You will see some our efforts in SC National Forest plans and project plans over about 2 decades now. Since many of the native plants have been all but extrapated in severely eroded and disturbed lands, it is difficult to demand only use of native plants for erosion control, soil cover. We adjusted to promoting native plants through various means with NRCS and SC Native Plant Society (examples of work on my research gate). It is best to get commercial growers of seed involved to develop enough seed, and collecting and applying seed (native seed drill) is more costly than commercially available seed. We recognize that native seed is slow to germinate in many cases, so annuals like brown top millet were used as quick cover. Efforts now include avoiding use of non-native invasive species, but allow use of native and “desired” non-natives determined to be acceptable for some uses.

Many of the ecosystems mentioned have been altered by conversion of forests, overgrazing, farming, erosion, loss of native prairie grasses, loss of plant cover and root density, etc. It is going to take more than just sowing seed to recover many areas. If native grass hay were available with seed intact, that might be another way to disperse seed. Many of the light native seeds need the native seed drill and acceptable soils and conditions. In our SC gully restoration work, we had the severely eroded soils, but with fertilization, mulch, cover with annuals, growing and planting plugs, we had some success, but most would consider too costly and time consuming for routine application to all work.

Getting awareness to agencies that invasives are unacceptable as a message is getting through, but time and effort is needed to review existing recommended seed mixes and identifying which types of seed are unacceptable. Commercial growers should be notified who are producing invasives, and if they continue to make available, agencies should avoid doing business with them - and hopefully with persuasion they might adjust. Using just native plants in many instances is just going to be too extreme of a step. Making use of non-native invasives however needs to be avoided, if not determined unlawful. If there are native or naturalized invasives, they need some review if to be used. As long as exotic invasive plants and seeds are available commercially, and there is no warning or regulations as to their use, the dispersal and spread potential remains high.

Change is slow, and not fast enough. More on this issue is known today than 20 years ago To suggest progress is being made. For many of our ecosystems, restoration requires investment and attention beyond the normal activities. Until native seed is produced and available commercially at a somewhat reasonable cost, it is best to use desired annuals and include native seed in the mix. For erosion control, selecting desired native and desired non native species (ie, not invasive) will be needed in many instances.

For our gully work and forest recovery of grass and forb component, native plant seed sources were selected with the same physiographic area, and extending to adjacent States in hopes of limiting purchase of seed that was sourced and collected, grown too distant from our location. We also had some interest from a prison in growing some of our seed for future, but I have not heard much if that idea bore fruit. We found a need for weed control in some of our seed production sites mentioned in the uploaded work examples Into researchgate already.

Thanks for your reply. What my question is asking, when faced with the NEPA laws, to write a future EIR on the use of exotics for projects, would all Federal agencies need to stop using a single kilo of exotic seeds ever again, starting this new year?

Because having the alternative of using local natives for projects, you could never legally justify using any exotics, because the exotics permanently destroy the natural resources of the lands that they are sown on?

All of the limitations of using local native seeds and local ecotypes could be overcome very easily, if starting January 1, 2019, all the US Federal agencies including the US Department of Transportation, each publish a rule in the Federal Register, to only use local native ecotypes in any future projects, and the use of any exotic seed and native cultivar seeds, is forevermore forbidden.

The seed companies only do what the government contracts tell them to, and I am speaking as the owner of a seed company for over 40 years. If the contract says supply a million pounds of exotic seeds, that is what they do. If the government contract says supply a million pounds of local ecotypes, that is also what they will do.

Granted, extra money will be needed to get the original stock seed harvested, but BLM is already doing that through their SOS program for over a decade now.

And extra money will be needed to hire the professionals in ecological restoration, to get the new native seeds to work in poor soils and cheatgrass areas, but that is part of the whole conversion process, to get off the exotic treadmill that is destroying whole ecosystems, and fix the damages so those native resources can continue into the future?

