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.

4 State Government Uses of Native Seed INTRODUCTION In the first phase of the assessment leading up to its interim report, the committee heard that native seed shortages in the commercial market were caused by agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) buying up all the available seed after wildfires. It put forward the hypothesis that the seed market in the West was strongly affected by decision-making of the BLM and the US Forest Service, and wanted to know if state governments, which also purchase native seed for land-management activities, were experiencing shortages, and if so, whether this phenomenon was limited to the western states or was more widespread. The committee felt that a survey of state departments that use native seed or plant materials might shed light on some of the committee’s other preliminary observations about native seed needs, such as how the timeframe in which seeds are needed and the objectives of users affect availability, among other factors (Box 1-2). The committee felt that a perspective from state governments would provide another lens with which to assess how well the native seed supply functions across the nation. This chapter presents the survey findings. Chapter 2 describes the survey methodology. The committee sent surveys to an average of three government departments in each state likely to use native plant seed and plant materials (to include seedlings, mature plants, and other vegetative materials). As indicated in Chapter 2, this was not a comprehensive list of all state government departments in the United States, so the results cannot be generalized to all such departments. These responses reflect the opinions of the sample that was generated by National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine staff based on an internet search of state government webpages to identify those with responsibilities related to land management, fish and wildlife habitat, parks and recreation, roadside vegetation and maintenance, and natural heritage conservation. The departmental staff who responded to the survey were asked to answer questions about the use of seed in the department’s work. The staff was also asked about their individual roles related to their department’s purchase or use of seed, including project planning, providing biological expertise, purchasing or contracting, project management, or fieldwork (such as site preparation, seeding, and monitoring). Figure 4-1 shows that at least three out of four respondents were involved in planning, advisory, and management roles, while slightly fewer than three out of four were involved in purchasing or fieldwork. The spread across areas shows many respondents appear to have played multiple roles. Native and Non-native Seed Use Most state departments surveyed use both native and non-native seeds and plant materials (other than seed) in their projects. Almost 95% of respondents to the committee’s survey indicated that their department uses native seed or native plants, while three-quarters (74%) of the departments use non- native seed and two-thirds (65%) use non-native plants. About one-fourth of the departments who responded to the survey do not use non-native seed at all and more than a third do not use non-native plants (Figure 4-2). Most of the survey questions focused on issues related to the use of native seed and plants. To provide a consistent reference timeframe, respondents were asked to focus on projects carried out by between 2017 and 2019. Prepublication Copy 41 

An Assessment of Native Seed Needs and the Capacity for Their Supply: Final Report Has role in this area Does not have role in this area Project planning 86 14 Providing biological expertise 83 17 Purchasing or contracting 69 31 Project management 79 21 Fieldwork 68 32 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FIGURE 4-1 State survey respondents’ role related to the purchase and use of seed and plants, by project area. Used Did not use Native seed 95 5 Native plant materials 94 6 Non-native seed 74 26 Non-native plant materials 65 35 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FIGURE 4-2 State departments’ use of native and non-native seed and plant materials. For example, the survey provided a list of purposes and asked if the department used native seed or plant materials for any of these purposes between 2017-2019 (Table 4-1). Appendix 2C shows the exact wording of all of the questions. 42 Prepublication Copy 

State Government Uses of Native Seed TABLE 4-1 State Departments’ Use of Native Seed or Plant Materials for Specific Purposes Purpose of use Percent of departments Creation or restoration of wildlife habitat (other than pollinator habitat) 87 Pollinator habitat projects 83 Stream erosion mitigation or restoration 80 Restorative activity on land in a wilderness or natural area 75 Soil protection 72 Invasive species suppression 59 Roadside seeding 67 Landscaping 61 “Green” infrastructure 49 Roadside maintenance 47 Natural disaster recovery 37 Another purpose 31 When asked about “another purpose” for uses of native seed or plant material, topics mentioned included: public education/giveaways, used to restore riparian and wet meadows, provided to producers for seed increase, coastal zone protection, forest management, screening, and the sale of native tree and shrub seedlings for conservation. The survey did not ask if non-native seed or plants were used for these same purposes. When asked if their states have programs to assist private landowners with the use of native seed or plant materials, about half (46%) of the state respondents indicated that they did. Where do Departments Obtain Seeds and Plant Materials? Nearly all the state departmental respondents (96%) who were asked the question said that commercial suppliers are among the sources their department uses to buy native seed or plant materials. Approximately two out of three (63%) said that they obtained native seed or plant materials from project collaborators, and half (49%) said that they collect or grow their own (Figure 4-3). Used Not used Unsure 100% 7 10 80% 27 44 60% 96 40% 63 49 20% 0% Purchased from Obtained from project Collected or grown by commerical suppliers collaborators division FIGURE 4-3 State departments’ sources of native seed and plant materials. Prepublication Copy 43 

