Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A decision-making procedure for streambank Management on Vancouver Island Moore, M. Keith 1976

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1976_A8 M66.pdf [ 8.12MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093807.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093807-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093807-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093807-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093807-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093807-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093807-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093807-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093807.ris

Full Text

A DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURE FOR STREAMBANK MANAGEMENT ON VANCOUVER ISLAND by MICHAEL KEITH MOORE B. Comm., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1969 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS In the Department o f Geography We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1976 @ Michael Keith Moore, 1976 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make it f ree l y ava i l ab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th i s thes is for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th is thes i s fo r f i nanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my wr i t ten permission. Department of The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date S£1>T /<Pl 1 ABSTRACT A new approach f o r making management d e c i s i o n s about the l o g g i n g of f o r e s t e d streambanks i s presented i n t h i s t h e s i s . For s e v e r a l years a d m i n i s t r a t i v e g u i d e l i n e s or r e g u l a t o r y clauses have r e q u i r e d that narrow s t r i p s of v e g e t a t i o n be l e f t along a l l streambanks a f t e r l o g g i n g but experience with these g u i d e l i n e s or r e g u l a t o r y c l a u s e s has not always been s a t i s f a c t o r y . In many cases the type of s t r i p t h a t i s l e f t i s not w e l l s u i t e d to the p a r t i c u l a r streambank s i t e or to the needs o f the users of that s i t e and a new procedure f o r making streambank management d e c i s i o n s i s c l e a r l y needed. The decision-making procedure developed and t e s t e d i n t h i s t h e s i s p r o v i d e s a r o u t i n e , c o n s i s t e n t method f o r s i t e - s p e c i f i c decision-making on any Vancouver I s l a n d streambank s i t e s l a t e d f o r l o g g i n g . It i n c l u d e s a range of p o s s i b l e management a l t e r n a t i v e s and a method f o r determining which a l t e r n a t i v e i s a p p r o p r i a t e to a given s i t e . A c h e c k l i s t i s used to assess a number of p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the stream and streambank and to determine the resource uses of the s i t e . The value of the v e g e t a t i o n along the streambank to the users i s then i d e n t i f i e d and from t h i s environmental b a s i s , the width and type of vegetated leave s t r i p best s u i t e d to the i n t e g r a t e d use management o f the s i t e i s i n d i c a t e d . The procedure was f i e l d t e s t e d on seven d i f f e r e n t streambank s i t e s on Vancouver I s l a n d . C h e c k l i s t s were completed by i n d i v i d u a l p a r t i c i p a n t s and d e c i s i o n s about the width and type o f s t r i p to be l e f t were made according to the procedure. W r i t t e n q u a l i t a t i v e comments were s o l i c i t e d . i i A n a l y s i s of the f i e l d t e s t r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that there were a number of shortcomings i n the c h e c k l i s t and i n the procedure g e n e r a l l y and r e v i s i o n s and improvements are suggested. There was however s u f f i c i e n t c o n s i s t e n c y i n the r e s u l t s to i n d i c a t e that the procedure c o u l d be used r o u t i n e l y and c o n s i s t e n t l y by f i e l d l e v e l personnel and would improve streambank management d e c i s i o n s . The q u a l i t a t i v e r e a c t i o n to the procedure was g e n e r a l l y f a v o u r a b l e . I t was f e l t to be a u s e f u l and v a l u a b l e i n n o v a t i o n and s e v e r a l p a r t i c i p a n t s i n d i c a t e d that they would be prepared to use i t on an o p e r a t i o n a l b a s i s . It i s concluded that a u s e f u l procedure f o r making s i t e - s p e c i f i c i n t e g r a t e d use d e c i s i o n s has been developed f o r f o r e s t e d streambanks. Recommendations are made f o r f u r t h e r improvement of t h i s procedure and f o r i t s a p p l i c a t i o n to other resource management problems. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I INTRODUCTION 1 II DEVELOPMENT OF A DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURE 9 A. Conceptual Background 9 B. Assumptions, L i m i t a t i o n s and Key Words 12 C. Geographical Area 13 D. Development of a Decision-Making Procedure••••15 II I EXPLANATION OF A DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURE FOR STREAMBANK MANAGEMENT 18 IV FIELD TESTING PROCEDURE AND ANALYSIS 2 8 A. O b j e c t i v e s of F i e l d Tests 28 B. L o c a t i o n of F i e l d Tests 29 C. D e s c r i p t i o n of F i e l d Test P a r t i c i p a n t s 30 D. O r g a n i z a t i o n o f F i e l d Tests 34 E. Methods of A n a l y s i s 37 1. Consistency of i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d 37 2. Con s i s t e n c y of s t r a t e g i e s i n d i c a t e d 38 3. Reaction to the procedure 38 4. Need f o r r e v i s i o n and m o d i f i c a t i o n 39 5. Time and e f f o r t r e q u i r e d . . . 39 V RESULTS OF FIELD TESTING 40 A. Consistency of Information C o l l e c t e d 40 B. Con s i s t e n c y of S t r a t e g i e s I n d i c a t e d 62 C. Q u a l i t a t i v e E v a l u a t i o n of Procedure 66 D. Need f o r R e v i s i o n and M o d i f i c a t i o n 75 E. Time and E f f o r t Required 76 i v Chapter Page VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 78 A. Conclusions 78 B. Recommendations'.. For. Future Research 81 LIST OF REFERENCES 83 V APPENDICES I "A Decision-Making Procedure For Streambank Management on Vancouver I s l a n d " . II L e t t e r to F i e l d Test P a r t i c i p a n t s II I On-Site C h e c k l i s t B. IV Working Paper and Comment Sheet V Q u a l i t a t i v e Comments and Text of L e t t e r s Received v i LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 A Model For Decision-Making i n Resource Management 9 2 A Decision-Making Procedure 11 3 L o c a t i o n of Study Areas 14 4 Decision-Making Procedure B 20 5 L o c a t i o n of F i e l d Tests 31 6 L o c a t i o n of F i e l d Tests 32 7 P a r t i c i p a n t s i n F i e l d Tests 33 v i i LIST OF TABLES Tables ' Page 1 Consistency of Responses to On-Site C h e c k l i s t B... 42 2 Most C o n s i s t e n t Items on On-Site C h e c k l i s t B 47 3 Least C o n s i s t e n t Items on On-Site C h e c k l i s t B 48 4 M a j o r i t y of Responses I n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Author.... 49 5 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f M u l t i p l e Responses 50 6 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Don't Know and Not A p p l i c a b l e Responses 50 7 Consistency of S t r a t e g i e s I n d i c a t e d i n F i e l d Tests •. . 63 v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The major p o r t i o n of the f i e l d w o r k f o r t h i s t h e s i s , the development of the decision-making procedure and the sub-sequent f i e l d - t e s t i n g were funded with a r e s e a r c h c o n t r a c t p r o v i d e d by the F o r e s t Research D i v i s i o n of the B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e . S p e c i a l thanks are extended to Mr. Ralph Schmidt, F o r e s t 2 i / c , Research D i v i s i o n f o r h i s help i n e n a b l i n g t h i s p r o j e c t to be undertaken and f o r h i s c o n t i n u i n g support and a d v i c e . Thanks are a l s o due to Dr. Ted Baker, Research P e d o l o g i s t , and s e v e r a l other members of the Research D i v i s i o n who served on the Working Committee. The e a r l y f i e l d w o r k from which the t h e s i s evolved was funded by the Vancouver I s l a n d Region of the B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch as p a r t of the Careers '74 program. I extend s p e c i a l thanks to Dr. D a r r y l Hebert, Regional W i l d l i f e B i o l o g i s t , Nanaimo and Mr. Doug Morrison, Regional H a b i t a t P r o t e c t i o n B i o l o g i s t , Nanaimo, f o r t h e i r e a r l y encouragement and t h e i r c o n t i n u i n g support and a d v i c e . I a l s o extend my s i n c e r e thanks t o : Dr. J.H.G. Smith, F a c u l t y of F o r e s t r y U.B.C. who s t i m u l a t e d my i n t e r e s t i n f o r e s t r y and l a t e r served as a reader of t h i s t h e s i s , making many u s e f u l comments. Mr. C o l i n Bowling, who a s s i s t e d i n a great deal of the f i e l d w o r k and put up with a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of haphazard decision-making and many wet days. Mr. Stan N i c h o l s , Environmental F o r e s t e r , B.C. F o r e s t Products, who served on the Working Committee ix and p r o v i d e d c o n s t r u c t i v e c r i t i c a l comments. Mr. M. V. Moore who commented on the s t y l e and content of the e a r l y d r a f t s of t h i s t h e s i s . Mrs. Kathleen Conover and Mrs. Jayne L a c r o i x who typed s e v e r a l d r a f t s of t h i s t h e s i s , o f t e n on short notice;.., The many engineers, f o r e s t e r s and b i o l o g i s t s who spent days i n the f i e l d with me, o f f e r i n g u s e f u l advice and suggestions. I am a l s o g r a t e f u l to the C o u n c i l of F o r e s t I n d u s t r i e s and i t s member companies who o f t e n p r o v i d e d needed t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and accommodation duri n g the f i e l d w o r k . And f i n a l l y I thank my t h e s i s s u p e r v i s o r , Dr. Gary R. Gates, Department of Geography, U.B.C. This t h e s i s c o u l d not have been developed without h i s guidance, support and c o n t i n u a l supply o f id e a s . His c o n t r i b u t i o n has been very l a r g e indeed. Thank you. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION B r i t i s h Columbia's vast f o r e s t s have long been regarded as one of our most important n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s . For many years they have been p r o v i d i n g the timber which i s the source of much of our wealth, and f o r many years the manage-ment of our f o r e s t s was d i r e c t e d mainly to ensuring a p e r p e t u a l supply of that timber. Recently, however, there have been dramatic changes i n f o r e s t management, and f o r e s t managers i n both government and p r i v a t e i n d u s t r y have now expressed t h e i r commitment to the i n t e g r a t e d management of the f o r e s t s f o r the p e r p e t u a t i o n o f f i s h , w i l d l i f e , r e c r e a t i o n and a e s t h e t i c values as w e l l as f o r timber. The B r i t i s h Columbia F o r e s t S e r v i c e , as f o r e s t adminis-t r a t i v e agent f o r the government of B.C., which owns 95% of the p r o v i n c e ' s f o r e s t e d l a n d , r e c e n t l y s t a t e d that i t s o b j e c t i v e i s "to develop and enforce p o l i c i e s which w i l l ensure f o r a l l time the proper balance of timber supply, forage p r o d u c t i o n , f o r e s t r e c r e a t i o n , w i l d l i f e p r o t e c t i o n and environmental p r e s e r v a t i o n ..." on the lands i t adm i n i s t e r s . (B.C. Fores t S e r v i c e , 1973, p. 1) B r i t i s h Columbia F o r e s t Products, a l a r g e , i n t e g r a t e d f o r e s t company o p e r a t i n g on p r i v a t e and crown land, s t a t e d that i t s management p o l i c y p r o v i d e s f o r "the continuous p r o d u c t i o n of f i b r e , the maintenance of water and s o i l r e s o u r c e s , the p r e s e r v a t i o n o f f i s h e r i e s and w i l d l i f e 1 2 r e s o u r c e s and the development o f the r e c r e a t i o n a l r e s o u r c e " (B.C. F o r e s t P r o d u c t s L i m i t e d , 1972, p. 1 ) . And Denis Timmis, former P r e s i d e n t o f M a c M i l l a n B l o e d e l , d e c l a r e d t h a t " the i n d u s t r y i s committed to m u l t i p l e use" (Timmis, 1974, p. 65). S i m i l a r l y , the A s s o c i a t i o n o f B r i t i s h Columbia P r o f e s s i o n a l F o r e s t e r s s t a t e d i t s commitment to -the "promotion o f those p o l i c i e s o f i n t e g r a t e d use of f o r e s t l a n d f o r t i m b e r p r o d u c t i o n , r e c r e a t i o n , w i l d l i f e and water management which u l t i m a t e l y p r o v i d e the g r e a t e s t s o c i a l and economic b e n e f i t t o s o c i e t y " ( A s s o c i a t i o n o f B.C. P r o f e s s i o n a l F o r e s t e r s , 1970, p. 1 ) . Thus the concept o f i n t e g r a t e d , o r m u l t i p l e , use management o f the f o r e s t r e s o u r c e has been espoused by government, i n d u s t r y , and p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n . In p r a c t i c e , however, i t has p r o v e d t o be a much more d i f f i c u l t concept to implement. In 1972, the B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e , i n an attempt to f o s t e r the p r a c t i c e o f the i n t e g r a t e d management c o n c e p t , i s s u e d a s e t o f " P l a n n i n g G u i d e l i n e s f o r Coast L o g g i n g O p e r a t i o n s " (B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e , 1972) and began t o use a s e t o f P r o t e c t i v e C l a u s e s i n i t s Management Manual (B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e , 1954, Amendment L e t t e r A.L. 50, 1969). Both the " G u i d e l i n e s " and the use o f P r o t e c t i v e C l a u s e s were d e s i g n e d t o m i n i m i z e the d e l e t e r i o u s e f f e c t s o f l o g g i n g o p e r a t i o n s on the o t h e r u s e r s o f the f o r e s t 3 resource and were a r e c o g n i t i o n of the F o r e s t S e r v i c e r o l e i n p r o v i d i n g f o r a l l f o r e s t resource u s e r s . But r e a c t i o n to the " G u i d e l i n e s " was extremely c r i t i c a l and experience w i t h t h e i r implementation exposed a number of shortcomings. They proved to be very expensive (Benskin, 1975) , and sometimes caused lengthy delays i n g e t t i n g plans approved ( C o u n c i l of F o r e s t I n d u s t r i e s , 1974). They a l s o tended to be r i g i d l y or i n f l e x i b l y a p p l i e d by people who were u n c l e a r as to the i n t e n t i o n s of " G u i d e l i n e s " and the needs of other resource users ( C o u n c i l of F o r e s t I n d u s t r i e s , 1973, 1974). But more fundamental was the complaint that "they do not always achieve t h e i r intended r e s u l t s " (Department of R e c r e a t i o n and Conservation, 1975, p. 53) and i n some cases were a c t u a l l y d e t r i m e n t a l to the very resource users they were designed to p r o t e c t ( C o u n c i l of F o r e s t I n d u s t r i e s , 1974). T h e i r f a i l i n g s i n these regards have p o i n t e d out the need f o r a l t e r n a t i v e s to a d m i n i s t r a t i v e g u i d e l i n e s i n managing the n a t u r a l environment and the need f o r d e c i s i o n -making procedures which are f l e x i b l e and which r e l y on s i t e - s p e c i f i c e v a l u a t i o n of important f a c t o r s , r a t h e r than uniform p r e s c r i b e d standards or g u i d e l i n e s . Streambanks p r o v i d e an e x c e l l e n t example of the shortcomings of g u i d e l i n e s and r e g u l a t o r y c l a u s e s , and the experience i n B r i t i s h Columbia with streambank management g u i d e l i n e s c l e a r l y demonstrates t h i s need f o r f l e x i b l e decision-making procedures. Streambanks are complex n a t u r a l systems i n which the m u l t i p l e users of the f o r e s t resource tend to c o i n c i d e , 4 i n t e r a c t and c o n f l i c t . They o f t e n grow the most v a l u a b l e and most a c c e s s i b l e timber i n the f o r e s t while p r o v i d i n g some of the most d e s i r a b l e r e c r e a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s and b e a u t i f u l scenery. V e g e t a t i o n along the streambank provi d e s shade, s h e l t e r and food f o r f i s h i n the stream and ensures the flow of c l e a n , pure water to users down-stream. Trees i n the streambank area provide h a b i t a t f o r numerous species of animals and b i r d s and the r e t e n t i o n of some of these t r e e s and the understory v e g e t a t i o n can p l a y an important r o l e i n m a i n t a i n i n g f i s h and w i l d l i f e p o p u l a t i o n s and p r e s e r v i n g the q u a l i t y of the stream water (Burns, 1970 and McMynn, 1970).