Help me to rehabilitate millions of acres in my region.

Now that I have the ear of the Chief and Council of an indigenous nation, I hope to be able to put forth some permie ideas into the consciousness of their nation, and perhaps into the consciousness of some of their sister nations' council and people.  The Simpcw  Nation lay claim to 12.4 million acres of land.  There are some impressive protected areas in that land base including Mt Robson Park, Wells Gray Park, Caribou Mountains Park, West Twin Park, and part of Jasper National Park, among others including the one that I recently helped initaite.  


In spite of all of that protected land, the collective impacts of various settler/colonial/industrial activities have been extensive in other parts of their territory.  From the historic fur trade nearly wiping the beavers out there has been a steady cascade of ecosystem-eroding elements and these have been followed by many others.  These include the impacts of the railroads and early miners burning entire valleys out for access, the thousands-mile scar of the railway roadbed, and the thousands of animals slain in order to feed the railway builders and then, over the last 100+ years, slain by the trains themselves.  Then we had and still have the settlers clearing forests for ranching and farming, and then poorly managing their livestock or farmland to further degrade the ecology.  Then we add the extensive road building that crisscrosses the wilderness upsetting hydrological patterns and predator/prey relationships.  We add the historic and industrial logging that has left an absolutely massive footprint on the land’s living systems.  We can also add the local mining disaster on a nearby sister nation’s territory that has left enduring toxic heavy metal pollution in one of the deepest freshwater lakes in the world and draining into the Fraser River and the ocean, to the extensive wildfire history that has been exacerbated by many of these factors and also includes human-caused fires (as opposed to natural lightning strike fires)!  There is so much avoidable damage that has been done it really boggles the mind.  

Currently, the mountain snow caribou population is in such a decline that its recovery seems unlikely.    Hundreds of migratory bird species have declined to the point that they are seldom seen or have completely disappeared.  British Columbia leads Canada with more than 2000 (known) at-risk species.

But, in my world, there is always room for hope!

As a side project, in the past few years, I have been working on an ecological and economic recovery model to help this nation and our region to reverse some of these degrading processes.  At this point, this is a rough bunch of permie ideas.  

This group of ideas includes the transitioning of forests by selectively adding strips and mosaics of deciduous species into the second growth conifer treefarms to reduce fire potential, and in some cases -where drainages allow- later adding beavers; adding beavers to areas with existing deciduous groves in watersheds that contain no beaver systems, creating coppice forests out of existing or planted deciduous species for cut and come again forestry that keeps most of the system intact; rebuilding watertables and aquifers by introducing deciduous species and beavers to otherwise barren seasonal snowmelt watersheds; creating food forests and food meadow systems around existing and historic village sites by utilizing permaculture principals and existing research of historic practices
, building a tree and plant nursery system to propagate plants for this and the extensive greater project and for sale, as well as global food plants that work in this zone to feed the people and maybe for sale, utilizing biochar and compost from coppiced tree systems to build soils for potted plants as well as for food forests, creating hugulkultur as a way especially for elders and disabled people in the village to interact with food plants.  Building groves of native food plants like huckleberries, blueberries, and other berries and things like nettles for commercial sale.  And in cattle and horse areas, initiating rotational grazing, silvo-pasturing, and alley grazing, and combining these things with coppice and pollarding of deciduous species on contour or keyline to capture water and nutrients.  

By focusing first around the inhabited sites, and then at the historic village sites and larger degraded valleys, coppice systems that have a high percentage of flowering and fruiting species could be left largely intact (rotationally harvested over time with 7 to 15-year rotations), which would promote a population explosion of beneficial insects and their predator bird and amphibian species and give habitat and food for migratory birds.  This is especially true if these correspond with beaver pond systems which are wellsprings for wild ecology.  

By utilizing the edge effect in its positive form this project will create veins and organs throbbing with life throughout the territory, kickstarting ecosystem dynamics and building carbon reserves and moisture retention at every turn.

I’m hoping to also get solid about gasification so that an engine can be used to heat greenhouses or municipal buildings while producing biochar, and so that a fleet of trucks can be run on gasification to haul coppiced or processed materials or other forest products to the village sites for further processing or utilization.

I imagine mobile Sea-Can units that are half generator/biochar maker, half toolshed with battery-powered tools, that can be dropped off in an area with a camp for workers to work do a lot of the remote work.  Trucks could haul biochar, ramial wood shreds, Sea Can units, coppiced birch timber, frozen berries, etc.

Some of this was hashed out in bits of this permies thread.

Any further ideas are very much welcome!  :)  Please post them here.

I read most of that.  My brain hurts.

Where is all of this located?  12 million acres, wow.

What 'help' are you requesting?

Some thoughts...

Was the land once deciduous?  Would converting it to deciduous help it adapt to climate change?  Or might it be more of a disturbance to the current wildlife of the area?

What coppice species are you thinking of?  What would they be processed into?  Maybe they'd be chipped/ground up into paper products or sheet goods like OSB?

Where is all of this located?  12 million acres, wow.

What 'help' are you requesting?

Hi Gary.  This area is located in an area in a rough tall oval that encompasses the land almost to both Prince George and Kamloops in B.C, and just past the town of Jasper Alberta.  It is the territory of the Simpcw Nation (pronounced Seeimpk) which is what is known as a campfire in the greater Sepwepemc (Sep-wah-muck) Nation, which holds a much greater land area regionally.  There are, I believe, 17 campfires in the greater nation, of which I believe the Simpcw Nation holds the largest area.

I'm not requesting help in doing the projects.  The projects will be indigenous-led and probably based on government grants which should be forthcoming as the Feds say they want to plant 2 billion trees amongst other green deal thangs.  

What I'm looking for are just ideas on things that can be done to help create a new economy based on rehabilitation and permacultural principles and techniques that utilize nature's lessons and modern science; some examples are what I provided already.

Some thoughts...

Was the land once deciduous?  Would converting it to deciduous help it adapt to climate change?  Or might it be more of a disturbance to the current wildlife of the area?

What coppice species are you thinking of?  What would they be processed into?  Maybe they'd be chipped/ground up into paper products or sheet goods like OSB?

Hi Mike,
Much of the land had deciduous trees in the past, but the composition of the forest has changed in the last 200 years due to many factors.  The primary factors were the removal of beavers and the subsquent drop in the watertables, the clearing of land for farming (deciduous ground was much easier to farm), the replanting of logged mixed forests with conifer cultures (often monocrops), and the active suppresion of deciduous species by any means necessary.