The agency I worked for was strongly atuned to ecological conservation, restoration, maintenance and protection as needed. Other agencies have components, but their primary emphasis may be to road, mine, graze, etc. and recreation. I have been retired about 5 years now, so some emphasis may have shifted, and as people retire or move, some of the technical specialties are not being filled. Years back, some of our NEPA decisions were being appealed or commented on, requiring resolution with publics. The native Plant Society and some research botanists became involved, promoting change. Not all agencies are as responsive as USFS, in my opinion anyway. It might help deliver your message to work with others less economically connected to the issue. Nothing personal, but nursery owners who could respond to change would stand to strongly benefit from your proposal. You might not have realized that some might be thinking your interest is a business push. I would recommend Native Plant Society and working with the NRCS plant material centers as avenues for cooperation. We found some native grasses like big blue stem we’re just too difficult for us anyway. I support your intent as an ultimate goal, but feel not using non native, invasive species needs to be immediate, and then moving more toward including native species in seed mixes to eventually concentrating on only natives at some future time. You may loose some audience and support by immediately requiring only native plants.

Thanks for your reply. My concern is that no NEPA EIRs have ever been written by any Federal agency to legally justify the use of exotic seeds in projects that permanently destroy local ecosystems wherever you sow those exotic seeds, when the alternative of using local native ecotypes is so simple?

Wayne Rolle, the Forest Botanist in the Oregon Rogue River NF in 1992 made the conversion happen immediately, when his Forest Supervisor added one sentence to their Forest Plan, that only native seeds would be used in any replanting projects in the future.

Then, the private sector did not get the process started of growing out bulk local ecotypes of seeds needed for projects, it was the US Forest Service nurseries who pitched in to fill in that first-stage gap, and 26 year later still doing that job.

The conversion from using any more exotic seeds to only using local natives could be done Wayne's way tomorrow--amend each Forest Plan on a local level, or have each Federal agency publish a notice in the Federal Register, and get the conversation done on a national level immediately.

And, using seed mixes when sowing natives, is a recipe for constant failures, because the seedlings will fight each other when they sprout, and some or most will die in that fight with each other. That is what the USGS discovered in 2017 when they reviewed 102 native seeding project by BLM in the Great Basin, and found that 70 had failed.

Then, if you mix exotic seeds with native seeds, more problems always will occur, because of the allelochemical effects of the exotic species fighting against the natives, who are already fighting among themselves?

My Forest and many or all that I know about do not or would not intentionally justify using an invasive exotic plant any more. The change over started to occur about 2 decades ago. We even went so far to discuss and go against state BMPs when the published seed mix included grasses considered invasive like Bahia grass, Serecea lespedeza, tall fescue, etc. In our seed mixes, we have continued to allow for some desired non-native ANNUALs that typically last a year as quick cover, as some of our native grasses are slow to germinate. It’s very expensive to grow plugs and then transplant. Any new forest plans and most if not all written in last 10-20 years are going to prevent use of non-native invasives. Where loblolly pine trees were planted off-site decades ago, they have been or are still being removed to make way for native species. Our timber, road, fire control activities require equipment to be washed to avoid inadvertent spread of invasives. But as mentioned, some areas are very erosive, so rapid cover annuals in the mix like brown top millet are still used as well as weed free straw when needed. Many of the Native seeds established, even sparingly at first, respond well to prescribed fire, a management tool used with some frequency within extensive portions of the SC National Forests. Invasive plants are actively treated, but as suggested, the presence of undesired persistant or invasives such as Bahia grass, Serecea lespedeza, tall fescue and others along roads and old gully treatments and home sites within a mixed ownership landscape creates long term issue where continuing identification and treatments to invasives are expected. Unfortunately, not all agencies, activities, ownerships and nurseries are on the same page as USFS, but I expect and believe the educational emphasis and discussions of concern may have them headed in the right direction through time, but certainly not fast enough. As suggested, unless this issue were to be legislated, it Is voluntary to all but the most conservation oriented. My concern with the pure legislation route would be many of the native grasses that we were familiar with were slow to establish and grow. A few species did respond well such as switchgrass and partridge pea, but erosion control needs a reasonable amount of cover, and using too much seed of annuals or excessive mulch also is bad due to competition, etc.

Thanks for your reply.

I am probably asking this question to BLM and the State highway departments, who are still sowing an average of one million pounds of exotic seeds each year in the Great Basin alone.

