may be due to an unscrupulous contractor who 

doesn’t find value in following the intent of the design and will deliberately not follow the specifications, but then does 

not provide alternative substitution.

· Not seeing the value in revegetation – Although they made the effort to provide a bid for the project and may have 

experience doing this very kind of work, not all contactors place a high priority on revegetation. This may be due to a 

lack of understanding of the many benefits provided by a healthy stand of desired vegetation along the road project. 

Oftentimes, revegetation is an afterthought for many contractors.

The discussions of the expert panel led to consensus that even if the contractor is cutting corners and/or doesn’t see value 

in the revegetation process, it is the responsibility of the designers to ultimately ensure the project is built to its original 

intent. This will mean better communication of the project objective and why these are critical to the success of the project. 

Whether these objectives are communicated through meetings, written statements, and/or in the plans and specifications, it 

is up to the designers to educate the contractors if they don’t already understand the importance of revegetation. However, 

this doesn’t mean that the contractors shouldn’t be given the opportunity to make suggestions about a better alternative or 

method of achieving the project goals.

Consequences of Poor Performance – Departments of Transportation must often contend with poor attempts at cost-benefit 

analysis by contractors. Poor revegetation planning often results in little or no consequences for a designer or contractor, as 

it is difficult to take action if the revegetation fails after the project is closed. Financially, there is little incentive to spend 

money on successful revegetation when unsuccessful revegetation costs less and is perceived to work “well enough”. Control 

of noxious weeds, for example, is usually not considered in this process because even though it is expensive, it is paid for 

separately and often not until years later.
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

39

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

38

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Additional information about the technical aspects of roadside revegetation can be found at www.nativerevegetation.org, 

which includes a technical handbook titled roadside revegetation: An Integrated Approach to Establishing Native Plants 

(available for download from the website), interactive training modules on roadside revegetation process, and an interactive 

visualization tool illustrating the impact of multiple criteria on roadside revegetation.

CONCLUSIONS

This report provides insight into the observations and discussions during the 2009 roadside revegetation using native plants 

scan. As noted by the expert panel, there are many interconnected elements involved in both the technical and non-technical 

aspects of the revegetation process – all of which should be addressed in a project revegetation plan. The non-technical 

aspects—planning, design, implementation, monitoring, and maintenance—have been found to be just as critical to the 

success of revegetation projects as the technical aspects, such as knowledge of the plantings, seeding, and soils.

While there were no new revelations on issues such as the benefits of early planning, sufficient funding, or proper expertise, the 

scan did confirm that most practitioners agree that these are critical elements to achieving revegetation success, regardless 

of geographic location or local conditions. Further, the scan documented that without these factors in place, the chances of 

revegetation success are considerably lowered.

The scan and associated discussions of the native revegetation projects provided firsthand insight into the revegetation 

process applied at each individual site. The expert panel had the opportunity to both listen to the hosts describe their projects 

while simultaneously observing results in the field. As the group visited successive project sites, trends emerged that clearly 

demonstrated why each of these projects was successful: good planning, adequate funding, and open communication 

between the designers and contractors. In addition, the innovative revegetation techniques used at each site provided 

examples of methods that could potentially be employed by other agencies in different parts of the country.

The roadside revegetation scan report offers insight into a variety of roadside revegetation techniques and processes, and 

the observations of a panel of roadside revegetation experts. The expert panel conclusions may facilitate better practices for 

individuals who are in a position to positively influence the outcomes of their own revegetation projects.
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

41

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

40

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

HOST SITE PARTICIPANTS

The scan could not have been successful without the participation and commitment from the staff representing the host sites. 

These folks were extremely generous with their time and resources during the site visits. It should be noted that many of these 

individuals traveled a great distance from their offices and took time out of their busy schedules to show us their projects and 

participate in the discussions with the expert panel. We greatly appreciate all of their time and effort. 

VERMONT

Jane Brown 

Landscape Architect

Vermont Agency of Transportation

Charlotte Brodie

Field Naturalist

DuBois and King (project consultant)

Craig Dusablon

Landscape Technician / Operations Division

Vermont Agency of Transportation

NEW YORK STATE

John Rowen

Vegetation/Environmental Manager

NYS Department of Transportation

Peter Howard

Maintenance Environmental Specialist

NYS Department of Transportation

Mike Fayette

Resident Engineer

NYS Department of Transportation

George Paye

Maintenance Operations

NYS Department of Transportation 

OREGON

Lee Riley

Revegetation Specialist

US Forest Service

Chuck Mikkola

Project Engineer

Federal Highway Administration DOT

Diane Spencer

Revegetation Specialist

Federal Highway Administration 

IDAHO

Cathy Ford

Roadside Programs Administrator

Idaho Transportation Department

Manny Todhunter

Environmental Compliance Manager

Idaho Transportation Department

APPENDIX A: SCAN PANEL BIOGRAPHIES

SCAN EXPERT PANEL

David Steinfeld

Revegetation Specialist

US Forest Service

David Steinfeld has been with USFS for more than 30 years. He has worked as a field soil scientist and geomorphologist in 

Oregon and Utah, as an assistant nursery manager and nursery culturist at the J. Herbert Stone Nursery in Oregon, and as 

a revegetation specialist for Region 6 in Oregon. For the past 11 years, David has worked with FHWA on revegetating road 

construction disturbances with native plants. He holds a bachelor’s degree in agriculture (soil science) from Oregon State 

University.

Bryan Roeder

Wildlife Biologist

Colorado Department of Transportation

Bryan Roeder has a bachelor’s degree in biology and a M.S. in Wildlife Sciences. He has worked in the natural resources for 

over 15 years in a diversity of settings including fisheries biology in Alaska, and tropical reforestation in northeastern Australia. 

Bryan’s primary interest now involves reducing the introduction and spread of invasive species along highway corridors 

by implementing weed control efforts in multiple phases of transportation planning, analysis, design, construction and 

maintenance. Since 2004, he has worked as Noxious Weed Specialist and Threatened & Endangered Species Biologist for the 

Colorado Department of Transportation, providing statewide support for transportation projects.

Sarah Wynn

Revegetation Specialist

National Park Service

Sarah has a BS in History, a joint Master’s degrees in Botany and Landscape Architecture, and a PhD in Environmental Monitoring 

with an emphasis on plant ecology and Geographic Information Systems, all from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She 

has worked as a contractor for the Bureau of Land Management, followed by 9 years at the Bureau of Reclamation and, to date, 

14 years for the National Park Service. Her positions have included building Geographic Information Systems databases for 

the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service, building a Geographic Information Systems program for the 

National Park Service, coordinating the research program as well as carrying out invasive plant research, and leading the native 

revegetation-restoration program in the Transportation Division of the Denver Service Center at NPS.

Bonnie Harper-Lore 

Restoration Ecologist

Federal Highway Administration

Bonnie has recently retired as a restoration ecologist from the Federal Highway Administration where she was a vegetation 

management technical resource for all state departments of transportation. She also acted as a liaison to Federal Interagency 

Committees regarding invasive and native vegetation.

Mara Alexander

Botanist

US Fish and Wildlife Service

Mara has a PhD in Botany and works with the US Fish and Wildlife Service at the San Marcos National Fish Hatchery and 

Technology Center located in San Marco, Texas. Her work includes the study and management of invasive aquatic plant species. 
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

43

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

42

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

How often is roadside revegetation a component of your road engineering projects?

Option Count Percent

Always 21 32.8

Most Projects 32 50.0

Occasionally 10 15.6

Never 1 1.6

Total 64 100

APPENDIX B: SCAN SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

State: (64 Responses)

State Response Count Percent

Alabama 1 1.6

Alaska 2 3.1

Arizona 1 1.6

California 5 7.8

Colorado 4 6.3

Florida 2 3.1

Georgia 2 3.1

Hawaii 2 3.1

Idaho 1 1.6

Illinois 1 1.6

Indiana 1 1.6

Iowa 4 6.3

Louisiana 1 1.6

Maine 1 1.6

Maryland 1 1.6

Minnesota 2 3.1

Mississippi 1 1.6

Missouri 1 1.6

Montana 3 4.7

Nebraska 1 1.6

Nevada 3 4.7

New Hampshire 1 1.6

New Jersey 1 1.6

New York 1 1.6

North Carolina 1 1.6

North Dakota 1 1.6

Ohio 1 1.6

Oregon 1 1.6

Pennsylvania 1 1.6

Texas 4 6.3

Utah 1 1.6

Vermont 1 1.6

Washington 5 7.8

Wisconsin 4 6.3

Wyoming 1 1.6

Total: 64 100%
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

45

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

44

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Were native plants used?

Option Count Percent

Yes 54 84.4

No 10 15.6

Total: 64 100.0 Which of the following plantswere used?

Option Count Percent

Grass 56 87.5

Shrubs 38 59.4

Trees 32 50.0

Does Not Apply2 3.1

Total: 173 100.0

For your most successful (or typical) roadside revegetation project, who: 

Project 

Team

Project 

Manager

Road 

Designer

Reveg. 

Specialist

Envir. 

Specialist

Design 

Consultant

Don’t 

Know

N/A

Initiates the 

revegetation 

effort?

11 (17.19%) 14 (21.88%) 9 (14.06%) 16 (25.00%) 4 (6.25%) 3 (4.69%) 5 (7.81%) 2 (3.13%)

Allocates project 

funding for 

revegetation?

3 (4.69%) 35 (54.69%) 7 (10.94%) 5 (7.81%) 3 (4.69%) 0 (0.00%) 7 (10.94%) 4 (6.25%)

Sets 

revegetation 

goals 

(performance 

based results)?

