CHAPTER 7
Implementation

7.1 Implementation Benefits

How state DOTs benefit from implementing roadside vegetation asset management plans depends on what form that implementation takes. The benefits of roadside vegetation asset management may not be immediately visible after initial implementation, but will become more obvious over time. The following suggestions are derived from the project and have been approved by the NCHRP panel and staff assigned to this project. For example, consider the establishment of native/naturalized species along the right-of-way. During establishment, vegetation management will involve regularly scheduled mowing and herbicide applications to prevent the growth of weedy or invasive plant species. Once vegetation is established, management can reduce mowing frequency to every 3 years. This chapter suggests implementation approaches.

7.2 Developing State-Specific Goals

When developing or purchasing new tools, technology, or protocols for roadside vegetation asset management, state DOTs need to consider their specific organizational needs. A chosen system that will not help the state DOT meet its goals may be viewed poorly by the legislature and the public. A state DOT that completes all roadside vegetation asset management in house will require different equipment, tools, and technology than a state DOT that contracts out most roadside vegetation asset management work. There is no one-size-fits-all roadside vegetation asset management solution. Each state DOT needs to determine goals and move forward with the proper tools and technology to achieve those goals. This is evident in the differences between WisDOT and WSDOT, as described in the case studies of this project. Because WisDOT contracts all asset management work to county agencies, it has obtained access to tools and technology and has developed protocols more appropriate for decentralized management. In contrast, WSDOT completes most asset management in house, and as such, has tools and technology for centralized and decentralized management with protocols to reflect this difference. Multiple state DOTs stated that vegetation management funding is not a high priority of the central office. However, speaking with state DOT maintenance staff revealed that vegetation management is a cornerstone of the work state DOT staff complete regularly in the field. Much vegetation management work is time consuming, but do not require a lot of expensive equipment (a large portion of vegetation management is mowing and herbicide application). Vegetation affects both structural assets and roadside safety features, particularly roadside vegetation safety features (e.g., living snow fences). Properly maintaining vegetation can increase the life of structural elements, including roadside safety features, thereby saving state DOTs money and decreasing the inconvenience to customers during construction.

When determining goals, state DOTs will want to look at the amount of roadside vegetation asset management work completed in house versus the work contracted out. Any major issues encountered by the state can be considered (e.g., wildfires, landslides, windstorms, invasive plant species, ice storms, and salt application along the roadsides) because these could either be hindered or helped by the roadside vegetation asset management plans developed. For example, a state DOT that struggles with invasive plants (e.g., cheatgrass) and experiences wildfires may want to include provisions in its roadside vegetation asset management plan that DOT staff establish and maintain vigorous native vegetation capable of preventing cheatgrass from establishing in the right-of-way to help reduce the intensity of wildfires. In this way, state DOTs can maintain the right-of-way to encourage the growth of desired plants and achieve better outcomes in fire management.

7.3 Guidelines Versus Requirements

Ideally, in reviewing goals and developing roadside vegetation asset management plans, state DOTs will consider the use of guidelines versus requirements. Making all roadside vegetation asset management tasks requirements (instead of guidelines) can increase local staff accountability. By including local staff in the requirement creation process, local staff can ensure that the information contained within the plans will be achievable using the tools and technology at the disposal of the local staff for roadside vegetation asset management tasks. Including local staff in this process will also increase their buy-in and commitment. This inclusion can be made in two different ways:

1. Local staff can assist central office staff in developing updates to the roadside vegetation asset management plan. Having local and central office staff collaborate to develop an annual roadside vegetation asset management plan increases the accountability of local staff and is more helpful when making large changes within the roadside vegetation asset management program, because the central office can ensure that the changing priorities are reflected within the overall maintenance plan and maintain the goals and priorities of the organization.
2. The central office can provide the funding and the minimum requirements. Local staff can then develop the annual local roadside vegetation asset management plans using the funds available that best match regional needs. The central office will need to review the plans created to ensure they encapsulate the goals and priorities of the state DOT. Central office staff can reject plans that do not meet the departmentʼs goals. This process was more common in the state DOTs interviewed for the case studies and allows local staff more freedom in determining what work is completed annually. Using this process, the central office needs to ensure that local staff meet the minimum guidelines. State DOTs can educate local staff on state priorities and enable the plan reviewer to reject roadside vegetation asset management plans that fall short of the expectations of the DOT.

Regardless of the process chosen for creating annual roadside vegetation asset management plans, the central office will need to routinely review the plans and the work completed. Several states interviewed stated that sometimes funds initially allocated for vegetation management would be diverted for structural asset management to help ensure public safety. This led to roadside vegetation asset management tasks not being completed as originally planned. Having the central office review these plans and confirm the work completed at the end of the year will increase field staff accountability and ensure the state DOTʼs goals are met.