We need to always add "Native Cultivars" to the list of "exotics" when we sow them outside of their eco-zone of origin. I heard that determination from the R-4 Regional Botanist in 1997 at a USFS meeting in Colorado, and then the botanists confirmed that in their survey at http://www.ecoseeds.com/juicy.gossip.six.html

Then regarding " ..many of the native grasses that we were familiar with were slow to establish and grow. A few species did respond well such as switchgrass and partridge pea, but erosion control needs a reasonable amount of cover, and using too much seed of annuals or excessive mulch also is bad due to competition, etc."

Most of those problems can be solved, by add the right amount of fertilizers and sawdust with the individual native seeds when sown, by first testing each species Soil Nutrient Thresholds from the top 5 cm of soil from around seedlings of each species.

See my question at https://www.researchgate.net/post/Soil_nutrient_and_organic_matter_thresholds_for_native_plants_any_research and you can see the eight tests and their protocols from my October SAGEFIX Carson City NV workshop at http://www.ecoseeds.com/sagefix.html

EVERY Botanist and every biologist and every geneticist on the planet, knows every time you sown a single pound of exotic seeds into a wild lands area, you are willfully and negligently spreading death and permanent extinction of that ecosystem, where you have sown that seed? Seems similar to the smallpox blankets intentionally given to the natives in 1763 at the Siege of Fort Pitt?

The use of exotic seeds and non-local ecotypes of natives, is just another form of biological warfare on a massive scale against a whole ecosystem, with the Sagebrush as the very last large-scale biome on the North American continent in relatively good health. Why make it sick with any more exotic seeds?

So starting Wednesday at noon local time, January 2, 2019, when the public land managers get back from holiday, why not start doing the right biological thing? Start that day, by stopping the use of any exotic seeds and stop the use of any non-local native cultivars?

Doesn't science demand that as responsible scientists, when we manage wild land resources, we are not supposed to intentionally destroy them? I am very sure that all of the native peoples of every continent will be grateful, when we stop converting their original homelands to some kind of Eurasian Steppe, and stop intentionally destroying the native species, genetics, and diversity of the local natural resources forever?

Nice looking workshop Last year. If you can really get 100% native cover from converting cheatgrass, that’s outstanding. You may want to contact the associated USFS BAER (Burned Area Emergency Response) teams. They may have applications for your ideas, especially when proven effective. Many areas burned hot or sloping terrain need emergency cover, and native plants typical preference if can be effective, soil testing for fertilizer needs ok too. I think there can also be funds set aside so native seed is available for post fire uses. One advantage of recovery with many native plants is once established, they can recover after natural disturbances like wildfire, droughts, etc.

The workshop in October in Carson City, was so that BLM and the State of Nevada could try--prior to sowing the next native seeding project--my method of $66 worth of soil tests through the Waypoint Lab in Anaheim, CA, from the top 5 cm of the project area soil, with the A-17 nutrient and A-19-2 test for organic matter, and have the lab put the data in a bar graph format.

Then, for nutrients that are not in the optimum range, add those with the seeds when you sow them, and you could easily double or triple your planting success rates, compared to projects where you do not do any soil tests at all.

In the Western USA, we seem no have not noticed that domesticated grazing animals can remove soil nutrients, to the point that the soil nutrients and organic matter percentages drop below the thresholds needed for native plant seedling survival. See http://www.ecoseeds.com/good.example.html

I recently saw soil tests from Colorado rangelands, and all of the micronutrients had been nearly completely "mined" out by the grazing animals-- the copper down to less than one ppm, plus the zinc and manganese only 1-2 ppm, and iron only 3-5 ppm. Difficult for both native plant and the grazing animals to survive at such low micronutrient levels, so how are the poor Sage Grouses supposed to survive?

Also, see my other two Research Gate questions at--

https://www.researchgate.net/post/CHEATGRASS--Is_it_really_an_invasive_plant_or_does_it_only_grow_in_soils_that_grazing_lowered_the_soil_nutrients_below_threshold_needed_by_natives

and

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Soil_nutrient_and_organic_matter_thresholds_for_native_plants_any_research