Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
E-1 Appendix E Bumble Bee Recognition and Photography E.1 Recognizing Bumble Bees Family: Apidae, Genus: Bombus E.1.1 Identification ï· Size and shape: Medium to very large, robust (workers and males are smaller than queens) ï· Color and hair: Mostly black with yellow, orange, or brown markings; entire body is fuzzy ï· Stripes: Hair can form yellow, black, orange, or brown stripes or markings ï· Pollen-carrying structures: Females have flattened plate on upper hind leg surrounded by long, stiff hairs (known as a corbicula) for carrying moist clumps of pollen. E.1.2 Notes Bumble bees make a low buzzing sound when flying. Several flies are excellent bumble bee mimics, but they have short stubby antennae, large eyes that meet in the middle of their face, and skinny hind legs. E.1.3 Look-Alikes In addition to flies that mimic bumble bees, there are numerous native bee species that appear similar to bumble bees. Large carpenter bees look very similar to bumble bees, but they are shinier (less hairy), especially on the abdomen. Figure E-1. Key characteristics of bumble bees.
Appendix D. Butterfly and Butterfly Group Recognition D-3 D.2.4 Gossamer-Winged Key Characteristics (Figure D-4): ï· Many of the smallest and brightest butterflies ï· Brightly colored (can shimmer in sunshine) in blues, greens, or coppers ï· May be dotted with bold spots or checkers ï· Glittering, silky wings Figure D-4. Gossamer-winged butterflies are often smaller and have striking colors on the upper sides of their wings. D.2.5 Brush-Footed Key Characteristics (Figure D-5): ï· Various shades of orange, red, brown, and black are common among brush-footed butterflies ï· The front pair of legs is reduced to tiny, brush like appendages held tightly beneath the thorax, so they appear to have only four legs Figure D-5. Brush-footed butterflies are commonly colored orange, red, and black, with only four clearly visible legs.
Appendix D. Butterfly and Butterfly Group Recognition D-2 D.2.2 Swallowtails Key Characteristics (Figure D-2): ï· Large butterflies ï· Swift, sailing flight pattern ï· Unhooked antenna ï· Less wing loading, allowing them to soar ï· Can possess hind wing extensions (tails) Figure D-2. Swallowtails are large butterflies that are usually black, yellow, and/or white. D.2.3 Whites and Sulphurs Key Characteristics (Figure D-3): ï· Predominantly yellow or white in most species ï· Bright orange wingtips and striking black marginal patterns are common Figure D-3. Whites and sulphurs are often white or yellow.
D-1 Appendix D Butterfly and Butterfly Group Recognition D.1 Recognizing Butterflies Butterflies can be distinguished from moths by the way they hold their wings at rest and by their antennae. Butterflies hold their wings open or vertically closed over their bodies, while moths tend to hold their wings flat. Butterfly antennae are club-shaped at the tips, while moth antennae either taper to a point or have a feathery appearance. D.2 Recognizing Butterfly Groups With practice, butterflies can be identified to family by observing characteristics such as size, color, wing patterns, and flight patterns. The following sections describe common characteristics of common butterfly families. D.2.1 Skippers Key Characteristics (Figure D-1): ï· Short wings ï· Must flap rapidly to gain flight ï· Bodies are compact and broad ï· Antennae are often short, with hooked bulb at the end ï· Fairly small, usually brown or orange ï· Fly in speedy, skipping, stop-and-go manner ï· Often hold their wings separated partially making two Vâs Figure D-1. Skippers are smaller butterflies with brown and orange coloring.
Appendix C. Bee and Bee Group Recognition C-7 C.2.8 Metallic Hairy Belly Bees Key Characteristics (Figure C-9): ï· Size and shape: Small to medium, stout, robust bodies ï· Color and hair: Metallic green, blue, or bluish black; brushes of hair beneath abdomenâ no prominent hair bands ï· Stripes: None ï· Scopa: Females carry dry pollen loads on underside of abdomen Notes: Among the first bees seen during the pollinating season. Most are observed in early spring and summer. As their name suggests, some species of Mason Bees gather mud and pebbles to construct their nests. These bees are also often called Orchard Bees, due to their frequent pollination of fruit tree blossoms. Figure C-9. Metallic hairy belly bees.
Appendix C. Bee and Bee Group Recognition C-6 C.2.6 Tiny Dark Bees Key Characteristics (Figure C-7): ï· Size and shape: Tiny and narrow bodied ï· Color and hair: Can be dull black/brown, pale golden, metallic black/brown or blue/green; sometimes with white or yellow markings on face; body sparsely covered in pale hairs that are less noticeable, but some with dense patches of hair on abdomen ï· Stripes: Faint stripes on abdomen, if any ï· Scopa: Small carpenter bees (Ceratina) and sweat bees (Halictus) have brushes of pollen collecting hairs on hind leg; yellow-faced bees (Hylaeus) carry pollen in a crop, and lack external scopa Notes: Often crawl deep into flowers. Can move fastâsome with jagged movements. Figure C-7. Tiny dark bees. C.2.7 Hairy Belly Bees Key Characteristics (Figure C-8): ï· Size and shape: Small to medium and typically very robust; often with a broad head and strong jaws used to cut leaves for nesting materials ï· Color and hair: Black with thorax and head covered in silver, white, or yellow hairs OR black with yellow markings on exoskeleton ï· Stripes: Abdomen has light hairs that create stripes, or markings are on exoskeleton ï· Scopa: Females carry dry pollen on thick hairs on underside of abdomen Notes: When visiting flowers, these bees often elevate abdomen, revealing pollen underneath. Figure C-8. Hairy belly bees.
Appendix C. Bee and Bee Group Recognition C-5 C.2.4 Green Sweat Bees Key Characteristics (Figure C-5): ï· Size and shape: Medium sized, narrow bodied ï· Color and hair: Bright metallic green; abdomen can be green like the thorax, or dark with stripes; body covered in pale hairs that are less noticeable ï· Stripes: Some have yellow-and-black striped abdomens ï· Scopa: Carries dry pollen on hairs on hind legs, less noticeable than other bees unless covered in dry pollen Notes: Relatively fast flying and numerous. Antennae are short on females and longer on males. Figure C-5. Green sweat bees. C.2.5 Striped Sweat Bees Key Characteristics (Figure C-6): ï· Size and shape: Small to medium, narrow bodied ï· Color and hair: Usually dark with bands of pale hairs on abdomen ï· Stripes: Stripes on abdomen may appear faint and vary in color from creamy to dark gray ï· Scopa: Brush of hair on upper part of hind legs, sometimes loaded with pollen Notes: May crawl around the base of flowers or inside flowers. Fast moving; sometimes with jagged movements. Figure C-6. Striped sweat bees.
Appendix C. Bee and Bee Group Recognition C-4 C.2.2 Chap Leg Bees Key Characteristics (Figure C-3): ï· Size and shape: Medium to large, robust ï· Color and hair: Dark with white, yellow, or brown hairs; often hairyâespecially on thoraxâwith short, dense, velvety hair ï· Stripes: Often with bands of pale hair on abdomen ï· Scopa: Carries dry pollen on noticeably longer, dense hairs on lower hind legs, but pollen is often on the whole body Notes: Antennae are typically longer than most other bees, especially on males. The legs of males are not as hairy as those of females because males do not transport pollen. Some fly fast (usually in smooth motions that almost look like they are tracing a figure 8) and can visit flowers rapidly. Figure C-3. Chap leg bees. C.2.3 Medium Dark Bees Key Characteristics (Figure C-4): ï· Size and shape: Small to large; relatively narrow to moderately robust ï· Color and hair: Dull, dark-bodied; thorax and face are moderately hairy ï· Stripes: May have bands of pale hair on abdomen ï· Scopa: Carries pollen on upper hind legs and back of thorax (armpits) ï· Other notable feature: Face may have two hairy depressions between the eyes (Andrena) or be heart-shaped (Colletes) Notes: Among the first to emerge in early spring. Nest in the ground, often in large aggregations. Figure C-4. Medium dark bees.
Appendix C. Bee and Bee Group Recognition C-3 C.2 Recognizing Bee Groups Bees are difficult to identify to species or family without having pinned specimens. But bee richness at a site can be measured by identifying bees to groups based on their morphology (also known as morphogroups), which use characteristics that can be seen in the field to categorize bees. See Appendix E, Bumble Bee Recognition and Photography, for characteristics of bumble bees. Note that honey bees are not native to North America. When sampling for bees, distinguishing between honey bees and native bees is the most important observation one can make. C.2.1 Honey Bees Key Characteristics (Figure C-2): ï· Size and shape: Medium to large with torpedo-shaped bodies ï· Color and hair: Amber-brown to nearly black; moderately fuzzy thorax and head, with less hairy legs and abdomen ï· Stripes: Abdomen tri-toned with black, pale, and orange-brown stripes ï· Corbicula: Concave flattened plates, fringed by a few long hairs, on hind legs to carry moist pollen Notes: Makes buzzing sound when flying and often flies methodically from flower the flower. Figure C-2. Honey bees.
Appendix C. Bee and Bee Group Recognition C-2 Table C-1. Key characteristics of bees, and the flies and wasps that can be mistaken for them. Floral Visitor Wings Body Shape, Size Hairs on Body Body Color Body Patterns PollenâCarrying Structures Antennae Bees 4 wings  (2 pairs) Robust body, constricted waist Hairy bodies, often with a fuzzy appearance Black, brown, orange, red, or metallic green blue, or copper Some species have stripes of hairs on abdomen Female bees carry pollen on their bodies in corbicula (concave pollen basket) or scopa (specialized longer hairs on hind legs or long hairs underside of abdomen) Slender, long antennae, typically with a distinct elbow Wasps 4 wings (2 pairs) Slender body, constricted waist Not hairy Black, brown, red, orange, yellow, or metallic blue or green Stripes on exoskeleton (not stripes of hairs) None Slender, long antennae Flies 2 wings (1 pair) Robust body, no constricted waist Usually without many hairs Black, brown, yellow, metallic blue or green Stripes on exoskeleton (not stripes of hairs) None Short, thick antennaeÂ
C-1 Appendix C Bee and Bee Group Recognition C.1 Recognizing Bees Distinguishing floral visitors such as butterflies, beetles, and moths from bees is fairly straightforward, but separating bees from wasps or flies can be more difficult (Figure C-1 and Table C-1). Figure C-1. Common floral visitors: butterfly (top left), bee (top center), wasp (top right), beetle (bottom left), moth (bottom center), fly (bottom right).
Appendix B. Decision Support for Voluntary Actions and Regulatory Assurances: Imperiled Pollinators and the Endangered Species Act B-2 Are there federal lands neighboring present-day rights-of-way or future project areas containing recognized habitat for at-risk species of interest? If so, consider reaching out to neighboring federal agencies to explore the possibility of linking a CCAA with a Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) to establish a comprehensive conservation plan for at-risk species allowing for greater consistency in management actions, and thus effectiveness, across a larger regional landscape consisting of both federal and non-federal properties. Go Further: Primarily developed to cover activities on federal lands, a CCA can be written to perform the function of an overarching conservation plan for a single, or multiple, species. A conservation plan can serve to link a CCA for federal property together with preventative measures taken under a CCAA implemented on adjoining non-federal lands, allowing enrollees to seamlessly implement conservation measures to address the needs of at-risk species. Is the existing or future road network present in wildfire-prone landscapes? If so, explore opportunities to earn credits through a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) or PCA by installing road-hardening measures, such as concrete pavement, in rights-of-way to reduce ignition rates and protect high value pollinator habitat harboring at-risk species in the neighboring natural areas bordering the road network. Go Further: HCPs are the most comprehensive compliance strategy available to non- federal parties to conserve the ecosystems and natural processes upon which listed species depend, ultimately contributing to their recovery. HCPs can apply to both listed and non-listed species, including those that are candidates or have been proposed for listing. Conservation measures implemented under other identified compliance strategies can be transferred or rolled-up to an HCP. More information about voluntary Endangered Species Act actions is included in Chapter 4, Native Pollinators and the Federal Endangered Species Act: Compliance Strategies for State Departments of Transportation, of this guide.
B-1 Appendix B Decision Support for Voluntary Actions and Regulatory Assurances: Imperiled Pollinators and the Endangered Species Act If there is an imperiled pollinator species in the area that may become listed, the questions below can help in developing voluntary strategies to mitigate present-day and future risks to at-risk species and regulatory assurances. Select as many questions as apply. Are at-risk pollinator species present in the planning area? If so, a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) provides assurances to transportation agencies who invest early in the application of recognized conservation actions, such as the abandonment of an otherwise once planned road extension, within a planning area encompassing a larger road network that benefit single or multiple pollinator species considered to be at-risk for future listing. Go Further: If conservation measures implemented under a CCAA are consistent with a conservation strategy for a species established by a state resource agency, the CCAA can be terminated and management actions transferred to a Prelisting Conservation Agreement (PCA). Transference would lead to the generation of credits for use as mitigation or as a compensatory measure for the detrimental impact of an action undertaken within a specified âservice areaâ after the species is listed as threatened or endangered. Are the same at-risk species likely to be impacted by reoccurring construction or management activities? If at-risk species are likely to be continually impacted by future activities, investing early in development of a PCA, to generate a bank of credits for both permanent and temporary impacts on at-risk species, may be worth pursuing. Will at-risk species possibly be harmed by future activities? If so, by working with state and federal agencies, a transportation agency can create credits under a PCA by implementing conservation measures benefiting a state-recognized at-risk species at select locations across their service area, providing assurances the agency will have the ability to mitigate for future impacts on the species following a federal listing. Go Further: Credits generated under a PCA can be used as mitigation or as a compensatory measure for the detrimental impact of an action undertaken within a specified âservice areaâ after the species is listed as threatened or endangered. Are there established state-sponsored conservation plans for at-risk species of interest? If so, the conservation plans are to serve as the preferred source for identifying the conservation strategies to be implemented under a PCA to receive credits for future impacts on at-risk species following federal listing.
Appendix A. Decision Support for Compliance with the Endangered Species Act: Listed Pollinators A-3 agencies are successful or not in benefiting listed species through their actions, they will not be penalized. Go Further: Recognized conservation actions benefiting listed species under a SHA include development and testing of new habitat management techniques. Under this experimental component of the agreement, new management activities can be developed and inform conservation measures benefiting listed species implemented under an RCS. Management actions undertaken through a SHA can be transferred to an RCS following termination of the SHA. Is the species endemic to a small area or does it occur at a single site? If so, an HCP may be most appropriate for addressing the range of conditions that need to be addressed to assure long-term protection and recovery of the species, recognizing that the potential for impacts on the species associated with road construction and maintenance activities is very localized and likely not to be repeated in other geographies, thus limiting the geographic extent of the value of conservation actions. Go Further: HCPs are the most comprehensive compliance strategy available to non- federal parties to conserve the ecosystems and natural processes upon which listed species depend, ultimately contributing to their recovery. HCPs can apply to both listed and non-listed species, including those that are candidates or have been proposed for listing. Conservation measures implemented under other identified compliance strategies can be transferred or rolled-up to an HCP. Is offsite mitigation an option? If so, the creation of mitigation and conservation banks on their own, or as part of an RCS or HCP, creates lasting credits for local impacts on listed species that can be transferred or sold to other agencies in time. Go Further: Conservation measures benefiting listed species implemented under an approved RCS may be expanded in scope to address conservation actions identified by a state resource agency for at-risk species through development of a PCA. When working in concert, an RCS and PCA can lead to the generation of credits that can be âbankedâ and shared among agencies to address future impacts on multiple species. Is the existing or future road network present in wildfire-prone landscapes? If so, explore opportunities to earn credits through an HCP or RCS by installing road- hardening measures, such as concrete pavement, in rights-of-ways (ROWs) to reduce ignition rates and protect high value pollinator habitat harboring listed species in the neighboring natural areas bordering the road network. Go Further: HCPs are the most comprehensive compliance strategy available to non- federal parties to conserve the ecosystems and natural processes upon which listed species depend, ultimately contributing to their recovery. HCPs can apply to both listed and non-listed species, including those that are candidates or have been proposed for listing. Conservation measures implemented under other identified compliance strategies can be transferred or rolled-up to an HCP. More about ESA compliance is included in Chapter 4, Native Pollinators and the Federal Endangered Species Act: Compliance Strategies for State Departments of Transportation, of this guide.
Appendix A. Decision Support for Compliance with the Endangered Species Act: Listed Pollinators A-2 Go Further: HCPs are the most comprehensive compliance strategy available to non- federal parties to conserve the ecosystems and natural processes upon which listed species depend, ultimately contributing to their recovery. HCPs can apply to both listed and non-listed species, including those that are candidates or have been proposed for listing. Conservation measures implemented under other identified compliance strategies can be transferred or rolled-up to an HCP. Are there established recovery plans for the listed species of interest? If so, the conservation actions identified in the recovery plan provide a framework from which to build an appropriate and recognizable conservation strategy to be implemented under an RCS. Go Further: Conservation measures benefiting listed species implemented under an approved RCS can be expanded in scope to address pollinator species proposed for listing or candidates for listing on non-federal land through development of a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA). Implementation of management activities identified under a CCAA that complements an existing RCS allows for provisioning of more comprehensive regulatory coverage from a multispecies context. Are some of the suggested changes to maintenance activities to benefit listed pollinators also viewed as potential cost-saving measures? If so, creation of a SHA allows for transportation agencies to invest in maintenance activities that may result in cost savings, such as shifting the timing and frequency of mowing, but also real benefits to pollinators without fear of retribution for attracting or increasing the amount or distribution of the listed species on managed lands. Go Further: Recognized conservation actions benefiting listed species under a SHA include development and testing of new habitat management techniques. Under this experimental component of the agreement, new management activities can be developed and inform conservation measures benefiting listed species implemented under an RCS. Management actions undertaken through a SHA can be transferred to an RCS following termination of the SHA. Are the same listed or at-risk species likely to be impacted by reoccurring construction or management activities? If listed or at-risk species are likely to be continually impacted by future activities, investing early in development of an HCP, if there are multiple species deserving coverage, may be worth pursuing, or consider an RCS, to generate a bank of credits for both permanent and temporary impacts on listed species. Go Further: Conservation measures benefiting listed species implemented under an approved RCS may be expanded in scope to address conservation actions identified by a state resource agency for at-risk species through development of a Prelisting Conservation Agreement (PCA). When working in concert, an RCS and PCA can lead to the generation of credits that can be âbankedâ and shared among agencies to address future impacts on multiple species. Are the conservation needs for a listed species poorly understood? If so, there may be value in exploring the opportunities presented by a SHA, which allows for experimentation and knowledge building while providing assurances that whether
A-1 Appendix A Decision Support for Compliance with the Endangered Species Act: Listed Pollinators If there is a listed pollinator species in the area that will impact a project or general work, the questions below can help in developing proactive strategies as alternatives to the more traditional Section 7 consultation when dealing with listed species. Select as many questions as apply. Under the proposed project, is âtakeâ (impact) of a listed species reasonably certain to occur, and is the project proponent a non-federal entity? If so, consider complying with the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) through Section 10, a voluntary process, and developing a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) in order to maintain more control of the outcome while investing a reasonable amount of time and resources upfront and overseeing the process through to the end. Go Further: The HCP is the applicantâs document, so the applicant can control its content and approach. In addition, the Section 10 permit process allows for coverage of non-listed species under an HCP and provides No Surprises assurances throughout the duration of the permit. This can be advantageous for long-term planning. Species likely to become listed over the permit duration, if covered by the HCP, require no new restrictions if the species becomes listed as long as the permittee is properly implementing the HCP and Incidental Take Permit. Is the potential presence of listed species in or adjacent to existing rights-of-way preventing investment in roadside vegetation management strategies that could otherwise improve roadside habitat for pollinators? If so, consider use of a Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) to provide formal assurances that future land use restrictions would not result from investment in management activities that increase habitat value and/or the local abundance of the listed species covered under the permits. Go Further: Recognized conservation actions benefiting listed species under a SHA include development and testing of new habitat management techniques. Under this experimental component of the agreement, new management activities can be developed and inform conservation measures benefiting listed species implemented under a Recovery Crediting System (RCS). Management actions undertaken through a SHA can be transferred to an RCS following termination of the SHA. For a specific geography or project, are there multiple listed species expected to be impacted, or a single listed species? If there are multiple listed species, consider investing in a compliance strategy, such as an HCP, wherein different conservation measures can be bundled together to provide regulatory coverage for take of a number of listed species under a single permit.
References and Other Resources R-44 Zimmerman, E. C. 1948. Insects of Hawaii: a manual of the insects of the Hawaiian Islands, including an enumeration of the species and notes on their origin, distribution, hosts, parasites, etc. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI. 222 pp. Zimmerman, E. C. 1958. Insects of Hawaii, Volume 7, Macrolepidoptera. Honolulu, Hawaii, University of Hawaii Press. 549 pp. Ziska, L. H., J. S. Pettis, J. Edwards, J. E. Hancock, M. B. Tomecek, A. Clark, J. S. Dukes, I. Loladze, and H. Wayne Polley. 2016. Rising Atmospheric CO2 is Reducing the Protein Concentration of a Floral Pollen Source Essential for North American Bees. Proc. R. Soc. B 283:20160414. Zuefle, M. E., W. P. Brown, and D. W. Tallamy. 2008. âEffects of nonânative plants on native insect community of Delaware.â Biological Invasions 10:1159â1169.Â
References and Other Resources R-43 Xerces Society and Monarch Joint Venture. 2019. Roadside habitat for monarchs: Milkweeds of Florida. Xerces Society, Portland, OR. Xerces Society and Monarch Joint Venture. 2019. Roadside habitat for monarchs: Milkweeds of Iowa and Minnesota. Xerces Society, Portland, OR. Xerces Society and Monarch Joint Venture. 2019. Roadside habitat for monarchs: Milkweeds of Kansas and Missouri. Xerces Society, Portland, OR. Xerces Society and Monarch Joint Venture. 2019. Roadside habitat for monarchs: Milkweeds of Oklahoma and Texas. Xerces Society, Portland, OR. Xerces Society and Monarch Joint Venture. 2019. Roadside habitat for monarchs: Milkweeds of the Great Lakes. Xerces Society, Portland, OR Xerces Society and Monarch Joint Venture. 2019. Roadside habitat for monarchs: Milkweeds of the Midâ Atlantic. Xerces Society, Portland, OR. Xerces Society and Monarch Joint Venture. 2019. Roadside habitat for monarchs: Milkweeds of the Northeast. Xerces Society, Portland, OR. Xerces Society and Monarch Joint Venture. 2019. Roadside habitat for monarchs: Milkweeds of the Southeast. Xerces Society, Portland, OR. Xerces Society. 2016. Monarch nectar plants: Florida. Xerces Society, Portland, OR. Xerces Society. 2016. Monarch nectar plants: MidâAtlantic. Xerces Society, Portland, OR. Xerces Society. 2016. Monarch nectar plants: Midwest. Xerces Society, Portland, OR. Xerces Society. 2016. Monarch nectar plants: Northeast. Xerces Society, Portland, OR. Xerces Society. 2016. Monarch nectar plants: Southeast. Xerces Society, Portland, OR. Xerces Society. 2016. Monarch nectar plants: Southern Plains. Xerces Society, Portland, OR. Xerces Society. 2017. Protecting Californiaâs Butterfly Groves: Management Guidelines for Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Habitat. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Available: https://xerces.org/sites/default/files/2018â05/17â040_01_ProtectingCaliforniaButterflyGroves.pdf.  Xerces Society. 2018. Managing for monarchs in the west: best management practices for conserving the monarch butterfly and its habitat. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR. Available: www.xerces.org. Yang, Y., D. Tilman, G. Furey, C. Lehman. 2019. âSoil carbon sequestration accelerated by restoration of grassland biodiversity.â Nature Communications 10. Zalucki, M. P., A. R. Clarke, and S. B. Malcolm. 2002. Ecology and behavior of first instar larval Lepidoptera. Annual Review of Entomology 47:361â393. Zielin, S. B., and Portland State University. Department of Environmental Science and Management. 2010. Exploring Mitigation Options to Reduce Vehicleâcaused Mortality for the Oregon Silverspot Butterfly, Speyeria zerene hippolyta, along Highway 101 at the Siuslaw National Forest.Â
References and Other Resources R-42 Williams, E. H., C. E. Holdren, P. R. Ehrlich. 1981. âThe life history and ecology of Euphydryas gillettii Barnes (Nymphalidae).â Journal of the Lepidopteristsâ Society 38:1â12. Williams, F. X. 1928. âThe Kamehameha Butterfly, Vanessa tammeamea Esch.â Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 7(1):164â169. Williams, F. X. 1947. âNotes and Exhibitions for the Year 1946.â Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 13(1):1â31. Williams, F. X. 1947. âNotes and Exhibitions: Protoparce quinquemaculata blackburni (Butler).â Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 13:10. Williams, N. M., and C. Kremen. 2007. âResource distribution among habitats determine solitary bee offspring production in a mosaic landscape.â Ecological Applications 17:910â921. Williams, N. M., D. Cariveau, R. Winfree, and C. Kremen. 2011. âBees in disturbed habitats use, but do not prefer, alien plants.â Basic and Applied Ecology 12(4):332â341. Williams, N. M., E. E. Crone, H. R. Tâai, R. L. Minckley, L. Packer, and S. G. Potts. 2010. âEcological and lifeâ history traits predict bee species responses to environmental disturbances.â Biological Conservation 143(10):2280â2291. Williams, P. H., R. W. Thorp, L. L. Richardson, and S. R. Colla. 2014. Bumble Bees of North America: An Identification Guide. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. doi:10.2307/j.ctt6wpzr9. Willis, K. J., editor. 2017. Climate Change â Which Plants Will Be the Winners? Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Wilsey, B. 2020. Restoration in the Face of Changing Climate: Importance of Persistence, Priority Effects, And Species Diversity. Restoration Ecology 365:76. Wilson, E. E., C. S. Sidhu, K. E. LeVan, and D. A. Holway. 2010. âPollen foraging behaviour of solitary Hawaiian bees revealed through molecular pollen analysis.â Molecular Ecology 19(21):4823â4829. Winfree, R. 2010. âThe conservation and restoration of wild bees.â Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1195(1):169â197. Wolf, Amy T., Watson, Jay C., Hyde, Terrell J., Carpenter, Susan G., and Jean, Robert P. (n.d.). Floral Resources Used by the Endangered Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis) in the Midwestern United States. Wood, E. M., A. M. Pidgeon, C. Gratton, and T. T. Wilder. 2011. âEffects of oak barrens habitat management for Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides samuelis) on the avian community.â Biological Conservation 144:3117â3126. Wooley, R. L., and R. E. Stanford. 1991. âOviposition behavior and nectar sources of the Pawnee montane skipper, Hesperia Leonardus Montana (Hesperiidae).â Journal of the Lepidopteristsâ Society 45:239â240. Wu, YâT., C.âH. Wang, X.âD. Zhang, B. Zhao, L.âF. Jiang, J.âK. Chen, and B. Li. 2009. âEffects of saltmarsh invasion by Spartina alterniflora.â Biological Invasions 11:635â649. Wynhoff, I. 1998. âLessons from the reintroduction of Maculinea teleius and M. nausithous in the Netherlands.â Journal of Insect conservation 2(1):47â57. Xerces Society and Monarch Joint Venture. 2019. Roadside habitat for monarchs: Milkweeds of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Xerces Society, Portland, OR.Â
References and Other Resources R-41 Washington State Department of Agriculture. 2009. Human Health and Ecological Effects Risk Assessment: Imazpyr. Available: https://agr.wa.gov/getmedia/c7759568âf7f2â41e3â91abâ7e3cf5395fba/ 2009amechumanhealthecologicaleffectsriskassessmentimazapyr.pdf. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2022. Roadside Manual. Engineering and Regional Operations. Available: https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/m25â30/roadside.pdf. Waterbury, B., A. Potter, and L. K. Svancara. 2019. âMonarch Butterfly Distribution and Breeding Ecology in Idaho and Washington.â Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7:172. Weber, P. 1936. âNotes and Exhibitions.â Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 9(2):145. Weber, P. G., S. Preston, M. J. Dlugos, and A. P. Nelson. 2008. âThe effects of field mowing on adult butterfly assemblages in central New York state.â Natural Areas Journal 28(2):130â143. Weiss, S. B. 1999. Cars, cows, and checkerspot butterflies: nitrogen deposition and management of nutrientâ poor grasslands for a threatened species. Conservation Biology 13(6):1476â1486. Weiss, S. B., L. Naumovich, and C. Niederer. 2015. Assessment of the past 30 years of habitat management and covered species monitoring associated with the San Bruno Mountain habitat conservation plan. Prepared for the San Mateo County Parks Department. Wepprich, T., J. R. Adrion, L. Ries, J. Wiedmann, and N. M. Haddad. 2019. âButterfly abundance declines over 20 years of systematic monitoring in Ohio, USA.â PLOS ONE 14:e0216270. Westbrooks, R. G. 1998. Invasive Plants: Changing the Landscape of America: Fact Book. Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds, Washington, DC. 109 pp. White, A., J. B. Fant, M. Skinner, K. Havens, and A. T. Kramer. 2018. âRestoring species diversity: Assessing capacity in the United States native plant industry.â Restoration Ecology 26:605â611. WildEarth Guardians and The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. 2010. Petition submitted to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Acting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Petition to List the Sand Verbena Moth (Copablepharon fuscum) under the Endangered Species Act. 19 pp. WildEarth Guardians. 2011. Petition to list the Euphilotes ancilla purpura and Euphilotes ancilla cryptica under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. WildEarth Guardians. 2013. Petition to list the Great Basin silverspot (Speyeria nokomis nokomis) under the Endangered Species Act. Williams, D. W., L. L. Jackson, and D. D. Smith. 2007. âEffects of frequent mowing on survival and persistence of forbs seeded into a speciesâpoor grassland.â Restoration Ecology 15(1):24â33. Williams, E. H. 1981. âThermal influences on oviposition in the montane butterfly Euphydryas gillettii.â Oecologia 50:342â346. Williams, E. H. 2012. âPopulation loss and gain in the rare butterfly Euphydryas gillettii (Nymphalidae).â Journal of the Lepidopteristsâ Society 66:147â155. Williams, E. H., and M. D. Bowers. 1987. âFactors affecting hostâplant use by the montane butterfly Euphydryas gillettii (Nymphalidae).â The American Midland Naturalist 118:153â161.Â
References and Other Resources R-40 Valtonen, A., K. Saarinen, and J. Jantunen. 2007. âIntersection reservations as habitats for meadow butterflies and diurnal moths: Guidelines for planning and management.â Landscape and Urban Planning 79.3â 4:201â209. Van Hoose, Natalie. 2021. âScientists discover nest, new northern range of Floridaâs rare blue calamintha bee.â Florida Museum of Natural History. Available: https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/science/discoverânestânorthernârangeâblueâcalaminthaâbee/.  Vaughan, D. M., and M. D. Shepherd. 2005. Species Profile: Callophrys comstocki. In Shepherd, M. D., D. M. Vaughan, and S. H. Black (Eds). Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. CDâROM Version 1 (May 2005). Portland, OR: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Von der Lippe, M., and I. Kowarik. 2007. âLongâDistance Dispersal of Plants by Vehicles as a Driver of Plant Invasions.â Conservation Biology 21(4):986â996. Wagner, W. L., D. R. Herbst, and S. H. Sohmer. 1999. Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaiâi, Vols. 1 and 2. University of Hawaiâi and Bishop Museum Press. Honolulu, Hawaii. xviii + 1919 pp. Waite, Marilyn. 2013. âSURF Framework for a Sustainable Economy.â Journal of Management and Sustainability 3(4):25. doi:10.5539/jms.v3n4p25. ISSN 1925â4733. Wang, T. Y. 2007. A Survey of the Grasslands of the Northeast Ridge (Guadalupe Hills) as Habitat for the Mission Blue Butterfly (Icaricia icarioides missionensis) and the Callippe Silverspot (Speyeria callippe callippe). Warchola, N., C. Bastianelli, C. B. Schultz, and E. E. Crone. 2015. âFire increases antâtending and survival of the Fenderâs blue butterfly larvae.â Journal of Insect Conservation 19:1063â1073. Warner, R. E. 1992. âNest ecology of grassland passerines on road rightsâofâway in central Illinois.â Biological Conservation 59(1):1â7. Warner, R. E. 1994. âAgricultural land use and grassland habitat in Illinois: future shock for midwestern birds?â Conservation Biology 8(1):147â156. Warren, A. D. 2005. Butterflies of Oregon: Their Taxonomy, Distribution, and Biology. Lepidoptera of North America 6. Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 408 pp. Warren, M. S. 1993. âA review of butterfly conservation in central southern Britain: II. Site management and habitat selection of key species.â Biological Conservation 64(1):37â49. Warren, R., N. W. Arnell, and R. Nicholls. 2008. âRegional impacts of climate change.â In: Cuff, D. J., and A. S. Goudie (Eds.) The Oxford Companion to Global Change, pp. 352â358. Oxford University Press, USA. Warshauer, F. R., J. D. Jacobi, and J. Price. 2009. Native coastal flora and plant communities in Hawaiâi: Their composition, distribution, and status. Hawaiâi Cooperative Studies Unit Technical Report HCSUâ014. University of Hawaiâi at Hilo. 108 pp. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2015. Washingtonâs State Wildlife Action Plan: 2015 Update. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, USA. Washington Natural Heritage Program. 2017. Animal Species with Ranks. Available: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/amp_nh_animals_ranks.pdf. Accessed: August 7, 2020.Â
References and Other Resources R-39 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Recovery plan for San Bruno Elfin Butterfly (Callophrys mossii bayensis) and Mission Blue Butterfly (Icaricia icarioides missionensis). Region 8, Sacramento, CA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Recovery Plan for Three Endangered Species Endemic to Antioch Dunes, California: Langeâs metalmark butterfly (Apodemia mormo langei), Oenothera deltoides subsp. howellii (Antioch Dunes eveningâprimrose), and Erysimum capitatum var. angustatum (Contra Costa wallflower). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 8, Pacific Southwest San Francisco BayâDelta Fish and Wildlife Office. Sacramento, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Revised recovery plan for valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus).  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Species Status Assessment for the Sand Verbena Moth (Copablepharon fuscum).  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Transmittal â Regional Forester Special Status Species List, with enclosures. Available:  http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agencyâpolicy/. Accessed August 7, 2020.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Langeâs metalmark butterfly (Apodemia mormo langei) 5âyear review.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Species Status Assessment Report for the Rattlesnakeâmaster Borer Moth (Papaipema eryngii). Version 1.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021. Species status assessment report for Speyeria nokomis nokomis. Grand Junction, Colorado. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2022. âThreatened and Endangered Pollinators.â Retrieved June 2022. U.S. Forest Service and Washington Office Enterprise Program. 2019. Persistence analysis for species of conservation concern. Inyo National Forest, Region 5 Regional Office.  United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2018. Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II. D. R. Reidmiller, C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.). U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018. University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program. 2022. Bee Precaution Pesticide Ratings (and studies cited within): https://www2.ipm.ucanr.edu/beeprecaution/. Accessed: April 2022. University of Hertfordshire Agriculture & Environment Research Unit (AERU). 2022. Pesticide Properties Database. Available: http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/ppdb/en/index.htm. Accessed: April 2022. ValienteâBanuet, A., F. MolinaâFreaner, A. Torres, M. C. Arizmendi, and A. Casas. 2004. âGeographic differentiation in the pollination system of the columnar cactus Pachycereus pectenâaboriginum.â American Journal of Botany 91:850â855. Valtonen, A., and K. Saarinen. 2005. âA highway intersection as an alternative habitat for a meadow butterfly: effect of mowing, habitat geometry and roads on the ringlet (Aphantopus hyperantus).â Annales Zoologici Fennici 42(5):545â556. Valtonen, A., K. Saarinen, and J. Jantunen. 2006. âEffect of different mowing regimes on butterflies and diurnal moths on road verges.â Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 29:133â148.Â
References and Other Resources R-38 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. San Bruno Elfin Butterfly (Callophrys mossii bayensis) and Mission Blue Butterfly (Icaricia icarioides missionensis) 5âYear Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form: Anaea troglodyta floridalis. Available: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candidate/assessments/2010/ r4/I087_I01.pdf.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Lotis blue butterfly (Lycaeides argyrognomon lotis). 5âyear review: summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Pawnee montane skipper (Hesperia leonardus montana) 5 year review: summary and evaluation. Colorado Field Office, Lakewood, CO. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for 23 Species on Oahu and Designation of Critical Habitat for 124 Species; Final Rule. Federal Register 77(180):57648â57862. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing 15 Species on Hawaii Island as Endangered and Designating Critical Habitat for 3 Species; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 77(201):63928â64018. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Karner Blue Butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) 5âYear Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for the Florida Leafwing and Bartramâs ScrubâHairstreak Butterflies; Final Rule. Federal Register 79(155):47222â47244. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis) 5â Year Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Recovery Plan for the Behrenâs Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria zerene behrensii).  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form: Rattlesnakeâmaster Borer Moth (Papaipema eryngii).  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Endangered Status for 49 Species from the Hawaiian Islands. Federal Register 81(190):67786â67857. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Endangered Status for 49 Species from the Hawaiian Islands. September 30, 2016. Federal Register 81(190):67786â67860. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. Species status assessment report for the frosted elfin (Callophrys irus), Version 1.2. April. Cortland, NY. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. U.S. Federal Endangered and Threatened Species by Calendar Year. Environmental Conservation Online System. Available:  https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/speciesâ listingsâbyâyearâtotals. Accessed: October 18, 2018. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Recovery Plan Amendment for Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Recovery plan for Laguna Mountains Skipper (Pyrgus ruralis lagunae). Â
References and Other Resources R-37 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Pawnee montane skipper butterfly (Hesperia leonardus montana) recovery plan. Denver, Colorado. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for El Segundo Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; designation of critical habitat for Blackburnâs sphinx moth, final rule. Federal Register 68(111):34710â34766. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Plan for the Blackburnâs Sphinx Moth (Manduca blackburni). Portland, Oregon. 125 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Species Assessment and Listing Priority Form for Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri, The Miami Blue Butterfly. Unpublished Document. March 2005. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Smithâs blue butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes smithi). 5 year review: summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus). 5âyear evaluation: summary and review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Biological Opinion of the Formal Section 7 Consultation for the Clinton Keith Road Extension Project, Riverside County, California (1â6â07âFâ4357.3). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Formal Section 7 Consultation for the Clinton Keith Road Extension Project, Riverside County, California (1â6â07âFâ4357.3). Reference Number FWSâWRIVâ4357.3. Carlsbad, California.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Kern primrose sphinx moth (Euproserpinus euterpe): 5âYear Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Candidate assessment for Dakota skipper (Oarisma poweshiek). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Delhi Sands Flowerâloving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis). 5â year review: summary and evaluation.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. El Segundo Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni) 5âYear Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Hawaiian Islands Plants: Listed species, as designated under the U.S. Endangered. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule Species Act. 50 CFR Part 17. 70 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Hesperia dacotae candidate assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Bay checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis) 5âYear Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Callippe silverspot butterfly: 5 year review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Mitchellâs satyr butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii). 5 year review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Myrtleâs silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene myrtleae) 5âYear Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Uncompahgre Fritillary Butterfly (Boloria acrocnema) 5 year review: summary and evaluation.Â
References and Other Resources R-36 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. Triclopyr: Draft Ecological Risk Assessment for Registration Review. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Available: https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPAâ HQâOPPâ2014â0576â0026/content.pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2019. Fluazifopâpâbutyl: Draft Ecological Risk Assessment for Registration Review. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Available: https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPAâHQâOPPâ2014â0779â0017/content.pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2020. Oxadiazon: Draft Ecological Risk Assessment for Registration Review. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Available: https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPAâHQâOPPâ2014â0782â0017/content.pdf. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No date. âDesmocerus californicus dimorphus: valley elderberry longhorn beetle.â Available: https://www.fws.gov/species/valleyâelderberryâlonghornâbeetleâdesmocerusâ californicusâdimorphus.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No date. âLycaeides argyrognomon lotis.â Available: https://www.fws.gov/species/lotisâblueâlycaeidesâargyrognomonâlotis.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No date. âPseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus.â Available: https://www.fws.gov/species/carsonâwanderingâskipperâpseudocopaeodesâeunusâobscurus. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No date. E. editha taylori candidate assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No date. Fenderâs blue recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No date. Saint Francisâ Satyr (Neonympha mitchellii francisci) 5âYear Review. Available: https://www.fws.gov/southeast/wildlife/insects/saintâfrancisâsatyr/. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No date. Schaus Swallowtail Butterfly: Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1976. Determination That Six Species of Butterflies are Endangered Species. Service Region 8, Pacific Southwest San Francisco BayâDelta Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California. 41 Federal Register 22041. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Review of invertebrate wildlife for listing as endangered or threatened species. Federal Register 49:21664â21673. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: determination of endangered or threatened status for 24 plants from the Island of Kauai, Hawaii. Federal Register 59(38):9304â9329. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of endangered or threatened status for 21 plants for the Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. Federal Register 59(43):10305â10325. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Recovery Plan for the Kauai Plant Cluster. Portland, Oregon. 270 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Recovery Plan for the Big Island Plant Cluster. Portland, Oregon. 202+ pp.Â
References and Other Resources R-35 Thompson, D. B., K. McKelvey, P. van Els, G. Andrew, P. JacobyâGarrett, M. Glenn, C. Kallstrom, K. L. Pilgrim, and P. A. Opler. 2020. âConserve the ecoâevolutionary dynamic, not the subspecies: phenological divergence and gene flow between temporal cohorts of Euphilotes ancilla endemic to southern Nevada.â Conservation Genetics 21:341â357. Thomson, D. M. 2016. âLocal bumble bee decline linked to recovery of honey bees, drought effects on floral resources.â Ecology Letters 19:1247â1255. Thorp, R. W., S. Jepsen, S. F. Jordan, E. Evans, and S. H. Black. 2010. Petition to list Franklinâs bumble bee Bombus franklini (Frison), 1921 as an Endangered Species under the US Endangered Species Act. Available: https://xerces.org/sites/default/files/2019â10/bombusâfrankliniâpetition.pdf. Tilman, D., P. B. Reich, and J. M. H. Knops. 2006. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Stability in a DecadeâLong Grassland Experiment. Nature 441:629â632. Tinsley, J. M., M. T. Simmons, and S. Windhager. 2006. âThe establishment success of native versus nonânative herbaceous seed mixes on a revegetated roadside in Central Texas.â Ecological Engineering 26:231â240. Tonietto, R. K. and D. J. Larkin. 2018. âHabitat restoration benefits wild bees: A metaâanalysis.â Journal of Applied Ecology 55(2):582â590. Topp, H. H. 1990. âTraffic safety, usability and streetscape effects of new design principles for major urban roads.â Transportation 16:297â310. Tracy, J. L., T. Kantola, K. A. Baum, and R. N. Coulson. 2019. âModeling fall migration pathways and spatially identifying potential migratory hazards for the eastern monarch butterfly.â Landscape Ecology 34(2):443â458. Tscharntke, T., A. M. Klein, A. Kruess, I. SteffanâDewenter, and C. Thies. 2005. âLandscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversityâecosystem service management.â Ecology Letters 8(8):857â 874. Tuley, N. C. 1878. âDescription of a new species of butterfly from the Sandwich Islands.â Entomologistâs Monthly Magazine 15:9â10. Tuskes, P. M., and J. F. Emmel. 1981. âThe life history and behavior of Euproserpinus euterpe (Sphingidae).â Journal of the Lepidopteristsâ Society 35. Tuttle, J. P. 2007. The Hawk Moths of North America. Wedge Entomological Research Foundation. Allen Press. Lawrence, Kansas. 253 pp. Tyser, R. W., and C. A. Worley. 1992. âAlien flora in grasslands adjacent to road and trail corridors in Glacier National Park, Montana (USA).â Conservation Biology 6(2):253â262. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA USFS) 2016. Tebuthiuron: Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report. Available: https://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/Tebuthiuron.pdf.  U.S. Department of Transportation. 2022. U.S. Department of Transportation Strategic Plan for FY 2022â2026. April. Available: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022â04/US_DOT_FY2022â 26_Strategic_Plan.pdf. Â
References and Other Resources R-34 Talley, T. S., and M. Holyoak. 2009. The Effects of Highways and Highway Construction Activities on Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Habitat. Final Report FHWA/CA09â0925. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/â/media/dotâmedia/programs/researchâ innovationâsystemâinformation/documents/f0016602âconstructionâimpactsâvalleyâelderberryâ longhornâbeetle.pdf.  Talley, T. S., E. Fleishman, M. Holyoak, D. D. Murphy, and A. Ballard. 2007. âRethinking a rareâspecies conservation strategy in an urban landscape: The case of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle.â Biological Conservation 135:21â32. Talley, T. S., M. Holyoak, and D. A. Piechnik. 2006. âThe effects of dust on the federally threatened valley elderberry longhorn beetle.â Environmental Management 37:647â658. Tania, Sultana Quader. 2020. âPublic Perception of Different Planting Techniques using Augmented Reality.â Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 2041. Available: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd/2041. Taron, D., and L. Ries. 2015. âButterfly monitoring for conservation.â In: Daniels, J. C. (Ed.) Butterfly Conservation in North America. pp. 35â57. Springer, Dordrecht. Tepedino, V. J., and Z. M. Portman. 2021. âIntensive monitoring for bees in North America: indispensable or improvident?â Insect Conservation and Diversity 14(5):535â542. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/ icad.12509. Tepedino, V. J., J. Mull, T. L. Griswold, and G. Bryant. 2014. âReproduction and pollinator of the endangered dwarf bearâpoppy Arctomecon humilis (Papaveraceae) across a quarter century: unraveling of a pollination web?â Western North American Naturalist 74:311â324. Tewksbury, J. J., D. J. Levey, N. M. Haddad, S. Sargent, J. L. Orrock, A. Weldon, B. J. Danielson, J. Brinkerhoff, E. I. Damschen, and P. Townsend. 2002. Corridors Affect Plants, Animals, and Their Interactions in Fragmented Landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(20):12923â12926. The Urban Wildlands Group, Inc. 2005. Icaricia shasta charlestonensis petition to be listed under the Endangered Species Act. Thogmartin, W. E., L. LópezâHoffman, J. Rohweder, J. Diffendorfer, R. Drum, D. Semmens, S. Black, I. Caldwell, D. Cotter, P. Drobney, and L. L. Jackson. 2017. âRestoring monarch butterfly habitat in the Midwestern US: âall hands on deck.ââ Environmental Research Letters 12(7):074005. Thom, M. D., and J. D. Daniels. 2017. âPatterns of microhabitat and larval hostâplant use by an imperiled butterfly in northern Florida.â Journal of Insect Conservation 21:39â52.  Thom, M. D., J. D. Daniels, L. N. Kobziar, and J. R. Colburn. 2015. âCan butterflies evade fire? Pupa location and heat tolerance in fire prone habitats of Florida.â PLOS ONE 10(5):1â22.  Thomas, J. A. 1984. âConservation of butterflies in temperate countries: past efforts and lessons for the future.â Symposia of the Royal Entomological Society of London 11:333â353. Thomas, R. C., and C. B. Schultz. 2016. âResource Selection in an Endangered Butterfly: Females Select Native Nectar Species.â The Journal of Wildlife Management 80:171â180.Â
References and Other Resources R-33 Straw, E. A., E. N. Carpentier, and M. J. F. Brown. 2021. âRoundup causes high levels of mortality following contract exposure in bumble bees.â Journal of Applied Ecology 58, 6: 1167â1176. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365â2664.13867.  Sugden, E. A. 1985. âPollinators of Astragalus monoensis Barneby (Fabaceae): new host records; potential impact of sheep grazing.â Great Basin Naturalist 45:299â312. Summerville, K. S., and T. O. Crist. 2002. âEffects of timber harvest on forest Lepidoptera: community, guild, and species responses.â Ecological Applications 12(3):820â835. Svensson, B., J. Lagerlöf, and B. G. Svensson. 2000. âHabitat preferences of nestâseeking bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in an agricultural landscape.â Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 77(3):247â 255. Swaileh, K. M., R. M. Hussein, and S. AbuâElhaj. 2004. âAssessment of heavy metal contamination in roadside surface soil and vegetation from the West Bank.â Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 47(1):23â30. Swain, D. L., B. Langenbrunner, J. David Neelin, and A. Hall. 2018. Increasing Precipitation Volatility in Twentyâ FirstâCentury California. Nature Climate Change 8:427â433. Swengel, A. B., and S. R. Swengel. 1999. âObservations of prairie skippers (Oarsima poweshiek, Hesperia dacotae, H. ottoe, H. loenardus pawnee, and Atrytone argos Iowa) [Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) in Iowa, Minnesota, and North Dakota during 1988â1997.â The Great Lakes Entomologist 32:267â292. Swengel, A. B., and S. R. Swengel. 2018. âPatterns of longâterm population trends of three lupineâfeeding butterflies in Wisconsin.â Diversity 10:31. Swengel, S. R., D. Schlicht, F. Olsen, and A. B. Swengel. 2011. âDeclines of prairie butterflies in the midwestern USA.â Journal of Insect Conservation 15:327â339. Swezey, O. H. 1910. âThe Feeding Habits of Hawaiian Lepidoptera.â Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 2(3):131â143. Swezey, O. H. 1954. Forest entomology in Hawaii. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 44. 266 pp. Swezey, O. H. and E. H. Bryan. 1929. âFurther notes on the forest insects of Molokai.â Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 7(2):293â314. Swezey, O. H., and F. X. Williams. 1932. âSome Observations on Forest Insects at the Nauhi Nursery and Vicinity on Hawaii.â Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 8(1):179â190. Symon, D. E. 1999. Solanaceae in: Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaii. W. L. Wagner, D. R. Herbst, and S. H. Sohmer, (eds.). University of Hawaii Press and Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Bishop Museum Special Publications. pp. 1251â1278. Tabashnik, B. E., W. D. Perreira, J. S. Strazanac, and S. L. Montgomery. 1992. âPopulation ecology of the Kamehameha butterfly (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae).â Annals of the Entomological Society of America 85(3):282â285. Tallamy, D. W., and K. J. Shropshire. 2009. âRanking lepidopteran use of native versus introduced plants.â Conservation Biology 23(4):941â947.Â
References and Other Resources R-32 Skórka, P., M. Lenda, D. MoroÅ, K. Kalarus, and P. Tryjanowski. 2013. âFactors affecting road mortality and the suitability of road verges for butterflies.â Biological Conservation 159:148â157. Skórka, P., M. Lenda, D. MoroÅ, R. Martyka, P. Tryjanowski, and W. J. Sutherland. 2015. âBiodiversity collision blackspots in Poland: separation causality from stochasticity in roadkills of butterflies.â Biological Conservation 187:154â163. SnellâRood, E. C., A. Espeset, C. J. Boser, W. A. White, and R. Smykalski. 2014. Anthropogenic Changes in Sodium Affect Neural and Muscle Development in Butterflies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(28):10221â10226. Soderstrom, B., and M. Hedblom. 2007. âComparing movement of four butterfly species in experimental grassland strips.â Journal of Insect Conservation 11(4):333â342. Sonntag, D., H. O. Gao, P. Morse, and M. OâReilly. 2011. Energy and Emission Rates of Highway Mowing Activities. Transportation Research Board 90th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC. Sovell, J. R. 2018. Pawnee montane skipper monitoring study for the Upper South Platte watershed protection and restoration project August 2017. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Spira, T. P. 2001. âPlantâpollinator interactions: a threatened mutualism with implications for the ecology and management of rare plants.â Natural Areas Journal 21(1):78â88. Spomer, S. M., L. C. Higley, T. T. Orwig, G. L. Selby, and L. J. Young. 1993. âClinal variation in Hesperia leonardus (Hesperiidae) in the Loess Hills of the Missouri River Valley.â Journal of the Lepidopteristsâ Society 47:291â302. St. Clair, A. B., P. W. Dunwiddie, J. B. Fant, T. N. Kaye, and A. T. Kramer. 2020. Mixing Source Populations Increases Genetic Diversity of Restored Rare Plant Populations. Restoration Ecology 38:313. Stark, J. D., X. D. Chena, and C. S. Johnson. 2012. âEffects of herbicides on Behrâs metalmark butterfly, a surrogate species for the endangered butterfly, Langeâs metalmark.â Environmental Pollution 164:24â 27. Starr Environmental. 2020. âDocumented plant and arthropod observations on Hawaii.â Available: http://www.starrenvironmental.com/resources/. Accessed: September 2020. SteffanâDewenter, I., and C. Westphal. 2008. âThe interplay of pollinator diversity, pollination services and landscape change.â Journal of Applied Ecology 45(3):737â741. Steidle, Johannes LM, Thomas Kimmich, Michael Csader, and Oliver Betz. 2022. Negative impact of roadside mowing on arthropod fauna and its reduction with âarthropodâfriendlyâ mowing technique. Journal of Applied Entomology). Stevens, L., R. Frankson, K. Kunkel, PâS. Shin, and W. Sweet. 2017. Hawaii State Climate Summary. NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 149âHI. Stoner, K. J. L., and A. Joern. 2004. âLandscape vs. local habitat scale influences to insect communities from tallgrass prairie remnants.â Ecological Applications 14:1306â1320.Â
References and Other Resources R-31 Scott, J. A., and R. E. Stanford. 1981(82). âGeographic variation and ecology of Hesperia leonardus (Hesperiidae).â Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 20:18â35. Seidl, A. L. 1996. âOviposition behavior and larval biology of the endangered Uncompahgre fritillary Boloria acrocnema (Nymphalidae).â Journal of the Lepidopteristsâ Society 50:290â296. Selby, G. 2007. Great Basin Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria nokomis nokomis [W.H. Edwards]): A Technical Conservation Assessment. Selby, G. 2007. Regal Fritillary (Speyeria idalia Drury): a Technical Conservation Assessment. February 9. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/regalfritillary.pdf. Accessed: August 17, 2020. Semmens, B. X., D. J. Semmens, W. E. Thogmartin, R. Wiederholt, L. LópezâHoffman, J. E. Diffendorfer, J. M. Pleasants, K. S. Oberhauser, and O. R. Taylor. 2016. âQuasiâextinction risk and population targets for the Eastern, migratory population of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus).â Scientific Reports 6(1):1â7. Severns, P. M. 2008. âExotic grass invasion impacts fitness of an endangered prairie butterfly, Icaricia icarioides fenderi.â Journal of Insect Conservation 12(6):651â661. Severns, P. M. 2008. âRoad crossing behavior of an endangered grassland butterfly, Icaricia icarioides fenderi Macy (Lycaenidae), between a subdivided population.â Journal of the Lepidopteristsâ Society 62:53â56. Sgrò, C. M., A. J. Lowe, and A. A. Hoffmann. 2011. Building Evolutionary Resilience for Conserving Biodiversity Under Climate Change. Evolutionary Applications 4:326â337. Shanahan, M. 2022. âHoney Bees and Industrial Agriculture: What Researchers Are Missing, and Why Itâs a Problem.â Journal of Insect Science 22(1):14. Shay, K. R. 2014. Pollination ecology of Hawaiian coastal plants. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii. 76 pp. Shochat, E., M. A. Patten, D. W. Morris, D. L. Reinking, D. H. Wolfe, and S. K. Sherrod. 2005. âEcological traps in isodars: effects of tallgrass prairie management on bird nest success.â Oikos 111(1):159â169. Shuey, J. A. 1996. âAnother new Euphyes from the southern United States coastal plain (Hesperiidae).â Journal of the Lepidopteristsâ Society. 50(1):46â53. Shuey, J., E. Jacquart, S. Orr, F. Becker, A. Nyberg, R. Littiken, T. Anchor, and D. Luchik. 2016. Landscapeâscale response to local habitat restoration in the regal fritillary butterfly (Speyeria idalia) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Journal of Insect Conservation 20:773â780. Simberloff, D., and P. Stiling. 1996. âHow risky is biological control?â Ecology 77(7):1965â1974. Sims, S. R., and A. M. Shapiro. 2016. âReproductive strategies and life history evolution of some California Speyeria (Nymphalidae).â Journal of the Lepidopteristsâ Society 70:114â120. Singh, R., A. L. Levitt, E. G. Rajotte, E. C. Holmes, N. Ostiguy, D. Vanengelsdorp, W. I. Lipkin, C. W. Depamphilis, A. L. Toth, and D. L. CoxâFoster. 2010. âRNA viruses in hymenopteran pollinators: evidence of interâtaxa virus transmission via pollen and potential impact on nonâApis hymenopteran species.â PLOS One 5(12):e14357.