Deciduous forests relate to varying aspects of our changing climate differently than coniferous-dominated forests.  Because almost all needle-bearing trees are active for much longer in the year (because they keep their solar panels and don't drop them annually) they draw down more carbon and produce more oxygen annually than a given deciduous stand, so in that case this would not be helpful.  Often deciduous species act as pioneer species in whose understory conifers grow in succession, or in cooperation/symbiosis, so the health of the forests is likely to be compromised with their removal.  Increasing the diversity of forests by adding species, and particular broad-leafed species where they are absent helps increase biodiversity which itself can lay the foundation for geometric rises in carbon over time in comparison to single-type forests such as is represented by conifer tree farms.  Single-age conifer plantations contain massive loads of ladder fuel which cause fires to rise from the forest floor to the canopy, candling the tree, and then allowing it to potentially spread as a crown fire.  Crown fires can spread rapidly across the top of the forest due to the updraft caused by the height of the new fire base and this produces its own wind engine.  Deciduous species, in comparison, are more likely to drop a fire to the ground, where it is more likely to creep along at a potentially more manageable rate and the branches are generally higher up so that it can not easily climb up them.  Deciduous species have the ability to be coppiced by fire and resprout with shoots from surviving root systems whereas conifers almost certainly die with no recovery.  This results in much faster regeneration of mixed forests after a fire when compared to areas that contain only conifers.  Certain birds associate predominantly or solely with deciduous species, and their removal from the landscape has contributed greatly to their reduction and potential demise.        

The coppice species that I'm thinking of would be any that could be used for various purposes.  

Birch, for instance, can be coppiced and allowed to grow to clusters that contain many merchantable stems.

Alder, cottonwood, willows, birch, and poplar could be used for compost, mulch, and biochar.  Some of these are decent rocket stove fuel which is another project to promote.

Various species, such as those above with the addition of flowering/fruiting species like red osier dogwood, vine maple, service-berry, elders, twinberry, mountain ash, false azalea and others provide powerful ecosystem functions while being productive in resprouting.  Having these types of varieties would increase the nutrient/mineral spectrum of compost or mulch while creating habitat zones for beneficial insects and nesting birds.  Since the majority of any given area would be left intact in a long-term rotational system, the birds and insects can shift from row to row or patch to patch over time.

Many decidous species will reproduce from clonal whips which require little work in comparison to growing seedlings from seed to plant out.

There are many potential products that could be made from chipped coppiced materials or the resins or oils that are produced from them, and there is absolutely no reason that we should be or have been cutting conifer forests for making paper and wall boards.  Just this week a major pulp and paper mill will close for good in Prince George because of a lack of ingenuity in such a direction as well as other reasons which I won't get into as it really turns into an unnecessary rant.  
Another building material that I thought of would be insulative bricks made up of pressed chips that have been inoculated with certain fungi as is talked about in this C.B.C. article
 to make building materials.

Another industry from deciduous forests would be birch syrup.  

Many berries, such as elder, produce powerful anti-viral flu and cold remedies.  

Entire industries can rise out of deciduous species, including but certainly not limited to superfood medicines like wild oyster fungi, chaga, turkey tail, huckleberry, and blueberry.  The fungi could be grown in cultured 'laboratory type' situations or purposefully propagated in strips of forest in the wild that are left intact rather than coppiced.

 

Also, Mike, much of the land base in this region has been seriously ecologically, and hydrologically degraded.  Some of this is due to fires that were repeated too often, fires that were too hot because of conifer dominance or complete deciduous exclusion.  Ranchlands whose soil systems are so degraded that they support a fraction of the number of cattle that they did in the past is another large part of the land base that could use rehab.  Much of the land base has basically been in a process of ecological degradation or transition toward either desertification or toward a more natural savannah system of mixed wider spaced douglas fir/lodgepole pine mixed with grasses.  The latter transition would be fine, except that it is not happening fast enough or widely enough to adapt to cover the massive areas that have been fire-altered or otherwise damaged.  In relation to this, ranchers and farmers purposefully exclude the regrowth of trees as do their livestock.  Besides deciduous forests, the savannah eco-type was the one that was most severely impacted by the influx of ranching/farming, as it was easier to clear in homesteading times than conifer forests, and continues to be used as government-sponsored grazing leases.  There is virtually no tree recovery over thousands of acres where there were vibrant mixed forests or savannah systems in the past.  So, the replacement of this degraded landscape with forests or plants of any kind would almost without fail be a vast ecological improvement.    

Sounds good, I'm not familiar with that area so that explains it.

By me, birch kind of resprout.  Maple do well and I think basswood might.  I've also heard that there is a new way to make maple syrup using coppiced trees where you cut a stem and suck the sap out of it.  Not sure if maples grow in your area but maybe bushy ones would?

The maples we have around here are Douglas Maples.  They are small multi-stemmed trees or large shrubs that coppice naturally.  I've never tried to tap them, but some people are experimenting with selecting a single or couple larger stems while limiting the growth of the other suckers as they come in order to boost the size of the chosen ones and thus produce more sap for syrup.  I don't know how successful they have been.   I'll have to check out the maple cutting and sucking thing you mentioned.  Do you have any resources/info?  

I think the key to the birch might be fire, rather than cutting.  I find birch in multi-stemmed clusters all the time, and something must trigger it.  I've seen it suckering up in post-fire situations, as well as other deciduous species.

I don't know if Basswood is a good choice.  It is certainly zoned cold enough but that can be problematic if there is a possibility of naturalization.  I have zero familiarity with it.

The Holiday Farm Fire burned 173,000 acres, and hiking the ridges on either side of the Mckenzie River boggled my mind.  So this is about 70x that area, generations of damage.  Okay...

I noticed that a few of the Mckenzie tributaries were demonstrating stupendous recovery after the fire killed every tree in sight (never mind herbaceous stuff on the ground.)  Bear Creek might have been the most lush I saw.  Last June it was a 2-3 ft tall carpet of polyculture with the interspersed charred conifer sticks up the 1500' mountainside.  Some weedy invasives, some natives, probably about a dozen species in any given 10 m^2.   There were some larger mono-culture patches, fireweed and whatnot.  I'm thinking they were mostly carried on the wind.

I wondered why some areas showed such immediate regeneration, and other's still looked barren.   I guessed it was mostly proximity to large numbers of any given plant species + seed on the wind + bird activity + soil.  I think Bear creek was spared the repeated clearcuttings because there were plenty of other valleys that were more accessible.   Lots of those charred 100' poles were 3-4' in diameter ABH, but it wasn't old growth.

So for the hundred thousand acre stroke, I would focus on finding some lush valley pockets to attempt cultivating plant species (With beavers! : ) that you would like to spread, in proximity to some downwind valleys that didn't lose all their soil through often repeated clear cuts, but are approaching the conifer desert.  And then apply fire.    And then once established, that ecology of that valley might spread into the next, when room is made.

Or so it seems.  Somebody should know exactly what you need to do to recreate what happened at Bear Creek...but I don't.  

Good luck!  

What a fantastic opportunity Robert! I wish you every success in your endeavours.

I can only suggest to use the Permaculture principles: particularly observe and interact, use small and slow solutions, and apply self regulation and feedback. My suspicion is that the people are, as ever, the reason such a project will thrive or fail. Involving those who live and work in the area as much as possible in the decision making will make success more likely. I don't mean just holding public meetings for 'consultation', but to actually release control. Hard to do, but if the right information is there, then hopefully you will create momentum to carry in the direction that will heal rather than hurt in the longer run.