An Assessment of Native Seed Needs and the Capacity for Their Supply: Final Report Collection of Native Seed from State Land and How the Collected Seed Was Used Figure 4-4 shows that just under half (44%) of the respondents said that the native seed they used between 2017-2019 included seed that was wild collected on state land (29% were unsure of whether the seed used had been collected on state land). Of those respondents who responded that wild seed was collected on state land, 92% said that at least some of the seed was used to plant directly at a project site, and 79% said that at least some of the seed was used to grow plants with the purpose of harvesting seed or plant materials for future use. When asked about “Other” uses of wild collected seeds from state land, the answers included: harvested and given out to landowners, grown into seedlings for sale to residents, frozen for storage or given to seed banks for future use, and used for projects on partner lands. Ambient, Refrigerated, and Frozen Storage Respondents were asked about the availability to their departments of different types of seed storage. Sixty-four percent said they had ambient storage space, 28% had refrigerated storage, and 16% had freezer storage of some kind. (13% were unsure about whether they had refrigerated storage and 15% were unsure about freezer storage). Sources of Information about Native Seed and Plant Materials Availability Respondents were given a series of questions asking whether a given option is used as a source of information to find out about the availability of native seed and plant materials. The options included in- house knowledge, advertising (about needs), preapproved vendors, or requests for proposals. Figure 4-5 shows that 98% of departments rely on in-house knowledge to find the seed and plant materials. Preapproved vendors and Requests for Proposals are used by most departments, while advertising is the least common method. Yes No Unsure Were seeds used between 2017‐2019 wild collected on state 44 27 29 land? Were wild collected seeds from state land used to plant 92 5 3 directly at a project site? Were wild collected seeds from state land used to grow 79 18 3 plants to harvest seed or plant material for future use? Were wild collected seeds from state land used for another 24 62 14 purpose? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FIGURE 4-4 State departments’ use of wild collected seed from state land. 44 Prepublication Copy 

State Government Uses of Native Seed Used Not used Unsure In-house knowledge 98 Preapproved vendors 70 20 10 Request for proposals 51 33 16 Advertising 41 47 12 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FIGURE 4-5 Sources of information used by state departments to learn about native seed and plant material availability. Departmental representatives were asked if there were other sources of information used to obtain information about native seed and plant materials availability. Responses included: direct calls to vendors, annual meetings with registered suppliers, online vendor postings, other state departments, state crop associations, state university extension offices, native plant databases, BLM seed buys, and state seed bank. Relationships with Suppliers How Seeds Are Obtained from Commercial Suppliers Among those who said that their departments bought native seed or plant materials from commercial suppliers, 81% of the respondents said that this involved purchases directly on the open market, and 66% said that purchases were made via a formal bidding process. To gain a sense of the differences between eastern and western states, the responses were compared by region. As described in Chapter 2, the survey included a relatively small number of departments, and therefore the comparisons by region should be interpreted with caution.1 Figure 4-6 shows that in the eastern states, a larger percentage of departments appear to use purchases from the open market (87%) as compared to 69% in the western states. In addition, 63% of respondents located in the eastern states said that they use the bidding processes while this value was 70% in the western states. 1 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. Prepublication Copy 45 

An Assessment of Native Seed Needs and the Capacity for Their Supply: Final Report Used Did not use Unsure 100% 8 14 11 17 6 80% 17 19 19 60% 40% 87 69 70 63 20% 0% Open market Formal bidding Open market Formal bidding (West) (West) (East) (East) FIGURE 4-6 State departments’ use of open market and formal bidding when purchasing native seed or plant materials from commercial suppliers, by region. Marketing Contract and Production Contracts Respondents were asked about contracting arrangements, and specifically whether their department used marketing and/or production contracts to procure seeds from suppliers. Marketing contracts specify the type, price, quantity, and delivery date of seed or plant materials. By contrast, production contracts specify the desired type, quantity and delivery date of native seed and plant materials, while mitigating production risk by sharing some production costs or by providing flexibility on the quantity delivered and/or the delivery date. They may or may not specify a price. Only 22% of departments said that they used production contracts, compared with 39% who used marketing contracts (Figure 4-7). Marketing contracts may offer more certainty to buyers and sellers, but production contracts might be used to encourage growers to take on the production of a difficult to grow species. About 18% of state respondents were unsure if marketing contracts were used and about 25% were unsure if production contracts were used. This is consistent with the variety of different positions and responsibilities held by respondents who may lack individual knowledge about the purchasing process. Timing of Contracts Relative to Production Two out of five respondents from the state departments were unsure about whether the contracts are established before or after the supplier begins the seed production process. Thirty-seven percent said that the contract was usually established before the supplier begins the seed production process, and 24% said that it was after (Table 4-2). 46 Prepublication Copy 