References and Other Resources R-30 Schonberg, L., S. Jepsen, and S. H. Black. 2009. Petition to list one species of Hawaiian yellowâfaced bee Hylaeus hilaris as an endangered species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Submitted by the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon. 23 pp. Schonberg, L., S. Jepsen, and S. H. Black. 2009. Petition to list two species of Hawaiian yellowâfaced bees Hylaeus mana and Hylaeus kuakea as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Submitted by the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon. 24 pp. Schultz, C. B. 2001. âRestoring Resources for an Endangered Butterfly.â The Journal of Applied Ecology 38:1007â1019. Schultz, C. B., and J. A. Ferguson. 2019. âDemographic costs and benefits of herbicideâbased restoration to enhance habitat for an endangered butterfly and a threatened plant.â Restoration Ecology 28:3, 564â 572.  Schultz, C. B., and K. M. Dlugosch. 1999. âNectar and hostplant scarcity limit populations of an endangered Oregon butterfly.â Oecologia 119(2):231â238. Schultz, C. B., and P. C. Hammond. 2003. âUsing population viability analysis to develop recovery criteria for endangered insects: Case study of the Fenderâs blue butterfly.â Conservation Biology 17:1372â1385. Schultz, C. B., E. Henry, A. Carleton, T. Hicks, R. Thomas, A. Potter, M. Collins, M. Linders, C. Fimbel, S. Black, H. E. Anderson, G. Diehl, S. Hamman, R. Gilbert, J. Foster, D. Hays, D. Wilderman, R. Davenport, E. Steel, N. Page, P. L. Lilley, J. Heron, N. Kroeker, C. Webb, and B. Reader. 2011. âConservation of PrairieâOak Butterflies in Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia.â Northwest Science: Official Publication of the Northwest Scientific Association 85:361â388. Schultz, C. B., J. L. Zemaitis, C. C. Thomas, M. D. Bowers, and E. E. Crone. 2016. âNonâtarget effects of grassâ specific herbicides differ among species, chemicals and host plants in Euphydryas butterflies.â Journal of Insect Conservation 20(5):867â877. Schultz, C. B., L. M. Brown, E. Pelton, and E. E. Crone. 2017. âCitizen science monitoring demonstrates dramatic declines of monarch butterflies in western North America.â Biological Conservation 214:343â 346. Scott, J. A. 1986. The Butterflies of North America: A Natural History and Field Guide. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Scott, J. A. 1992. The Butterflies of North America: A Natural History and Field Guide. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. 668 pp.  Scott, J. A. 2014. Lepidoptera of North America. 13. Flower visitation by Colorado butterflies (40,615 records) with a review of the literature on pollination of Colorado plants and butterfly attraction (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea). Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Colorado State University.  Scott, J. A. 2020. âButterflies of the Southern Rocky Mountains Area, and Their Natural History and Behavior.â Papilio 27:1â391. Available: https://mountainscholar.org/handle/10217/200723. Accessed: September 29, 2020.Â
References and Other Resources R-29 Rusterholz, H. P., and A. Erhardt. 1998. Effects of Elevated CO2 on Flowering Phenology and Nectar Production of Nectar Plants Important for Butterflies of Calcareous Grasslands. Oecologia 113:341â349. Saarinen, E. V., P. F. Reilly, and J. D. Austin. 2016. âConservation genetics of an endangered grassland butterfly (Oarisma poweshiek) reveals historically high gene flow despite recent and rapid range loss.â Insect conservation and diversity / Royal Entomological Society of London 9:517â528. Saarinen, K., A. Valtonen, J. Jantunen, and S. Saarnio. 2005. âButterflies and diurnal moths along road verges: Does road type affect diversity and abundance?â Biological Conservation 23:403â412. Sakai, A. K., W. L. Wagner, and L. A. Mehrhoff. 2002. âPatterns of endangerment in the Hawaiian flora.â Systematic Biology 51(2):276â302. Salvato, M. H., and H. L. Salvato. 2010. âNotes on the status and ecology of Anaea troglodyta floridalis (Nymphalidae) in Everglades National Park.â Journal of the Lepidopteristsâ Society 64:91â97. Salvato, M. H., and H. L. Salvato. 2010. âNotes on the status and ecology of Strymon acis bartrami (Lycaenidae) in Everglades National Park.â Journal of the Lepidopteristsâ Society 64:154â160. Samways, M. J., P. M. Caldwell, and R. Osborn. 1996. âGroundâliving invertebrate assemblages in native, planted and invasive vegetation in South Africa.â Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 59:19â32. Sanford, M. P. 2006. âConservation of the endangered Carson wandering skipper (Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus Austin and Emmel) in Western Great Basin saltgrass communities.â Natural Areas Journal 26:396â402. Available: https://www.fws.gov/nevada/protected_species/inverts/species/cws.html. Satterfield, D. A., F. X. Villablanca, J. C. Maerz, and S. Altizer. 2016. âMigratory monarchs wintering in California experience low infection risk compared to monarchs breeding yearâround on nonânative milkweed.â Integrative and Comparative Biology 56(2):343â352. Saunders, D. A., R. J. Hobbs, and C. R. Margules. 1991. âBiological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation â a review.â Conservation Biology 5:18â32. Schaffers, A. P., I. P. Raemakers, and K. V. Sykora. 2012. âSuccessful overwintering of arthropods in roadside verges.â Journal of Insect Conservation 16(4):511â522. Schonberg, L., S. Jepsen, and S. H. Black. 2009. Petition to list two species of Hawaiian yellowâfaced bees Hylaeus anthracinus and Hylaeus longiceps as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Submitted by the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon. 49 pp. Schonberg, L., S. Jepsen, and S. H. Black. 2009. Petition to list one species of Hawaiian yellowâfaced bee Hylaeus assimulans as an endangered species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Submitted by the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon. 34 pp. Schonberg, L., S. Jepsen, and S. H. Black. 2009. Petition to list one species of Hawaiian yellowâfaced bee Hylaeus facilis as an endangered species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Submitted by the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon. 38 pp.Â
References and Other Resources R-28 Rea, R. V. 2003. âModifying roadside vegetation management practices to reduce vehicular collisions with moose Alces alces.â Wildlife Biology 9(2):81â91. Ries, L., D. M. Debinski, and M. L. Wieland. 2001. âConservation value of roadside prairie restoration to butterfly communities.â Conservation Biology 15:401â411. Rightmyer, M. G., M. Deyrup, J. S. Ascher, and T. Griswold. 2011. âOsmia species (Hymenoptera, Megachilidae) from the southeastern United States with modified facial hairs: taxonomy, host plants, and conservation status.â ZooKeys:257â278. Rigney, C. L. 2013. Habitat characterization and biology of the threatened Dakota skipper (Hesperia dacotae) in Manitoba. University of Winnipeg. Riotte, J. C. E. 1986. âReâevaluation of Manduca blackburni (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae).â Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 27:79â90. Robins P., R. B. Holmes, and K. Laddish (Eds.). 2001. âBring farm edges back to life!â Landowner Conservation Handbook. Yolo County Resource Conservation District. Woodland, CA. Available: www.yolorcd.ca.gov. 101 pp. Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, I. J. Kitching, G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernández. 2010. HOSTS â A Database of the Worldâs Lepidopteran Hostplants. Natural History Museum, London. Available: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosts.  Royer, R. A., J. E. Austin, and W. E. Newton. 1998. âChecklist and âPollard Walkâ butterfly survey methods on public lands.â The American Midland Naturalist 140(2):358â371. Royer, R. A., R. A. McKenney, and W. E. Newton. 2008. âA characterization of nonâbiotic environmental features of prairies hosting the Dakota skipper (Hesperia dacotae, Hesperiidae) across its remaining US range.â JournalâLepidopterists Society 62:1. Rubinoff, D. and M. San Jose. 2010. âLife history and host range of Hawaiiâs Endangered Blackburnâs Sphinx Moth (Manduca blackburni Butler).â Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 42:53â59. Rubinoff, D., M. San Jose, and A. Y. Kawahara. 2012. âPhylogenetics and species status of Hawaiâiâs endangered Blackburnâs Sphinx moth, Manduca blackburni (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae).â Pacific Science 66(1):31â41. Rubinoff, D., M. San Jose, P. Johnson, R. Wells, K. Osborne, and J. J. Le Roux. 2015. âGhosts of glaciers and the disjunct distribution of a threatened California moth (Euproserpinus euterpe).â Biological Conservation 184:278â289. Runkle, J., K. Kunkel, S. Champion, and D. Easterling. 2017. Nevada State Climate Summary. NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 149âNV. Russell, C., and C. Schultz. 2010. âEffects of grassâspecific herbicides on butterflies: an experimental investigation to advance conservation efforts.â Journal of Insect Conservation 14:53â63.   Russo, L., J. Keller, A. D. Vaudo, C. M. Grozinger, and K. Shea. 2019. Warming Increases Pollen Lipid Concentration in an Invasive Thistle, with Minor Effects on the Associated FloralâVisitor Community. Insects 11.Â
References and Other Resources R-27 Pollard, E., D. O. Elias, M. J. Skelton, and J. A. Thomas. 1975. âA method of assessing the abundance of butterflies in Monks Wood National Nature Reserve in 1973.â Entomol. Gaz 26:79â88. Ponisio, L. C., L. K. MâGonigle, K. C. Mace, J. Palomino, P. de Valpine, and C. Kremen. 2015. âDiversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap.â Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 282(1799):20141396. Portman, Z. M., V. J. Tepedino, and A. D. Tripodi. 2019. âPersistence of an imperiled specialist bee and its rare host plant in a protected area.â Insect Conservation and Diversity 12:183â192. Possley, J., S. Hodges, E. Magnaghi, and J. Maschinski. 2016. âDistribution of Croton linearis in MiamiâDade County preserves with potential for supporting the federally endangered butterflies Strymon acis bartrami and Anaea troglodyta floridalis.â Natural Areas Journal 36:81â87. Potter, A., J. Fleckenstein, and J. Feen. 2002. Mardon skipper range and distribution in Washington in relation to state and federal highways with a habitat description and survey method guidelines. Final report to Washington Department of Transportation. Potts, S. G., J. C. Biesmeijer, C. Kremen, P. Neumann, O. Schweiger, and W. E. Kunin. 2010. âGlobal pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers.â Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25(6):345â353. Pratt, G. F. 2010. âA new larval food plant, Collinsia concolor, for the endangered Quino checkerspot, Euphydryas editha quino.â Journal of the Lepidopteristsâ Society 64:36â37. Pratt, G. F., and J. F. Emmel. 2010. âSites chosen by diapausing or quiescent stage quino checkerspot butterfly, Euphydryas editha quino, (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) larvae.â Journal of Insect Conservation 14:107â 114. Pratt, L. W., J. R. VanDeMark, and M. Euaparadorn. 2010. Limiting factors of five rare plant species in mesic forests, Hawaiâi Volcanoes National Park. 151 pp. Preston, K. L., R. A. Redak, M. F. Allen, and J. T. Rotenberry. 2012. âChanging distribution patterns of an endangered butterfly: Linking local extinction patterns and variable habitat relationships.â Biological Conservation 152:280â290. Pyle, R. M. 2002. The Butterflies of Cascadia. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA. 420 pp. Pyle, R. M., and C. LaBar. 2018. Butterflies of the Pacific Northwest. Timber Press Field Guide. Timber Press, Portland, OR. 461 pp. Quales, W. 2003. âNative plants and integrated roadside vegetation management.â IPM Practitioner 25(3â 4):1â9. Quarles, III, H. D., R. B. Hanawalt, and W. E. Odum. 1974. âLead in small mammals, plants, and soil at varying distances from a highway.â Journal of Applied Ecology 11(3):937â949. Ramalho, C. E., M. Byrne, and C. J. Yates. 2017. A ClimateâOriented Approach to Support DecisionâMaking for Seed Provenance in Ecological Restoration. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 5:95. Rao, R. S. P., and M. K. S. Girish. 2007. âRoad kills: Assessing insect casualties using flagship taxon.â Current Science 92(6):830â843.Â
References and Other Resources R-26 Patrick, B., and H. Patrick. 2012. Butterflies of the South Pacific (Vol. 240). Otago University Press. Dunedin, New Zealand. 240 pp. Patterson, T.A., Grundel, R., Dzurisin, J.D.K., Knutson, R.L., Hellmann, J.J., 2020. Evidence of an extreme weatherâinduced phenological mismatch and a local extirpation of the endangered Karner blue butterfly. Conservation Science and Practice 2, e147. Pelton, E. M., C. B. Schultz, S. J. Jepsen, S. H. Black, and E. E. Crone. 2019. âWestern monarch population plummets: status, probable causes, and recommended conservation actions.â Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7:258. Pelton, E., S. Jepsen, C. Schultz, C. Fallon, and S. H. Black. 2016. State of the monarch butterfly overwintering sites in California. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR. Available: https://www.xerces.org/sites/default/files/2018â05/16â015_01_XercesSoc_StateâofâMonarchâ OverwinteringâSitesâinâCalifornia_web.pdf.  Perkins, R. C. L. 1899. Hymenoptera Aculeata. In David Sharp (Ed.), Fauna Hawaiiensis. Vol. 1, Part 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. pp. 1â115. Perkins, R. C. L. 1913. Introduction. Pages iâccxxvii In D. Sharp (Ed.), Fauna Hawaiiensis. Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, London. Perugini, M., M. Manera, L. Grotta, M. Cesarina Abete, R. Tarasco, and M. Amorena. 2011. âHeavy metal (Hg, Cr, Cd, and Pb) contamination in urban areas and wildlife reserves: honeybees as bioindicators.â Biological Trace Element Research 140(2):170â176. Philip, K. W., and C. D. Ferris. 2016. Butterflies of Alaska, A Field Guide. Second edition. Alaska Entomological Society, Fairbanks, AK. Phillips, B. B., C. Wallace, B. R. Roberts, A. T. Whitehouse, K. J. Gaston, J. M. Bullock, L. V. Dicks, and J. L. Osborne. 2020. âEnhancing road verges to aid pollinator conservation: A review.â Biological Conservation 250:108687. Phillips, B. B., J. M. Bullock, K. J. Gaston, K. A. HudsonâEdwards, M. Bamford, D. Cruse, L. V. Dicks, C. Falagan, C. Wallace, and J. L. Osborne. 2021. âImpacts of multiple pollutants on pollinator activity in road verges.â Journal of Applied Ecology 58(5):1017â1029. Pickens, B. A., and K. V. Root. 2008. Factors Affecting Hostâplant Quality and Nectar Use for the Karner Blue Butterfly: Implications for Oak Savanna Restoration. Pogue, C. D., M. J. Monfils, D. L. Cuthrell, B. J. Heumann, and A. K. Monfils. 2016. âHabitat suitability modeling of the federally endangered poweshiek skipperling in Michigan.â Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 7:359â368. Pokorny, M. L., S. A. Dewey, and S. R. Radosevich. 2006. âGetting Started: Fundamentals of Nonindigenous Plant Species Inventory/Survey.â In: Rew, L. J. and M. L. Pokorny (Eds.) Inventory and Survey Methods for Nonindigenous Plant Species. Available: http://msuinvasiveplants.org/documents/archives_cism/ Inventory_and_survey_methods.pdf#page=10. Polic, D., K. Fiedler, C. Nell, and A. Grill. 2014. âMobility of ringlet butterflies in highâelevation alpine grassland: effects of habitat barriers, resources and age.â Journal of Insect Conservation 18(6):1153â1161.Â
References and Other Resources R-25 Norcini, J. G., J. H. Aldrich, M. Thetford, K. A. KlockâMoore, M. L. Bell, and B. K. Harbaugh. 2001. âGrowth, flowering, and survival of blackâeyed susan from different regional seed sources.â HortTechnology 11(1):26â30. OâDell, R. E., S. L. Young, and V. P. Claassen. 2007. âNative roadside perennial grasses persist a decade after planting in the Sacramento Valley.â California Agriculture 61:79â84. Oberts, G. L. 1986. âPollutants associated with sand and silt applied to roads in Minnesota.â Water Resources Bulletin 22:479â483. OlayaâArenas, P., K. Hauri, M. E. Scharf and I. Kaplan. 2020. âLarval pesticide exposure impacts monarch butterfly performance.â Scientific Reports 10(1):1â12. Ollerton, J., R. Winfree, and S. Tarrant. 2011. âHow many flowering plants are pollinated by animals?â Oikos 120:321â326. OlliffâYang, R. L., T. Gardali, and D. D. Ackerly. 2020. Mismatch Managed? Phenological Phase Extension as a Strategy to Manage Phenological Asynchrony in PlantâAnimal Mutualisms. Restoration Ecology 11:147. Opler, P. A., and A. B. Wright. 1999. A Field Guide to Western Butterflies. Second edition. Peterson Field Guides. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. Oregon Conservation Strategy. Salem, Oregon. Available: https://www.oregonconservationstrategy.org/. Accessed: September 17, 2020. Ornstein, Robert E., and Paul R. Ehrlich. 1989. New World, New Mind: Moving Toward Conscious Evolution. New York: Doubleday. Osborne, K. H., and R. A. Redak. 2000. Microhabitat Conditions Associated with the Distribution of Postdiapause Larvae of Euphydryas editha quino (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Ottewell, K. M., S. C. Donnellan, A. J. Lowe, and D. C. Paton. 2009. âPredicting reproductive success of insectâ versus birdâpollinated scattered trees in agricultural landscapes.â Biological Conservation 142(4):888â 898. Ouin, A., S. Aviron, J. Dover, and F. Burel. 2004. âComplementation/supplementation of resources for butterflies in agricultural landscapes.â Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 103:473â479. Pacific Northwest Moths. 2020. âCopablepharon fuscum Troubridge & Crabo, 1996.â Available: http://pnwmoths.biol.wwu.edu/browse/familyânoctuidae/subfamilyânoctuinae/tribeâ noctuini/copablepharon/copablepharonâfuscum/. Accessed: September 16, 2020. Pan, A. D., and J. S. Wilson. 2020. âA scientific note on the behavior of the endangered Anthricinan yellowâ faced bee (Hylaeus anthracinus) from South Kohala District, Hawaiâi, Hawaiâi.â Apidologie:1â4. Parmesan, C., A. WilliamsâAnderson, M. Moskwik, A. S. Mikheyev, and M. C. Singer. 2015. âEndangered Quino checkerspot butterfly and climate change: Shortâterm success but longâterm vulnerability?â Journal of Insect Conservation 19:185â204. Parr, T. W., and J. M. Way. 1988. âManagement of roadside vegetation: the longâterm effects of cutting.â Journal of Applied Ecology 25:1073â1087.Â
References and Other Resources R-24 Motta, E. V. S., M. Mak, T. K. De Jong, J. E. Powell, A. OâDonnell, K. J. Suhr, I. M. Riddington, and N. A. Moran. 2020. âOral or Topical Exposure to Glyphosate in Herbicide Formulation Impacts the Gut Microbiota and Survival Rates of Honey Bees.â Applied and Environmental Microbiology 86. Munguira, M. L., and J. A. Thomas. 1992. âUse of road verges by butterfly and burnet populations, and the effect of roads on adult dispersal and mortality.â Journal of Applied Ecology 29:316â329. Munoz, P. T., F. P. Torres, and A. G. Megias. 2015. âEffects of roads on insects: A review.â Biodiversity and Conservation 24(3):659â682. Murphy, D. D., K. E. Freas, and S. B. Weiss. 1990. âAn environmentâmetapopulation approach to population viability analysis for a threatened invertebrate.â Conservation Biology 4(1):41â51.  Narango, D. L., D. W. Tallamy, and P. P. Marra. 2017. âNative plants improve breeding and foraging habitat for an insectivorous bird.â Biological Conservation 213:42â50. Narango, D. L., D. W. Tallamy, and P. P. Marra. 2018. Nonnative Plants Reduce Population Growth of an Insectivorous Bird. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(45):11549â11554. Nassauer, J. I., E. S. Dayrell, and Z. Wang. 2006. Perceptions of the View from the Road. AIMS II: A Statewide Survey. June. 2008â34. Prepared for the Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, Minnesota. Available: https://www.lrrb.org/media/reports/200834.pdf National Agricultural Statistic Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 2019. Statistical summary: honey bees.  National Research Council. 2007. Status of Pollinators in North America. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. NatureServe. 2018. Conservation Status. Available: http://explorer.natureserve.org/ranking.htm. NatureServe. 2020. NatureServe Explorer (web application). NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available: https://explorer.natureserve.org/.  Neâeman, G., A. Dafni, and S. G. Potts. 2000. âThe effect of fire on flower visitation rate and fruit set in four coreâspecies in east Mediterranean scrubland.â Plant Ecology 146:97â104. Nemec, K., Stephenson, A., Gonzalez, E.A. and Losch, M., 2021. âLocal Decisionâmakersâ Perspectives on Roadside Revegetation and Management in Iowa, USA.â Environmental Management 67(6):1060â1074. New, T.R., Sands, D.P. and Taylor, G.S., 2021. Roles of roadside vegetation in insect conservation in Australia. Austral Entomology 60(1):128â137. Noordijk, J., K. Delille, A. P. Schaffers, and K. V. Sýkora. 2009. âOptimizing grassland management for flowerâ visiting insects in roadside verges.â Biological Conservation 142:2097â2103. Norcini, J. G. 2014. Madison County Energy Conservation Study 2012â2013 Survey of Roadside Vegetation. Final Report to Florida Department of Transportation. PR6365252 February. 107 pp. Available: https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/defaultâsource/researchâcenter/researchâ center/completed_proj/summary_emo/fdotâpr6365252ârpt.pdf?sfvrsn=95a9fecb_0. Â
References and Other Resources R-23 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. No Date. âHesperia uncas (W. H. Edwards, 1863).â Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota. Available: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/ profile.html?action=elementDetail&selectedElement=IILEP65010. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. No date. âOarisma garita (Reakirt, 1866).â Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota. Available: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/profile.html?action=elementDetail&selectedElement=IILEP57020. Minno, M. C., and M. Minno. 2006. Conservation of the Arogos Skipper, Atrytone arogos arogos (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) in Florida. p. 219â222. In R. F. Noss (ed.) Land of Fire and Water: The Florida Dry Prairie Ecosystem. Proc. Florida Dry Prairie Conf., Sebring, FL. October 5â7, 2006. Available: www.ces.fau.edu/fdpc/proceedings/3â17145_p.21924_Min_FDPC_d.pdf. Mitchell, T. S., L. Agnew, R. Meyer, K. L. Sikkink, K. S. Oberhauser, E. T. Borer, and E. C. SnellâRood. 2020. âTraffic influences nutritional quality of roadside plants for monarch caterpillars.â Science of The Total Environment 724(1):138045. Mok, JâH, H. C. Landphair, and J. R. Naderi. 2006. âLandscape improvement impacts on roadside safety in Texas.â Landscape and Urban Planning 78(3):263â274. Monroe, E. M., K. D. Alexander, and H. B. Britten. 2016. âStill here after all these years: the persistence of the Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly.â Journal of Insect Conservation 20:305â313. Montana Natural Heritage Program. No date. âGarita SkipperlingâOarisma garita.â Montana Field Guide. Available: http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=IILEP57020. Montana Natural Heritage Program. No date. âUncas SkipperâHesperia uncas.â Montana Field Guide. Available: http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=IILEP65010. Mora Alvarez, B. X., R. CarreraâTreviño, and K. A. Hobson. 2019. âMortality of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) at two highway crossing âHotspotsâ during autumn migration in Northeast Mexico.â Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7:273. Morandin, L. A., and C. Kremen. 2013. âBee preference for native versus exotic plants in restored agricultural hedgerows.â Restoration Ecology 21(1):26â32. Moranz, R. A. 2010. The Effects of Ecological Management on Tallgrass Prairie Butterflies and Their Nectar Sources, Ph.D. Thesis. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma. Morris, M. G. 2000. âThe effects of structure and its dynamics on the ecology and conservation of arthropods in British grasslands.â Biological Conservation 95:121â226. Morse, R. A., and N. W. Calderone. 2000. âThe value of honey bees as pollinators of US crops in 2000.â Bee Culture 128(3):1â15. Morton, H. L., and J. O. Moffett. 1972. âOvicidal and larvicidal effects of certain herbicides on honey bees.â Environmental Entomology 1:611â614. Motta, E. V. S., K. Raymann, and N. A. Moran. 2018. Glyphosate Perturbs the Gut Microbiota of Honey Bees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 115(41):10305â10310.Â
References and Other Resources R-22 Memmott, J., and N. M. Waser. 2002. âIntegration of alien plants into a native flowerâpollinator visitation web.â Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences 269:2395â2399. Menz, M. H., R. D. Phillips, R. Winfree, C. Kremen, M. A. Aizen, S. D. Johnson, and K. W. Dixon. 2011. âReconnecting plants and pollinators: challenges in the restoration of pollination mutualisms.â Trends in Plant Science 16(1):4â12. Mesnage, R., and M. N. Antoniou. 2018. âIgnoring adjuvant toxicity falsifies the safety profile of commercial pesticides.â Frontiers in Public Health 5:361. Metalmark Web and Data. âFerrisâ Copper: Lycaena ferrisi K. Johnson & Balogh, 1977.â Available: https://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/species/Lycaenaâferrisi.  Michener, C. D. 2007. The Bees of the World. 2nd Edition. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 972 pp. Michigan State University. No date. âErynnis persius persius: Persius dusky wing.â Available: https://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/species/description/11586/Erynnisâpersiusâpersius.  Milko, L. V., N. M. Haddad, and S. L. Lance. 2012. âDispersal via Stream Corridors Structures Populations of the Endangered St. Francisâ Satyr Butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii francisci).â Journal of Insect Conservation 16:263â273. Miller, A. E., B. J. Brosi, K. N. Magnacca, G. C. Daily, and L. Pejchar. 2015. âPollen carried by native and nonâ native bees in the largeâscale reforestation of pastureland in Hawaii: implications for pollination.â Pacific Science 69(5):67â79. Miller, J. C., and P. C. Hammond. 2007. Butterflies and Moths of Pacific Northwest Forests and Woodlands: Rare, Endangered, and ManagementâSensitive Species. 243 pp. Miller, Lee D., Donald J. Harvey, and Jacqueline Y. Miller. 1985. âNotes on the genus Euphyes with description of a new subspecies (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae).â The Florida Entomologist 68:323â335. Minnerath, A., M. Vaughan, and E. Mader. 2016. Maritime Northwest Citizen Science Monitoring Guide for Bees and Butterflies. 60 pp. The Xerces Society, Portland, OR. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. No date. âAtrytone arogos iowa (Scudder, 1868).â Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota. Available: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/profile.html?action=elementDetail&selectedElement=IILEP70012. Accessed: October 4, 2020. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. No date. âHesperia assiniboia (Lyman, 1892).â Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota. Available: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/ profile.html?action=elementDetail&selectedElement=IILEP65190.  Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. No date. âHesperia leonardus: Basis for Listing.â Available: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/profile.html?action=elementDetail&selectedElement=IILEP65060. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. No date. âHesperia ottoe (W. H. Edwards, 1866).â Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota. Available: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/ profile.html?action=elementDetail&selectedElement=IILEP65050. Â
References and Other Resources R-21 Marschalek, D. A., D. H. Deutschman, S. Strahm, and M. E. Berres. 2016. âDynamic landscapes shape postâ wildfire recolonisation and genetic structure of the endangered Hermes copper (Lycaena hermes) butterfly: Hermes copper recolonisation and genetics.â Ecological Entomology 41:327â337. Marschalek, D. A., J. A. Jesu, and M. E. Berres. 2013. âImpact of nonâlethal genetic sampling on the survival, longevity and behaviour of the Hermes copper (Lycaena hermes) butterfly.â Insect Conservation and Diversity / Royal Entomological Society of London 6:658â662. Mastro, L. L., M. R. Conover, and S. N. Frey. 2008. âDeerâvehicle collision prevention techniques.â Humanâ Wildlife Conflicts 2(1):80â92. Mattoni, R. 1992. Rediscovery of the endangered Palos Verdes blue butterfly, Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis Perkins and Emmel (Lycaenidae). The Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 31:180â 194. Mattoni, R., T. Longcore, C. Zonneveld, and V. Novotny. 2001. âAnalysis of transect counts to monitor population size in endangered insects: The case of the El Segundo blue butterfly, Euphilotes bernardino allyni.â Journal of Insect Conservation 5:197â206. Mattoni, R., T. Longcore, Z. Krenova, and A. Lipman. 1998. âMass rearing the endangered Palos Verdes blue butterfly (Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis: Lycaenidae).â The Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 37:55â67. Mattoni, Rudi, Kurt Medinger, Richard Rogers, Christopher D. Nagano. 1997. Final recovery plan for the Delhi sands flowerâloving fly. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. McCleery, R. A., A. R. Holdorf, L. L. Hubbard, and B. D. Peer. 2015. âMaximizing the Wildlife Conservation Value of Road RightâofâWays in an Agriculturally Dominated Landscape.â PLOS ONE 10(3):1â19.  McCorkle, D. V., and P. C. Hammond. 1988. âBiology of Speyeria zerene hippolyta (Nymphalidae) in a marineâ modified environment.â Journal of the Lepidopteristsâ Society 42:184â195. McGregor, S. E. 1976. Insect Pollination of Cultivated Crop Plants. USDA Agriculture Handbook No. 496. Available: https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/20220500/onlinepollinationhandbook.pdf. Accessed: November 2020. McKenna, D. D., K. M. McKenna, S. B. Malcom, and M. R. Berenbaum. 2001. âMortality of Lepidoptera along roadways in central Illinois.â Journal of the Lepidopterists Society 55(2):63â68. Medeiros, A. C., L. L. Loope, and F. R. Cole. 1986. âDistribution of ants and their effects on endemic biota of Haleakala and Hawaii Volcanoes National Park: a preliminary assessment.â Proceedings of the 6th Conference of Natural Sciences, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Pp. 39â52. Medeiros, A., and E. vonAllmen. 2006. Restoration of a native Hawaiian dryland forest at Auwahi, Maui. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2006â3035. Medeiros, M. J., J. A. Eiben, W. P. Haines, R. L. Kaholoaa, C. B. A. King, P. D. Krushelnycky, K. N. Magnacca, D. Rubinoff, F. Starr, and K. Starr. 2013. âThe importance of insect monitoring to conservation actions in Hawaii.â Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 45:149â166. Meissen, J. C., A. J. Glidden, M. E. Sherrard, K. J. Elgersma, and L. L. Jackson. 2019. âSeed mix design and first year management influence multifunctionality and costâeffectiveness in prairie reconstruction.â Restoration Ecology 28(4):807â816.Â
References and Other Resources R-20 Magnacca, K. N. 2005. Species Profile: Hylaeus assimulans. In Shepherd, M. D., D. M. Vaughan, and S. H. Black (Eds.), Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. CDâROM Version 1 (May 2005). The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR. Magnacca, K. N. 2005. Species Profile: Hylaeus facilis. In Shepherd, M. D., D. M. Vaughan, and S. H. Black (Eds.), Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. CDâROM Version 1 (May 2005). The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR. Magnacca, K. N. 2005. Species Profile: Hylaeus hilaris. In Shepherd, M. D., D. M. Vaughan, and S. H. Black (Eds.), Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. CDâROM Version 1 (May 2005). The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR.  Magnacca, K. N. 2005. Species Profile: Hylaeus kuakea In Shepherd, M. D., D. M. Vaughan, and S. H. Black (Eds.), Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. CDâROM Version 1 (May 2005). The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR. Magnacca, K. N. 2005. Species Profile: Hylaeus longiceps. In Shepherd, M. D., D. M. Vaughan, and S. H. Black (Eds.), Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. CDâROM Version 1 (May 2005). The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR.  Magnacca, K. N. 2005. Species Profile: Hylaeus mana. In Shepherd, M. D., D. M. Vaughan, and S. H. Black (Eds.), Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. CDâROM Version 1 (May 2005). The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR. Magnacca, K. N. 2007. âConservation status of the native bees of Hawaii, Hylaeus (Nesoprosopis) (Hymenoptera: Apoidea).â Pacific Science 61(2):173â190. Magnacca, K. N. 2007. âNew records of Hylaeus (Nesoprosopis) and Ceratina bees in Hawaiâi.â Bishop Museum Occasional Papers 96:44â45. Honolulu, Hawaii. Magnacca, K. N. 2018. Personal database of Hawaiian Hylaeus records. Entomological Specialist, Oahu Army Natural Resources Program. Magnacca, K. N., and B. N. Danforth. 2006. âEvolution and biogeography of native Hawaiian Hylaeus bees (Hymenoptera: Colletidae).â Cladistics 22(5):393â411. Magnacca, K. N., and C. King. 2013. Assessing the presence and distribution of 23 Hawaiian yellowâfaced bee species on lands adjacent to military installations on Oâahu and Hawaiâi Island. Technical Report No. 185. Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaiâi. 39 pp. Magrach, A., J. P. GonzálezâVaro, M. Boiffier, M. Vilà , and I. Bartomeus. 2017. âHoneybee spillover reshuffles pollinator diets and affects plant reproductive success.â Nature Ecology & Evolution 1(9):1299â1307. Marschalek, D. A. 2004. Factors influencing population viability of hermes copper (Lycaena hermes). MS, San Diego State University. Marschalek, D. A., and D. H. Deutschman. 2008. âHermes copper (Lycaena [Hermelycaena] hermes: Lycaenidae): life history and population estimation of a rare butterfly.â Journal of Insect Conservation 12:97â105. Marschalek, D. A., and M. W. Klein. 2010. âDistribution, ecology, and conservation of Hermes copper (Lycaenidae: Lycaena [Hermelycaena] hermes).â Journal of Insect Conservation 14:721â730.Â
References and Other Resources R-19 Lampinen, J. and Anttila, N., 2021. Reconciling road verge management with grassland conservation is met with positive attitudes among stakeholders, but faces implementation barriers related to resources and valuation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 64(5), pp.823â845. Lange, M., N. Eisenhauer, C. A. Sierra, H. Bessler, C. Engels, R. I. Griffiths, P. G. MelladoâVázquez, A. A. Malik, J. Roy, S. Scheu, S. Steinbeiss, B. C. Thomson, S. E. Trumbore, and G. Gleixner. 2015. âPlant diversity increases soil microbial activity and soil carbon storage.â Nature Communications 6:6707. Launer, A. E., D. D. Murphy, J. M. Hoekstra, and H. R. Sparrow. 1992. âThe endangered Myrtleâs silverspot butterfly: present status and initial conservation planning.â The Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 31:132â146. Lavsund, S., and F. Sandegren. 1991. âMooseâvehicle relations in Sweden: a review.â Alces 27:118â126. Leharne, S., D. Charesworth, and B. Chowdhry. 1992. âA survey of metal levels in street dusts in an inner London neighbourhood.â Environment International 18:263â270. Liebherr, J. K., and D. A. Polhemus. 1997. âR. C. L. Perkins: 100 years of Hawaiian entomology.â Pacific Science 51(4):343â355. Lindzey, S., and E. F. Connor. 2011. âMonitoring the mission blue butterfly using immature stages.â Journal of Insect Conservation 15:765â773. Longcore, T., C. S. Lam, P. Kobernus, E. Polk, and J. P. Wilson. 2010. âExtracting useful data from imperfect monitoring schemes: endangered butterflies at San Bruno Mountain, San Mateo County, California (1982â2000) and implications for habitat management.â Journal of Insect Conservation 14:335â346. Lotts, K., and T. Naberhaus, coordinators. 2017. Butterflies and moths of North America. Available: www.butterfliesandmoths.org (Version 09292020). Louda, S. M., C. Kendall, J. Connor, and D. Simberloff. 1997. âEcological effects of an insect introduced for the biological control of weeds.â Science 277:1088â1090. Lövei, G. L., A. Macleod, and J. M. Hickman. 1998. âDispersal and effects of barriers on the movement of the New Zealand hover fly Melanostoma fasciatum (Dipt., Syrphidae) on cultivated land.â Journal of Applied Entomology 122(1â5):115â120. Lucey, A., and S. Barton. 2010. Public Perception and Sustainable Roadside Vegetation Management strategies. Available: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.347.2930& rep=rep1&type=pdf.  Macdonald, E., R. Sanders, and P. Supawanich. 2008. The Effects of Transportation Corridorsâ Roadside Design Features on User Behavior and Safety, and Their Contributions to Health, Environmental Quality, and Community Economic Vitality: A Literature Review. University of California Transportation Center, Research Report 878.  Macgregor, C. J., M. J. Pocock, R. Fox, and D. M. Evans. 2015. âPollination by nocturnal Lepidoptera, and the effects of light pollution: a review.â Ecological Entomology 40(3):187â198. Magnacca, K. N. 2005. Species Profile: Hylaeus anthracinus. In Shepherd, M. D., D. M. Vaughan, and S. H. Black (Eds.), Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. CDâROM Version 1 (May 2005). The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR. Â
References and Other Resources R-18 Kleintjes Neff, P., C. Locke, and E. LeeâMÓder. 2017. âAssessing a farmland setâaside conservation program for an endangered butterfly: USDA State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) for the Karner blue butterfly.â Journal of Insect Conservation 21:929â941. Koch, J. B., and H. F. Sahli. 2013. âPatterns of flower visitation across elevation and successional gradients in Hawai âi.â Pacific Science 67(2):253â266. Koch, J. B., and J. P. Strange. 2012. âThe status of Bombus occidentalis and B. moderatus in Alaska with special focus on Nosema bombi incidence.â Northwest Science 86(3):212â220. Kociolek, A., C. Grilo, and S. Jacobson. 2015. âFlight doesnât solve everything: Mitigation of road impacts on Birds.â In: van der Ree, Rodney, Daniel J. Smith, and Clara Grilo (Eds.) Handbook of Road Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, UK. pp. 281â289. Kremen, C., K. S. Ullman, and R. W. Thorp. 2011. âEvaluating the quality of citizenâscientist data on pollinator communities.â Conservation Biology 25(3):607â617. Kremen, C., N. M. Williams, and R. W. Thorp. 2002a. Crop Pollination from Native Bees at Risk From Agricultural Intensification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(26):16812â16816. Kremen, C., R. L. Bugg, N. Nicola, S. A. Smith, R. W. Thorp, and N. M. Williams. 2002b. âNative bees, native plants, and crop pollination in California.â Fremontia 30(3â4):41â49. Kruess, A., and T. Tscharntke. 2002. âGrazing intensity and the diversity of grasshoppers, butterflies, and trapâ nesting bees and wasps.â Conservation Biology 16:1570â80. Kudo, G., and E. J. Cooper. 2019. âWhen spring ephemerals fail to meet pollinators: mechanism of phenological mismatch and its impact on plant reproduction.â Proceedings of the Royal Society B 286(1904):20190573. Kuefler, D., N. M. Haddad, S. Hall, B. Hudgens, B. Bartel, and E. Hoffman. 2008. âDistribution, Population Structure and Habitat Use of the Endangered Saint Francis Satyr Butterfly, Neonympha mitchellii francisci.â American Midland Naturalist 159(2):298â320. Kuppler, J., M. K. Höfers, W. Trutschnig, A. C. Bathke, J. A. Eiben, C. C. Daehler, and R. R. Junker. 2017. âExotic flower visitors exploit large floral trait spaces resulting in asymmetric resource partitioning with native visitors.â Functional Ecology 31(12):2244â2254. Kutlesa, N. J., and S. Caveney. 2001. âInsecticidal activity of glufosinate through glutamine depletion in a caterpillar.â Pest Management Science 57:25â32. LaBar, C. C., and C. B. Schultz. 2012. âInvestigating the role of herbicides in controlling invasive grasses in prairie habitats: effects on nonâtarget butterflies.â Natural Areas Journal 32(2):177â189. Lach, L. 2005. âInterference and exploitation competition of three nectarâthieving invasive ant species.â Insectes Sociaux 52:257â262. Lach, L., and L. M. HooperâBui. 2010. Consequences of ant invasions. In: Lach, L., C. L. Parr, and K. L. Abbott (Eds.), Ant Ecology. Oxford University Press, Inc., Oxford. pp. 261â286. Lambert, A. M. 2011. Natural history and population ecology of a rare pierid butterfly, Euchloe ausonides insulanus Guppy and Shepard (Pieridae). Ph.D., University of Washington.Â
References and Other Resources R-17 Jordan, S. F., S. H. Black, and S. Jepsen. 2012. Petition to list the island marble butterfly, Euchloe ausonides insulanus (Guppy and Shepard, 2001) as an endangered species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, Oregon. Available: https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ tess/petition/631.pdf. Accessed December 29, 2021.  Jump, P. M., T. Longcore, and C. Rich. 2006. âEcology and distribution of a newly discovered population of the federally threatened Euproserpinus euterpe (Sphingidae).â Journal of the Lepidopteristsâ Society 60:41â 50. Kantola, T., J. L. Tracy, K. A. Baum, M. A. Quinn, and R. N. Coulson. 2019. âSpatial risk assessment of eastern monarch butterfly road mortality during autumn migration within the southern corridor.â Biological Conservation 231:150â160. Kearns, C. A. 2001. âNorth American dipteran pollinators: Assessing their value and conservation status.â Conservation Ecology 5(1). Kearns, C. A., and J. D. Thompson. 2001. The Natural History of Bumble bees. A Sourcebook for Investigations. Boulder: University Press of Colorado. Kearns, C. A., D. A. Inouye, and N. M. Waser. 1998. âEndangered mutualisms: the conservation of plantâ pollinator interactions.â Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics 29:83â113. Keilsohn, W., D. L. Narango, and D. W. Tallamy. 2018. âRoadside habitat impacts insect traffic mortality.â Journal of Insect Conservation 22(2):183â188. Kerwin, A. E. 2011. Conservation assessment for the mardon skipper (Polites mardon). Version 2.0. Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program, USDA Forest Service Region 6, and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington. 60 pp. Kevan, P. G. 1975. âForest application of the insecticide fenitrothion and its effect on wild bee pollinators (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) of lowbush blueberries (Vaccinium spp.) in Southern New Brunswick, Canada.â Biological Conservation 7(4):301â309. Kevan, P. G. 1999. âPollinators as bioindicators of the state of the environment: species, activity and diversity.â Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 74(1â3):373â393. Keysmoths.com. No date. âEuphyes pilatka klotsi, Palatka Skipper.â "Available: https://www.keysmoths.com/euphyesâpilatkaâklotsiâpalatkaâskip/.  Kingsley, K. J. 1996. âBehavior of the Delhi Sands FlowerâLoving Fly (Diptera: Mydidae), a LittleâKnown Endangered Species.â Annals of the Entomological Society of America 89:883â891. Kingsley, K. J. 2002. âPopulation dynamics, resource use, and conservation needs of the delhi sands flowerâ loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis Cazier) (Diptera: Mydidae), an Endangered Species.â Journal of Insect Conservation 6:93â101. Kitching, I. J., and J. M. Cadiou. 2000. Hawkmoths of the World. Comstock Publishing Associates, Cornell University Press. Ithaca, New York. 227 pp. Klein, A. M., B. E. Vaissiere, J. H. Cane, I. SteffanâDewenter, S. A. Cunningham, C. Kremen, and T. Tscharntke. 2007. âImportance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops.â Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 274(1608):303â313.Â
References and Other Resources R-16 Humbert, JâY., J. Ghazoul, G. J. Sauter, and T. Walter. 2010. âImpact of different meadow mowing techniques on field invertebrates.â Journal of Applied Entomology 134(7):592â599. Huntzinger, M. 2003. âEffects of fire management practices on butterfly diversity in the forested western United States.â Biological Conservation 113(1):1â12. iNaturalist. 2020. iNaturalist Network (web application): âHylaeus.â Available: http://www.inaturalist.org/. Accessed: September 2020. Ing, K., and C. L. Mogren. 2020. âEvidence of competition between honey bees and Hylaeus anthracinus (Hymenoptera: Colletidae), an endangered Hawaiian yellowâfaced bee.â Pacific Science 74(1):75â85. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2018: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C Above PreâIndustrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty. V. Massonâ Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.âO. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. MoufoumaâOkia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.). World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Intergovernmental ScienceâPolicy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). 2016. The assessment report on pollinators, pollination and food production. S. G. Potts, V. L. ImperatrizâFonseca, and H. T. Ngo (Eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental ScienceâPolicy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 552 pages. Available: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3402856. Jablonski, B., Z. Koltowsk, J. Marcinkowski, H. RybakâChmielewska, T. Szczesna, and Z. Warakomska. 1995. âZawartosc metali ciezkich [Pb, Cd, i Cu] w nektarze, miodzie i pylku pochodzacym z roslin rosnacych przy szlakach komunikacyjnych [The content of heavy metals (Pb, Cd and Cu) in the nectar, honey and pollen collected from roadside plants].â Pszczelnicze Zeszyty Naukowe 39:129â144. Jacobsen, R. L., N. J. Albrecht, and K. E. Bolin. 1990. âWildflower Routes: Benefits of a Management Program for Minnesota RightâofâWay Prairies.â Proceedings of the Twelfth North American Prairie Conference 153â158. James, D. G., and D. Nunnallee. 2011. Life Histories of Cascadia Butterflies. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. 447 pp. Jepsen, S., E. Evans, R. Thorp, R. Hatfield, and S. H. Black. 2013. Petition to List the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee, Bombus affinis (Cresson), 1863, as an Endangered Species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Available: https://www.xerces.org/sites/default/files/2018â 07/Bombusâaffinisâpetition.pdf.  Johnson, A. M. 2000. Best Practices Handbook on Roadside Vegetation Management. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Report # 2000â19, University of Minnesota 132 pp., p. 78. Available: http://www.lrrb.org/media/reports/200820.pdf. Accessed: November 2020. Johst, K., M. Drechsler, J. Thomas, and J. Settele. 2006. âInfluence of mowing on the persistence of two endangered large blue butterfly species.â Journal of Applied Ecology 43(2):333â342.Â
References and Other Resources R-15 Herrmann, C. R. 2017. Living on the edge: assessing the effects of catastrophic fire on plants utilized by two endemic subspecies of spring mountains butterflies. MS, University of Nevada Las Vegas. Hess, A. N., R. J. Hess, J. L. M. Hess, B. Paulan, and J. A. M. Hess. 2014. âAmerican bison influences on lepidopteran and wild blue lupine distribution in an oak savanna landscape.â Journal of Insect Conservation 18:327â338. Holdren, C. E., and P. R. Ehrlich. 1981. âLong range dispersal in checkerspot butterflies: Transplant experiments with Euphydryas gillettii.â Oecologia 50:125â129. Hopwood, J. L. 2008. âThe contribution of roadside grassland restorations to native bee conservation.â Biological Conservation 141:2632â2640. Hopwood, J., L. Winkler, B. Deal, and M. Chivvis. 2010. Use of roadside prairie plantings by native bees. Living Roadway Trust Fund. Available: http://www.iowalivingroadway.com/ResearchProjects/90â00âLRTFâ 011.pdf. Accessed: October 2014. Hopwood, J., S. H. Black, and S. Fleury. 2016a. Pollinators and Roadsides: Best Management Practices for Managers and Decision Makers. 96 pp. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Available: https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecosystems/Pollinators_Roadsides/BMPs_pollinators_roadsid es.pdf. Hopwood, J., S. H. Black, and S. Fleury. 2016b. Identifying the Current State of Practice for Vegetation Management Associated with Pollinator Health and Habitat: An Interview Report. 38 pp. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Available: https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ env_topics/ecosystems/pollinator_reports/pollinator_interview_rpt.aspx. Hopwood, J., S. H. Black, E. LeeâMader, A. Charlap, R. Preston, K. Mozumder, and S. Fleury. 2015. Literature Review: Pollinator Habitat Enhancement and Best Management Practices in Highway RightsâofâWay. Prepared by The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation in collaboration with ICF International. 68 pp. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Houseal, G., and D. Smith. 2000. âSourceâidentified seed: The Iowa roadside experience.â Ecological Restoration 18(3):173â183. Howarth, F. G. 1985. âImpacts of alien land arthropods and mollusks on native plants and animals in Hawaii.â Hawaiiâs terrestrial ecosystems: preservation and management. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii. Pp. 149â179. Howarth, F. G., and W. P. Mull. 1992. Hawaiian Insects and Their Kin. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu, Hawaii. 160 pp. Howarth, F. G., D. J. Preston, and R. Pyle. 2012. Surveying for Terrestrial Arthropods (Insects and Relatives) Occurring within the Kahului Airport Environs, Maui, Hawaiâi: Synthesis Report. Hawaii Biological Survey. Bishop Museum Technical Report 58, Honolulu, Hawaii. 225 pp. Huijser, M. P., and A. P. Clevenger. 2006. âHabitat and corridor function of rightsâofâway.â In The Ecology of Transportation: Managing Mobility for the Environment (pp. 233â254). Springer Netherlands. Huijser, M. P., P. McGowen, J. Fuller, A. Hardy, A. Kociolek, A. P. Clevenger, D. Smith, and R. Ament. 2008. WildlifeâVehicle Collision Reduction Study: Report to Congress. FHWAâHRTâ08â034. Available: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/08034/08034.pdf. Â
