An Assessment of Native Seed Needs and the Capacity for Their Supply: Final Report (2023)

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.

2 Description of the Information-Gathering Strategy The Committee undertook several information-gathering activities to obtain a thorough understanding of the native seed supply chain. The data-gathering strategy varied, depending on the specific type, projected use, and availability of the information. This section describes the main activities, which included (a) semi-structured interviews with federal seed buyers; (b) surveys of state government seed buyers (c) surveys of seed suppliers; (d) public information-gathering sessions; (e) a review of existing data; and (f) a review of the published literature. SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS WITH FEDERAL SEED BUYERS To better understand native seed purchases at the federal government level, the Committee conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with staff from five federal agencies, including: the Bureau of Land Management, the US Forest Service, the National Park Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the military service branches (the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps). Within each agency, the Committee attempted to identify a few key staff members who were especially likely to have broad knowledge about the use of native seed and plant materials within the agency. Appendix 2A shows the interview guide, which was developed by the Committee, and covered the following broad topics:  Purchase and use of native seed and plant materials  Contracting arrangements  Sources of information about native seed availability  Communication with suppliers  Decision-making about the use of native seed and plant materials  Substitutions when the desired natives are not available  Monitoring of projects after planting  Expectations for the future The interviews were conducted by the study director (the director of the Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources) with assistance from a research associate. A total of 19 interviews were completed between August of 2021 and May of 2022. The interviews were conducted via Zoom or telephone and were typically 1-1.5 hours in length. SURVEYS The Committee conducted two surveys, one of seed suppliers and another one of state government agencies that buy native seed. This section describes the methods used to collect the survey data. Survey of State Government Seed Buyers The Committee conducted a survey of departments within state government that use seed and plant materials. Appendix 2C shows the wording of each of the questions included in the survey, which covered the following broad topics: Prepublication Copy 21 

An Assessment of Native Seed Needs and the Capacity for Their Supply: Final Report  Purchase and use of native seed and plant materials  Sources of native seed and plant materials  Importance of specific seed characteristics  Purposes of native seed purchases  Seed storage availability  Contracting arrangements used  Sources of information about native seed availability  Communication with suppliers  Substitutions when the desired natives are not available  Monitoring of projects after planting  Availability of in-house expertise  Barriers to using native seed  Expectations for the future The survey was carried out by the Social and Economic Sciences Research Center at Washington State University (SESRC) based on specifications provided by the committee. SESRC staff also provided input on the survey questions and the implementation methods. The survey included state agencies that are most likely to use seed and plant materials due to their mission. The list of departments was compiled by National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine staff and included departments focused on the general areas of: natural resources, forestry, fish and wildlife, state parks, and transportation. States vary in how the relevant departments are structured and named, and staff used public websites to generate the list, along with contact information for the heads of each department (such as director or commissioner). The final list contained 160 departments (an average of 3.2 departments per state). The survey was sent to all 160 departments. While the goal was to include all departments that are likely to use native seed and plant materials, the list was not a comprehensive list of all state departments that could potentially do so. These results should not be generalized to all state departments in the United States beyond the list of departments compiled for this survey. The survey included departments of different sizes from all regions of the country (see below). The survey was carried out between May and July of 2021, online and by telephone. The survey was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when many state agency employees were working from home, so the first contact was an email sent to the department head. The letter provided a link and access code for the online survey and asked that the survey be completed by the person who is most knowledgeable about the use of native seed and plant materials in the department (See Appendix 2B). Reminders were sent by email, and trained SESRC interviewers also conducted telephone follow-up in the final stages of the fieldwork for those who did not complete the survey online. A small subset (3 percent) of the departments that responded completed the survey by telephone. Table 2-1 shows the final outcome of the cases included in the survey, including the cases that were determined to be ineligible because the department did not use either native seed or plant materials. See Appendix 2C for the screening questions that were used to determine eligibility. The response rate was 63 percent. The survey included both closed and open-ended questions. Open ended questions were coded into thematic categories by two trained SESRC coders. For each question, the coders created a codebook together with one coder starting the codebook and the other testing the validity of each code and further refining the codebook as necessary. The coders regularly met throughout the coding process to compare the cases coded and discuss discrepancies. After completing the coding for each question, 20 percent of cases were randomly selected for an intercoder reliability check. The coders then used the codebook to code those cases again to ensure at least 80 percent agreement on all codes. While all codes were above the 80 percent threshold, the coders discussed discrepancies until agreement was found and revised the codebook where necessary. 22 Prepublication Copy 