State Government Uses of Native Seed Yes No Unsure Marketing contracts used 39 43 18 Production contracts used 22 52 26 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FIGURE 4-7 State departments’ use of marketing and production contracts. TABLE 4-2 Timing of When State Departments Usually Establish a Contract with Seed Suppliers Contract is usually established Percent of departments Before the supplier begins seed production 37 After the supplier begins seed production 24 Unsure of timing of contract 39 Total 100 Communicating Future Seed Needs to Suppliers No single method dominated the state departments’ methods of communicating their anticipated future needs to suppliers. Approximately half of the respondents mentioned word of mouth (55%), requests for proposals (49%), conferences or other professional meetings (49%), and informal meetings with growers (45%). Importance of Seed Attributes Departmental representatives were asked to reflect on projects between 2017-2019 and to indicate how important it was to obtain seed with the following attributes: native seed; native seed sourced from a specific geographical location or seed zone; and certified native seed. Nearly all departments nationwide indicated that native seed was very important or somewhat important. As Figure 4-8 shows, a higher proportion of departments in western states indicated that native seed was very important (90%) relative to departments in eastern states (79%). Departments in western states were also more likely to view native seed sourced from a specific geographical location or seed zone as very important (57%) relative to eastern states (46%). The responses with respect to certified seed were similar across the country, 42% of departments from East and 43% of departments from the West indicated that certified native seed was very important. Responses were also compared based on the departments’ average annual expenditures on native seed and plant materials. Similar to the geographic comparisons, the comparisons by the level of expenditure should be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size. In addition, approximately 10% of the state respondents were unable to provide an estimate of the amount their department spends on native seed and plant materials, and some respondents skipped this question. Prepublication Copy 47 

An Assessment of Native Seed Needs and the Capacity for Their Supply: Final Report Very important Somewhat important Not important Unsure 100% 10 7 5 10 16 19 10 12 80% 13 11 27 37 60% 33 32 90 40% 79 57 46 43 42 20% 0% Native seed Native seed Seed zone Seed zone Certified Certified (West) (East) (West) (East) seed (West) seed (East) FIGURE 4-8 Importance of certain seed attributes to state departments, by region. When responses were examined relative to the level of departments’ annual expenditures on native seed and plant materials, those with larger annual expenditures (over $100,000) were generally somewhat more likely than those with small annual expenditures ($100,000 and under) to indicate that each of the three seed attributes were very important. Figure 4-9 shows that certified seed was very important to departments with larger expenditures (54%) relative to departments with smaller expenditures (31%). Very important Somewhat important Not important Unsure 100% 7 4 15 12 17 24 14 15 80% 12 38 27 60% 36 40 40% 85 74 50 54 20% 43 31 0% Native seed Native seed Seed zone Seed zone Certified seed Certified ($100K (Over $100K) ($100K (Over $100K) ($100K and seed (Over and below) and below) below) $100k) FIGURE 4-9 Importance of certain seed attributes to state departments, by annual seed expenditures. 48 Prepublication Copy 

State Government Uses of Native Seed In general, the results show that using native seed was more important to states than using native seed sourced from a specific geographic location or certified seed (in which the geographic source of the originally collected seed was verified by a certification agency, along with the genetic integrity of subsequent generations of increase. Seed certification is not required for the sale of seed (in contrast to seed viability analysis, see Chapter 8), but it is sometimes required by buyers. The cost of certified seed is a little more than non-certified seed because of the fee associated with certification. Departments were asked to list other characteristics of seed obtained during 2017-2019 that were important. Table 4-3 is a summary of responses received. TABLE 4-3 Other Seed Attributes Specified as Important by State Departments Desired attributes Number of Responses Genetic appropriateness 7 Weed-free 6 % Purity 6 High germination rate 6 Prior track record 6 Other 6 Cost 5 Total 42 Attributes mentioned related to basic market conditions included cost (5), quantity (2), and availability (2). Cost corresponds to price (cost per unit), or price multiplied by quantity (total cost). Many other attributes mentioned regard quality dimensions that are independent (or potentially independent) of source specificity, e.g., weed-free, with genetically appropriate mentioned most often. Seed Substitutions State representatives were asked questions about how often their departments substituted other kinds of seed or plant materials when their preferred native seed or plant material was unavailable, specifically substituted with non-native seed or plant material, native seed or plant material of another species, or native seed or plant material from a different geographic region. In some cases, the responses to different kind of substitutions varied regionally or according to the level of a department’s annual seed expenditures. Figure 4-10 shows how departmental representatives across all states answered these questions. Substituting Non-Natives for Natives The responses of state representatives, asked how often their departments substitute non-native seed or plant materials when native seed or plants are unavailable, was examined by region and by the level of annual expenditures of a state department ($100,000 and below, or over $100,000). The responses were similar by region and size and the overall national numbers. About a quarter (24%) of departments frequently substitute with non-natives, and about half said that they substitute non-natives infrequently. A quarter (24%) indicated that their agency never substitutes non-natives for natives, even if natives are unavailable. Prepublication Copy 49 