So many branches with twigs and growing points and yet needing to keep them all working toward a strong central trunk!

I'm very pleased to read the words relating to "products" that can be made that both will help the restoration expand and build like ripples in a pond. Yes, the government has promised money, but that frequently has strings attached that promote businesses that have shown a lack of sustainability. It will be required, particularly to get things started, but I would love to see the expansion be "self-supporting" by a time goal (maybe 20 to 30 years?) that is integral to the long term plan.

I particularly like the concept of the food forests/hugelkulture around existing campfires. The Simpcw would have had a self-supporting/nutritionally balanced diet at one point in history. Identifying what plants, animals, fish etc are now missing and working towards replanting or substituting for what can't easily be replanted is critical for their long-term health. However, if that diet has not been documented already, please encourage locals to work with the elders to try to identify and document it before it's too late - assuming that it's not already too late!

If I look at our local Indigenous, lack of affordable, safe, healthy housing seems to frequently top the list. That said, it seems to top the list for huge non-Indigenous groups, also! I would love to reinvent what is seen as "safe, healthy housing" to focus on the real threats like wildfires instead of square footage and a hot-tub! However, I've read several articles recently which particularly focused on essentially "summer heat storage for winter use", as well as the mentioned RMH technology, to reduce the town's dependence on fossil fuels. Run-of-river electrical generation done in non-habitat damaging ways, and non-river-based pumped hydro generation could be considered and can be used to "stack functions" the way Sepp Holzer did on his mountain farm. One of Sepp's quotes about never again depending on a single product to support his farm is equally valid for many of BC's towns and cities - humans don't learn from history very well!

I haven't read the update about the mine disaster, but I have read books about rehabilitating thoroughly contaminated industrial sites in Britain mostly using plants that are known to target and absorb specific minerals. I know I read an article in the last year that suggested they're developing this as a form of mining! In other words, the problem could be a self-supporting solution if there is a market for those heavy metals and plants will do the primary collection of them, and humans can harvest and burn the plants in such a way as to recover the material. As always, the article implied monoculture planting of large areas which, equally as always, made me cringe. We need to take the information, but interpret it through a permaculture lens! However, if this is seen just as a first step in a larger rehabilitation plan, a monoculture might be the only game in town if it looks like it will do the initial repair effectively. This is where your ideas about plant nurseries could be critical.

Please keep us posted with updates and if you can identify a problem area you'd like ideas for, speak up!

Hi John Hutter,

It's remarkable how some places regenerate better than others that are nearby.  Forest fire dynamics and subsequent regeneration are generally not uniform.  My property has a patch of Douglas fir trees which were spared the last couple of fires.  For whatever reason the fire swept around them and a few random fir and spruce trees also survived there, but otherwise, I think the place was, apart from a few cedar snags, mostly reduced to ash and mineral soils.  I'm starting to see cedar outside of the main cedar grove by the creek.  That grove must have retained a residual seed bank in surviving biomass soils near the creek.  All the cedar forest perished in the fire (normally one finds a few that are barely surviving on a mostly dead snag tree) as did most everything on the mountain above my property.  

The mountain above my land is listed as bare on the old 1923 map that I got with my property.  I'm sure this is mostly true, but there were some remnant patches and the odd tree that the fire swept around.  This mass burn was the result of a fire that is believed was initiated by railway engineers to facilitate clearing the right of way (on the other side of the Fraser River valley (Rocky Mountain Trench)-which is quite big!).  I"m on the South face of the valley which burned hotter than the wetter North face, and right by my place the fire burned right into the high alpine.  The sub-alpine forests are beginning to recover, but it will take many decades before they have any real diversity.   The mountain, in general, is now mostly densely forested but in varying stages of regrowth and transition.  I just snowshoed up into the subalpine yesterday (would have got into the alpine but the wind was horrendous and the light snow I was experiencing would have been like a blizzard with the wind sweeping the drifts on open land), and even just below the alpine cedars once grew, but they are now dead standing killed snags amongst a sea of lodgepole pine and balsam fir.  Clearly, with cedars that high, the valley was once much wetter and soils more complex than they are now.  

The diversity on my 'trail' (which is a work in progress) is, however, quite remarkable.  In some areas, I'm sure the fire burned the organic layer right out so that it was just ash and mineral soil.  I think these are the areas that are now filled with widely spaced poplars and birch with false azalea and alders growing in between them but I could be wrong.  As far as conifers, in some places spruce dominates, and in others it is balsam, and in others, it is pine or Douglas fir.  There are dense groves of green alder and azaleas that are difficult to navigate.  These deciduous small tree/shrub zones have a variety of other trees and shrub species interacting with them.  How these areas eventually transition to full tall canopy conifer or mixed forest is anybody's guess.  The thing that is remarkable about the rainforest/snow-forest in this region is that, unlike its coastal rainforest counterpart which is dominated by Cedar, Douglas Fir, Hemlock, and Spruce, often in bi-cultures, here we have all those species mixed together with cottonwoods, balsam firs, pines, birches, and poplars in complex patterns and mixes which are not often exactly repeating over time or space.  The diversity of ecotypes is quite astounding and it provides a baffling array of potential for recovery/regeneration.  A forester found tamarack (larch) pollen in a core sample from a nearby peat bog, so we know it grew in the area in the past, but there are no larch forest patches in this area at all now.  

The reason I describe this is that even ecologists and forest fire recovery specialists haven't gotten a grasp on these complicated recovery dynamics even in less diverse ecologies.  

I think you are right that burning can be and should be part of the prescription.  The removal of indigenous land stewardship (which involved periodic burning) has had a lasting impact on forest successional dynamics in the last hundred years.  The problem is figuring out how to introduce those presribed burns and to what degree.  The centuries or millenia of hands on and oral traditional knowledge of these techniques has largely been lost due to the decimation of the indigenous population coupled with their almost complete removal from the ecosystem dynamics.  

There must be some ways to do this, but they are not going to be one-size-fits-all.  I can guarantee that.  It is going to take a great deal of experimentation, and patience, and observation, and in some cases a lot of work.

Nancy Reading wrote:What a fantastic opportunity Robert! I wish you every success in your endeavours.

I can only suggest to use the Permaculture principles: particularly observe and interact, use small and slow solutions, and apply self regulation and feedback. My suspicion is that the people are, as ever, the reason such a project will thrive or fail. Involving those who live and work in the area as much as possible in the decision making will make success more likely. I don't mean just holding public meetings for 'consultation', but to actually release control. Hard to do, but if the right information is there, then hopefully you will create momentum to carry in the direction that will heal rather than hurt in the longer run.

Hi Nancy,  

It is indeed a wonderful opportunity.  It is not something that is for sure going to happen, but I think that time is ripening.  Permaculture's time is ripening.  And the permie principles will guide everything if I have any say in the matter.

