Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Native Plantings Pollinators topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would require native pollinator plantings on state roads; DOT expresses cost and implementation concerns
Summary
House Bill 5,099 would require planting native pollinator species along state highways; sponsors and environmental witnesses said the change could cut mowing and pesticide costs and improve pollinator habitat, while DOT raised implementation and cost concerns in written comments.
Get email alerts on the Native Plantings Pollinators topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representative Shanley told the House Environment and Natural Resources Committee that House Bill 5,099 would strengthen existing law to require the planting of native pollinator species along state highways and to encourage reduced mowing and pesticide use.
“There's a lot of advantages to providing plantings of native pollinator species,” Shanley told the committee, citing aesthetic benefits, reduced mowing and maintenance costs and improved stormwater control. Shanley cited national analyses that estimate per‑mile mowing and maintenance savings and said Rhode Island’s roughly 1,100 miles of state roads could see substantial savings over time.
Witnesses from conservation and environmental groups, including Greg Garrett and Rex Wilmoth, testified in favor and described co‑benefits for pollinators, drought tolerance and carbon storage. “Most native species have insects in Rhode Island that also use them for food, for places to nest,” Garrett said.
Committee members asked whether the proposal would apply to replacement plantings or new construction and whether drought‑tolerant and pollution‑absorbing species would be used. Shanley suggested the measure could apply to both new projects and replacement plantings and pointed members to federal guidance and University of Rhode Island expertise for species selection.
Rodney Rhode Island Department of Transportation submitted written opposition and asked the committee to change mandatory language to guidance; the sponsor said she hoped DOT would consider the bill’s intent. The committee received additional written testimony in favor from organizations and individuals listed on the committee website. No final committee vote was taken at the hearing.