• Thus i t was i n e v i t a b l e t h a t the commitment to i n t e g r a t e d or m u l t i p l e use management and the p r o t e c t i o n of f i s h , w i l d l i f e and r e c r e a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s would l e a d to r e s t r i c t i o n s on the l o g g i n g a c t i v i t i e s t a k i n g p l a c e on streambanks. Some general l i m i t a t i o n s were o u t l i n e d i n the "Planning G u i d e l i n e s f o r Coast Logging Ope r a t i o n s " (B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e , 1972) but s p e c i f i c r e s t r i c t i o n s came i n a l e t t e r (B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e , 1974b) o u t l i n i n g a new i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f a P r o t e c t i v e Clause, the PI c l a u s e , i n the F o r e s t S e r v i c e Management Manual. This c l a u s e (P. 1 s u b s e c t i o n h) r e q u i r e d that The Licensee s h a l l p r o t e c t from l o g g i n g and burning damage a l l immature t r e e s w i t h i n one (1) chain o f a l l streambanks and lakeshores or as otherwise designated on the ground and approved by the F o r e s t O f f i c e r . The Licensee s h a l l a l s o p r o t e c t from damage a l l streambank and lakeshore shrubs and a l l t r e e s which cannot be f e l l e d away from the streambank or lakeshore ... (B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e , 1954, Amendment 1974?) 5 T h i s c l a u s e was l a t e r amended (B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e , 1974a) to remove the one-chain width s t i p u l a t i o n but the d e s i r e d r e s u l t , as o u t l i n e d i n the l e t t e r to a l l l i c e n s e e s and operators i n the Vancouver F o r e s t D i s t r i c t , was to c r e a t e a p r o t e c t i v e s t r i p c o n s i s t i n g of brush and small h e a l t h y t r e e s and other snags or t r e e s such as l e a n e r s which ... c o u l d not be f e l l e d and logged without unduly damaging the t r e e s (or) without c r e a t i n g e x c e s s i v e d i s t u r b a n c e to the ground (B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e , 1974b, p..1). As w r i t t e n , t h i s requirement seemed to p r o v i d e f o r the p r o t e c t i o n of a l l streambank users and was a p p l i e d on a l l streambanks. But i n p r a c t i c e , the appearance of these p i clause s t r i p s v a r i e d from area to area, depending on the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of i t s meaning and the b i o p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s of the s i t e , and the r e s u l t s were sometimes u n s a t i s f a c t o r y . In some cases, because of l o c a l topography or the type of streambank vegetation,, very l i t t l e v e g e t a t i o n of any s o r t was l e f t and the p r o t e c t i v e requirements of a l l users were not met. In other cases mature t r e e s were l e f t and subsequently blew down, meaning a l o s t timber value and a p o t e n t i a l f o r degradation of the stream. And i n s t i l l o ther cases one c h a i n of immature t r e e s , deciduous vegeta-t i o n and l e a n i n g t r e e s proved i n s u f f i c i e n t to p r o t e c t a l l the resource u s e r s . The c o n c l u s i o n was that the streams, streambanks and streambank users were simply too v a r i a b l e to lend themselves to t h i s type of r e g u l a t i o n . V i r t u a l l y a l l w r i t e r s on the s u b j e c t of streambank management have now r e c o g n i z e d t h i s problem and have c a l l e d 6 f o r a more f l e x i b l e approach to streambank management - an approach which would rec o g n i z e the immense v a r i e t y of n a t u r a l c o n d i t i o n s and allow f o r d e c i s i o n s to be made, not from a set of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e g u i d e l i n e s or r e g u l a t o r y c l a u s e s , but from s i t e - s p e c i f i c e v a l u a t i o n of the s i t e and i t s u s e r s . Narver, Mason and Mundie, f o r example, wrote that "Blanket i r o n c l a d p r o v i s i o n s f o r green s t r i p s along a l l streams should not be adopted; both the operator and the resource managers should remain f l e x i b l e and each stream or stream s e c t i o n should be e v a l u a t e d i n d i v i d u a l l y on an i n t e g r a t e d resource b a s i s " (Narver, Mason and Mundie, 1973, p. 4). The Department of R e c r e a t i o n and C o n s e r v a t i o n s t a t e d that " c o n d i t i o n s i n t h i s p r o v i n c e are f a r too v a r i a b l e f o r any set of general g u i d e l i n e s to be as e f f e c t i v e as s i t e -s p e c i f i c e v a l u a t i o n of the v a r i o u s f o r e s t r e s o u r c e s " (Department o f R e c r e a t i o n and C o n s e r v a t i o n , 1975, p. 53), and the F o r e s t Land Use L i a i s o n Committee of B r i t i s h Columbia agreed that "the s i z e and c o n f i g u r a t i o n of each streamside management zone can only be determined by s i t e - s p e c i f i c a n a l y s i s " ( F o r e s t Land Use L i a i s o n Committee of B.C., 1975, Appendix I I ) . There was, t h e r e f o r e , a consensus that those d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g the type of v e g e t a t i o n to be r e t a i n e d and p r o t e c t e d a f t e r l o g g i n g , and the d i s t a n c e from the stream edge to which i t should be r e t a i n e d , should be determined by the s i t e and i t s users and t h e r e f o r e c o u l d only be made on a s i t e - s p e c i f i c b a s i s . 7 Thus there was a need f o r a procedure by which these s i t e - s p e c i f i c d e c i s i o n s could be made, a l o g i c a l , c o n s i s t e n t and o p e r a t i o n a l procedure i n which f i e l d personnel c o u l d evaluate important f e a t u r e s of the streambank environment and i d e n t i f y the needs o f the streambank users i n such a way that i n t e g r a t e d resource use d e c i s i o n s c o u l d be made. This procedure had to i n v o l v e an a n a l y s i s of s i t e f a c t o r s and then a s y n t h e s i s of p e r t i n e n t i n f o r m a t i o n . As the U.S. Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency p o i n t e d out, "There are m u l t i p l e needs f o r m a i n t a i n i n g v e g e t a t i o n along streams t h a t should be analyzed s e p a r a t e l y and then s y n t h e s i z e d " (U.S. Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency, 1975, p. 5-49). The o b j e c t i v e of t h i s t h e s i s was to develop and t e s t a s i t e -s p e c i f i c decision-making procedure t h a t could be used i n the f i e l d i n a r o u t i n e , c o n s i s t e n t manner to improve 'integrated use streambank management d e c i s i o n s . The procedure was developed a f t e r extensive f i e l d work and a review of p e r t i n e n t l i t e r a t u r e , and an e a r l y d r a f t was reviewed and r e v i s e d by an i n t e r - d i s c i p l i n a r y committee. A second d r a f t of the procedure was then f i e l d t e s t e d i n s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t areas on Vancouver I s l a n d and the r e l i a b i l i t y of the i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r i n g c h e c k l i s t s and the i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y of the procedure were q u a n t i t a t i v e l y evaluated. Q u a l i t a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n s of the value and a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the procedure were obtained from those i n v o l v e d i n f i e l d t e s t i n g . 8 Chapter II o u t l i n e s the conceptual b a s i s on which t h i s decision-making procedure was developed and i n d i c a t e s the assumptions and l i m i t a t i o n s w i t h i n which i t was developed. It a l s o d e s c r i b e s the method that was used to develop t h i s procedure and i d e n t i f i e s the g e o g r a p h i c a l area f o r which i t was developed and t e s t e d . Chapter I I I o u t l i n e s and e x p l a i n s "A Decision-Making Procedure f o r Streambank Management on Vancouver I s l a n d . " This procedure i s presented, i n the handbook format that was f i e l d t e s t e d , i n Appendix I. Chapter IV o u t l i n e s the o b j e c t i v e s of the f i e l d t e s t i n g program and d e s c r i b e s the methods that were used to organize the f i e l d t e s t s and to analyze the i n f o r m a t i o n that was gathered. In Chapter V t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s * a n a l y z e d and d i s c u s s e d and improvements to the decision-making procedure are suggested. In Chapter VI c o n c l u s i o n s are drawn as to the c o n s i s t e n c y , u t i l i t y and a p p l i c a b i l i t y of t h i s decision-making procedure. It i s suggested that a s i m i l a r procedure c o u l d be a p p l i e d to a number of other resource management problems and some recommendations are made f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . CHAPTER II DEVELOPMENT OF A DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURE A. Conceptual Background The concept and methodology f o r making d e c i s i o n s about the m u l t i p l e use of resources