New research shows the demand for native seed supply across the Western United States, including Nevada, has increased, but the supply simply is not there.

Researchers with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine say in the West, extreme weather events driven by climate change are a big threat to native plant communities.

Kayri Havens, senior director of ecology and conservation at the Chicago Botanic Garden and one of the report's authors, called native seed supply critical for restoration efforts. Havens explained with the current insufficient supply, restoration efforts could be faced with the tough decisions to substitute with nonnative species, utilize native species from climatically different environments, or not doing anything at all.

"You really need locally adapted seed to have it succeed over the long term in restoration," Havens pointed out. "I think many of the restoration failures that we have seen over the last 20, 30 years are in part due to not having the correct seed to use."

Havens called native seed "one of the most undervalued natural resources." She noted plant communities provide what she calls "ecosystem services" such as helping prevent floods and helping purify the air; aspects she said are essential for the success of everyone.

The scientists behind the report spent two years studying the nation's supply of native seed, and found significant deficiencies when it came to the nation's pipeline of viable seed. The report called for coordinated leadership between the U.S. Department of the Interior, Agriculture and Defense, while also supporting regional partnerships.

Vera Smith, senior federal lands policy analyst for Defenders of Wildlife, said it will lead to better insight to know what seed is needed, when it is needed and where.

"Our insufficient supply is a major barrier to ecological restoration and other revegetation projects that we need to do across the nation, in order to keep our lands healthy, natural and resilient to climate change," Smith asserted.

In 2002, the U.S. Department of the Interior and Agriculture developed a plan for native seed supply, but the report demonstrated the last two decades have shown the plan needs to be accelerated to meet current needs.

The Bureau of Land Management has announced a $161 million investment in wildlife habitat projects in 11 western states, and Montana is getting the largest share of all.

Montana is set to receive close to $27 million for wildlife habitat, clean water and restoration projects on public land. The BLM has set aside just over $9 million for the Upper Salmon River, $9.5 million for the Blackfoot-Clark Fork, and almost $7 million for the Hi-line Sagebrush Anchor.

Joel Webster, vice president of Western conservation for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, said they are all areas in need of critical habitat restoration.

"This $27 million is going to protect communities from wildfire. It's going to improve rangeland conditions, not only for wildlife but also for local grazers and livestock producers. It's going to help put people to work," Webster outlined. "It's a win-win."

The BLM is investing more than $2 billion to restore public lands and waters across the United States, with an eye toward meeting conservation goals established in the America the Beautiful initiative.

While the ecological and habitat restoration projects are critically important for Montana, Webster noted the investments will bolster economic conditions and recreational opportunities for residents and tourists.

"It's important for mule deer and pronghorn, and doing restoration work out there is going to help ensure that land remains productive, and that people continue to make a living out there," Webster explained. "But also that we have great hunting opportunities on that landscape, as well."

At nearly $27 million, Montana received the largest share of habitat restoration money of the 11 western states receiving BLM grants.

Ruybal Fox Creek Ranch sits in a dramatic canyon in the foothills of southern Colorado's San Juan Mountains, right next to the Rio Grande National Forest, and federal and state lands near the Conejos River. Purchased in 1962 on a school bus driver's salary, Josie Ruybal Abeyta's parents left the 821-acre parcel to their six daughters in 2005.

Abeyta remains determined to keep the land the way her father had kept it, but four of her sisters wanted to sell the property considered extremely valuable to area developers.

"And two of us did not," she said. "And I had heard about a conservation easement where you could still keep the property, the owners would get paid to keep it the way it was, and I thought that was a win-win situation for everyone."

But year after year, Abeyta's application for an easement was rejected by the state, with one official telling her outright that it would never happen and to give up. But Abeyta found the right formula working with the Rio Grande Headwaters Land Trust, and the easement was finally completed last year.

More than 50% of the population in Conejos County is Hispanic, and many families settled in the area before the United States existed. Abeyta added families with large pieces of property were forced to sell, and she believes it is culturally important for those who still hold parcels to maintain their deep ties to the land.

"You know I've got beautiful memories of us spending summers in the mountains, and of extended families going up there, like for the Fourth of July," she said. "To me, it was just heaven on earth. It's been in our family. I could not bear to let it go."

The easement also helps protect Ruybal Ojito Spring, which has been pumping about a gallon of water per minute since 1962. More than 40 species of animals call the ranch home, from big game such as elk, black bear and bobcat to endangered species including Mexican spotted owl and yellow-billed cuckoo.

"My children and my grandchildren love to go up there," she added. "For me also, that was part of it. God's not making any more land; we've got to hold it and protect it and treasure it, keep it safe for future generations."


get more stories like this via email

Virginia environmental advocates are not happy with the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision on the Clean Water Act. The ruling in Sackett versus E-P-A creates a new definition for wetlands covered by the Clean Water Act. In his opinion, Justice Samuel Alito described those wetlands as having continuous surface connection to waters of the United States.

Doctor Wally Smith, vice president of the Clinch Coalition, said legal debate over these wetlands has gone on for some time. He continued these non-contiguous wetlands are much needed to help areas fight off ever-worsening storms.

"If you have things like storm events that produce a lot of runoff that might otherwise make its way into a river, those wetlands can help filter out some of the pollutants that might otherwise make it downstream," he said. "And, they can also capture a lot of that runoff and slow its flow to essentially buffer against things like flood impacts in those downstream waterways."

He added as much as this ruling clarifies what constitutes a wetland, it also creates further questions. One in particular is what happens to a wetland once protected under the Clean Water Act getting fragmented by development. He feels in the coming years, agencies and the legal system will be sorting out these new unanswered questions.

Outside of this ruling, Smith noted Congress could pass new legislation regarding wetland protection. But, due to gridlock it has faced on other legislative issues, he is not sure this will come to pass. It now comes down to states deciding to enhance protections in their own wetland laws, like Virginia has, according to Smith.

"Here in Virginia, we actually have provisions in some of our state wetlands laws that write in exceptions for those isolated wetlands that are maybe in disturbed areas or are smaller," he explained. "That's one place you may see some lawmakers kind of step in and re-evaluate the state protections to see if there are ways to shore those up."

This ruling does not prevent wetlands from being developed over, despite Clean Water Act protections, he continued. The Act's protections call for a more rigorous permitting process for projects being built over protected waters.