6 (9.38%) 4 (6.25%) 2 (3.13%) 30 (46.88%) 9 (14.06%) 2 (3.13%) 5 (7.81%) 6 (9.38%)

Develops the 

revegetation 

plan?

1 (1.56%) 2 (3.13%) 10 (15.63%) 37 (57.81%) 2 (3.13%) 6 (9.36%) 4 (6.25%) 2 (3.13%)

Implements the 

revegetation 

plan?

9 (14.06%) 16 (25.00%) 5 (7.81%) 27 (42.19%) 2 (3.13%) 0 (0.00%) 2 (3.13%) 3 (4.69%)

Selects the 

vegetation used?

1 (1.56%) 3 (4.69%) 4 (6.25%) 41 (64.06%) 4 (6.25%) 5 (7.81%) 4 (6.25%) 2 (3.13%)

Monitors 

revegetation 

progress 

over time?

9 (14.06%) 10 (15.63%) 0 (0.00%) 31 (48.44%) 5 (7.81%) 0 (0.00%) 5 (7.81%) 4 (6.25%)

Determines 

criteria for 

success? 

9 (14.06%) 7 (10.94%) 2 (3.13%) 26 (40.63%) 9 (14.06%) 1 (1.56%) 5 (7.81%) 5 (7.81%)

For your most successful (or typical) roadside revegetation project, WHEN during the road 

engineering process: 

Planning Develop. 

Design

Construction Maintenance/

Post Constr.

Varies Does not 

apply/ 

unknown

Was 

Revegetation 

suggested/

conceived?

22 (34.38%) 27 (42.19%) 3 (4.69%) 1 (1.56%) 5 (7.81%) 6 (9.38%)

Was 

revegetation 

initiated?

3 (4.69%) 26 (40.63%) 15 (23.44%) 9 (14.06%) 5 (7.81%) 6 (9.38%)

Was 

revegetation 

implemented?

0 (0.00%) 2 (3.13%) 36 (56.25%) 16 (25.00%) 4 (6.25%) 6 (9.38%)

Was 

revegetation 

monitored 

for success?

0 (0.00%) 1 (1/56%) 5 (7.81%) 40 (62.50%) 11 (17.19%) 7 (10.94%)

Were 

revegetation 

objectives set?

17 (26.56%) 23 (35.94%) 3 (4.69%) 3 (4.69%) 9 (14.06%) 9 (14.06%)
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

47

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

46

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

To which of the following would you attribute to your roadside revegetation successes?

Option Count Percent

Early planning 27 42.2

Inter-agency collaboration 17 26.6

Intra-agency collaboration 9 14.1

Management support 23 35.9

Revegetation specialist consultation 28 43.8

Road design 7 10.9

Specialized staff 20 31.3

Sufficient funding 37 57.8

Total: 168 100.0

To which of the following would you attribute to unsuccessful roadside revegetation projects?

Option Count Percent

Inadequate Planning 31 48.4

Insufficient Funding 29 45.3

Lack of Inter-agency collaboration 18 28.1

Lack of intra-agency collaboration 8 12.5

Lack of revegetation specialist consultation 25 39.1

No management support 15 23.4

Road design 12 18.8

Other: please describe 19 29.7

Total: 157 100.0

What are your parametersfor defining successful revegetation?

Option Count Percent

Plant survival after 5 years 32 50.0

Soil coverage meets or exceeds your success criteria after 1 year 23 35.9

Plant coverage meets or exceeds your success criteria after 1 year 24 37.5

Percentage of native plant coverage meets or exceeds your success criteria after 1 year 28 43.8

Weed control meets or exceeds your success criteria after 1 year 23 35.9

No citations for non-compliance with permit conditions 6 9.4

Other 15 23.4

Total: 151 100.0

For your most successful (or typical) roadside revegetation project, WHAT mitigating measures did 

you use?

Option Count Percent

Biostimulants 5 7.8

Erosion mats 27 42.2

Fertilization 28 43.8

Hydroseed 26 40.6

Incorporation of organic matter 25 39.1

Liming 6 9.4

Mulching 40 62.5

Mycorrhizae 10 15.6

Reapply topsoil 27 42.2

Till compacted soil 29 45.3

Other: 17 26.6

Total: 240 100.0
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

49

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

48

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

If yes, when is the best time of year to visit your project site? 

Option Count Percent

Spring 6 10.2

Summer 23 39.0

Fall 6 10.2

NA 24 40.7

Total: 59 100.0

May we contact you for a follow up discussion about this project?

Option Count Percent

Yes 60 93.8

No 4 6.3

Total: 64 100.0

Have you everworked in cooperationwith or shared information about revegetationwith another

agency?

Option Count Percent

Yes 50 78.1

No 14 21.9

Total: 64 100.0

Would you like us to visit your site as part of our scan?

Option Count Percent

Yes 38 59.4

No 26 40.6

Total: 64 100.0
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

51

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

50

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Project Name: Gateway Landscaping Project

Project Location: statewide (Ohio)

Start Date (project planning): 06-25-2004

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 03-03-2009

Short Description: The project provides a partnership between ODOT and Local Public Agencies. ODOT provides the funding 

for the projects and the Local Public Agencies provide the installation labor and after care. The after care is the most important 

part of the project. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Partner 

between two different agencies.

Project Name: Four Land RTE 13

Project Location: Bolivar to Collins, MO

Start Date (project planning): 06-01-2004

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 05-02-2007

Short Description: MO RTE 13 was upgraded to 4 lane, new grade and alignment, seeded with most recent seed mix and 

additional coreopsis.

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Rocky soils, 

deep roadcuts, dry conditions during establishment, and high seeding success. 

Project Name: Dismal River South of Mullen

Project Location: Mullen, NE

Start Date (project planning): 03-13-2007

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 03-01-2009

Short Description: Restoration of an erosion hole. Project is currently in post construction monitoring

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? With the 

unique character of the landscape, restoring the erosion in a manner to blend with the surrounding landscape while using 

native plants.

Project Name: US 2

Project Location: White Earth, ND

Start Date (project planning): 11-01-2002

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 10-31-2008

Short Description: 93 mile grading project with the ditches seeded to native grasses. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? The length 

of this project was quite large (93 miles). The disturbed areas were revegetated with native grasses. 

Project Name: Legacy Roads Project

Project Location: Ocala, FL

Start Date (project planning): 10-2007

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 07-2008

Short Description: Project requirements were to restore watershed, reduce resource damage from roads/trails. User made 

roads were decommissioned; planted with native grasses that were collected locally. Work included mechanical earthwork, 

seeding and planting Florida ecotypes of indigenous vegetation, blocking roads and signing. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Benefits of 

the project include: restoration of 40 miles of roads; seeded 90 acres to restore ground cover, create hunting enhancements; 

planted 6,000 trees and shrubs, reduced sediment to streams and wetlands, restored T&E habitat, reduced fragmentation that 

impacted 43,000 acres of wetlands. 

Project Name: Blaine Road

Project Location: Blaine, Oregon

Start Date (project planning): 01/01/2001

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 01/01/2009

Short Description: Planted containerized native plant seedlings on three retaining walls. Covered over 30 rip rapped culvert 

outlets with a deep compost and planted with over 10 native species

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? A long 

planning period. Good communications with the design engineer and the environmental specialist. Adequate funding.

Project Name: Brockway Summit

Project Location: Rt. 267, Tahoe area, California

Start Date (project planning): 01-01-2002

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 01-01-2005

Short Description: Over steepened cut slope was tilled 2-feet deep with compost and planted. Great success.

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? New 

technology and practice that applies new research findings on a typical highway construction project.

Project Name: Pequawket Wetland Conway NH

Project Location: Conway, NH

Start Date (project planning): 06-08-2009

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 06-08-2009

Short Description: A restoration of a wetland area using native plant material.

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? A very 

good cooperation between all agencies. Good cooperation with the contractor also helped.

Project Name: Ringling N & S

Project Location: West, central Montana

Start Date (project planning): 09-06-2008

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 10-06-2008

Short Description: Large reconstruction project. Approximately 200 acres reseeded. Dirt contractor salvaged and replaced 

adequate amounts of topsoil. Revegetation specifications were followed by seeding contractor. Timely precipitation. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? The 

availability and handling of topsoil is the most important variable in achieving revegetation success. The project area was 

fall-dormant seeded and the department construction staff monitored all aspects of the seeding to make sure the seeding 

contractor followed the specifications. 

Project Name: Sutter-Yuba 70

Project Location: State Route 70, Sutter and Yuba Counties

Start Date (project planning): 03-01-2002

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 06-30-2010

Short Description: 15-mile widening project with long stretches of exposed new slopes adjacent to sensitive vernal pools 

and agriculture lands. Slopes were treated with varying types of seed mixes and treatments as part of a research project for 

best practices guidance on revegetating. Worked with UC Davis to establish parameters and monitor success of the different 

types of treatment. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Landscape 

architect liaison was also a biologist and was very innovative in coming up with solutions. 
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

53

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

52

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Project Name: Exeter Duck Club 

Project Location: Los Banos, CA

Start Date (project planning): 06-01-2004

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 12-31-2034

Short Description: Wetland habitat restoration in the San Joaquin Valley’s Grasslands Wildlife management Area (GWMA) 

includes native shrub and tree plantings on the sides of dikes adjacent roads to – among other reasons- reduce disturbance 

to wildlife. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? This 

project was very successful due in large part to land owner interest and participation; the native shrubs and trees established 

very successfully.