Description of the Information-Gathering Strategy TABLE 2-1 Outcome of Cases for the Survey of Departments within State Government Agencies Case disposition Frequency Percent (A) Completed 92 57 (B) Partially completed 5 3 (C) Refusal to participate 3 2 (D) Non-response 52 33 Total eligible 152 95 Response rate (A+B)/(A+B+C+D) Response Rate: 63% (E) Ineligible (not using native seed or plant materials) 8 5 Total ineligible 8 5 Total sample 160 100 Table 2-2 shows the distribution of the responses by geographic area. While the geographic area categorized as the East for the purposes of this report includes a larger number of states and therefore a larger number of departments than the West, the response rate was higher among the Western states than the East. It is possible that more departments from the eastern states felt that the survey did not apply to them and chose not to respond. Table 2-3 shows the distribution of the responses by size of the department’s expenditures on natives, determined based on the approximate average annual expenditure on native seed and plant materials between 2017 and 2019. Key results from the survey, including the open-ended questions, are discussed in subsequent chapters of this report. Response frequency distributions for the questions are shown in Appendix 2D. TABLE 2-2 Distribution of Responses to the Survey of State Government Departments by Geographic Region Region Number of departments Percent East 65 67 West 32 33 Total 97 100 NOTE: East includes AL, AR, CT, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, WV; West includes AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, MT, NM, NV, OR, UT, WA, WY. TABLE 2-3 Distribution of Responses to the Survey of State Government Departments by Size Department expenditures on natives Number of departments Percent $100,000 and below 43 56 Over $100,000 26 34 Don't know 8 10 Total responses to question 77 100 Missing 20 Total 97 NOTE: Size is based on the question: “Thinking about the three-year period from 2017 to 2019, what was [DEPARTMENT]’s approximate average annual expenditure on native seed and plant materials combined?” Prepublication Copy 23 

An Assessment of Native Seed Needs and the Capacity for Their Supply: Final Report Survey of Seed Suppliers To better understand the experiences of seed suppliers, the Committee conducted a survey of sellers of native seed and plant materials. Appendix 2F shows the wording of each of the questions included in the survey, which covered the following broad topics:  Types of business activities  Types of seed and plant materials sold  Capacity for collecting seed  Capacity for growing seed  Seed storage availability  Types of buyers and methods of communication with potential buyers  Contracting arrangements used  Challenges and barriers encountered  Ability to plan ahead  Expectations for the future  Suggestions for improving how the market for native seed functions This survey was also carried out by the Social and Economic Sciences Research Center at Washington State University (SESRC) based on specifications provided by the committee. SESRC staff provided input on the survey questions and the implementation methods. Given that there is no definitive list of all seed suppliers that could have served as a sampling frame for the survey, the Committee built a list based on information from the following sources that contained the names and contact information of vendors with an interest in native seed:  US Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Nursery and Seed Directory (Native Plants Journal list)  Native Seed Network  American Seed Trade Association’s Environmental and Conservation Seed Committee  BLM seed vendors  USFS seed vendors After a list based on the above sources was assembled, the list was deduplicated, and entities that were not commercial vendors located in the United States were removed. The deduplication was primarily focused on identifying duplicate organization names, but the list was small enough that staff were able to also manually flag and resolve a few additional exceptions, such as two separate organization names listed with the same address (due for example to name changes or acquisitions). The final list contained 1,259 suppliers, and the survey was a census of all the suppliers on the list (in other words, not a sample survey of a subset of the suppliers). As discussed, this was not a comprehensive list of all suppliers of native seed, so the results cannot be generalized to all suppliers in the United States. However, the survey included the suppliers used by BLM in recent years. The survey also included non- BLM suppliers of different sizes from all regions of the country (see below), but it is ultimately not possible to know how this list compares to the theoretical universe of all native seed suppliers in the country. The survey was carried out between May and July of 2021, online and by telephone. The first form of contact with those selected into the survey was a physical letter mailed to the business. The letter provided a link and access code for the online survey and asked that the survey be completed by the person who is most knowledgeable about the sales of native seed and plant materials at the particular business (see Appendix 2E). The letter was followed by both email and postal reminders. Trained SESRC interviewers also conducted telephone follow-up in the final stages of the fieldwork for those who did not 24 Prepublication Copy 