References and Other Resources R-14 Hatfield, R., R. Jepsen, R. Thorp, L. Richardson, S. Colla, and S. Foltz Jordan. 2015. âBombus pensylvanicus.â The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T21215172A21215281. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015â4.RLTS.T21215172A21215281.en. Accessed: March 24, 2020. Hatfield, R., S. Jepsen, E. Mader, S. H. Black, and M. Shepherd. 2012. Conserving Bumble Bees, Guidelines for Creating and Managing Habitat for Americaâs Declining Pollinators. 32 pp. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR. Hatfield, R., S. Jepsen, R. Thorp, L. Richardson, and S. Colla. 2015. âBombus terricola.â The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T44937505A46440206. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015â2.RLTS.T44937505A46440206.en. Accessed: March 24, 2020. Hatfield, R., S. Jepsen, R. Thorp, L. Richardson, S. Colla, and S. Foltz Jordan. 2015. âBombus fervidus.â The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T21215132A21215225. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015â4.RLTS.T21215132A21215225.en. Accessed: March 24, 2020. Hatfield, R., S. Jepsen, R. Thorp, R. Richardson, and S. Colla. 2015. âBombus suckleyi.â The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T44937699A46440241. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015â2.RLTS.T44937699A46440241.en. Accessed: March 24, 2020. Hausfather, Z., H. F. Drake, T. Abbott, and G. A. Schmidt. 2020. Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections. Geophysical Research Letters 47:1535. Havens, K., and P. Vitt. 2016. âThe importance of phenological diversity in seed mixes for pollinator restoration.â Natural Areas Journal 36(4):531â537. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife. 2015. Draft Habitat Conservation Plan for Game Management at Puâu Waâawaâa and Puâu Anahulu. Napuâu Conservation Project. 269 pp. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. 2015. Hawaiâiâs State Wildlife Action Plan. Prepared by H. T. Harvey and Associates, Honolulu, Hawaiâi. 1055 pp. Hayhoe, K., D. Cayan, C. B. Field, P. C. Frumhoff, E. P. Maurer, N. L. Miller, S. C. Moser, S. H. Schneider, K. N. Cahill, E. E. Cleland, L. Dale, R. Drapek, R. M. Hanemann, L. S. Kalkstein, J. Lenihan, C. K. Lunch, R. P. Neilson, S. C. Sheridan, and J. H. Verville. 2004. Emissions Pathways, Climate Change, and Impacts on California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(34):12422â12427. Heddle, M. L. 2004. Tinostoma smaragditis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T21913A9339981. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T21913A9339981.en. Accessed: September 2020. Heddle, M. L., K. R. Wood, A. Asquith, and R. G. Gillespie. 2000. âConservation status and research on the Fabulous Green Sphinx of Kauaâi, Tinostoma smaragditis (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae), including checklists of the vascular plants of the diverse mesic forests of Kauaâi, Hawaiâi.â Pacific Science 54(1):1â9. Henry, E. 2010. Master of Science Thesis: âA first step towards successful habitat restoration and reintroduction: Understanding oviposition site selection of an imperiled butterfly, Mardon skipper.â Washington State University, School of Earth and Environmental Science.  Herrera, C. M. 1989. âPollinator abundance, morphology, and flower visitation rate: analysis of the âquantityâ component in a plantâpollinator system.â Oecologia 80:241â248.Â
References and Other Resources R-13 Hammond, P. 2012. Personal communication with Sarah Foltz Jordan, the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Lepidopterist and Research Associate in the Department of Entomology, Oregon State University. January 3. Hansen, M. J., and A. P. Clevenger. 2005. âThe influence of disturbance and habitat on the presence of nonâ native plant species along transport corridors.â Biological Conservation 125(2):249â259. Hanula, J. L., and S. Horn. 2011. âRemoving an invasive shrub (Chinese privet) increases native bee diversity and abundance in riparian forests of the southeastern United States.â Insect Conservation and Diversity 4(4):275â283. HarmonâThreatt, A. N., and C. Kremen. 2015. âBumble bees selectively use native and exotic species to maintain nutritional intake across highly variable and invaded local floral resource pools.â Ecological Entomology 40(4):471â478. HarperâLore, B., and M. Wilson, Eds. 2000. Roadside Use of Native Plants. Island Press, Washington, DC, 665 pp. HarperâLore, B., M. Johnson, and W. F. Ostrum. 2013. Vegetation Management: An Ecoregional Approach. United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Harrison, G. L. 2014. Economic Impact of Ecosystem Services Provided by Ecologically Sustainable Roadside Right of Way Vegetation Management Practices. University of Florida/IFAS, Wakulla County Extension Service. Harvey, J. A., K. Tougeron, R. Gols, R. Heinen, M. Abarca, P. K. Abram, Y. Basset, M. Berg, C. Boggs, J. Brodeur, P. Cardoso, J. G. de Boer, G. R. De Snoo, C. Deacon, J. E. Dell, N. Desneux, M. E. Dillon, G. A. Duffy, L. A. Dyer, J. Ellers, A. EspÃndola, J. Fordyce, M. L. Forister, C. Fukushima, M. J. G. Gage, C. GarcÃaâRobledo, C. Gely, M. Gobbi, C. Hallmann, T. Hance, J. Harte, A. Hochkirch, C. Hof, A. A. Hoffmann, J. G. Kingsolver, G. P. A. Lamarre, W. F. Laurance, B. Lavandero, S. R. Leather, P. Lehmann, C. Le Lann, M. M. LópezâUribe, C.âS. Ma, G. Ma, J. Moiroux, L. Monticelli, C. Nice, P. J. Ode, S. Pincebourde, W. J. Ripple, M. Rowe, M. J. Samways, A. Sentis, A. A. Shah, N. Stork, J. S. Terblanche, M. P. Thakur, M. B. Thomas, J. M. Tylianakis, J. Van Baaren, M. Van de Pol, W. H. Van der Putten, H. Van Dyck, W. C. E. P. Verberk, D. L. Wagner, W. W. Weisser, W. C. Wetzel, H. A. Woods, K. A. G. Wyckhuys, and S. L. Chown. 2022. Scientistsâ warning on climate change and insects. Ecological Monographs: e1553. Hatfield, R. G., and G. LeBuhn. 2007. âPatch and landscape factors shape community assemblage of bumble bees, Bombus spp. (Hymenoptera: Apidae), in montane meadows.â Biological Conservation 139:150â 158. Hatfield, R. G., S. R. Colla, S. Jepsen, L. L. Richardson, and R. W. Thorp. 2016. International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Assessments for North American Bombus spp. for the North American IUCN Bumble Bee Specialist Group. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR. Hatfield, R., C. Fallon, and M. Blackburn. 2018. Mardon skipper (Polites mardon) distance sampling surveys at four sentinel sites in Oregon and Washington: Year 5. Final report to the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP). The Xerces Society, Portland, OR. 31 pp.Â
References and Other Resources R-12 Haack, R. A. 1993. The endangered Karner blue butterfly (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae): biology, management considerations, and data gaps. Haan, N. L., and D. A. Landis. 2019. âGrassland disturbance increases monarch butterfly oviposition and decreases arthropod predator abundance.â Biological Conservation 233:185â192. Haan, N. L., J. D. Bakker, P. W. Dunwiddie, and M. J. Linders. 2018. âInstarâspecific effects of host plants on survival of endangered butterfly larvae: Host plants and caterpillar ontogeny.â Ecological Entomology 43:742â753. Habel, J. C., M. Husemann, T. Schmitt, and W. Ulrich. 2020. âIslandâmainland lepidopteran assemblies: a blueâ print for species conservation in fragmented habitats.â Biodiversity and Conservation 29(11):3313â3325. Habel, J. C., W. Ulrich, and T. Schmitt. 2020. âButterflies in corridors: quality matters for specialists.â Insect Conservation and Diversity 13(1):91â98. Haddad, N. M. 1999. âCorridor and distance effects on interpatch movements: a landscape experiment with butterflies.â Ecological Applications 9:612â622.  Haddad, N. M., and K. A. Baum. 1999. âAn experimental test of corridor effects on butterfly densities.â Ecological Applications 9:623â633.  Haddad, N. M., B. Hudgens, C. Damiani, K. Gross, D. Kuefler, and K. Pollock. 2008. âDetermining optimal population monitoring for rare butterflies.â Conservation Biology 22(4):929â940. Haines, W. 2018. Personal communication with Michele Blackburn and Candace Fallon, the Xerces Society. Research Entomologist, Hawaii Invertebrate Program, Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife, University of Hawaii, Center for Conservation Research and Training, Honolulu, Hawaii. 22 October 2018. Haines, W. 2019. Personal communication with Michele Blackburn, Conservation Biologist, the Xerces Society. Research Entomologist, Hawaii Invertebrate Program, Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife University of Hawaii, Center for Conservation Research and Training. January 8â10, 2019. Halbritter, D. A., J. C. Daniels, D. C. Whitaker, and L. Huang. 2015. âReducing mowing frequency increases floral resource and butterfly (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea) abundance in managed roadside margins.â Florida Entomologist 98(4):1081â1092. Hall, F. C. 2002. Photo Point Monitoring Handbook. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWâGTRâ526. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. Available: https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr526/. Hamm, C. A., B. L. Williams, and D. A. Landis. 2013. âNatural history and conservation status of the endangered Mitchellâs satyr butterfly: synthesis and expansion of our knowledge regarding Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii (French 1889).â Journal of the Lepidopteristsâ Society 67:15â28. Hamm, C. A., V. Rademacher, D. A. Landis, and B. L. Williams. 2013. Data from: Conservation genetics and the implication for recovery of the endangered Mitchellâs satyr butterfly, Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii. Dryad Digital Repository.Â
References and Other Resources R-11 Gjessing, E., E. Lygren, L. Berglind, T. Gulbrandsen, and R. Skanne. 1984. âEffect of highway runoff on lake water quality.â Science of the Total Environment 33(1â4):245â257. Glenny, W. R., J. B. Runyon, and L. A. Burkle. 2018. âDrought and increased CO2 alter floral visual and olfactory traits with contextâdependent effects on pollinator visitation.â New Phytologist 220(3):785â798. Gorelick, G. A., and R. S. Wielgus. 1968. âNotes and observations on the biology and host preferences of Vanessa tameamea (Nymphalidae).â Journal of the Lepidopteristsâ Society 22(2):111â114. Goulson, D. 2003. Bumblebees, Their Behavior and Ecology. Oxford University Press. 235 pages. Gove, B., S. A. Power, G. P. Buckley, and J. Ghazoul. 2007. âEffects of herbicide spray drift and fertilizer overspread on selected species of woodland ground flora: comparison between shortâterm and longâ term impact assessments and field surveys.â Journal of Applied Ecology 44(2):374â384. Graham, J., C. King, and W. Haines. 2015. âThe nest architecture of Hylaeus anthracinus and other coastal solitary bees.â Hawaii Conservation Conference Proceedings. August 3â6, 2015. University of Hawaii, Hilo, Hawaii. Graham, J., S. Plentovich, and C. King. 2016. Nest ecology of an endemic Hawaiian bee, Hylaeus anthracinus (Hymenoptera: Colletidae), and implications for conservation. University of Hawaii at Manoa. College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources. Unpublished Data. Grant, V. 1994. Historical Development of Ornithophily in The Western North American Flora. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 91(22):10407â10411. Greenleaf, S. S., and C. Kremen. 2006. âWild bee species increase tomato production and respond differently to surrounding land use in Northern California.â Biological conservation 133:81â87. Griscom, B. W., J. Adams, P. W. Ellis, R. A. Houghton, G. Lomax, D. A. Miteva, W. H. Schlesinger, D. Shoch, J. V. Siikamäki, P. Smith, P. Woodbury, C. Zganjar, A. Blackman, J. Campari, R. T. Conant, C. Delgado, P. Elias, T. Gopalakrishna, M. R. Hamsik, M. Herrero, J. Kiesecker, E. Landis, L. Laestadius, S. M. Leavitt, S. Minnemeyer, S. Polasky, P. Potapov, F. E. Putz, J. Sanderman, M. Silvius, E. Wollenberg, and J. Fargione. 2017. Natural Climate Solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(44):11645â 11650. Griswold, T. 1993. âNew species of Perdita (Pygoperdita) Timberlake of the P. californica species group (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae).â The PanâPacific Entomologist 69:183â189. Grixti, J. C., L. T. Wong, S. A. Cameron, and C. Favret. 2009. âDecline of bumble bees (Bombus) in the North American Midwest.â Biological Conservation 142:75â84. Grunau, L., A. K. Ruggles, M. Veneer, C. Pague, R. Rondeau, and J. M. Powell. 2003. Programmatic Biological Assessment, Conference Report, and Conservation Strategy for Impacts from Transportation Improvement Projects on Select Sensitive Species on Coloradoâs Central Shortgrass Prairie. May. Available: http://hermes.cde.state.co.us/drupal/islandora/object/co:12176/datastream/OBJ/view.  Gustafson, D. J., D. J. Gibson, and D. L. Nickrent. 2005. âUsing local seeds in prairie restorationâdata support the paradigm.â Native Plants Journal 6(1):25â28. Guyton, J., J. C. Jones, and E. Entsminger. 2014. Alternative Mowing Regimesâ Influence on Native Plants and Deer. Report No. FHWA/MDOTâRDâ14â228.Â
References and Other Resources R-10 Foster, B. L., K. Kindscher, G. R. Houseman, and C. A. Murphy. 2009. âEffects of hay management and native species sowing on grassland community structure, biomass, and restoration.â Ecological Applications 19(7):1884â1896. Fuller, T. C., and G. D. Barbe. 1985. The Bradley method of eliminating exotic plants from natural reserves.â Fremontia 13(2):24â26. Funasaki, G. Y., P. L. Lai, L. M. Nakahara, J. W. Beardsley, and A. K. Ota. 1988. âA review of biological control introductions in Hawaii: 1890 to 1985.â Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 28:105â160. Fürst, M. A., D. P. McMahon, J. L. Osborne, R. J. Paxton, and M. J. F. Brown. 2014. âDisease associations between honeybees and bumblebees as a threat to wild pollinators.â Nature 506(7488):364â366. Gade, K. J. 2013. Freeways as Corridors for Plant Dispersal: A Case Study from Central Arizona. Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. Available: http://www.icoet.net/ICOET_2013/documents/papers/ICOET2013_Paper403B_Gade.pdf. Gagné, W. C., and C. C. Christensen. 1985. âConservation status of native terrestrial invertebrates in Hawaii.â Hawaiiâs terrestrial ecosystems: preservation and management. University of Hawaii Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, Honolulu, pp. 105â126. Gagné, W. C., and F. G. Howarth. 1982. âConservation Status of Endemic Hawaiian Lepidoptera.â Proceedings of the Third Congress of European Lepidopterology, Societus Europaea Lepidopterologica, Karluhe. Cambridge. pp. 74â84. Gall, L. F. 1984. âPopulation structure and recommendations for conservation of the narrowly endemic alpine butterfly, Boloria acrocnema (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae).â Biological Conservation 28:111â138. Garibaldi, L. A., I. SteffanâDewenter, C. Kremen, J. M. Morales, R. Bommarco, S. A. Cunningham, et al. 2011. âStability of pollination services decreases with isolation from natural areas despite honey bee visits.â Ecology Letters 14(10):1062â1072. Garibaldi, L. A., I. SteffanâDewenter, R. Winfree, M. A. Aizen, R. Bommarco, S. A. Cunningham, C. Kremen, L. G. Carvalheiro, L. D. Harder, O. Afik, I. Bartomeus, F. Benjamin, V. Boreux, D. Cariveau, N. P. Chacoff, J. H. Dudenhöffer, B. M. Freitas, J. Ghazoul, S. Greenleaf, J. Hipólito, A. Holzschuh, B. Howlett, R. Isaacs, S. K. Javorek, C. M. Kennedy, K. M. Krewenka, S. Krishnan, Y. Mandelik, M. M. Mayfield, I. Motzke, T. Munyuli, B. A. Nault, M. Otieno, J. Petersen, G. Pisanty, S. G. Potts, R. Rader, T. H. Ricketts, M. Rundlöf, C. L. Seymour, C. Schüepp, H. Szentgyörgyi, H. Taki, T. Tscharntke, C. H. Vergara, B. F. Viana, T. C. Wanger, C. Westphal, N. Williams, and A. M. Klein. 2013. âWild pollinators enhance fruit set of crops regardless of honey bee abundance.â Science 339:1608â1611. Gelbard, J. L., and J. Belnap. 2003. âRoads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscape.â Conservation Biology 17(2):420â432. Geldmann, J., and J. P. GonzálezâVaro. 2018. :Conserving honey bees does not help wildlife.â Science 359(6374):392â393. Ghazoul, J. 2006. âFloral diversity and the facilitation of pollination.â Journal of Ecology 94:295â304. Gibble, W., and J. Fleckenstein. 2013. Copablepharon fuscum (sandâverbena moth) and Abronia latifolia (yellow sandâverbena) Washington State Surveys. Natural Heritage Report 2013â02. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. January 14, 2013. 16 pp. + appendix.Â
References and Other Resources R-9 Falk, A. D., T. E. Fulbright, F. S. Smith, L. A. Brennan, A. J. OrtegaâSantos, and S. Benn. 2013. âDoes Seeding a Locally Adapted Native Mixture Inhibit Ingress by Exotic Plants?â Restoration Ecology 21(4):474â480. Fargione, J. E., S. Bassett, T. Boucher, S. D. Bridgham, R. T. Conant, S. C. CookâPatton, P. W. Ellis, A. Falcucci, J. W. Fourqurean, T. Gopalakrishna, H. Gu, B. Henderson, M. D. Hurteau, K. D. Kroeger, T. Kroeger, T. J. Lark, S. M. Leavitt, G. Lomax, R. I. McDonald, J. P. Megonigal, D. A. Miteva, C. J. Richardson, J. Sanderman, D. Shoch, S. A. Spawn, J. W. Veldman, C. A. Williams, P. B. Woodbury, C. Zganjar, M. Baranski, P. Elias, R. A. Houghton, E. Landis, E. McGlynn, W. H. Schlesinger, J. V. Siikamaki, A. E. SuttonâGrier, and B. W. Griscom. 2018. âNatural climate solutions for the United States.â Science Advances 4:eaat1869. Faulkner, D., and M. Klein. 2012. Sensitive butterflies of San Diego County, California. Booklet provided for a workshop focusing on nine sensitive butterflies. Produced by F.L.I.T.E. Tours. 72 pp. Feber, R. E., H. Smith, and D. W. Macdonald. 1996. âThe effects on butterfly abundance of the management of uncropped edges of arable fields.â Journal of Applied Ecology 33:1191â1205. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2011. Our Nationâs Highways 2011. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2016. Use of BenefitâCost Analysis by State Departments of Transportation: Report to Congress. Available: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/pubs/ bca_report/senate_bca_report_05172016_revised.pdf.  Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. Roadside Revegetation: An Integrated Approach to Establishing Native Plants and Pollinator Habitat. Version 1.2. Available: http://www.nativerevegetation.org/learn/manual_2017/pdfs/wfl_v1â2_06262020.pdf.  Fiedler, A. K., D. A. Landis, and M. Arduser. 2012. âRapid shift in pollinator communities following invasive species removal.â Restoration Ecology 20(5):593â602. Fischer, S. J. 2015. âEnhancing monarch butterfly reproduction by mowing fields of common milkweed.â The American Midland Naturalist 173(2):229â240. Forister, M. L. 2021. âPrioritizing western butterflies for conservation concern.â Available: https://sites.google.com/site/greatbasinbuglab/ranking. Accessed December 28, 2021. Forister, M. L., A. C. McCall, N. J. Sanders, J. A. Fordyce, J. H. Thorne, J. OâBrien, D. P. Waetjen, and A. M. Shapiro. 2010. Compounded Effects of Climate Change and Habitat Alteration Shift Patterns of Butterfly Diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(5):2088â2092. Forister, M. L., C. A. Halsch, C. C. Nice, J. A. Fordyce, T. E. Dilts, J. C. Oliver, K. L. Prudic, A. M. Shapiro, J. K. Wilson, and J. Glassberg. 2021. âFewer butterflies seen by community scientists across the warming and drying landscapes of the American West.â Science 371:1042â1045.  Forister, M. L., J. P. Jahner, K. L. Casner, J. S. Wilson, and A. M. Shapiro. 2011. âThe race is not to the swift: longâterm data reveal pervasive declines in Californiaâs lowâelevation butterfly fauna.â Ecology 92:2222â 2235. Forman, R. T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bissonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Island Press, Washington, DC.
References and Other Resources R-8 Ehrlich, P. R., and I. Hanski, eds. 2004. On the wings of checkerspots: a model system for population biology. Oxford University Press.  Eilers, E. J., C. Kremen, S. S. Greenleaf, A. K. Garber, and A. M. Klein. 2011. âContribution of pollinatorâ mediated crops to nutrients in the human food supply.â PLOS ONE 6(6):e21363. Elkington, J. 2018. â25 Years Ago I Coined the Phrase âTriple Bottom Line.â Hereâs Why Itâs Time to Rethink It.â Harvard Business Review Online. Available: https://hbr.org/2018/06/25âyearsâagoâiâcoinedâtheâphraseâ tripleâbottomâlineâheresâwhyâimâgivingâupâonâit.  Elliott, C. H. 2019. The Riddle of the Sphinx: Population ecology of the endangered Blackburnâs sphinx moth, Manduca blackburni (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae) on an invasive host plant. Doctoral dissertation, University of HawaiÊ»i at MÄnoa. 60 pp. Elliott, R. H., D. Cmiralova, and W. G. Wellington, 1979. âOlfactory Repellency of Herbicides to Foraging Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae).â The Canadian Entomologist 111(10):1131â1135. Elzinga, C. L., and D. W. Salzer. 1998. Measuring & Monitoring Plant Populations. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Engel, M. S., I. Hinojosa, and A. P. Rasnitsyn. 2009. âA honey bee from the Miocene of Nevada and the biogeography of Apis (Hymenoptera: Apidae; Apini).â Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 60 (3):23â38.  Entsminger, E. D., J. C. Jones, J. W. Guyton, B. K. Strickland, and B. D. Leopold. 2017. âEvaluation of mowing frequency on rightâofâway plant communities in Mississippi.â Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 8(1):125â139. Espeset, A. E., J. G. Harrison, A. M. Shapiro, C. C. Nice, J. H. Thorne, D. P. Waetjen, J. A. Fordyce, and M. L. Forister. 2016. âUnderstanding a migratory species in a changing world: climatic effects and demographic declines in the western monarch revealed by four decades of intensive monitoring.â Oecologia 181(3):819â830. Essig Museum of Entomology. 2022. âValley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle.â Available: https://essig.berkeley.edu/endangered/endangered_desmcali/.  European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2005. âConclusion regarding the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance clopyralid.â EFSA Journal 50:1â65. Available: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2006.50r. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2009. âConclusion on the Conclusion regarding the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance picloram.â EFSA Journal 7(12):1390. Available: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1390. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2015. âConclusion on the Conclusion regarding the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance pyraflufenâethyl.â EFSA Journal 13(2):4001. Available: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4001. Evans, E., M. Boone, and D. Cariveau. 2019. Monitoring and Habitat Assessment of Declining Bumble Bees in Roadsides in the Twin Cities Metro Area of Minnesota. Research Report, Minnesota Department of Transportation. Report # MN/RC 2019â25. Available: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/research/reports/ 2019/201925.pdf.Â
References and Other Resources R-7 Daly, H. V., and K. N. Magnacca. 2003. Insects of Hawaii. Vol. 17. Hawaiian Hylaeus (Nesoprosopis) Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). University of Hawaiâi Press, Honolulu. 234 pp. Dana, M. N., R. D. Kemery, and B. S. Boszor. 1996. Wildflowers for Indianaâs Highways. Purdue University Joint Highway Research Project, Project No: Câ36â48N, File No: 9â5â14. Dana, R. P. 1991. Conservation Management of the Prairie Skippers Hesperia Dacotae and Hesperia Ottoe. Station Bulletin 594â1991 (ADâSBâ5511âS). University of Minnesota, Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. Available: https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/139544/ SB594.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed: September 2020. DánielâFerreira, J., Berggren, à ., Wissman, J. and Ãckinger, E. 2022a. âRoad verges are corridors and roads barriers for the movement of flowerâvisiting insects.â Ecography, 2022(2). DánielâFerreira, J., Berggren, à ., Bommarco, R., Wissman, J. and Ãckinger, E. 2022b. âBumblebee queen mortality along roads increase with traffic.â Biological Conservation 272:109643. Daniels, J. C. 2011. Schaus Swallowtail, Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus (Schaus) (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). University of Florida/IFAS Extension. Document EENYâ387. Davis, H. K., D. L. Miller, and M. Thetford. 2020. âHabitat suitability of an atârisk, monolectic, groundânesting bee Hesperapis oraria and its floral host Balduina angustifolia at two spatial scales along the Northern Gulf of Mexico.â Journal of insect Conservation 24:561â573. Dearborn, K., and R. Westwood. 2014. âPredicting adult emergence of Dakota skipper and Poweshiek skipperling (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) in Canada.â Journal of Insect Conservation 18:875â884. Debinski, D. M. 1994. Genetic diversity assessment in a metapopulation of the butterfly Euphydryas gillettii. Defenders of Wildlife. 2015. Petition to list the blue calamintha bee (Osmia calaminthae) as an endangered, or alternatively as a threatened, species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act and for the designation of critical habitat for this species. Dickson, T. L., and W. H. Busby. 2009. âForb species establishment increases with decreased grass seeding density and increased forb seeding density in a northeast Kansas, U.S.A., experimental prairie restoration.â Restoration Ecology 17:597â605. Dilts, T. E., M. O. Steele, J. D. Engler, E. M. Pelton, S. J. Jepsen, S. J. McKnight, A. R. Taylor, C. E. Fallon, S. H. Black, E. E. Cruz, D. R. Craver, and M. L. Forister. 2019. âHost Plants and Climate Structure Habitat Associations of the Western Monarch Butterfly.â Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7:188. Dirig, R., and J. F. Cryan. 1991. âThe status of silvery blue subspecies (Glaucopsyche lygdamus lygdamus and G. l. couperi: Lycaenidae) in New York.â Journal of the Lepidopteristsâ Society 45(4):272â290. Dixon, L., P. Sorensen, M. Wachs, M. T. Collins, M. A. Hanson, A. Kofner, T. Light, M. Madsen, L. Marsh, A. Overton, H. J. Shatz, and B. A. Weatherford. 2008. Costs, Revenues, and Benefits of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Prepared by Rand Corporation. Dover, J., N. Sotherton, and K. A. Y. Gobbett. 1990. âReduced pesticide inputs on cereal field margins: the effects on butterfly abundance.â Ecological Entomology 15(1):17â24. Eaton, E. R., and K. Kaufman. 2007. Kaufman Field Guide to Insects of North America. 392 pp. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.Â
References and Other Resources R-6 Center for Biological Diversity. 2010. Petition to list 404 aquatic, riparian and wetlands species from the Southeastern United States as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Center for Biological Diversity. 2018. Petition to list the Mojave poppy bee (Perdita meconis) under the Endangered Species Act and concurrently designate critical habitat. Center for Biological Diversity. 2019. Petition to list the Gulf Coast solitary bee (Hesperapis oraria) under the Endangered Species Act and concurrently designate critical habitat. Chan, P. K., and L. Packer. 2006. âAssessment of potential karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) (Family: Lycanidae) reintroduction sites in Ontario, Canada.â Restoration Ecology 14:645â652. Chen, S., W. Wang, W. Xu, Y. Wang, H. Wan, D. Chen, Z. Tang, X. Tang, G. Zhou, Z. Xie, D. Zhou, Z. Shangguan, J. Huang, J.âS. He, Y. Wang, J. Sheng, L. Tang, X. Li, M. Dong, Y. Wu, Q. Wang, Z. Wang, J. Wu, F. S. Chapin III, and Y. Bai. 2018. Plant Diversity Enhances Productivity and Soil Carbon Storage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(16):4027â4032. Clayborn, J. T. 2017. Topâdown and bottomâup approaches to understanding the fate of the federally endangered Schausâ swallowtail butterfly (Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus). Ph.D., Florida International University. Clayborn, J., and S. Koptur. 2017. âMortal combat between ants and caterpillars: an ominous threat to the endangered Schaus swallowtail butterfly (Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus) in the Florida Keys, USA.â Journal of Insect Conservation 21:689â702. Clayborn, J., S. Koptur, G. OâBrien, and K. R. T. Whelan. 2017. âThe Schaus swallowtail habitat enhancement project: An applied serviceâlearning project continuum from Biscayne National Park to MiamiâDade County public schools.â Southeastern Naturalist 16:26â46. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2003. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the sandâverbena moth Copablepharon fuscum in Canada. Ottawa. Vii+39 pp.  Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2014. COSEWIC Annual Report: 2013â 2014. Ottawa. 44 pp. Available: https://wildlifeâspecies.canada.ca/speciesâriskâregistry/virtual_sara/ files/cosewic/CESCC_1014_e.pdf. Accessed: September 16, 2020. Conserve Wildlife Foundation of New Jersey. 2022. New Jersey Endangered and Threatened Species Field Guide. Available: http://www.conservewildlifenj.org/species/fieldguide/view/ Atrytone%20arogos%20arogos/. Accessed: October 4, 2020. Cramer, C. 1991. âTougher than weeds: native prairie plants, better management trim roadside spraying 90%.â The New Farm 13:37â39. Croxton, P. J., J. P. Hann, J. N. GreatorexâDavis, and T. H. Sparks. 2005. âLinear hotspots? The floral and butterfly diversity of green lanes.â Biological Conservation 121:579â584. Cuddihy, L. W., and C. P. Stone. 1990. Alteration of native Hawaiian vegetationâeffects of humans, their activities and introductions. University of Hawaii Cooperative National Park Studies Unit, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii. 138 pp. Dale, J. M., and B. Freedman. 1982. âLead and zinc contamination of roadside soil and vegetation in Halifax, Nova Scotia.â Proceedings of the Nova Scotian Institute of Science 32:327â336.Â
References and Other Resources R-5 Calhoun, J. V. 1995. âThe biogeography and ecology of Euphyes dukesi (Hesperiidae) in Florida.â Journal of the Lepidopteristsâ Society. 29(1):6â23. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. Caltrans Advance Mitigation Program Final Formal Guidelines, Version 1.0. October. 52 pp. Camarretta, N., P. A. Harrison, T. Bailey, N. Davidson, A. Lucieer, M. Hunt, and B. M. Potts. 2020. Stability of Species and Provenance Performance when Translocated into Different Community Assemblages. Restoration Ecology 28:447â458. Cambell, C. L., and L. M. Ishii. 1993. âLarval host plant testing of Tinostoma smaragditis (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae), the Fabulous Green Sphinx of Kauai.â Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 32:83â90. Cameron, S. A., J. D. Lozier, J. P. Strange, J. B. Koch, N. Cordes, L. F. Solter, and T. L. Griswold. 2011. Patterns of Widespread Decline in North American Bumble Bees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(2):662â667. Campioni, L., Marengo, I., Román, J. and DâAmico, M., 2022. Mudâpuddling on roadsides: a potential ecological trap for butterflies. Journal of Insect Conservation, 26(1), pp.131â134. Cane, J. H. 1991. âSoils of groundânesting bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea): texture, moisture, cell depth and climate.â Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 64(4):406â413. Cane, J. H. 1997. âViolent weather and bees: populations of the Barrier Island endemic, Hesperapis oraria.â Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 70:73â75. Cane, J. H., and V. J. Tepedino. 2017. âGauging the effect of honey bee pollen collection on native bee communities.â Conservation Letters 10(2):205â210. Cane, J. H., R. R. Snelling, and L. J. Kervin. 1996. âA new monolectic coastal bee, Hesperapis oraria Snelling and Stage (Hymenoptera: Melittidae), with a review of desert and neotropical disjunctives in the Southeastern U.S.â Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 69:238â247. Cape, J. N., Y. S. Tang, N. Van Dijk, L. Love, M. A. Sutton, and S. C. F. Palmer. 2004. âConcentrations of ammonia and nitrogen dioxide at roadside verges, and their contribution to nitrogen deposition.â Environmental Pollution 132(3):469â478. Cariveau, D., E. Evans, and M. Boone. 2019. Monitoring and habitat assessment of declining bumble bees in roadsides in the Twin Cities metro area of Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Transportation. Carroll, S. P., and J. Loye. 2006. âInvasion, Colonization, and Disturbance; Historical Ecology of the Endangered Miami Blue Butterfly.â Journal of Insect Conservation 10:13â27. Carvell, C. 2002. âHabitat use and conservation of bumble bees (Bombus spp.) under different grassland management regimes.â Biological Conservation 103:33â49. Cayan, D. R., E. P. Maurer, M. D. Dettinger, M. Tyree, and K. Hayhoe. 2008. âClimate Change Scenarios for the California Region.â Climatic Change 87:21â42. Cayton, H. L., and N. M. Haddad. 2018. âWater Availability Coincides with Population Declines for an Endangered Butterfly.â Diversity 10:94.Â
References and Other Resources R-4 Britten, H. B., and J. W. Glasford. 2002. âGenetic population structure of the Dakota skipper (Lepidoptera: Hesperia dacotae): A North American native prairie obligate.â Conservation Genetics 3:363â374. Britton, H., and L. Riley. 1994. âNectar source diversity as an indicator of habitat suitability for the endangered Uncompahgre fritillary Boloria acrocnema Nymphalidae.â Journal of the Lepidopteristsâ Society 48:173â 179. Brock, J. P., and K. Kaufman. 2003. Kaufman Field Guide to Butterflies of North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York. 392 pp. Brown, D. L., J. Laird, W. Sommers, and A. Hamilton. 1999. âMethods used by the Arizona Department of Transportation to reduce wildlife mortality and improve highway safety.â In International Conference of Wildlife Ecology and Transportation, Florida. Brown, J. J. 1987. âToxicity of herbicides thiobencarb and endothall when fed to laboratoryâreared Trichoplusia ni (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).â Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 27:97â100. Brown, R. N. and C. D. Sawyer. 2012. âPlant species diversity of highway roadsides in southern New England.â Northeastern Naturalist 19(1):25â42. Brunzel, S., H. Elligsen, and R. Frankl. 2004. âDistribution of the Cinnabar moth Tyria jacobaeae L. at landscape scale: use of linear landscape structures in egg laying on larval host plant exposures.â Landscape Ecology 19(1):21â27. Buckingham, D. A., M. Linders, C. Landa, L. Mullen, and C. LeRoy. 2016. âOviposition Preference of Endangered Taylorâs Checkerspot Butterflies (Euphydryas editha taylori) Using Native and NonâNative Hosts.â Northwest science: official publication of the Northwest Scientific Association 90:491â497. Buehler, D. M., D. R. Norris, B. J. Stutchbury, and N. C. Kopysh. 2002. âFood supply and parental feeding rates of Hooded Warblers in forest fragments.â The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 114(1):122â127. Bugg, R. L., C. S. Brown, and J. H. Anderson. 1997. âRestoring native perennial grasses to rural roadsides in the Sacramento Valley of California: Establishment and evaluation.â Restoration Ecology 5:214â228. Bureau of Land Management. 2019. ORâIMâ2019â003 Transmittal of State Director Special Status Species List, with attachments. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agencyâpolicy/. Accessed: August 7, 2020. Burghardt, K. T., D. W. Tallamy, and W. G. Shriver. 2009. âImpact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes.â Conservation Biology 23:219â224. Burghardt, K. T., D. W. Tallamy, C. Philips, and K. J. Shropshire. 2010. âNonânative plants reduce abundance, richness, and host specialization in lepidopteran communities.â Ecosphere 1(5):1â22. Burkle, L. A., and J. B. Runyon. 2016. Drought and leaf Herbivory Influence Floral Volatiles and Pollinator Attraction. Global Change Biology 22:1644â1654. Cackowsky, J.âM., and J. L. Nasar. 2003. âRestorative effects of roadside vegetation: implications for automobile driver anger and frustration.â Environment and Behavior 35(6):736â751. Calderone, N. W. 2012. âInsect Pollinated Crops, Insect Pollinators and US Agriculture: Trend Analysis of Aggregate Data for the Period 1992â2009.â PLOS ONE 7:e37235.Â
References and Other Resources R-3 Black, S. H. 2012. âInsect conservation and the endangered species act: A history.â In Insect Conservation: Past, Present and Prospects (pp. 171â189). Springer, Dordrecht. Black, S. H., and D. M. Vaughan. 2005. Species Profile: Euphilotes battoides allyni. In Shepherd, M. D., D. M. Vaughan, and S. H. Black (Eds). Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. CDâROM Version 1 (May 2005). The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR. Black, S. H., M. Shepherd, and M. Vaughan. 2011. âRangeland management for pollinators.â Rangelands 33(3):9â13. Blackburn, T. 1882. âDescriptions of the larvae of Hawaiian Lepidoptera.â The Entomologistâs Monthly Magazine 19:55â56. Blumenthal, D. M., N. R. Jordan, and E. L. Svenson. 2005. âEffects of prairie restoration on weed invasions.â Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 107:221â230. Bogemams, J., L. Nicrinck, and J. M. Stassart. 1989. âEffect of deicing chloride salts on ion accumulation in spruce (Picea abies (L.) sp.).â Plant and Soil 113:3â11. Bohnenblust, E. W., A. D. Vaudo, J. F. Egan, D. A. Mortensen, and J. F. Tooker. 2016. âEffects of the herbicide dicamba on nontarget plants and pollinator visitation.â Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 35(1):144â151. Bohnenblust, E., J. F. Egan, D. Mortensen, and J. Tooker. 2013. âDirect and indirect effects of the syntheticâ auxin herbicide dicamba on two lepidopteran species.â Environmental Entomology 42(3):586â594. Bonebrake, T. C., C. L. Boggs, J. M. McNally, J. Ranganathan, and P. R. Ehrlich. 2010. âOviposition behavior and offspring performance in herbivorous insects: consequences of climatic and habitat heterogeneity.â Oikos 119:927â934. Bonebrake, T. C., R. T. Navratil, C. L. Boggs, S. Fendorf, C. B. Field, and P. R. Ehrlich. 2011. âNative and Nonâ Native Community Assembly through Edaphic Manipulation: Implications for Habitat Creation and Restoration.â Restoration Ecology 19:709â716.  Borror, D. J., R. E. White, and R. T. Peterson. 1970. A Field Guide to Insects: America North of Mexico (Vol. 19). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Boutin, C., B. Strandberg, D. Carpenter, S. K. Mathiassen, and P. J. Thomas. 2014. âHerbicide impact on nonâ target plant reproduction: what are the toxicological and ecological implications?â Environmental Pollution 185:295â306. Bowers, M. D., and E. H. Williams. 1995. âVariable chemical defence in the checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas gillettii (Lepidoptera: NymphaIidae).â Ecological Entomology 20:208â212. Brandt, J., K. Henderson, and J. Uthe. 2011. Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management Technical Manual. Available: http://www.uni.edu/irvm. Brittain, C., C. Kremen, and A. M. Klein. 2013. âBiodiversity buffers pollination from changes in environmental conditions.â Global Change Biology 19(2):540â547. Brittain, C., N. Williams, C. Kremen, and A.âM. Klein. 2013. âSynergistic effects of nonâApis bees and honey bees for pollination services.â Proceedings. Biological Sciences / The Royal Society 280:20122767.Â
References and Other Resources R-2 Barnum, S. A., and G. Alt. 2013. The Effect of Reduced Roadside Mowing on Rate of DeerâVehicle Collisions. Transportation Research Board 92nd Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers. Baron, G. L., N. E. Raine, and M. J. Brown. 2014. âImpact of chronic exposure to a pyrethroid pesticide on bumblebees and interactions with a trypanosome parasite.â Journal of Applied Ecology 51(2):460â469. Bartel, R. A., N. M. Haddad, and J. P. Wright. 2010. âEcosystem Engineers Maintain a Rare Species of Butterfly and Increase Plant Diversity.â Oikos 119:883â890. Battisti, L., M. Potrich, A. R. Sampaio, N. de Castilhos Ghisi, F. M. CostaâMaia, R. Abati, C. B. Dos Reis Martinez, and S. H. Sofia. 2021. Is glyphosate toxic to bees? A metaâanalytical review. The Science of the Total Environment 767:145397. Baum, K. A., and E. K. Mueller. 2015. Grassland and roadside management practices affect milkweed abundance and opportunities for monarch recruitment. In: Monarchs in a Changing World: Biology and Conservation of an Iconic Butterfly, pp. 197â202. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. BaxterâGilbert, J. H., J. L. Riley, C. J. Neufeld, J. D. Litzgus, and D. Lesbarrères. 2015. âRoad mortality potentially responsible for billions of pollinating insect deaths annually.â Journal of Insect Conservation 19(5):1029â 1035. Bedsworth, L., D. Cayan, G. Franco, L. Fisher, and S. Ziaja. 2018. Statewide Summary Report. Californiaâs Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Belitz, M. W., L. K. Hendrick, M. J. Monfils, D. L. Cuthrell, C. J. Marshall, A. Y. Kawahara, N. S. Cobb, J. M. Zaspel, A. M. Horton, S. L. Huber, A. D. Warren, G. A. Forthaus, and A. K. Monfils. 2018. âAggregated occurrence records of the federally endangered Poweshiek skipperling (Oarisma poweshiek).â Biodiversity Data Journal 6: e29081. Belitz, M. W., M. J. Monfils, D. L. Cuthrell, and A. K. Monfils. 2019. âLife history and ecology of the endangered Poweshiek skipperling Oarisma poweshiek in Michigan prairie fens.â Journal of Insect Conservation 23:635â649. Belitz, M. W., M. J. Monfils, D. L. Cuthrell, and A. K. Monfils. 2020. âLandscapeâlevel environmental stressors contributing to the decline of Poweshiek skipperling (Oarisma poweshiek).â Insect conservation and diversity / Royal Entomological Society of London 13:187â200. Bennett, V. J., M. G. Betts, and W. P. Smith. 2014. âInfluence of thermal conditions on habitat use by a rare springâemerging butterfly Euphydryas editha taylori.â Journal of applied entomology (Zeitschrift fur angewandte Entomologie) 138:623â634. Berger, R. L. 2005. NCHRP Synthesis 341: Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. Beyer, L., and S. H. Black. 2007. Site utilization by adults and larvae of mardon skipper butterfly (Polites mardon) at four sites in Washington and Oregon. Final report to the Forest Service and BLM. 72 pp. Bierzychudek, P., and K. Warner. 2015. âModeling caterpillar movement to guide habitat enhancement for Speyeria zerene hippolyta, the Oregon silverspot butterfly.â Journal of Insect Conservation 19:45â54. Billings, C. H. 1990. âWildflowers: Municipal field reports.â Public Works 121(3):106.Â
R-1 References and Other Resources Ahern, J., C. A. Niedner, and A. Barker. 1992. Roadside Wildflower Meadows: Summary of Benefits and Guidelines to Successful Establishment and Management. Transportation Research Record, No. 1334:46â53. Alcock, J., L. P. Brower, and E. H. Williams, Jr. 2016. âMonarch butterflies use regenerating milkweeds for reproduction in mowed hayfields in northern Virginia.â The Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 70(3):177â181. AllenâWardell, G., P. Bernhardt, R. Bitner, A. Burquez, S. Buchmann, J. Cane, P. A. Cox, V. Dalton, P. Feinsinger, M. Ingram, and D. Inouye. 1998. âThe potential consequences of pollinator declines on the conservation of biodiversity and stability of food crop yields.â Conservation Biology 12(1):8â17. Altizer, S. M., and K. S. Oberhauser. 1999. âEffects of the protozoan parasite Ophryocystis elektroscirrha on the fitness of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus).â Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 74(1):76â88. Ament, R., J. Begley, S. Powell, and P. Stoy. 2014. Roadside Vegetation and Soils on Federal LandsâEvaluation of the Potential for Increasing Carbon Capture and Storage and Decreasing Carbon Emissions. Report for the Federal Highway Administration, # DTFH68â07âEâ00045. Available: https://westerntransportationinstitute.org/wpâcontent/uploads/2016/08/4W3748_Final_Report.pdf.  American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2011. Federal Highway Association: Guide to Roadside Vegetation Management.  Andrew, G., G. Glenn, P. JacobyâGarrett, and D. Thompson. 2013. Surveys and habitat assessment for Plebejus shasta charlestonensis (Mount Charleston Blue Butterfly) in the Spring Mountain Range of Nevada (2012 field season). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southern Nevada Field Office, Las Vegas Nevada. 104 pp. Araratyan, L. A., and S. A. Zakharyan. 1988. âOn the contamination of snow along main highways.â Biologicheskii Zhurnal Armenii 41:514â519. Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) 2020. Implementing FHWAâs INVEST Round 3 Project and 3rd Annual Arizona Department of Transportation Sustainable Transportation Program Final Report. Audubon California. 1998. âSan Emigdio Blue Butterfly â Plebejus emigdionis.â Available: http://www.kern.audubon.org/SEBLUE.htm. Austin, G. T. 1998. Callophrys (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) in Nevada, with description of a new subspecies of C. comstocki. In: Emmel, T. C. ed. Systematics of western North American butterflies. The Mariposa Press, Gainesville, FL. Austin, G. T., and P. J. Leary. 2008. âLarval host plants of butterflies in Nevada.â Holarctic Lepidoptera 12(1â 2):1â150. Austin, G. T., B. M. Boyd, and D. D. Murphy. 2008. âEuphilotes ancilla (Lycaenidae) in the Spring Mountains, Nevada: more than one species.â Journal of the Lepidopteristsâ Society 62:148â160. Balch, J. K., B. A. Bradley, C. M. DâAntonio, and J. GómezâDans. 2012. âIntroduced annual grass increases regional fire activity across the arid western USA (1980â2009).â Global Change Biology 19(1):173â183.Â
Glossary G-13 Term Definitions threat An anthropogenic (humanâinduced) or natural driver that could result in changing the ecological conditions of the species or its habitat in a negative way.  threatened Plants and animals that are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges. transportation planning The process of identifying transportation needs and establishing plans for infrastructure development to meet those needs; occurs at the local, regional, and state levels and generally includes identifying and prioritizing projects needed to maintain and improve transportation networks and achieve specific transportation goals. Can involve either shortâ (e.g., 4 years) or longârange (e.g., 20+ years) time frames. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) The federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats; administers the ESA with NMFS. univoltine Having one generation per year. vegetation management The targeted control and elimination of unwanted vegetation and replacement with desirable vegetation. ventral Of, on, or relating to the underside of an animal or plant (abdominal). worker In truly social bees (e.g., bumble bees), nonâreproducing females that collect food for other bees in the colony. working land An area where people live and work in a way that allows ecosystems or ecosystem functions to be sustained (e.g., farms, ranches). Human activities are done in a way that minimizes disturbance on native plants and animals while still retaining the working nature of the landscape. Â
Glossary G-12 Term Definitions runoff (of water) The draining away of water from the surface of an area of land; can be problematic when it occurs as a result of excess rainwater, stormwater, meltwater, or other water no longer infiltrating (soak) the soil, especially due to increased impervious surfaces created through extensive development.  senesce, senescence To deteriorate with age because of the loss of a cellâs power to divide and grow. sensitive species Any specialâstatus species identified by a state or federal agency. sexual dimorphism The condition where the sexes of the same species exhibit different forms (e.g., sizes or color patterns). solitary Solitary bees do not live in a communal nest or hive. Females build nests and provision their eggs on their own. Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) SGCNs are selected, for each state, to indicate the status of biological diversity in the state, specifying atârisk species that have the greatest need for conservation.  Species of Special Concern (SSC) Species of Special Concern9 is an administrative designation and carries no formal legal status. The intent of designating SSCs is to: (1) focus attention on animals considered potentially at conservation risk by state, local, and federal governmental entities, regulators, land managers, planners, consulting biologists, and others; (2) stimulate research on poorly known species; and (3) achieve conservation and recovery of these animals before they meet criteria for listing as threatened or endangered. State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) A comprehensive plan for conserving fish and wildlife across the state.10  status See conservation status. stewardship Land planning and ecological resources management with the goal of protecting and enhancing ecosystems and biodiversity. strategy A plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim. succession The process by which one habitat type is overtaken by another through changing dominance of pioneer species, altering the ecosystem dynamics. Early successional habitat contains vigorously growing grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees that provide excellent food and cover for wildlife but need disturbance to be maintained. survey Sampling conducted to determine the presence or absence of a particular imperiled pollinator species at a given site. take According to the ESA, any action to âharass, harm pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.â Incidental take is take of listed species that results from, but is not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by a federal agency or applicant. thorax The section of an insect body that follows the head and is before the abdomen; this section bears six legs and wings. 9 https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/SSC. 10 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2017. SWAP Final 2015 Document. Available: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/SWAP/Final.