Project Name: NA

Project Location: NA

Start Date (project planning): NA

End Date (post-construction monitoring): NA

Short Description: You have some severe errors in your questions. First of all, define “roadside revegetation”. Is it just erosion 

control? Or is it replanting? Or is it revegetating with native plants. You never define it, so thus we cannot accurately answer 

your questions. Also, there is more to “road design” than just the road – slopes are the biggest factor affecting revegetation, 

followed by the lack of topsoil... Sorry for such crappy answers, but I cannot answer your questions. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? [Agency] 

does not use enough native plants. [Agency] is forced to go with low bidders that do not care about the quality and long-range 

goals of the project. Roadside revegetation can be anything from chipping green waste over existing soil that has seeds in it to 

that of full-blown landscape and irrigation plans – sometimes using water-hungry, non-native ‘foo-foo’ plant species. There is 

no mention of landscape architectural services – a ‘road designer’ isn’t a good description either. 

Project Name: La. Ave. Interchange 

Project Location: Lafayette, LA

Start Date (project planning): 02-28-2002

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 09-22-2004

Short Description: Interstate 10 interchange construction at Louisiana Avenue consisting of clearing and grubbing, drainage, 

seeding Bermuda grass 70 acres.

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? This area in 

the project had major drainage problems with swamp section on the south side of I-10.

Project Name: Los Velas

Project Location: Rio Grande City, TX

Start Date (project planning): 06-2007

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 03-2008

Short Description: Conversion of 3 adjacent crop fields to native vegetation (~160 acres). Planning began by selecting a 

mix of native tree and shrub species for the site along with desired density of planting. Plants were grown in local nurseries 

under contract. Site preparation included pre-plant glyphosate application followed by irrigation. Planting was done using a 

mechanical transplanter. Monitoring includes periodic spot checks of seeding survival and weed pressure and quantitative 

sampling after one year post-planting. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? All of our 

revegetation efforts are challenging as we never know when we are going to have optimal soil moisture for planting. In this 

case, we were able to flood irrigate the fields prior to planting. But this is not always an option. Non-native grass invasion is a 

constant threat, as the grass suppresses growth and prevents recruitment of new plants from seeds of the transplanted trees/

shrubs. 

Project Name: Hwy 1 Reconstruction

Project Location: Ely, MN

Start Date (project planning): 01-01-2005

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 01-01-2011

Short Description: Reconstruct, straighten and safety improvements on a five mile stretch in the Superior Natl. Forest

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Establishing 

native species in difficult terrain without introducing non-natives to the region species. 

Project Name: Rte 9 Searsburg to Wilmington 

Project Location: Searsburg to Wilmington, VT 

Start Date (project planning): 04-15-2004

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 07-01-2006

Short Description: Rte 9 was a 3 mile road reconstruction parallel to the Deerfield River. Revegetation of lopes along the 

river included one foot of native topsoil “grubbings” from stockpile over deep stone fill. We created deeper “pockets” where 

needed and planted hundreds of native shrubs and small trees at 4-5’ height on south facing slopes. We paid for maintenance 

and watering separately so the plants were well watered during the establishment period. We had excellent success rate and 

won a VT Public Space Award.

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? The south 

facing slopes, the dry conditions with soil over stone and the steep slopes 1:1:75 were difficult. Mature oaks had been removed 

and the regulators wanted oaks replanted. We planted hundreds of small native trees and shrubs and the contractor did a 

good job watering all summer on a very dry site.

Project Name: Replacement of Bridge 186B

Project Location: Franklin County, MS

Start Date (project planning): 06-01-2007

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 09-15-2008

Short Description: Replacement of a precast concrete bridge on a low volume forest road. We have fertile soil, plenty of rain, 

warm humid weather, and a long growing season, so our revegetation projects consist of seeding and mulching disturbed 

ground to hold the soil the first season until native vegetation takes over. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Successful 

– project’s geographical location Challenging – nothing

Project Name: Cascades Lake Pass

Project Location: Essex County, NY

Start Date (project planning): 05-14-2008

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 08-28-2008

Short Description: Maintenance forces revegetated a segment of Route 73, a scenic Adirondack Highway that passes through 

the Cascades Pass. The revegetation was to replace vegetation that had died, to provide a living snow fence, and to limit runoff going into the Cascade Lakes

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Good 

coordination within the region and with regulatory agencies. Project work generally matched equipment, schedule, and 

competencies of the maintenance staff at the location, Essex Residency. Maintenance staff brought a strong work ethic to 

planting and maintaining vegetation. 

Project Name: McDonald’s 

Project Location: Stillwater, NV

Start Date (project planning): 09-28-1993

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 04-20-1994

Short Description: Re-establishing native bunchgrass & native shrubs to dewatered farm fields.

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Use of irrigation.
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

55

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

54

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Adjoining 

neighborhoods were at first concerned about the aesthetic component of this project after construction. But after the trees 

and other plant materials were installed most of these inquires ceased. 

Project Name: Camino Real 

Project Location: Laredo, TX

Start Date (project planning): 02-01-2009

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 03-01-2009

Short Description: Quick erosion control project utilizing some locally grown natives along with our standard seed mix. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? The ability 

to use some locally grown seeds.

Project Name: NJ Meadows

Project Location: Southern part of I-295 and lower part of NJ 55

Start Date (project planning): 05-01-1998

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 05-01-2007

Short Description: At the request of my daughter and I in about 1997 to the NJDOT Operations Director, a program was 

started that stopped mowing on these portions of the noted highways except what was absolutely required by FHWA safety 

standards. It worked will until about 2 years ago when mowing started again on non-safety areas. The signs demarking the 

project areas are still present. It was never expanded to other portion of NJ highways. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Mowing 

in non-safety required areas, and planting of non-indigenous vegetation are greatest problems for successful roadside 

vegetation management, in my opinion. Second to these two factors are the non-control/management of invasives. 

Project Name: Confidential

Project Location: Confidential

Start Date (project planning): 01-01-1993

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 01-01-2000

Short Description: Great basin habitat, prior to project set up, test plots using locally collected native seeds and make 

them work in a matrix of cheat grass and other weeds. 99% native cover and a low amount of weed cover that had not been 

accomplished by 1993 when the first test plots were done. Test plots must be successful at least two year prior to the planned 

project, and it requires a ton of money to get them right the first time. However, getting the test plots right, saves hundreds of 

millions of dollars in failure after failure, that has been happening in the West for decades now, like you can see at http://www.

ecoseeds.com/road.test.html. Without test plots in the planning stage, and without obtaining or inventing licensed ecological 

restoration technologies, using natives in un-irrigated western roadsides will only be a dream or doomed to extremely 

expensive failures in the future, especially in California that is 100% covered by 1,000 species of weeds. Also, there was no 

part of your survey, that talked about another important aspect, is before the test plots, to go out and measure the existing 

ecosystems, to get an idea of its structure, so that you can copy and paste that pattern into your project. Also, no mention 

of the roadsides that still contain native, to be conserved for later use as seed sources. In the west, roadsides are sometimes 

the only source of local native seeds for projects, like you can see at http://www.ecoseeds.com/megatransect.html. I would 

suggest that there is a mile-by-mile survey every 10 years for native stands across the county and that the best stands are 

intentionally protected as future seed sources. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Successful 

doing test plots in the planning stage, and not proceeding until they were 99% successful, and using licensed ecological 

restoration technologies, because the restoration technologies in journals or for free have been failures for decades in the 

West for non-riparian roadsides. Challenging, where there was very little local seed sources to draw on, and the soil was poor 

volcanic infested with cheat grass and tumble mustard. 

Project Name: Prescribed Fire

Project Location: Laguna Atascosa NWR, Texas

Start Date (project planning): 10-01-2008

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 09-01-2009

Short Description: Prescribed fire that meets Objectives: 1. Maintain coastal prairie habitat 2. Improve nesting, feeding 

cover and brood rearing habitat for a variety of waterfowl, wading, shorebird and numerous other avian species. 3. Improve 

overall habitat for mammalian species including white-tailed deer and javalinas. 4. Rejuvenate 90 % of cordgrass by removing 

decadent vegetation and facilitate the recycling of nutrients. 5. Open up stands of vegetation suppressed by invasive grasses. 

6. Reduce fuel loadings in the burn units by 80-95%. 7. Establish burn rotation to maintain optimal fuel loads within the unit. 

8. Prevent succession in cordgrass units. 9. 50-80% kill of invasive trees and brush (not including the larger Thornscrub Forest). 

10. Reduce fuel loadings in the burn units by 75-100%. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? It was 

challenging on several different levels; physical and bureaucratic: 1: Finish all the paperwork necessary for a burn. 2: Staffing 

issues. 3: Funding issues. It was successful on one very important issue – dedicated staff. 

Project Name: Chugach ROW

Project Location: Girdwood, Alaska

Start Date (project planning): 05-01-1994

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 09-15-1999

Short Description: Revegetation of coastal wetland with native sedge and other species.