have been o u t l i n e d by O'Riordan (1971). He p o i n t e d out t h a t "resource management i n the f i n a l a n a l y s i s i s a decision-making p r o c e s s " (O'Riordan, 1971, p. 109) and that "the d e c i s i o n - p r o c e s s i s e s s e n t i a l l y a choice among a l t e r n a t i v e s " (O'Riordan, 1971, p. 110). B u i l d i n g upon the work of White (1961, 1964 and 1969) and h i s - a s s o c i a t e s at t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago, O'Riordan developed a s i n g l e model which i l l u s t r a t e s the d e c i s i o n -making process by which s t r a t e g i e s f o r resource management are chosen. This model i s shown i n Fig u r e 1. EVALUATION A Model f o r Decision-Making i n Resource Management (from O'Riordan, 1971, p. 113) Fi g u r e 1 9 10 As diagrammed, t h i s decision-making process has four p r i n c i p a l stages, but as e x p l a i n e d by O'Riordan, f i v e d i s t i n c t steps a c t u a l l y take p l a c e . F i r s t , i n f o r m a t i o n i s gathered. Second, the resource i s i d e n t i f i e d on the b a s i s of t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i r d , a l l p o s s i b l e s t r a t e g i e s are i d e n t i f i e d and evaluated as to p e r c e i v e d outcome and s u i t a -b i l i t y as a s t r a t e g y . Fourth, a choice of s t r a t e g y i s made and f i f t h , t h i s choice i s e v a l u a t e d by comparing the a c t u a l outcome w i t h the expected outcome. This d e c e p t i v e l y simple model was developed from work on such questions as f l o o d - l o s s r e d u c t i o n and water manage-ment problems where comginations of goals, means and d e c i s i o n s c r i t e r i a e x i s t e d and where a s t r a t e g y was chosen to r e f l e c t the p a r t i c u l a r combination of these t h a t e x i s t e d i n any given case. But as O'Riordan p o i n t e d out, the adoption of a s t r a t e g y can be developed i n t o a procedure t h a t i s r e l e v a n t to a l l resource management problems. It should t h e r e f o r e be a p p l i c a b l e to d e c i s i o n s about streambank management. A goal e x i s t s - the management o f the f o r e s t resource on an i n t e g r a t e d b a s i s . A v a r i e t y o f p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s and resource users e x i s t and a range of management p r a c t i c e s i s a v a i l a b l e f o r use. Thus the streambank management problem should be amenable to a s i m i l a r procedure and a very general model, s i m i l a r to O'Riordan's (Figure 1) i s proposed i n F i g u r e 2. T h i s model (Figure 2) i s the base upon which a procedure f o r making streambank management d e c i s i o n s i s developed i n t h i s thes i s . 11 Figure 2 A Decis ion-Making Procedure COLLECT STREAMBANK INFORMATION COMPILE AND INTERPRET INFORMATION CONSIDER OPTIONS / MAKE DECISIONS tn w a IMPLEMENT AND MONITOR DECISION 12 B. Assumptions, L i m i t a t i o n s and Key Words In order to develop t h i s p r o c e d u r a l model i n t o a r e a l i s t i c , f u n c t i o n a l procedure which would a i d f i e l d l e v e l decision-makers, a number of assumptions and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s had to be made. I t was assumed that the management ph i l o s o p h y of a l l p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d i n f o r e s t management was i n t e g r a t e d use and that t h i s i m p l i e d h a r v e s t i n g the streambank timber to such a degree and i n such a way that the non-timber resource values of the stream and the streambank were maintained at a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l s . The q u e s t i o n then was how, not whether or why, to achieve t h i s s i t u a t i o n and t h e r e f o r e no c o n s i d e r a t i o n was given to the r e l a t i v e f i n a n c i a l values of d i f f e r e n t resources and no economic c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s was attempted. I t was simply assumed that the maintenance of e x i s t i n g non-timber resources while h a r v e s t i n g timber represented a b a s i c o b j e c t i v e h e l d by a l l . A management s t r a t e g y which maximized timber harvest while m a i n t a i n i n g other resources represented a l e a s t - c o s t approach to d e c i s i o n -making. It was r e c o g n i z e d that the stream and streambank e n v i r -onment i s a h i g h l y complex system and many of the i n t e r a c t i o n s and requirements of i t s component p a r t s are not w e l l under-stood. Thus an attempt was made to garner the best a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n from the l i t e r a t u r e and the f i e l d experience o f l o c a l e x p e r t s , and to work w i t h i n those l i m i t a t i o n s . S i m i l a r l y an attempt was made to i d e n t i f y c r i t i c a l f a c t o r s and c r i t i c a l l e v e l s w i t h i n t h i s complex system and to deal only with those. The i d e n t i f i e d need was f o r an o p e r a t i o n a l procedure that would i d e n t i f y a p p r o p r i a t e d e c i s i o n s now, given p r e s e n t knowledge, and then p r o v i d e f o r m o n i t o r i n g those d e c i s i o n s to allow f o r b e t t e r d e c i s i o n s i n l a t e r y e a r s . In a d d i t i o n to these assumptions and l i m i t a t i o n s a numbe: of key words emerged, and p r o v i d e d the b a s i c requirements that the development of a decision-making procedure would have to meet. F i r s t , the procedure would have to be s i t e - s p e c i f i c , and t h e r e f o r e comprehensive enough to deal with the complete v a r i e t y of s i t e s . Second, i t would have to assess the streambank user requirements i n such a way that a l t e r n a t i v e management s t r a t e g i e s c o u l d be evaluated. T h i r d , i t would have to assess numerous s i t e f a c t o r s to determine t h e i r s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to d i s t u r b a n c e and the e f f e c t upon users . Fourth, i t would have to be f l e x i b l e , i n c o r -p o r a t i n g a comprehensive range of management s t r a t e g i e s that c o u l d be a p p l i e d to the v a r i e t y of user requirements and s i t e f a c t o r s on a s i t e - s p e c i f i c b a s i s . And f i n a l l y i t would have to be o p e r a t i o n a l , a p r a c t i c a l device to a i d the f i e l d man i n making the d e c i s i o n s that c o n f r o n t e d him. C. Geographical Area Vancouver I s l a n d (Figure 3) was s e l e c t e d as the area f o r which t h i s decision-making procedure would be developed and t e s t e d . I t p r o v i d e d a very d i v e r s e set o f p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s and resource users and a l s o a number of d i f f e r e n t resource management agencies and'private companies. I t was 14 Figure 3 L o c a t i o n of Study Areas 1. Stranby R. 27 . Gold R. 2 . San J o s e f R. 28. McCurdy Cr. 3. Kwatleo R. 29 . S y l v i a Cr. 4. Koprino R. 30. Heber R. 5 . Nahw i t t i R. 31. Eve R. 6. Pugh Cr. 32 . Adam R. 7. Mahatta R. 33. White R. 8. Johnstone Cr. 34 . Moakwa Cr. 9 . Waukwaas Cr. 35. Salmon R. 10 . Keogh R. 36 . Cypre R. 11. K i l p a l l a R. 37. Indian R. 12. Bonanza Cr. 38. Staghorn Cr. 13. Kaouk R. 39. Coos Cr. 14 . Rowland Cr. 40. Cook Cr. 15 . Kapoose Cr. 41. McTush Cr. 16. P o r r i t t Cr. 42. Cameron R. 17. Tatchu Cr. 43. Ca r n a t i o n Cr 18. Zeba l l o s R. 44. Pachena R. 19 . Nimpkish R. 45. N i t n a t R. 20 . S i e b e l h a l l R. 46. Jump Cr. 21. Kla-anch R. 47. Nanaimo R. 22 . Sucwoa R. 48. Chemainus R. 23. Canton Cr. 49. K o k s i l a h R. 24. Conuma Cr. 50 . Muir Cr. 25 . Oktwanch R. 26 . Muchalet R. (A a l s o r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e and t h e r e f o r e amenable to e x t e n s i v e f i e l d work. I t was assumed that i f a procedure c o u l d be developed to deal with the d i v e r s i t y of s i t e s , users and management agency requirements found on Vancouver I s l a n d then a s i m i l a r procedure c o u l d a l s o be developed f o r other, l a r g e r g e o g r a p h i c a l areas and f o r other resource management problems D. Development of a Decision-Making Procedure Two summers of f i e l d work were conducted on Vancouver I s l a n d and many f i e l d t r i p s and f i e l d meetings were h e l d with resource management agencies and p r i v a t e f o r e s t companies. This f i e l d work was e x t e n s i v e r a t h e r than i n t e n -s i v e , and a l a r g e number of streams i n d i f f e r e n t l o c a l i t i e s and with d i f f e r e n t p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s and sets o f resource users were v i s i t e d . Some streams were unlogged. Others were logged, and of