Definitely, the people will be the answer, and, the last bit of the last paragraph being said,  I don't expect to be in control.  In fact, with the land protection stuff we just did with them, we thought we would be a lot more involved.  We initiated the push and got the ball rolling, but they took the initiative and made it happen.  Now the federal and provincial governments are having to play catch-up, which is an interesting switcheroo.  So long as even parts of this get happening, I think it's a massive win, but wouldn't it be great to see it all in a state where the ecosystems themselves are kick-started enough that they are self-regulating and simply building complexity?!!!

Jay Angler wrote:
...I'm very pleased to read the words relating to "products" that can be made that will help the restoration expand and build like ripples in a pond.

...but I would love to see the expansion be "self-supporting" by a time goal (maybe 20 to 30 years?) that is integral to the long-term plan.

I particularly like the concept of the food forests/hugelkulture around existing campfires. The Simpcw would have had a self-supporting/nutritionally balanced diet at one point in history. Identifying what plants, animals, fish etc are now missing and working towards replanting or substituting for what can't easily be replanted is critical for their long-term health. However, if that diet has not been documented already, please encourage locals to work with the elders to try to identify and document it before it's too late - assuming that it's not already too late!

If I look at our local Indigenous, lack of affordable, safe, healthy housing seems to frequently top the list. That said, it seems to top the list for huge non-Indigenous groups, also! I would love to reinvent what is seen as "safe, healthy housing" to focus on the real threats like wildfires instead of square footage and a hot-tub! However, I've read several articles recently which particularly focused on essentially "summer heat storage for winter use", as well as the mentioned RMH technology, to reduce the town's dependence on fossil fuels. Run-of-river electrical generation done in non-habitat damaging ways, and non-river-based pumped hydro generation could be considered and can be used to "stack functions" the way Sepp Holzer did on his mountain farm. One of Sepp's quotes about never again depending on a single product to support his farm is equally valid for many of BC's towns and cities - humans don't learn from history very well!

I haven't read the update about the mine disaster, but I have read books about rehabilitating thoroughly contaminated industrial sites in Britain mostly using plants that are known to target and absorb specific minerals. I know I read an article in the last year that suggested they're developing this as a form of mining! In other words, the problem could be a self-supporting solution if there is a market for those heavy metals and plants will do the primary collection of them, and humans can harvest and burn the plants in such a way as to recover the material. As always, the article implied monoculture planting of large areas which, equally as always, made me cringe. We need to take the information, but interpret it through a permaculture lens! However, if this is seen just as a first step in a larger rehabilitation plan, a monoculture might be the only game in town if it looks like it will do the initial repair effectively. This is where your ideas about plant nurseries could be critical.

Please keep us posted with updates and if you can identify a problem area you'd like ideas for, speak up!

Hi Jay.

I think that that end of things (products) is really a huge selling feature for 'buy-in' by any group.

People are wrapped up in the idea of economics and it drives decisions.  This is, after all in my view both an ecological AND economic recovery plan, so it needs to have an economic outlet.  The plan, if it is one (lol), is that the economy and ecology are actually meshed, in that each benefits the other and both can grow without harm, permaculturally.  I'm hoping that the project can be self-supporting in a decade.
Ecotourism based on beavers might be one way to earn short-term finances.  It's a matter of marketing it and any products that spin off of it.  I'd really like to come up with more products before I present this to the Simpcw, so your closing statement should probably be answered by this problem: please come up with more products that can create a new economy that is based on ecology.  I will now go through the rest of your post in order.    

In order to have this become self-supportive in the long term, I think that one key would be employing the youth at good wages to do the beaver work initially.  That work would be to plant deciduous forests in watersheds that they are absent from, build beaver dam analogs (basically human-made beaver dams to provide a safe space for a beaver to occupy), and initiate beaver relocation/introductions, and then have some of them become eco-beaver guides while others carry on the process (which will take quite a while).  My idea to really make this solid contains a package for indigenous youth that includes government funding towards the establishment of a rediscovery program
, a youth-led ecological enhancement program, a scholarship into NOLS (U.S.-based National Outdoor Leadership School), a hiking guide program through the ACMG, and then eventually entry into the adult Guardian Program.  This creates leadership potential that has a grounding in land stewardship for the future of the nation.  And with the right direction, we can add permaculture as a guiding principle for that stewardship.

The diet of the more southern campfires is somewhat well documented because a settler, James Teit, with a passion for ethnography happened to embrace the native culture, married an indigenous woman, learned their language, and documented many important plants and their uses.  Here is the  Amazon link to a copy of Teit's ethnological work  .  Some of his work is free to download on the wikipedia article on him. "  I had the pleasure of reading some of his work at one time and I wish I still had access to it in front of me.  Here is a quote from This article.  

Teit managed to publish 2,200 pages of ethnological research and
produce nearly 5,000 pages of unpublished manuscript material. In addition, he was a
skilled, self-taught botanist and entomologist, a photographer, and a linguist fluent in
several tribal and European languages. His 300-page study of the Shuswap people edited
by Franz Boas and published in 1905, is this region’s most comprehensive ethnography
ever written. Unfortunately, unlike his first paper on the Thompson Indians which was re-
published by the Nicola Valley Museum Archives Association, only a few copies are
available. Hopefully, one day this seminal work will also be re-published and Teit’s
contribution to our understanding of the Shuswap people will become more appreciated

Because of the reasonably extensive documentation of coastal indigenous diets and the relative similarities of plant species in the interior rainforest to the coast with the (besides lake and river fish) substitution of big game for seafood, a pretty good sketch of a nutritious diet can be approximated.  The Simpcw and their Secwepemc relatives are Interior Salish, and likely held strong trade, customary, and likely dietary ties to the Coast Salish nations whose greater language they shared.  Many native groups readily adopted the potato, turnip, carrots, and other staple root crops and this was particularly true for interior villagers who had extensive use of native root crops, so we can add these as well to the list.  And although some might consider our introduced farm animals as poor substitutes for wild game, they can suffice until wild systems and game populations can be rebounded.  Interior native peoples, including the Simpcw, ate sheep, goats, caribou, elk, deer, bear, and moose.  Some of these are still hunted and many could be substituted with farmed animals for the time being.  

Most indigenous housing initiatives were provided by the Canadian government and were, as far as I know, one-time shots and the places are often in great disrepair as they were not given anything to keep them up.  The meager funds provided to indigenous individuals over their lives is a pittance considering what they have been through as families and cultures.  Housing is a huge concern for indigenous people, for sure, but the Simpcw has many things on their side:  Their population is small, they have forest tenure, a mill, and a hardware store, and to top that off they have a huge territory with vast natural resources such as clean water, mountain drainages, forests, and building stone.  The opportunity to reinvent the village toward permacultural ideals as their population expands and they choose to reinhabit their greater territory is truly huge.

As far as the mine disaster cleanup... yes I’ve also read about plants used for bioremediation.  I think there were also some Permies threads in the past about it.  I’ll have to search them out.  Also, Paul Stamets has had great success with some fungi in that regard.  The other choice for some of the cleanup is char which can absorb large amounts into its internal volumes.  This can effectively neutralize dangerous elements, especially if the char is subsequently stored in building materials like concrete.  Plants and fungi can also be reduced with heat to carbon char and then used in concrete for long-term storage in structures, like sidewalks.  There is a Permie who PMed me about her expertise in toxic remediation with expanded charcoal.