Glossary G-11 Term Definitions recovery The process by which the decline of an endangered or threatened species is halted or reversed or threats to its survival are neutralized, so that its longâterm survival in nature can be ensured.8 Recovery entails actions to achieve the conservation and survival of a species, including actions to prevent any further decline of a populationâs viability and genetic integrity. Recovery also includes actions to restore or establish environmental conditions that enable a species to persist (i.e., the longâterm occurrence of a species through the full range of environmental variation). recovery area The band of lowâgrowing or routinely mowed vegetation directly adjacent to the pavement or shoulder of a road where vehicles that have left the roadway can recover; also known as the clear or safety zone. The recovery area is free of obstruction and the width is determined by the type of road and traffic volume, as well as the slope of the embankment. Recovery Crediting System A tool that allows federal agencies to use their authorities to benefit species already listed as threatened or endangered on nonâfederal lands; subject to consultation under Section 7 of the ESA. Creates a process through which federal agencies create a âbankâ of recovery credits providing for the conservation of listed species while being able to compensate for future impacts of their actions refugia Locations or areas providing a safe resting place for animals to hide from predators. restore, restoration Manipulation of a piece of land with the goal of repairing natural or historical ecosystem functions to degraded habitat or natural resources. This results in an improvement in ecological or ecosystem functions, but it does not result in a gain in area. revegetation The process of replanting and rebuilding the soil of disturbed lands such as roadsides. This may be a natural process produced by plant colonization and succession, humanâmade rewilding projects, or accelerated processes designed to repair damage to a landscape due to construction or operational disturbance, wildfire, mining, flood, or other cause. riparian Relating to wetlands adjacent to rivers and streams. roadside Areas along the sides of roads and highways extending across both urban and rural landscapes; often the only natural vegetation that remains in highly altered landscapes. Roadsides provide pollinators with a place to find food, reproduce, and take shelter or overwinter, and they can increase habitat connectivity. roadside contamination Deposit of pollutants through routine vehicle use and maintenance, including vehicle exhaust, deâicing materials, and heavy metals from tire rubber, brake dust, and gasoline and diesel combustion products. roadside management/ maintenance The planning, design, construction, and maintenance of the nonâpaved highway rightâofâway. roadside restoration See restoration, revegetation. 8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Portland, OR: Region 1.
Glossary G-10 Term Definitions phenology The timing of cyclic and seasonal natural phenomenon, such as when plants bloom and when insects emerge from pupal stages. pollinator An animal that helps carry pollen, either intentionally or accidentally, from the male part of the flower (stamen) to the female part of the same or another flower (stigma) to facilitate fertilization and production of fruit, seeds, and young plants. Most flowers are pollinated by insects and animalsâsuch as bees, wasps, moths, butterflies, birds, flies, and small mammals, including bats. Specialist pollinators are more selective and visit flowers of one or very few plant species. population The number of individuals of a particular taxon inhabiting a defined geographic area. population decline The reduction in abundance of individuals of a species, often as a result of human activity and climate change. population density The concentration of individuals within a species in a specific geographic locale. Prelisting Conservation Agreement Allows for the creation and banking of credits providing for the conservation of nonâlisted species. Anyone (e.g., federal agency or private entity) who wants to participate in the process can undertake a voluntary prelisting conservation action, earning credits to be carried forward as long as the action occurs in a participating state within the framework of an established conservation strategy for the species. prescribed burning The controlled application of fire by a team of fire experts under specified weather conditions to restore health to ecosystems that depend on fire. programmatic As opposed to a single defined project, indicating a suite of activities or a program encompassing multiple areas or projects. programmatic agreement An agreement allowing for an individual compliance strategy to be applied to a suite of projects or a program involving similar activities in a particular geographic area. protected area Public or private lands managed for open space use. pupa, pupate, pupation In holometabolous insects, an insect in its immature form between larva and adult; usually inactive; see also chrysalis and cocoon.  queen In truly social insect species (e.g., honey bees, bumble bees, paper wasps, ants), an adult female bee with fully developed reproductive organs who is usually the mother of all of the bees in a particular hive or colony and is responsible for laying the eggs. There is normally only one adult, mated queen in a hive or colony. range See home range. rangeland Open country, usually grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, wetlands, or deserts, grazed by domestic livestock or wild animals. reclamation The act or process of recovering, and/or the state of being recovered. Many reclamation techniques can be used on the path to recovering or restoring preâdisturbance profiles.Â
Glossary G-9 Term Definitions NatureServe A nonâprofit organization comprising a network of conservation scientists that collects, aggregates, and standardizes data about the status and distribution of species and ecosystems of conservation concern in North America and assigns its own conservation rankings to such species. NEPA Assignment The process by which some states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Nebraska, Ohio, Texas, and Utah as of April 2022) assume federal responsibility for transportation projects for the Federal Highway Administration. States with NEPA Assignment may use the Section 7 ESA compliance process even when no other federal nexus exists. nest Places constructed and provisioned by bees and wasps in which their offspring develop; can be on the ground, in soil, underground, in tunnels, or in insulated cavities. nocturnal Active during the nighttime. nonnative species Any species introduced after European contact and as a direct or indirect result of human activity to a new place or new habitat where it did not previously occur.7 See invasive species. noxious plant A plant that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops, livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the public health, or the environment. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service maintains a list of federally recognized noxious weeds, and each state also has its own list. objective, conservation objective A concise, measurable statement of what is to be achieved and that supports a conservation goal. The objective should be based on the best available scientific information to conserve the species or other conservation elements for which the conservation goal and objective is developed.  obligate Restricted to a particular condition of life, such as dependent on a particular habitat or forage. overwinter The process by which some organisms pass through or wait out the winter season, when conditions make normal activity or survival difficult or near impossible. oviposit, oviposition To lay an egg or eggs. parasite  An organism that lives in or on a host but does not kill the host. parasitoid An organism that lives on or inside a host and always kills the host. pathogen A bacterium, virus, or other microorganism that can cause disease. perennial Lasting or existing for a long time (in plants, more than 2 years); enduring or continually recurring. pesticide A substance used for destroying insects, plants, or other organisms. petitioned species A species for which a petition to list the species as threatened or endangered under the ESA has been received and is being evaluated phasing/phased approach Implementation of multiple conservation strategies in a systematic approach to meet longâterm needs for ESA compliance and/or to cover an expansive geographic area. 7 California Invasive Plant Council. 2022. âDefinition of Invasive Plants.â Available: https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/ impact/.
Glossary G-8  Term Definitions listed species Species currently listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA; the species has been determined to be in danger of extinction in the near or foreseeable future by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. managed bees Bees that are bred and managed by people for commercial purposes. For example, honey bees kept for honey production or rental for commercial crop pollination; can harm other wild pollinators through increased competition for nectar and pollen resources and spread of disease. mesic Containing a moderate or wellâbalanced supply of moisture. microclimate The atmospheric conditions of a very small or restricted area that differ from those in the surrounding areas. migration The mass movement of individuals among areas, generally directional and synchronized; see also dispersal. mitigate, mitigation To lessen the effects of an action, particularly adverse effects, on a species or habitat. mitigation bank Land managed for its natural resource values, with an emphasis on targeted resources. Typically requires the restoration or creation of aquatic resources. See conservation bank. monitoring  Data collected from repeated sampling to detect changes over time, such as in response to revegetation or maintenance practices. monitoring protocols The methodology used to collect data. This guide contains protocols for monitoring imperiled pollinators, imperiled species of pollinators, and bumble bees. monoculture The cultivation of a single crop in a given area. morphology The form and structure of living organisms. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) The national environmental law that promotes the enhancement of the environment by requiring federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making decisions and to incorporate environmental considerations in their planning and decisionâmaking through a systematic interdisciplinary approach by preparing detailed statements assessing the environmental impact of major federal actions significantly affecting the environment. native species A species whose presence in a given region or ecosystem is the result of only natural evolution and distribution. natural community A group of organisms living together and linked together by their effects on one another and their responses to the environment they share.6 A general term often used synonymously with habitat or vegetation type. natural resources Biological and ecological resources including species and their habitats, including waters of the state, waters of the United States, wetlands, and natural communities.  6 Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. E. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
Glossary G-7 Term Definitions host plant Plants upon which butterflies and moths lay their eggs, and upon which their caterpillars (larvae) will feed after hatching. hydrologic regime The timing, volume, and duration of water flow events, which may be influenced by the climate, soils, geology, groundwater, watershed land cover, connectivity, and valley and stream morphology. imperiled species A species that is in decline and may be in danger of extinction. In this guide, this term identifies species that are not legally protected under the ESA. incidental take permit A permit issued under Section 10 of the ESA to private, nonâfederal entities undertaking otherwise lawful projects that might result in the take of a listed species. See also take. indicator species A species whose presence, absence, or abundance reflects a particular habitat, community, or set of environmental conditions.4 infiltration (of water) The movement of water into the ground from the surface. inâlieu fee mitigation A framework to create a mitigation strategy, giving entities the ability to create and contribute to a fund as mitigation for unavoidable impacts on listed species; money deposited into the fund is used to improve upon the conservation effort for the species beyond what is otherwise possible if funds were being restricted to a specific project location or to a lesser mitigation type. instar  The stage of the insect between molts, shedding the exoskeleton. introduced species An organism not native to the place or area but accidentally or deliberately transported to the new location by human activity. invasive species, nonnative species  A nonnative species that can spread into the ecosystems and displace native species, hybridize with native species, alter biological communities, and alter ecosystem processes and that has the potential to cause environmental or economic harm. According to the California Invasive Plant Council, nonnative plants are species introduced to California after European contact and as a direct or indirect result of human activity.5 invertebrate Lacking a backbone. land conversion The conversion of natural and agricultural land to other land uses through the process of development. land cover type The dominant feature of the land surface defined by vegetation, water, or human uses.  land preservation Generally, the preservation of natural resources by acquiring land. landscape connectivity The extent to which the landscape facilitates or impedes movement among habitat patches. See also habitat connectivity. larva The active immature form of a holometabolous insect in the stage between egg and pupa. life cycle For all insect pollinators, includes four distinct life stages: egg, larva, pupa, and adult, which may occur in different habitats. 4 Lincoln, R., G. Boxshall, and P. Clark. 1998. A Dictionary of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 5 California Invasive Plant Council. 2022. âDefinition of Invasive Plants.â Available: https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/ impact/.
Glossary G-6  Term Definitions habitat conservation plan (HCP) A planning document that is required as part of an application for an incidental take permit under the ESA. HCPs provide for partnerships with nonâfederal parties to conserve the ecosystems upon which listed species depend, ultimately contributing to their recovery. HCPs describe the anticipated effects of the proposed taking, how those impacts will be minimized or mitigated, and how the HCP is to be funded. habitat degradation When habitat conditions decline due to invasive species, pollution, development, or overutilization of natural resources. habitat enhancement Actions that, when implemented, are intended to improve the quality of wildlife habitat or to address risks or stressors to wildlife. Habitat enhancement would have longâterm durability but would not involve acquiring land or permanently protecting habitat.  habitat fragmentation When larger habitats are broken up into smaller patches, which may be too small to sustain populations of some species or species are unable to move between patches. habitat loss When habitat is eliminated or transformed into another type of habitat. habitat needs/requirements In this guide, conditions that must be present in order for pollinator species to inhabit and thrive in their surroundings, including climate, vegetation, associated species, and natural processes. habitat quality The capacity of a habitat to support a species. The precise meaning of habitat quality varies by species and depends on the specific needs of a species in the context of a particular area. Highâquality habitat for species may have only foraging and resting elements or it may include foraging, resting, and nesting elements. For other species, it may encompass all elements needed for the species to complete its lifecycle. Lowâquality habitat has only the minimal elements to support occurrence of the species. Highâquality habitat tends to support larger numbers of species than lowâquality habitat. harass As defined by the ESA, actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns, which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. harm As defined by the ESA, includes significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns, such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. herbaceous Vascular plants with little or no persistent woody stems above ground; includes grasses and forbs. herbicide A substance that is toxic to plants, used to destroy unwanted vegetation. hindwing The posterior (back) wing of an insect, attached to the last segment of the thorax. holometabolous Describing insects with four life stages: egg, larva, pupa, and image (or adult). home range The area in which an individual of a species lives and moves to meet its needs such as feeding, foraging, breeding, and sheltering.Â
Glossary G-5 Term Definitions extirpation The situation in which a species or population no longer exists within a certain geographic area, while at least one other population of the species still persists in other areas; also known as local extinction. eyespot A rounded, eyeâlike marking on the wing of a butterfly or moth.  federal nexus When a project requires a federal authorization apart from ESA compliance, license, or funding. fire regime The pattern, frequency, and intensity of the wildfires that prevail in an area over long periods of time; an integral part of fire ecology and renewal for certain types of ecosystems. fire return interval The average period between fires, both natural and prescribed, under the historical fire regime. flight time The month or months of the year in which adult pollinators are observed in flight. focal species In this guide, sensitive pollinators that are of particular conservation concern, such as monarch butterflies or other imperiled species.  food web The overall food relationships (food chains) among organisms in a particular environment, detailing the interconnectivity in complex feeding relationships for that ecosystem. All the food chains in a single ecosystem represent the multiple possible paths that energy and nutrients may take as they move through the ecosystem. foraging territory The distance or area over which an individual of a species is known to travel to find food resources, as reported in agency reports or peerâ reviewed literature for that species. forb An herbaceous flowering plant other than a grass, sedge, or rush. forewing The anterior (front, closer to the head) wing of an insect, attached to the middle segment of the thorax. fringe Long, narrow scales at the outside edges of butterfly wings. genetic variability The tendency of individual genetic characteristics in a population to vary from one another; greater genetic variability and diversity give species a better chance of survival, as variability can be lost when populations get smaller and more isolated, decreasing a speciesâ ability to adapt.  graminoid An herbaceous plant with a grassâlike structure, such as grasses, rushes, and sedges; contrast with forbs, which have no grassâlike features. habitat An ecological or environmental area that is, or may be, inhabited by a species of animal, plant, or other type of organism. Habitat is also the physical and biological environment that surrounds, influences, and is used by a speciesâ population and is required to support its occupancy. habitat assessment A process whereby habitat conditions are rated as optimal, suboptimal, marginal, or poor based upon descriptions and a rating scale. habitat connectivity The capacity of habitat to facilitate the movement of species and ecological functions. See also landscape connectivity.Â
Glossary G-4  Term Definitions ecosystem A natural unit defined by both its living and nonliving components; a balanced system of the exchange of nutrients and energy. See habitat. ecosystem function The ecosystem processes involving interactions among physical, chemical, and biological components, such as dynamic river meander, floodplain dynamism, tidal flux, bank erosion, and other processes necessary to sustain the ecosystem and the species that depend on it. ecosystem services The beneficial outcomes to humans from ecosystem functions such as supplying of oxygen; sequestering of carbon; moderating climate change effects; supporting the food chain; harvesting of animals or plants; providing clean water; recharging groundwater; abating storm, fire, and flood damage; pollinating and fertilizing for agriculture; and providing scenic views. ecotone, ecotonal A region of transition between two biological communities or habitats. encroach, encroachment The natural phenomenon characterized by the increase in density of certain types of plants, bushes, or shrubs at the expense of the herbaceous layer.  endangered A species that has become so rare it is in danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Endangered Species Act (ESA) Federal law enacted in 1973 to prohibit the import, export, or taking of fish, wildlife, and plants listed as threatened or endangered species; provide for adding species to and removing them from the list of threatened and endangered species and for preparing and implementing plans for their recovery; provide for interagency cooperation to avoid take of listed species and for issuing permits for otherwise prohibited activities; provide for cooperation with state governments, including authorization of financial assistance; and implement the provisions of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna. endemic A species, subspecies, or variety found only in a specified geographic region. enhancement A manipulation of an ecological resource or natural resource that improves a specific ecosystem function. An enhancement does not result in a gain in protected or conserved land, but it does result in an improvement in ecological or ecosystem function. enhancementâofâsurvival permit Available under Section 10 of the ESA for entities whose activities will provide a net conservation benefit to listed or candidate species. erosion (of soil) The natural process of denudation of the upper layer of soil (topsoil) caused by water, ice, snow, air, plants, and animals; the process is accelerated by conversion of natural vegetation to cropland or pasture. establishment The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics present on a site to develop an aquatic or terrestrial habitat resource for species. Establishment will result in a gain in resource area and/or function. See creation. extinction The dying out or extermination of a kind of organism or a group of kinds, usually a species. A. M., Cartog. Gen. Tech. Report WO-76. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Miles and Goudey 1997. Ecological Subregions of California. Technical Report R5-EM-TP-005, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, CA.
Glossary G-3 Term Definitions creation (of natural community or speciesâ habitat)  The creation of a specified resource condition where none existed before. See establishment.  critical habitat Habitat designated as critical1 refers to specific areas occupied by a federally listed species at the time it is listed, and that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection. Critical habitat also includes specific areas outside occupied habitat into which the species could spread and that are considered essential for recovery of the species. crop pest Includes seed eaters, herbivores, frugivores, and pathogens (e.g., insects, fungi, bacteria, and viruses) that can result in reduced agricultural productivity or total crop loss. diapause A physiological state of delay in development with reduced metabolic rate, in response to regular and recurring unfavorable environmental conditions; the time of the year and the stage of life when diapause occurs in insects vary among species. dimorphism A trait that has two or more forms within a species (e.g., sizes or coloration). dispersal In insects, the process of moving from the place their eggs were laid to another location or population where they will settle and reproduce; can occur in reaction to environmental conditions (weather and habitat quality) and social factors (variations in population density and sex ratio). Migration is a type of dispersal. disturbance regime The historic patterns (frequency and extent) of natural processes such as fire, insects, wind, and mass movement that affect the ecosystems and landscapes in a particular area. diurnal Active during the daytime. diversity See biodiversity. dormant, dormancy Having normal physical functions suspended or slowed down for a period of time. ecological resources Species, habitats, biological resources, and natural resources identified in a conservation strategy. See natural resources. ecoregion As used in this document, ecoregion means a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Section.2 USDA describes four geographic levels of detail in a hierarchy of regional ecosystems including domains, divisions, provinces, and sections. Sections are subdivisions of provinces based on major terrain features, such as a desert, plateau, valley, mountain range, or a combination thereof.3 1 16 United States Code 1532(5)(a). 2 Goudey, C. B., and D. W. Smith, Eds. 1994. Ecoregions California07_3. McClellan, CA. Remote Sensing Lab. Updated with ECOMAP 2007: Cleland, D.T.; Freeouf, J. A.; Keys, J. E., Jr.; Nowacki, G. J.; Carpenter, C; McNab, W. H. 2007. Ecological Subregions: Sections and Subsections of the Conterminous United States [1:3,500,000] [CD-ROM]. Sloan, A. M., cartog. Gen. Tech. Report WO-76. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Miles and Goudey 1997. Ecological Subregions of California. Technical Report R5-EM-TP-005, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, CA. 3 Goudey, C. B., and D. W. Smith, Eds. 1994. Ecoregions California07_3. McClellan, CA. Remote Sensing Lab. Updated with ECOMAP 2007: Cleland, D.T.; Freeouf, J. A.; Keys, J. E., Jr.; Nowacki, G. J.; Carpenter, C; McNab, W. H. 2007. Ecological Subregions: Sections and Subsections of the Conterminous United States [1:3,500,000] [CD-ROM]. Sloan,
Glossary G-2 Term Definitions climate change Longâterm shifts in temperatures and weather patterns, caused by human activities such as burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.  climate change vulnerability Refers to the degree to which an ecological system, natural community, habitat, or individual species is likely to be adversely affected as a result of changes in climate and is often dependent on factors such as exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. climate resiliency The ability of species to adapt to and withstand changes in climate; biodiversity assists species in persisting over time as climate changes. cocoon The pupal stage of moths (and some other holometabolous insects) within which they complete metamorphosis; typically found hanging from a surface or buried underground or in leaf litter.  colony Large community of individual bees living together as one social unit; typically includes workers, males, and a queen.  coloration The colors, patterns, and general appearance used to identify species. community See natural community. compensatory mitigation Actions taken to fulfill, in whole or in part, mitigation requirements under state or federal law or a court mandate. congener A member of the same taxonomic genus as another plant or animal. conservation The use of habitat and other natural resources in ways such that they may remain viable for future generations. This includes permanent protection of such resources.  conservation action/measure An action that, when implemented, would protect or restore and manage natural elements, including imperiled species and their habitats, natural communities, ecological processes, and wildlife corridors.  conservation bank Permanently protected privately or publicly owned lands managed for endangered, threatened, and other atârisk species. May include habitat restoration or creation in addition to protecting occupied habitats. See mitigation bank. conservation easement A voluntary legal agreement between a landowner and a land trust or government agency that permanently limits the uses of the land in order to protect its conservation values. conservation status The current status of the species as either listed in, a candidate for listing in, or petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act or as imperiled without formal legal protection.  conservation strategy Conservation actions or habitat enhancement actions that, if implemented, will sustain and restore species and their habitats, natural communities, biodiversity, habitat connectivity, ecosystem functions, water resources, and other natural resources. consultation A process between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service and a federal agency or applicant that: (1) determines whether a proposed federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat; (2) begins with a federal agencyâs written request and submittal of a complete initiation package; and (3) concludes with the issuance of a biological opinion and incidental take statement by either of the two agencies. corridor Strips or patches of habitat that connect larger patches of habitat.
G-1 Glossary This glossary defines terms used throughout this guide. Term Definitions Action Area Under Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation, all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by a federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action. See also consultation. adaptive management  Using the results of new information gathered through a monitoring program to adjust management strategies and practices to help provide for the conservation of species and their habitats.  alkaline soil A type of soil with high amounts of calcium, sodium, and magnesium, with a pH level above 7. apiary A place where honey bees are kept for commercial, hobby, or educational purposes; a collection of honey beehives. areas of high conservation value Areas determined to have both high biological value and high landscape intactness; prioritized for conservation actions. biodiversity The full array of living things considered at all levels, from genetic variants of a single species to arrays of species and arrays of genera, families, and higher taxonomic levels; includes natural communities and ecosystems. bivoltine Having two generations (broods) per year. boreal Relating to or characteristic of the climate zone in the Northern Hemisphere with a subarctic climate. brood The young that hatch from a group of eggs laid at the same time by one mother. Candidate Conservation Agreement Formal, voluntary agreements between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and one or more parties created to address the conservation needs of one or more candidate species or species likely to become candidates in the near future; can be entered into with states, local governments, tribes, private property owners, and other entities. Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances Addresses species proposed for listing or candidates for listing on nonâ federal land; results in an enhancementâofâsurvival permit, which provides assurance to the applicant that if agreedâupon conservation actions for the covered species are implemented, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will not require additional conservation measures beyond those in the agreement should the species be listed. See also enhancementâofâsurvival permit.  candidate species A species that has been found warranted for listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, but whose listing is precluded by higher priority species. canopy The aboveground portion of a plant cropping or crop, formed by the collection of individual plant crowns; also refers to the upper layer or habitat zone formed by maturing tree crowns. carbon sequestration A natural or artificial process by which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere, thereby stabilizing it in solid and dissolved forms to prevent it from causing warming of the atmosphere. chrysalis The pupal stage of butterflies, covered by a hard exoskeleton, inside of which they complete metamorphosis; typically found hanging from a surface. Â
ACRO-1 Acronyms and Abbreviations Term Definition Btk Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki CCA Candidate Conservation Agreement CCAA Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO2 carbon dioxide DOT department of transportation EA environmental assessment EIS environmental impact statement ESA Endangered Species Act FAQs frequently asked questions FAST Fixing Americaâs Surface Transportation FHWA Federal Highway Administration HCP Habitat Conservation Plan IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRVM Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature IVM Integrated Vegetation Management MSHCP MultiâSpecies Habitat Conservation Plan NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation OFWO Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office OPHI Ohio Pollinator Habitat Initiative PCA Prelisting Conservation Agreement RCA Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority RCS Recovery Crediting System ROW rightâofâway SHA Safe Harbor Agreement SMA Special Management Area the Services U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation WV Refuge Complex Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge ComplexÂ
12-1 Chapter 12 Conclusion A diverse community of pollinators is important for sustaining wild plant communities and the wildlife that depends on those plants. This diversity is also critical for crop pollination and production of the many foods that provide crucial nutrients for human wellbeing. As more and more species of pollinators are in decline in the United States and worldwide, strategies to manage existing habitat and create additional habitat are needed to ameliorate those declines. Roadsides, which extend across landscapes, are an opportunity for pollinator habitat, providing pollinators with food, shelter, and connectivity to other patches of habitat. Departments of Transportation (DOTs) can make a difference for imperiled pollinators by managing existing roadside vegetation and designing new revegetation plantings with their habitat needs in mind, and they can do so in compliance with the Endangered Species Act so there are regulatory assurances if a species becomes listed. Highlighting the work that DOTs do for pollinators can generate public support for the agency. Pollinators are becoming more and more visible to the public, and the public views them favorably. People are willing to donate time to conduct bumble bee surveys, for example, or conduct outreach to kids. Additionally, U.S. households valued monarchs at up to $6 billion, levels similar to many endangered vertebrate species, according to survey findings. Actions to support pollinators are popular with the general public. Beyond their value to pollinators, roadsides managed for diverse plant communities provide a wide range of ecological services in urban, agricultural, and natural landscapes, including supporting biodiversity, storing carbon, and filtering air and water. They aid driver safety by reducing monotony and keeping drivers more alert. They also support cultural services such as health and aesthetic benefits by providing access to nature and showcasing unique regional beauty. Roadsides are also an opportunity to mitigate the negative ecological effects of roads. How DOTs manage their roadsides influences the surrounding lands, but their reach can also extend further, to local and regional businesses and the adoption of sustainable maintenance and revegetation practices. The scale at which DOTs work means that they heavily influence associated industries and can help drive the markets and therefore the availability and affordability of things like native plant materials and wildlife-friendly erosion blankets. Therefore, roadsides can be assets to DOTs, to states, to pollinators, and to ecosystems as DOTs maintain them as ecologically valuable components of the landscape. Roadsides provide a safe driving environment and so much more.  Photo Credit: Luis Colon/Arizona DOTÂ
Chapter 11. Communication Support 11-26 collectively spent thousands of hours controlling invasive plants and managing the site for biodiversity. Blueberry Hill is also home to the endangered rusty-patched bumble bee. In 2021, Minnesota DOT proposed that the group become part of the agencyâs Highway Sponsorship Program, authorized by state law in 2017. The program allows âbusinesses, civic groups, and individuals to support the enhancement and maintenance of interstates as well as U.S. and Minnesota highway roadsides.â Minnesota DOT has developed a number of highway sponsorship programs with partners throughout the state. The Prairie Enthusiasts continue to be stewards of Blueberry Hill and the species it harbors.
Chapter 11. Communication Support 11-25 11.5 Case Studies 11.5.1 Volunteers Help Grow the Colorado Pollinator Highway Recognizing the role that roadsides play in supporting pollinators, the Colorado State Legislature unanimously passed legislation in 2017 that established Interstate 76 as the Colorado Pollinator Highway. The Colorado DOT then launched a pilot project along Interstate 76 near Julesburg, Colorado, with goals to establish native pollinator plants along rights-of-way, improve weed management practices, and increase public awareness of pollinator habitat and connectivity. The Julesburg area was selected for the pilot project because of its proximity to the Nebraska/Colorado state line. The Colorado Welcome Center was an ideal place for the public to learn more about pollinator conservation efforts. Because of the focus on pollinators, Colorado DOT partnered with a number of organizations, including the People and Pollinators Action Network, Butterfly Pavilion, Loveland Initiative for Monarch Butterflies, Colorado Native Plant Society, Denver Botanical Garden, Pheasants Forever, Xerces Society, National Resources Conservation Service, and several native plant seed companies based in Colorado. Partners offered technical assistance, recruited volunteers, or donated seed or equipment. In the fall of 2018, nearly 50 volunteers planted more than 4 acres of roadside pollinator habitat safely. The project has since sparked interest in collecting native seed on roadsides, monitoring habitat and pollinators, identifying appropriate spot treatments, and conducting vegetation inventories in the future. 11.5.2 Communities Collect Milkweeds in Ohio The Ohio DOT is one of many state agencies and organizations that compose the Ohio Pollinator Habitat Initiative (OPHI). Through OPHI, Ohio DOT has engaged with communities to connect roadsides with pollinator conservation. One effort involved recruiting volunteers throughout the state to collect milkweed seed pods. Volunteers dropped off pods at their local soil and water conservation office, which were then taken to participating Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction facilities. Inmates would remove the milkweed floss from the seeds within the pods. Seeds were then packaged for future distribution at outreach events or planted and grown out in plugs that were planted by Ohio DOT at various sites. 11.5.3 Highway Sponsorships in Minnesota Minnesota DOT acquired land in the early 1970s as a possible site for a new highway rest area. However, the rest area was never built. Some of the land was instead used for staging during construction on the nearby State Route 95. Included in the parcel of land owned by Minnesota DOT was a 4-acre prairie on a steep bluff known as Blueberry Hill. For several decades, Minnesota DOT granted volunteers from The Prairie Enthusiasts, a nonprofit organization, access to the land to conduct land management actions. Volunteers Colorado DOT worked with a large group of volunteers to help create pollinator habitat along Interstate 76. Photo Credit: Jason Roth/CDOTÂ
Chapter 11. Communication Support 11-24 11.4.3 Videos The Pollinator Habitat Conservation along Roadways video for use in outreach with the public is available on the National Academies Press website (https://nap.nationalacademies.org/). The Pollinator Habitat Conservation along Roadways video for use internally within your transportation agency is available on the National Academies Press website (https://nap.nationalacademies.org/). Videos from other organizations that may be shared to raise awareness of pollinators and the importance of restoring pollinator habitat include: ï§ the Xerces Society YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAiPLPJuySOgn6CbjkOxqLQ; ï§ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service YouTube channel (has several videos on pollinators): https://www.youtube.com/c/usfws/search?query=pollinator; and ï§ a webinar series on monarch butterfly biology and conservation, organized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Monarch Joint Venture: https://nctc.fws.gov/topic/online-training/webinars/monarch-conservation.html. Videos about transportation agencies and their work with pollinator habitat include: ï§ Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdDD0hYUkPo; ï§ Nebraska Department of Transportation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMHB3pOafjs; and ï§ Oklahoma Gardening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZz9keOMW3A. 11.4.4 Editable Presentation A PowerPoint file with regional guidance is available on the National Academies Press website (https://nap.nationalacademies.org/) and can be adapted to give a presentation within your organization.
Chapter 11. Communication Support 11-23 ï§ Experiment with vegetation management techniques; learn from local land managers and peers in surrounding states. ï§ Provide training for staff members so they stay up to speed on new management techniques and plant identification and understand how these measures fit into the goals of the DOT and why they are important. ï§ Communicate early with native plant vendors so that they can accommodate your needs, such as growing out any plant material needed for your projects. ï§ Control weeds during construction, before planting, and during revegetation establishment. ï§ Design staff need to coordinate with maintenance staff about future maintenance needed for pollinator habitat revegetation projects. 11.4 Communication Resources  This section contains links to resources that may be useful to your communications efforts. 11.4.1 Photo Library The Xerces Society has made photos of roadside habitat as well as photos of pollinators, including butterflies, bees, and monarchs, available for DOTs to use in outreach efforts. The photo library is available on the National Academies Press website (https://nap.nationalacademies.org/). 11.4.2 Graphics Graphics can be a powerful tool for communicating with the public. Graphics can make complicated ideas or processes easier to understand by using visual representations. Consider asking your communications department to create some graphics about the importance of pollinators and native plants found along roadsides in your state for use in outreach materials and social media posts. Below are some additional graphics that may be useful in communicating with the public. ï§ Xerces Graphics. Xerces has created several relevant graphics, including graphics on the importance of pollinators, the many benefits of roadside habitat, and the linkage between plant diversity and the diversity of pollinators and other wildlife. These graphics can be used in DOT communications efforts and can be accessed here: https://xerces.org/pollinator-conservation/roadsides/benefits-roadside-pollinator- habitat and here: https://xerces.org/pollinator-conservation/roadsides/pollinators- keystone-species. ï§ Monarch Life Cycle. This graphic shows the life cycle of the monarch butterfly and could be used in educational materials about these iconic animals. This graphic was created by the Xerces Society and the Monarch Joint Venture conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. This graphic is available on the National Academies Press website: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/.
Chapter 11. Communication Support 11-22 actually reduce pollinator mortality rather than lure pollinators to their death by vehicle. This is because the pollinators stay on the roadsides rather than going off in search of flowers for nectar or pollen. Pollinator Conservation Has Public Relations Benefits Pollinator conservation is very popular with the public. Many people intuitively understand the importance of pollinators and are motivated to help protect these important animals. In addition to concern for pollinators generally, many people feel deep connections to individual pollinator species, such as the monarch butterfly. Talking about DOT work to protect pollinators and native plants can increase public support for DOTs and inspire the public to engage in pollinator conservation as well. Additional roadside and pollinator FAQ documents can be found at: ï§ https://monarchjointventure.org/mjvprograms/science/roadsidehabitat/frequently- asked-questions-monarchs-and-roadsides ï§ https://xerces.org/publications/fact-sheets/roadsides-as-habitat-for-pollinators- frequently-asked-questions 11.3.4 Top DOT Actions for Pollinators The list below can be useful for communicating within your department or agency and highlighting some of the most important actions that DOTs can take to contribute to pollinator conservation. ï§ Reduce mowing frequency beyond the mown strip in the recovery area so flowering plants have a chance to bloom and support pollinators. ï§ Use native plants in revegetation projects because native plants support more pollinators than nonnative plants. ï§ Protect butterfly host plants, especially the host plants of imperiled butterfly species. ï§ Target herbicide use so that nontarget plants, including those that are host plants or that provide nectar and pollen to pollinators, are not affected. ï§ Time maintenance activities to avoid key breeding periods for imperiled species. ï§ Control noxious and invasive weeds. ï§ Increase diversity of native plants in revegetation areas, which will make the habitat more resilient and able to support a diversity of pollinators. ï§ Prioritize revegetation projects along roadsides where they will be most beneficial for pollinators, such as areas near natural areas or near populations of imperiled pollinators. ï§ Inform the public about the work you are doing to protect pollinators. ï§ Increase the mowing height to 8 to 10 inches to leave vegetation for pollinators to use. ï§ Use adaptive management for managing roadside vegetation; learn from what is working and what needs tweaking.
