WELCOME! MEETING AGENDA 8:30 9:00 Coffee, Meet & Greet, Sign - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Willamette Valley

Native Plant Materials Cooperative

WELCOME!

MEETING AGENDA

8:30 – 9:00 9:00 – 9:20 9:20 – 10:00 10:00 – 10:20 10:20– 10:35 10:35 – 11:10 11:10 – 11:30 11:30 – 12:15 12:15 – 12:45 12:45 – 1:05 1:05 – 1:50 1:50 – 2:05 2:05 – 2:15 2:15 – 2:35 2:35 – 3:05 3:05 – 3:20 3:20 – 3:30 Coffee, Meet & Greet, Sign in Welcome, Introductions, Meeting Objectives Survey and questionnaire results + Q&A: What did we find out? Examples of existing native plant materials cooperatives + Q&A Break Grower presentation – Stacey Pullman, Agronomist, L&H Seeds, Connell, WA (Producer for Deschutes Basin and Uncompaghre Plateau Seed Cooperatives). Willamette Valley Cooperative: Roles, priorities, and initial strategies Small group discussions: Recommendations for cooperative structure Brown bag lunch Guidelines for species selection: User projections, STZs, production capacity, existing matrices, cost, etc. Small group discussions: Create draft guidelines for species selection Sharing information on cooperative website – Rob Fiegener Break Funding for Willamette Valley Cooperative + Q&A Committees and sign-up for committees Summary, timeline for 2012, next meeting agenda Set next meeting date and adjourn

Top 15 Restoration Forbs

1. Achillea millefolium (common yarrow) 2. Camassia quamash (common camas) 3. Camassia leichtlinii var. suksdorfii (tall camas) 4. Lupinus rivularis (riverbank lupine) 5. Lotus unifoliolatus (purshianus) (American bird's-foot trefoil) 6. Potentilla gracilis (slender cinquefoil) 7. Prunella vulgaris var. lanceolata (lance self-heal) 8. Lupinus polyphyllus (large-leaved lupine) 9. Grindelia integrifolia (Willamette Valley gumweed) 10. Lomatium nudicaule (barestem lomatium) 11. Eriophyllum lanatum (woolly sunflower) 12. Alisma triviale (plantago-aquatica) (northern water plantain) 13. Iris tenax (Oregon iris) 14. Asclepias speciosa (showy milkweed) 15. Clarkia amoena (farewell-to-spring)

Top 15 Forbs in Production

Species total production acres 1 Eriophyllum lanatum (woolly sunflower) 12.55 2 Epilobium densiflorum (dense-flowered willowherb) 11.5 3 Achillea millefolium (common yarrow) 9.65 4 Lupinus polyphyllus (large-leaved lupine) 9.55 5 Lotus unifoliolatus (purshianus) (American bird's-foot trefoil) 8.6 6 Lupinus bicolor (miniature lupine) 8.6 7 Plagiobothrys figuratus (fragrant popcorn flower) 7.1 8 Lupinus albicaulis (sicklekeel lupine) 6 9 Camassia leichtlinii var. suksdorfii (tall camas) 5.1 10 Gilia capitata (bluehead gilia) 5.1 11 Sidalcea campestris (meadow checkermallow) 5.1 12 Prunella vulgaris var. lanceolata (lance self-heal) 4.55 13 Ranunculus occidentalis (Western buttercup) 4.55 14 Clarkia amoena (farewell-to-spring) 4.5 15 Camassia quamash (common camas) 4.1

Top 15 Restoration Graminoids

1. Elymus glaucus (blue wildrye) 2. Bromus carinatus (California brome) 3. Festuca roemeri (Roemer's fescue) 4. Danthonia californica (California oatgrass) 5. Deschampsia cespitosa (tufted hairgrass) 6. Agrostis exarata (spike bentgrass) 7. Bromus sitchensis (Sitka brome) 8. Bromus vulgaris (Columbia brome) 9. Hordeum brachyantherum (meadow barley) 10. Beckmannia syzigachne (American sloughgrass) 11. Elymus trachycaulus (slender wheatgrass) 12. Carex obnupta (slough sedge) 13. Festuca californica (California fescue) 14. Juncus effusus var. pacificus (common rush) 15. Carex unilateralis (one-sided sedge)