Please keep the ideas coming.  :)

What is the lay of the land? Bill Mollison talked of using a cup of diesel to catch a mountain of water. This is I think the most important place to expend energy and resources. Everything builds from there. The other important thing is diversity even if it is in small things like weeds.

It's a wonderful vision. And a multi-generational project.

I am deeply familiar with many of the landscapes you speak of. I also know there is a growing sense among ordinary, reasonable citizens that injustices have been done, broadly, and honour demands that we chart a better path going forward.

But it will be necessary to put foundations under the castles-in-the-air that you envision. That will be the true test: 5 acres here, 50 acres there, and buy-in from all of the parties involved.

Gird your loins for the long haul. Luck!

Eric Lyle wrote:



What is the lay of the land? Bill Mollison talked of using a cup of diesel to catch a mountain of water. This is I think the most important place to expend energy and resources. Everything builds from there. The other important thing is diversity even if it is in small things like weeds.

Securing good water and sewage practices is key for sustaining a healthy community. Sample sources of water to evaluate what you have to work with then make steps to mitigate further contamination. This will help you locate good spots for base camps, then branch out from there. Sound like you're in for a rewarding adventure, keep us informed.  

@Eric Lyle: both of the diagrams you posted identify "Subdivision and Fencing" as key components. I believe both of those would not have been part of the heritage of the people that Roberto is trying to inspire and support. Their history tends towards "the land is the land - you can't "own" it, you can merely "steward" it. How do we help rehabilitate the land using that concept? Several chunks of the land I live on is not fenced. I admit that I covet fencing, but not of the whole land - just the part I want to safely grow some veggies on that the deer covet even more! (Deer even like potato leaves...)

Eric Lyle wrote:

What is the lay of the land? Bill Mollison talked of using a cup of diesel to catch a mountain of water. This is I think the most important place to expend energy and resources. Everything builds from there. The other important thing is diversity even if it is in small things like weeds.

Hi Eric.  This land is vast and has many different types of terrain from very tall sharp-peaked mountains in ranges (Rockies, Caribous, Columbias, Monashees, Premiers) to rolling hills and foothill approaches to ranges, and including the two largest branches of the largest river system in the province (and I think the second largest after the Columbia on the West Coast of the Americas), to parts of the headwaters of at least two other major river systems (the Columbia and the Athabasca).  There is sparsely forested somewhat desolate ranchland, regions that are dealing with slow fire recovery, and areas of beautiful lakes.  There are also forested areas with an astounding diversity, and there are likely small pockets of natural desert with cacti in the South.

What I mainly get from your post is that we really will need to put thinking toward doing the smallest things to have the biggest impact.  That is primarily why I want to focus on the existing village and historic villages, so that the people see positive changes in relatively short order, and then on water and regeneration of drainages with things like beavers and poplars, and groves of flowering and fruiting bushes, all of which kick-start ecosystem dynamics.  There are some places where a week with a large excavator would make a massive impact over time, especially if trees were added and/or beavers, but the territory is too vast to consider mechanical alterations as a primary focus.  It would, then, be a matter of focussing on some very specific locations for those cups of diesel in order to make such work have the highest possible impact.    

J. Syme wrote: Securing good water and sewage practices is key for sustaining a healthy community. Sample sources of water to evaluate what you have to work with then make steps to mitigate further contamination. This will help you locate good spots for base camps, then branch out from there. Sound like you're in for a rewarding adventure, keep us informed.  

 

Hi J.
I think the Simpcw at least have mostly decent water quality over their lands, except for that which might be contaminated by excess manure or siltation or, of course, the heavy metal contamination on the land and water of their sister nation.  Mostly the problem (in the South), is water quantity.  Even the quantity is not generally horrible on an annual basis, but since most of the trees are gone in the South due to many factors the snow melt and rain run-off is not maintained on the land.  I agree that keeping water clean is key, and it should be noted that the Simpcw Nation also holds water as one of its keys to its cultural strength.  I will leverage that in my discussions with them for sure.  As far as work camps go, there will be many great locations that have ready road access, I'm sure.   The key, I think, will be to access the low-hanging fruit (the places where the greatest amount of good can be had with both the least amount of work and the easiest access).  This should be done as quickly as possible while maintaining quality.  And then, the project would head deeper into places that are harder to reach but have the biggest potential impact on ecology and hydrology.   This might require a large helicopter dropping multiple crews/camps to work remotely and then get picked up say a week later.  This is slightly more advanced work that takes a bit of specialty-training to be sure of safety.  

Jay Angler wrote

@Eric Lyle: both of the diagrams you posted identify "Subdivision and Fencing" as key components. I believe both of those would not have been part of the heritage of the people that Roberto is trying to inspire and support.

Actually, many of the subdivisions will likely still be needed, but I understand why you wrote as you did, Jay.  The problem in dealing with a territory this large is that there are a lot of other stakeholders, many of whom, such as ranchers have fences and property boundaries which are going to need to be honoured.  Some of those properties will need to be excluded from access by beavers using fencing.  Fencing can be used in other regards that have little to do with property:   I will be encouraging the Simpcw to take up holsitic rotational cattle ranching in order to properly impact the soils to build carbon and moisture in the absence of herding animals.  Fencing might be used, also and for instance, for maternal penning of large herbivorous animals, to keep wolves/coyotes/bears away from nursing mothers and young to help ungulate populations like caribou recover.  Fencing can be used to keep free-range cattle (on government grazing leases or private land) out of salmon streams.  Fencing can be used to create large enclosures to make deer farms  (with maternal penning and genetic monitoring to ensure healthy stock) so the human population has an adequate food supply in the short term before the landscape recovers enough to support the full spectrum of game animals.    

Roberto pokachinni wrote:
we really will need to put thinking toward doing the smallest things to have the biggest impact.  That is primarily why I want to focus on the existing village and historic villages, so that the people see positive changes in relatively short order, and then on water and regeneration of drainages with things like beavers and poplars, and groves of flowering and fruiting bushes, all of which kick-start ecosystem dynamics.  

I agree. Aligning everyone's interests is crucial for success so starting with what is close at hand makes sense. I've realized that even small spaces like a 1x3 ft carrot patch need the right shape to make watering easier, as water follows the path of least resistance. Proper shaping is also important for larger land forms, like the swales and terraces I made, which had the biggest impact on the land as a whole. I also scatter random seeds that I collect during walks to help promote growth and more importantly diversity.

Now I am currently working and living in the high desert of California, I don't have extra hands or a tractor, so I've been acting like a "beaver" by moving twigs, trees, and logs into low areas where water moves seasonally across our 20-acre property. It's surprising how much clay, sand, and rock move when rain finally comes.

I wish I had such water and find it fascinating to dream of ways to help the beavers, like felling or moving dead trees into rivers. Observation and learning the nuances of what nature is doing is key.