An Assessment of Native Seed Needs and the Capacity for Their Supply: Final Report Frequently Infrequently Never How often are non-native seed or plant materials substituted 24 52 24 when native seed or plants are unavailable? How often are native seed or plant materials of a different 42 51 7 species substituted when preferred natives are not available How often are native seed or plant materials from a different 29 59 12 region substituted when preferred natives are not available 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FIGURE 4-10 Frequency of substitution when preferred native seeds and plants materials are unavailable. Respondents from those departments that said that they substituted non-native seed or plant materials (either frequently or infrequently) were asked about several potential reasons for the substitutions: native seed or plant material were available but too expensive; native seed or plant material were available but not within the timeline needed; and native seed or plant material were unavailable regardless of price and timing. Figure 4-11 shows the agency responses overall. The most commonly cited reason by state departments overall (58%) was that native seed or plant material were unavailable regardless of price and timing. The second most cited reason was that preferred natives were available but too expensive (43%). Timing considerations were cited by 34%. Approximately two out of five respondents cited at least two of these three market-related reasons, and a fifth of respondents cited all three reasons, meaning that they cited price and timing reasons as well as “unavailable regardless of price and timing.” One potential explanation for this finding is that some native seed species were entirely unavailable, while others were available but costly or at the wrong time. Figure 4-12 shows responses by region to the questions about reasons for substitution with non- natives. Departments in western states found cost, availability, or both to force a substituting with non- natives 50-70% of the time, versus 26-52% in the East. Notably, 70% of departments in the West encountered situations when native seed or plant material were unavailable regardless of price and or in the timeframe needed. Other Reasons for Substituting with Non-natives In an open-ended question, state staff were also asked if there were other reasons besides the three offered by the survey that explain why non-native seeds and plant materials were substituted when preferred natives are not available. Table 4-4 provides a summary of the reasons given, grouped into categories. Substituting with Natives of a Different Species or from a Different Region When preferred native seed or plants are not available, departments sometimes substitute with native seed or plant materials having different characteristics. As shown in Figure 4-13, 42% of the respondents stated that they frequently substitute with native seed or plant material of different species, 50 Prepublication Copy 

State Government Uses of Native Seed and this was similar for eastern and western states. When the responses were examined by the level of annual expenditure on seeding projects, 50% of state departments with $100K or more in expenditures indicated that they frequently substitute with natives of different species versus 36% of departments with expenditures of $100K or below. This suggests that those departments with larger projects may have more difficulty getting the quantity of natives they need. Yes No Unsure Natives available but too expensive 43 43 14 Natives available but not within timeline 34 41 25 needed Natives unavailable regardless of price and 58 25 16 time Other reasons 70 15 15 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FIGURE 4-11 Typical reasons for substituting with non-natives. Yes No Unsure Natives available but too expensive, West 55 36 9 Natives available but too expensive, East 37 47 16 Natives available but not in time needed, West 50 36 14 Natives available but not in time needed, East 26 44 30 Natives unavailable regardless of price and time, West 70 26 4 Natives unavailable regardless of price and time, East 52 25 23 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FIGURE 4-12 Typical reasons for substituting with non-natives, by region. Prepublication Copy 51 

An Assessment of Native Seed Needs and the Capacity for Their Supply: Final Report TABLE 4-4 Other Reasons Provided by State Departments for Substituting Non-Natives for Preferred Natives Description of the types of reasons given Reason for substitution (categories) in each category Number of responses Effectiveness Non-native seed or plant materials are associated 10 with better performance with respect to areas prone to erosion, such as near infrastructure or buildings, on steep slopes, for soil stabilization. Non-natives are associated with a stronger ability to compete with invasive species. Non-natives meet requirements to provide a % ground cover. Better performance of mixtures. Specific purpose Non-native seeds and plants are specifically selected 7 for ornamental and fruit trees, landscaping, and agricultural plantings, and for wildlife food/forage. Preference for non-natives Land manager discretion, preference, previous 6 experience, lack of knowledge of natives, lack of options Other Seed offered was not certified, insufficient quantities 5 available, poor seed quality/viability, lack of ecoregional genotypes, no inexpensive native forbs Total 28 Frequently Infrequently Never West 38 59 3 East 44 47 9 $100K and below 36 50 14 Over $100K 50 50 All departments 42 51 7 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FIGURE 4-13 Substitution with natives of different species when preferred natives are unavailable, by region and annual seed expenditures. As shown in Figure 4-14, 29% of state representatives responding to the survey indicated that their departments frequently substitute with native seed or plant materials from a different geographical source location when their preferred native seed or plant materials are not available. Examined on a regional basis, 45% of respondents from western states substitute with natives from a different geographical location, versus 21% from eastern states. One possible explanation for this difference is that there is a greater diversity of landscapes and seed zones in the West so it may be harder for suppliers to provide a sufficient diversity of ecotypes to meet all needs. The responses were similar across state departments with different levels of annual expenditures on seed. 52 Prepublication Copy 