Chapter 11. Communication Support 11-21 disturbance is important for maintaining plant diversity. For example, periodic disturbances in grasslands can prevent encroachment by woody plants. The frequency of such activities, as well as the scale at which they are implemented, influences their impacts on pollinators. Overall, negative pollinator response to vegetation management is usually temporary (aside from a poorly timed event that affects a population of an imperiled species that has no other populations nearby). Herbicides Can Be Used in Ways that Reduce Harm to Pollinators Widespread use of herbicides can have negative effects on pollinators by reducing important food plants. Roadside managers and other vegetation managers can reduce the impacts of herbicide use on pollinators by: ï§ using herbicides within an integrated approach that incorporates a range of methods to prevent or manage weeds and non-compatible vegetation, ï§ targeting nonselective broadcast applications that can damage host or nectar plants, ï§ using herbicides as efficiently and effectively as possible, ï§ reducing off-site movement of herbicides, and ï§ limiting direct exposure of pollinators to herbicides when possible. Collisions with Vehicles Are Not a Major Source of Mortality for Most Pollinators Hundreds of thousands of pollinators are killed by vehicles on roads (McKenna et al. 2001; Munoz et al. 2015), but research suggests that the numbers appear to be a small proportion of the overall populations using roadsides. Mortality rates of butterflies on roads, for example, range from 0.6 to a maximum of 10 percent of the population within the roadside, depending on the species, rates that are lower than numbers killed by natural enemies like predators or parasitoids (Munguira and Thomas 1992; Zielin et al. 2010). However, road mortality can be higher for some species of pollinators than others (Ries et al. 2001). For example, butterflies appear to be one of the more common groups of insects killed by cars (Rao and Girish 2007). Some butterflies that are strong fliers have the ability to dodge vehicles, while other species that are less able fliers are more susceptible (Munguira and Thomas 1992; Zielin et al. 2010). Migratory species like monarch butterflies may have higher rates of mortality due to vehicle collisions; during the fall migration, the eastern population of monarchs encounter hotspots of mortality while crossing a few highways (Kantola et al. 2019). The available science indicates that the benefits of supporting pollinators on roadsides outweighs any costs (Philips et al. 2020). Roadsides with High-quality Habitat Do Not Increase the Number of Pollinators Killed by Vehicles Although pollinators and other wildlife are going to be killed by vehicles as long as roads exist, there are ways to reduce pollinator road mortality. Reducing roadside mowing can reduce butterfly mortality (Skorka et al. 2013), as can enhancing the diversity and abundance of wildflowers on roadsides (Munguira and Thomas 1992; Ries et al. 2001; Skorka et al. 2013). Current research suggests that roadsides with high-quality habitat
Chapter 11. Communication Support 11-20 sequestration within roadside habitat in Florida at $39 million per year; that number could increase with the sale of carbon credits. Other more recent studies suggest that natural climate solutions alone could provide one-third of the climate mitigation required to keep warming below 2°C (3.6°F) (Griscom et al. 2017; Fargione et al. 2018). DOTs are in a position to make real contributions to natural climate solutions through the creation of roadside pollinator habitat. Some Actions that Promote Pollinator Habitat May Save Money Compared to Current Practices Some practices, such as reduced mowing, can provide cost savings. Other practices that may have higher up-front costs, such as using native plants in revegetation projects, may have lower long-term costs through the savings provided by increased weed suppression and increased resilience to climate change. Native Plants Are Better for Pollinators Native plants are central to healthy, functional ecosystems. They support soil health, improve water quality, sequester carbon, and are habitat for wildlife. Native plants support more pollinators and more wildlife than do nonnative plants (Narango et al. 2017; Williams et al. 2011). In addition to supporting more caterpillars, native plants are more attractive as sources of pollen and nectar for pollinators than nonnative plants and support more species and more individuals (Williams et al. 2011; Morandin and Kremen 2013). Native grasses and flowers are best adapted to local growing conditions, require minimal inputs for establishment, and are able to tolerate drought or heat, which will become more common in many regions. In addition, some native species are able to tolerate the poor growing conditions found on roadsides (Harper-Lore and Wilson 2000; OâDell et al. 2007). Although the initial costs associated with establishing native plant material are relatively high, particularly in plans that include a higher density and diversity of flowering plants or specialized species, native plants are often more cost effective in the long term. Once established, the plantings persist over time and require less mowing as well as fewer herbicides and other weed control measures, thereby reducing long-term maintenance efforts and cost (Berger 2005). In contrast, controlling the growth and spread of invasive plants along roadsides through repeated mowing and rigorous herbicide use is very expensive (Westbrooks 1998). Noxious and Invasive Plants in Roadsides Negatively Affect Pollinators Noxious and invasive plants on roadsides can greatly reduce the diversity and abundance of host plants and flowering plants by outcompeting them for water, light, space, and nutrients, thereby limiting the reproductive potential of pollinators. Flowering weeds do confer some benefits to pollinators (e.g., Canada thistle provides nectar and pollen), but these benefits do not outweigh the ecological costs of keeping those plants in the landscape. Vegetation Management Is Important for Pollinators Disturbance to vegetation (e.g., mowing, haying), as well as the use of herbicides, can result in direct or indirect harm to pollinators. However, in many ecosystems, periodic
Chapter 11. Communication Support 11-19 United States looked at long-term data as well as community science data and found a long-term decline in butterfly abundance amounting to 1.6 percent per year over the last 40 years (Forister et al. 2021). This decline includes previously abundant and widespread species like monarch butterfly. Native bees are also showing declines, with 27 percent of mason bees and 50 percent of leafcutter bees at risk of extinction. Similarly, 28 percent of bumble bee species in the United States and Canada are imperiled, with several on the brink of extinction. Roadsides Can Provide Valuable Habitat for Pollinators State DOTs manage substantial amounts of land and associated natural resources across North America, including more than 10 million acres in the United States (Forman et al. 2003). This acreage holds the potential to create a network of habitats that will be able to support pollinators across urban and rural landscapes. Pollinator diversity can be high in roadsides, areas where communities include a significant portion of the species found in the region (Ries et al. 2001; Hopwood 2008; Noordijk et al. 2009). Furthermore, roadsides can be home to rare species as well as common species (Munguira and Thomas 1992; Ries et al. 2001). Roadsides provide pollinators with food as well as breeding or nesting opportunities and can increase habitat connectivity. Creating and Managing Roadside Habitat for Pollinators Will Not Compromise Safety Sight lines can be maintained on roadsides with native plants through careful plant selection. Landscape designers can use the palatability of plants to large mammals to inform plant selections. In addition, reduced mowing (of the entire roadside) does not appear to influence the number of deer/vehicle collisions (Mastro et al. 2008; Barnum and Alt 2013; Guyton et al. 2014). Deer may prefer roadsides that are mowed more frequently because mowing can increase the palatability of some plants; deer often prefer new growth to older vegetation. Regular mowing of the strip of vegetation adjacent to the pavement (i.e., recovery area, also known as the clear zone), while letting the rest of the roadside grow to a reasonable height, can help maintain driver visibility and prevent deer/vehicle collisions. Creating and Managing Pollinator Habitat Along Roadsides Has Many Benefits for DOTs Creating climate-smart pollinator habitat along roadsides has many benefits beyond pollinator conservation. Pollinator habitat provides benefits such as erosion control and reductions in runoff. This reduces flooding, which is critical in areas where increased flooding is projected. Pollinator habitat can also help mitigate the climate crisis. Creating diverse plantings along roadsides increases soil health, which, in turn, increases carbon sequestration. Studies of grassland soils show that increasing plant diversity increases the amount of carbon stored by the soils (Lange et al. 2015; Chen et al. 2018; Yang et al. 2019). Thus, diverse plantings created for pollinator conservation also help mitigate climate change by increasing carbon sequestration within those habitats. Natural climate solutions encourage the restoration and protection of natural habitats as a means of combating the climate crisis. Harrison (2014) measured the value of carbon
Chapter 11. Communication Support 11-18 Some steps that Scott Lucas suggests for success include: ï§ Know what senior leadership is interested in and find out what motivates them. Some possibilities include eco-credits, financial gain, recognition, and aesthetics. ï§ What motivates the staff? Find something that many staff members care about and connect it to pollinators. It might be a shared love of nature, recreational activities like hunting or fishing, or interest in our food supply. Find out what motivates people in your department and show how creating pollinator habitat connects to this shared interest. ï§ Have a clear goal for your group. ï§ Do not exclude people (e.g., do not make it political). ï§ Give a shout-out to partners and recognize them whenever possible. ï§ Apply for awards related to exemplary ecosystem management or roadside stewardship. ï§ Do outreach events with staff members and the public to showcase the work you have done. 11.3.3 Talking Points This collection of talking points, also available for download as a Word document, may be useful in communications with the public or with DOT staff members. These talking points can help explain to decision-makers in your department the importance of pollinators and the types of actions DOTs can take to protect pollinators. Pollinators Are Important to Human Health and Well-being More than 85 percent of flowering plants require an animal, usually an insect, to move pollen between flowers for reproduction. Because they provide this important service, pollinators are vital to our natural areas as well as human health and well-being. Insect pollinators are important for many crops. It has been estimated that about one in three bites of food that humans eat every day can be traced back to pollinators. As habitat within rural landscapes decreased, agricultural crops became more dependent on pollination from managed honey bees. The bees, which are native to Europe, can be brought in during bloom and moved between crops throughout the growing season. Studies show that wild native bees contribute substantially to crop pollination as well. Furthermore, pollination improves when native bees are present compared to periods when only honey bees are present (Greenleaf and Kremen 2006; Garibaldi et al. 2011; Brittain et al. 2013). Many Species of Pollinators Are Declining and in Need of Conservation Actions Many species of insects are declining around the world, including a number of pollinators. Pollinators in the United States are no exception. For example, long-term studies in both Ohio and California have documented declines in butterfly abundance and richness (Forister et al. 2011; Wepprich et al. 2019). A recent study of butterflies in the western
Chapter 11. Communication Support 11-17 Potential Partner Organization/Agency Description Grassland Restoration Network An association of projects with staff members who work on restoration in a variety of grassland ecosystems. They share knowledge and information about grassland restoration. NonâGovernment Organizations with Expertise on Pollinators Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation Nonprofit that works to support invertebrates and the important roles they play; has the largest pollinator conservation team in the world and many relevant resources: https://xerces.org/ Pollinator Partnership Nonprofit known for spearheading Pollinator Week: https://www.pollinator.org/ Monarch Joint Venture A partnership of federal and state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and academic programs that work to protect monarchs: https://monarchjointventure.org/ NonâGovernment Organizations with Expertise Pertaining to Small Wildlife Species that Use Roadside Habitat National and state Audubon Society chapters Nonprofit organization that works to protect birds: https://www.audubon.org/ Local Wildlife Society chapters Nonprofit organization that provides support for wildlife professionals; local chapters have a regional focus: https://wildlife.org/ In addition to national or statewide agencies or organizations, local groups that have a wide reach may be potential collaborators. Examples include the People and Pollinators Action Network, based in Boulder, Colorado; the Pollinator Conservation Alliance, based in Buffalo, New York; and the Pollinator Friendly Alliance, based in Stillwater, Minnesota. Fostering Pride for Your Work within Your Agency Creating a sense of pride in the work your agency is doing to protect pollinators is a great way to build support for continuing such work. At the 2022 Pollinator Habitat Conservation along Roadways Peer Exchange Meeting, many DOT staff members indicated that having leadership on board was crucial to implementing conservation practices for pollinators. Fostering a sense of agency pride in pollinator work is one way to get leadership support for pollinator conservation. Scott Lucas, assistant administrator with the Ohio DOT Office of Maintenance Operations, noted the importance of identifying the priorities of senior leadership in order to help engage them.
Chapter 11. Communication Support 11-16 Potential Partner Organization/Agency Description Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Regional working group in the Midwest that has taken a leadership role in monarch conservation NonâGovernment Organizations with Expertise Pertaining to Outreach about Natural Heritage State master naturalists Groups that provide naturalist training for volunteers who are eager to make a difference State natural heritage foundations or commissions Organizations devoted to protecting land and wildlife State biological surveys Some states have divisions that are devoted to monitoring biological diversity; these can provide detailed information about the locations of habitat or particularly important diverse lands NonâGovernment Organizations with Expertise Pertaining to Native Plants Native plant societies State or local groups that focus on native plants, restoration, and ecosystem health: https://nanps.org/nativeâplantâsocieties/ Wild Ones National nonprofit organization with local chapters that focus on native plants and landscaping:  https://wildones.org/ Natural Areas Association National nonprofit organization that provides support to a community of natural area managers: https://naturalareas.org/ NonâGovernment Organizations with Expertise Pertaining to Native Plant Establishment The Nature Conservancy Nonprofit that focuses on protecting and restoring land and water, often through partnerships: https://www.nature.org/enâus/  Pheasants Forever/Quail Forever Nonprofit organizations that focus on creating and maintaining habitat for game birds: https://www.pheasantsforever.org/ https://quailforever.org/  Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation Nonprofit that works to support invertebrates and the important roles they play; has significant expertise in habitat establishment and restoration to support pollinators: https://xerces.org/Â
Chapter 11. Communication Support 11-15 Table 11-3. Potential partners in communicating with the public regarding revegetation projects or training and educational collaborations on vegetation management techniques. Potential Partner Organization/Agency Description State and Federal Agencies State departments of natural resources Protect air, water, and soil; their roles sometimes also encompass fishing and hunting as well as environmental conservation and natural heritage State fish and game departments Involved in stewardship of parks, fish, game, and state outdoor recreational resources; some also track species of concern U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal agency that protects endangered species and manages fisheries, refuges, and migratory birds USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Federal agency that provides technical support to producers and landowners as well as financial support for voluntary conservation actions on working lands USDA Forest Service Federal agency that manages national forests and grasslands Bureau of Land Management Federal agency that manages public lands for recreation, grazing, or energy extraction; also manages national monuments and wilderness areas National Park Service  Federal agency that manages national parks, some national monuments, and other land that has historic or conservation value State departments of agriculture State departments of agriculture may be the primary agencies for managing insects in some states Military bases Military bases often have conservation and management mandates that overlap with those of DOTs Working Groups RightsâofâWay as Habitat Working Group A collaborative group of partners from the energy and transportation sectors: http://rightofway.erc.uic.edu/ Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Regional working group in the western states that has taken a leadership role in monarch conservationÂ
Chapter 11. Communication Support 11-14 11.3.2 Partnerships State or federal agencies, as well as local, regional, or national organizations, can be excellent partners for outreach to the general public as well as internal communications (see Box 11-2). A land management agency or organization, for example, could offer new cutting-edge weed management techniques to the maintenance staff or organize a regional workshop to help share collective knowledge. Similarly, native plant conservation or natural heritage organizations could provide feedback to the design staff on native plants that are unfamiliar to them. Other agencies or organizations could also be partners in communications with the public when there are common goals. The Audubon Society and Pheasants Forever/Quail Forever are good partners for sharing the advantages of reduced mowing strategies involving songbirds and game birds. Possible collaborations could include events like field days or garden visits, sharing costs on plant materials or signage for habitat installations, or just spreading the word about DOT practices that support pollinators and biodiversity. Box 11-2. Communicating Timing of Mowing Within an Agency The Ohio Department of Transportation came up with a creative solution to help maintenance staff know when to mow in different parts of the state. They created window clings to be placed in the cabs of mowers that give basic guidelines on mowing height and timing, as well as a QR code that staff can scan to get more information. This type of creative communications solutions can help keep staff informed about best practices for maintaining pollinator habitat. Partnerships with other agencies or organizations can help fill knowledge gaps within your agency. A transportation department that has little experience with establishing native plants could partner with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, a habitat organization such as Pheasants Forever/Quail Forever, or another group that installs native vegetation and provides guidance on habitat management. Organizations with a specialized focus on pollinators could provide background information for a DOT or provide tailored guidance or staff training. Table 11-3 has examples of organizations or groups that could be partners in pollinator conservation efforts.
Chapter 11. Communication Support 11-13 Box 11-1. Roadside Landscape Design and Pollinator Conservation Course Welcome, Introductions, Overview of the Day Module 1. The Importance of Pollinator conservation ï§ Pollination biology ï§ Pollination economics ï§ Pollinators in decline Module 2. Bee and Butterfly Biology ï§ Pollinator recognition ï§ Pollinator ecology ï§ Identifying pollinator habitat Module 3. Pollinator-Friendly Roadside Management ï§ The value of habitat ï§ Importance of roadsides to pollinators ï§ Conducting roadside vegetation inventories ï§ Adapting mowing practices ï§ Use of herbicides to reduce risks to pollinators ï§ Discussion about the potential for adjusting practices regionally Module 4. Roadside Design and Planning Considerations ï§ Plant selection ï§ Sourcing plant material ï§ Prioritizing new locations ï§ Brainstorming â opportunities and constraints ï§ Coordinating with maintenance Module 5. Enhancing Establishment of Roadside Vegetation ï§ Site preparation ï§ Planting techniques for woody and herbaceous plants Module 6. Communicating with the Public about Pollinators ï§ Signage, messaging, social media ï§ Future research needs Module 7. Additional Resources and wrap up
Chapter 11. Communication Support 11-12 ï§ recognition of important native plants, ï§ updated noxious and invasive weed management techniques, and ï§ monitoring techniques for roadside vegetation and/or pollinators. Figure 11-8. Agenda for pollinator training for Colorado DOT staff. If your agency does not have in-house expertise to conduct the training, partner with a local organization or agency that can help share their knowledge. In Iowa, for example, the Tallgrass Prairie Center at the University of Northern Iowa provides native plant identification training to roadside managers as well as staff members from agencies within the state, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service. See Box 11-1 for an example agenda of training for DOT staff members geared toward providing background and information on practices that support pollinators.
11-11 Chapter 11. Communication Support primary sources of habitat; therefore, ensuring that roadsides have native plants that provide the resources pollinators need is highly beneficial. Roadsides can also be very important for increasing habitat connectivity. Are There Other Advantages to Creating Roadside Habitat for Pollinators? Creating climate-smart pollinator habitat along roadsides has many additional benefits beyond conservation. Pollinator habitat helps control erosion and reduces runoff, which reduces flooding and improves water quality. Planting a diverse assemblage of native plants can also increase soil health and improve carbon sequestration. In addition, habitat for pollinators can provide habitat for other beneficial insects, such as insect predators that contribute to the control of crop pests. How Can I Help? You can help by contacting your representatives at all levels of government and letting them know that you support DOT efforts to increase pollinator habitat along roadsides. In your own communities, you can help pollinators by planting native plants and reducing your use of pesticides, especially insecticides, around your home. 11.3 Communication Within Your DOT Internal communication efforts can be valuable for building awareness about the importance of pollinators and the strategies that can be used to create and maintain roadside habitat for them. Awareness of the potential of roadsides as habitat for pollinators should be increased within the administration as well as at other levels (Lampinen and Anttila 2021). It can also be helpful to highlight safety, possible cost savings, public engagement, and other benefits of pollinator habitat, such as erosion control and carbon sequestration, as these may increase adoption by decision-makers (Nemec et al. 2021). Internal outreach efforts can also be useful for building enthusiasm and support for such actions among DOT staff members. This is valuable when seeking to make and implement changes successfully. Additional resources are provided here that may be useful in outreach within your DOT: the FAQs, Talking Points and Top DOT Actions for Pollinators are available for download as Word documents so that the text can be used as needed for internal communications (available on the National Academies Press website, https://nap.nationalacademies.org/). 11.3.1 Staff Training DOTs have identified staff training as a very important component to integrating changes made to maintenance and design plans regarding pollinators. Training helps build internal support and an understanding of new approaches within the agency, from the managerial staff to the crews working on the ground. Topics for training might include: ï§ basic biological and habitat needs for pollinators, ï§ roles that roadsides and rights-of-way can play in pollinator conservation, ï§ current best practices to minimize impacts of vegetation management on pollinators, ï§ landscape designs with pollinators in mind,
Chapter 11. Communication Support 11-10 Why Are Pollinators Important? Pollinators are important to human health and well-being. More than 85 percent of flowering plants require an animal, usually an insect, for pollination. One out of every three bites of food is pollinated by an insect, including bees, butterflies, moths, wasps, flies, and beetles. Unfortunately, populations of many insect pollinators are declining. This includes species that were formerly widespread, such as the monarch butterfly. Insect pollinator populations are declining due to a range of factors, including habitat loss, pesticide exposure, and climate change. How Can My DOT Help Pollinators? DOTs can help pollinators by creating pollinator habitat along roadsides that includes a diversity of native plants. DOTs can also help pollinators by protecting plant species that are important to pollinators where they occur along roadsides. These include preferred nectar and/or pollen plants as well as butterfly and moth host plants (i.e., the plants that caterpillars eat) of local pollinators. Do Roadsides Make Good Habitat for Pollinators? Yes! Roadsides can provide good habitat for pollinators when the habitat contains a variety of native plants that provide food, nesting sites, and places to overwinter. Food for pollinators can mean host plants for butterfly or moth caterpillars as well as flowers, which provide nectar and pollen. Why Is It Important to Create Pollinator Habitat Along Roadsides? One of the primary drivers of biodiversity decline for many species, including pollinators, is habitat loss. With more than 10 million acres in the United States, roadsides present a valuable opportunity to increase the amount of habitat available to pollinators. Increasing the amount of habitat available will increase the number of pollinators that can be supported on the landscape, thereby decreasing the risk of extinction. Roadside habitat is also ideally suited to increasing habitat connectivity, making it easier for animals to move among high-quality habitat patches such as nature preserves or other natural areas. Increased habitat connectivity also helps to reduce extinction risks. Will Pollinator Habitat Affect Driver Safety? No. Driver safety is a top priority for DOTs. Pollinator habitat can be maintained or planted along roadsides beyond the mown strip in the recovery area so that safety is not compromised. Wonât Pollinators Be Killed by Traffic? Although some pollinators are killed by traffic, research suggests that creating pollinator habitat along roadsides does not increase the number of pollinators killed. In fact, some research shows that pollinator mortality from traffic is actually lower in places where roadside vegetation has more plant species. Quality habitat on roadsides may reduce the number of pollinators killed by vehicles by providing necessary habitat, thereby reducing the need for pollinators to move elsewhere. In many parts of the country, roadsides are the
Chapter 11. Communication Support 11-9 Month Opportunities for Highlighting Pollinators and Their Habitat May Spring wildflowers and their importance for bees; National Wildflower Week, Endangered Species Day (May 19), World Bee Day (May 20) June Pollinator Week (third week in June) July Moth Week (third week in July) August Wildflowers in bloom on roadsides September Fall monarch migration October Fall monarch migration November Overwintering habitat for pollinators December Overwintering habitat for pollinators Sample Social Media Posts Social media posts that focus on pollinator-related outreach can cover a variety of topics, such as the importance of pollinators; provide photos or information about particular species of pollinators found on roadsides; or discuss the value of native plants and roadside habitat projects. ï§ âOn average, one in three bites of food is dependent on pollinators.â ï§ âPlanting native plants along roadsides has many benefits, including providing pollinator habitat, flood prevention, and carbon sequestration.â ï§ âMonarch butterflies use milkweeds along roadsides during the breeding season.â ï§ âSpring is here! Keep an eye out for the first bumble bees of the season.â ï§ âMonarch butterflies in the west are in trouble â our DOT is taking action by avoiding mowing during the breeding season.â ï§ âMigrating monarch butterflies east of the Rocky Mountains may travel as far as 3,000 miles during their lifetime, one of the longest butterfly migrations in the world!â ï§ âRoadsides can be home for a number of rare plants and animals, including butterflies like the Karner blue butterfly.â 11.2.8 Frequently Asked Questions There are a number of frequently asked questions (FAQs) that the general public may ask of a DOT regarding pollinator conservation and roadsides. The FAQs and suggested answers that follow have been compiled into a Word document that is available for download so that the text can be used as needed in your outreach efforts (available on the National Academies Press website https://nap.nationalacademies.org/.
Chapter 11. Communication Support 11-8 11.2.7 Social Media Social media is an effective way to communicate with the public quickly about the work your DOT is doing to support pollinators. Social media can help draw attention to articles, meetings, new publications, interviews, podcasts, or demonstration sites or just generate interest in a DOT. There are a growing number of social media platforms, but Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter remain the three with the largest reach and the ones that are most commonly used by agencies. These platforms have very different limits on how long posts can be (see Table 11-1) as well as some other differences regarding what can be posted. For Facebook and Twitter, photos or videos are optional in posts; live links can be included (they will display as a highlighted panel). Instagram does not allow live links and does require a photo or video. If you are using multiple platforms, it is worth using the same post on as many platforms as you can for efficiency, despite the different character limits. Facebook and Instagram both allow longer, more descriptive posts compared with Twitter; therefore, it is typical to use the same text for Facebook and Instagram and shorter text for Twitter. Table 11-1. Quick guide to different social media platforms. Platform Ideal for: Length of Post (character limit) Hashtag Limit Facebook Promoting events, summarizing recent work, live video streams 63,206 2 Instagram Photos 2,200 30 Twitter Sharing links, news, marketing 280  2 The following calendar (Table 11-2) lists some events that your communications department may wish to take advantage of when using social media to share the importance of pollinators and the role DOTs play in supporting them. Table 11-2. Calendar of events relevant for pollinator outreach through social media. Month Opportunities for Highlighting Pollinators and Their Habitat January Overwintering monarch butterfly counts in the west (Thanksgiving Count, New Yearâs Count data released) February Monarchs start to leave overwintering sites March Bumble bee queens are emerging April Earth Day/Week and National Native Plant Month; bumble bee queens emergingÂ
Chapter 11. Communication Support 11-7 Note: Posters are a great tool for sharing information with wide audiences, particularly with schools and land management agencies. Posters are available on the following website: https://iowadot.gov/lrtf Figure 11-7. These posters were created for the Iowa DOT as part of the Iowa Living Roadway Trust Fund and are available free on request to anyone in the state. 11.2.5 Events Local or statewide events can be opportunities for outreach to the public on the pollinator-related work of your agency. Creating a booth or display that can be used at events such as a county or state fair that includes pictures of roadside habitat and pollinators will educate the public about these important animals and how your DOT is working to support them. Illinois DOT once set up a state fair display with monarch butterflies in a net cage to grab attention of fair attendees and start conversations about the connections between roadsides and monarchs. Public meetings can be another opportunity to engage with the public directly. When Ohio DOTâs Region 6 was considering installing several pollinator plantings in collaboration with partners, they set up a series of public meetings to discuss the plantings. These meetings were instrumental in helping the public understand why Ohio DOT was experimenting with native plants and what to expect as the plantings established (i.e., the plantings would not look colorful during the establishment phase but would begin to bloom a few years after planting). 11.2.6 Demonstration Sites Demonstration plantings with native plants that are showy and colorful are ideal for smaller spaces such as rest areas or gardens that receive lots of foot traffic from people within the state as well as tourists from elsewhere. Signage or brochures can educate the public as to why a DOT is showcasing these plants. In 2012, Missouri DOT installed a pollinator garden on the Missouri State Fairgrounds. The 60- by 25-foot garden included 17 species of wildflowers that attract pollinators. The garden also had two 4-foot-wide signs that offered information (and photos) regarding some of the known species of bees in Missouri and explanations as to why pollinators are important. Oklahoma DOT provided information about roadside pollinator habitat to the public at one of their Tourist Information Centers Photo Credit: R. PerkinsÂ
Chapter 11. Communication Support 11-6 Note: Guides are available on the following websites:  â https://iowadot.gov/lrtf â https://viz.wspis.com/flipbooks/tdot_pollinator_guide/ Figure 11-5. These guides, created by the Iowa and Tennessee DOTs, highlight pollinators as well as the work that the DOTs are doing to support them. Note: Brochures are available on the following websites:  â https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/EP138 â https://dot.nebraska.gov/media/3933/wildflower2009.pdf â https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdotâinfo/trv/wildflowers/wildflowers_brochure.pdf Figure 11-6. Brochures created by the Florida, Nebraska, and Texas DOTs bring attention to native plants found on their respective roadsides and are often available at rest areas and other tourist stopovers.
Chapter 11. Communication Support 11-5 Figure 11-4. Many states offer specialty license plates that highlight pollinators or native wildflowers. 11.2.4 Printed Publications Many DOTs have created publications to celebrate the local diversity of pollinators and native plants. These publications might provide information on the natural history of pollinators or showcase species of interest (Figure 11-5). Other publications might focus on highlighting and recognizing key native plants that can be found on roadsides in the region (Figure 11-6). Examples include posters, booklets, and factsheets (Figure 11-7). Many of these publications were created in collaboration with government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and others.
Chapter 11. Communication Support 11-4 Figure 11-3. This educational sign is next to a display garden created by the Missouri DOT at the Missouri State Fairgrounds. 11.2.2 Websites Some DOTs have created web pages on their websites that specifically address pollinators and pollinator-related issues. These websites can be very useful in educating the public about why pollinators are important and what DOT initiatives are in place to support pollinators. Many of these websites have general information about pollinators and pollinator biology as well as specific information about DOT work that supports pollinators. Such websites are an ideal place to include maps of pollinator habitat work, videos, brochures, or factsheets and other information. Three great examples are: ï§ Florida DOT: https://www.flawildflowers.org/fdot-wildflower-program-pollinators/ ï§ Virginia DOT: https://www.virginiadot.org/programs/pollinator_habitat_program.asp ï§ Washington DOT: https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/protecting- environment/maintaining-vegetation-along-our-highways/protecting-pollinators 11.2.3 License Plates Several states have specialty license plates that highlight pollinators or native wildflowers (Figure 11-4). The sales of these license plates often go toward supporting additional wildflower plantings or related research and education efforts. Depending on the state, transportation agencies may not be directly involved in license plate designs but can work with outside groups that will promote certain designs.
Chapter 11. Communication Support 11-3 showcase to the public an established planting along a roadside or at a highly visible area such as a rest area (Figure 11-2). Signs can also indicate habitat in progress, demonstrating a transportation agency's intentions for a new planting that is not yet fully established. Signs for the public can include project partners and background information regarding a project (Figure 11-3). Figure 11-1. Oregon DOT uses signs to indicate special management areas so the maintenance staff will know the specific vegetation management needed for that particular site. Figure 11-2. A simple but effective roadside sign in Kansas indicates a stretch of roadside with native wildflowers.Â
Chapter 11. Communication Support 11-2 11.1.1 What is in this Toolkit? This toolkit contains a variety of resources for communicating with the public and with DOT staff members. These tools include: ï§ examples of signs, posters, brochures, and websites from many DOTs that can serve as inspiration for your own communications efforts; ï§ sample social media posts and a calendar of relevant pollinator-related events that you can use in social media outreach with the public; ï§ Frequently Asked Questions about pollinators and roadside habitat, which may be especially helpful for public outreach efforts; ï§ Talking Points about pollinators and roadside habitat, which may be especially helpful for outreach within your DOT; and ï§ a list of Top DOT Actions for Pollinators that can be used to highlight important conservation actions to DOT staff members and decision-makers. In addition, there are links to a variety of resources to aid in your communications efforts. These include: ï§ photo libraries of pollinators, ï§ graphics, ï§ relevant video sites, ï§ an editable PowerPoint presentation for use in educating DOT staff members about pollinators and roadside habitat, ï§ a video for the public about the importance of pollinators and roadside habitat that can be used in public outreach, and ï§ a video for DOT staff members about the importance of pollinators and roadside habitat that can be used for internal training or communications. The other chapters in this guide also contain background information that can be useful when responding to media requests for more details or answering questions within your agency or from the general public. For example, detailed information on pollinators and how pollinators use roadsides can be found in Chapter 2. 11.2 Communicating with a General Audience Communicating with the public is important for building public support for DOTs and their conservation efforts. There are a variety of ways to tell the public about the important work your agency is doing, including signs, publications, and social media outreach. This section provides examples of outreach activities from DOTs around the country, along with additional resources that you can use in your own outreach efforts. 11.2.1 Signage Signs can be used to indicate to DOT staff members the roadsides with special maintenance instructions or designated areas of concern (Figure 11-1). Signs can also be used to
11-1 Chapter 11 Communication Support 11.1 Introduction Outreach and communication are important parts of the process when taking action for pollinator conservation. Many of the actions necessary to protect pollinators may involve increased up-front costs, such as using locally or regionally sourced native plants in revegetation projects, or require cultural changes in planning or maintenance activities, such as reduced mowing frequency. Outreach and communication with the public and within your agency are important for building support for such actions. It is important for people to understand why pollinators are important, why pollinator conservation efforts are needed, and how Departments of Transportation (DOTs) can contribute meaningfully to pollinator conservation. This outreach can help improve buy-in from the public as well as the DOT staff members who will carry out this important work. Sharing the story with the community and its leaders about the work your agency is doing to manage roadsides while also supporting pollinators will elevate awareness and build support for your agency and for pollinator conservation. Outreach to the public can: ï§ build public support, ï§ share accomplishments and progress over time, ï§ educate decision-makers and partners about the impact and reach of your work, ï§ demonstrate responsible use of resources and funding to the public, ï§ share practices with other DOTs, and ï§ attract new organizations and partners for collaboration and outreach. Internal communication can: ï§ build internal support for actions that benefit pollinators, ï§ improve understanding of why particular actions are important for pollinator conservation, ï§ share accomplishments and progress over time, and ï§ attract new organizations and partners for collaboration and outreach. This chapter was created to serve as a communications tool kit. It provides materials to help you communicate your pollinator-related projects, actions, and commitments to department or agency staff members as well as the general public. For guidance and inspiration, examples of what DOTs have already created are also included.
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-30 De cid e Rationale for Decision: List in order of strength of factors Hi gh  Environmental Societal Economic M ed iu m  Lo w Â
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-29 Ev al ua te  Strength of Factor Environmental High Medium Low Societal High Medium Low Economic High Medium LowÂ
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-28 Worksheet for Triple Bottom Line Cost-Benefit Tool De fin e Describe the project area Describe the landscape context Describe the intended outcome Define and describe the timeframe for analysisÂ
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-27 Conservation actions Benefits to general pollinator community Benefits to imperiled species Revegetation Prioritize native plants in all plantings (revegetation and urban landscaping) High High Increase flowering plant diversity in all plantings High High Increase host plants in revegetation plantings High High Control weeds to reduce competition while allowing native seedlings to growâthis is critical in the first and second years after plantingâand weeds should also be prevented from going to seed High High Interseed host plants into existing roadside vegetation Medium/High High Weed control prior to planting High High When possible, salvage native plants at the construction site for replanting Medium High Training/Education Provide training for staff for education about why conservation actions are taken by the transportation agency for pollinators Medium/High Medium/HighÂ
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-26 Conservation actions Benefits to general pollinator community Benefits to imperiled species Direct herbicide applications to undesirable plants to avoid harming nontarget species (e.g., spot treatment applications with a backpack sprayer, targeted applications to cut stems, etc.) High High Apply herbicides during plant life stages when weeds are most vulnerable (e.g., before blooming or before going to seed) Low/Medium Low/Medium Avoid herbicide sprays when weather conditions increase drift (e.g., avoid wind speeds >15 miles per hour, avoid applications during a temperature inversion) High High Choose and operate equipment with drift management in mind (e.g., choose spray nozzles to reduce drift; on boom sprayers, use the lowest effective pressure and largest droplet size possible) Low/Medium Low/Medium Avoid broadcast applications of systemic herbicides and herbicides with long residuals, thus reducing exposure to butterfly and moth caterpillars that can be exposed to residuals by consuming contaminated vegetation Medium/High High Whenever possible, prevent conditions that would allow incompatible vegetation or noxious and invasive species to establish or reestablish Medium/High High If necessary (e.g., if the seed bank was depleted of desirable species), replant areas that have been treated with herbicides to remove dense infestations of undesirable vegetation with desirable, competitive, lowâgrowing plant species to reduce the need to reâtreat the area Medium Medium Mechanical Weed and Brush Removal Time activities to avoid vulnerable times of focal species Medium High Feather or soften forest edges adjacent to the mown strip in the recovery area to create a transitional area between the forest and grass (e.g., thin portions of the forest canopy along the edge next to grassy areas, removing undesirable or unhealthy trees) Medium Medium Leave snags or trees with cavities in areas where they are set back from the road and pose no safety risk Medium Medium Minimize soil disturbance (disking, tilling) during brush removal activities to avoid spreading invasive plants and destroying overwintering sites or nests Medium MediumÂ
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-25 Table 10-2. Value of benefits to pollinators of potential conservation actions to be implemented by DOTs. Conservation actions Benefits to general pollinator community Benefits to imperiled species Mowing Avoid mowing imperiled butterfly host plants during butterfly breeding seasons Medium High Adjust mowing height to a minimum height of 8â10 inches in areas with target butterfly host plants or bumble bee colonies in grass thatch if mowing during the growing season Medium High Limit mowing beyond the mown strip in the recovery area to once or less per year High High Aim to mow no more than 1/3â1/2 of an area beyond the mown strip in the recovery area per year (e.g., rotate mowing sections of a roadside) High High Limit mowing beyond the mown strip in the recovery area to no more than twice per year Medium/High Medium Delay mowing as late as possible during the growing season (e.g., mow in autumn), so blooming plants are available throughout the growing season Medium/High Medium/High Clean mowing equipment after use and between sites to limit the spread of invasive weeds Medium Medium Herbicide Use Train staff and contractors to recognize and avoid applications to key host plants for target imperiled butterflies and moths or key nectar plants for bumble bees Medium High Avoid use of products that have toxicity to imperiled butterfly and moth species during breeding seasons Medium/High High Hand pull or use another mechanical control strategy if in an area where herbicide use might impact imperiled species, when feasible Medium High Train staff and contractors to recognize native plants as well as noxious and invasive weeds to reduce unintended damage to nontarget plants High High Use selective herbicides whenever possible to reduce damage to nontarget plants High HighÂ
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-24 Training/Education Training/Education Provide training for staff for education about why the transportation agency takes conservation actions for pollinators. Benefit High Medium Low Co st  Low I, G I, G Medium I, G I, G High I= Benefits to imperiled species; G= Benefits to general pollinator communityÂ
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-23 Revegetation Revegetation Increase host plants in revegetation plantings. Interseed host plants into existing roadside vegetation. Benefit Benefit High Medium Low High Medium Low Co st  Low I, G Co st  Low Medium I, G Medium I, G G High I G High I, G G  I= Benefits to imperiled species; G= Benefits to general pollinator community Revegetation Revegetation When possible, salvage native plants at construction site for replanting. Control weeds to reduce weed competition and allow native seedlings to grow in the first and second years after planting. Prevent weeds from going to seed. Benefit Benefit High Medium Low High Medium Low Co st  Low Co st  Low I, G Medium Medium I, G High I G High I= Benefits to imperiled species; G= Benefits to general pollinator communityÂ
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-22 Mechanical Weed and Brush Removal Mechanical Weed and Brush Removal Feather or soften forest edges adjacent to clear zones to create a transitional area between the forest and grass (e.g., thin portions of the forest canopy along the edge next to grassy areas, removing undesirable or unhealthy trees). Leave snags or trees with cavities in areas where they are set back from the road and pose no safety risk. Benefit Benefit High Medium Low High Medium Low Co st  Low Co st  Low I, G Medium I, G Medium High High I= Benefits to imperiled species; G= Benefits to general pollinator community Revegetation Revegetation Revegetation Increase flowering plant diversity in all plantings.  Prioritize native plants in all plantings  (revegetated and landscape). Benefit Benefit High Medium Low High Medium Low Co st  Low Co st  Low Medium Medium I, G High I, G High I= Benefits to imperiled species; G= Benefits to general pollinator communityÂ
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-21 Herbicides Herbicides Whenever possible, prevent conditions that would allow incompatible vegetation or noxious and invasive species to establish or reestablish. Train staff and contractors to recognize and avoid applications to key host plants for target imperiled butterflies and moths or key nectar plants for bumble bees. Benefit Benefit High Medium Low High Medium Low Co st  Low Co st  Low Medium I, G G Medium I G High High I= Benefits to imperiled species; G= Benefits to general pollinator community Mechanical Weed and Brush Removal Mechanical Weed and Brush Removal Mechanical Weed and Brush Removal Minimize soil disturbance (disking, tilling) during brush removal activities to avoid spreading invasive plants and destroying overwintering sites or nests. Time activities to avoid vulnerable times for focal species. Benefit Benefit High Medium Low High Medium Low Co st  Low I, G Co st  Low Medium Medium High High I G I= Benefits to imperiled species; G= Benefits to general pollinator communityÂ
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-20 Herbicides  Herbicides If necessary (e.g., if the seed bank was depleted of desirable species), replant areas that have been treated with herbicides to remove dense infestations of undesirable vegetation with desirable, competitive, lowâgrowing plant species to reduce the need to reâtreat the area.  When feasible, hand pull or use another mechanical control strategy if in an area where herbicide use might result in impacts on imperiled species.    Benefit     Benefit     High Medium Low       High Medium Low  Co st  Low        Co st  Low     Medium  I, G      Medium     High      High I G                I= Benefits to imperiled species; G= Benefits to general pollinator community  Herbicides  Herbicides Use selective herbicides whenever possible to reduce damage to nontarget plants.  Apply herbicides during plant life stages when weeds are most vulnerable (e.g., before blooming or before going to seed).    Benefit     Benefit     High Medium Low       High Medium Low  Co st  Low        Co st  Low     Medium I, G       Medium I, G I, G   High      High I, G I, G                I= Benefits to imperiled species; G= Benefits to general pollinator communityÂ
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-19 Herbicides Herbicides Direct herbicide applications to undesirable plants to avoid harming nontarget species (e.g., spotâtreatment applications with a backpack sprayer, targeted applications to cut stems). Avoid herbicide sprays when weather conditions increase drift (e.g., avoid wind speeds >15 mph; avoid applications during a temperature inversion). Benefit Benefit High Medium Low High Medium Low Co st  Low Co st  Low Medium I, G Medium I, G High I, G High I= Benefits to imperiled species; G= Benefits to general pollinator community Herbicides Herbicides Choose and operate equipment with drift management in mind (e.g., calibrate equipment regularly; choose spray nozzles to reduce drift; on boom sprayers; use the lowest effective pressure and largest droplet size possible). Avoid broadcast applications of systemic herbicides and herbicides with long residuals to reduce exposure to butterfly and moth caterpillars that can be exposed to residuals by consuming contaminated vegetation. Benefit Benefit High Medium Low High Medium Low Co st  Low I, G I, G Co st  Low Medium Medium I, G  G High High I, G G I= Benefits to imperiled species; G= Benefits to general pollinator communityÂ
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-18 Mowing Delay mowing as late as possible during the growing season (e.g., mow in autumn) so blooming plants are available throughout the growing season.    Benefit     High Medium Low   Co st  Low      Medium I, G I, G    High           I= Benefits to imperiled species; G= Benefits to general pollinator community Herbicides Herbicides  Herbicides Avoid use of products that have toxicity to imperiled Lepidopteran species during breeding seasons.  Train staff and contractors to recognize native plants and noxious and invasive weeds to reduce unintended damage to nontarget plants.     Benefit     Benefit     High Medium Low       High Medium Low  Co st  Low        Co st  Low     Medium I, G G      Medium I, G    High I, G G    High                  I= Benefits to imperiled species; G= Benefits to general pollinator communityÂ
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-17 Mowing Mowing Limit mowing beyond the clear zone to no more than twice per year. Aim to mow no more than oneâthird to half of an area beyond the clear zone per year (e.g., rotate mowing sections of a roadside). Benefit Benefit High Medium Low High Medium Low Co st  Low G I, G Co st  Low I, G Medium Medium High High I= Benefits to imperiled species; G= Benefits to general pollinator community Mowing Mowing Limit mowing beyond the clear zone to once or less per year. Clean mowing equipment after use and between sites to limit the spread of weeds. Benefit Benefit High Medium Low High Medium Low Co st  Low I, G Co st  Low I, G Medium Medium High High I= Benefits to imperiled species; G= Benefits to general pollinator communityÂ
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-16 Pollinator Cost-Benefit Cubes Use these cubes to identify conservation actions for pollinators to consider in roadside projects and management. Integrate the selected cubes into the triple bottom line cost- benefit analysis as described in the Steps to Conduct a Triple Bottom Line Cost-Benefit Analysis for Pollinators on Roadsides section above. The actions are grouped into five different categories: mowing, herbicides, mechanical weed and brush removal, revegetation, and training/education. Table 10-2 lists the benefits to imperiled pollinators and the general pollinator community that are associated with conservation actions that might be implemented on roadsides. The benefits of each action are indicated across the top of the cube as High, Medium, or Low for the general pollinator community (indicated with a G) and imperiled pollinator species (indicated with an I). Similarly, relative cost to implement the action is indicated along the side as Low, Medium, or High. Costs are based on general assumptions for standard implementation of these actions. However, costs may vary by region, and the costs may be adjusted up or down to indicate expected relative costs for the action being considered in the specific project area. Mowing Mowing Mowing Avoid mowing imperiled butterfly host plants during butterfly breeding seasons. Adjust mowing height to a minimum height of 8 to 10 inches in areas with target butterfly host plants or bumble bee colonies in grass thatch if mowing during the growing season. Benefit Benefit High Medium Low High Medium Low Co st  Low I G Co st  Low I G Medium I G Medium High High I= Benefits to imperiled species; G= Benefits to general pollinator communityÂ
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-15 ï· Is the project located on a stretch of road in which the landscape is monotonous, and increasing plant diversity could improve driver safety? ï· Does the action have landscape benefits that extend beyond benefits to pollinators (e.g., does it increase carbon sequestration)? ï· Is the general public engaged and interested in pollinator conservation, and will it respond supportively to actions the DOT may take? ï· Is the project good for public relations for the agency? Economic Evaluation Prompts ï· Does the action cost more or less in the short term than current practices? ï· Does the action cost more or less in the long term than current practices? ï· Are costs higher in the short term but the benefits are more long lasting? ï· Would the cost to implement this action prevent implementation of other essential operations? ï· Does the action help contribute to an agreement that provides compliance and regulatory assurances (e.g., a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances)? Example: Application of Triple Bottom Line Cost-Benefit Tool This sample application of the cost-benefit tool uses the proposed pollinator-friendly management action âLimit mowing beyond the mown strip in the recovery area to once or less per year.â Cost-benefit cubes for other conservation actions are included in the Pollinator Cost-Benefit Cubes section below. Sample Pollinator Cost-Benefit Cube Mowing Limit mowing beyond the clear zone to no more than twice per year. Benefit High Medium Low Co st  Low I, G Medium High I= Benefits to imperiled species; G= Benefits to general pollinator communityÂ
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-14 c. Describe the intended outcome of the action using the pollinator cost-benefit cubes (refer to the Pollinator Cost-Benefit Cubes section below) to determine the potential benefits to the pollinator community in general, and to imperiled pollinators in the project area. d. Define and then describe the appropriate time frames for analysis (short-term project implementation and long-term operations to realize fulfillment of project results). 2. Evaluate: Consider the costs and benefits from an environmental, societal, and economic perspective. a. Environmental Evaluation: List all the potential environmental benefits (including pollinator benefits) that might result from the action and rate the likely strength of the benefit as high, medium, or low. Use the prompt questions to contribute to the evaluation. b. Societal Evaluation: List all the potential societal benefits that might result from the action and rate the likely strength of the benefit as high, medium, or low. Use the prompt questions to contribute to the evaluation. c. Economic Evaluation: Adjust the relative cost in the pollinator cost-benefit cube as needed for the region and landscape context. Consider how total costs change over time, from short-term initial investment costs to potential long-term cost savings. Rate the likely strength of the economic costs and benefits as high, medium, or low. Use the prompt questions to contribute to the evaluation. 3. Decide: Place the evaluation results in three columns (Environmental, Societal, and Economic) in descending order of rating (high, moderate, low). With the importance of long-term sustainability in mind, review the triple bottom line costs and benefits side by side and decide if the complete suite of benefits justify the potential costs. Describe the rationale for the decision. Prompts for DOT Staff to Apply Cost-Benefit Matrix to Their Pollinator Management Decisions Environmental Evaluation Prompts ï· Could the action provide medium to high benefits to native pollinators? ï· Could the action provide benefits to listed pollinators (state or federally regulated species)? ï· Is the action adjacent to or near agricultural lands where it could support beneficial crop pollination services? ï· Does the action have ecological benefits that extend beyond those to pollinators (e.g., does it increase habitat for birds or improve water infiltration)? Societal Evaluation Prompts ï· Does this action increase the aesthetics of the area where work is being done?
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-13 10.4.2 Triple Bottom Line Cost-Benefit Analysis Tool The purpose of this tool is to assist state DOTs in evaluating design features and maintenance actions that can be implemented to benefit pollinators. This tool will assist with organizing cost and benefit information, establishing the environmental and temporal contexts for evaluation, and providing the rationale and justification for selection of the preferred choice, considering the short- and long-term environmental, societal, and economic costs and benefits. As discussed previously, it is challenging to quantify the range of costs and benefits across all elements of the triple bottom line. Therefore, costs and benefits are evaluated qualitatively as a relative change compared to the status quo (e.g., costs are higher, the same, or lower to implement an action compared to current costs). Qualitative cost differences need to be evaluated relative to the overall project costs. For example, including native seed in a new interchange construction project may seem expensive because native seed costs more than nonnative seed. However, relative to the overall cost of the interchange construction, proportionally this is a very small additional cost. Therefore, this would be considered a low relative cost overall. In contrast, switching to native seed for interseeding (also known as overseeding) an existing ROW during ongoing operations and maintenance is proportionally a larger additional cost that would be considered a medium or higher relative cost as ROW maintenance is a much smaller total cost than new construction. The temporal context is important to consider as well. In the previous example the more expensive native seed may be a proportionally larger short-term cost, but if the long-term maintenance for native species is lower, then the investment in native seed leads to long-term savings. Finally, under the sustainability-centered framing of the triple bottom line model, in many cases the total long-term benefits to society and the environment can justify higher economic costs of actions that benefit pollinators compared to the status quo (which does not support a robust pollinator community). Use of this tool will help state DOTs develop pollinator-friendly practices and will them present the rationale for selected actions to decision-makers. This tool is available as a Word document on the National Academies Press website, https://nap.nationalacademies.org/. Steps to Conduct a Triple Bottom Line Cost-Benefit Analysis for Pollinators on Roadsides There are three basic steps to using this tool to evaluate pollinator-friendly measures for roadsides: define, evaluate, and decide. The process to implement each of these steps is described below. Prompts have been provided to help the user conduct a more complete analysis. 1. Define: Describe the project area where the action is to be implemented. a. Describe the landscape context for the project area, including adjacent land uses and distances between natural habitats where roadsides traverse urbanized or agricultural landscapes. b. Describe in detail the pollinator-friendly action or project element being considered.