those that were logged some were "problem" areas while others demonstrated good management. The r e s u l t s o f a d i v e r s e range of management s t r a t e g i e s were observed. D e t a i l e d f i e l d notes were kept o f streams v i s i t e d and o b s e r v a t i o n s made, and a number of r e p o r t s were w r i t t e n and f i l e d with resource management agencies. P r i o r to the second summer of f i e l d work, a Working Committee of e i g h t persons r e p r e s e n t i n g the B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e ; the B.C. Frsh and W i l d l i f e Branch; Environment Canada, Canadian F o r e s t r y S e r v i c e ; Environment Canada, F i s h e r i e s and Marine S e r v i c e ; and the C o u n c i l of F o r e s t I n d u s t r i e s was s t r u c k to advise on t h i s f i e l d work and to 16 be a v a i l a b l e f o r f i e l d tours and c o n s u l t a t i o n . T h i s Committee was used to ensure that assumptions b e i n g made p r o p e r l y r e presented the concerns of the resource agencies and the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y . I t a l s o p o i n t e d out s p e c i f i c areas where f i e l d o b s e r v a t i o n s should be made: C o i n c i d e n t w i t h t h i s f i e l d work, and i n the i n t e r v e n i n g w i n t e r , a review of the a v a i l a b l e l i t e r a t u r e p e r t a i n i n g to streambank management was made and r e p o r t s of experiments and f i n d i n g s i n B r i t i s h Columbia and elsewhere were read. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n served as background f o r the f i e l d obser-v a t i o n . Interviews and d i s c u s s i o n s with a wide range of people having e x p e r t i s e or experience i n streambank management were a l s o h e l d . Questions were asked and s i t u a t i o n s posed i n an attempt to f i l l i n some of the gaps i n s c i e n t i f i c knowledge with expert o p i n i o n or l o c a l knowledge and to modify f i n d i n g s from elsewhere with l o c a l knowledge. On the b a s i s of t h i s f i e l d work and c o n s u l t a t i o n , and the review of a v a i l a b l e l i t e r a t u r e , a p r e l i m i n a r y d r a f t of a decision-making p r o c e d u r e , f o r streambank management was w r i t t e n and c i r c u l a t e d to members of the Working Committee f o r review. Meetings were h e l d w i t h each member o f the Working Committee and numerous r e v i s i o n s to the d r a f t were d i s c u s s e d . Some f u r t h e r f i e l d work was undertaken i n an attempt to r e s o l v e some s p e c i f i c problems. E x t e n s i v e r e v i s i o n s were then made to the p r e l i m i n a r y d r a f t and a second d r a f t of the procedure e n t i t l e d "A Decision-Making Procedure f o r Streambank Management on 17 Vancouver I s l a n d " was w r i t t e n . This d r a f t , which i s o u t l i n e d and e x p l a i n e d i n Chapter I I I , i s now presented as Appendix 1 i n support of the co n t e n t i o n that a decision-making procedure, c o n c e p t u a l l y s i m i l a r to t h a t o u t l i n e d by O'Riordan, c o u l d be developed f o r f i e l d use. I t was c i r c u l a t e d and f i e l d -t e s t e d i n seven F o r e s t Ranger D i s t r i c t s on Vancouver I s l a n d and, based on the comments r e c e i v e d and the f i n d i n g s of the f i e l d t e s t s , f u r t h e r r e v i s i o n s w i l l now be made. The development of a decision-making procedure i s a dynamic process with c o n t i n u a l f i e l d checking, review of l i t e r a t u r e and i n t e r v i e w s being used to modify and r e v i s e d e t a i l s i n the procedure. T h i s present stage of development of "A Decision-Making Procedure f o r Streambank Management on Vancouver I s l a n d " w i l l continue with feedback and f i e l d o b s e r v a t i o n b e i ng used to improve and s t r e a m l i n e the procedure, and to modify i t to deal with changing technology, knowledge or i n s t i t u t i o n a l requirements. In Chapter IV i t w i l l be contended that i t has already been shown to be an o p e r a t i o n a l and u s e f u l a i d to the f i e l d l e v e l decision-maker. CHAPTER I I I EXPLANATION OF A DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURE FOR STREAMBANK MANAGEMENT The decision-making procedure presented i n Appendix I i s intended f o r use as a s i t e - s p e c i f i c f i e l d guide to the management o f a l l streambanks on Vancouver I s l a n d f o r which l o g g i n g i s p roposed. 1 In some cases the streambank timber i s e i t h e r i n a c c e s s i b l e , non-commercial or uneconomic to l o g and a streambank d e c i s i o n need not be made, but i n a l l cases where the streambank timber i s a c c e s s i b l e to l o g g i n g and of commercial v a l u e , the procedure can be a p p l i e d . I t i s a guide f o r d e c i d i n g how much, i f any, and what type of v e g e t a t i o n should be p r o t e c t e d along a streambank and what l o g g i n g methods and p o s t - l o g g i n g remedial measures should be i n c o r p o r a t e d . I t s o b j e c t i v e i s the choice of the p a r t i c u l a r management s t r a t e g y t h a t i s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a s i t e and i t s users. Because the management concerns f o r streambanks vary a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r u s e r s , an i n i t i a l d i s t i n c t i o n i n t h i s procedure i s made between those streams and streambanks with users o n - s i t e and those with no users o n - s i t e . This i s done on the b a s i s of stream g r a d i e n t . Thus, i n f a c t , two procedures are presented i n Appendix I. Procedure A 1 T h i s procedure a p p l i e s o n l y to l o g g i n g on streambanks. It c o u l d be adapted to deal with a g r i c u l t u r a l , r e s i d e n t i a l or i n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t i e s on streambanks. 18 19 d e a l s w i t h steep, mountainside or headwater streams which because of t h e i r s i z e and g r a d i e n t have no f i s h , w i l d l i f e , r e c r e a t i o n a l or other users on s i t e . Procedure B deals w i t h a l l other streams. Both procedures are developed from the same model (Figure 2, page 11) and c o n c e p t u a l l y are i d e n t i c a l . Both i n v o l v e the c o l l e c t i o n of r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n , the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n , the choice of a s t r a t e g y to maintain as much streambank v e g e t a t i o n as necessary, the implementation of t h i s s t r a t e g y and i t s m o n i t o r i n g over time, to determine i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s . In p r a c t i c e however, Procedure A i s an a b b r e v i a t e d form of Procedure B s i n c e i t evaluates only the p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s of streambank l o g g i n g on the q u a l i t y of water r e a c h i n g p o s s i b l e users downstream. Procedure B, because i t evaluates the p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s of l o g g i n g on a number of users and p o t e n t i a l users o n - s i t e , i s a l e n g t h i e r , more complicated procedure. In each procedure a number of c l e a r l y d e f i n e d steps i s i n v o l v e d . The s t e p s . i n Procedure B are presented i n F i g u r e 4 and each step i s e x p l a i n e d i n t h i s chapter. STEP 1 Review a l l a v a i l a b l e i n v e n t o r y and c l i m a t i c data, development h i s t o r y , resource c a p a b i l i t y maps, topographic maps and a i r photos to complete P r e - S i t e " V i s i t a t i o n  C h e c k l i s t B. (Appendix j page 15-17) S i t e - s p e c i f i c decision-making n e c e s s i t a t e s c o l l e c t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n about the stream and streambank s i t e . This i s done i n two ways. F i r s t a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount o f i n f o r m a t i o n about both the s i t e and i t s users may be 20 Figure 4 Decision-Making Procedure B Procedure STEP COLLECT STREAMBANK INFORMATION COMPILE AND INTERPRET INFORMATION CONSIDER OPTIONS MAKE DECISION IMPLEMENT AND MONITOR DECISION STEP STEP STEP STEP STEP STEP. STEP STEP 3 4 D e c i s i o n Steps Review a l l a v a i l a b l e i n v e n t o r y and c l i m a t i c data, development h i s t o r y , resource c a p a b i l i t y maps, topographic maps and a i r photos to complete P r e - S i t e V i s i t a t i o n C h e c k l i s t B. V i s i t the proposed c u t - b l o c k walking the l e n g t h o f the streambank and making obser v a t i o n s to complete On-Site C h e c k l i s t B. Using C h e c k l i s t s , i d e n t i f y and i s o l a t e the Users o f the Streambank. For each i d e n t i f i e d User, assess the Value of the Streambank. Consider a l l p o s s i b l e Streambank  Management S t r a t e g i e s . Make i n i t i a l Choice o f A p p r o p r i a t e  S t r a t e g y based on streambank value to i t s u s e r s . Consider S t r a t e g y M o d i f i c a t i o n  Factors.. Make f i n a l Choice of Ap p r o p r i a t e  S t r a t e g y . Implement D e c i s i o n and observe s i t e over a p e r i o d of time to Monitor e f f e c t i v e n e s s . 