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? The species used

Project Name: US 60 Florence Jct. to Superior

Project Location: Superior, AZ

Start Date (project planning): 03-15-2004

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 12-31-2008

Short Description: The US 60 “Gonzo” project completed the reconstruction of a 2 lane highway into a 4 lane highway for 9 

miles through mostly Tonto National Forest lands. Plant salvage of thousands of native plants. Large Sonoran Desert plants 

included Saguaro, Barrel, Hedgehog, Cholla Cacti, as well as Ocotillo, Palo Verde, Mesquite and Ironwood trees. Native forbs 

and grasses were used in the seed mix. The total area revegetated on this project was 168 acres. A new Arizona Department 

of Transportation special provision was included in the contract that required the contractor to remove noxious weeds known 

to be along the corridor alignment. Drainage issues were addressed with basins, sediment logs and riprap in the SWPPP that 

kept contaminated stormwater out of Queen Creek. A full time registered Landscape architect and erosion control coordinator 

was employed on this project. Vegetation establishment, aesthetics and the reduction of noxious weeds were all addressed 

in this successful project. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? The 

magnitude of constructing a 4 lane highway through previously undisturbed lands was tremendous. Interagency cooperation 

was at the highest level. The design team understood the importance of sustaining the Sonoran Desert ecosystem and 

making the highway construction fit the land. Large rainfall events taxed the competence of the construction team and many 

revisions of the SWPPP were required. Landslides in the cut areas that went through previously undisturbed schist formations 

required the Landscape Architect and construction team to waste 100,000+ of cubic yards of materials along the roadway 

and make them blend into the natural geography. Every element of cooperation between the Forest Service, Arizona Dept. of 

Transportation, and the contractor were stressed to the max and successfully addressed in this project. 

Project Name: US 64 ByPass

Project Location: Knightdale ByPass, North Carolina

Start Date (project planning): 10-2006

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 11-2007

Short Description: To mitigate for the removal of trees during the construction phase, NCDOT agreed to reforest several 

areas along this 13 mile corridor. Revegetation included an assortment of native trees comprised of evergreens and deciduous 

varieties as well as low-growing shrubs. They were not planted in traditional ‘bed’ areas therefore future maintenance will be 

kept to a minimum.
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

57

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

56

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? The right 

equipment (hydroseeder) was essential for success, which would not have been possible to acquire without the help of the 

Iowa Living Roadway Trust Fund. 

Project Name: ?

Project Location: ?

Start Date (project planning): 

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 

Short Description: I am new to this position and do not have a specific project to utilize at this time.

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? In my 

limited experience MDT does a very good job of planning and setting specification for contracts. I do believe that we could 

improve with our follow up and adhering to those specifications. I hope to educate our workers and show them that importance 

and cost effectiveness of good revegetation. 

Project Name: Contract R-27141

Project Location: US 37 & SR 46, Indiana

Start Date (project planning): 03-23-2004

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 12-01-2008

Short Description: Landscaping contract to remove Tall Fescue replace with Warm season grass, forbs, and trees, maintain for 

two years for invasive plants. Two seasons for removing and planting, plus two years of maintenance on site

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? The success 

of the project support was plant/seed specifications. The contractor was knowledgeable. The challenging parts were the steep 

slopes and poor sub-soils. Still it is one of the best, if not the best in the entire site. 

Project Name: Tripod Fire Rehab

Project Location: Okanogan, WA

Start Date (project planning): 10-2006

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 09-2009

Short Description: hydroseed/hydromulch forest roadside areas burned over in tripod fire.

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Lack of 

local revegetation experience meant specs for seeding work could have been better. 

Project Name: 79, A23 Missing Ramps

Project Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Start Date (project planning): 01-01-2001

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 11-01-2008

Short Description: Construction of two missing ramps at interchange west of Pittsburgh. Slope work and wetland mitigation 

construction.

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Significant 

earth disturbance with steep slopes – erosion concerns. Needed grasses that revegetated quickly and gave complete coverage. 

Project Name: Carolina Sandhills love grass removal

Project Location: McBee, South Carolina

Start Date (project planning): 03-09-2009

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 09-30-2010

Short Description: Removal of love grass, re-establishment of native wire grass

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Removal of 

currently entrenched invasive bunch grass.

Project Name: STH 133

Project Location: Boscobel, WI

Start Date (project planning): 01-01-2003

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 10-01-2008

Short Description: Road widening with a degraded prairie adjacent to the road. The remnant also contained some listed 

plants. As part of the road widening mitigation the prairie was identified for restoration and special provisions were made to 

move plants or collect seed of the listed species and use local native prairie seed in any disturbed areas. The site is now a very 

nice prairie that blossomed after restoration. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Success 

was in knowing what native plants were out there that helped direct appropriate restoration efforts. Challenging was trying 

to work with the locals to not run ATV’s along the roadside and through the prairie. In the winter this is a snowmobile trail, so 

the ‘trail’ is present and therefore the locals use it year round. It is not authorized for ATV’s, only snowmobiles when snow is 

present. 

Project Name: STH 35 (Webster – Danbury)

Project Location: Danbury, WI

Start Date (project planning): 01-01-2003

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 12-30-2006

Short Description: Reconstruction of state trunk highway. DOT used native seed mix to revegetate large backslope area of 

highway. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Challenging: 

due to the low numbers of projects that have documented successful use of native seed mixes we did not have a lot of guidance 

to use. This was somewhat of an ‘experiment’ for us. Successful: due to the willingness of DOT staff to incorporate the native 

seed mix into their design plans, and due to the County’s willingness to practice maintenance procedures. 

Project Name: Bridge

Project Location: North of Dewitt, IA

Start Date (project planning): 06-12-2007

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 09-19-2007

Short Description: Reseeded a bridge movement with a regrade. Seeded to natives, the seeds went dormant and had to 

reseed the following season, also had to mow throughout the growing seasons to keep week pressures down

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Limited 

topsoil found on site. Everything was packed hard for good rooting.

Project Name: Badger Highway

Project Location: P-59 Webster County, Iowa

Start Date (project planning): 03-06-2009

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 06-15-2009

Short Description: This is a 6 mile stretch of highway that was bare ground post construction. I have broadcasted and 

hydroseeded native grass and forb mixes with mixed results. Unfortunately, the weather has been an issue with flash flooding 

making this project difficult. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Weather 

and poor soil fill.

Project Name: R Avenue Clean Out

Project Location: Woodward, IA

Start Date (project planning): 08-01-2001

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 08-01-2008

Short Description: 1000-foot cleanout was hydroseeded with native tallgrass prairie grass and forbs on 08-21-2001 with oats, 

annual rye and timothy grass added as nurse crops. It is now a highly diverse, showy and functional roadside prairie planting. 
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

59

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

58

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Project Name: Young - North

Project Location: Young, Arizona

Start Date (project planning): 01-01-2000

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 01-01-2005

Short Description: Seed mix included native plants and shrubs. Although they are slow growers, shrubs offer much more in 

terms of root anchorage on steep slopes. By contract modification, also required the addition of amendments at particular 

location to improve growth. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? The situation 

was challenging in that we had a number of very steep, largely sterile slopes with a tendency to ravel. With the selection of 

native shrubs and the addition of targeted amendments during the planting stage, the results were much improved. 

Project Name: Guanella Pass Road Phase 1

Project Location: Georgetown, Colorado

Start Date (project planning): 01-01-2004

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 10-01-2007

Short Description: The overall project was $21 million and reveg items made up about $1.5 million. Project located in the 

Rocky Mountains of Colorado between 10,000 ft and 11,667 feet. Successfully transplanted high altitude tundra at 11,667 ft. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Extreme 

working conditions at high elevation made for a challenging project. Multiple applications of native seed made for success. 

Salvage and transplanting of high altitude tundra was challenging. Protection of container stock plants from native animals 

was a challenge. 

Project Name: HWY 59 (resurfacing between Palmyra and Eagle

Project Location: Southeast Wisconsin 

Start Date (project planning): 10-01-2003

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 10-01-2005

Short Description: Resurfacing of a two lane highway adjacent to a state forest. Native planting was incorporated. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? It was 

successful because of specialized staff work on the project. 

Project Name: Flowery Trail

Project Location: Chewelah, Washington

Start Date (project planning): 01-01-1998

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 07-30-2008

Short Description: 13 miles of road reconstruction through forested mountains

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? 

Revegetation success due to hands on approach and interest of a Colville National Forest engineer. 

Project Name: Lakeshore Road Reconstruction Phase 1

Project Location: Lake Mead NRA

Start Date (project planning): 01-01-1990

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 03-01-1998

Short Description: Dates above are approximate. Re-route road, collect seeds from native plants, salvage cacti, and topsoil. 

Topsoil replaced, cacti replaced, plants grown from seeds collected installed in replaced topsoil. Installed plants were watered 

for two summer seasons, plants that germinated out of the topsoil were not watered or protected. Here in the Mojave, largescale success depends a great deal on environmental conditions post-construction. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? It was 

challenging in that the park had never done this before and neither had FHWA in the Mojave. The NPS had conducted topsoil 

salvage and deveg/reveg operations in a few places (like Glacier NP for the Going to the Sun Road) but not on this scale. There 

were many misunderstandings between the FHWA, the contractor, and the park reveg rep that made for some difficulties, but 

Project Name: None

Project Location: None

Start Date (project planning): NA

End Date (post-construction monitoring): NA

Short Description: The projects that have taken place here at IDOT were past projects. Presently, there are not any major 

revegetation projects taking place. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? As stated 

earlier, most of our success has been done in the past. Presently, there is interest in getting more involved with roadside 

revegetation, but the State and National economies are not favoring that idea. With rising cost and loss of personal, it may be 

wise for IDOT to investigate and consider a vegetation management approach to the landscape verse the present mowing and 

spraying regimen. 

