​

For mesic habitat restoration, NRCS has developed a number of supporting documents under Conservation Practice 643 to support planning and implementation of cheap and cheerful restoration techniques. Included below are the national conservation practice standard, example template specification sheets for BDAs and Zeedyk structures, as well as, an informal risk considerations checklist. Actual documents and requirements may vary by state, so please consult your NRCS State Biologist for more information

Template SPecification sheets - Conservation practice 643

Click on template specification sheets below for examples for BDAs versus Zeedyk Structures.

Assessing Risk

​The risk matrix represents a continuous gradient of considerations designed to help planners determine the most appropriate sites to consider low-tech structures (e.g., Beaver Dam Analogues, Zeedyk techniques). 

Four scenarios are described to represent different ends of the spectrum. The variables listed under each scenario are meant to help planners weigh risks and determine when more complex design review or alternatives may be needed. 

This is simply a risk assessment tool, and all applicable national and state practice standards and planning policies must be followed when designing and implementing low-tech structures.

• LOW RISK TO PROPERTY, GOOD VIABILITY: Sites supporting a preponderance of these characteristics represent potential ‘low-hanging fruit’ opportunities to utilize low-tech structures to achieve project goals while minimizing risk to high-value property or infrastructure. Also, structure lifespan will likely be long enough to meet stream function objectives
  
• LOW RISK TO PROPERTY, POOR VIABILITY: Sites supporting a preponderance of these characteristics need additional review and consideration of appropriateness of the practice. Low-tech structures are more likely to need to be rebuilt or maintained more frequently due to increased stream power. Consider whether project objectives can still be met if structures are in place for a limited timeframe and if landowner is willing to conduct frequent repair.
  
• HIGH RISK TO PROPERTY, GOOD VIABILITY: Sites supporting a preponderance of these characteristics should undergo significant multi-disciplinary technical review to evaluate risk of low-tech structures negatively affecting property or infrastructure. If property/infrastructure risks can be minimized, structures could be useful in meeting project objectives and should have a reasonable lifespan.
  
• HIGH RISK TO PROPERTY, POOR VIABILITY: Sites supporting a preponderance of these characteristics are not typically appropriate for low-tech structures. The risk of structures failing combined with nearby infrastructure and high-value property make low-tech solutions less viable. Seek alternatives with more rigorous engineering design.