Low Tech Restoration

Q & A

Joe Wheaton : Hello folks. Thanks for letting a guy from Utah (I am actually a California native as Wendell said) crash the party. Here are slides if you want any of links: http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19017.57448

Comment -  Love, love, love it!!
 

Q -       Can you explain what part of this CA has not adopted?
 

Q -       Has PBR started catching on in the East at all?

A -        Yes! We've worked with some partners in Maine and Maryland. There are also some examples popping up in Georgia, Kentucky, and the upper Midwest. Every western state has examples now.... including as far east as North Dakota, South Dakota and Texas.
 

Q -        Is there still a role for selecting cattle and cattle behavior for upland preference?
A -        Yes! Actually, I glossed over the types of cows Jay is using. Those Angus (he tells me) don't mind getting up into that higher more rugged terrain, whereas the Holsteins (from old small dairy operations) were much less inclined to be moved. I'd love to learn more about this... however, there is a lot we can do with "Zeedyk" structures in some of the ephemeral and intermittent draws to build up more soil moisture and keep wet meadows or vernal pools, that can help with spreading those resources throughout a watershed too.
 

Q -       Has NRCS allowed this in CA?
A -        NRCS can use these low-tech practices as they are a nationally-adopted practice. However, for conservation practices to be used the local conservationists need to be aware of them. I am not aware of if these have been used yet with NRCS in California. NRCS doesn't play a regulatory role for these projects.

California NRCS can help pay for low-tech restoration through its Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), among other programs. Talk to your local NRCS District Conservationist and ask about conservation practice 643 for Beaver Dam Analogues and Post-Assisted Log Structures.
 

Q -        We can’t relocate beavers in CA yet
Q -       Regs is CA do not allow translocation of beavers
A -        Yep. There are big movements to push CDFW (and from within) to remove these antiquated regs based on out-of-date and since disproved science. They can and are doing a few pilots and experiments. However, contact your state legislators and ask them why CDFW has not updated their policies.

Q -       Can you provide more links for us.
A -        https://www.rrnw.org/biocultural/ and: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348848989_Low-Tech_Restoration_How_to_use_it_on_your_ranch

Q -       What is the role of fish and game?
A -        In California CDFW is responsible for the management of fur-bearers like beaver. You need to work with the state wildlife management agency if you are doing live-trapping and translocation (CDFW is really behind on this). They also set regulations on trapping (minimal) and comment on stream-bed alteration permits for low-tech projects.
 

Q -       Are the man-made BDAs taken out once beavers have been established?
A -        Nope. They get co-opted by beaver, or just break down over time.
 

Comment -      Wow, that is amazing!!!
 

Q -       What's the suitability of BDAs and PALs in regions with significant incision (10-15') and nearby infrastructure, where reestablishing or reengaging floodplains would be challenging?
A -        In the planning process that Damion spoke about we start by mapping the valley bottom, then we map infrastructure and landuse in valley bottom. It usually isn't all or nothing. You can often still do something even with some constraints. For more info, see: http://lowtechpbr.restoration.usu.edu/workshops/2020/SGI/Modules/module3#e-risk-assessment-condition-assessment--recovery-potential and http://lowtechpbr.restoration.usu.edu/workshops/2020/SGI/Modules/module4#c-leading-design-with-recovery-potential

Q -       Are there any 'Zeedyk' structure conservation practices available through the NRCS?  if not, is anyone working on getting a practice developed?

A -        Yes, NRCS can cost share on Zeedyk structures as well. See conservation practice 643 "rock structure" payment scenario in EQIP.

Q -       Re: cattle behavior, maybe it is more of a beef vs. dairy difference rather than Angus cattle behavior per se?

A -        I think that grazing behavior is likely as much a matter of genetic lines within breeds as characteristics across breeds.

Q -       NRCS practices are available, but we hit roadblocks on federal, state and county regs on working in waterways. How are ranchers/landowners working through this?
 

Q -        Good to see this, but what about low tech cultural restoration and Indigenous Knowledge of tending these regions. It would also be nice to see land acknowledgement of First People.
A -        Great points. We've had some wonderful partnerships with the Yakama Nations and the Shoshone Bannock. There are many other tribes doing this sort of work. Compared to traditional restoration, tribes are often quite excited about this sort of work as tribal members can be involved in the implementation.