7.4 Proactive Management

Ideally, state DOTs will use a proactive management approach for roadside vegetation asset management. Tools and technology can be used to increase proactive roadside vegetation asset management strategies. Roadside vegetation asset management is frequently completed on a reactive basis, which causes issues that cascade throughout the state DOT (e.g., this management style can cause scheduling conflicts with equipment, staff, and other priorities within the DOT). Proactively managing vegetation can reduce these scheduling conflicts and customer service complaints given that areas that generate frequent customer complaints can be managed effectively before becoming objectionable, or customer service representatives can give an estimated timeline as to when the state DOT will manage the vegetation to resolve the complaint.

Creating and following roadside vegetation asset management plans is effective in increasing the amount of proactive work completed. During the creation of these roadside vegetation asset management plans, states will want to include local staff input in roadside vegetation asset management plan development so that these staff can provide information on the current daily and weekly production rates and have a significant amount of knowledge of the assets in the right-of-way in each area. Input by local staff will ensure state DOTs plan adequate time to complete roadside vegetation asset management tasks throughout the year. Local staff will also be aware of problem areas that need to be added to the roadside vegetation asset management plan. Including local staff (1) ensures that roadside vegetation asset management plans will be created objectively and accurately and (2) improves local staff morale by creating a sense of ownership and buy-in. Such improved morale can reduce staff turnover within the local crews.

Speaking with multiple state DOTs revealed that customer service complaints can prevent staff from proactively completing work on a regular basis. To help the public understand the state DOTʼs needs and purpose, DOTs will want to perform public outreach. Central office staff will want to ensure local staff and customer service representatives are familiar with department priorities and goals and the processes central office has implemented along with the timeline for proactive roadside vegetation asset management work scheduled for completion. This will enable staff to understand and express the priorities and goals of the state DOT and help answer the publicʼs questions. Technology will make information more readily available and will enable staff across the state DOT to provide a timeline for the public on when maintenance tasks were last completed and when they are scheduled in the future.

7.5 Staffing

Retaining experienced, fully trained staff at local levels is a priority. Local field staff are generally more likely to move from one position to another (e.g., because of promotions or wanting more task variety) by applying for an alternative position within the state DOT. Experienced, fully trained staff can work more quickly, help train new staff, and share knowledge of previous issues encountered along the right-of-way while performing vegetation management and roadside safety feature tasks. Increasing staff morale and feelings of ownership of work being completed can increase staff retention.

State DOTs can also increase staff retention at the local level by increasing technology use by local staff. Increasing local staff use of technology to increase task safety and efficiency can help local staff feel appreciated and trusted. Tools and technology can help increase morale and give staff a stronger sense of ownership, which can help increase retention in local staff positions. A mentor program can also help with morale. By valuing the expertise and experience of veteran staff and trusting them with increased responsibilities, supervisors can show appreciation for and trust in these team members.

In areas where state DOTs need to increase staff willingness to assume additional responsibilities, tying pay raises to increased roadside vegetation asset management responsibilities and training within the local office can help increase retention. This can be done by increasing pay when staff receive additional certifications. This approach can encourage staff to complete additional training and earn certifications, thus helping to retain staff at the local offices. Given factors such as unions, pay rates, and funding availability, not all state DOTs may be able to implement this suggestion. It is ultimately the state DOTʼs purview of how and when to decide when pay increases or promotions are distributed among staff.

Ideally, state DOTs will improve interdepartmental communication effectiveness by using tools and technology (e.g., GPS-enabled systems with layers that can communicate to crews what maintenance activities need to be performed). Effective communication can help ensure

all state DOT staff are aware of departmental rules and regulations and can increase morale. Tools and technology can make it easier for managers to receive timely updates of crew activity and help inform central office staff of work statuses more accurately and frequently. The increase in communication can enable state DOTs to better manage staff and equipment. If state DOTs track equipment use more efficiently and accurately, DOTs can resolve equipment scheduling conflicts so staff can take a more proactive approach to roadside vegetation asset management. Having accurate equipment use rates will enhance management confidence regarding decisions to dispose of or order new equipment to meet roadside vegetation asset management needs.