Lastly, I believe that in a community, learning and using a design process is more important than initial results.

I haven't read every word in the exchanges here, so might have missed some discussion of this. Many areas are not going to be convivial for beaver. Introducing them to an area that doesn't suit them (unhelpful land contours, lack of food sources, etc) won't help them or the area. When they build their ponds, they tend to be interested in taking down deciduous trees, whose bark they prefer to evergreens. So at least in the short run they are going to be working counter to your efforts to increase deciduous trees.

Roberto pokachinni wrote:The coppice species that I'm thinking of would be any that could be used for various purposes.  

Birch, for instance, can be coppiced and allowed to grow to clusters that contain many merchantable stems.

Alder, cottonwood, willows, birch, and poplar could be used for compost, mulch, and biochar.  Some of these are decent rocket stove fuel which is another project to promote.
 

Big Leaf Maple coppices really easily, and the coppiced trunks produce maple sap at as small as 8 inches in diameter (maybe smaller, but that's what I've found with my maples).

Your bioregion seems a lot like my own, just a bit cooler. Big Leaf Maples are native down here, and I do get sap out of mine, depending on the year. With cooler weather up there, they could probably get a lot more sap, and reduce it down to syrup. There's a market for our native Big Leaf Maple sap, and maple is a beautiful, relatively-dense wood for carving. It also has pretty high BTUs for firewood (aside from invasive holly, it has the highest BTUs of any of the wood growing natively on my property!)

Many areas are not going to be convivial for beaver. Introducing them to an area that doesn't suit them (unhelpful land contours, lack of food sources, etc) won't help them or the area. When they build their ponds, they tend to be interested in taking down deciduous trees, whose bark they prefer to evergreens. So at least in the short run they are going to be working counter to your efforts to increase deciduous trees.

Hi Sig,

You are correct in some regards.  Some of this was discussed as well, but I will restate and clarify in shorter form for the benefit of yourself and others who have not read every word.  

It is true that some landforms will not support beaver populations.  Many, especially hill country, ridges, steep slopes, and high mountain areas, will require non-beaver interventions, with some examples being herbivore (particularly domestic) exclusion and or reforestation with diverse species (not just trees).  In some cases, mechanical interventions, like excavated ponds will greatly enhance an area's potential to rebound ecologically.   Fencing and machines would be expensive and hard to get into some places and have many other detrimental co-factors, and as a result, are less desirable than more natural interventions.

Beavers are only one part of the strategy, and they are not a cookie-cutter solution to the panacea of problems that have cascaded ecologically eroding results onto these ecosystems.  Beavers are, however, ecosystem engineers with a well-deserved reputation as keystone species.  These particular keystones have been largely removed and subsequently often purposefully excluded from the landscape and from local ecosystems and as such, their introduction should be considered at many locations throughout the planned area.  Pretty much every living creature in the region will benefit from an active beaver population, from trout and salamanders to coyotes and butterflies.

The strategy, as it should be in most permaculture designs, is to use the smallest amount of work to do the largest amount of good, or to concentrate a large amount of effort for the greater gains that will be found in the future relative to that expended energy.  In the case of beavers, the concentration of their reintroduction into the region will be at least initially limited by where the greatest gains can be foreseen, either in the short term or over the long haul.  The purpose, besides rehydrating the landscape, would be to kick-start ecosystem dynamics.  

Poplars and other deciduous forests need to be well established before the introduction of beavers to any watershed in order that they have the capacity to handle the impact of their intensive and extensive activities.

Beavers and poplar/deciduous forests co-evolved on North American landscapes and have been able to successfully adapt to each other's population fluxes over many millennia.  Most deciduous species affected by beavers have evolved to replenish themselves in the form of multiple coppiced shoots.  The beavers will thrive on these as well, as you have alluded to, but the beavers will move on and leave them if the plants are consumed beyond the plant's ability to replenish sufficiently to cover the beaver population's dietary needs.  The beavers then will return to the grove a decade or two or more (sometimes many more) later when the stand has sufficiently recovered and the beaver population is moving in that direction.  In the meantime many of these old pond systems become drier, producing rare forested grass and sedge glades, boosting ecosystem diversity and health, and locking huge amounts of carbon.  Beaver dams may have been the basis for the idea of early hugulkultur.  

For a great read to understand more about beavers, I highly recommend the book EAGER:  The Surprising, Secret Lives of Beavers, and Why They Matter

A shorter read by the sadly deceased permaculture great Toby Hemenway The Watershed Wisdom of the Beaver

A book that contains some seminal work on beaver introductions in a nearby desolated region (in the title the word 'against' is about them having to deal with the threat of wildfires):  Three Against the Wilderness

Nicole Alderman wrote:

Roberto pokachinni wrote:The coppice species that I'm thinking of would be any that could be used for various purposes.  

Birch, for instance, can be coppiced and allowed to grow to clusters that contain many merchantable stems.

Alder, cottonwood, willows, birch, and poplar could be used for compost, mulch, and biochar.  Some of these are decent rocket stove fuel which is another project to promote.
 

Big Leaf Maple coppices really easily, and the coppiced trunks produce maple sap at as small as 8 inches in diameter (maybe smaller, but that's what I've found with my maples).

Your bioregion seems a lot like my own, just a bit cooler. Big Leaf Maples are native down here, and I do get sap out of mine, depending on the year. With cooler weather up there, they could probably get a lot more sap, and reduce it down to syrup. There's a market for our native Big Leaf Maple sap, and maple is a beautiful, relatively-dense wood for carving. It also has pretty high BTUs for firewood (aside from holly, it has the highest BTUs of any of the wood growing natively on my property!)

Hi Nicole,
Big Leaf maple is abundant in the South Western coastal part of B.C.  I have not heard that it is a natural part of the ecosystem in the upper parts of the Fraser River.  It may not take the cold; I'm not sure.  It may just have not had the opportunity to spread into the interior.  I agree that it is an excellent tree and a potential for introduction.  I would caution any introduction of a non-native species.  The interior has already lost an entire bio-type when an introduced rust disease, I think, from European domesticated white pine came in from nursery plants.  This is less likely with the maples as they are relatively close by, but I would be loath to introduce something that would affect the locally native Douglas maples (even though they are smaller and produce a lot less syrup).    

Roberto pokachinni wrote:

Nicole Alderman wrote:

Roberto pokachinni wrote:The coppice species that I'm thinking of would be any that could be used for various purposes.  

Birch, for instance, can be coppiced and allowed to grow to clusters that contain many merchantable stems.

Alder, cottonwood, willows, birch, and poplar could be used for compost, mulch, and biochar.  Some of these are decent rocket stove fuel which is another project to promote.
 

Big Leaf Maple coppices really easily, and the coppiced trunks produce maple sap at as small as 8 inches in diameter (maybe smaller, but that's what I've found with my maples).