21 a v a i l a b l e from i n v e n t o r i e s , topographic maps, l o c a l knowledge or other sources. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n can be gathered on a s t a n d a r d i z e d P r e - S i t e V i s i t a t i o n C h e c k l i s t and used l a t e r to i d e n t i f y users or to p i n p o i n t important p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s f o r f i e l d checking. Information about the f i s h users of a s i t e , f o r example, may be extremely d i f f i c u l t to o b t a i n from an o n - s i t e i n s p e c t i o n but may be a v a i l a b l e i n the form of escapement records maintained by the F e d e r a l F i s h e r i e s and Marine S e r v i c e or f i s h e r i e s i n v e n t o r y maps p r o v i d e d by the BrC. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch. S i m i l a r l y , i n f o r m a t i o n p e r t a i n i n g to the downstream domestic water users of a stream may only be a v a i l a b l e from records and not observable o n - s i t e . Informa-t i o n about such s i t e f a c t o r s as bank f a i l u r e s , d e b r i s jams and washouts, and the d i r e c t i o n of storm winds can a l s o be obtained from such sources as i n v e n t o r y c r u i s e maps, a i r photos, or l o c a l knowledge, p r i o r to o n - s i t e i n s p e c t i o n . Thus the f i r s t step i n t h i s decision-making procedure i s the g a t h e r i n g of a v a i l a b l e , e x i s t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n about a s i t e and r e t a i n i n g i t f o r use on a P r e - S i t e V i s i t a t i o n C h e c k l i s t . STEP 2 V i s i t the proposed c u t - b l o c k , walking the l e n g t h of the streambank and making o b s e r v a t i o n s to complete On-Site C h e c k l i s t B. (Appendix I page 18-23) The second way i n which s i t e - s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n about a stream and streambank i s c o l l e c t e d i s by an a c t u a l on-s i t e walking i n s p e c t i o n of the streambank proposed f o r l o g g i n g . Another s t a n d a r d i z e d c h e c k l i s t , On-Site C h e c k l i s t B, 22 i s used to r e c o r d i n f o r m a t i o n about the b i o p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s of the stream, stream edge and streambank and the users o f the stream and streambank. This ensures that a l l r e l e -vant f a c t o r s are co n s i d e r e d i n a c o n s i s t e n t way and allows i n f o r m a t i o n to be s t o r e d so that i f a disagreement a r i s e s over an a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g y , the source of t h i s disagreement can be p i n p o i n t e d . As p o i n t e d out e a r l i e r , the o b j e c t i v e of t h i s procedure i s to make a choice among a l t e r n a t i v e s . Therefore o n l y i n f o r m a t i o n which has a b e a r i n g on that choice i s c o l l e c t e d , and a l l i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d i s recorded i n a format t h a t can be u t i l i z e d . STEP 3 Using C h e c k l i s t s , i d e n t i f y and i s o l a t e the Users of the Streambank. (Appendix I page 14 In order to u t i l i z e the i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d i n Steps 1 and 2, i t i s necessary to i d e n t i f y and i s o l a t e the p a r t i c u l a r users of a streambank. These users may be a c t u a l l y u s i n g the immediate streambank and i t s v e g e t a t i o n or they may be some d i s t a n c e downstream. They vary from streambank to streambank and not a l l are present on each streambank. But i n a l l cases they can be i d e n t i f i e d on the b a s i s of the i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d i n steps 1 and 2 and i s o l a t e d i n step 3 by u s i n g a set of c r i t e r i a to compile a set of streambank users . STEP 4 For each i d e n t i f i e d User, assess the Value of the Streambank. (Appendix I page 26 The d i f f e r e n t users o f a streambank have management requirements which a l s o vary from s i t e to s i t e . In step 4 23 a number of b i o p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s of the s i t e are c o n s i d e r e d to evaluate these requirements and to i n d i c a t e the r e l a t i v e value or importance o f the streambank v e g e t a t i o n to each of the users i s o l a t e d i n step 3. I f , f o r example, coho salmon f r y are observed on s i t e i n step 2, and i d e n t i f i e d i n step 3 as users o f the stream-bank, then four of t h e i r requirements are c o n s i d e r e d . Cool water i s one and i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the streambank v e g e t a t i o n prevents summer water temperatures from r e a c h i n g l e v e l s t h a t are d e l e t e r i o u s to those f r y . T h i s however i s not true f o r a l l streambank v e g e t a t i o n and i t r e q u i r e s an assessment of such b i o p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s as the g e o g r a p h i c a l l o c a t i o n of the streambank, the extent of l o c a l or topo-g r a p h i c a l shading, the s i z e and g r a d i e n t of the stream and the temperature of upstream water to determine what v a l u e , i f any, the streambank v e g e t a t i o n has f o r shading the stream. This value may be "low", "moderate" or "high". The streambank v e g e t a t i o n might a l s o act as a b u f f e r p r e v e n t i n g l o g g i n g d e b r i s from e n t e r i n g the stream d u r i n g or a f t e r l o g g i n g . This may ' ^ scirdpoxhaMir-t-o-coho f r y and i n t h i s case, f e a t u r e s such as the slope of the banks, the s i z e of the stream and the s t a b i l i t y of the channel are assessed to determine what value , i f any, the streambank v e g e t a t i o n has f o r b u f f e r i n g . Again the value may be "low", "moderate" or "high". For each user a set of p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s i s c o n s i d e r e d and f o r each user the r e l a t i v e value of the streambank 24 v e g e t a t i o n i s determined. Using that value the choice of a s t r a t e g y which w i l l r e t a i n the v e g e t a t i o n necessary f o r the user can be made. STEP 5 Consider a l l p o s s i b l e Streambank Management S t r a t e g i e s . (Appendix I page 64-71) A major advantage of a decision-making procedure i s that i t i s f l e x i b l e , working from the ground up, i s o l a t i n g users and important f e a t u r e s and making a choice from a range of p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s . In step 5, a l l p o s s i b l e streambank s t r a t e g i e s are presented. These range from l o g g i n g both s i d e s of the stream and r e t a i n i n g no streambank v e g e t a t i o n to l o g g i n g only one s i d e of the stream and r e t a i n i n g a wide s t r i p of c o n i f e r o u s timber. In between these extremes are a number of s t r a t e g i e s r e t a i n i n g d i f f e r e n t types of v e g e t a t i o n , i n c o r p o r a t i n g d i f f e r e n t f a l l i n g and y a r d i n g methods or suggesting d i f f e r e n t p o s t - l o g g i n g remedial measures. Each s t r a t e g y i s p o s s i b l e and a l l have been observed on Vancouver I s l a n d . But each one i s a p p r o p r i a t e only f o r c e r t a i n combinations of s i t e factors--and u s e r s . STEP 6. Make i n i t i a l Choice of A p p r o p r i a t e S t r a t e g y based on streambank value to i t s u s e r s . (Appendix I page 73-84) The o b j e c t i v e of t h i s decision-making procedure i s to i n d i c a t e which of the p o s s i b l e s t r a t e g i e s presented i n step 5 i s a p p r o p r i a t e to the users i d e n t i f i e d i n step 3.and the s i t e f a c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d i n step 2. An i n i t i a l c hoice i s now made, i n step 6, based on the values of the streambank obtained i n step 4. Those values i n d i c a t e the r e l a t i v e importance of the streambank v e g e t a t i o n to the user and a strategy" c o n s i s t e n t with, that value can be i d e n t i f i e d . I f , f o r example, the streambank value f o r coho f r y i s low, then the v e g e t a t i o n can be removed without a f f e c t -ing the coho f r y user and'a s t r a t e g y