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-12 decision over time. This is especially true when considering decisions regarding sustainability and the triple bottom line (Waite 2013). When planning transportation projects, it is relatively easy to add up the short-term costs of planning, design, and construction, and relatively easy to understand conceptually long- term economic and societal gains of transportation system improvements. But when considering project elements to benefit pollinators (or any environmental resource) it is easy to be dissuaded by short-term costs if the long-term environmental and additional associated societal benefits are not carefully described and considered, or if the potential long-term cost savings are not considered. Most pollinator-friendly project elements include actions to change the species composition and distribution of the plant community. Plants take time to grow and become established, and the pollinator community will take time to discover and then disperse into the newly improved habitat conditions. Revegetation and habitat management projects typically require a larger initial investment of time and money until they become established and self-sustaining due to more intensive watering, weeding, and management needs, which are not required once the plants are established, leading to reduced long-term costs. Once the desired pollinator habitat is established a range of benefits that diverse habitat confers will start to emerge, such as ameliorating climate change through increased carbon sequestration, reduced soil erosion, increased water infiltration, and, in agricultural settings, crop pest control and crop pollination. These environmental and societal benefits increase over time; therefore, it is important to establish the proper time frame for analysis in a triple bottom line cost-benefit analysis. Table 10-1. Examples of the benefits of DOT pollinator conservation that could be considered when using the triple bottom line framework to evaluate the costs and benefits of conservation actions. Environmental Benefits Societal Benefits Economic BenefitsÂ ï· Supports local pollinator communitiesÂ ï· Supports imperiled pollinatorsÂ ï· Supports other wildlifeÂ ï· Diverse plantings are more likely to be resilient to climate changeÂ ï· Controls erosionÂ Â ï· Reduces runoff; reduces flood riskÂ Â ï· Suppresses weedsÂ Â ï· Reduces mowing frequency, which reduces greenhouse gas emissionsÂ ï· Protects pollinators and imperiled speciesÂ ï· Roadside habitat preserves natural heritageÂ ï· Pollinator habitat is aesthetically pleasing and showcases regional beautyÂ ï· Pollinator habitat increases interest for drivers and can improve driver safety Increases carbon sequestration in roadsides through diverse plantingsÂ ï· Potential for increased pollination services to surrounding landscapeÂ ï· Potential for increased pest predation services to surrounding landscapeÂ ï· Weed suppression, which can reduce longâterm maintenance costsÂ ï· Reduced mowing frequency, which reduces mowing costsÂ ï· Reduced risk of new species being listed under the ESA, which reduces costs and project delaysÂ ï· Increased tourism due to scenic roadsÂ ï· Improved plant infrastructure, which can protect roadsÂ
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-11 Case Study: Prairie Plants More Cost-Effective over Time on Indiana Roadsides A collaborative highway research project involving researchers from Purdue University, the Indiana DOT, and the FHWA evaluated plants for use on Indianaâs roadsides. Specifically, the project looked at establishment of three types of roadside plantings: turfgrass, garden wildflower mixes, and native wildflower mixes. The project team also calculated costs of establishment and maintenance of each approach (Dana et al. 1996). Turf plantings were a mix of introduced grasses installed as sod, while the garden wildflower seed mix included 11 species of short-lived annuals or biennials, primarily introduced species such as cosmos, California poppy, and rocket larkspur. The native prairie seed mix was 8 speciesâ3 native grass species (20 percent of the mix) and 5 wildflower species (80 percent of the mix). Garden wildflowers were the least costly to establish, but maintenance was more costly over time, including reseeding repeatedly over time due to the short lifespan of the plants. Another downside of the garden wildflowers mix is that it was not appropriate for erosion control. The prairie plant mixes were more costly up front, but researchers found that the more permanent turfgrass and prairie plantings were cost competitive when long- term management costs were incorporated. This study, conducted in the mid-1990s, reflects the higher costs of native seed at the time. Native seed mixes are more affordable and available today, so the mix tested in this study would cost much less if purchased today. For example, a significantly more diverse native seed mix of 22 species could be purchased from a local Indiana native plant nursery in 2021 for about $400 per acre. That is considerably less than the $2,179.44 cost per acre for the mix included by Dana et al. in 1996. An updated analysis of the costs associated with revegetation of roadsides and roadside vegetation management would be highly beneficial. 10.4 Incorporating Costs and Benefits into the Planning and Design Phases  During the planning and design process, it is important to consider actions to benefit pollinators early and often (such as revegetation or location considerations) so that they can be included in the project and costs can be incorporated into the project budget. Weighing the short-term vs. long-term costs and benefits of pollinator conservation actions and using the triple bottom line approach outlined below may aid in this process. 10.4.1 Short-Term vs. Long-Term Costs and Benefits Humans are notoriously bad at making long-term decisions (Ornstein and Ehrlich 1989). People have evolved to make decisions based on perceived risk (cost) and expected reward (benefit), and their brains are much better equipped to judge and react to near-term risks and rewards. However, to make better decisions people need to consider the full implications of the Native plants develop extensive root systems over time that are important for erosion control, water infiltration, weed resistance, carbon sequestration, and more. Photo Credit: Kirk HendersonÂ
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-10 ï· Taking advantage of federal funding. Planting native vegetation is an eligible use of federal-aid highway funds. The cost of native plant materials purchased for revegetation projects can be reimbursed by the FHWA. ï· Finding alternative sources of funding to support the planting of roadside wildflowers. For example, a state might offer a specialty wildflower license plate, the sales of which support the purchase and installation of wildflowers on roadsides, or the state transportation agency could partner with a state or local organization that obtains funding from the FHWAâs Surface Transportation Block Grant Program to implement vegetation restoration. Native Plants in New Roadside Plantings, a Triple Bottom Line Win! In addition to their value to pollinators, there are many advantages of using native plants to providing triple bottom line benefits: Environmental Benefits ï· Native grasses and flowers are best adapted to local growing conditions, require minimal inputs for establishment, and are better able to tolerate extreme weather events such as drought. ï· Native plant communities also support more birds, pollinators, and other wildlife. ï· The use of native plants in roadsides can provide ecological benefits to the surrounding landscape. Societal Benefits ï· Native plants can be aesthetically pleasing during the growing season. ï· Native plants can act as snow fences in the winter, trapping and preventing snow from blowing across roads. ï· The root systems of native plants can increase water infiltration, which reduces runoff and water pollution and keeps waters cleaner. Economic Benefits ï· Although native plants may cost more upfront, they can provide cost savings over time. ï· A diverse native plant community can reduce soil erosion and resist weed invasions, which can reduce maintenance costs.
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-9 10.3.3 Revegetation Costs and Benefits: Use of Native Plants Native plants can be used to meet goals for safe and efficient transportation, while supporting ecosystem health. Although the initial costs of establishing native plant material are higherâparticularly where a higher density and diversity of flowering plants are requiredâthan the costs of low diversity mixes that are heavy on introduced grasses, native plants are often more cost-effective in the long term. Once established, the plantings persist over time and require less mowing, herbicides, and other weed control measures, decreasing long-term maintenance efforts and cost (Berger 2005). In contrast, controlling the growth and spread of invasive plants along roadsides through repeated mowing and rigorous herbicide use is very expensive (Westbrooks 1998). Another advantage of using a diverse assemblage of native plants in revegetation projects is that it may be more resilient to climate change. For many regions, climate projections include an increase in extreme weather events. Many regions will experience both more frequent drought and more frequent flooding. Having a diverse plant community along roadsides means that the community is more likely to contain plants that will persist under different conditions and will continue to provide benefits like erosion control. Though data is limited, what does exist indicates that establishing native vegetation on roadsides can reduce maintenance costs. Consider these examples: ï· Texas DOT estimated an annual mowing cost savings of $20â$30 million through wildflower establishment (Guyton et al. 2014). ï· In 1987, Massachusetts Department of Public Works managed roadsides at a cost of about $1.1 million, or $330 per acre; if every acre was instead managed as wildflowers, nearly $280 per acre per year could be saved (Ahern et al. 1992). ï· In Californiaâs Yolo County, Robins et al. (2001) estimated roadside native vegetation installation costs, which included earthwork, tillage, herbicide, and seeding, at $522 to $1,433 per acre of roadside. They estimated maintenance costs for each of the first 3 years of establishment at $52 to $153 per acre, with similar maintenance costs occurring subsequently every 2 to 3 years. Standard roadside management, for comparison, costs $140 to $490 per acre per year. Reducing Costs and Finding Funding to Support the Use of Native Plant Materials Obstacles encountered by transportation agencies seeking native plant materials can include the cost and, depending on region, the availability of locally or even regionally sourced native plant materials. Some solutions that transportation agencies have used to fund plant material purchases or increase the supply of native plant material include the following: ï· Committing to purchasing and planting seed or plant material that originates in the state or region. Coordinate with local or regional native plant vendors about plant material needs for projects 3â5 years in the future, so the vendors can plan ahead to have the plant material available. Such a sustained commitment fosters a stable market that will lead to greater production and reduced costs. ï· Partnering with private nurseries or state agencies in a cooperative effort to build up a local plant material industry.
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-8 Reduced Mowing, a Triple Bottom Line for DOTs Environmental Benefits ï· Reduced mowing can allow flowering plants to flower, providing pollinators with pollen and nectar and small wildlife with seeds and fruits. The transition from frequently mowed grass to more diverse grasslands or early successional habitat can increase wildlife habitat quality and reduce habitat fragmentation (AASHTO 2011). More birds use roadside habitat when vegetation is taller and more dense (McCleery et al. 2015) and when mowing does not interrupt grassland breeding season (Warner 1992). ï· Reduced mowing can mean reduced greenhouse gas emissions from mowing equipment and reduced amounts of carbon stored in plant tissues returned to the atmosphere after mowing. Emissions from mowing can result in up to 35 kilograms (kg) of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per shoulder and kilometer (Sonntag et al. 2011). If reduced mowing is implemented in just half of the roadsides associated with the National Highway System, CO2 emissions could be cut by approximately 2 million kg every year (FHWA 2011). Societal Benefits ï· Non-turf roadside vegetation provides aesthetic variety, breaks up monotony (Billings 1990), and can have a positive effect on human performance and improve driver safety (Topp 1990; Cackowsky and Nasar 2003; Mok et al. 2006; Macdonald et al. 2008). ï· Public perception surveys have found strong support for more wildflowers on roadsides and reduced mowing, with respondents also indicating they would tolerate a less manicured roadside if it made the roads safer (Guyton et al. 2014). Economic Benefits ï· Reducing routine mowing of the entire ROW can reduce costs. Other strategies to reduce costs include making only one pass with the mower next to the operational zone rather than mowing the entire ROW multiple times during the growing season. ï· Though in general reducing routine mowing is a straightforward method of reducing costs for many ROWs, altering the timing of mowing to encourage breeding of imperiled species (e.g., avoiding mowing during peak Karner blue butterfly [Lycaeides melissa samuelis] breeding) or blooming of wildflowers may be less straightforward because there may be other operational constraints to consider (e.g., such as mowing at a time of the year when maintenance staff are trying to prepare for winter). However, if these constraints translate to additional ongoing costs, those costs are likely to be offset by the value of proactive conservation to avert ESA listings. ï· Mowing can sometimes spread noxious and invasive weeds; switching from routine mowing to more targeted weed control can bring about cost savings.
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-7 ï· Every transportation project proposed in the plan area has been built; none have been stopped or stalled due to ESA or California ESA issues. With the MSHCP in place, ESA compliance no longer impedes the path of project environmental compliance. ï· Projects with an ESA Section 7 consultation received their biological opinions from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in an average of 2 months, versus over 2 years without the MSHCP. 10.3.2 Management and Maintenance Costs and Benefits Mowing the many acres of roadside ROWs every year represents a substantial expenditure, and mowing a limited portion of the ROWs means potential cost savings as well as aesthetic and ecological benefits, without compromising safety. Data is limited, but includes these examples: ï· Delaware DOT spent over $3.4 million mowing roadsides in 2008. In 2009, budget restrictions forced Delaware DOT to reduce mowing by 25 percent. If Delaware DOT took 500 acres +of roadsides out of routine mowing, the state could save $1.3 million per year (Lucey and Barton 2010). ï· Florida DOT spent $13 million on roadside mowing in 2011â 2012. The University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences report, Economic Impact of Ecosystem Services Provided by Ecologically Sustainable Roadside Right of Way Vegetation Management Practices, found that Florida DOT could reduce its costs by 30 percent by implementing sustainable management practices such as reduced mowing (Harrison 2014). ï· In Florida, Norcini (2014) found that limiting mowing to once a growing season, in the fall, along a stretch of Interstate 10 in Madison County reduced mowing costs by $1,000 per mile. (Typically, that highway is mowed up to seven times a growing season.) A 10- to 15-foot-wide mown strip in the recovery area adjacent to the pavement continued to be mowed seven times each growing season. Over time, more and more desirable plant species were found in the section of the ROW with the reduced mowing regime. As blooming wildflowers increased, the section of the road became more aesthetically appealing, particularly in the spring. ï· Indiana DOT found a cost savings of over 40 percent can be achieved with one application of herbicide instead of one cycle of mowing, and that there are cost savings associated with planting native vegetation (e.g., prairie plant community wildflowers had a greater initial cost, but that cost was offset in the analysis by lower long-term management costs) (Lucey and Barton 2010). ï· Mississippi DOT mows approximately 139,253 acres of roadsides four times per year at a cost per acre of greater than $250, or a total annual cost of around $35 million. Reducing mowing of roadsides by one mowing could save approximately $8.7 million; eliminating two mows per growing season could save over $17 million (Guyton et al. 2014). Mowing a highway once a year rather than seven times allows wildflowers like tall false foxglove (Agalinis aspera) to flourish in Florida. Photo Credit: Eleanor DietrichÂ
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-6 costs. Developing long-term Habitat Conservation Plans (Section 10 of the ESA) for non- federal actions or âprogrammaticâ Section 7 permits for federal actions can provide long- term cost and time savings through increased regulatory certainty and project streamlining for large and small road projects as well as maintenance activities. Case Study: Programmatic Section 7 ESA Permits for Colorado DOT Colorado DOT developed a conservation strategy as a part of a 20-year programmatic Section 7 permitting agreement to cover 38 species, including 4 pollinators (butterflies), in the Central Shortgrass Prairie ecoregion of Colorado. The programmatic agreement and conservation strategy has three goals: 1. Proactive conservation of the declining and listed species in this ecoregion; 2. Providing mitigation for potential impacts of Colorado DOT projects within the existing transportation corridor; and 3. Improved efficiencies and cost savings for the environmental compliance of Colorado DOT project. The conservation strategy includes a range of actions to offset impacts on the covered species from Colorado DOT transportation improvement and routine maintenance, including recommended practices and land protection projects. Source: Grunau et al. 2003. Case Study: Economy of Scale: Major Improvements in Transportation Project Delivery Cost and Schedule with Long-Term Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) In Riverside County, California, the Western Riverside MSHCP has provided substantial economic benefits to regional transportation projects. Approved in 2004, the MSHCP covers 146 species, including 2 endangered pollinators: the Delhi sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) and the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino). As of March 2019, the implementing entity of the plan, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), has compiled the following economic benefits of their plan to transportation projects, based in part on a comprehensive cost-benefit study prepared in 2008 by the Rand Corporation (Dixon et al. 2008) and 15 years of plan implementation: ï· The Western Riverside County MSHCP has accelerated $4 billion in transportation and infrastructure projects by 1 to 5 years or more. This includes a new rail line, two new freeways, five major freeway-widening projects, a dozen freeway and highway interchange projects, a major dam rehabilitation, a new Metrolink line, major water projects, and major regional power transmission lines. ï· The Western Riverside County RCA estimates $312 million savings in transportation costs due to early delivery (Based on the National Highway Construction Cost Index Average of 3.9 percent per year and an average time savings).
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-5 and species overall, is unlikely to slow down because of ongoing factors such as loss of habitat, impacts from pesticides, and the effects of climate change. Source: USFWS 2018.  Note: Includes Threatened and Endangered listings under the 1973 ESA and its precursors.  Figure 10-2. Listings of all species under the ESA by year. As noted in Chapter 4, 75 percent of transportation planners and managers surveyed recognize the possibility that if an imperiled pollinator species in their project area became listed, it could cause barriers, such as altered project timelines, increased workloads, and higher costs to their agencies. Implementing actions to benefit unlisted pollinators and prevent them from being listed under the ESA will provide substantial long-term regulatory cost savings. Upfront planning by DOTs can result in substantial future time and cost savings as workflow is improved and the number of project redesigns and modifications to operations are reduced across their larger road network. A total of 81 percent of the surveyed transportation professionals confirmed that the risk of an imperiled pollinator species becoming listed would motivate their DOT to proactively protect pollinators in order to reduce the risk of listing. These same transportation professionals also recognized that early adoption of regulatory compliance strategies was good for public relations and consistent with identified sustainability goals for their transportation agencies. Once a species is listed, the only options are to avoid impacting the species or seeking an incidental take permit under Section 7 or 10 of the ESA, either of which can cause project delays and increase costs. However, strategic planning to comply with the ESA and other laws and regulations can reduce DOT regulatory Voluntary conservation measures to support imperiled pollinators like the American bumble bee (Bombus pensylvanicus) may help to recover the species and avert a listing under the ESA, potentially saving transportation agencies time and money. Photo Credit: Ray Moranz/Xerces SocietyÂ
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-4 The costs and benefits could also be considered in the context of the adjacent urban, agricultural, or natural land uses. For example, improving pollinator habitat on roadsides surrounded by natural habitat may seem unnecessary (providing little additional relative conservation value) if the target pollinator species has all its needs met in the adjacent habitat. On the other hand, revegetation projects in such areas may bring value by helping to reduce the spread of invasive plants to sensitive areas as well as increasing habitat connectivity. Or consider, for example, that improving pollinator habitat on roadsides adjacent to agricultural lands can provide additional pollination services, but that the particular economic benefit might be lower for roadsides adjacent to urban landscapes. However, habitat improvement actions on urban roadsides may provide the only suitable habitat for miles and can create vital connectivity between distant areas of natural habitat, bringing broader benefit and greater overall value. The relative costs and benefits of pollinator-friendly actions can also vary by region. Modification of mowing regimes in the Southeast can have substantial benefits but may not be relevant in the driest areas of the Southwest where mowing is rarely needed. A cost- benefit analysis in one region may not directly apply to another. Given the high variability of costs and benefits across species and regions and within differing land use contexts, it is difficult to provide definitive cost-benefit rules and relationships. Instead, this guide provides simple cost and benefit tools and concepts that can be applied and adapted by each DOT for the evaluation of pollinator-friendly actions being considered in project planning, design, construction, and maintenance. 10.3 Types of Costs and Benefits 10.3.1 Regulatory Costs and Benefits The primary federal regulation addressing pollinators is the ESA (see Chapter 4, Native Pollinators and the Federal Endangered Species Act: Compliance Strategies for State Departments of Transportation). Many states have similar endangered species protection acts that can also regulate pollinator species. The growing awareness of the importance of pollinators and the evidence of dramatic declines in the health and diversity of pollinator species have also led to additional state and federal regulations protecting pollinators (e.g., Maryland Pollinator Protection Act of 2016, Save Oregonâs Pollinators Act of 2014, Connecticut Pollinator Health Act of 2017). Many of these regulations focus on restricting the use of certain pesticides, some encourage or require inclusion of pollinator habitat on public lands and rights-of-way (ROWs), many require improved public and agency education of the importance of pollinators, and some provide funding incentives when pollinator-friendly measures are included in projects. The reality is that pollinators and their habitat will be more tightly regulated in the coming years, which brings potential increased costs and potential benefits. As of June 2022, there are 48 invertebrate pollinator species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA (USFWS 2022). It is worth noting that insects are disproportionately underrepresented under the ESA; although they make up 72 percent of animal diversity, only 10.3 percent of listed species are insects (Black 2012). Figure 10-2 shows the trend in the number of all species listings over time. The number of pollinator species listed under the ESA has increased in recent years and this trend for pollinators,
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-3 Case Study: Arizona DOT Sustainable Transportation Program: INVEST Case Studies Arizona DOT recognizes the importance of sustainability in the long-term success of the stateâs transportation network, and has embraced the triple bottom line approach systematically through its administrative, planning, design, construction, operations, and maintenance activities. To achieve its ambitious sustainability goals, Arizona DOT has applied the sustainability tools of the FHWA INVEST program to a wide variety of case studies. Application of the performance measures and metrics to the three INVEST modules of system planning, project development, and operations and maintenance has helped Arizona DOT undertake cost-benefit analyses, life cycle cost analyses, and return on investment evaluations across the environmental, societal, and economic factors essential for sustainable operations and project implementation. The environmental, social, and economic benefits of this approach are carried forward into Arizona DOT projects through its Sustainable Project Development checklist, which guides project design and construction to consider project elements to optimize all three areas of sustainability, including habitat protection, and wildlife connectivity. While pollinators are not mentioned explicitly, they are an important element of the environmental and societal factors considered by the checklist. Source: Arizona DOT 2020. Given the challenges DOTs have faced in obtaining information for quantitative cost-benefit analyses, this guide proposes the application of a simple, qualitative cost-benefit tool using the triple bottom line approach that considers the environmental, societal, and economic costs, as well as benefits of, pollinator-friendly habitat. This approach can be used when making decisions about pollinator habitat during the planning, design, construction, and maintenance phases of a project. Costs are evaluated from the point of view of a state DOT. Benefits are evaluated in terms of environmental benefits (e.g., to habitat diversity and endangered species recovery), societal benefits (e.g., to crop pollination services), and operational benefits to a state DOT (e.g., operational flexibility through ESA compliance, or reduction of future risk of regulation by contributing to species recovery and avoidance of future listing). 10.2.1 Land Use Context and Variability of Costs and Benefits Not only are quantitative costs and benefits of roadside management for pollinators difficult to obtain (as mentioned above), they vary regionally and may depend on the surrounding land use, ecological context, and pollinator species of interest. It might cost more to adjust mowing schedules to accommodate a particular species of butterfly that breeds during a time when mowing is most cost efficient for a DOT, for example, or the costs of plant materials used in revegetation to support one imperiled species might be higher than the cost of plant materials to support another imperiled species. Although the upfront costs associated with the conservation of a particular species might be higher, the benefits of taking those conservation actions might also be greater. Investments made to proactively conserve a rare species, for example, can prevent state or federal listings and may reduce costs DOTs might otherwise incur in the future.
Chapter 10. CostâBenefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10-2 Figure 10-1. Objectives of a triple bottom line. The triple bottom line approach is a cornerstone of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Sustainable Highways Initiative (sustainablehighways.dot.gov), which supports the U.S. Department of Transportation Strategic Plan for FY2022â2026 (USDOT 2022). The triple bottom line considers long-term sustainability and therefore long-term costs and benefits, including the full range of factors important to human quality of life. Considering the importance of pollinators to human sustenance, the triple bottom line approach is particularly relevant to cost-benefit consideration of pollinator-friendly measures. While cost-benefit analyses can be useful in the decision-making process, they can be difficult to complete. In a 2016 report to Congress, the FHWA noted that only about 10 percent of state DOTs regularly use any form of formal cost-benefit analyses (FHWA 2016), and mostly only for relatively large projects. Some of the greatest hurdles to conducting a cost-benefit analysis include the inconsistency and difficulty of obtaining quantitative cost information, lack of institutional support, and difficulty quantifying societal and environmental costs and benefits (FHWA 2016). These difficulties still hold true today.
10-1 Chapter 10 Cost-Benefit Considerations for Pollinator Management on Roadsides 10.1 Introduction  The relative costs and benefits of maintaining existing or establishing new pollinator habitat along roadsides are important considerations when incorporating Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance, species conservation, and habitat management into transportation planning, design, construction, and maintenance. As has been demonstrated throughout this guide, there are many opportunities to benefit pollinators and contribute to the recovery of listed and imperiled species through changes in roadside management. Many of these changes may have a relatively minor effect on costs, and those that are more costly can often lead to long-term cost savings, while having important substantial benefits for imperiled pollinators and the pollinator community in general. Furthermore, the benefits can extend well beyond the pollinator community. For example, roadsides managed for pollinators by planting beneficial plants and reducing mowing can broadly benefit wildlife and ecosystem health, and are also an opportunity to showcase natural beauty and promote tourism, reduce maintenance (a cost savings to departments of transportation [DOTs]), and support a wide range of important ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration and erosion control. Roadsides are an integral part of the highway system and are valued by the general public as important natural and scenic resources. Therefore, it is important to consider all types of potential benefits when considering investing in pollinator-friendly roadsides. 10.2 CostâBenefit Analysis for Sustainability A cost-benefit analysis is an approach to decision-making weighing the various costs of a particular action with the value of the benefits expected as an outcome of the action. Cost-benefit analyses have been used in project decision-making for many decades (Elkington 2018) and have traditionally only focused on the quantitative economic costs and benefits. More recently cost-benefit analyses have been approached from the perspective of long-term sustainability and include other non-economic factors such as societal and environmental costs and benefits. When cost and benefit considerations include environmental, societal, and economic factors they are often referred to as the triple bottom line (Figure 10-1). There are environmental, societal, and economic benefits to managing roadsides for pollinators. Photo Credit: Luis Colon/Arizona DOTÂ
Chapter 9. Surveys, Monitoring Strategies, and Habitat Assessments 9-18 Hamilton, Randy. Photo Point Monitoring. A Weed Managerâs Guide to Remote Sensing and GIS -Mapping & Monitoring. Available: https://deq.nd.gov/publications/WQ/ 3_WM/NPS/SWCBinder/Riparian/Photopoint_monitoringUSFS.pdf.
Chapter 9. Surveys, Monitoring Strategies, and Habitat Assessments 9-17 An Integrated Approach to Establishing Native Plants and Pollinator Habitat (2017). Measuring & Monitoring Plant Populations by Elzinga and Salzer (1998) also provide guidance on measuring and monitoring plants. Plant species recorded during surveys can be categorized as sources of pollen or nectar, host plants, whether they provide nesting structure, or other characteristics important for pollinator habitat. A species list can also be used to determine if there is overlapping bloom time throughout the growing season so that flowering species are available sequentially for pollinators. Photo point monitoring is a method of recording landscape changes in vegetation over time and showing the success or failure of a revegetation project. Photo monitoring can be established for long-term monitoring where a permanent point has not been established and subsequent photographs are taken, or where permanent locations have not been located from historic photographs; or photo monitoring can be reconstructed from historic photographs (see, for example, Sections 6.5.1 and 6.5.2 in FHWA 2017). Landscape images from photo point monitoring, in conjunction with data collected from other monitoring methods, can be a powerful way to describe the results of a revegetation project. The U.S. Forest Serviceâs Photo Point Monitoring Handbook (Hall 2002) provides a thorough coverage of this subject. 9.4 Resources for Identification of Pollinators Borror, D. J., R. E. White, and R. T. Peterson. 1970. A Field Guide to Insects: America North of Mexico (Vol. 19). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Brock, J. P. and K. Kaufman. 2006. Kaufman Field Guide to Butterflies of North America. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Eaton, E. R., and K. Kaufman. 2007. Kaufman Field Guide to Insects of North America. 392 pp. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers. Williams, P. H., R. W. Thorp, L. L. Richardson, and S. R. Colla. 2014. Bumble Bees of North America. 208 pp. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Wilson, J. S., and O. Messinger Carril. 2016. The Bees in Your Backyard: A Guide to North Americaâs Bees. 288 pp. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 9.5 Resources for Monitoring Plant Populations Elzinga, C. L., and D. W. Salzer. 1998. Measuring & Monitoring Plant Populations. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Available: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usblmpub/41/. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 2017. Roadside Revegetation: An Integrated Approach to Establishing Native Plants and Pollinator Habitat. Available: http://www.nativerevegetation.org/learn/manual_2017/. Hall, F. C. 2002. Photo Point Monitoring Handbook. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-526. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. Available: https://www.fs.usda.gov/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr526.pdf.
Chapter 9. Surveys, Monitoring Strategies, and Habitat Assessments 9-16 These habitat assessment guides are included as a separate document and can be found on the National Academies Press website (https://nap.nationalacademies.org/). These habitat assessment guides are designed for evaluating roadside conditions. Prior to conducting an in-field assessment, it may be helpful to consult or print aerial photos to help with site and landscape questions. Ideally, this assessment should be conducted twiceâonce during the habitat evaluation process (before undertaking construction, to inform the planning and design phase) and once after maintenance changes have been made or after revegetation has taken place. Instructions for Habitat Assessment Guide Use: 1. Each category in the comprehensive assessment should be given the appropriate value from the âScoreâ column. 2. An overall habitat suitability index score will be automatically generated based upon the scores from each category. 3. The scores for each category can be used to identify resource concerns. For example, if the score for spring blooming flowering plants is low, take actions to increase spring blooming species in revegetation plans. Factors that improve pollinator habitat can be considered in design plans. 4. The site needs to be reevaluated after revegetation to measure increased benefits to pollinators. Ideally, each site should strive to achieve a score of at least 0.65. If working at a particular site with positive identification of an imperiled species, consider using a more detailed habitat assessment for a particular species if it is available. Currently, detailed habitat assessments are limited, but examples include: ⢠Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Habitat Assessment Form and Guide: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/rpbb/pdf/HabitatAssessmentFor mGuideByXercesForRPBB.pdf ⢠Monarch Breeding Habitat Assessment: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ Documents/R2ES/Pollinators/9-Monarch_Habitat_Assessment_Tool_Monarch_Joint_ Venture_2014.pdf ⢠Roadside Habitat for Monarchs Evaluator Tool: https://monarchjointventure.org/ mjvprograms/science/roadsidehabitat/habitat-evaluator-tool ⢠Rights-of-Way as Habitat Working Group Pollinator Scorecard, the Monitoring Tool for the Monarch Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances: http://rightofway.erc.uic.edu/pollinator-habitat-scorecard/ These assessments can help planners prioritize conservation actions and quantify habitat or management improvements for a particular species. 9.3.2 Pollinator Plant Monitoring Monitoring plant species found on a project site is a method of assessing existing or potential pollinator habitat, or assessing survival and evaluating plant establishment in revegetation projects. Data can be collected using plant monitoring procedures such as those found in Chapter 6 of the Federal Highway Administrationâs Roadside Revegetation:
Chapter 9. Surveys, Monitoring Strategies, and Habitat Assessments 9-15 Figure 9 -2. P ollinator H abitat A ssessment Guide for R oadsides: C omprehensive A ssessment ( 2 of 2) .
Chapter 9. Surveys, Monitoring Strategies, and Habitat Assessments 9-14 Figure 9 -2. P ollinator H abitat A ssessment Guide for R oadsides: C omprehensive A ssessment ( 1 of 2) .
Chapter 9. Surveys, Monitoring Strategies, and Habitat Assessments 9-13 Figure 9 -1. P ollinator H abitat A ssessment Guide for R oadsides: R apid A ssessment.
Chapter 9. Surveys, Monitoring Strategies, and Habitat Assessments 9-12 Monitoring Protocol This protocol can be used to detect trends in known populations by using the following protocol multiple times per year for multiple years. This protocol is similar to the survey protocol, except that sampling is conducted along permanent transects. Monitoring needs to have a standard level of effort across sampling sessions. Protocol Set-up Establish at least one transect of 120 meters (400 feet) (meandering transects are fine) that covers the highest quality habitat of the site; establish multiple transects as needed to adequately cover the siteâs habitat. Use a GPS unit to track transects, or flag the transects so you can easily revisit them over the course of the season (or multiple years). Plan to spend about 15 minutes surveying per 30 meters (100 feet), capturing bees within 1 meter (3.3 feet) of each side of the transect. Use more time if needed, and record the time spent per transect each visit. Sample transects three separate times across the growing season. Follow protocols described in the Bumble Bee Sampling section above to document bumble bees observed along established transects. 9.3 Habitat Assessment and Vegetation Monitoring 9.3.1 Roadside Pollinator Habitat Assessment Existing roadside vegetation can be evaluated using a pollinator habitat evaluation guide. The Roadside Pollinator Habitat Assessment Tools, available on the National Academies Press website [nap.nationalacademies.org], that accompany this guide include a rapid assessment that can be used to determine the general condition of the habitat (Figure 9- 1), and a more comprehensive assessment, used to identify existing components of pollinator habitat and places for improvement (Figure 9-2). This assessment process can help in determining components that should be included when considering changes to maintenance strategies or when developing revegetation plans. This assessment can also help planners evaluate sites for connectivity or may help when prioritizing sites for high- quality pollinator habitat.
Chapter 9. Surveys, Monitoring Strategies, and Habitat Assessments 9-11 captured or photographed. If unsure of the plant species when in the field, make sure to take photos of the flower, stem, and leaves for identification later. Survey Protocol to Detect a Species Protocol Set-up Conduct surveys during three evenly spaced sampling periods across the flight period of your target species. Early June to early August often is the best chance to detect most species and also reduces impacts on queens, which typically fly earlier in the season (negative impacts on queens are more likely to affect populations than impacts on workers). Identify your survey area, and spend 1 hour sampling within the highest quality habitat of that area; if sampling a large area (>0.8 hectare [>2 acres]), sample 1 hour per 0.8 hectare (2 acres) or have multiple people sampling simultaneously. Preferentially capture the bumble bees that match or are similar to the description of your target species, capturing individuals one at a time using a net. Bumble Bee Sampling To survey bumble bees, you will net bumble bees off of flowers or catch them in a vial, capturing all bumble bees observed, one at a time. If the target species is listed, obtain the proper permit to be able to handle the bees, or you can opt to photograph the bees as they forage rather than handling them (if photographing, take a series of photos for each individual to properly document the beeâs characteristics, including the face, side, and back; see Appendix E, Bumble Bee Recognition and Photography, for more tips). Identify and record the species and number of individuals if an expert is present (one who can definitively identify the target species). Otherwise, chill the bees within their bag or vial in an ice-filled cooler in order to take photographs of each individual. Assign a number to each vial and write the same number on your data sheet to keep each bee connected to its flowering plant (or you can place a petal from the flower within the vial to help you later connect the flower to the bee). Continue searching for bees until you have reached the end of your transect, when you should stop the timer, note the end of your survey, and begin to photograph your chilled bees. Placing the bees in a cooler will slow them down (bees are ectothermic), making photographs from multiple angles much easier to take. Take care not to leave bees in the cooler longer than 1 hour or to leave bees within vials in direct sunlight for longer than a few minutes. Bees may take a few minutes to warm up enough to fly away after being released from their vial. To photograph a chilled bee, remove it from the vial and place it on a flat surface with a solid background of high contrast (e.g., pale colored paper). Use a digital camera or a smartphone to capture different angles of the bee useful in identification. See Appendix E for more details on photographing bumble bees that have been chilled or that are foraging on flowers. Link each photograph to a particular individual for tracking. Photographs can be submitted to Bumble Bee Watch for confirmation of identifications by experts. See https://www.bumblebeewatch.org/ or download the app (e.g., https://apps.apple.com/us/app/bumble-bee-watch/id1112626392).
Chapter 9. Surveys, Monitoring Strategies, and Habitat Assessments 9-10 9.2.3 Bumble Bee Protocol Overview of Procedure What the procedure will measure: Bumble bee presence or absence, species diversity Sampling design: Transects within the project area Sampling time of year: Survey once or more within the window of the documented flight period of your target species (see species-specific details in Chapter 3); early June to early August often is the best chance to detect most species and reduce impacts to queens (which typically fly earlier in the season) Sampling weather and time of day: Warm, sunny, and calm days (15.6ËC [60ËF] or greater, wind speeds less than 10 miles per hour, and skies partly cloudy to clear), between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Level of identification needed: Distinguish bumble bees from other flower visitors; distinguish species of bumble bees to the best of your ability Equipment recommended: Stopwatch or clock, data sheets, clipboard and pencils, aerial insect net, clear vials or small Ziploc plastic bags, camera, cooler with ice, long measuring tape (100 meters [110 yards]), flags/stakes to mark transects, GPS device, field identification guide or Bumble Bee Watch phone app, and federal or state permits (if applicable) Personnel needed: Can be conducted by a single person, but easier with two Data Sheets: Bumble Bee Data Sheet (available on the National Academies Press website [https://nap.nationalacademies.org/]) Begin by identifying areas of potentially suitable habitat for your target speciesâareas with adequate flowering plants and potential nesting habitat to sustain a population. See the species profiles in Chapter 3 for nesting habits of your target bumble bee species and known sources of pollen and nectar. Survey areas of suitable habitat or known occupied sites for your target species during adult flight periods (see species profiles in Chapter 3). Be aware that flight times may vary due to weather conditions in the spring and early summer when planning the survey period, and that the phenology of queens, workers, and male bumble bees change throughout the growing season. Take in-field habitat assessments, collecting the basic habitat information included on the bumble bee data sheet (available on the National Academies Press website [https://nap.nationalacademies.org/].) and taking representative photographs of the survey area, including high- and low-quality habitat. Record the coordinates of the corners of the surveyed area using a GPS device and estimate the size of the area surveyed. Note the flowers on which any bumble bees are Bumble bees should be sampled in the summer on sunny, warm days with low wind. Photo Credit: Rich Hatfield/The Xerces Society
Chapter 9. Surveys, Monitoring Strategies, and Habitat Assessments 9-9 side) forewings and hindwings, the ventral view (the underside of the wings), and the head and antennae. After photographing, move the butterfly to a sunny spot and allow it to warm up and fly away. 5. Fill out all of the site information on the datasheet, including site name, survey date and time, elevation, aspect, legal location, latitude and longitude coordinates of the site, weather conditions, and a thorough description of habitat, including vegetation types, vegetation canopy cover, suspected or documented host plant species, landscape contours (including direction and angle of slopes), and insect behavior (e.g., âpuddlingâ). Record the number of target species observed, as well as butterfly behavior, plant species used for nectaring or egg-laying, and survey notes. Photographs of habitat are also useful. If looking to estimate population size and monitor changes over time, abundance can be measured by using either the Pollard Walk method (see the butterfly monitoring protocol above for details on applying a Pollard Walk to roadsides), in which the recorder walks only along a precisely marked transect, or the checklist method, in which the recorder is free to wander at will in active search of productive habitats and nectar sites (Royer et al. 1998). A test of differences in effectiveness between these two methods at seven sites found that checklist searching produced significantly more butterfly detections per hour than Pollard Walks at all sites, but the overall number of species detected per hour did not differ significantly between methods (Royer et al. 1998). Checklist surveys are a more efficient means for initial surveys and generating species lists at a site, whereas the Pollard Walk is more practical and statistically manageable for long-term monitoring. Recorded information needs to include start and end times, weather, species, sex, and behavior (e.g., âfemale nectaring on flowers of Lathyrus nevadensisâ). For detailed summaries of approaches to butterfly monitoring, see Taron and Ries (2015) and Haddad et al. (2008).
Chapter 9. Surveys, Monitoring Strategies, and Habitat Assessments 9-8 and will vary with elevation when planning the survey period. If there are local species experts in the region, consult them on the optimal survey timing. Surveys need to be conducted with at least one butterfly expert present; an expert is someone who can definitively identify the target species. Non-expert surveyors can be paired with experts, but limit the number of surveyors to three in total at small sites (<1.2 hectares [<3 acres]) to reduce trampling of vegetation. Upon arriving at each potential site, the following survey protocol can be used to determine the presence or absence of species: 1. Approach the site and scan for any butterfly activity, as well as suitable habitat. Butterflies are predominantly encountered nectaring at flowers, in flight, basking on a warm rock or the ground, visiting host plants, or puddling (sipping water rich in mineral salts from a puddle, moist ground, or dung). Walk through the site slowly (about 100 meters [110 yards] per 5 minutes), looking back and forth on either side, approximately 6â9 meters (20â30 feet) out. Try to walk in a path such that you cover the entire site with this visual fieldâyour route can twist and turnâor at least all of the areas of suitable habitat. If you must leave the transect path (e.g., to look at a particular butterfly), do your best to return to the specific place where you left your path when you resume walking/searching through the site. 2. When a suspected target species is encountered, the optimum method is to net the butterfly to confirm its identification. Adults are collected using a long-handled aerial sweep net with mesh light enough to see the specimen through the net. When stalking perched individuals, approach slowly from behind. When chasing, swing from behind and be prepared to pursue the insect. A good method is to stand to the side of a butterflyâs flight path and swing out as it passes. After capture, quickly flip the top of the net bag over to close the mouth and prevent the butterfly from escaping. Once netted, most insects tend to fly upward, so hold the narrow end of the net bag up (with the mouth downward) and reach in from below when retrieving the butterfly. You will need permits to catch listed butterflies. Having experts assist with the surveys is recommended to aid identification and with collection, to minimize potential injuries to the butterflies. 3. Binoculars and cameras may also be used to view wing patterns of perched butterflies, in lieu of catching the butterfly. Because most butterflies can be identified by macroscopic characters, high-quality photographs will likely provide sufficient evidence of species occurrences at a site, and those of lesser quality may at least be valuable in directing further study to an area. Use a camera with a good zoom or macro lens and focus on the aspects of the body that are the most critical to species determination (i.e., dorsal [upper] and ventral [lower] patterns of the wings) (Pyle 2002). When possible, take several photographs of potential target species showing a clear view of the ventral and dorsal sides of the wings at each survey area where they are observed. This method may be preferred to catching the butterflies, especially for listed species. 4. If needed, collect and chill individual butterflies within a vial or envelope, placing the container in a cooler with ice, buffering the specimen from the ice with a towel. After 5â10 minutes of chilling, place the butterfly on a flat surface with high contrast to photograph it from several angles, making sure to get photos of the dorsal view (back
Chapter 9. Surveys, Monitoring Strategies, and Habitat Assessments 9-7 To calculate species richness for each sampling period or each year, the total number of bee groups and butterfly groups observed is tallied. Richness can then be plotted to record changes over time, whether comparing the average or total number of groups observed across all sample periods for each year, or comparing the total number of groups observed during a certain sampling period from year to year. As noted before, pollinator populations vary over the course of the growing season and from year to year, so it is important to schedule monitoring accordingly. Pollinator populations also vary annually, increasing as plants become established and mature, which may take several years after seeding or planting. For this reason, monitoring is conducted for several years after the project has been completed, ideally 3â5 years. The longer the period over which sites are surveyed, the more meaningful the results. 9.2.2 Imperiled Butterfly and Moth Protocol Overview of Procedure What the procedure will measure: Butterfly and/or moth presence or absence; can be used over time to estimate population size Sampling design: Transects within the project area Sampling time of year: Survey once or more within the window of the documented flight period of your target species (see species-specific details in Chapter 3) Sampling weather and time of day: Warm, sunny, and calm days (15.6ËC [60ËF] or greater, wind speeds less than 10 miles per hour, and skies mostly clear), between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Level of identification needed: Identify species of butterflies or moths Equipment recommended: Stopwatch or clock, data sheets, clipboard and pencils, aerial insect net, binoculars (if applicable), GPS device, field identification guides, glassine envelopes, long measuring tape (100 meters [110 yards]), flags/stakes to mark transects, and federal or state permits (if applicable) Personnel needed: Can be conducted by a single person, but easier with two Data Sheets: Imperiled Butterfly Data Sheet (available on the National Academies Press website [https://nap.nationalacademies.org/]). Begin by identifying areas of potentially suitable habitat for your target species, areas with adequate larval food plants, nectar sources, and habitat to sustain a population. Many species have highly specific larval feeding preferences (e.g., limited to one or a few related plant species whose defenses they have evolved to overcome), while other species exhibit more general feeding patterns, with representatives from multiple plant families in their diet. For species-specific dietary preferences and habitat information, see the species profiles in Chapter 3. Survey areas of suitable habitat or known occupied sites for your target species during adult flight periods (also in the species profiles in Chapter 3). Be aware that flight times may vary due to weather conditions in the spring and early summer,
Chapter 9. Surveys, Monitoring Strategies, and Habitat Assessments 9-6 If multiple roadside sampling areas are surveyed, the differences observed in native bee abundance reflect differences in habitat quality among sites. Native bee counts can be used to rank the quality of sites or the quality of seed mixes, or can be used over time to assess changes at a site. Butterfly Monitoring This monitoring procedure is based on the standardized Pollard Walk (Pollard et al. 1975) and can be used to collect observational data on the abundance and richness of butterflies. The objective of this procedure is not to count all butterflies present at the entire site or within the habitat being monitored, but to count those individuals that occur in, or move through, the transectâs sampling area while the surveyor is walking at a steady pace of 3 meters (10 feet) per minute. The surveyor identifies and counts butterflies on flowers or in flight if they occur within approximately 4.5 meters (15 feet) on each side of the transect or overhead of the surveyor. Butterflies that fly in from behind the surveyor are not counted to avoid counting the same individual twice. Butterflies are identified to the level most comfortable to the surveyor (refer to butterfly identification guide) and recorded as whether the butterfly was observed in flight or nectaring on a flower. If the butterfly is nectaring, it can be helpful to record the species of the plant on which the butterfly was feeding. Considerations include the following: ⢠It is important to be consistent, using the same level of effort with each time transect. ⢠The time spent walking the transect is recorded each time. ⢠Records of observations should include the site name, date, name of the sampler, weather conditions, time of visit to the site, and any pertinent notes about the site. ⢠It is also valuable to record the plants that are blooming along the transect at the time of the survey, as well as to collect data on the floral associations of the pollinators at the site. See Appendix D, Butterfly and Butterfly Group Recognition, for guidance on recognizing groups of butterflies. Data Analysis for Community Monitoring To draw meaningful conclusions about the effects of roadside habitat on bees and butterflies, data needs to be collected consistently over time in the same areas. To determine changes in abundance over time, the number of individuals observed during each monitoring event is tallied (transects can be combined if multiple transects are sampled). These numbers can be averaged for each year (e.g., the results from late-spring, mid-summer, and late-summer can be averaged) and plotted on a graph or table to show changes between years. The numbers of individuals can also be totaled for each monitoring event and evaluated separately. Honey bee counts may be excluded in many analyses because the placement of hives and human intervention influences their abundance. Butterflies can be monitored using Pollard Walks, where butterflies are counted along a transect. Photo Credit: Angela Laws/The Xerces Society
Chapter 9. Surveys, Monitoring Strategies, and Habitat Assessments 9-5 ⢠Insects visiting flowers should not be disturbed before an observation can be made. The surveyor should walk slowly and avoid sudden movements. Insects will respond to shadows passing overhead, so the surveyor should walk so as not to cast a shadow where observations are to be made. Bee Monitoring The transect is walked at a steady pace, such as 3 meters (10 feet) per minute; expect each 120-meter (400-foot) transect to take about 40 minutes. The surveyor walks slowly, looking for flower visitors within 1 meter (3.3 feet) to each side of the transect. Surveyors do not need to spend more than a couple of observational minutes at any flower or group of flowers. The time spent walking transects should be consistent so that the data is collected with the same level of effort to allow for comparisons between samples over time. For each flower visitor observed, the surveyor should record: the identification of the bee to the level the observer is comfortable, the number of times an individual of this bee was seen during the monitoring period, and the flower species on which the bee was observed. If using a two-person team, one can dictate the bees and flowers, while the other records the data. Only bees that are on the reproductive parts of the flower are identified and recorded. Bees sitting on petals, leaves, or in flight are not recorded. When a bee is visiting a flower, the bee is observed and identified using the recognition guide. See Appendix C, Bee and Bee Group Recognition, for the bee recognition guide. Note that honey bee abundance cannot provide a measure of the value of habitat because the number of individual honey bees visiting habitat is determined by the number of managed hives in the vicinity. The recorder reports these observations on a data sheet, which will be available here (this will link to a data sheet available on Web Resources project webpage). It can also be helpful to note other floral visitors beyond bees, and the species of the flower on which the bees are observed. If more than one floral visitor is observed on a single flower, the number of visitors is noted first and then they are identified. After the bee data is collected, each additional flower species that is in bloom but did not have floral visitors during the survey is noted. At the end of each transect, the recorder tallies the number of pollinators, the travel time, time of day, the length of transect, transect number, and weather conditions. If other monitoring procedures (e.g., Soil Cover, Species Cover, and Species Presence) are to be conducted, the team returns to the beginning of the transect and conducts these procedures. Records of roadside sampling areas also include the site name, sampling area designation, date, name of the sampler, weather conditions, time of visit to the site, and any pertinent notes about the site. It is also valuable to record the plants that are blooming along the transect at the time of the survey, as well as to collect data on the floral associations of the bees at the site. Bees are recorded when they are observed visiting flowers along the transect. Photo Credit: Sara Morris/The Xerces Society
Chapter 9. Surveys, Monitoring Strategies, and Habitat Assessments 9-4 delineated and sampled separately. The number of transects placed in a sampling unit depends on the size of the unit and topographic relief: ⢠<0.8 hectare (<2 acres) â no relief: establish one 120-meter (400-foot) transect through the middle of the area outside of the mowed strip in the recovery area, running parallel to the road ⢠â¤0.8 hectare (â¤2 acres) â with relief: orient multiple transects of equal length that add up to a total of 120 meters (400 feet) running perpendicular to road (for ease of walking the transect) and spaced apart evenly (e.g., 3 meters [10 feet]) ⢠â¥0.8 hectare (â¥2 acres) â no relief: establish three 120-meter (400-foot) transects through the middle of the area outside of the mowed strip in the recovery area, running parallel to the road separated evenly ⢠â¥0.8 hectare (â¥2 acres) â with relief: orient multiple transects of equal length that add up to a total of 365 meters (1,200 feet) running perpendicular to road (for ease of walking the transect) and spaced apart evenly If making comparisons between sites, it is best to keep the individual transect length and the distances between transects constant. For sites that are greater than 0.8 hectare (2 acres) in size, three 120-meter-long (400-foot-long) transects are used that are spaced evenly throughout the site. Transects are located in full sun where possible (or notations are made on data sheets when in shade) because pollinator activity declines in shade. Record GPS coordinates to allow others to monitor the area in the future. Monitoring is conducted at least three times a growing season, ideally monthly. This is because many bee and butterfly species fly for a limited number of weeks each growing season, and the communities may differ greatly between samplings. It is important to be consistent from year to year in the frequency and approximate timing of monitoring so that comparisons between years can be made. Weather conditions strongly influence bee and butterfly behavior. Bees avoid activity on cold, windy, or overcast days, so monitoring is optimal when sampling on days with air temperatures over 15.6ËC [60ËF], wind speeds less than 10 miles per hour, and skies mostly clear. Standardizing the time of day that sampling occurs is also important. Pollinators are most active between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. These procedures can be implemented by observers working on their own, but it is easier when working in pairs, with one person to act as an observer and the other to record observations and data. It is also easiest to conduct observations of bees and butterflies on separate walks of the transects to help focus identification. This monitoring approach is geared toward users who are not experts in insect identification; however, training and practice with identifying bee and butterfly groups used in this protocol will provide more accurate monitoring. The Bee and Butterfly Diversity Data Sheet is available on the National Academies Press website (https://nap.nationalacademies.org/). When making observations of floral visitors within a transect: ⢠Insects should be observed carefully and only identified to a level at which the surveyor is confident.