State Government Uses of Native Seed Frequently Infrequently Never West 45 41 14 East 21 68 11 $100K and below 26 62 12 Over $100K 31 62 8 All departments 29 59 12 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FIGURE 4-14 Substitution with natives from different region when preferred natives are unavailable, by region and annual expenditures. Among the reasons for substitutions with natives having different characteristics, the lack of availability regardless of price or timing was mentioned by 81% of respondents overall, lack of availability within the timeframe required by 61%, and price by 35% (Figure 4-15). All three reasons were cited by 25% of respondents. Unavailability was cited in conjunction with one of the other reasons more than half of the time. Thus, the respondents citing unavailability and at least one other reason are a substantial share of the 81% reporting unavailability as a reason. Almost half of respondents (48%) indicated that the price of available seed was not a reason. Yes No Unsure Preferred natives available but too expensive 35 48 17 Preferred natives available but not within timeline needed 61 17 12 Preferred natives unavailable regardless of price and time 81 9 9 Other reasons 32 40 28 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FIGURE 4-15 Typical reasons for substituting with natives having different characteristics. Figure 4-16 shows that the lack of availability appears to be a bigger challenge for departments in the West than the East. Lack of availability in the time needed was mentioned by a higher proportion of respondents in the West (79%) versus the East (51%). It is possible that buyers in western states have smaller windows of time for purchasing seed than those in the eastern states, due to the need to obtain seed for emergency stabilization after wildfire, for example. About one in three staff in both the East and West indicated that substitutions with native seeds of other species or from other regions were made Prepublication Copy 53 

An Assessment of Native Seed Needs and the Capacity for Their Supply: Final Report because the seeds they wanted were available but too expensive. Eighty-nine percent of state staff in the West and 77% in the East said that substitutions were made because the preferred seeds were unavailable regardless of price and timing. Departments with seed expenditures over $100,000 were more likely (92%) to say that substitutions with native seed with other characteristics were made because preferred seed were unavailable regardless of price and timing than departments with seed expenditures of $100,000 and under (78%) (data not shown). Yes No Unsure Preferred natives available but too expensive, West 36 43 21 Preferred natives available but too expensive, East 35 50 15 Preferred natives available but not in time needed, West 79 21 Preferred natives available but not in time needed, East 51 30 19 Preferred natives unavailable regardless of price and time, 89 11 West Preferred natives unavailable regardless of price and time, 77 9 14 East 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% FIGURE 4-16 Typical reasons for substituting with natives having different characteristics, by region. Biggest Barriers to Using Native Seed When asked (in the form of an open-ended question) about the biggest barriers or disincentives to using native seed and plant materials in the state departments’ work, approximately half of the respondents mentioned availability of plant material (48%). The second most frequently mentioned barrier or disincentive was price (38%). These two reasons are interdependent in a market. If buyers, such as these survey respondents, are unwilling or unable to pay a price that at least covers the suppliers’ cost of production or collection for some species then none of the desired seed will be produced. In turn, buyers will experience a lack of availability. Because nothing is produced, buyers will perceive the outcome as “unavailable regardless of price and timing.” Likewise, if buyers fail to signal their intent to purchase seed of designated species in time to produce that seed, suppliers may deem it too risky to incur production costs with the market in doubt. Both of these reasons for unavailability result from market forces. Expertise and Labor Monitoring Seeding Projects Most state respondents said that they check on the survival of the seed or plant materials after planting for most or some of their projects (72% do this for most projects and 26% do this for some 54 Prepublication Copy 