Mapping software updated as management activities occur at asset locations can also serve as a communication tool for equipment management. State DOTs can use mapping software for roadside vegetation asset management work to help central office and local staff managers identify where work is completed in real time. Using this technology enables managers to respond to customer inquiries about the times and locations of completed vegetation work along the right-of-way. These systems also enable local staff managers to update work orders as needed throughout the day if there is an emergency or there are other events that require redirecting staff resources. In addition to being able to identify equipment use rates accurately, this mapping software, in conjunction with GPS/AVL units, can enable state DOTs to identify additional equipment needed for each task (e.g., mowers, tractors, and dump trucks) or whether the DOT has excess equipment, and what work staff accomplish annually. If use rates support the ordering of new equipment, employee equipment concerns can be addressed, thus raising morale and helping staff feel heard by upper management.

7.6 Tools and Technology

State DOTs will want to move incrementally and intentionally when purchasing and implementing new tools and technology. Incremental changes can be implemented more effectively than large leaps in technology. For example, if a state DOT uses pen and paper for most tasks and then switches over to an all-electronic system with tablets that have DOT-specific applications on them, staff may have difficulty understanding and adapting to the systems. As a result, without proper training and implementation, many staff, feeling overwhelmed by the changes, may resign when new tools and technology are adopted. Typically, newer employees, who are still developing a process for completing their work, are more receptive to implementing new tools and technology. State DOTs interviewed for the case studies reported that new tools and technology were positively received and incorporated into the workload more successfully with younger staff who have grown up with technology (e.g., tablets, smart cellular phones, and computer applications) as part of their daily work and personal lives. Management can help experienced state DOT employees adapt to technological changes as they occur to increase successful implementation and mitigate how these changes affect overall staff retention. Just as new employees can benefit from the experience of seasoned employees, technologically savvy employees can mentor seasoned employees to ease the transition to using new technology.

Software Development

When developing software, state DOTs will want to ensure all department needs are met. Ideally, all relevant state DOT staff (including management, field staff, and construction inspectors) will be able to collect the information for mapping and tracking roadside vegetation asset management assets or access the information collected. Including these staff in asset tracking and mapping will help ensure the assetsʼ inclusion within the statewide tracking system. When construction inspectors finish mapping vegetation assets, roadside safety features, and structural asset changes following the completion of construction along the right-of-way, maintenance staff will have access to current and accurate information. Following construction, if inspectors add assets into the system, maintenance crews can ensure that the conditions are kept up to date within the system and will have the GPS coordinates of each asset as it is on the right-of-way.

Data Collection and Tracking Equipment

Some states interviewed for the case studies have had success in assigning equipment to each staff member. Others have successfully supplied individual log-in credentials to staff members who share three to four tablets in each county. State DOTs with local staff who have limited access to tools and technology have reported that they have had issues implementing new mapping and tracking systems. These state DOTs reported that while the information is mapped, local staff do not have access to the information. State DOTs may want to provide enough devices to enable some local staff members within each management unit/county to access and update the information within the system. If a state DOT moves toward electronically mapping and tracking assets, each management unit/county will need access to at least two tablets and all staff will need log-in credentials for the systems. These tools and technology can help with mapping and tracking assets and communication.

Many state DOTs do not know their right-of-way boundaries and thus do not know how many acres of right-of-way are under their purview. Multiple state DOTs use GPS and AVL

(particularly with ice and snow removal programs among northern DOTs). In addition to using these systems for snow and ice removal, state DOTs can use these systems on mowing tractors and herbicide application trucks to help calculate the acreage of land managed through these roadside vegetation asset management tasks. Given that state DOT staff will be able to see how much time that is being used on the right-of-way, this information can be used to help plan the budget for roadside vegetation asset management tasks. One of the states interviewed for the case studies expressed the desire to install GPS units in all tractors used for mowing turfgrass along the right-of-way to determine the acreage state DOT staff actively mow each year. These systems can be GPS/AVL units or they can be tablets with mapping capabilities. Cellular phones with GPS capability are also an option for mapping assets and local staff work. In addition to using GPS/AVL systems in the trucks, GIS can be used as an office-based mapping software system to pull information from the GPS/AVL systems into a program that allows central office staff to track all work as it is completed throughout the year. This is a first step for state DOTs seeking to improve their roadside vegetation asset management program. GPS technology is proven and widely available.

LiDAR is another proven technology state DOTs use, especially for structural assets. State DOTs have also begun using this technology to identify where trees need to be removed and to map other large vegetation assets. Using either aerial or mobile LiDAR units, staff can complete inspection cycles on roadside safety features (e.g., guardrails and culverts) to ensure the assets are in operational condition. Contractors have also begun to use LiDAR to evaluate vegetation along the right-of-way to identify the presence of trees or other large plants. Photogrammetry can be used in conjunction with LiDAR to further map the right-of-way. Advances are being made with photogrammetry to develop it for identifying invasive plant species and native plant species that state DOTs track (e.g., for the Monarch CCAA). However, this technology is limited to a few species and requires ground-truthing of the area after the photogrammetry survey. Technology capable of identifying plants to species has not been sufficiently proven as of the time of this report but pilot projects are underway.