Project Name: Cody – Yellowstone NP

Project Location: Cody, WY

Start Date (project planning): 01-16-1990

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 11-01-2001

Short Description: US Highway 14/16/20 reconstruction from East Gate YNP to Shoshone NF boundary (MP 0.0 – 27.6). Use of 

tested cultivars of native grasses, wildflowers (forbs) and wild collected tree and shrub seed (untested) along with extensive 

tree and shrub transplants. Semi-arid Foothills & Montane climate along with large game predation including grizzly bear. 

Extensive use of erosion prevention BMP’s in volcanic parent materials along with sediment control BMP’s during construction, 

all along a major river. Interagency collaboration with Shoshone NF Ecologist and Landscape Architect, etc., which won the 

USFS Region 2 Cooperative 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Use of 

“tested” native grass cultivars versus use of untested wild collections earlier requested by YNP staff, which caused only stand 

failures within first 3-miles of Park Boundary. Extensive use of erosion control blankets (w/bio-degradable nets) and slowrelease organic fertilizer on erosion-prone volcanic soils (breccia) cuts. Limited the use of surface hydroseeding under semiarid climate restrictions. 

Project Name: Death Valley

Project Location: Death Valley, CA

Start Date (project planning): 01-01-2001

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 12-31-2001

Short Description: Park Service used a Reveg Specialist who, with her team, salvaged and transplanted cacti successfully

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Maintaining 

plant survival during construction 

Project Name: Culvert Replacements to Enhance Fish Passage

Project Location: Methow Valley Ranger District – Winthrop, Washington

Start Date (project planning): 06-01-2004

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 09-30-2009

Short Description: The first wave of flat bottom culverts was replaced to improve fish passage starting in 2004. Since this time, 

over 20 culverts have been replaced. In the fall following project completion, revegetation planting of native trees & shrubs 

occurs. Weeding and watering of these plantings is on going for 2 seasons. Grass seeding has been part of the operation to 

stabilize soils and reduce weed establishment. By end of the 3rd growing season, we have averaged between 50% and 75% 

survival on these dry harsh sites. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Internal 

cooperation and funding provided for optimizing the success of the project. These first waves of culverts were particularly 

challenging since it was the first attempt at this type of revegetation. Given the support we had, we learned what worked and 

didn’t and have become more efficient and successful at our current efforts. Post-project site conditions for planting are tough 

sites for plants. This combined with the dry summer conditions in our area make planting success a challenge. So lack of good 

soil for planting and dry summer months are the biggest obstacles, followed by cattle trampling & browsing. 
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

61

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

60

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

we worked it all out in the end. One thing that made this particular project very successful was that we laid topsoil and planted 

during an El Nino year, which meant we had soil at field capacity in many places. Our park reveg rep was also very focused on 

her work, and was very adamant that the contractor do everything they had bid on. 

Project Name: SR 240 Causeway Wetland Mitigation Site

Project Location: Richland, Washington

Start Date (project planning): 08-01-1999

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 11-15-2016

Short Description: This was a wetland mitigation site for a roadway widening at the confluence of the Columbia and Yakima 

Rivers. I was able to help pick the mitigation site, design the grading and planting plans, and have been consulting with our 

South Central Region on site management to meet our mitigation standards of success. This was a site that multiple disciplines 

worked together on. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? The 

multidisciplinary team, project team support for compost incorporation, and excellent hydrology data. 

Project Name: Travel Plan

Project Location: SMNRA, Nevada 

Start Date (project planning): 01-01-2002

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 01-10-2007 

Short Description: Restoring routes, or along routes designated in the travel management effort

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Lack of 

management direction, lack of restoration planning, lack of available resources.

Project Name: Rice Road Tallow Eradication

Project Location: Demi John, Texas

Start Date (project planning): 06-01-2007

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 06-01-2008 

Short Description: Chinese tallow trees were bulldozed and buried to clear sides of rice field road. Labor shortage could not 

follow up with chemical treatment. Tallow returned in force. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? The tallow 

tree was easy to remove from the surface. 

Project Name: PG4135172 MD 5 from Auth Way to South of I-95/495, Phase 1 of Metro Access Improvements

Project Location: Temple Hills, Maryland

Start Date (project planning): 04-01-2003

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 12-15-2009 

Short Description: Major Interchange Reconstruction

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? This project 

has been successful in large part through the cooperation and communication between all of the stakeholders involved in the 

implementation of a fairly well planned integrated planting plan. The size and scope of the project was a challenge. 

Project Name: US-95 Electrical Substation 

Project Location: CM-NH-STP-4110 (110)

Start Date (project planning): 01-01-2002

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 02-02-2006 

Short Description: Highway Relocation. Timber areas with steep hillsides. Used many different erosion control and 

revegetation applications 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Achieved 

desirable plant establishment and coverage, as well as erosion control after 3 years. Native plant establishment. Challenges 

were very tall steep fill and cut slopes and lack of precipitation during initial establishment period. 

Project Name: Meheffey Bridge

Project Location: Solon, IA

Start Date (project planning): 01-01-2003

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 11-30-2008

Short Description: Regrade and pave project – except for lawn areas, nearly all planted into native grasses and wildflowers. 

High traffic and visibility areas. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Quality 

seed mixes and timing for planting, along with regular maintenance for establishment afterwards (burning, mowing, spot 

spraying, etc.)

Project Name: WA st hwy 31

Project Location: Metaline Fall, Washington

Start Date (project planning): 02-2006

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 10-2007

Short Description: Widening of road and ROW on Hwy 31. Reveg of section that pass through USFS land. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? This project 

with the state of WA had poor success compared to other projects done with FHA. Primary reason for poor success attributed 

to how seeding was applied. 

Project Name: Post Fire Road Rehab

Project Location: Okefenokee Refuge

Start Date (project planning): 08-01-2007

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 09-01-2008 

Short Description: Rehab of roads used to control 2007 fires

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? The size of 

the project – 125 miles of road to be rehabbed. 

Project Name: Cedar Creek

Project Location: Superior, Montana

Start Date (project planning): 10-01-2007

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 09-01-2009 

Short Description: In April of 2008 the Lolo National Forest partnered with Trout Unlimited on a demonstration project 

involving the revegetation of riparian roads in the Cedar Creek watershed. Cedar Creek is a tributary of the Clark Fork River 

approximately 40 miles west of Missoula, Montana. It is one of four primary bull trout spawning tributaries in the Middle Clark 

Fork River and also maintains a strong native west slope cutthroat population. Implementation involved hiring the Salish 

and Kootenai Environmental Restoration firm who holds the patent on a unique piece of restoration technology called the 

stinger. The stinger is a long needlelike attachment mounted on an excavator which can penetrate riprap and plant container 

stock up to 3-4 feet below the surface. For the demonstration project, willow cuttings were collected from local sources in 

February of the same year and other plants were grown at the tribal nursery into 14”long containers that are designed for 

use with the stinger. In total, the project team planted 553 plants (355 willow cuttings, 24 willow containers, 128 wild rose 

containers, 46 cottonwood containers) at 3 foot linear spacing in 3 rows moving up the riprapped bank. Generally, willow 

cuttings and containers were planted at the toe of the slope, cottonwoods midslope, and wild rose on the top of the bank. With 

the excavator and 2 field crew, the project team tallied 5 hours of total planting time for 465 feet of road length at 4 different 

sites. The stinger averaged about 110 plants per hour. In conclusion, the stinger can plant one row, at 1 foot spacing, about 100 

feet of riprapped road per hour. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? The 

demonstration project should have both long term resource benefits and provide information for future use of the stinger 

technology. The addition of riparian vegetation in the riprap should improve bank stability and decrease maintenance over 
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

63

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

62

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Project Name: Camden Route 1

Project Location: Camden, Maine

Start Date (project planning): 01-01-1990

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 07-30-2006 

Short Description: Route 1 in Camden Maine is a highly visible and tourist oriented 2-lane rural in town section of US Route 

1 fronted by high-end bed and breakfasts, historic homes, and providing a walking route to a popular coastal state park. 

The project was successful through very conscientious context sensitive design, featuring sidewalks, esplanade, numerous 

plantings, and new walking path to the Camden Hills State Park. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? The project 

landscape architect used a wide range of plant materials and methods, including trees and shrubs, perennials, vines, native 

seed, and native trees and shrubs to replicate and enhance a full range of planting experiences. 

Project Name: Hawaii Native Revegetation 

Project Location: Oahu

Start Date (project planning): 03-15-2009

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 03-05-2011

Short Description: Self contained project

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? First 

attempt to do native reveg.

Project Name: Carlsbad Caverns

Project Location: Carlsbad, New Mexico

Start Date (project planning): 07-04-2004

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 10-12-2012 

Short Description: Seven miles of park road will be resurfaced. Two-thirds of the Bat Cave parking lot will be taken up and 

the area revegetated as it drained into the caverns. Introducing automobile fluids into the caves. Native plants salvaged from 

several disturbance-causing projects are being held in a shade structure and will be planted out into the Bat Cave parking lot 

this fall. This has allowed a number of large succulents to be moved from their original site, when they are planted out they will 

provide some mature vegetation at the site. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? The native 

vegetation of Carlsbad is Chihuahuan Desert Scrub, characterized by many prickly succulents of varying sizes. Getting around 

in this vegetation is challenging as is recreating it. We will be transplanting salvaged materials into the Bat Cave site and over 

planting it with native grasses grown out by the NRCS Plant Materials Center at Los Lunas. 

time. As the vegetation grows, it should help lower stream temperatures, reduce the amount of sediment input from the roads, 

increase the amount of leaf litter and debris, and increase the complexity of salmonid habitat. The project team has photo 

points and is monitoring the success of the project through vegetation survival counts. Therefore, this demonstration project 

should yield important information for to improve the success of future efforts, including information on planting space, plant 

species, riprap type and size, bank height, bank slope and other measurements. 