State Government Uses of Native Seed projects). These responses were also examined by region: 80% of the respondents in the West said that they do this for most projects, compared to 67% in the East. As shown in Figure 4-17, 27% of departments in the East check on survival of seeding or planting project for a year or less, versus 20% of departments in the West. A final survival check was typically completed within 1-3 years by 57% of departments in the West versus 39% in the East. About a third of departments in the East and about a quarter of departments in the West continue to monitor seedings and plantings for survival for greater than 3 years. 1 year or less 1 to 3 years Greater than 3 years 80% 60% 40% 57 20% 39 34 27 23 20 0% East West FIGURE 4-17 Time of last check on the survival of seed or plant materials after planting for a typical project, by region. In-House Expertise and Gaps in Expertise Department representatives were asked whether they have the range of in-house expertise needed for the various aspects of projects that use native seeds or plants. Overall, 58% said that they have the expertise needed, and 39% said that they had some gaps in expertise (the remaining 3% did not know). Responses to this question did not differ by region (57% said that they had the needed expertise in the West and 59% said the same in East). Responses were also examined by the amount of annual native seed and plant materials expenditures of the department (Figure 4-18). Those with larger annual expenditures were more likely to have in house-expertise than those with smaller expenditures (77% of the departments with budgets over $100,000 said that they had the expertise compared to 47% of the departments with budgets of $100,000 and under). Those who said that they had some gaps in in-house expertise were asked to describe the expertise they were missing. In addition to mentions of inadequate levels of staffing, the responses covered a broad range of gaps in specialized knowledge, including agronomy, seed production, propagation protocols, and collection methods, native plant species identification, and planning for seeding with natives and maintenance. Some respondents said that they were able to meet their needs with various forms of collaborations with outside experts, and some clarified that the gaps only affect certain parts of the state. Prepublication Copy 55 

An Assessment of Native Seed Needs and the Capacity for Their Supply: Final Report Have the in-house expertise Have some gaps in expertise Don't know $100K and below 47 49 4 Over $100K 77 23 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FIGURE 4-18 Availability of in-house expertise for projects that use native seed and plant materials, by annual expenditures. Role of Policy in Decision-making Most respondents said that a variety of specifications and guidelines apply to their projects that involve native seed and plant materials, including technical specifications (91%), federal regulations, guidelines, and policy (71%), state regulations, guidelines, and policy (84%), and funding source specifications (57%). The survey did not ask the extent to which these factors influence decision-making, and respondents did not bring them up in the open comment section. Barriers to Using Native Seed In answers to an open-ended question, state representatives provided perspectives on the key barriers that prevent them from using native seeds in their department’s work. Table 4-5 summarizes the count of responses, coded into categories. Availability and cost of genetically appropriate native seed were the concerns most strongly expressed by respondents to our survey of state seed buyers. Project timing was also cited as a limitation for obtaining sufficient supply. Desired plant materials are often unavailable in the quantities needed, and buyers’ project timelines do not allow for the time that it might take suppliers to obtain and/or propagate these materials. High quality native seed may also be prohibitively expensive, and even when state departments have a policy of using it, their project contractors may substitute lower-cost seed. The interrelationship of price and availability through the native seed market indicates that basic market considerations drove most responses. However, especially in the West, native seed with the species and traits needed was sometimes unavailable at any price or time. Lack of support in the context of the state bureaucracy was also cited by some respondents. Ecological restoration and the use of locally adapted native seed are not seen as a high priority in some state departments, leading to a lack of clout to improve the process or increase the funding for seed purchases. State agency staff or their project contractors may lack the technical knowledge to carry out restoration with native plant species. However, some state respondents reported the perception that the mandate to use native species in restoration is increasing in their agency. 56 Prepublication Copy 

State Government Uses of Native Seed TABLE 4-5 State Department Respondent Comments on Barriers to Using Native Seeds Barriers Number of (category) Description of the types of comments included in each category responses Availability The lack of genetically appropriate or local ecotypes of natives in large quantities 48 in the timeframe needed is a major barrier. The period in which funding is available does not match the time needed to contract out the production of appropriate seed. Cost The costs of natives are likely to be prohibitive in many cases unless natives are 38 mandated by policy. Project contractors often substitute lower-cost seed or mixes. Genetics A source of genetically diverse, locally adapted ecotypes of native plants is not 16 available on the open market. Lack of support for Lack of support for native plants and/or an established reliance on non-native 13 native plants/seeds species. Lack of support could be from engineers, landowners, public, etc. The historical reliance on non-native plants makes the transition to native plants difficult. Respondents mention a kind of "mentality" or suggestions of a certain mindset. Lack of knowledge Staff do not know how to establish or maintain native plant communities. On 11 roadsides inappropriate mowing and use of herbicide are frequent. Geographic or Natives often do not perform well at meeting regulatory specifications: 9 ecosystem establishing rapidly, meeting a certain percent cover in a specified time, limitations/ preventing erosion on steep slopes, persisting under automobile pollution, conditions tolerating degraded or compacted soils, inhibiting invasion, and resisting pests/diseases. This is an important research need. Timing Project timelines do not allow for the delays inherent in obtaining genetically 9 appropriate native plant material, nor for the time it takes to monitor outcomes Procurement State procurement systems are cumbersome when coupled with a lack of 5 barriers understanding about native seeds. Communication There is not enough native seed expertise throughout the agency to be able to 1 issues communicate what kind of seeds are to be used in seeding projects. The definition of what is “native” is more restrictive in some parts of the agency than others. Some of the respondents commented that native species do not tend to meet their agency’s regulatory mandates for successful post-disturbance revegetation. Desirable attributes that native species may lack include establishing rapidly, meeting a certain percent cover in a specified time, preventing erosion on steep slopes, persisting under automobile pollution, tolerating degraded soils, inhibiting weeds. and resisting pests and diseases. These responses may be a reflection of the fact that the state survey included departments of transportation and departments of natural resources, parks, and wildlife, which are somewhat divergent in their interests and perspectives. Prospects for Native Seed and Plant Material Use The majority of respondents anticipate that their department’s use of native seed or plant materials is likely to increase in the future, both near-term (76%) and long-term (73%). In answers to an open-ended question, state agency representatives explained why they thought the use of native seed or plant materials by their departments is likely to increase or decrease. A high-level summary of responses to perspectives in the short term is provided in Table 4-6 and in the long term in Table 4-7. Prepublication Copy 57 