Top 15 Graminoids in Production

Species Total production acres 1 Deschampsia cespitosa (tufted hairgrass) 15 2 Elymus glaucus (blue wildrye) 13.5 3 Festuca roemeri (Roemer's fescue) 13 4 Danthonia californica (California oatgrass) 12.5 5 Bromus sitchensis (Sitka brome) 10.5 6 Hordeum brachyantherum (meadow barley) 9.5 7 Festuca californica (California fescue) 9 8 Agrostis exarata (spike bentgrass) 8.5 9 Bromus carinatus (California brome) 8.5 10 Bromus vulgaris (Columbia brome) 8.5 11 Beckmannia syzigachne (American sloughgrass) 7 12 Juncus tenuis (poverty rush) 6.5 13 Glyceria occidentalis (northwestern mannagrass) 5 14 Poa secunda (sandberg bluegrass) 5 15 Leersia oryzoides (rice cutgrass) 3.1

Seed Buyers

Question 1. From your perspective, what would a successful regional seed/plant materials cooperative look like in five years? – 16 respondents

6 responses:

• Greater availability
• Lower cost
• Broad diversity
• Communication, collaboration, education, and

information sharing 5 responses:

• Clear vision and agreed upon plan
• Accessible and user friendly

4 responses:

• Able to meet diverse needs
• Projections over multiple years of plant materials and availability
• Sustainable funding
• Agreement on genetics

3 responses:

• Genetically and ecologically appropriate plant materials
• Banks seed/has seed available for unexpected purchases and burn projects

Seed Producers Question 1. From your perspective, what would a successful regional seed/plant materials cooperative look like in five years? – 8 respondents

7 responses:

• Information sharing

5 responses:

• Increased predictability/buyers projecting

future needs 4 responses:

• Fair pricing for both buyers and sellers

3 reponses:

• Increased cooperation
• Extra production sold through cooperative
• Increased demand

2 responses:

• Buyers pooling resources
• Reduce duplication of effort
• Higher diversity
• Fairness

Question 2b. In our on line survey, you told us what your methods are for acquiring native seed and other plant materials. What are the successes and limitations of your current procurement methods? – 14 respondents

SUCCESSES 4 responses:

• Ability to purchase on open market
• Lower prices than on open market
• Higher diversity than on open market
• Have control over genetics
• Local access and relationship with grower

2 responses:

• Work within partnerships
• Ability to get larger quantities
• Collect seed for own production
• In-house production of diverse plant

materials LIMITATIONS: 8 responses:

• Limited or uncertain availability

5 responses:

• Cost

4 responses:

• In-house collection and genetic refresh

3 responses:

• Funding

2 responses:

• Narrow geographic scope
• Demand too low for contract production
• Lack of knowledge of non-contract growout
• Not ready at planting time
• Predictability of need

Question 2a. In our on line survey, you told us what your methods are for acquiring native seed and other plant materials. What are the successes of your current procurement methods? – 13 respondents 9 responses:

• Hand collect (from own property, others’,

as well as private a seed collector) 6 responses:

• Contractee supplies the seed

5 responses:

• Open market

2 responses:

• G1 or G2 seed

1 response:

• Exchanges

Question 3. How could a cooperative address the limitations and build on those aspects that are functioning well? – 16 respondents

8 responses:

• Increase availability
• Partners project plant materials needs to reduce speculation
• 6 responses:
• Be a buffer for varying needs/availability/funding limitations of different partners over multiple
• years

3 responses:

• Share burden of seed collection and genetic refresh
• Partners pool resources for sustainable, large-scale production
• Lower cost of plant materials

2 responses:

• Reduce risk for growers
• Target best species for contract production
• Share/leverage information and expertise from seed collection to production of different taxa
• Proper storage of seed
• Have internal educational and information-sharing component about genetics, seed quality,
• propagation, etc.
• Map source populations and use as genetic reserves
• Partners pool resources for sustainable funding of cooperative/coordinator
• Cooperative takes care of details and facilitates growout while partners contribute funding, specs,
• etc.