Project Name: Federal Highways Administration Park road upgrade

Project Location: Denali National Park

Start Date (project planning): 07-15-1985

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 08-15-2003 

Short Description: A variety of native plant species were tested for revegetation potential. A mixture of native grasses and 

legumes were selected for direct seeding on roadside fill slopes and cut slopes. Native grass seed supply was increased at 

Alaska State facilities and legume seeds were hand collected. After construction, cut and fill slopes were fertilized with slow 

release fertilizer, and the native grass/legume mix was dormant seeded in the fall or at the beginning of the growing season. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Planning 

and adequate funding that made it possible to test and select native plants suitable for well-drained gravelly sites. This naïve 

plant revegetation project is still growing and providing a seed source for other projects. 

Project Name: Houston Co. Erosion Control

Project Location: Various Houston Co. Twp. Roads, Minnesota 

Start Date (project planning): 06-01-2008

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 06-01-2009 

Short Description: In June of 2008, Houston County, MN was hit with torrential rains that caused many steep hillsides to 

slump down and block roads. After clearing and resloping, the County Hwy dept. and MN DNR Roadsides for Wildlife worked 

together to hydroseed these hills with native prairie seed. It is hoped that the deep roots of the prairie plants will better 

stabilize the hills than the previous non-native grasses. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Houston 

County lies in the Driftless area of MN and had very steep slopes. We do not typically hydroseed, but in this location it was the 

only option. Our program focus is primarily grassland habitat, but in this case erosion control was the main goal. 

Project Name: Logan Canyon

Project Location: Cache Co., Utah

Start Date (project planning): 01-01-2000

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 08-01-2006 

Short Description: Roadway widening project through a sensitive canyon environment. Use of native grasses, forbs, and 

wildflowers. Project emphasized blending slopes to fit the natural terrain. A few years after installation there is no evidence of 

construction. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? Roadway 

project being constructed in a sensitive environment with much environmental opposition to the project. 

Project Name: Interstate H1 Middle Street to Ola Lane

Project Location: Honolulu, Hawaii

Start Date (project planning): 01-01-2001

End Date (post-construction monitoring): 01-01-2007 

Short Description: Revegetation of roadside with 3 native Hawaiian plants, Naio papa (Myoporum sandwicense), Pohinahina 

(Vitex rotundifolia), and Prince Kuhio Vine (Ipomoea horsfalliae). It met our internal criteria of durability, sustainability and 

sense of place (or CSS), Durability projected to last 10+ years, sustainable with existing maintenance resources, and reflects the 

Hawaii sense of place. 

In your opinion, what made this particular roadside revegetation successful and/or especially challenging? It met our 

criteria of durable, sustainable and a Hawaii sense of place. 
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

65

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

64

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

on private and public lands adjacent to the roadside. This could be critical to survival of these species. In addition, 

the monarch butterfly has been losing resting and feeding habitat along its long migration route. Mixing in native 

milkweeds would provide habitat for this species and provide long corridors of habitat, perhaps stretching along most 

of its migratory pathways. Thus, roadsides are critical for conservation of species by providing feeding, resting, and 

breeding sites along with travel lanes/corridors for migration and linkages of habitats. This should be emphasized (in 

my estimation required) when monies are earmarked for new roads and maintenance of existing roadsides.

· Lack of planning and funding are the biggest hurdles to overcome in establishing roadside vegetation for forest 

projects.

· Some of the options on previous questions were not complete. Regulatory agencies set the criteria for coverage 

on design projects (Soil Conservation Districts). Sometimes native plants do not always give the best coverage and 

quickest growth on long steep slopes.

· Adequate funding is essential for success.

· Reveg specialist involvement

· Having native planting materials available when you need them is problematic. A 3 year lead time is often needed for 

collection and propagation of the appropriate materials. We have been lucky in having a local Native Plants Nursery 

that provides us with a ready supply of genetically suited material for use in these projects. Most areas are not as lucky.

· We have too many projects with just grasses in the seed mixes. Need to expand to include shrubs and, possibly, forbs 

as applicable. We should be performing soil testing during construction so that amendments can be added to the mix 

during application. These changes would greatly improve SWPPP compliance and long term slope stability--especially 

in arid areas.

· Contractor won an award from the Colorado Contractor’s Association for Environmental Excellence for their salvage 

and transplant of the high altitude tundra.

· I don’t quite know why, but for several years it seemed like the contractors were always underestimating the amount of 

time it took to properly harvest topsoil. They bid like it was straight grubbing, when in reality, it is much more refined 

and complex. They could not believe we really wanted to treat “dirt” like gold, and would want to take shortcuts to save 

them money. I honestly believe that this topsoil salvage operation would not have been successful if we didn’t have a 

park reveg rep out there watching them like a hawk. And quite frankly, I don’t think FHWA took the park too seriously 

on this issue either. After many years, and seeing the results, they do now.

· The project was graded correctly so that we had so many native volunteer plants that we could have planted far fewer 

plants ourselves. This is one project that demonstrates the validity of ordering plants after a 1-2 year period after 

grading to see what the site will do by itself with the correct grading and good weed control.

· Don’t commit if you can’t follow through.

· We have had several successful and unsuccessful revegetation projects. This is the only one that comes to mind readily. 

We achieve successful revegetation projects when we have good precipitation during the first and second years of 

establishment. Where we have limited or lacking precipitation in the first 3 years we have failures.

· Results of this and other native revegetation projects were published as a manual “Native plant revegetation manual 

for Denali National Park and Preserve”, Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD/ITR-2000-0006, online at http://

alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/restoration

· 1. Native plants are best for roadsides and the environment. Avoid cultivars or non-native varieties. 2. Species diversity 

is important to our native insects, birds and wildlife. Try for 20-50 different grasses and wildflowers. 3. Invasive species 

should be monitored vigilantly and controlled with spot spraying or spot mowing.

· Hawaii is embarking on an aggressive approach to revegetate our roadsides with as much natives as practical 

considering the climate and soil changes over time. We have two current native hydroseed research projects to develop 

native hydroseed mixes since none exist in Hawaii currently. This year we will began our first native restoration project 

in a 12 acre parcel of a 150 acre interchange. This year we awarded a three year contract to develop the first statewide 

noxious invasive plant program in Hawaii or SNIPP.

· Local FHWA officials repeatedly voice approval and appreciation for the successful efforts on this project

· This project has taken close coordination with Design and Construction and park staff within NPS as well as with 

Federal Highways staff and reveg contractors. It has taken intense involvement and commitment by individuals from 

all of these groups or we would not be headed toward successful completion of this project.

Additional Survey Comments:

· Success can be achieved if the needs of revegetation are treated equally as important as the engineering design 

elements. In a semi-arid environment, no other practice is more important than salvaging adequate amounts of topsoil. 

· Native plants have been a part of our roadside program since the early 70s. over th past three years we have been 

redefining the program and furthering our use of natives.

· For this particular project we used our own employees to accomplish work – we had a tight time frame. We also utilized 

partnerships with Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, National Turkey Federation and the Sierra Club. 

White hat project definitely. 

· As a landscape architect, it was important to get support of the project manager, the Resident Engineer & the contractor 

to create innovative and sustainable solutions. The team approach worked. We tested the stockpile of “grubbings” 

before they were spread & added compost to raise the % of organic material. This was a critical factor in the success of 

the project. 

· You can’t stop vegetation from growing in this climate, and our reveg projects are very simple (spreading seed and 

mulch), so we may not be the intended typical survey participant. 

· This questionnaire appears to be focused on the design and construction, rather than maintenance. Maintenance staff 

in our 61 Residencies, the front line unit for undertaking maintenance work, do a varying amount of revegetation 

work, based on demands, equipment and staffing. In addition to the Cascades Lake work, several of our Residencies, 

including Broome, Chenango, and Allegany, have undertaken activities, in partnership with local agencies, to use 

vegetation to help stabilize stream banks and bridges. Other examples of maintenance successes with revegetation 

may be found on the NYSDOT website, under the heading for Green and Blue Highways or our trees webpage. 

· If available irrigation is critical in desert environments

· This revegetation project receives heavy use by pheasants, quail, migratory passerines, and small mammals; it is not 

advised for close proximity to roads with heavy vehicle traffic. 

· This is now a practice that can be accomplished by any agency willing to do the preplanning and with the desire to do 

the work. 

· Soils play a very big role in the success of these projects. During construction typically a lot of soil is displaced during 

the initial grading phases of these projects. We rarely have top-soil on the surface during the planting phase of a 

project. 

· There is not enough seed sources for many desirable seed species since the ag community drive the seed industry. 

· Implement a policy that is promoted for adopting by state DOTs that contains the following: 1. Only mow to meet 

FHWA safety standards. This will save funds, reduce pollutions, and reduce green house gas emission. 2. Allow native 

vegetation to grow in n-mow areas versus planting. This will save funds and effort. Outreach and education of the 

public will be necessary, but can be accomplished in large part by willing partners. 3. Control invasives. Using partners 

to assist along the lines of adopt a highway could assist with long-term, low cost management. 4. It is understood that 

during new highway construction or renovation, soil erosion prevention procedures must be implemented. The focus 

here should be on using native indigenous species or short lived species that hold the soil until natives can quickly 

out-compete them. 