An Assessment of Native Seed Needs and the Capacity for Their Supply: Final Report TABLE 4-6 Reasons for Anticipated Increase or Decrease in State Departments’ Near-Term Use of Native Seed or Plant Materials Reasons native seed and plant Description of the types of comments Number of materials use is likely to INCREASE included in each category responses in the near-term (category) Preference, demand, interest There is increasing preference for native seed/plants over 13 non-native seed/plants. Demand and interest for native seed/plants is growing. Habitat programs, restoration The number of habitat and/or restoration projects that will 12 use native seed/plants is growing both in the public and private sectors. Awareness, education There is increasing awareness of the public and more public 11 education about the benefits of using native seeds/plants. Environmental reasons The ecological and environmental benefits of using native 8 seed/plants are becoming clearer. Projects Construction projects, road-building and other activities will 7 necessitate seeding projects. Research, funding Research and funding are beginning to increase to allow for 6 further investment in native seed/plants. Relationships Relationships with suppliers to collaborate on growing native 4 plants and partnerships that support investment in, and further development of, native plant/seed programs, such as pollinator programs Reasons native seed and plant Description of the types of comments Number of materials use is likely to DECREASE included in each category responses in the near-term (category) Staffing There are not enough staff to undertake the work at every 1 level, from writing grants to obtaining funds for native seed projects, to actually managing those projects. Reasons respondent is UNSURE about whether native seed and plant Description of the types of comments Number of materials use is likely to increase or included in each category responses decrease in the near-term (category) Natives already The existing seedbank of natives is the main source of natives 4 that is used. Funding dependent Many seeding projects are cost-shared with private 3 landowners, and some in conjunction with USDA conservation projects. Remain the same Given current project needs, the use of natives will be similar 3 in the future Climate dependent Persistent drought will make the use of native seed more 1 difficult. Innovation dependent Some environments, soils, slopes are not conducive to the 1 establishment of native vegetation, but new seeding techniques may help. 58 Prepublication Copy 

State Government Uses of Native Seed TABLE 4-7 Reasons for Anticipated Increase or Decreasea in State Departments’ Long-Term Use of Native Seed or Plant Materials Reasons native seed and plant materials use is likely to Description of the types of comments Number of INCREASE in the long-term included in each category responses (category) Preference, demand, interest Legislative mandates, habitat programs, conservation efforts, and 13 new initiatives to create partnerships to develop native seed supplies will support long-term use. Habitat programs, restoration The number of habitat and/or restoration projects that will use 9 native seed/plants is growing both in the public and private sectors. Environmental reasons Resilient ecosystems will adapt more readily to climate change and 7 native plants contribute to resilient soils, wildlife habitat, and ground cooling. Awareness, education Recognition that native plants will be lower maintenance in the 7 long run will get more people on board. Same reasons as for short-term Same reasons as for short-term increase 5 increase Research, funding There will continue to be an increase of funds for restoration due 4 to Monarch butterflies, pollinators, endangered species, and efforts to build a stock of native plant seeds/materials. Population growth Increase in numbers of people moving into former agricultural 2 areas will likely mean shifts in land use that will favor conversion and use of natives. Reasons respondent is UNSURE about whether native seed and Description of the types of comments Number of plant materials use is likely to included in each category responses increase or decrease in the long- term (category) Markets Economic markets may determine how private land is used. 3 Climate dependent Global warming and natural disasters will play a role in ability to 2 successfully restore native plant communities. Needs dependent Establishment of plant communities is difficult, but in the long- 2 term a move from establishment to maintenance could be possible. Funding, research dependent There are so many needs for restoration and so many research 1 needs to help make those successful. If research funding is available to address these issues, the use of natives will continue. a None of the respondents provided a reason why native seed and plant materials would likely decrease in the long- term. DISCUSSION Different departments within one state have restoration projects that can be very diverse in purpose, making it difficult to represent the view of “the state” with any one answer, so the responses to the survey may be a partial picture of state native seed users. Some of the respondents noted that different answers might come from a more targeted approach to different departments within their state. Thus, this survey should be considered a first step in elucidating the seed needs of states. The survey showed that there is growing recognition of native seed and plant materials by states as being valuable for their environmental benefits, from improving water quality to providing wildlife Prepublication Copy 59 

