Standards Oversight Council Full Revision Process CPS 582 Open - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Standards Oversight Council

Full Revision Process

CPS 582 Open Channel CPS 580 Streambank & Shoreline Protection CPS 584 Channel Bed Stabilization CPS 395 Stream Habitat Improvement & Management

Conservation Practice Standards

CPSs are developed to put conservation improvements on the ground to improve natural resources with respect to soil, water, air, plants, animals, and energy, with human considerations a factor in every decision. Contain information on the definition, purpose, and conditions where the conservation practice applies, and sets forth the minimum criteria for designing, installing, operating, and maintaining a conservation practice to achieve its intended purpose.

Conservation Practice Standards

NRCS National Handbook of Conservation Practices contains a list of 161 CPSs. It sets forth the procedures for development, review, and maintenance of the national standards. Each state must adopt the CPSs needed in that state. The national CPS can be used within a state without modification, or the CPS may be supplemented to include additional requirements to meet state or local needs. NRCS Field Office Technical Guide, Section IV, contains the 135 CPSs adopted by Wisconsin: 72 are engineering practices, 63 are ecological science practices.

Conservation Practice Standards

CPS evolve with advancement in farming and ranching techniques used throughout the world and with changes in technology as documented by research, conservation field trials, and accumulated experience. National Headquarters formally reviews CPSs every 5 years. Wisconsin has 1 year after the issuance of a revised standard to directly issue, or develop a state-modified (supplemented) standard for use in the WI Field Office Technical Guide.

Conservation Practice Standards

CPSs protect the resources, landowner, conservation contractors, land and water conservation employees, and NRCS employees. When a conservation practice is installed according to the criteria specified in the CPS— (1) Landowners receive a conservation product that addresses or mitigates the identified resource concern. (2) Contractors and technical service providers understand their responsibility to provide a quality product on the ground. They are not required to warranty a product beyond the requirements of the standard. (3) NRCS employees are assured they are working within the scope of their employment.

Conservation Practice Standards

CPSs are prepared primarily for use by NRCS personnel, but they are available for anyone having an interest in or a responsibility for conservation of natural resources. CPSs are often used as a basis for Federal and State program payments (cost-share), permitting, and enforcement. Conservation practices that are designed and installed in accordance with CPSs can by technically certified by a qualified staff to meet program/permit eligibility.

NRCS Goals

Goal #1: Supplement the CPSs with criteria and instructions that are specific to Wisconsin stream restoration work based on science and experience. Conditions specific to Wisconsin:

• Local hydrology
• Channel morphology (stream types)
• Geomorphic setting (valley types or geology)
• Fish and aquatic species
• Riparian ecology
• Floodplain conditions

Goal #2: Encourage state-wide adoption of the CPSs among conservation agencies, permitting agencies, and the private sector. CPSs should establish technical consistency among practitioners so as not to undermine our common efforts.

What can and cannot be changed

DEFINITION: Describes the technology.

• We cannot change the CPS definition

PURPOSE: Identifies the primary resource concerns that the practice is designed to treat.

• We can delete CPS purposes, but not add purposes.

CONDITIONS WHERE PRACTICE APPLIES: Describes site conditions where the practice is suitable and will function successfully.

• Suitable and unsuitable conditions can be explained.
• Scope of the standard can be limited. Statutes, regulations, and

agency policies limiting the extent of the practice may be included.

• Technical or empirical limitations can be included

What can and cannot be changed

CRITERIA: Minimum requirements needed to achieve the intended purposes.

• Design requirements and limitations can be added based on science and

experience.

• Design methods, design tools/software, documents, or other standards

can be referenced.

• Specific instructions or steps can be provided.
• Performance outcomes can be described.

CONSIDERATIONS: Contains non-critical or optional information that can provide additional benefits or enhance the practice.

• We can modify and add without fear of making the standard less

restrictive.

• Ideal for interdisciplinary and environmental precautions.

What can and cannot be changed

PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS: Describes the minimum requirements for how plans and specifications are to be prepared for field sites.