Chapter 9. Surveys, Monitoring Strategies, and Habitat Assessments 9-3 ⢠If your target species is listed under the ESA, you may need to obtain a recovery permit if working in zones where the species may occur. Check with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for specific information on the permit required. Details on how to apply for a permit are provided online at âObtaining a Recovery Permit under the ESA and FAQsâ (https://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/insects/rpbb/surveys.html). Having species experts assist with the surveys whenever possible is recommended to assist with identification. 9.2.1 Monitoring for Bee and Butterfly Diversity Overview of Protocol What the protocol will measure: Abundance and richness of bees and butterflies in a community Sampling design: Transects within the project area Sampling time of year: Three visits per growing season, at a minimumâlate-spring, mid-summer, late-summer Sampling weather and time of day: Warm, sunny, and calm days (15.6ËC [60ËF] or greater, wind speeds less than 10 miles per hour, and skies mostly clear), between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Level of identification needed: Morphological groups (groups of species with similar body size, shape, and structure) of bees and butterflies; expertise in insect identification not required Equipment needed: Stopwatch or clock, data sheets, clipboard and pencils, long measuring tape (100 meters [100 yards]), flags/stakes to mark transects, global positioning system (GPS) device, this procedure and pollinator identification guides, and plant lists and plant identification guide Personnel needed: Two people: one person to identify pollinators; one to keep time and record data Data Sheets: Bee and Butterfly Diversity Data Sheet (available on the National Academies Press website https://nap.nationalacademies.org/) This protocol can be used to collect consistent observational data on bee and butterfly richness and abundance over time or to identify specific associations between pollinators and their habitat. The procedure is based on a standardized method designed by researchers and practitioners (Kremen et al. 2011; Minnerath et al. 2016). Bee and butterfly communities vary depending on the quality of the immediate and surrounding habitat. This protocol can be used to document changes in bee and butterfly communities and to assess the efficacy of any changes made to roadside vegetation through revegetation or maintenance. Monitoring takes place along set transects, which are located within sampling units that have relatively uniform vegetation and site characteristics. If the project is large or composed of several different plant communities, then several sampling units may be
Chapter 9. Surveys, Monitoring Strategies, and Habitat Assessments 9-2 rather than measure abundance (Taron and Ries 2015). The monitoring protocols can be used to assess roadside habitat in a number of ways, such as determining the following. 1. Whether revegetation efforts have increased pollinator richness and abundance (by including nearby non-revegetated roadsides in samples as reference sites) 2. If pollinator richness and abundance change over time 3. Habitat quality 4. The effects of different roadside management strategies or seed mixes on pollinators 5. Survival rates for specific imperiled species The survey protocols can be used to determine the presence or absence of a target species, also known as occupancy, which is a procedure used to understand if a species is present at a particular site. Whether surveying to determine if a species occurs on a right-of-way or monitoring a population or community of pollinators to assess change over time (e.g., before and after a construction project), there are several important considerations: ⢠Know the life history and habitat needs of your target species. Understanding host plant needs, known habitat, and flight windows of adults will help you have the best chances to find your target species (see Chapter 3, Imperiled Pollinator Profiles, to find this information for some at-risk pollinators in your region). For example, it is very helpful to be able to narrow down where the Uncompahgre fritillary might be found by knowing that it only feeds on snow willow that has a lot of water throughout the summer (to make it more palatable) and so only lives under year-round snow fields on the north side of peaks above 13,000 feet in southern Colorado. ⢠Surveying for adult pollinators is most practical. It may be impractical to find and/or difficult to recognize other life stages of pollinators and it may be harmful to them (e.g., searching for a bumble bee nest or butterfly eggs laid singly within a grass clump). Adult flight periods are also more well-known than activity of other stages. ⢠It can be challenging to identify pollinators. For example, most native bees can only be identified to species by examining pinned specimens under a microscope and obtaining confirmation from experts. Standard pollinator monitoring techniques typically employ destructive sampling, with specimens collected using nets or traps, pinned, and then identified by a taxonomist. While these collection techniques provide the most robust data, they can be labor intensive, time consuming, and expensiveâand result in loss of pollinators. Using non-lethal methods when possible should be a priority (Tepedino and Portman 2021). Collecting observational data on pollinators is an economical and effective alternative to monitoring pollinators. However, training and practice are needed to recognize members of different groups of pollinators, commonly occurring local species, and imperiled species. Oklahoma State University operates research areas on ODOT rights-of-way to study the effects of mowing and other maintenance practices on roadside vegetation and on monarch butterflies. The survey and monitoring methods outlined in this chapter can be used on roadsides to provide information on how practices are affecting pollinator communities. Photo Credit: Vonceil Harmon
9-1 Chapter 9 Surveys, Monitoring Strategies, and Habitat Assessments 9.1 Introduction Assessments of pollinator communities and metrics for roadside pollinator habitat can provide valuable information for departments of transportation (DOTs) looking to implement voluntary pollinator conservation goals. Surveys for listed and imperiled species in project areas can help guide revegetation choices and federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance options. Monitoring over time can be used to determine if conservation goals are being met. Measuring the response of vegetation or a pollinator community will help determine whether changes implemented to improve roadside vegetation for pollinators have been effective and met the objectives. Monitoring is also a key component of adaptive management; monitoring data can be used to determine if and what corrective actions may be needed. In addition to helping to effectively manage and maintain a current project, monitoring also can inform the implementation of future projects or management activities. The term monitoring is used here to specifically describe data from repeated sampling that can be used to detect changes, such as to evaluate the effectiveness of revegetation or maintenance practices over time (e.g., Elzinga and Salzer 1998). Monitoring is also sometimes used as a general term to describe other data collecting activities, such as surveys or inventories. An inventory aims to catalog all species or a subset of species within an area, whereas surveys are samples of a particular species or a representative portion of an area (e.g., Pokorny et al. 2006). In this document, the term survey describes sampling to determine the presence or absence of a particular imperiled pollinator species at a given site. Surveys are important for DOTs seeking to determine if a listed or imperiled species occurs on a particular right-of-way in order to take appropriate action for ESA compliance. This chapter includes protocols that can be used to survey for and detect imperiled species of pollinators, specifically a protocol for imperiled butterflies and a protocol for bumble bees, as well as a monitoring protocol that can be used to measure general bee and butterfly community responses to changes. A rapid and comprehensive roadside habitat assessment guide is also included, along with guidance for monitoring roadside vegetation as pollinator habitat. It may take some time and familiarity with these different protocols to determine which data collection method is best for a projectâs objectives. 9.2 Pollinator Surveys and Monitoring The protocols presented in this section provide instructions for monitoring the general pollinator community (bees and butterflies), as well as ways to survey and monitor bumble bees and imperiled butterflies. The monitoring protocols involve collecting data on abundance, which can be useful to detect changes over time. However, if your target species is difficult to detect or occurs in low densities, it may be preferable to survey for occupancy
Chapter 8. Creating ClimateâSmart Pollinator Habitat along Roadsides 8-9 (Harrison 2014). Thus, diverse plantings created for pollinator conservation also help to mitigate climate change by increasing carbon sequestration services of those habitats (Ament et al. 2014). This is the idea behind ânature-based climate solutions,â which encourages the restoration and protection of natural habitats as a means of combating the climate crisis. Recent studies suggest that nature-based climate solutions alone could provide one-third of the climate mitigation required to keep warming below 2°C (warming of 2°C causes extreme heat and droughts, as well as increased water stress and sea levels, altering the livability of millions of acres of land and escalating risks to millions of lives) (Griscom et al. 2017; Fargione et al. 2018; IPCC 2018). DOTs are in a position to make real contributions to nature-based climate solutions through the creation of roadside pollinator habitat. 8.6 Additional ResourcesÂ ï· Engineering with Nature website: https://ewn.el.erdc.dren.mil/. ï· U.S. Forest Service Transportation Resiliency Guidebook: Addressing Climate Change Impacts on U.S. Forest Service Transportation Assets: https://www.volpe.dot.gov/FS- Transportation-Resiliency-Guidebook. ï· Federal Highway Administrationâs Climate Change Adaptation Guide for Transportation Systems Management, Operations, and Maintenance: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop15026/fhwahop15026.pdf. ï· National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationâs State Climate Summaries: https://statesummaries.ncics.org/. ï· U.S. Global Change Research Programâs Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States (includes regional information as well as a chapter on transportation and infrastructure): https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/. ï· The Seedlot Selection Tool (matches seedlots with climatic parameters using a map- based program): https://seedlotselectiontool.org/sst/. ï· The Transportation Research Boardâs Critical Issues in Transportation 2019: http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/178402.aspx.
Chapter 8. Creating ClimateâSmart Pollinator Habitat along Roadsides 8-8 Table 8-1. Plant traits that will generally be beneficial for adapting to different conditions associated with climate change. Plant trait Climate variable Taller grasses Increased temperatures Shorter trees Increased temperatures Thicker leaves Drought, increased temperatures Greater belowground biomass Drought High waterâuse efficiency Drought Deeper roots Drought Higher wood density Drought Thicker bark Fire Ability to resprout Fire Source: Willis 2017. This region is projected to experience increased drought frequency and severity, so using drought-tolerant plants is recommended. Recommended plants include: prairie Junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), blue grama grass (Bouteloua gracilis), balsam arrowroot (Balsamorhiza sagittata), prairie smoke (Geum triflorum), winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata), and rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa). 8.5.5 Additional Benefits of Climate-Smart Pollinator Habitat Creating climate-smart pollinator habitat along roadsides has many additional benefits beyond pollinator conservation. Pollinator habitat also provides benefits such as erosion control and reduced runoff. This helps reduce the impacts of flooding, which will be critical in many areas where increased flooding is projected, and in coastal areas where sea level rise will increase the frequency of coastal flooding. Pollinator habitat can also help to mitigate the climate crisis. Creating diverse plantings along roadsides will increase soil health, which in turn increases carbon sequestration. Studies of grassland soils show that increasing plant diversity increases the amount of carbon stored by the soils (Lange et al. 2015; Chen et al. 2018; Yang et al. 2019). A recent study estimated the value of carbon sequestration services of roadside habitat in Florida at $39 million/year, and this number could increase with the sale of carbon credits
Chapter 8. Creating ClimateâSmart Pollinator Habitat along Roadsides 8-7 capacity (the number of pollinators that can be supported by the habitat). Abiotic factors associated with climate change, such as increased temperature or increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations, may also affect the quantity and quality of nectar and pollen as well as floral attractiveness to pollinators (Rusetrholz and Erhardt 1998; Burkle and Runyon 2016; Ziska et al. 2016; Glenny et al. 2018; Russo et al. 2019). Because the effects of climate change on these plant traits are likely to be species specific, having a diverse array of flowering plants will help ensure pollinators have the resources they need. Choosing Climate-Smart Plants An additional challenge for creating pollinator habitat is trying to anticipate what plant materials will be resilient to future climate scenarios. As stated above, incorporating biodiversity, both in terms of genetic diversity within species and in terms of species richness within plantings is a good strategy for creating plantings that will persist over time as climate changes (Wilsey 2020). Using local ecotypes (Chapter 7) can help ensure the plants used will be adapted to local conditions. However, as local conditions change, incorporating as much genetic diversity as possible may be beneficial. Therefore, try to get local ecotypes from several different source populations when possible (St. Clair et al. 2020) and consider working with the local native plant industry to increase genetic diversity of important pollinator plants used in revegetation projects. Another possibility is to incorporate a small percentage of seed from lower elevation or lower latitude populations that more closely mimic future climate conditions for the area (Sgrò et al. 2011; Ramalho et al. 2017; Camarretta et al. 2020). This may be more important for long-lived shrubs and trees than for annuals. It can be difficult to predict what plant species will be most successful in the future. Plants will also respond to climate change, and plant characteristics such as phenology and nutritional value of pollen and nectar may vary with climate change. Additional research is needed to understand what traits or characteristics make plants more resilient to extreme weather events and to increases in weather variability. Research is also needed to understand how competitive relationships between key invasive plants and native plants will be altered by climate change. However, choosing native plants that are adapted to future climate projections for this region is vital (Box 8-1). For example, many regions will experience increased drought, so choosing drought-tolerant plants is a wise choice. Table 8-1 lists some plant traits that are generally associated with adaptations to different climatic conditions. Use this list to select plant species for revegetation projects, along with the list of workhorse pollinator plants in Chapter 7, as well as any plants that support imperiled pollinators occurring in the revegetation project area (Chapter 3). As discussed above, the best approach for creating resilient, sustainable roadside habitat is to harness the benefits of biodiversity, planting a diverse assemblage of plant species.
Chapter 8. Creating ClimateâSmart Pollinator Habitat along Roadsides 8-6 native bees nest in wood or pithy-stemmed plants. Retaining downed logs and snags where possible will provide nesting habitat for some of these species, while planting native, pithy- stemmed plants like goldenrod or wild rose will provide nesting habitat for others (see Chapter 7 for a plant list that includes species used for nesting by cavity-nesting bees). In general, a diverse plant community is more likely to provide necessary nest sites and nesting materials for a diverse community of pollinators. Biodiversity Is KeyâInclude a Variety of Native Plants Biodiversity is the variety and variability of life on earth. This concept includes not only the number of species in a given location, but the amount of genetic variation within each species or population at that location. Adapting to climate change and conserving biodiversity go hand-in-hand. Indeed, peopleâs ability to adapt to climate change and retain important ecosystem services such as pollination will depend on their ability to protect biodiversity. When creating climate-smart pollinator habitat, incorporating biodiversity in the planting is key to creating sustainable habitat that will support a variety of pollinators. Incorporate as many native plant species as possible into habitat projects. Habitat with a diverse native plant community can support more species of pollinators than habitat with only a few plant species. Many species of insects, including pollinators, exhibit some degree of resource specialization during their lives. For example, the monarch butterfly feeds only on species of milkweed during its larval stage (Chapter 3). Incorporating a diversity of native plants into habitat projects means the habitat will be more likely to support some of the many specialist pollinators in this region. Finally, a diverse native plant community will have greater habitat heterogeneity that can provide an array of microclimates, which serve as important refugia for pollinators during heatwaves and other extreme weather events. A biodiverse habitat (both in terms of species richness and genetic variation) has many additional benefits for climate resilience. First, generally speaking, more-diverse ecological communities are better able to provide ecosystem services such as erosion control, carbon sequestration, and pollination over time than species-poor ecological communities (Tilman et al. 2006). Second, genetically diverse populations are generally more likely to contain the traits that will enable them to adapt to climate change than populations with low genetic diversity. Third, diverse communities will be better able to withstand bad years and extreme weather events than species-poor communities. For example, a roadside habitat with a variety of plant species is more likely to include plants that can persist during both drought and flooding than a habitat with only a few plant species. Given that climate change will lead to more extreme weather events and more variability in weather, having a diverse plant community will better ensure that some plants will be able to persist and thrive, supporting the pollinators that depend on them. This may be especially important in regions where opposing conditions will both become more common. For example, in many regions both flooding and drought will become more common. It can be difficult to find plant species that can thrive in the range of expected conditions, so including a variety of plant species will help to ensure that at least some will do well in any given year or season. For similar reasons, diverse plant communities may be more resistant to pressure from invasive species or diseases. Climate change is likely to also affect the quantity and quality of floral resources for pollinators. For example, increased drought frequency is projected for this region, and drought-stressed plants produce fewer flowers with less nectar, lowering pollinator carrying
Chapter 8. Creating ClimateâSmart Pollinator Habitat along Roadsides 8-5 8.5.3 Reducing Additional Stressors Reducing stressors (i.e., drivers of pollinator declines; see Chapter 3) to pollinators such as pesticide exposure, habitat loss, and invasive species is important because these different stressors can interact with each other and with climate change to magnify negative effects on pollinators. For example, exposure to a particular pesticide may be non-lethal in ordinary circumstances, but exposure to that same pesticide may become lethal during a heatwave or drought. Therefore, it is important to reduce other stressors as much as possible to increase climate resilience of pollinators. 8.5.4 Building Climate-Smart Roadside Pollinator Habitat The most important steps to increasing climate resilience of pollinators are protecting and enhancing pollinator habitat, increasing habitat connectivity, and reducing other stressors. Creating pollinator habitat along roadsides and other DOT land holdings can contribute significantly to this effort. When creating roadside habitat for pollinators, following a few basic principles can help make that habitat more resilient to climate change. Resilient habitat will help to foster resilient pollinator communities. Pay Attention to Flowering Phenology Ensure that a minimum of three species of nectar plants bloom at all times during the season of activity for bees and butterflies (generally from spring through fall; see Chapter 7, Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation, for a plant list, example bloom time charts, and other information on revegetation). This practice will ensure that important food resources are always available for pollinators. This practice may also help reduce effects of phenological mismatches between hosts and pollinators by ensuring that some floral resources will be available (OlliffâYang et al. 2020). For example, early warm springs may lead to truncated bloom periods for some plant species, meaning spring-emerging pollinators will have fewer resources and less time to find food. More pollinators can be supported in habitat with abundant, diverse blooms compared to habitat with few flowering plants. However, this may be more effective for generalist pollinators than for specialists that need specific plant species. If possible, work to better understand what specialist pollinators might be found on the property in question, including imperiled pollinators (Chapter 3), and include specific flowering resources for those species if possible. Whenever possible, include more than three species per bloom period; plantings that are more diverse can support more species of pollinators and have greater resilience. Provide Nesting Habitat for Native Bees When many people think about bees they think about honey bee hives or bumble bee nests; however, the vast majority of bees are solitaryânesting in narrow tunnels in the ground or in wood. About 70 percent of native bees nest in the ground, and installing vegetation like bunch grasses that can provide access to small patches of earth will provide areas for these species to build nests (Chapter 2, Pollinator Biology and Roadsides). About 30 percent of Incorporating biodiversity into revegetation projects is key to increasing carbon sequestration services as well as for increasing climate resilience of the planting. Photo Credit: Dianne Kahal-Berman
Chapter 8. Creating ClimateâSmart Pollinator Habitat along Roadsides 8-4 8.5 Increasing Climate Resiliency for Pollinators  Increasing climate resilience for pollinators requires a multifaceted approach. Creating and restoring habitat, increasing habitat connectivity, and reducing other stressors are all key components for increasing pollinator climate resilience. Roadside habitat has an especially important role to play in increasing habitat connectivity. 8.5.1 Habitat Enhancing and restoring pollinator habitat is crucial for improving climate resilience of pollinator communities. Habitat with abundant pollinator-attractive floral resources that bloom from spring through fall is required to support large, stable, and diverse pollinator communities. Larger populations, in general, will better withstand bad years and extreme weather events that become more frequent with climate change. Maintaining a diverse pollinator community will also be key to ensuring that the valuable ecosystem service performed by these animals remains resilient in the future. Habitat with a diversity of plant species helps to buffer pollinators from extreme weather events by creating important refugiaâspaces where they can be protected from heat waves or other extreme weather eventsâfor pollinators. Habitat with a diversity of plant species also provides important pollinator nesting sites and larval host plants that may be less abundant in developed areas. 8.5.2 Habitat Connectivity Improving habitat connectivity is another key aspect of creating a climate-resilient environment. Habitat corridors act as pathways, connecting larger natural areas that act as reservoirs of pollinator diversity. Because roads and other rights-of-way create vast networks crisscrossing the landscape, linear habitats created or maintained alongside them are ideal for improving habitat connectivity for pollinators. This is an area where DOTs and other managers of roadsides can make especially meaningful contributions to climate resilience of wild pollinators. Habitat corridors and stepping-stones (patches of habitat that are close enough to allow movement among them) are important because they allow bees, butterflies, and other insect pollinators to move around the landscape. This increases gene flow and helps prevent pollinator populations from becoming too small by enabling individuals to move among patches. Habitat corridors and stepping-stones also enable species to migrate, facilitating range shifts in response to climate change. While not all species will change distributions in response to climate change, increasing habitat connectivity provides the opportunity for those that will. Specialist pollinators that use a narrow range of plants for foodâsuch as the Hermes copper, which only feeds on spiny redberryâare generally expected to be more vulnerable to climate change than generalist pollinators. Photo Credit: Michael Klein SR/USFWS
Chapter 8. Creating ClimateâSmart Pollinator Habitat along Roadsides 8-3 ï· Range shifts. Species may change their distributions to track more optimal climate. In general, species are expected to shift poleward or to higher elevations, but not all species will respond the same way. Differences in future distributions of pollinators and host/nectar plants may lead to spatial mismatches. Range shifts require habitat corridors for species to move through. ï· Altered phenology. Phenology is the timing of biological events such as flowering time in plants and adult flight time in butterflies. Shifts in phenology in response to climate change may be especially problematic if pollinators and their host plants respond differently, leading to phenological mismatches. For example, a bee that specializes on the pollen of a particular group of plants may emerge after its host plants have begun to bloom, missing out on resources they need to provide for their young. ï· Physiological responses. Temperature is extremely important in influencing a variety of physiological processes in insects, including metabolism, growth rate, and digestion. But temperature can also affect behaviors, such as foraging rates and the amount of time each day that pollinators are active. Therefore, changes in temperature can affect many aspects of pollinator performance (e.g., survival, reproduction, size at maturity). ï· Altered species interactions. The outcome of species interactions, such as competition, predation, or disease can be affected by changing climate, especially temperature change. ï· Changes to the diversity, quantity, and quality of floral resources. Plants will also respond to climate change. Changes in plant diversity or community composition will affect competitive relationships among pollinators. Specialist pollinators may be especially sensitive to such changes in plant communities. Drought, heatwaves, and increases in temperature, as well as increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations can all affect the quantity and quality of pollen and nectar, as well as floral attractiveness to pollinators. ï· Combined stressors. Climate change may exacerbate the effects of other stressors, such as habitat loss, pesticide use, and pathogen exposure, magnifying effects on pollinators. 8.4 What Species Are Most Vulnerable to Climate Change?  Species most likely to be negatively affected by climate change include resource specialists (e.g., species that use only a narrow subset of plants as larval host plants or for pollen), species that are already declining, species that occur at high latitudes or high elevations, and species with limited distributions or narrow habitat requirements. Many of the species featured in Chapter 3, Imperiled Pollinator Profiles, fit into several of these categories and will be at increased risk as the effects of climate change continue to become apparent.
Chapter 8. Creating ClimateâSmart Pollinator Habitat along Roadsides 8-2 ï· Increased temperatures can cause rutting, cracking, and buckling of roads. ï· Nationally, 60,000 miles of bridges and roads run through coastal floodplains, which are at increased risk from flooding and storms. ï· Increases in inland flooding will threaten 2,500 to 4,600 bridges nationwide by 2050 and 5,000 to 6,000 bridges by 2090. Box 8-1. Climate projections for the Great Basin Region Climate projections for this region include: ï· Increased temperatures, including increases in average daytime and nighttime temperatures. ï· Increased frequency and intensity of heatwaves. ï· Increased frequency and intensity of drought. ï· Decreased snowpack, especially at lower elevations. ï· Increased wildfire frequency. ï· Projections of changes to precipitation patterns are unclear, but national models indicate small increases in precipitation in the northern part of the region and small decreases in precipitation in the southern part of the region. References: Runkle et al. 2017. 8.2.1 Where Do These Numbers Come From? Scientists use models to project the effects of climate change in the future (usually up to 100 years). Predicting how climate change will affect future climate requires information about how greenhouse gas emissions and human population size will change over time. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has developed a set of scenarios that describe a range of possible future greenhouse gas emissions levels and human population sizes for use in climate models. In addition to using multiple IPCC scenarios, scientists typically use multiple climate models that differ in their sensitivity to different parameters. By using multiple models and multiple IPCC scenarios, scientists can bracket the potential effects of climate change to provide a range of likely expected conditions. A recent analysis shows that such models have been successful in predicting changes in climate over time (Hausfather et al. 2020). 8.3 How Will Climate Change Affect Pollinators? Creating climate-resilient pollinator habitat first requires an understanding of the variety of ways that climate change can affect pollinators. Below is a list of effects of climate change on pollinators. These are not mutually exclusive, as pollinators are likely to experience multiple effects of climate change simultaneously. While some pollinator species may fare better under climate change, many species will be negatively affected.
8-1 Chapter 8 Creating Climate- Smart Pollinator Habitat Along Roadsides 8.1 Introduction More than 98 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is occurring and that human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, are the cause. The effects are already being felt across the country in rising temperatures and increased frequency of extreme weather events. Climate change presents challenges for department of transportation (DOT) managersâextreme events, heatwaves, and sea level rise can all significantly affect transportation infrastructure. Climate change also affects pollinators and the plants that rely on them. This chapter presents an overview of the effects that climate change can have on pollinators, the components of climate-smart pollinator roadside habitat, and additional benefits of such habitat for mitigating the climate crisis. 8.2 Climate Change Projections Climate change will have a variety of effects on climate, many of which are already occurring (see Box 8-1). Increases in average temperatures will continue nationwide, with increased frequency of extreme temperature events, including heatwaves. Weather variability will increase in most regions, with extreme weather events becoming more frequent and intense. Drought will become more common in many regions, which can play a role in increased wildfire frequency. Flooding will also become more common as a result of more frequent extreme weather events and sea level rise. Sea level rise will increase flood risk in coastal areas, while extreme weather events may increase flooding in both coastal areas (such as with increased number and intensity of hurricanes) and inland, especially near rivers and floodplains. Climate change will also have many impacts on the nationâs infrastructure, and create additional challenges for DOT staff who manage and maintain safe roadways. In many areas, increases in temperature will reduce the amount of time that employees can safely spend working outdoors, especially during heatwaves. However, the need to update and/or repair infrastructure in response to climate change will also create opportunities for revegetation projects that support pollinators and other wildlife. According to the Fourth National Climate Assessment (USGCRP 2018): ï· Increased temperatures, combined with more frequent extreme weather events (including flooding, drought, and fire) and sea level rise, will compromise infrastructure. Unprecedented rains and flooding in summer 2022 in Yellowstone National Park led to the destruction of roads and other infrastructure. Extreme weather events like this will become more common as a result of climate change. Photo Credit: AP via NPS
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-33 to provide nectar for monarchs, including purple coneflower (Echinacea purpurea), smooth aster (Symphyotrichum laeve), and seaside goldenrod (Solidago sempervirens). Bayberry shrubs were planted around the perimeter of the planting. Landscape designers worked with New York DOTâs maintenance staff to determine when and where mowing should be avoided. Additionally, vertical mowing markers were placed along the edge of the plantings, with words clearly marked, âWildflower Area â Only Mow after 2nd Week of October.â 7.5.3 Revegetation focusing on Layers, Density, and Diversity Aesthetics is an important component of revegetation designs, but is secondary to creating a functional planting and healthy ecosystem. Massachusetts DOT Landscape Designer Tara Mitchell recommends focusing on ecological factors in order to create long- term, self-sustaining vegetation. Tara designs her plantings for resilience. For example, by selecting a diversity of species and plant types (ever-green, deciduous, herbaceous), plantings are more resilient to plant loss â both ecologically and visually. Tara selects species that are rapid colonizers so there is early plant cover, species like evergreens that provide winter habitat and aesthetic interest, and shrubs and understory trees to create layers. Layers of plant species of different heights and different rates of growth provide an attractive visual effect and more habitat. Tara also spaces plants relatively close together to create dense cover once established and to maintain coverage if some plants or species die. Along with layers, dense plantings provide better soil protection and helps shade out undesirable weeds. Tara has found that such plantings require less water and mulch during establishment, and that the survival rate of plants is very high, much higher than in trees or shrubs planted individually. 7.6 ResourcesÂ ï· Roadside Revegetation: An Integrated Approach to Establishing Native Plants and Pollinator Habitat: http://www.nativerevegetation.org/learn/manual_2017/ ï· Ecoregional revegetation application tool: http://www.nativerevegetation.org/era/ ï· Revegetation resource library: http://resources.nativerevegetation.org/ ï· Plant lists for pollinators: https://xerces.org/publications/plant-lists In its fourth year of growth here, that same planting has filled out so that plants are layered effectively.  Photo Credit: Tara Mitchell, Massachusetts DOT This planting, located between a main corridor and a ramp, is in its second year of growth. Photo Credit: Tara Mitchell, Massachusetts DOTÂ
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-32 Issues / Concerns Management Options Invasive weed management Use mowing or herbicides (or less commonly, prescribed burning or grazing) to control invasives, timing management for when target species are most vulnerable. 7.5 Case Studies 7.5.1 Adapting Design and Management in Washington Washington DOT is working to restore corridors of ROWs to design roadsides so that they look seamless with the surrounding landscape, as if no construction has taken place. To learn more about restoration of grasslands, Washington DOT is using the Scatter Creek Rest Area as a testing ground. Experiments are being conducted at the rest area to help inform seed mix designs and installation practices. By experimenting with drilling seed, broadcasting seed, and broadcasting with a furrow, Washington DOT is learning more about installation techniques that lead to the most successful native plant establishment. Washington DOT is also experimenting with timing of management to control invasive species that are present, such as scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius). Scotch broom is an introduced shrub that forms dense stands that can crowd out native plants and wildlife and is a difficult weed to control. In fact, scotch broom management can take decades because of the long-lived seeds that can germinate many years after falling from the plant. Washington DOT has also experimented with different management techniques, such as timing targeted herbicide sprays to scotch broom stems after mowing, or using prescribed burning to flush out the scotch broom seed bank. By monitoring pollinators and counting bumble bees, beetles, and other species, Washington DOT is gathering data that informs their design and maintenance practices regularly over time. 7.5.2 Roadside Plantings in New York for Monarchs along Their Migration Route As monarch butterflies in the Northeast fly thousands of miles south to their overwintering grounds in Mexico each fall, they often travel along the coastlines. In New York State, monarchs are frequently seen along the Ocean Parkway in autumn. As part of a coastal greenway project to develop a 10-mile shared use path along the shore between Captree State Park and Tobay Beach, New York DOT installed plants to support monarch butterflies in the median of the Ocean Parkway. In wide, open center medians, a layered planting system of native plant materials was developed. The interior section of the median was planted with a seed mix of wildflowers and grasses appropriate for the coastal region. The mix included species known Camas (Camassia quamash) and other native plants are filling in as invasive scotch broom plants grow fewer with yearly treatments. Photo Credit: Washington DOT This layered planting along Ocean Parkway in New York was designed to support monarch butterflies, and it includes special mowing markers to help maintenance know when to mow. Photo Credit: Crystal Peritz, New York DOTÂ
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-31 ï· strategic mowing (e.g., using a carefully timed high mow to target weeds). 7.4.5 Long-Term Management: After Establishment Plant communities need management over time to maintain species diversity and reduce encroachment by weeds or woody plants that may shade out plants in their understory. Practitioners generally follow these best practices in long-term management of plantings: 1. Assess the conditions on the ground. 2. Implement maintenance practices that help maintain wildflower diversity. 3. Consider flight and breeding periods of the listed and imperiled pollinators that are in the area when planning timing of maintenance activities. (See Chapter 6 for table of activity windows.) 4. Evaluate the effects of maintenance activities in order to adapt and modify future activities based on experience. Within the framework of these practices, a combination of maintenance strategies can be used to maintain wildflower diversity. Practitioners agree that varying management activities is critical to encouraging wildflower diversity, but there is little agreement on how to vary practices, even within a region. Some managers are strong proponents of mowing mid-season to suppress warm-season grasses and stimulate wildflowers, while others suggest limiting mowing during the growing season so that wildflowers can reseed. This discordance underscores the value of adaptive management approaches that are tailored to address the conditions of a particular revegetation project. Table 7-6 provides an overview of common issues related to managing a diverse plant community, along with options that can be used to address these issues. (Note that more than one of these management options can be relevant to any site.) Table 7-6. Common long-term management issues for maintaining plant diversity. Issues / Concerns Management Options Coolâseason grasses dominate in planting Grassâselective herbicide, mowing, or haying (or less commonly, prescribed burning or grazing) at vulnerable grass growth stage (boot stage, when the shoot is elongating and the seed head is developing inside the shoot). Warmâseason grasses dominate over wildflowers Midâ to lateâsummer grassâselective herbicide or haying (or less commonly, prescribed burning or grazing) at vulnerable grass growth stage (boot stage). Woody encroachment Spot mow or cut brush in the spring or fall, apply an appropriate herbicide to the cut stump, and follow up with prescribed fire if woody plants resprout or sucker.  Maintaining wildflower abundance and diversity Periodically hay or mow (at different times of growing season) or use grassâselective herbicides. (Less commonly, use prescribed fire in the dormant season or graze rotationally, targeting active growth periods of dominant grasses.)Â
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-30 ï· Spread weed-free straw, bark, or wood chip mulch around the plants to reduce weed competition and to hold in moisture. ï· Irrigate the transplants thoroughly immediately after planting. Depending on weather, region, and site conditions, regular follow-up irrigation may be needed in the first year or two after planting but can be discontinued after establishment. Some non-native plants may require longer periods of irrigation. ï· Install netting or other plant guards where needed to protect transplants from browsing animals that can cause significant damage. Detailed guidelines for installing plant materials are found in Roadside Revegetation: An Integrated Approach to Establishing Native Plants and Pollinator Habitat (FHWA 2017). If plant installation is conducted by contractors, it can be useful to include language in contracts that outlines specifications for best practices. Arizona has an example of language for seeding specifications for contractors available at: https://apps.azdot.gov/files/roadway-engineering/roadside-dev/sample-class-ii-seeding- special-provisions_reference-only_adot-ido-roadway-roadside-development.pdf, and their best practices are outlined here: https://azdot.gov/node/5372. 7.4.4 Short-Term Management: Before and During Establishment Before installing plants, reduce competition with invasive, noxious, or undesirable plants that would otherwise pose a threat to the establishment of desired vegetation. Some DOTs, for example, include noxious and invasive species control in construction specifications so that those weeds are controlled before, during, and after construction. Remove weeds through herbicide applications or by repeated mowing. Focus on removing perennial weeds, which are harder to control after planting. Following planting, the site may require some management to keep annual weeds from seeding or to control any perennial weeds that were not eliminated before construction or planting. Additionally, in the first year of establishment, new seedlings require light and are greatly affected by weed canopies that stunt their growth. However, in this region, shade from weeds may not limit native plant establishment. While east of the 100th meridian establishment mowing (mowing once or more to suppress weed growth) is beneficial (Williams et al. 2007; Meissen et al. 2019), in drier regions where weeds or grasses may not excessively shade seedlings, mowing may not be necessary during establishment or even may be undesirable. For long-term success, weeds should be prevented from going to seed in the first 2 or 3 years. Care should be taken to properly identify weeds before removal; some young wildflower seedlings and weed seedlings may look alike. Common weed management strategies include: ï· targeted herbicide applications (e.g., spot-spraying or rope-wick treatments), ï· use of selective herbicides (e.g., grass-selective herbicides for grass weeds), and Weeds can limit native plant establishment by limiting the light that reaches the new seedlings, which grow more slowly than the weeds in the first year after planting. Photo Credit: Dave WilliamsÂ
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-29 Seeding Method Where to Use Site Preparation Needed Seeding Techniques Following SeedingÂ ï· The project can be seeded from the shoulder. ï· Hydroseeding is good for visible sites; hydromulch can hold the seed in place until there is enough moisture for germination and protect it from seed predators. ï· Hydromulch can be expensive, and the seeding rate is harder to control; wellâ trained applicators are needed. ï· Seed after a rain if possible. second pass of hydromulch mixed with tackifier to hold the seed in place.Â ï· Seed the area furthest from the road first. General installation guidelines for optimizing establishment of transplants include the following: ï· Determine the equipment needed for the installation of transplants. Shovels are often adequate for excavating holes for many transplants, but power augers are a particularly efficient way to create a hole for large container stock. Steep or rocky slopes may require specialized planting equipment such as expandable stingers. ï· Stage the planting before digging holes. The objectives of the project will determine the planting patterns, whether transplants will be spaced out evenly, in clumps, or at random. Remember to consider the size of each species at maturity when spacing out plants. For example, most woody shrubs should be spaced on 4- to 10-foot centers to give them ample room to grow. ï· In areas where soil is compacted or degraded, add compost to holes prior to planting. Use clean compost (no manure or biosolids) to reduce the introduction of unwanted weeds during planting. The use of sphagnum peat moss should be avoided because of the impact on wetlands and the associated release of greenhouse gases.
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-28 Seeding Method Where to Use Site Preparation Needed Seeding Techniques Following SeedingÂ ï· Greater quantities of seed (up to 50% more) are required. ï· Additional step of pressing seed into soil after seeding to help germination is required. Drill seeding (Using a native seed drill)Â ï· Drill seeding is convenient for planting large, level areas, but it does not work well on slopes. ï· Seed can be planted into areas with light stubble and seed does not need to be pressed into the soil. ï· Depth at which seeds are planted can be controlled. ï· An experienced operator is required. ï· Seed can be planted into stubble. ï· Plant when the soil is dry enough to prevent sticking to the parts of the drill. ï· Set depth controls to plant no deeper than 1/4 inch. ï· Make multiple passes with the drill to pack the seed in well. Hydroseeding (Spraying the area with a mix of water, mulch, and seed)Â ï· Hydroseeding is useful for slopes, culverts, bridge approaches, and wet areas because it reduces soil erosion. ï· Bare ground is needed, but the seedbed does not need to be smooth. ï· Apply the seed first, mixed with fertilizer and a small amount of fiber or straw and tackifier. Then follow up with a ï· No action is required following seeding.
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-27 When installing seeds, select the method of seeding that is most appropriate for the site. See Table 7-5 for an overview of the advantages, disadvantages, and tips on seeding techniques, using the three main seeding methods used in roadside revegetation. General guidance on installing native seeds to achieve optimal establishment includes: ï· Place seed in direct contact with soil, and do not bury the seed more than ¼ inch deep, which will affect establishment. If broadcasting seed, tamp or press down the seed lightly into the soil using a tractor or cultipacker after planting. If hydroseeding, apply the seed, mixed with fertilizer and a small amount of fiber or straw and tackifier first, then follow up with a second pass of hydromulch mixed with tackifier to hold it in place. This ensures seeds are covered by the hydromulch. ï· If the site requires rapid plant establishment, include nurse or cover crops in seed mixes to help hold the soil while native species establish. Suitable nurse crops include sterile hybrids or annuals such as oats (Avena sativa), winter wheat (Triticum aestivum), or rye (Lolium multiflorum). ï· Coordinate with maintenance staff about conducting weed control during the establishment phase. Weed control to reduce weed competition while allowing native seedlings to grow is critical in the first and second years after planting. Weeds should also be prevented from going to seed. Use spot-sprays of herbicides as needed or mowing where appropriate. (See âShort-Term Management: Before and During Establishmentâ below.) ï· Because roadsides planted with seed can take time to establish, it may be helpful to install a sign to indicate the site is a planting that is underway. Table 7-5. Seeding methods for planting seed and the techniques involved. Seeding Method Where to Use Site Preparation Needed Seeding Techniques Following Seeding Broadcast seeders or hand broadcasting  (Throwing seed)Â ï· This method is inexpensive and easy to use. It is particularly useful for sites that cannot be reached by mechanical equipment. ï· Spreading seed evenly over site is difficult, and the seed bed must be smooth. ï· Remove as much stubble as possible prior to planting, creating a smooth lightly packed seedbed. ï· Seed before a rain. ï· Bulk up seed using an inert carrier, such as sand or clayâbased cat litter. ï· Make multiple passes, scattering seed over the site. ï· Pack the seed into the soil using a tractor or cultipacker.
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-26 Chapter 9 includes a tool to help evaluate sites for their conservation value to pollinators: the Pollinator Habitat Assessment Guide for Roadsides. The tool includes a rapid assessment and a comprehensive assessment of roadside pollinator habitat. The comprehensive assessment includes 1) a category to determine the priority of the roadside site within the context of the larger landscape and 2) a category that evaluates possible threats to pollinators from the adjacent road and surrounding land. The scores from those categories can help to guide choices about prioritizing projects that emphasize an objective to improve habitat for imperiled pollinators. The Roadside Pollinator Habitat Assessment Guide is available on the National Academies Press website (www.nap.nationalacademies.org). 7.4.3 Plant Establishment After disturbance or construction, roadside sites may be in poor condition for plant growth. Mitigation measures may be needed, such as reconstructing soils (note: if new soils are brought to a location, they should be free of invasive seeds, to the extent possible) or making amendments through composts or fertilizers or the introduction of beneficial microorganisms that play crucial roles in soil and plant health. Topographic enhancements to improve the plant establishment can also be made. These include modifying topography to capture runoff water for use by plants or creating terraces on slopes to support seedling establishment. Installing Plant Materials Installing diverse native plant materials, including diverse seed mixes, requires consideration of timing of installation and matching installation method to the site characteristics. Generally, diverse seed mixes have the best establishment when planted in the fall or during the dormant season, allowing the many species that require cycles of cold moisture to germinate. Transplants generally do best when installed in winter or early spring when soil moisture is high, or sometimes in the fall for dormant plants. In this region, the optimal timing to install native plant materials is presented in Table 7-4. Table 7-4. Timing windows for installing native plants in the Great Basin. When to Seed When to Install Container Plants When to Install Bare Roots Dormant season AprâMay or Sept  AprâMay or Sept Although these time windows are optimal for plant establishment, it may be especially difficult to time seeding accordingly because of time constraints from construction schedules. Seeding should take place as needed (e.g., year-round) for erosion control after repairs or construction, as long as the seed is protected in place (e.g., under a layer of hydrostraw tackifier or compost blanket) until the conditions for germination occur. The Monarch Joint Venture and partners (funded through the National Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Boardâs National Cooperative Highway Research Program) developed a habitat prioritization model for roadsides as monarch butterfly habitat for DOTs. The model can help managers assess potential areas of habitat along roads in their state or identify where habitat could be developed. More information about the model can be found here: https://monarchjointventure.org/ mjvprograms/science/roadsideha bitat/habitatâprioritizationâmodel. Â
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-25 Box 7â2. Scorecard for prioritizing sites for revegetation to support imperiled pollinators Resources to install highâquality, diverse native plant material may be limited. Limited resources can be leveraged by prioritizing some roadside sites for revegetation that involves habitat restoration for imperiled or atârisk pollinators. Use this tool to help determine a score for a site that can be helpful in site prioritization. Select all the options that apply to the site: â§Â Presence of focal pollinator species. A listed or imperiled pollinator species is known to be in the vicinity or was previously found at the site. (2pts) â§Â Landscape connectivity. The site improves connectivity of existing habitat within the landscape. For example, the site is near or connected to a natural area (e.g., state park, national forest, nature preserve) or connects with existing highâquality roadside vegetation. (2pts) â§Â Landscape diversity. The site exists in an area important to the focal pollinator species and is in a landscape in which habitat is scarce; therefore, roadside habitat would be particularly valuable to pollinators. (2pts) â§Â Project scale. The planned project is large in scale; the size of a habitat patch influences the number of individuals and species that use it. (1pt) â§Â Roadside width. Wider sites are preferred because they appear to support greater numbers and diversity of pollinator species. (1pt) â§Â Traffic density. Sites with higher traffic density (more than four lanes of traffic) on adjacent roads may be less desirable for pollinators. (1pt) â§Â Road density. Site is not isolated within areas of high road density in which there are multiple barriers to pollinator movement (e.g., cloverleaf median off an interstate interchange in an urban area). (1pt) â§Â Visibility to the public. Sites that are more visible to the public may be important for DOT goals, including public awareness and education. (1pt) â§Â Weed pressure: The site has low weed pressure from noxious and invasive weeds. (1pt) ⧠Benefits to adjacent land. The existing or future road network is in lands largely dominated by agricultural activities that could benefit from pollinators. (1pt) Final score: ______________  Scale: Scores of 7 or more points: This site is a high priority for revegetation with pollinators in mind. Scores of 4â6 points: This site is a medium priority for revegetation with pollinators in mind. Scores of 3 and lower: This site is a lower priority for revegetation with pollinators in mind.Â
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-24 https://legiscan.com/NJ/text/S227/2016. North Carolina passed an act to prioritize the use of native plants on roadsides in 2019. Recognizing that native plants are part of North Carolinaâs natural heritage and are well adapted to North Carolinaâs landscapes, the bill directs North Carolina to give precedence to the use of native trees, shrubs, vines, grasses, and wildflowers in erosion control and landscaping projects, as well as in roadside parks, scenic overlooks, and picnic areas. The bill can be found here: https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewBillDocument/2019/2522/0/DRS35248-MW-38. 7.4.2 Prioritizing Sites for Revegetation Efforts to Benefit Imperiled Pollinators It can be helpful to prioritize sites for roadside revegetation projects that support imperiled pollinators in order to maximize conservation value and use resources effectively. Considerations to guide decisions about prioritization of sites to improve pollinator habitat include: ï· Presence of target pollinator species. Prioritize locations where a listed or imperiled pollinator species is known to be in the vicinity or was previously found at the site. ï· Landscape connectivity. Prioritize sites that improve connectivity of existing habitat within the landscape. ï· Landscape diversity. Prioritize sites that exist in an area important to the target pollinator species and is in a landscape in which habitat is scarce, and therefore roadside habitat would be particularly valuable to pollinators. ï· Roadside width. Prioritize wider sites because they appear to support greater numbers and diversity of pollinator species. Medians are lower priorities because they are often narrow and, due to their placement between roads, may pose a higher risk from vehicle mortality to pollinators. ï· Traffic density. Prioritize sites with lower roadway traffic density. ï· Road density. Prioritize sites that are not isolated within areas of high road density in which there are multiple barriers to pollinator movement (e.g., cloverleaf median off an interstate interchange in an urban area). ï· Visibility to the public. Consider prioritizing sites that are more visible to the public if public awareness and education is a goal. Use the scorecard in Box 7-2 to determine a siteâs attributes and its relative suitability for prioritizing enhancement for pollinators.