Your bioregion seems a lot like my own, just a bit cooler. Big Leaf Maples are native down here, and I do get sap out of mine, depending on the year. With cooler weather up there, they could probably get a lot more sap, and reduce it down to syrup. There's a market for our native Big Leaf Maple sap, and maple is a beautiful, relatively-dense wood for carving. It also has pretty high BTUs for firewood (aside from holly, it has the highest BTUs of any of the wood growing natively on my property!)

Hi Nicole,
Big Leaf maple is abundant in the South Western coastal part of B.C.  I have not heard that it is a natural part of the ecosystem in the upper parts of the Fraser River.  It may not take the cold; I'm not sure.  It may just have not had the opportunity to spread into the interior.  I agree that it is an excellent tree and a potential for introduction.  I would caution any introduction of a non-native species.  The interior has already lost an entire bio-type when an introduced rust disease, I think, from European domesticated white pine came in from nursery plants.  This is less likely with the maples as they are relatively close by, but I would be loath to introduce something that would affect the locally native Douglas maples (even though they are smaller and produce a lot less syrup).    

That makes sense! As I kept reading in the thread, I noticed you mentioned Douglas maples as the only maples, but didn't have a chance to go back and edit my post (my kids wanted me to read them more of the Chronicles of Narnia, and we were at that for 1.5 hours...).

It makes sense that the Big Leaf Maples might not do so well in the colder areas--I think I recall reading that Big Leaf Maples don't do well at higher elevations here in Washington, but that Douglas Maples do grow at our higher elevations. I find it fascinating how the types of trees and plants change based on elevation and latitude in the pacific northwest.

Does Oregon Grape Root or Devil's Club? Both are medicinal and there's a market for them that could potentially act as an additional income source.

wrote:

The strategy, as it should be in most permaculture designs, is to use the smallest amount of work to do the largest amount of good, or to concentrate a large amount of effort for the greater gains that will be found in the future, relative to that expended energy.

Or as Sepp Holzer would say, "if you don't have pigs, you have to do the pig's work". In the ecosystem you're helping rehabilitate, your pigs are called "Beaver". They're surprisingly large and incredibly strong. They're also edible, and have useful hides, so if some are causing problems and can't be relocated, they can be utilized as an end product.

Robin Kimmerer, in Braiding Sweetgrass, describes interviewing a trapper. She was concerned that the trapper was trapping an animal she considered endangered. He described finding the nests and when it was birthing time, he'd actually put out food for the moms. When the young were old enough to trap, he'd trap so long as he was catching males. As soon as he caught a female, he'd stop trapping. His theory was that he was removing excess males (something I do with ducks all the time!) providing less competition for food for the females, thus helping the species recover faster. She came away from the interview with a respect for a viewpoint she hadn't considered. There's often more than one way to fix a problem. Having someone earn their livelihood, while having an understanding of doing so within Nature's carrying capacity, is an attitude that the "industrial" and the "economic" systems do not seem to reliably support. That is a part of permaculture that we need to work on!

You asked for suggestions so here is something I came across:

https://www.thepermaculturestudent.com/healing-large-landscapes-fast

You asked for suggestions so here is something I came across:

 Thanks Edward.  I really enjoy the way he presents his ideas.

In this thread, I've been talking about rehabilitating ecosystems that have been damaged and have explained my perspective on this as it relates to various factors. One of these was the decimation or extinction of local beaver populations.  I was involved in a process over the last few years to protect what is viewed as an intact wilderness.  That is true to the extent that most of it has had no industrial impact:  no roads, no logging, and no significant mines.  During the past couple of centuries, there was likely some gold prospecting and mining up there, but it had a pretty small impact I figure, but what about the beavers?

The ecosystems contained in that 250,000 acres have responded to the lack of beavers in many ways, most of which will be hard to figure out as the aspen forests and wetland areas have transitioned in many cases to pine, douglas fir, balsam, or spruce over the past 200 years.  But when one considers the ecosystem processes that result from the beaver activity, including increased hydrology, and the resulting diversity that springs up in wetlands, it seems imperative that the beaver population be reintroduced even to valleys that are 'undeveloped' wilderness.  These have, in my mind, been radically altered ecologically in the absence of formerly abundant beavers, and it is only the resilience of the other intact processes including the ecological diversity that is still present in such seemingly pristine places that create the illusion that they can get along fine without this keystone species.

fantastic endeavour. we need more people like you in the world. I'm a strong believer in planting fruit, nut and native trees to the area. not necessarily for the ones who plant them but for future generations. I dont cut a tree down unless its dead and can serve a better purpose than supporting wood peckers or other natural creatures that can benefit from it.

I'm a little bit concerned as a subscriber to the idea that permaculture is for people who have lost their connection to their ancestral relationship to their land. And in general first nations haven't--though certainly some have. And I'm unfamiliar with most things that far north so I don't know if the Simpcw  Nation have or haven't. I would tread carefully when talking about bringing them into line with permaculture.
However, it is a very exciting opportunity to work with the people stewarding such a large area of land.
The only thing I'd dare to offer is that you center water in your plans. Technology is creating a bigger and bigger demand for water (this morning I saw an article about the shocking amount of water used to cool the ChatGPT servers) so it's important that we secure water abundance.

Roberto pokachinni wrote: These have, in my mind, been radically altered ecologically in the absence of formerly abundant beavers, and it is only the resilience of the other intact processes including the ecological diversity that is still present in such seemingly pristine places that create the illusion that they can get along fine without this keystone species.

1. Do the people you've been working with, agree with your assessment?
2. Within the areas that have transitioned already, is it possible to identify areas in those valleys where there have been disturbance events - small forest fires, avalanches or rock slides as possible examples - and introduce beaver supporting species to those disturbed areas, as opposed to having to remove living trees?
3. Or are you better to remove living trees from areas where wetlands would have been before beaver were trapped, because that is where this keystone species would have lived, and use the resulting lumber for value added, community based support (building housing, creating saleable merchandise, etc)?

That's a challenge for many Generations by focusing first on your climate and average grow.

It will maybe even take longer than the time needed to destroy this huge habitat.

First you should get a hand in hand system where every farmer should start with alley cropping as much possible.
(Remember, the nature will always return to a forest landscape.)

With alley cropping (if all work hand in hand, and all farmers would pull the same string) you would have made a huge step ahead and many hands (all farmers and landlords) would be joining in.

Details you write down here is in my point of view completely impossible (moneywise and also see the workloads)...

Then reintroduce animals on small areas, where they can live their habits and let them do restauration works by expanding.
Look at Allan Savory's projects where he supports holistic regenerative management by using animals- even domestic ones, where the roaming big herds are lost...  

Absolute too big for my little 8 acre retirement food forest mindset, but I would think this way:
What can be done in 8 acres can be done in millions of acres, as long the whole population builds and the will and the interest is there.
(which is in my case only the family needed)

Imagine, just every household would plant 2 pots with trees how much could be changed in just a few years. Also in a climate of BC.