· In any part of the country you want to be successful with natives along roadsides, you must set up test plots, and get 

them to achieve 99% success within 90 days or less, with less than 5% weed cover, using locally genetic native seeds. In 

order to do that, you will either have to invent or license the proper ecological restoration technologies to accomplish 

that. (See ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION. (2001) 19:(2) 70-71.about licensed ecological restoration technologies).

· WI is developing best management practices for preventing the spread of invasives on ROWs. They will cover planning, 

design, construction, maintenance and monitoring. We have a team of stakeholders (ROW mgrs) working on this and 

should have a draft by Sept. Could send you more details sooner. Let us know who needs it.

· Sometimes it is hard to get the state DOT to allocate funds for native plant restoration projects. Even though the money 

has been authorized by FHWA for purposes such as that, the state does not always support the use of those funds for 

those purposes.

· It appears that DOT staff could use more training on this issue.

· A special thank you. Seed used for this project was purchased with TEA-21 enhancement funds.

· FHWA need to push native plants more on projects and also more field inspections for compliances on all revegetation 

projects.

· I just responded to indicate a recommendation for roadside habitat management. Grassland/old-field birds (e.g., 

Bobwhite Quail), and likely other wildlife associated with this habitat type, have been disappearing most rapidly of 

any bird group. It is easier to manage this habitat type along roadsides than mowing them several times a year, thus 

providing a cost savings. In addition to providing habitat, it provides connections (corridors) to other existing habitat 
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

67

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

66

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

ANNOTATED VERSION

Revegetation Project Plan Outline

I. Project Information

A. Project and Package Number 

B. Project Manager 

C. Estimated acres to be revegetated 

D. Vegetation types to be re-established

 For example: Oak Woodland, Chaparral, and Riparian 

E. Revegetation Goals

F. Plan Authors

II. Project Location

A. Need for the Project 

B. Site analysis - soils topography, climate, vegetation, hydrology and wetlands, wildlife, cultural landscape 

features, and visual resources.

 Note: This section is intended to identify factors which influence or limit revegetation. It should be concise 

and focused on the relationship between the environmental element and revegetation. This is not a place 

for a summary description such as appears in an environmental document.

C. Special considerations

 Briefly highlight special issues or problems, particularly if they will increase the project cost. For example, 

wetland enhancement may be required in order to receive a 404 permit. Access may be particularly difficult. 

Topsoil may be critical for meeting the objectives but may be in short supply. 

III. Project Specifications

A. Revegetation Goals, Objectives and Measures of Success 

 What is the revegetation project intended to achieve? 

 What measures or indicators will tell us whether or not we have been successful? 

B. Plant Materials Strategies Considered 

 Plant materials strategies which are commonly used are: collecting native material and reseeding it, 

collecting native material and increasing it through field propagation, salvaging plants and replanting them 

after construction, collecting native seed and/or cuttings and propagating them to produce transplants, 

purchasing native seed, purchasing plant, and applying temporary erosion measures to stabilize the site 

and control erosion until natural regeneration occurs. Normally a combination of strategies is used. In this 

section, identify the chosen strategy as well as others that were considered and rejected. 

C. Implementation plan 

 1. Plant Materials - Identify the species, quantities, form (seed, container, bareroot), size etc. Where 

and how will each be obtained? 

 2. Seeding and planting - Who will do each of these tasks? What techniques will be used? 

 3. Establishment Care – What is needed. Whose responsibility will it be? If there is watering, the 

irrigation plan including the design of applications and rates, etc. should be included here. 

 4. Monitoring – what do we hope to learn by monitoring? What methods will be used? 

D. Revegetation Specifications for road contractor

 Normally the National Park Service provides input to the “specials, “special specification material that differs 

from the FHWA standard specifications (FP-03). Any special items that will be submitted to FHWA should 

be recorded here. In the past, revegetation specials have addressed topics like the following: directions 

for conserving and handling topsoil, recipes for manufactured topsoil, special grading, applying the initial 

erosion control seed mix, special equipment needed to apply native grass seed, and lists of acceptable 

erosion control products and their sources. See Supplemental Specifications for PNW/DSC National Park 

Projects: http://www.wfl.fha.dot.gov/design/specs/NPS_PNW_specs.pdf

E. Revegetation Project Schedule/ Responsibilities Checklist

APPENDIX C: EXAMPLE REVEGETATION PLAN FROM THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

National Park Service Revegetation Plan Outlines – Brief and Annotated Forms

Brief Revegetation Project Plan Outline 

(Park Name) 

Date 

I. Project Information 

A. Project and Package Number 

B. Project Manager 

C. Estimated acres to be revegetated 

D. Vegetation types to be re-established 

E. Revegetation Goals

F. Plan Authors

II. Project Location 

A. Need for the Project 

B. Site analysis - soils topography, climate, vegetation, hydrology and wetlands, wildlife, cultural landscape 

features, and visual resources. 

C. Special considerations 

III. Project Specifications 

A. Revegetation Goals, Objectives and Measures of Success 

B. Alternatives considered 

C. Implementation plan 

 1. Plant Materials Acquisition 

 2. Seeding and Planting 

 3. Establishment Care 

 4. Monitoring 

D. Revegetation Specifications for Road Contractor 

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Cost estimate 

Budget FY-08 FY-09 FY-10 FY-11 FY-12 TOTAL

Original

Revised

Actual Costs

B. Funding source 

C. Prepared by 

D. Reviewed by 

 1. DSC 

 2. Park 

 3. Region 

V. Approvals 

VI. Reference cited or consulted

VII. Attachments/map/photos/etc.
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

69

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

68

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

TASKS RESPONSIBLE PARTY START DATE COMPLETION DATE

 Mulching

 Erosion Control (logs, 

blanket, tackifier?)

 Plant Protection

 Soil Amendments 

(fertilizer, Biosol?

 Monitor topsoil 

application and grading

 Supplemental Watering

ESTABLISHMENT/CARE

 Post Construction 

weed/pest control

 Supplemental Watering

MONITORING

 Follow-up inspections 

to record results of 

revegetation project

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Cost estimate 

Budget FY-08 FY-09 FY-10 FY-11 FY-12 TOTAL

Original

Revised

Actual Costs

B. A multiyear estimate and breakdown is required with the full revegetation plan. 

C. Funding source 

D. Reviewed by

 a. DSC

 b. Park

 c. Region

V. Approvals 

VI. References cited or consulted 

REVEGETATION PROJECT SCHEDULE/ RESPONSIBILITIES CHECKLIST

TASKS RESPONSIBLE PARTY START DATE COMPLETION DATE

PLANNING/DESIGN

 Identify Revegetation Type

 Identify Revegetation 

Species

 Prepare Revegetation Plan

 Prepare Cost Estimate

 Prepare NRCS Interagency 

Agreement

 Prepare Task Order or 

Contract with Private Sector 

Revegetation Company

 Input prepared for FHWA 

plans and specifications

 Participate in 

project reviews

 Locate and inspect 

topsoil sources

PLANT MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT

 Select revegetation species 

and collection areas

 Collect seed/cuttings etc.

 Start seed fields

 Start container plants 

(size, number?)

 Salvage plants on site 

 Storage and care of 

salvaged plants

 Monitor Contract or 

NRCS growing

 Pre Construction 

weed/pest control 

DELIVERIES

 Native Seed Mix

 Plants

PLANTING/SEEDING

 Post Construction 

weed/pest control

 Seeding (hydro, hand, 

mechanical?)
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

71

Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

70

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

12. Monitoring: Establish baseline conditions and monitor revegetation success following installation for a period of 1- 5 

years, depending on the situation. Provide reports as requested.

NPS genetic conservation policy: The National Park Service policy calls for the preservation of native plant communities and 

their genetic resources wherever possible in natural zones. Accordingly, road slopes and other large areas intended to support 

self-sustaining native plant communities will usually be restored with local genetic stocks of native species. Most propagation 

requested under this IDIQ will require use of seed or cuttings native to areas which the NPS will designate as appropriate for 

a particular project. Genetic policy is less stringently applied for landscaping around developed areas. Depending on the site, 

the project time frame, and the importance of genetic issues there, large landscape plants may be custom-grown or they may 

be provided from sources other than park gene pools. Preferably, provided plants will be site-adapted (i.e., from genetic stocks 

likely to survive at the project site). 

Materials to be produced or supplied: The types of materials to be produced include, but are not limited to: trees and shrubs 

in seedling, 1 gallon and 5 gallon sizes; and grasses, sedges, rushes and forbs in plugs, tubelings and other small containers. 

For areas where a more mature landscape is desired and genetic integrity is not crucial, the contractor may be requested to 

provide the same sizes of materials from sources that are likely to survive well at the project site. 

STATEMENT OF WORK/SPECIFICATIONS: EASTERN REVEGETATION IDIQ

The Federal Government Department of Interior (DOI), and United States Forest Service (USFS), is seeking one or more 

revegetation/ecological restoration/exotics control organizations to perform the following tasks: provide technical assistance 

in the fields of native plant revegetation, ecological restoration, and exotics control, provide invasives control services, and 

prepare revegetation plans. Other desired services include: prepare planting sites; provide local plant provision when genetic 

considerations are not applicable; salvage plants from designated areas; deliver and install seeds and plants, and collect seed 

and cuttings; propagate native plants from DOI genetic stocks; hold and care for plants if project delays require; provide 

establishment care; and monitor revegetation/restoration success. Work will be performed for DOI and USFS units in Alabama, 

Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North 

Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia, 

and Wisconsin.