• Plan drawings, construction & material specifications, and

narrative report requirements can be added OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE: Describes the minimum activities that must be performed to ensure proper function.

• Operation and maintenance activities can be added

KEY ISSUES FOR THE STANDARDS

Issue #1: Reference a multitude of channel design methods

• Presents methods not applicable to the geographic regions of WI
• Creates confusion in the design and review process
• Discourages conservation efforts with unnecessary levels of sophistication

KEY ISSUES FOR THE STANDARDS

Example: CPS 582 directs user to NRCS NEH, Part 654 “Stream Restoration Design,” where stable channel design procedures are set forth in two broad categories, plus hybrids. (what methods are required or recommended in WI?)

• Threshold Channel Design
• Allowable Velocity Method
• Allowable Shear Stress Method
• Tractive Power Method
• Alluvial Channel Design
• Regime Method
• Analogy Method
• Hydraulic Geometry Method
• Analytical Method

 Hybrid Channel Design

• Two-Stage (Ditch) Channel Design
• Rosgen Geomorphic Channel Design

KEY ISSUES FOR THE STANDARDS

Issue #2: Sediment competency and hydraulic criteria are vague

Example: CPS 582 doesn’t specify a method for ensuring sediment competency

• “Excessive sediment bars do not develop”
• “Channel neither aggrades nor degrades beyond tolerable limits”

Example: CPS 582 doesn’t specify a design discharge for the as-built and aged channel condition.

• As-built condition
• “Bankfull, design discharge, or 10-year frequency flow, whichever is smallest”

(how vulnerable should we leave the as-built condition?)

• Aged condition
• “Bankfull or design discharge, whichever is larger”

(what should be the design discharge?)

KEY ISSUES FOR THE STANDARDS

Issue #3: Missing site-specific hydrology & hydraulic modeling or analysis

• Difficult to replicate successes and adjust for failures on subsequent sites

if designs are not fully documented.

• Results in a template approach to restorations with no adjustments for:
• Local hydrology
• Channel morphology (stream type)
• Geomorphic setting (valley types or geology)
• Fish and aquatic species
• Riparian ecology
• Floodplain conditions

Example: Slope the banks back at 5:1, rock the toe, install some large wood or boulders, and seed the disturbed areas.

KEY ISSUES FOR THE STANDARDS

Issue #4: Soils & geologic investigation criteria is unclear

• Frequency and depth of soil logging in the bed and banks
• What level of sampling and testing is required for bed, banks, and sediment?
• What is the geomorphic setting (valley type and geologic context)?

KEY ISSUES FOR THE STANDARDS

Issue #5: Minimum criteria for site assessments is vague

• Apply CPSs without a clear understanding of the problem

Examples of Assessment Findings:

• Geomorphic Setting
• Rosgen Stream Classification
• Bank Erosion Index
• Sediment Competency
• Habitat Suitability Index
• Stream Visual Assessment Protocol Version 2
• Riparian Vegetation

Examples of Assessment Conclusions:

• Downcutting
• Widening or over-widened
• Stabilizing

(localized bank erosion or systemic channel impairment)

KEY ISSUES FOR THE STANDARDS

Issue #6: Conditions where the practices apply (lacking in the context of stream restoration)

When is streambank protection (rock riprap) necessary? Is streambank protection required on every channel bend? Need a connecting statement between CPS 580, 582, 584, and 395 in the context of stream restoration work.

KEY ISSUES FOR THE STANDARDS

Issue #7: Minimum criteria for riparian treatment missing

A lot of trees are being removed in the riparian area for eradication of invasive species, fishability, effects on adjacent cropland, visual aesthetics, etc. Riparian vegetation

• improves floodplain function (vegetative resistance attenuates peak flood flows

downstream.

• increases wildlife diversity
• reduces water temperatures
• deep and extensive root systems resist sudden or explosive channel migration,

particularly when the channel is left constrained and vulnerable to large flows;

• r the bank treatment veneer (rock riprap) degrades.

**We are missing valuable ecological (or historical) site descriptions