I've been thinking about the entire concept of Economics:
a) sustainability
b) is the whole greater than the sum of the parts
c) is it realistic to look at economics as "constant growth"

Trees grow until they die. A resource is only renewable, if it stays near where it was created. When we export a whole tree overseas (which is being done in North America) we are exporting carbon, which will return to us as air moves all over the planet. But the phosphorus, and many other minerals in that tree will only return to the valley through means such as volcanic action locally, or dust from the atmosphere. Trees, with the help of mycorrhizae,  can and do bring many minerals from deep in the earth to the surface, but reading books on coppicing, tells me that this is not necessarily a speedy process - even coppicing needs to be done with sustainability in mind.

The local people need livelihoods. Most humans given the option, will not want to live the way people did 500 years ago. So figuring out truly sustainable local employment needs to be evaluated carefully. To me, the first step is truly sustainable energy. Much of modern technology/farming/housing etc is completely dependent on fossil fuels directly or indirectly. For example, if the area develops the tourist trade, how many of those tourists will arrive by plane or car? If they arrive by electric car, where will the electricity come from to recharge those cars? Where will the energy come from to build the roads used to take tourists to the places they want to see, or hunt, or fish, etc? What are the natural resources which would allow the people to produce a net energy gain when you subtract all the embodied energy that many "green" energy sometimes seems to gloss over? I believe there are ways. Yes, some "damage" may result from installing sustainable power generation, but Nature has shown tremendous capacity to heal damage if give the support she needs to do so. But I think that an important first step is to look at the resources available and determine how energy can be captured responsibly for a very long time.

Thank you all for all these responses. I'm working long hours right now, but will get back to this to honor your input soon.

Shades of green - power generation!

Personally, I lean towards the "first just use less" angle as many humans seem to think energy is limitless and entropy is for millions of years from now. However, there are plenty of permies who get by on much less power and live perfectly rewarding lifestyles (simply by using a clothesline instead of a dryer!)

This is a quote from a video listed below from "Just Have a Think":

Remote Area Energy Requirements

1. Small scale, locally controlled power generation.
2. Reliable, affordable electricity available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
3. Minimal, or even zero, environmental impact.
4. The ability to hook up to a grid system or run off grid.

I saw a brief article relating to an Indigenous group nearer to me which spoke of "Energy Sovereignty". To me, genuine control would go a long way to reducing item 2 on the list. If I knew I had to reduce or eliminate electricity usage for 4 hours a day or 6 hours at night, I could do that, although I might want a battery flashlight by my bed for emergencies. However I've got a friend that uses a CPAP machine who bought herself an external power source gizmo to cover what for her is an essential piece of equipment. This issue is not a simple, one right answer issue!

Run of river:
This article on run of river still uses a weir across the entire width of the river, which means you'll still get build up of sand/silt behind it and quite possibly interfere with salmon migration.
https://www.ctc-n.org/technology-library/renewable-energy/run-river-hydropower

In comparison, this "business as usual" description of run of river hydro uses the expression: "If they are built in locations where flow rate is fairly low for a period of time and then peaks dramatically, there will be a large amount of "wasted" water during the peak flow periods..." Since when is river water doing what river water is supposed to do, considered a "waste"?  https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Run-of-the-river_hydroelectricity
A huge issue with hydro electric production is the damage to the river's delta. Delta's are wetlands and pretty much all our wetlands are under environmental threat. So for hydro power to be an option, it needs a totally different approach!

Compare the above to whirlpool turbines:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buF8ASmwXt4&pp=ygUTcnVuIG9mIHJpdmVyIGh5ZHJvIA%3D%3D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fiqXGkaomw

However, are there rivers in the area Marko is working on that run year round? If not, this may still be a "peak season" summer use option, but I will look for other options as well.

I was thinking about your endeavor yesterday and thought about Masanobu Fukuoka's clay balls. Learning which seeds would be the highest ROI and kick off the diversity that once existed there.

So I got back from a marathon work stint away from home and now I'll try to address some posts that came in during that absence.  

Hi Melissa Ferrin,

I'm a little bit concerned as a subscriber to the idea that permaculture is for people who have lost their connection to their ancestral relationship to their land. And in general first nations haven't--though certainly some have. And I'm unfamiliar with most things that far north so I don't know if the Simpcw  Nation have or haven't. I would tread carefully when talking about bringing them into line with permaculture.

 I agree.  In my dealings with most Indigenous folks in regard to how they live on the land, it is always a careful process.  I have no intention of offending anybody, of course, and the way to approach this would vary, definitely, depending upon the people one is discussing these ideas with.  The Simpcw population was decimated by various colonial influences, including much of it's elder knowledge.  They do have some traditional cultural elements that they have held onto in spite of these sad losses or they have subsequently learned traditional practices from the other campfires in the Sepwepemc nation.  The greater Sepwepemc nation and neighbouring tribes in the Southern part of the region had the great fortune of having ethnological work done where many other nations on Turtle Island (aka North America) have not.  The process isn't to bring them 'in line' but to share my vision with them, explain its merits, and see if we can work together to combine our visions for a new direction that heals the land's ecosystems and water cycles and the people (both Indigenous and Settlers) so that we can create a space that is both permacultural and in line with their traditional culture advancing into the future.  

However, it is a very exciting opportunity to work with the people stewarding such a large area of land.
The only thing I'd dare to offer is that you center water in your plans. Technology is creating a bigger and bigger demand for water (this morning I saw an article about the shocking amount of water used to cool the ChatGPT servers) so it's important that we secure water abundance.

It is indeed an exciting opportunity.  Water will be central and is one of the foundations of their own cultural guidelines.  I think the reintroduction of beaver-based ecosystems is paramount to this process.

Hi Jay Angler,

in response to what I wrote here:  

Roberto pokachinni wrote:
These have, in my mind, been radically altered ecologically in the absence of formerly abundant beavers, and it is only the resilience of the other intact processes including the ecological diversity that is still present in such seemingly pristine places that create the illusion that they can get along fine without this keystone species.

 
You had these queries:

1. Do the people you've been working with, agree with your assessment?
2. Within the areas that have transitioned already, is it possible to identify areas in those valleys where there have been disturbance events - small forest fires, avalanches or rock slides as possible examples - and introduce beaver supporting species to those disturbed areas, as opposed to having to remove living trees?
3. Or are you better to remove living trees from areas where wetlands would have been before beaver were trapped, because that is where this keystone species would have lived, and use the resulting lumber for value added, community based support (building housing, creating saleable merchandise, etc)?

The valley hasn't been logged because it is difficult to access and the private land that exists in the lower end of the valley is held by ranchers who don't want further development.   The idea would not be to remove trees (log it) at all (unless a village or camp needed to be built in that part of the valley in the future).  The idea would be to plant the edges of waterways with willows, birches, and perhaps construct a B.D.A  Beaver Dam Analog  (a human-made dam of natural wooden materials built to create deep water safety for the beavers) and as the beavers expand the BDA flooded area and it killed various areas of somewhat wetter zone adapted conifers, then plant those zones with poplars and cottonwoods which expand clonally.  These introductions would happen naturally over time.  The idea would be to help the process out a bit, and then let it go.