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) can map using LiDAR and photogrammetry, both of which are generally considered to be multispectral imaging. State DOTs are hiring UAV pilot contractors or employing in-house UAV pilots. Multiple states have begun contracting UAV pilots to use these tools and technologies for surveys, seeding, and herbicide application in difficult-to-access areas to improve efficiency and effectiveness. The proven uses of UAVs for state DOTs include

surveying structural assets such as bridges, seeding, and applying herbicide. Constraints (e.g., wind speed, the need to stay away from traffic to avoid distracting drivers, and the need for the pilots to maintain line of sight with the UAV) have been noted for using UAVs along the right-of-way. UAV technology has not been sufficiently proven as of the time of this report.

Multiple research projects are being conducted by state DOTs to determine whether UAV technology can be used to identify invasive plant species along the right-of-way with a high level of accuracy. These studies are primarily investigating hyperspectral imagery and machine learning. Hyperspectral imagery can view infrared imagery and translate it into imagery humans can see. This use of infrared imagery is what allows this technology to identify species remotely. State DOTs may want to test this technology to ensure it is useful before purchasing the equipment or training DOT staff to be UAV pilots. State DOTs can test these systems by hiring contractors or conducting internal research projects. While multispectral imagery is common, hyperspectral imagery is still being tested to determine the benefits to state DOTs. Machine learning technology has not been sufficiently proven as of the time of this report.

Surveys

Both manual and technologically driven surveys and maintenance can be augmented with AI. AI includes augmented reality (AR) and automated machine guidance (AMG). With manual maintenance, AI can detect when invasive plant species are present along the right-of-way and turn on the correct nozzles for herbicide application, or it can turn off the application system when the vehicle is idling at a traffic light or in a no-spray zone. AI can be used with image sources to identify vegetation at the species level and identify areas along the right-of-way for state DOT staff to verify maintenance needs (e.g., from vegetation covering safety features or guardrails damaged in a collision). When using AI for this purpose, AMG is required for the AI software to learn various species. This can include the use of AMG and AI to identify areas with specific species by the color of the blooms. Using AMG will help the system identify species as they are added to the systemʼs database. Although this technology is advancing, AI has not been sufficiently proven as of the time of this report.

Regardless of the types of tools and technology purchased or created for roadside vegetation asset management within the state, DOTs may want to plan to implement system updates. These updates can come from state DOT staff or from the vendors from which the system was purchased. If updates are not allowed, the system will probably have a shorter lifespan (e.g., 3 to 5 years). States with IT staff who release updates to PCCA or solely proprietary software have used the same systems for 10-plus years with no issues. These states indicated they provide a minimum of one update per year to ensure the systems are updated and able to function as needed by both central office and local staff.

7.7 Training

All staff expected to use the tools and technology will need to have initial training—with the vendor, if possible—followed by yearly refresher training. The refresher training can be completed in person or online, depending on the stateʼs preferred method. Without proper training, it will be more difficult for state DOT staff to complete assigned tasks effectively. This is especially true for tasks not completed on a regular basis or that need large amounts of time between steps for the task (e.g., herbicide application to a tree/bush after cutting the plant back previously). Training is an important aspect of the implementation of tools and technology, so it is critical to ensure ample time for training. If the tools and technology are to go out to bid, the bids need to include training support and follow-up support for up to 1 year by the vendor. This support

will ensure that the state DOT has assistance implementing the technology after completing the purchase.

7.8 Terminology and Asset Condition Rating Systems

Ideally, state DOTs will use the same terminology and asset condition rating systems, whenever possible, between structural and vegetation assets. This consistency in terminology will reduce the amount of information staff have to learn during the implementation stage. As part of this project, the research team developed a data dictionary for use with vegetation and related safety feature assets (included herein as Appendix A). This dictionary can help state DOTs when they are locating funding for roadside vegetation asset management. For asset condition rating systems, examples of proven asset condition rating systems are provided in the case studies as well as referenced within this guide. At a minimum, asset condition ratings need to include the following:

• A definition of the thresholds and goals for maintenance.
• Definitions of “poor,” “fair,” and “good” conditions.
• An explanation of how the condition is affected by tools and technology.
• The use of performance modeling or life cycle planning to determine maintenance cycles in advance, rather than waiting for vegetation and roadside vegetation safety feature failure. This can help state DOTs operate proactively rather than reactively and reduce overall maintenance costs.
• A vegetation inventory to help central office and local staff be aware of the vegetation asset presence and needs of local staff.