An Assessment of Native Seed Needs and the Capacity for Their Supply: Final Report habitat, and the use of native seeds by states is expanding. Although the survey found that virtually all state departments say it is important to use natives, not everyone in state departments agree that native plants are the best choice for their restoration projects. They can be difficult to grow, there is a deficit in the knowledge base about how to grow native plant communities, and there is historical reliance on non- natives. States are on a learning and experience curve in forging a common understanding about the use of natives. Respondents made the point that proponents of native seeds should recognize that native seeds and plants have limitations in very altered environments, in which pollution, salt operations (on roads), compacted soils, and invasive plants, pathogens and pests make native plant communities unsustainable. They cautioned that the debate about ‘what is native in a region’ tends to be so granular as to work against encouraging the broader use of natives including cultivars. The survey results showed that most states have policies that require the use of natives, but respondents suggested that factors such as “greater awareness,” “scientific evidence,” and “availability” were more likely than policy (which often has loopholes) to play a role in increasing the use of native seeds and plant materials by department staff. The survey found that all states prefer natives but having local ecotypes of natives is a little less important and having the source location of seed verified by certification is slightly less important. On the other hand, non-certified seed obscures the geographic origins of plant materials and may lead to the use of inappropriate seed and materials for a region, leading to restoration failures that reinforce a perception that natives don’t work. Many respondents stated that seed and seed mix selection guidance would be helpful. The survey results suggested some differences between states in the East versus West, keeping in mind that the results need to be interpreted cautiously, given the small numbers of participants in the survey. Respondents from Western state had more difficulty than their counterparts in the East finding their preferred seed types regardless of timeframe needed or price, which might be related to the larger number of seed zones in the West than in the East, and the fact that obtaining seed from a particular seed zone was more likely to be very important to state respondents in the West than the East. More western state respondents said that their preferred seeds were also not available in the timeframe in which seed was needed, which might reflect a shortage during the years of frequent wildfire, when seeds are being sought in large quantities by the BLM and other agencies. States in the East were more likely to buy off the shelf from seed suppliers than request a formal bid. All states were less likely to engage in production contracts than marketing contracts, but many respondents in the survey were not familiar with the procurement details of seed acquisition. In open comments, some respondents said there is difficulty in using project funds intended for immediate needs to try to collect and store seeds for increase for future needs. The mismatch between time constraints on the use of funding and seed production was noted as a major barrier to the native seed supply. Finally, some states have a good supply of existing native plant communities which, if maintained can be the basis of a seed supply for restoration, and there is hope to be able to use those native stands effectively, without needing to buy seeds. CONCLUSIONS Conclusion 4-1: Virtually all state departments prefer to use native seeds in their seeding projects relative to non-native seeds, with a few exceptions, and most states have policy guidance requiring natives to be used. Obtaining native seed from a specific geographic source or seed zone was also important to a majority of departments, but less so relative to the importance of using native seeds. A slightly smaller percentage of department respondents said that obtaining certified seed was very important for their department, relative to using native seed or seed from a specific geographic origin or seed zone 60 Prepublication Copy 

State Government Uses of Native Seed Conclusion 4-2: Many state departments appear to have faced difficulty maintaining a diverse supply of genetically appropriate native plant seeds and plant materials and consequently substitute non-natives, different species, or the same species of plant but from another region. The major reasons cited for substitutions are a lack of availability at any price, and the price, when seed is available. Conclusion 4-3: Almost all the state departments obtain seeds from commercial suppliers and about half of the departments collect seed from state lands or grow their own, primarily for use on state lands. The timeframe during which funds are available and must be spent is mismatched to timing of seed production. This was noted as a major barrier to the native seed supply. Ambient storage for seed is not available in all states, and less than a third have refrigerated storage available. Conclusion 4-4: The lack of knowledge on establishing native plants was mentioned as a barrier to native seed use. Seed selection tools, greater knowledge about restoration outcomes, and better information about the performance of native seed mixes used in different applications would be helpful to states. Conclusion 4-5: There is growing recognition of native seed and plants as valuable for their environmental benefits, from water quality to wildlife habitat, but procurement processes and lack of cooperation by some departments and private sector contractors undermine the use of high-quality natives. Prepublication Copy 61