Description of the Information-Gathering Strategy complete the survey online. This approach resulted in 78 percent of the completed interviews being completed online and 22 percent by telephone. Table 2-4 shows the final outcome of the cases included in the survey. The response rate, defined as the ratio of completed and partially completed interviews to the total eligible cases, was 27 percent. Approximately 20 percent of the cases were determined to be ineligible on the basis of their responses to a set of screening questions (see Appendix 2F), and in some cases information obtained from other sources. Ineligible cases included vendors that were no longer in business or were not selling native seeds or plants. Due to the focus of this study, vendors that were exclusively focused on the home market were also excluded from the survey. TABLE 2-4 Outcome of Cases for the Supplier Survey Case disposition Frequency Percent (A) Completed 223 18 (B) Partially competed 48 4 (C) Refusal 83 7 (D) Non-response 650 51 Total eligible 1,004 80 Response rate (A+B)/(A+B+C+D) Response Rate: 27% (E) Doesn’t sell native seed or plants 78 6 (F) Sells only to the home market 110 9 (G) No longer in business 65 5 (H) Other 2 0 Total ineligible 255 20 Total sample 1,259 100 The survey included both closed and open-ended questions. Open ended questions were coded into thematic categories by two trained SESRC coders. For each question, the coders created a codebook together with one coder starting the codebook and the other testing the validity of each code and further refining the codebook as necessary. The coders regularly met throughout the coding process to compare the cases coded and discuss discrepancies. After completing the coding for each question, 20 percent of cases were randomly selected for an intercoder reliability check. The coders then used the codebook to code those cases again to ensure at least 80 percent agreement on all codes. While all codes were above the 80 percent threshold, the coders discussed discrepancies until agreement was found and revised the codebook where necessary. Table 2-5 shows the distribution of the responses by geographic area and Table 2-6 shows the distribution of the responses by the size of the business, determined based on the average annual sales and operating revenues between 2017 and 2019. As discussed, an inventory of all native seed suppliers and their characteristics does not exist, so it is not possible to determine how these breakdowns compare to the universe of vendors as a whole. Key results from the survey, including the open-ended questions, are discussed in subsequent chapters of this report. Response frequency distributions for the questions are shown in Appendix 2G. PUBLIC INFORMATION-GATHERING SESSIONS AND OTHER PUBLIC INPUT In addition to the structured data collection efforts, an important source of input for the Committee was the public information-gathering meetings held with a variety of stakeholders and experts working in areas related to native seed and plant materials. The Committee met with representatives from Prepublication Copy 25 

An Assessment of Native Seed Needs and the Capacity for Their Supply: Final Report BLM, and with staff from other federal and state government agencies that have projects related to native seed. The Committee also met with suppliers of native seed, operating businesses of various sizes. Other stakeholders who provided input to the Committee included representatives of organizations with an interest in native seed and plant materials, researchers, seed cleaners, seed certifiers, and seed storage providers. Appendix 2H shows the list of individuals who participated in meetings with the committee. In addition, a call for public comments was also posted to the study page on the National Academies website. The website provided a link to a form for submitting comments to the Committee. TABLE 2-5 Distribution of Responses to the Supplier Survey by Geographic Region Region Number of suppliers Percent East 147 54 West 124 46 Total 271 100 NOTE: East includes AL, AR, CT, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, WV; West includes AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, MT, NM, NV, OR, UT, WA, WY. TABLE 2-6 Distribution of Responses to the Supplier Survey by Supplier Size Supplier size Number of suppliers Percent $499,999 or less 112 53 between $500,000 and $4,999,999 67 32 $5,000,000 or more 30 14 Don't know 1 1 Total of respondents to question 210 100 Missing 61 Total 271 REVIEW OF EXISTING DATA To learn as much as possible about the native seed supply chain, the committee obtained relevant information that was available in the form of administrative records held by various agencies and other entities that are part of the supply chain. While the committee was not aware of any existing data source that could provide a comprehensive picture of either the native seed supply or demand in the United States, these records provided a granular view of some segments of the supply chain and enriched the committee’s understanding of a few specific market players. The main sources of existing data reviewed by the committee included consolidated seed buy records from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). REVIEW OF PUBLISHED LITERATURE The Committee’s work builds on a rich literature that exists on a broad range of topics related to the role and use of native seed and plant materials. The Committee reviewed recent research, with particular focus on topics related to the study charge. These topics ranged from restoration successes to the challenges associated with the use of native seed, as well as research on choosing native seed. The Committee also benefited from the published literature on the experiences of other countries and groups focused on specific geographic areas, and from gaining an understanding of a variety of approaches, systems, and processes. 26 Prepublication Copy