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-23 ï· an integrated vegetation management plan to address weed issues; ï· the planting of native species to enhance pollinator habitat; ï· removal of non-native species from species mixes; and ï· obtaining expert training or assistance on pollinators-friendly practices. Funding was not appropriated by Congress as part of the FY 2022 budget for either the Invasive Plant Elimination Program or the Pollinator-Friendly Practices grant program but will hopefully be included in future budgets. Beyond FHWA, many other land management agencies in the United States have policies mandating the prioritization of native plants in revegetation projects, including the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. State Legislation At the state level, there have been several approaches to encouraging native plants as the first choice in revegetation efforts. In Iowa, the state legislature passed Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management (IRVM) legislation in 1987 to promote an ecologically integrated approach to roadside management, while maintaining a safe travel environment (Code of Iowa, Section 314, available here: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/ico/code/314.pdf). The legislation emphasized the establishment and protection of native vegetation as well as judicious use of herbicides, mowing, prescribed burning, and other management tools. The bill also established the Living Roadway Trust Fund, an annual competitive grant program administered by the Iowa DOT that provides funding for school, city, county, and state projects, as well as research projects involving IRVM. Iowaâs road use tax, along with several other sources, funds the Living Roadway Trust Fund. County roadside managers can submit applications to obtain resources to help them implement IRVM, including vegetation inventories, native seeds, equipment for burns or plant establishment, GPS units, signage, workshops, and more. Roadsides are seeded with mixes of species that are appropriate for a particular site, including many wildflowers that are attractive to pollinators. Seed mixes also contain species that bloom at different times throughout the growing season, which helps support pollinators all season long. Research projects have also been supported by the Living Roadway Trust Fund, including studies of restoration techniques. Since the bill passed, more than 100,000 acres of Iowaâs nearly 600,000 acres of state and county roadsides have been planted with native vegetation (Brandt et al. 2011). In the process, Iowa has fostered the development of experienced roadside managers who are equipped to collaborate with other land managers around the state and bring habitat, and wildlife such as pollinators, back to Iowaâs much-altered landscape. In 2017, New Jersey passed a bill that requires New Jersey DOT, New Jersey Turnpike Authority, and the South Jersey Transportation Authority to use only native vegetation for landscaping, land management, reforestation, or habitat restoration. The legislation also directed the Department of Environmental Protection and Department of Agriculture to identify plants native to the state in hardiness zones within the state. Proponents of the bill pointed to saving taxpayers expenses due to replanting, and to benefits for wildlife and clean water. The text of the bill can be found here:
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-22 any amount of weed seed or inert material. Review the certificate before purchase of the seed lot and reject seed lots that contain undesirable species as contaminants that might pose a risk to the planting. Native Plants and Costs of Revegetation Although the initial costs of establishing native plant material may be more significant than using widely available introduced species, particularly for projects that include a higher density and diversity of flowering plants or specialized species, native plants are often more cost effective in the long term. Once established, the native plants persist well over time and often require less mowing, herbicides, and other weed control measures, decreasing long-term maintenance efforts and cost (Berger 2005). For more information about costs and benefits of native plants, see Chapter 10. Legislation Supporting Native Plants on Roadsides Federal Legislation In 2014, the White House issued a Presidential Memorandum, âCreating a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators.â This memo directed the U.S. Department of Transportation to evaluate guidance and identify opportunities to increase pollinator habitat along roadways, and to work with state DOTs and transportation associations to promote practices that support pollinators, including increasing native plantings. In 2015, the Fixing Americaâs Surface Transportation (FAST) Act was signed into law and included language on efforts to support pollinators. Section 1415 of the FAST Act authorizes that activities to establish and improve pollinator habitat may be eligible for federal funding if they are related to transportation projects funded under Title 23, U.S.C. Additionally, Section 1415 of the FAST Act directs the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in conjunction with willing states, to encourage: 1. Integrated vegetation management practices on roadsides and other transportation rights-of-way, including reduced mowing; and 2. The development of habitat and forage for Monarch butterflies, other native pollinators, and honey bees through plantings of native forbs and grasses, including noninvasive, native milkweed species that can serve as migratory way stations for butterflies and facilitate migrations of other pollinators. In 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act included language to establish two funding programs that could be used to support pollinator habitat for agencies that manage roadsides. Section 11522 established the Invasive Plant Elimination Program to provide grants to states to control invasive species, up to $50 million per year (for fiscal years 2022â 2026). Priority is given to projects that utilize revegetation with native plants that support pollinators. Section 11528 established the Pollinator-Friendly Practices on Roadsides and Highway Rights-of-Way grant program to provide grants of up to $150,000 for use in the development, implementation, or improvement of a pollinator-friendly practices plan, with up to $2 million available per year ((for fiscal years 2022â2026). Examples of pollinator- friendly practices include: ï· mowing strategies that limit disturbance during periods of highest use by target species;
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-21 Plantings for pollinators at rest areas or welcome centers can also be opportunities for experimentation, places where DOTs can trial particular seed mixes or planting methods on a smaller scale before implementing them on a larger area. Wisconsin DOT, for example, is currently restoring prairie at two of its busiest rest areas, removing invasive species and interseeding additional prairie species. There are also opportunities for collaborations and partnerships in these spaces. Georgia DOT is in the process of installing pollinator habitats at some of rest areas and welcome centers, in partnership with the Georgia Association of Conservation Districts. Kansas DOT worked with partners to trial prescribed burning to manage plantings at several of their rest areas. 7.4 Installation Considerations for Revegetation  7.4.1 Sourcing Plant Materials Obtaining locally or regionally sourced native plant materials in sufficient quality and quantities for a project involves advance planning. Coordination with native plant providers early in the planning process is important. If a special plant species is needed for a site, the agency or plant vendors can collect wild plant material and amplify seeds, cuttings, or plants with enough lead time. Guidance for collecting and propagating wild-type plant materials can be found in Roadside Revegetation: An Integrated Approach to Establishing Native Plants and Pollinator Habitat (FHWA 2017): http://www.nativerevegetation.org/learn/manual_2017/chpt5_implementation/5_3_obta in_plant_mat.aspx. If there are not enough abundance and diversity of locally sourced species available for a project, prioritize regionally sourced native plant materials. These might include species that do not naturally occur in the local ecosystem but are present within the region. If regional plant materials cannot be found, consult restoration experts and seed producers to determine if cultivars may be appropriate to use for the site. Commercial cultivars are less preferable because some do not provide sufficient pollen or nectar to support pollinators, and some may either not establish effectively in the area or may become too aggressive at the expense of other valuable plants. However, cultivars might be appropriate in some locations for certain revegetation objectives (e.g., landscape planting in an urban setting). When obtaining seed, it is recommended to require vendors to provide a seed testing certificate for each species in the seed mix. Commercially procured seed is certified to guarantee a number of quality standards, including proper species, germination rate, and Invasive brush and a dead tree are removed from a prairie restoration at a Wisconsin rest area before additional wildflower seeds are added.  Photo Credit: Wisconsin DOTÂ
7-20 Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation To identify additional species appropriate to this region and valuable to pollinators, use the Ecoregional Revegetation Assistant Tool, a map-based online tool to aid practitioners when selecting native plants for restoration and pollinator habitat enhancement. The map can be used to find a state or US Environmental Protection Agency Level III Ecoregion, and the tool will produce a list of plants and plant attributes suitable for that area. The database includes plant attributes such as soil type, moisture needs, palatability, salt tolerance, value to pollinators, and workhorse plant species. Data can be downloaded by county, state, or ecoregion, and plant species can be filtered by attributes. The tool is available at http://www.nativerevegetation.org/era. When designing revegetation projects, it is important to consult with the siteâs maintenance department. Maintenance departments have processes and practices in place for reasons that may not be known to habitat designers, and coordination with maintenance can improve revegetation outcomes. Discussions with maintenance departments can help to build willingness to adapt maintenance practices to facilitate pollinator habitat establishment and persistence. Consider if the agency could create a staff position that focuses on ecological roadside revegetation and is shared by both the maintenance and design teams. This role could ensure that what is designed gets implemented across the state and can be maintained effectively by maintenance crews. Box 7â1. Rest areas, welcome centers, and pollinator habitat Welcome centers and rest areas are places where the traveling public can relax and take a break. DOTs also provide learning opportunities at these stopping points, where signs and brochures are frequently used to inform the public. DOTs can also use these spaces to create demonstration gardens or plantings, including pollinator habitat. These plantings help DOTs inform the public about pollinators and habitat that support them, and showcase conservation efforts.  Signage for this Ohio DOT planting describes why pollinators are important and plants that support them.  Photo Credit: Joel Thrash, Ohio DOTÂ
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-19 Scientific Name Common Name Bloom Period Life Cycle Form (Forb, Shrub, Tree, Sedge, Grass) Sun Soil (Dry, Moist, Wet) Imperiled Butterfly or Moth Larval Host Nectar/ Pollen for Imperiled Pollinators Bumble Bee Plant Nest Site or nest materials Deer Resistant Sphaeralcea spp. (e.g., S. grossulariifolia) Globemallow  MayâJul Perennial Forb Sun Moist  X X Materials  Sporobolus airoides Alkali sacaton NA Perennial Grass Sun/part shade Dry Thatch Symphyotrichum ascendens Long leaved aster AugâOct Perennial Forb Sun Moist X Stems X Symphyotrichum laeve Smooth blue aster AugâSep Perennial Forb Sun Dry X X Thelypodium crispum Crisped thelypody JunâAug Annual, perennial Forb Sun/part shade Dry â moist X
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-18 Scientific Name Common Name Bloom Period Life Cycle Form (Forb, Shrub, Tree, Sedge, Grass) Sun Soil (Dry, Moist, Wet) Imperiled Butterfly or Moth Larval Host Nectar/ Pollen for Imperiled Pollinators Bumble Bee Plant Nest Site or nest materials Deer Resistant Prunus virginiana Chokecherry FebâApr Perennial Tree, shrub Sun/part shade Moist   X   Purshia tridentata Antelope bitterbrush FebâApr Perennial Shrub Sun Dry X Pyrrocoma racemosa Clustered goldenweed JulâSept Perennial Fort Sun, part shade Moist, wet X Ribes aureum Golden currant FebâApr Perennial Shrub Sun/part shade Moist X Ribes cereum Wax currant FebâJul Perennial Shrub Sun/part shade Dry X Rosa woodsii  Woodsâ rose MayâJuly Perennial Shrub Part shade Moist X Nests and materials Salix spp. (e.g., S. lasiandra) Willow FebâApr Perennial Tree Sun/part shade Wet X Salvia dorrii Desert sage MayâJul Perennial Shrub Sun Dry â moist X x Sambucus nigra Black elderberry MayâJul Perennial Tree, shrub Sun/part shade Moist X Stems X Sesuvium verrucosum Verrucose seapurslane AprâNov Annual, perennial Forb Sun Moist, Wet X Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod JulâSep Perennial Forb Sun/part shade Dry â moist X X X Solidago spectabilis Nevada goldenrod AugâOct Perennial Forb Sun Moist X X StemsÂ
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-17 Scientific Name Common Name Bloom Period Life Cycle Form (Forb, Shrub, Tree, Sedge, Grass) Sun Soil (Dry, Moist, Wet) Imperiled Butterfly or Moth Larval Host Nectar/ Pollen for Imperiled Pollinators Bumble Bee Plant Nest Site or nest materials Deer Resistant Lupinus argenteus Mountain lupine MayâOct Perennial Shrub Sun Dry/ moist  X X  X Machaeranthera canescens Hoary tansyaster AugâOct Perennial Forb Sun Moist Mertensia ciliata Tall fringed bluebells MayâJul Perennial Forb Part shade Wet X Monardella odoratissima Mountain mint MayâOct Perennial Forb Part shade Moist X X Oenothera elata Evening primrose AugâOct Biennial Forb Sun Wet Materials Penstemon speciosus Royal penstemon MayâOct Perennial Forb Sun Dry X Stems X Peritoma lutea/ serrulata Yellow beeflower/ Rocky mountain beeplant MayâJul Annual Forb Sun Dry Phacelia hastata Silverleaf phacelia MayâJul Perennial Forb Part shade Dry X X Poa secunda Sandburg bluegrass NA Perennial Grass Sun/part shade Dry Thatch Potentilla gracilis Slender cinquefoil MayâJul Perennial Forb Sun/part shade Moist X X Materials Prunella vulgaris ssp. lanceolata Selfâheal JunâAug Perennial Forb Sun, part shade Dry, moist X X
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-16 Scientific Name Common Name Bloom Period Life Cycle Form (Forb, Shrub, Tree, Sedge, Grass) Sun Soil (Dry, Moist, Wet) Imperiled Butterfly or Moth Larval Host Nectar/ Pollen for Imperiled Pollinators Bumble Bee Plant Nest Site or nest materials Deer Resistant Eriophyllum lanatum Wooly sunflower MayâOct Perennial Forb Sun Dry  X X  X Erysimum capitatum Sanddune wallflower FebâJul Perennial Forb Sun Moist X Grindelia squarrosa Curlycup gumweed AugâOct Perennial Forb Sun Dry X Stems Hedysarum boreale Utah sweetvetch MayâJun Perennial Forb Sun,  part shade Dry X X Helenium autumnale Sneezeweed AugâOct Perennial Forb Sun, part shade Wet X Helianthus spp. (e.g., H. nuttallii) Sunflower  MayâOct Perennial Forb Sun, part shade Wet X X Stems X Heliomeris multiflora Showy goldeneye AugâOct Perennial Forb Sun Wet X Stems Heliotropium curassavicum Salt heliotrope FebâJul Perennial Forb Sun Moist X Ipomopsis aggregata ssp. aggregata  Scarlet gilia MayâOct Perennial Forb Part shade Dry Leymus cinereus Basin wildrye NA Perennial Grass Sun/part shade Moist Thatch Linum lewisii Lewis flax  MayâOct Perennial Forb Sun Moist Lomatium spp. (e.g., L. dissectum) Biscuitroot  MayâJul Perennial Forb Sun DryÂ
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-15 Scientific Name Common Name Bloom Period Life Cycle Form (Forb, Shrub, Tree, Sedge, Grass) Sun Soil (Dry, Moist, Wet) Imperiled Butterfly or Moth Larval Host Nectar/ Pollen for Imperiled Pollinators Bumble Bee Plant Nest Site or nest materials Deer Resistant Cirsium neomexicanum Desert thistle MarâSep Perennial Forb Sun Dry X Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Yellow rabbitbrush JulâOct Perennial Forb Sun/part shade Dry X Clematis ligusticifolia Western white clematis FebâOct Perennial Forb Sun/part shade Moist â wet Cleomella spp. (e.g., C. obtusifolia) Cleomella MarâOct Annual Forb Sun Dry X Distichlis spicata var. stricta Saltgrass JunâAug Perennial Grass Sun/part shade Moist â wet X Elymus elymoides Bottlebrush squirreltail NA Perennial Grass Sun/part shade Dry Thatch Ericameria nauseosa Rubber rabbitbrush AugâOct Perennial Shrub Sun Dry X Erigeron compositus / sp. Cutleaf daisy/ any avail native sp. FebâJul Perennial Forb Part shade Dry Eriogonum heermannii Heermanâs buckwheat MayâSep Perennial Shrub Sun Moist, Dry X Eriogonum racemosum Redroot buckwheat JunâOct Perennial Shrub/forb Sun Dry X Eriogonum umbellatum Sulphurâ flower buckwheat MayâJul Perennial Shrub Sun Dry X X X X Eriogonum wrightii Bastardsage JunâAug Perennial Shrub/forb Part shade Dry X
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-14 Table 7-3. Native Plants with value to pollinators for use on roadsides in the Great Basin. Scientific Name Common Name Bloom Period Life Cycle Form (Forb, Shrub, Tree, Sedge, Grass) Sun Soil (Dry, Moist, Wet) Imperiled Butterfly or Moth Larval Host Nectar/ Pollen for Imperiled Pollinators Bumble Bee Plant Nest Site or nest materials Deer Resistant Agastache urticifolia Nettleleaf giant hyssop MayâOct Perennial Shrub, forb Sun/part shade Moist   X Stems X Amelanchier alnifolia (alternate sp. utahensis) Saskatoon serviceberry MayâJul Perennial Tree, shrub Sun/part shade Dry X Stems Artemisia tridentata Big sagebrush MayâJul Perennial Shrub Sun Dry Materials X Asclepias asperula Spider milkweed AprâJul Perennial Forb Sun Dry X X X Asclepias speciosa  Showy milkweed MayâJul Perennial Forb Sun/part shade Moist X X X Stems X Atriplex canescens Fourwing saltbush FebâJul Perennial Shrub Sun/part shade Dry X Baccharis salicifolia Mulefat FebâOct Perennial Shrub Sun/part shade Moist â wet X Balsamorhiza sagittata Arrowleaf balsamroot FebâJul Perennial Forb Sun Dry X Berberis aquifolium repens Creeping barberry FebâApr Perennial Shrub Part shade/ shade Dry X Chamaebatiaria millefolium Fernbush MayâOct Perennial Shrub Sun/part shade Dry X Chamerion angustifolium Fireweed AugâOct Perennial Forb Sun Wet xÂ
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-13 ï· Where available and economical, native plants and seed should be procured from local ecotype providers. Local ecotype plant materials are adapted to the local climatic conditions, will generally establish well, and will have bloom times in sync with the presence of monarchs and other pollinators. Some cultivars have been bred for a particular trait such as showiness and may have little to no pollen and nectar and therefore little value to pollinators. ï· Avoid taller herbaceous plants in areas where lines of sight could be blocked, such as intersections and other safety zones. ï· In areas with snow and ice, species to be planted close to the road should have some level of salt tolerance to reduce damage from road salt applications. ï· When possible, salvage native plants, particularly those that are more difficult to establish or are longer lived, from the site prior to construction and disturbance for use in the revegetation project. Enlist the help of other agencies or volunteers to temporarily relocate the salvaged vegetation for installation at the site after construction or for installation at another appropriate site. 7.3.6 Plants for Imperiled Pollinators in the Great Basin Region This plant list includes wildflowers and flowering shrubs and trees that are sources for pollen and/or nectar for a diversity of pollinators, plants that serve as host plants for caterpillars of butterflies and moths, and grasses, sedges, and woody species that provide nesting or materials for nesting for bees and wasps. ⢠All species in this list are native to this region. Many have been commercially available (White et al. 2018). Contact local or regional native plant producers to check on their current availability or to inquire about species that may require collecting plant materials for propagation. ⢠Many of the species in this list are âworkhorseâ species that broadly support pollinators, are found in a number of ecological settings in abundance, and are relatively easy to propagate. Workhorse species also tend to survive well once they are installed. ⢠This list also includes plant species that are important for imperiled pollinators listed in Chapter 3. Some of these plant species do not meet the workhorse criteria, and may be more challenging to establish. They may also be less widely available commercially or more expensive because they take more time to propagate. ⢠This plant list is available as an Excel file on the National Academies Press website (www.nap.nationalacademies.org). These saguaro cacti, which are very slow growing and longâlived plants, are relocated temporarily during a construction project. Photo Credit: Arizona DOTÂ
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-12 provide erosion control as they grow through the summer months and into the fall. Legumes can fix nitrogen and improve soil health. Annual or biennial wildflowers can establish quickly and provide attractive vegetative cover, erosion control, and food for pollinators and birds while slower-growing, but deeper-rooted, perennial species establish. Shrubs and trees also play important roles in revegetation projects, where appropriate, and are ecologically valuable to pollinators as well. Guidelines for developing a species list that supports pollinators and other revegetation objectives are presented below: ï· Select species adapted for the sunlight and soil conditions present at the roadside site (e.g., use moisture-tolerant species for wet ditches). Projects that contain special microclimates or soils may require a unique mix of species. If seed mixes cannot be context-specific, include species adapted to a wide range of growing conditions. ï· Prioritize the use of native plants. Avoid using introduced (non-native) species in high- quality mixes, as these species may outcompete native plants during establishment, diminishing the quality of habitat over time and supporting fewer species of pollinators. ï· Include key plant species that support imperiled pollinators, such as host plants for caterpillars or plants that are known to provide nectar or pollen to adults. ï· Ensure that non-aggressive species are able to establish by limiting the abundance of aggressive species as needed. ï· Avoid temporal gaps in bloom periods. To ensure that there are always flowers in bloom, include multiple species that bloom in the spring, species that bloom in summer, and those that bloom in the fall. Some mixes fall short on spring blooms in particular (Havens and Vitt 2016). ï· Design plantings with plant communities in mind, and include species that will grow well together. ï· Include layers of plants. For example, include an understory of shrubs, wildflowers, grasses, or sedges with tree plantings. Layers help to shade out weeds, reduce moisture loss, provide layers of habitat for wildlife, and reduce maintenance requirements. ï· If installing vegetation via seeding, balance the proportion of grass seeds to wildflower seeds. If grass density is too high, grasses will outcompete wildflowers over time, reducing plant diversity. At minimum, 25 percent of the seed mix should be wildflowers, but a mix that is 50 percent wildflowers results in a considerably more diverse and stable planting (Dickson and Busby 2009). In highly visible areas, consider increasing the wildflower component to create more showy plantings, if that is an objective for the revegetation site. ï· Check erosion control mulches or straw, seed laboratory reports, and legal seed labels of the planting stock. Mulches, seed, and other planting stock should be free of noxious weeds, invasive or introduced species, and other crop components. This planting, made as part of a bridge replacement and interchange reconfiguration, includes layers of native trees like oaks and hawthorn; shrubs such as viburnum, chokeberry, and bayberry; and perennial grasses.  Photo Credit: Tara Mitchell, Massachusetts DOTÂ
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-11 ï· Consider additional specific habitat needs, such as nesting or overwintering habitat. Some imperiled species have very specific habitat needs. For instance, a bumble bee species may prefer nesting aboveground in a particular type of insulated cavity, and a tunnel-nesting yellow-faced bee needs a particular place to tunnel. Consult the profiles of listed and imperiled pollinators in Chapter 3 to learn more about any specific habitat needs. In general, including a diversity of types of plants in revegetation plans can help to ensure that vegetation structure that can act as shelter and overwintering habitat is present. Trees and shrubs may not be appropriate for every revegetation project; in those situations, including a diversity of grasses (both cool and warm season grasses) can increase vegetation structure. ï· Consider the connectivity of planned revegetation sites to existing habitat within the landscape. Developing a landscape connectivity map of the project area and adjacent landsâusing information collected during the vegetation assessment that locates areas of high, medium, and low pollinator habitat qualitiesâcan be a base for designing a revegetation plan that improves pollinator habitat within the context of larger landscape connectivity. Corridors with high-quality habitat support more butterfly species, including specialist species, and population persistence (Habel et al. 2020; Dániel-Ferreira et al. 2022a). It is also important to prioritize those projects that can increase the connectivity of existing roadside habitat. If remnant roadside habitat exists, for example, it would be very beneficial if revegetation projects with high plant diversity were installed adjacent to or nearby. ï· Consider timing of revegetation projects. While high-quality revegetation is ultimately beneficial to pollinators, it can lead to a temporary decrease in the availability of food and nesting resources for pollinators. If a revegetation project is being conducted in an area with an imperiled pollinator, ideally the project should be timed to avoid adult flight times or other sensitive times in the speciesâ life cycle (Chapter 3). 7.3.5 Developing a Plant Species List To improve pollinator habitat as a revegetation objective, select a mix of plant species and site improvements that encourage foraging, breeding, nesting, and overwintering of a variety of pollinator species. Revegetation efforts for pollinators should use diverse, stable communities of plants that include key plant species that support local pollinators, including imperiled and state- or federally listed pollinator species. Plant diversity in a revegetation plan is important from several angles. Diverse plant communities are better able to prevent erosion and resist weed invasions, and they are more persistent over time and more resilient as climates shift (see Chapter 8 for more information). Roadsides are variable in soil type and moisture, fertility, land-use history, solar radiation, and more. With such a range of microsites, diverse plantings help ensure that there are a number of species that could fill in the various niches; if one or more species does not do well at the site, there are others that will, creating a resilient system. Diverse plantings also best support pollinators, providing flowers that have sequential bloom periods, host plants for breeding, nest sites, grasses that provide vegetative structure for shelter and overwintering, and more. Different plant groups provide different functional roles and benefits, and they can occupy different niches. Cool-season rhizomatous grasses green up early in the spring and can provide erosion control from late winter into early summer, while warm-season grasses
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-10 plant vegetation across a growing season in seed mixes should be the goal in order to prevent grasses from outcompeting wildflowers. Flowering plant cover could be spread out throughout the growing season, with 15 percent cover of species that flower in spring, 15 percent in summer, and 15 percent in autumn. ï· Include species with overlapping and sequential bloom periods. Providing a diversity of flowering plants throughout the growing season supports species with multiple generations as well as those that time their emergence and flight period with the bloom of certain plant species. This approach also provides a more resilient plant community that can better support a diversity of pollinators. Early-season pollen and nectar sources are important for those species that have flight seasons in the late winter or spring, as well as those with season-long flights, and will lead to greater reproduction of those species. Increasing the diversity of flowering plants in seed mixes and planting plans can help to prevent gaps in bloom. Revegetation design practices for imperiled pollinator species include: ï· Include key host plants for target pollinator species. Imperiled butterflies and moths may rely on plants of a single species or genus as host plants for their caterpillars. Providing caterpillar host plants is a well-established way to sustain butterfly and moth populations (Croxton et al. 2005; Feber et al. 1996). Roadsides with host plants can support habitat generalist butterflies as well as habitat specialists and migrant species, such as the monarch butterfly (e.g., Ries et al. 2001). Many native plants commonly used in revegetation projects serve as butterfly and moth host plants (e.g., little bluestem [Schizachyrium scoparium]). However, it is necessary to include specific native host plant species matched to support the particular butterfly or moth species that are adapted to feeding on them. For example, planting milkweeds (Asclepias spp.) will contribute to the recovery of the monarch butterfly. Plant lists included in this guide include specific host plants for butterflies and moths that are imperiled (Table 7-3). ï· Consider the bloom time of flowering plants within the project area. Include a number of different species of flowering plants during the flight time of focal pollinators. Adults of butterflies and moths of most imperiled and listed species have limited flight times; therefore, make sure that in addition to host plants, a site has plenty of flowering plants during the flight time of the adults (see Chapter 3 or 6 for flight times of adults). ï· Include key nectar and/or pollen plants for target pollinator species. Some pollinator species have dietary restrictions and need the floral resources from certain flowering plants to survive. For example, bees that are pollen specialists can only rear their young on pollen from a certain species or groups of closely related plants. Bumble bee species have different tongue lengths that allow them to preferentially feed on certain flowers. Adult butterflies are often generalist foragers of nectar, but some species may exhibit preferences for nectar from certain plants. For example, grass skippers in the Midwest and Great Plains prefer to drink nectar from purple coneflowers (Echinacea spp.) and blazing stars (Liatris spp.) (Moranz 2010; Dana 1991). Plant lists included in this guide include known nectar plants for imperiled and listed species (Table 7-3). Many butterflies use specific plant species as host plants for their caterpillars. Including hostplants of butterflies that occur in the area will contribute to pollinator conservation. Photo Credit: Anne Stine, The Xerces SocietyÂ
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-9 7.3.3 Roadsides and Connectivity Landscape connectivity is increasingly important for the populations of many species, including pollinators (Haddad 1999; Haddad and Baum 1999). Roadsides have the potential to help pollinators move between habitat fragments by acting as corridors or stepping stones to connect to larger patches of habitat (Soderstrom and Hedblom 2007; Dániel-Ferreira et al. 2022). Pollinators may use roadsides as corridors to facilitate movement through the landscape in search of food or in pursuit of new habitat (Lövei et al. 1998; Ries et al. 2001; Valtonen and Saarinen 2005; Hopwood et al. 2010), or they may expand their ranges along roadsides (Dirig and Cryan 1991; Brunzel et al. 2004). Corridors like roadsides and other linear strips of vegetation such as utility ROWs may provide habitat resilience as changes in climate drive species range contractions or expansions. 7.3.4 Designs and Conservation Practices There are a number of conservation practices to consider when designing revegetation plans. The following revegetation design practices benefit pollinators broadly: ï· Prioritize native plants in designs. Roadsides with native plants support more species of pollinators and larger populations (Ries et al. 2001; Hopwood 2008). Native flowering trees, shrubs, and wildflowers provide nectar and pollen or are host plants. Native grasses are also host plants and provide shelter. ï· Prioritize sourcing native plants locally. Plant materials that are sourced locally or within the ecoregion are best for pollinators because the phenology (flowering period) can also differ with the provenance of the plant material (Norcini et al. 2001; Houseal and Smith 2000; Gustafson et al. 2005). Bloom times of non-locally sourced plants have the potential to be out of sync with pollinators. This may be particularly problematic for bee species that are pollen specialists (e.g., the thistle longhorn bee [Melissodes desponsa] is a pollen specialist on thistles) because they are reliant on the pollen from a small subset of plants and time their emergence from overwintering with the bloom time of their host plants. Locally sourced ecotypes are also adapted to local conditions. ï· Increase flowering plant diversity and abundance. High flowering plant diversity provides sustained resources throughout the growing season to best support robust pollinator populations and communities. Higher plant diversity can also reduce pollinator exposure to heavy metals and salts, as different plant species uptake pollutants at different rates. Floral abundance is also important. Sparse resources will not sustain pollinator populations, whereas high densities of blooms are more attractive and can support higher numbers of pollinators (Herrera 1989). A diverse combination of grasses and wildflowers can also effectively resist weed colonization and provide soil stabilization. Having 45 percent cover of flowering Highway overpasses with habitat plantings and structuresâsuch as the I-90 Snoqualmie Pass East Restoration Project that connects habitat on either side of I-90âbenefit large wildlife as well as small wildlife like pollinators. Photo Credit: Kelly Evans / Washington DOT A roadside in Arkansas with a variety of flowering plants. Incorporating diversity into revegetation projects has many benefits, including supporting a larger number of pollinators and increased climate resilience. Photo Credit: Ray Moranz, The Xerces SocietyÂ
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-8 It can be helpful to emulate the species diversity found on reference sites in nearby natural plant communities. Diverse plantings that resemble natural communities are the most self- sustaining and longest lasting because they better resist weed invasions and pest outbreaks. When possible, prioritize the use of plant materials that are sourced from local ecotype providers. Plant materials that originated in geographic proximity to the project site are best adapted for local growing conditions and for pollinators. The bloom times of non-locally sourced plants have the potential to be out of sync with pollinators (Norcini et al. 2001), especially specialist bees that are reliant on the pollen from a small subset of plants and time their emergence annually with the bloom time of their host plants, or butterflies seeking to lay eggs on their host plants before the plants senesce. However, there is an emerging school of thought about the potential importance of including genetic diversity in plantings to increase the likelihood of adaptations to changes in the climate. Using multiple local sources within the region may be one way to address this concern. See Chapter 8 for discussion of strategies to address climate change through seed provenance. 7.3.2 Roadside Plants as Shelter for Pollinators Woody vegetation such as trees and shrubs can provide shelter for pollinators during the growing season, and can also provide niches for overwintering. Some pollinators will overwinter under bark or in the soil just under shallow roots, or in piles of brush. Grasses can provide shelter for a variety of pollinators, but notably for butterflies on roadsides (Saarinen et al. 2005). The root systems and grass thatch can also serve as overwintering habitat for a variety of pollinators. Nesting is a critical factor affecting the ability of bees to persist within a site (Winfree 2010; Menz et al. 2011; Morandin and Kremen 2013). Ground-nesting bees need access to soil surfaces between vegetation to excavate and access their nests (Michener 2007). Some species will nest in a variety of soils, while others have very specific requirements for the soil type, moisture, alkalinity, slope, and aspect (Cane 1991). Bunch grasses tend to provide better nesting habitat than sod-forming grasses. Roadsides with native bunch grasses have more nesting opportunities for ground-nesting bees and, consequently, a greater abundance of ground-nesting bees (Hopwood 2008). A number of aboveground nesting bees nest in hollow stems or excavate pithy stems (e.g., elderberry or cane fruits), while other native bees nest in tunnels in wood, such as abandoned beetle tunnels in logs, stumps, and snags (Michener 2007). Plant lists included in this chapter provide information about known plants that provide nesting resources for bees. Maintaining dead wood, snags, or wood with holes in it (e.g., fence posts) where safe and appropriate within the project site will also benefit tunnel-nesting bees. Bumble bee colonies require an insulated cavity in which to nest, such as underneath grass clumps (Svennson et al. 2000), under the thatch of bunch grasses, or under rocks (Hatfield et al. 2012). Some bee species create nests in plant stems. Roadside plants can provide shelter and nesting resources for bees and other pollinators. Photo Credit: Sara Morris
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-7 Munguira and Thomas 1992), as well as those that use the roadside as a partial habitat for foraging but reproduce or overwinter elsewhere (e.g., Ouin et al. 2004). The availability of pollen and nectar influences the abundance and diversity of pollinators found on roadsides (Saarinen et al. 2005; Hopwood 2008). Different pollinators have different floral needs and preferences, so including a diversity of plant species with different flower shapes, sizes, colors, and growth habits helps support a variety of pollinators (Ghazoul 2006; Ponisio et al. 2015). It is important to have flowers available to pollinators throughout the growing season. While pulses of bloom can provide critical resources to pollinators, sustained resources without temporal gaps create functional habitat throughout the growing season to best support robust populations and communities. Bees that emerge early in the growing season can begin to forage in February in the Great Basin region, with late-season bees foraging through October. Within that period, different species will be active at different times. Solitary bees have distinct flight seasons that last 4 to 6 weeks. Bumble bees are social, with an annual colony that expands gradually and requires forage throughout the growing season. Similarly, different species of butterflies and moths may have distinct emergence periods with one generation a year, or multiple generations a year. For an example of a phenology chart that illustrates overlapping bloom periods, see Table 7-2. Table 7-2. Bloom calendar for several wildflower species found in the Great Basin. Plant Species Feb March April May June July Aug Sept  Oct  Baccharis salicifolia Prunus virginiana  Heliotropium curassavicum  Potentilla gracilis Asclepias speciosa  Eriogonum umbellatum Monardella odoratissima Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus  Symphyotrichum ascendensÂ
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-6 roadside landscapes found that prairie plantings were ranked as most attractive, and a mix of trees, shrubs, and prairie also ranked highly. Mown turf, along with brome grass with a mowed turf edge, were ranked the least attractive by drivers (Nassauer et al. 2006). Similarly, a majority of Iowa drivers preferred the appearance of managed roadside prairie plantings (Nemec et al. 2021). In a Georgia study of rest area plantings, the traveling public found block plantings of a single species most attractive but preferred overall a matrix of species due to the environmental benefits. Additionally, 87 percent of those surveyed preferred native plants over non-native for roadside plantings (Tania et al. 2020). Native Plants and Safety Concerns During roadside revegetation design, a roadside planting and maintenance plan can be used to contribute to the reduction of animal browsing within the right-of-way (ROW). If designated or safe crossing points (e.g., crossing structures) exist, native vegetation can be used to provide conditions that will attract wildlife to those points. In areas that have high wildlifeâvehicle collision rates, it is important to focus on planting species that have low palatability close to the roadway (Huijser et al. 2008). Arizona DOTâs approach has been to exclude plant species from its seed mixes that âgreen upâ early or are otherwise known to attract deer and other large wildlife species. It has worked with partners on some projects to plant palatable species in areas leading to designated bridged wildlife crossings or habitat adjacent to roadside ROWs (Brown et al. 1999). In areas with known high wildlifeâvehicle collision rates, prioritizing shorter plant material (3 feet tall or less; this should not include flowers or seed head stalks) will provide less cover for large mammals and will allow drivers to potentially see and respond to animals in the ROW. When palatability is known, it is included in the plant lists in this chapter (Table 7-3). It is also important to consider the frequency and timing of cutting and mowing maintenance. Maintaining a regularly mown recovery zone can increase driver visibility and reduce deerâvehicle collisions (Mastro et al. 2008). However, cutting and mowing can attract browsing activity because large hoofed mammals (such as white-tailed deer or moose) prefer to browse on fresh growth. Consideration of nutritional value of key forage plants for large mammals as it relates to cutting is important in areas with high rates of wildlifeâvehicle collisions (e.g., Rea 2003). Reduced mowing beyond the safety zone may decrease deer foraging because mowing can increase the palatability of some plants (Mastro et al. 2008). 7.3 Design Considerations for Revegetation Projects 7.3.1 Roadside Plants as Food for Pollinators Flowering plants in roadsides are important sources of nectar and pollen for pollinators that reside within the roadside habitat (e.g., Blooming bluebonnets are colorful sight on Texas roadsides between March and May. Photo Credit: Texas DOT A green sweat bee collecting pollen. Photo Credit: Barbara Driscoll
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-5 monotony, contributing to clearer thinking, and reducing driver stress (Topp 1990; Cackowsky and Nasar 2003; Mok et al. 2006; Macdonald et al. 2008). Native grasses and flowers are best adapted to local growing conditions, require minimal inputs for establishment, and are able to tolerate drought or heat, which will become more common in many regions. ï· Some native species are particularly able to tolerate the poor growing conditions found on roadsides (Harper-Lore and Wilson 2000; OâDell et al. 2007). ï· Under some conditions, native plants have a competitive advantage over non-natives (Tinsley et al. 2006). ï· An established diverse native plant community provides the most stable cover for reducing erosion and keeping out weeds (Quales 2003; Blumenthal et al. 2005; Falk et al. 2013). ï· Improved weed and erosion control can reduce the need to spray herbicides and to mow, thereby reducing long-term maintenance costs (Berger 2005; OâDell et al. 2007; Harper-Lore et al. 2013). ï· The root systems of native plants can increase water infiltration, which reduces runoff and water pollution and helps to replenish groundwater (Cramer 1991; Bugg et al. 1997; Harrison 2014). Native plants are less likely to encroach on land bordering roadsides and rarely become weed issues (Harper-Lore and Wilson 2000). In contrast, a number of introduced species used for roadside revegetation have become weed problems elsewhere, including crown vetch (Securigera varia), sweet clover (Melilotus spp.), sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), and smooth brome (Bromus inermis) (Harper-Lore and Wilson 2000). Finally, native revegetation plantings are aesthetically pleasing and can support tourism. The Texas Department of Transportation (DOT) has several designated wildflower routes, for example, that showcase native wildflowers; when bluebonnets (six species of Lupinus that are collectively considered the state flower of Texas) are in bloom, some towns along these routes hold bluebonnet festivals. Travelers form perceptions about regions based on their views of the highway landscape, and drivers prefer ânatural-looking roadsides with native grasses, wildflowers, and butterflies,â to turf roadsides (Guyton et al. 2014). Roadsides with native plants can showcase a regionâs natural beauty and provide a sense of place, natural heritage, and opportunities for education. Natural beauty may also align with driver preferences. One study conducted in Minnesota on driver perception of Native plants are species that originated in or occur naturally in a particular geographic area. Grasses, wildflowers, shrubs, and trees that existed before European settlement of North America are native plants. Native plants are best suited to local conditions, generally require less maintenance, and persist longer that nonâlocal species. They can form plant communities that are robust, selfâ sustaining, and resilient.  Native plants are central to healthy, functional ecosystems. They support soil health and water quality, sequester carbon, and are habitat for wildlife. Native plants are at the heart of food webs, as they are food sources for animals such as caterpillars or grasshoppers that in turn feed birds, frogs, and other animals. Native plants also support more pollinators and more wildlife than do nonânative plants (Narango et al. 2017; Williams et al. 2011). Native plant root systems can be extensive and support resilience to drought, fires, and weeds. Photo Credit: Heidi Natura, Conservation Research Institute
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-4 Pollinators Food for Larval Stage Food for Adult Shelter, Overwintering General Revegetation Goals Flies Some species are carnivorous, consuming prey such as aphids, scales, or mites; others are decomposers in the soil. Nectar; some species also eat pollen. Overwinter in soil or leaf litter.Â ï· Increase density and diversity of native flowering plants. ï· Retain overwintering sites when feasible. Wasps Provisions of insect prey such as caterpillars, aphids, grasshoppers, planthoppers, true bugs, and more. Nectar. Many nest in the ground; others nest in tunnel nests in wood or cavities in mud or resin.Â ï· Increase density and diversity of native flowering plants. ï· Retain areas with partially vegetated wellâdrained soil. ï· Retain or install woody plants and herbaceous plants with hollow or pithy stems. Roadsides can provide pollinators with their key habitat needsâfood for larvae and adults, and shelter and overwintering habitat. In particular, native plants are important for pollinators. Roadsides with native wildflowers support a greater number of individuals and species of butterflies and bees compared with those dominated by non-native grass and flowers (Ries et al. 2001; Hopwood 2008). Native plants are more attractive as sources of pollen and nectar for pollinators than non-native plants and support more species and more individuals seeking pollen or nectar, even when both plant types are present on the same site (Williams et al. 2011; Morandin and Kremen 2013). Native plants also support more caterpillars than do non-native plants (Narango et al. 2017); native woody plants used as ornamentals in the eastern United States support fifteen times more native butterflies and moths than do introduced species of ornamental plants (Tallamy and Shropshire 2009). Adding non-native plants to landscapes does not increase butterfly and moth diversity or abundance (Burghardt et al. 2010), and non-native plants can reduce bird populations as a consequence of reduced insect availability (Narango et al. 2018). 7.2.1 Use of Native Plants in Revegetation Establishing native plant communities on roadsides provides economic benefits as well as ecological advantages (Berger 2005). Native plants can support safety objectives by reducing headlight glare, serving as crash barriers, reducing wind speed across roads, and reducing snow drifts across roads (Forman et al. 2003). Additionally, wildflowers and other flowering plants on the roadside improve driver performance by breaking up driver
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-3 Pollinators Food for Larval Stage Food for Adult Shelter, Overwintering General Revegetation Goals Tunnelâ nesting bees Provisions of nectar and pollen within the nest. Nectar. Nest in narrow tunnels in dead standing trees, or excavate nests in hollow stems or pith of twigs. Some construct domed nests of mud, plant resins, saps, or gums on the surface of rocks or trees.Â ï· Increase density and diversity of native flowering plants. ï· Retain or install woody plants and herbaceous plants with hollow or pithy stems. ï· Leave snags of nonâhazard trees outside of the recovery zone. Beetles Some species are herbivorous, feeding on plants; many are carnivorous and eat prey such as aphids, slugs, and insect eggs. Pollen, nectar, floral parts; some species are also carnivorous. Overwinter in soil or leaf litter, under rocks, logs, brush, or bark.Â ï· Increase density and diversity of native flowering plants. ï· Retain overwintering sites when feasible. Butterflies Vegetation of host plants. Nectar; some males obtain nutrients, minerals, and salt from rotting fruit, tree sap, animal dung and urine, carrion, clay deposits, and mud puddles. Protected site such as a tree, bush, tall grass, or a pile of leaves, sticks, or rocks.Â ï· Increase density and diversity of native flowering plants. ï· Include specific host plants. ï· Maintain vegetation structure. Flowerâ visiting moths Vegetation of host plants. Nectar. Protected site such as a tree, bush, tall grass, or a pile of leaves, sticks, or rocks.Â ï· Increase density and diversity of native flowering plants. ï· Include specific host plants. ï· Maintain vegetation structure.
Chapter 7. Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7-2 7.2 Considering Imperiled Pollinators in Revegetation Enhancing habitat for imperiled pollinators, or for pollinators in general, can be a specific objective for revegetation projects. Even if it is not a specific objective, elements that increase the value of the revegetation project to pollinators can be incorporated into other project objectives. To meet objectives such as water quality protection and erosion control, quick-growing native wildflowers and grasses can be used, including species that also provide resources for pollinators. Deep-rooted shrubs or trees might be used for visual enhancement, stabilization, snow retention, or carbon sequestration; selecting species that provide larval food or pollen and nectar will also enhance the projectâs value to pollinators. Consideration of the needs of pollinators when planning a revegetation project can have significant benefits for pollinators. Pollinators have complex life cycles, with different needs at different stages of their lives. Table 7-1 provides an overview of habitat needs of pollinators and how revegetation projects can meet those needs. Chapter 3 of this guide includes profiles of listed and imperiled pollinators within this region, with natural history information, such as specific habitat needs. Table 7-1. Roadside revegetation goals for enhancing habitat for different groups of pollinators. Pollinators Food for Larval Stage Food for Adult Shelter, Overwintering General Revegetation Goals Bumble bees Provisions of nectar and pollen within the nest. Nectar. Nest in small underground cavities in abandoned rodent nests, under clumps of grass, or in hollow trees, bird nests, or walls.Â ï· Increase density and diversity of native flowering plants. ï· Include species with sequential bloom periods; early season blooms are particularly important. ï· Plant native bunch grasses for bumble bee nesting habitat. Groundâ nesting bees Provisions of nectar and pollen within the nest. Nectar. Excavate nest tunnels in bare or partially vegetated, wellâ drained soil.Â ï· Increase density and diversity of native flowering plants. ï· Retain areas with bare or partially vegetated, wellâ drained soil.
7-1 Chapter 7 Revegetation and Pollinators: Design and Implementation 7.1 Introduction Habitat loss is a leading factor in the decline of many pollinators (NRC 2007), and increasing pollinator habitat is an effective conservation strategy (e.g., Tonietto and Larkin 2018). Revegetation on roadsides involves replanting and reestablishing plant communities in areas where the vegetation and habitat have been disturbed or removed. In addition to providing a safe driving environment, common roadside revegetation objectives include erosion control, water quality protection, weed control, visual enhancement, carbon sequestration, and wildlife enhancement. Enhancing habitat for pollinators can be addressed while meeting these other objectives. Improving roadside habitat for imperiled pollinator species through revegetation can help to preclude the need to list new species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) and can help to support listed and common pollinator species alike. Roadside revegetation projects that incorporate habitat needs of pollinators can result in habitat that can be used by a species for its whole life cycle (e.g., a ground-nesting bee nests in roadside soil and forages on roadside vegetation), or support a species for a portion of its life cycle (e.g., host plants support the caterpillar stage of a butterflyâs life). Roadsides with intact native plant communities can lessen the effects of habitat fragmentation by functioning as corridors and connecting larger habitat patches (Forman et al. 2003; Huijser and Clevenger 2006; Dániel-Ferreira et al. 2022a). Additionally, if roadside revegetation projects contain plenty of floral resources, pollinators will be less likely to seek habitat elsewhere, reducing the risk of being killed by vehicles (Ries et al. 2001; Skórka et al. 2013). The removal of noxious and invasive plant species increases pollinator abundance and diversity (Hanula and Horn 2011; Fiedler et al. 2012), and roadside revegetation projects that replace invasive plants with native vegetation improve pollinator habitat. It can be a challenge to recreate the exact habitat needs of some imperiled species; augmenting existing habitat through management or restoration is preferable whenever possible. If construction alters roadside habitat of a listed species, compliance commonly occurs using processes under Section 7 and Section 10 of the ESA. Permanent removal of habitat or delays in reestablishing habitat can result in population declines and losses of species from the site that may not be regained. Native plants on roadsides showcase regional beauty while also providing pollinators with habitat. Photo Credit: Luis Colon/Arizona DOT
6-33 Chapter 6. Roadside Maintenance and Vegetation Management for Pollinators Evaluating the Suitability of Roadway Corridors for Use by Monarch Butterflies: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25693/evaluating-the-suitability-of-roadway-corridors-for-use-by-monarch- butterflies and http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/180186.aspx. Milkweed Recognition Guides: https://www.xerces.org/monarchs/roadsides.