which removes a l l commercial timber to the stream edge w i l l be i n d i c a t e d . But i f , on the other hand, the shading value of that streambank v e g e t a t i o n i s hig h , the removal of i t may a f f e c t the coho f r y and a s t r a t e g y which removes a l l commercial timber to the stream edge but r e t a i n s a l l deciduous t r e e s , shrubbery and immature c o n i f e r s may be i n d i c a t e d . However, the s t r a t e g y i n d i c a t e d f o r a p a r t i c u l a r value may a l s o depend on some f e a t u r e s of the s i t e . In the case of the streambank with a high value f o r shading, the number of deciduous t r e e s along the stream edge determines whether a l l c o n i f e r s can be removed or whether some should be r e t a i n e d to p r o v i d e shading f o r the stream and i t s users. These f a c t o r s a l s o have to be c o n s i d e r e d . For each i d e n t i f i e d streambank user, the streambank value i s determined i n step 4. For those values an i n i t i a l s t r a t e g y that makes use of p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s and p r o v i d e s f o r the management requirements of users i s i n d i c a t e d i n step 6. STEP 7 Consider Str a t e g y M o d i f i c a t i o n F a c t o r s . The s t r a t e g y (Appendfxed paget'88- 87.) s ' e r i e d niticTheS s t r a t e g y i d e n t i f i e d t i ' n t s J e p c B o i s n f e>f eiired to as -an i n i t i a l s t r a t e g y . It i s a s t r a t e g y chosen to maintain as 26 much v e g e t a t i o n as appears to be necessary to meet the requirements of i d e n t i f i e d users. But t r a d e - o f f s may need to be made or s t r a t e g i e s m o d i f i e d to deal with e x t e r n a l p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n s . I f , f o r example, blowdown i s a p o t e n t i a l problem on s i t e , a s t r a t e g y which r e q u i r e s r e t e n t i o n o f mature timber i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e and should be mo d i f i e d . A s t r a t e g y which r e q u i r e s r e t a i n i n g s t a n d i n g snags along the streambank f o r c a v i t y n e s t i n g b i r d s i s i n c o n f l i c t with worker s a f e t y requirements which r e q u i r e the removal of snags i n areas where timber i s being removed. It a l s o may r e q u i r e m o d i f i c a t i o n . Economic t r a d e - o f f s can al s o be co n s i d e r e d i n t h i s step. STEP 8 Make f i n a l Choice o f App r o p r i a t e S t r a t e g y . (Appendix I page 87) In step 8, a f t e r the s t r a t e g y m o d i f i c a t i o n f a c t o r s are con s i d e r e d , a f i n a l s t r a t e g y choice i s made. T h i s s t r a t e g y choice i s the c u l m i n a t i o n of a l l the c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o u t l i n e d e a r l i e r . I t represents the most a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g y f o r a streambank s i t e . STEP 9 Implement D e c i s i o n and observe s i t e over a p e r i o d of time to Monitor e f f e c t i v e n e s s . The f i n a l s t r a t e g y choice i s implemented. I t should then be observed over a p e r i o d o f time to determine i f , i n f a c t , i t i s e f f e c t i v e i n meeting the requirements o f the users and the f e a t u r e s o f the s i t e . Does the chosen s t r a t e g y , f o r example, shade the stream and keep water temperatures at acceptable l e v e l s ? Are the deciduous t r e e s s u f f i c i e n t ? Are they necessary? In cases where the d e s i r e d r e s u l t s are not obtained or where mo n i t o r i n g i n d i c a t e s t h at the s t r a t e g y choice was not a p p r o p r i a t e , the s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a on which the s t r a t e g y choice was made can be i d e n t i f i e d a n d ' r e v i s e d . The s y s t e m a t i c assessment of s t r a t e g i e s allows f o r c o n t i n u a l readjustment and r e v i s i o n o f d e t a i l s i n the procedure based on experience. This makes f o r c o n t i n u a l improvement i n the decision-making process. FEEDBACK The m o n i t o r i n g of the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a f i n a l s t r a t e g y choice i s one way i n which feedback i s used to improve the decision-making process. However, feedback can a l s o be used at each step i n the procedure to change and improve the type of i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d , the way i n which i t i s c o l l e c t e d , the users c o n s i d e r e d , the c o n s i d e r a t i o n s used to determine the value of the streambank, the s t r a t e g i e s i n d i c a t e d , the types of stream to which i t i s a p p l i c a b l e and so on. With feedback from the use of the procedure and a monitoring of the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of s t r a t e g i e s i d e n t i f i e d , decision-makers s&iTHlcbejcbe^^^^ d e c i s i o n s about the management of streambanks. CHAPTER IV FIELD TESTING PROCEDURE AND ANALYSIS In Chapter I i t was contended that a s i t e - s p e c i f i c decision-making procedure such as has been presented i n Appendix I c o u l d be used i n the f i e l d i n a r o u t i n e , con-s i s t e n t manner to improve i n t e g r a t e d - u s e streambank management d e c i s i o n s . In Chapters II and I I I i t was i n d i c a t e d that the use of feedback was an important step i n the development of a decision-making procedure. With these two c o n t e n t i o n s i n mind, a program of f i e l d t e s t i n g , was undertaken to determine the i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y of "A Decision-Making Procedure f o r Streambank Management on Vancouver I s l a n d " (Appendix I ) , to s o l i c i t feedback and comments on i t s u t i l i t y , and to i d e n t i f y s e c t i o n s of the procedure where r e v i s i o n s would need to be made. A. O b j e c t i v e s of F i e l d Tests Fiv e s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s were i d e n t i f i e d f o r the f i e l d t e s t i n g program and were e x p l a i n e d to a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s . These o b j e c t i v e s were: 1) to evaluate the i n t e r - r a t e r c o n s i s t e n c y of.stream-bank i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d on a s t a n d a r d i z e d c h e c k l i s t from o n - s i t e o b s e r v a t i o n by f i e l d p e r s o n n e l ; 2) to e v a l u a t e the c o n s i s t e n c y of management s t r a t e g i e s i n d i c a t e d by the decision-making procedure a f t e r 28 29 f i e l d i n s p e c t i o n of a streambank s i t e and c o l l e c t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n on a c h e c k l i s t ; 3) to gather the r e a c t i o n s of personnel i n the f o r e s t i n d u s t r y , the B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e , the B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch and the F e d e r a l F i s h e r i e s and Marine S e r v i c e to the proposed decision-making procedure; 4) to i d e n t i f y i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s and a m b i g u i t i e s i n the procedure, and to i d e n t i f y the s e c t i o n s which w i l l need m o d i f i c a t i o n or r e v i s i o n ; and 5) to determine the time and e f f o r t r e q u i r e d to use the procedure to make d e c i s i o n s on i n d i v i d u a l cut-blocks . s l a t e d f o r l o g g i n g . B. L o c a t i o n of F i e l d Test S i t e s Seven F o r e s t Ranger D i s t r i c t s on Vancouver I s l a n d were s e l e c t e d f o r t e s t i n g . They were chosen i n c o n s u l t a t i o n with the Regional Research O f f i c e r , B.C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e , Vancouver D i s t r i c t , and were chosen because they re p r e s e n t e d a d i v e r s i t y of p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n s , and p r o v i d e d a v a r i e t y o f i n d u s t r y and resource agency personnel who c o u l d be i n v o l v e d . The s p e c i f i c t e s t s i t e s , which were proposed streamside c u t - b l o c k s s l a t e d f o r l o g g i n g i n the near f u t u r e , were chosen by the F o r e s t Ranger or h i s a s s i s t a n t . In s i x of the Ranger D i s t r i c t s Procedure B (Appendix I, pages 15 to 87) was t e s t e d . In the seventh D i s t r i c t , Procedure A 30 (Appendix I, pages 1 to 15) was tested.''" Figures 5 and 6 show the l o c a t i o n of the Ranger D i s t r i c t s i n v o l v e d , the s p e c i f i c t e s t s i t e s and the procedures t e s t e d . C. D e s c r i p t i o n of F i e l d Test P a r t i c i p a n t s A t o t a l of 121 d i f f e r e n t people r e p r e s e n t i n g companies, the B.C. Fore s t S e r v i c e , the B.C. F