Question 4a. What challenges do you see in the development of a Willamette Valley plant materials cooperative? – 16 respondents

8 responses:

• Funding

7 responses:

• Genetics issues

4 responses:

• Grower cooperation

3 responses:

• Understanding and forecasting needs

2 responses:

• Issues of seed source and purity
• Cost-sharing
• Developing common seed collection protocols and cultivation standards
• Prioritizing which species to put into growout

Question 4b. Do you have ideas about how to address challenges in developing the cooperative? – 12 respondents

4 responses:

• Have a strong technology/information transfer component

Question 7a. How have you determined genetic appropriateness for your restoration sites? – 16 respondents

10 responses:

• Use a combination of STZs

9 responses:

• Willamette Valley (either WV-wide or from the WV)

4 responses:

• Within recovery zones for T&E species

3 responses:

• Try to get seed as locally as possible
• South valley-north valley
• Economics/availability is a consideration

2 responses:

• Up to a 20-mile radius
• Mostly sourced on site
• Using relevant information and/or scientific studies where possible
• Don't have official policy
• Rely on technical teams and/or subcontractors
• Sometimes from outside the WV ecoregion
• Try to buy seed that is appropriate for the site/habitat

Question 7b. What would appropriate seed transfer zones look like within the Willamette Valley (e.g. valley wide accessions, south valley-north valley, south-mid-north valley, etc)? – 15 respondents

6 responses:

• From within the WV (collection from somewhere in the WV)

5 responses:

• True WV-wide collections from all over the valley)

3 responses:

• Would consider broader STZs with support from common garden

studies or other research 2 responses:

• Site-specific/local STZs

Question 7c. Would STZs be species-specific? – 10 responses

4 responses:

• Always species specific

3 responses:

• Species specific if recommended, or unless there is other information

suggesting better not

• Not species specific

Question 8a. Have you worked with seed certification? – 15 respondents

9 responses:

• No

6 responses:

• Yes
• 8b. Do you ask for seed tests when you purchase seed?

– 15 respondents 3 responses:

• No

11 responses:

• Yes

1 response:

• Sometimes
• 8c. Have you ever decided not to purchase seed due

to weeds in the lot that concerned you? – 12 respondents 3 responses:

• No

11 responses:

• Yes

• 8d. How would seed certification fit into the operation of the cooperative? – 11 respondents

6 responses:

• Use TZ and purity tests

4 responses:

• Requirements modified to be more relevant to native seed

3 responses:

• Certification to be sure of seed source

2 responses:

• It's an added expense that doesn't give enough security for the cost

1 response:

• Use critical aspects of seed certification
• Insist on quality seed
• Weed-free seed is very important
• Not sure

• 11. What are your restoration objectives? (Ex: restoration of diverse ecosystems, habitat for

listed species, mitigation, erosion control, water quality, etc.) – 16 respondents

16 responses:

• Restoration/enhancement of diverse

ecosystems 12 responses:

• Habitat for listed species

11 responses:

• Water quality

10 responses:

• Erosion control

9 responses:

• Mitigation

6 responses:

• Revegetation after projects

3 responses:

• Restore hydrology

2 responses:

• Riparian enhancement
• Wildlife habitat

1 response:

• Resistance to invasive species
• Protect property

Question 12. Which native plant species are the most difficult to find/purchase in sufficient quantities? – 13 respondents

9 responses:

• Forbs

4 responses:

• Bulbs

3 responses:

• Non-dominant native grasses
• Roemer’s fescue

2 responses:

• Slender cinquefoil
• Mariposa lily and other species with hard-to-get seeds
• Plug species

RESTORATION SUMMARY

• More availability
• Lower cost
• Higher diversity
• Information sharing
• Clearinghouse
• TZ and purity tests (not seed certification)
• Mostly broad seed zones, especially if there is

evidence

BUYERS AND SELLERS

• Boom and bust evened out
• Fair pricing of plant materials
• More predictability
• Information sharing
• Increased awareness of importance of seed

quality