7.9 Information Technology

A state DOT without strong IT support may want to consider COTS technology or, at a minimum, ensure that the systems purchased come with technical assistance for any issues that may arise after procurement. Using software under enterprise agreements helps ensure the state DOT has the latest available software updates and that staff have software support provided by the

vendor. Ideally, the state DOT will have designated IT staff to support roadside vegetation asset management tools and technology. These staff members can be assigned to work exclusively with the asset management division, or they can be assigned to specific software, depending on the difficulty of the software and the anticipated number of users. Additional support could be required for systems that have been developed for different sectors and adapted for state DOT use, particularly when implementation begins. For those systems developed initially for use off the right-of-way, the state will want to provide additional training for full-scale implementation. Table 2 lists COTS, PCCA software, and proprietary software information. For those software types that may involve external servers, IT staff need to ensure external servers meet state DOT security requirements.

Ideally, state DOTs will dedicate IT and GIS staff to maintaining and operating roadside vegetation asset management. Dedicated staff enable state DOTs to update proprietary software, hardware, and maps as needed. Each case study state DOT stated that IT support ultimately determined whether updates to the tools and technology were possible. One state indicated that the lack of IT support resulted in local staff having limited access to manage and collect information via the tools and technology. Conversely, two states indicated that dedicated IT support was available to the maintenance division, enabling new software systems to be developed as needed and for the existing systems to be updated as requested. One state DOT indicated that, although the department could not support the purchase of tablets for every staff member, IT was able to provide log-in credentials for every staff member to allow access to the system.

Before developing a roadside vegetation asset management plan using new tools and technology, state DOTs will want to contact their IT departments to determine what support is available for staff, if IT support is needed with any tools and technology being considered. Contact with the IT department should include inquiring whether the IT department has sufficient staffing to support the increased IT support needs by the maintenance department.

The IT department will need to be contacted to determine whether the state DOT can provide the technology needed for initiating the updated roadside vegetation asset management plan. This can include the purchase of tablets or cellular phones to provide local staff with access to the systems. For state DOTs where field staff are not actively using tools and technology regularly, staff will want to verify that the IT department can provide log-in credentials for the large number of field staff. If a state DOT cannot provide log-in credentials for all field staff, local management will need to have access to these systems and provide the information as needed to local staff and upper management. If the IT department cannot guarantee access to tools and technology or log-in credentials for the staff who will be collecting information, the state DOT will need to ensure

Long Description.

The column headers of the table are Software Type, Internal or External Development, Internal or External I T Support, Update Sources, and Data Storage Location. The data given in the table row-wise are as follows: Row 1: (COTS); External; Internal and External; Externally Sourced Updates; External Servers Common. Row 2: (PCCA Software); External and Internal; Internal and External; Internally and Externally Sourced Updates; Internal Servers Recommended. Row 3: Proprietary Software; Internal; Internal; Internally Sourced; Internal Servers Recommended.

these issues are resolved before beginning the transition to the new system. It can be helpful for the IT department to be present in the beginning stages of planning to ensure that these issues can be mitigated as they arise.

In addition to being able to provide support, IT needs to be contacted to ensure that any systems state DOTs are researching can meet IT security requirements. The research team found some state DOTs have had issues gaining Wi-Fi access when implementing new tools and technology. The issues with security can also include data storage and limited third-party access. Before purchasing access to systems, state DOT staff will need to ensure the vendors that the DOTs are communicating with can meet the departmentʼs requirements. Some states indicated that their IT departments require all data to be stored on DOT property. Others indicated data needed to be stored within the United States or within a certain distance from the state. While some vendors can provide this, other vendors the research team spoke with stated that all data for their technology was stored off-site at one of their facilities.

7.10 Conclusion

Generally, state DOTs will need to (1) implement any new system incrementally, with support and buy-in from upper management, field staff, and IT staff, and (2) institute training to ensure all staff are aware of their roles and the benefits of implementing these systems. This is especially important with roadside vegetation asset management tasks because often these tasks are given a higher priority at the local level than at the central office level. The disconnect between the offices can cause discontent among local staff, leading to high turnover. Likewise, a lack of training in and of itself can cause stress because staff may not understand the new processes. Training can be provided in various ways (e.g., one-page informational documents for local staff, in-person training, computer training, and yearly refresher training). In addition, if a state DOT has a local staff member take the lead on some of the new equipment, the new tools and technology may be perceived more positively because the information will be coming from someone the staff know and respect.