The scope of work includes but is not limited to the following: 

1. Revegetation Consulting: Utilizing ordering agency regulations and policies, provide technical assistance to ordering 

agency staff. Prepare invasives control-revegetation plans or sections of plans for ordering agency projects. Technical 

assistance may include services such as recommendations for invasives control, analyses of soil resources, soil 

salvage, topsoil storage, and soil amendments; seeding and planting prescriptions; installation techniques including 

soil amendments and tackifiers; plant protection including temporary holding options, supplemental watering and 

establishment care; work scheduling, and cost estimating. Potential deliverables may include but not be limited to 

reports and drawings or sketches regarding specific questions or projects; written summaries of site conditions and/

or work completed; or preparation of revegetation plans or sections of plans for requested projects

2. Exotics Control: As appropriate and acceptable in the designated area, utilize hand pulling, clearing, tilling, chemical 

applications and other practices to control exotic species. If performed at a revegetation site, perform exotics control 

before and after installation. If task order is for this task only, provide written summary of the site conditions and the 

work completed. 

3. Plant Provision: Provide native seed and plants in sizes ranging from seedlings to 2 1/2” caliper trees that are native 

to the designated project site and adapted to the environmental conditions at the project site, but not necessarily 

from local genetic stocks The types of materials to be produced include, but are not limited to: trees and shrubs in 

seedling, 1 gallon and 5 gallon sizes; and grasses and forbs in plugs, tubelings and other small containers. For areas 

where a more mature landscape is desired and genetic integrity is not crucial, the contractor may be requested to 

provide the same sizes of materials from sources that are likely to survive well at the project site. Larger plants may 

be specified on a task order basis. If task order is for this task only, provide written summary of the site conditions and 

the work completed. 

4. Site Preparation and Erosion Control: Prepare soil as needed, including scarification and addition of appropriate soil 

amendments. Provide and install a full range of erosion control measures as required. If task order is for this task only, 

provide written summary of the site conditions and the work completed. 

5. Installation and Establishment: Deliver and install seed and plant material. As directed, mulch and perform other 

associated planting practices. Provide a minimum one-year guarantee for plants installed by the offeror if grown 

by the offeror. Specific task orders may require longer periods of establishment and extended guarantees based on 

industry practices and site specific requirements. If task order is for this task only, provide written summary of the site 

conditions and the work completed. 

6. Plant Propagation and Holding: Provide a permanent greenhouse/nursery facility with heat, water, fertilizer, 

insecticides, fungicides, and photo periods as needed to ensure the propagation of healthy seedlings. Stock under 

production must not interbreed with other ecotypes of the same species and potting mix must not be contaminated 

Statement of Work/Specifications-Revegetation Services IDIQ – Western and Eastern States

STATEMENT OF WORK/SPECIFICATIONS: WESTERN REVEGETATION IDIQ

The Federal Government Department of Interior ( DOI), United States Forest Service (USFS), and Central Federal Land Highway 

Division (CFLHD) is seeking one or more revegetation/reclamation/ecological restoration organizations to perform the 

following tasks: provide technical assistance in the field of native plant revegetation, and ecological restoration including 

bioengineering; prepare revegetation plans; prepare project sites for seed and plant installation; install seed and plants; 

collect seed and cuttings; propagate native plants from ordering agency genetic stocks; control exotic plants; salvage plants 

from designated areas; construct or apply plant protective devices or substances; provide plant establishment care; locate and 

provide plants when genetic considerations are not applicable; hold and care for plants in the contractor nursery if project 

delays require; and monitor revegetation/restoration success. Work will be performed for units of the DOI, USFS, and CFLHD 

in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Kansas, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, 

Oregon, Utah, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming. 

The scope of work includes but is not limited to the following areas. They are listed in order of most frequently used to least 

frequently used. 

1. Revegetation Consulting: Utilizing ordering agency regulations and policies, provide technical assistance to ordering 

agency staff. Technical assistance may include services such as analysis of soils as well as advice, recommendations 

or education regarding analysis of soil resources, recommendations for soil salvage, topsoil storage, and soil 

amendments; seeding and planting prescriptions; installation techniques including soil amendments and erosion 

control materials; plant protection including temporary holding options, supplemental watering and establishment 

care; work scheduling and cost estimating. Potential deliverables may include but be limited to reports and drawings 

or sketches regarding specific questions or projects; written summaries of site conditions and/or work completed; or 

preparation of revegetation plans or sections of plans for requested projects. 

2. Site Preparation: Prepare soil as needed, including scarification and addition of appropriate soil amendments. Install 

erosion control measures as needed. If task order is for this task only provide written summary of the site conditions 

and the work completed. 

3. Installation: Deliver and install seed and plant materials. As directed, mulch and perform other associated planting 

practices. Provide a one-year guarantee for plants installed by the offeror. If task order is for this task only provide 

written summary of the site conditions and the work completed. 

4. Seed and Cutting Collection: Collect seed, cuttings and native soil for mycorrhizal inoculum from within designated 

areas. Provide all labor, materials, equipment, supplies, and transportation needed to collect seed, cuttings and soils 

for plant propagation. Records must be maintained regarding collection and provided to the ordering agency. 

5. Plant Propagation: Provide a permanent greenhouse/nursery facility with heat, water, fertilizer, insecticides, 

fungicides, and photo periods as needed to ensure the propagation of healthy seedlings. Stock under production 

must not interbreed with other ecotypes of the same species and potting mix must not be contaminated with weed 

or species alien to the designated area. Provide appropriate measures of hardening and site adaptation to prepare 

stock for successful transplanting into the project site. Records must be maintained throughout production and 

provided to the ordering agency. 

6. Exotic Plant Control: As appropriate and acceptable in the designated area, utilize hand pulling, clearing, tilling and 

chemical application practices to control exotic species as directed by the task order. If task order is for this task only 

provide written summary of the site conditions and the work completed. 

7. Plant salvage and direct transplant: Dig native plants mechanically or by hand from designated areas only. Plant 

where directed. Plants will range in size from seedlings to 2-inch caliper or larger. Hold in storage areas if necessary. 

Provide care during storage. If task order is for this task only provide written summary of the site conditions and the 

work completed. 

8. Protection: Provide protection from human trampling, and surface and underground predators as needed. Methods 

may include protective netting, photo-degrading protector tubes and repellents, and temporary fencing. If task 

order is for this task only provide written summary of the site conditions and the work completed. 

9. Follow Up Care: Provide, upon request, care for revegetation installations until the plants are established 

(approximately 2-3 years). Care to include exotic plant control, weeding and irrigation as needed. Provide written 

progress reports as specified by ordering agency. 

10. Plant Provision: Provide native seed and plants in sizes ranging from seedlings to 4” caliper trees that are native to 

the designated area and adapted to the environmental conditions at the project site, but not necessarily from local 

genetic stocks. 

11. Holding: Provide holding for plant materials which will ensure healthy stock if there are changes in the delivery date. 

Include repotting when necessary. 
Roadside

Revegetation 

Scan Report

72

Executive 

Summary

Introduction

Scan Process

Revegetation 

Project Sites

Discussion

Conclusions

Additional 

Information

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

with weed or species alien to the designated project site. Provide appropriate measures of hardening and site 

adaptation to prepare stock for successful transplanting into the project site. Records must be maintained throughout 

production and provided to the ordering agency. Provide holding for plant materials which will ensure healthy stock 

if there are changes in the delivery date. Include repotting as necessary.

7. Seed and Cutting Collection and Plant Salvage: Collect seed, cuttings and native soil for mycorrhizal inoculums from 

within designated project site. Provide all labor, materials, equipment, supplies, and transportation needed to collect 

seed, cuttings, and soil for plant propagation. Dig native plants mechanically or by hand from designated areas 

only. Plants will range in size from seedlings to no more than 2-inch caliper. Hold in storage areas. Provide care 

during storage. If task order is for this task only, provide written summary of collections made, their locations, the site 

conditions and the work completed. 

8. Protection, Follow-Up Care, and Monitoring: Provide protection from human trampling, and surface and underground 

predators as needed. Methods may include protective netting, photo-degrading protector tubes and repellents, 

and temporary fencing. Provide, upon request, care for revegetation installations until the plants are established 

(approximately 2-3 years). Care to include exotics control, weeding and irrigation as needed. Contractor maybe 

required to provide instructions for long-term care and maintenance of installation or a maintenance pla for installed 

items. Provide written progress reports as needed. Establish baseline conditions and monitor revegetation success 

following installation for a period of 1- 5 years, depending on the situation. If task order is for this task only, provide a 

written summary of the site conditions and the work completed.

NPS genetic conservation policy: The National Park Service policy calls for the preservation of native plant communities and 

their genetic resources wherever possible in natural zones. Accordingly, road slopes and other large areas intended to support 

self-sustaining native plant communities will usually be restored with local genetic stocks of native species. Most propagation 

requested under this contract will require use of seed or cuttings native to areas which the NPS will designate as appropriate 

for a particular project. Genetic policy is less stringently applied for landscaping around developed areas. Depending on the 

site, the project time frame, and the importance of genetic issues at the site, large landscape plants may be custom-grown 

or they may be provided from sources other than park gene pools. Preferably provided plants will be site-adapted (i.e., from 

genetic stocks likely to survive at the project site). 
Technical Report published by

Technology Deployment Program

Western Federal Lands Highway Division

Federal Highway Administration

610 East 5th St.

Vancouver, WA 98661

For more information 

 or additional copies contact:

Amit Armstrong, Ph. D., P.E. 

Phone: 360.619.7668

Fax: 360.619.7846

Amit.Armstrong@dot.gov