i s h W i l d l i f e Branch, the F e d e r a l F i s h e r i e s and Marine and the Greater V i c t o r i a . W a t e r Board p a r t i c i p a t e d 2 seven f i e l d t e s t s . A complete breakdown of t h i s given i n Figure 7. In general those i n v o l v e d i n f i e l d t e s t i n g were f i e l d p ersonnel at the l e v e l of f i e l d engineers and f i e l d crews from i n d u s t r y , and a s s i s t a n t Rangers, f o r e s t a s s i s t a n t s , h a b i t a t p r o t e c t i o n t e c h n i c i a n s , Conservation o f f i c e r s and F i s h e r i e s o f f i c e r s from the government agencies. A number of s u p e r v i s o r y , management and p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r s o n e l from - 1 Weather was a f a c t o r i n f i e l d t e s t i n g . In two D i s t r i c t s the streamside cut- b l o c k s chosen by the Ranger s t a f f were i n a c c e s s i b l e due to snow and f i r e b r e a k s had to be used i n s t e a d . T h i s had no e f f e c t on t e s t i n g but meant that p o s t " l o g g i n g m o n i t o r i n g cannot be done s i n c e the f i r e b r e a k s w i l l not be logged i n the immediate f u t u r e . In one other D i s t r i c t , r a i n and l o g i s t i c a l problems meant t h a t the Procedure B c o u l d not be t e s t e d . T h e r e f o r e , a s m a l l , steep stream f i t t i n g the c r i t e r i a f o r Procedure A was v i s i t e d and Procedure A t e s t e d i n the same manner as o u t l i n e d f o r Procedure B. 2 Procedure B was completed by • 10 9 ..different persons. Procedure A was completed by 12 persons f o r a small stream i n Area 3. f o r e s t and S e r v i c e i n the group i s Figure 5 L o c a t i o n of F i e l d Tests F i e l d Test 1. R. D. #25 Port A l b e r n i Coos Creek 2 . R. D. #12 Sayward Newcastle Creek 3. R. D. #16 Port Hardy Buck Creek 4. R. D. #23 Langford R i t h e t Creek 5 . R. D. #26 T o f i n o Bobs Creek 6 . R. D. #15 Port M c N e i l l Waukwaas Creek 7. R. D. #28 Gold River Nesook R i v e r 32 F i g u r e 6 L o c a t i o n o f F i e l d Tests Procedure Test # Ranger D i s t r i c t S p e c i f i c S i t e Tested 1 R.D. 25 Port A l b e r n i Coos Creek B Block 680 C P . 16 T.F.L. 21 2 R.D. 12 Sayward Newcastle Creek (north B bank) N.E. 190 f i r e b r e a k T.F.L. 39 3 R.D. 16 Port Hardy t r i b u t a r y to Buck Creek A Area 2 C P . 19 T.S.H.L. A00605 4 R.D. 23 Langford R i t h e t Creek (west bank) B R-10 f i r e b r e a k Greater V i c t o r i a Water Supply Area 5 R.D. 26 T o f i n o Bob's Creek B Block 6-F C P . 12 T.F.L. 22 6 R.D. 15 Port M c N e i l l Waukwaas Creek B Block 123 C P . 4 T.F.L. 25 7 R.D. 28 Gold R i v e r Nesook R i v e r B Block J-24 C P . 14 T.F.L. 19 33 F i g u r e 7 P a r t i c i p a n t s i n F i e l d Tests Agency or Company B.C. Forest S e r v i c e B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch F e d e r a l F i s h e r i e s and Marine S e r v i c e Greater V i c t o r i a Water Board MacMillan B l o e d e l L t d . B.C. F o r e s t Products Ltd. Canadian For e s t Products L t d . Crown Z e l l e r b a c h L t d . Rayonier of Canada L t d . Tahsis Company Ltd. Branch or D i v i s i o n Ranger s t a f f Vancouver D i s t r i c t V i c t o r i a Headquarters Region 1 (Nanaimo) V i c t o r i a Headquarters Southern Operations Vancouver Headquarters Kennedy,"Tofino, Eve R i v e r , Kelsey Bay, Port A l b e r n i and Port M c N e i l l D i v i s ions Nanaimo Logging Headquarters Clayoquot and Campbell R i v e r D i v i s i o n s C r o f t o n Logging Group Englewood D i v i s i o n Johnston S t r a i t s and Kokish D i v i s i o n s Port M c N e i l l D i v i s i o n Gold R i v e r Logging D i v i s i o n Number of P a r t i c i p a n t s 30 11 4 29 1 4 1 3 3 T o t a l 45 10 2 Bay Forest Products L t d . * Vancouver MacDonald Cedar Products L t d . * O'Connor Logging* Vancouver Port Hardy T o t a l * p a r t i c i p a t e d i n f i e l d t e s t o f Procedure A only, 1 3 5_5 121 34 both i n d u s t r y and government a l s o p a r t i c i p a t e d and thus the f i e l d t e s t s i n v o l v e d a group o f people w i t h a wide range of p o s i t i o n s , experience and t r a i n i n g . D. O r g a n i z a t i o n of F i e l d Tests A f t e r the seven Ranger D i s t r i c t s ( F igure 5) were chosen, the F o r e s t Ranger i n each D i s t r i c t was contacted and two days were set aside f o r f i e l d t e s t i n g . I n d i v i d u a l s repre-s e n t i n g the f o r e s t companies and government agencies i n the Ranger D i s t r i c t were contacted by phone seven to f o u r t e e n days i n advance of the scheduled t e s t and a b r i e f o u t l i n e o f the p r o j e c t and the o b j e c t i v e s of f i e l d t e s t i n g were given. Copies of "A Decision-Making Procedure f o r Streambank Management on Vancouver I s l a n d " A p p e n d i x I) were mailed to those persons able to p a r t i c i p a t e , with a c o v e r i n g l e t t e r e x p l a i n i n g t h a t the procedure was experimental and p r e l i m i n a r y and that f i e l d t e s t i n g was a necessary p a r t of i t s development. A copy of t h i s l e t t e r i s i n c l u d e d i n Appendix I I . P a r t i c i p a n t s were asked to f a m i l i a r i z e them-se l v e s with the handbook before the a c t u a l f i e l d t e s t and were asked to c i r c u l a t e i t to other members of t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n who would a l s o be i n t e r e s t e d i n p a r t i c i p a t i n g . On each of the two days scheduled i n a Ranger D i s t r i c t , the proposed c u t - b l o c k chosen by the Ranger s t a f f was v i s i t e d and an i d e n t i c a l procedure was f o l l o w e d . This allowed a l a r g e r number of persons to complete o n - s i t e 35 c h e c k l i s t s and to work through the procedure to i d e n t i f y a s t r a t e g y . An attempt was made to s p l i t up members of the same o r g a n i z a t i o n and to have a mix of o r g a n i z a t i o n s on each day. On the days of t e s t i n g , p a r t i c i p a n t s met i n a conference room at a c e n t r a l l o c a t i o n and a 45-minute b r i e f i n g was given. T h i s i n c l u d e d some background to the development of the procedure, an o u t l i n e of the procedure i t s e l f , and a review of the f i v e o b j e c t i v e s of f i e l d t e s t i n g o u t l i n e d on page 28. Each p a r t i c i p a n t was given a number. The P r e - S i t e V i s i t a t i o n C h e c k l i s t B (Appendix I, pages 16 and 17) was reviewed c o l l e c t i v e l y to ensure that a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s had the same b a s i c knowledge of the area to be v i s i t e d . No t e s t i n g was done on t h i s c h e c k l i s t ; i t was used simply as background i n f o r m a t i o n . On-Site C h e c k l i s t B (Appendix I, pages 19 to 23) was then d i s t r i b u t e d and i s i n c l u d e d i n Appendix III i n the form that was f i e l d t e s t e d . ( O b j e c t i v e 1 of these f i e l d t e s t s was to determine whether the items on t h i s c h e c k l i s t c o u l d be c o l l e c t e d c o n s i s t e n t l y . ) I n s t r u c t i o n s given f o r completing t h i s c h e c k l i s t i n c l u d e d the need to check only one box, to r e c o r d only what was a c t u a l l y observed, to c o n f i n e o b s e r v a t i o n s to the streambank s l a t e d f o r l o g g i n g and to work independently. P r o v i s i o n was made f o r r e c o r d -ing "don't know" or "not a p p l i c a b l e " responses. D e f i n i t i o n s of "stream", "streambank", "stream edge", " d i s t i n c t i v e " , "common", "minimal" and "major t r a v e l r o u t e " , a l l of which are given i n the handbook, were repeated. In a d d i t i o n , the terms "hummocky ground", " p i s t o l b u t t " and "jackstrawed t r e e s " , were e x p l a i n e d s i n c e p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the t e s t s proved to be u n f a m i l i a r w i t h them. A number of questions posed by p a r t i c i p a n t s were answered but si n c e the i n t e n t i o n was to t e s t the C h e c k l i s t and procedure w i t h as l i t t l e e x p l a n a t i o n as p o s s i b l e , l i t t l e i n f o r m a t i o n was prov i d e d . The streambank s i t e was then v i s i t e d and each p a r t i c i p a n t walked the l e n g t h o f the streambank s l a t e d f o r l o g g i n g and completed On-Site C h e c k l i s t B. A number of c l i n o m e t e r s were provided to enable p a r t i c i p a n t s to measure stream g r a d i e n t and the slope of the streambank i f they wished but no other measurements were made and, i n the t e s t s , no s o i l p i t s were dug. The i n t e n t i o n was to be as o p e r a t i o n a l as p o s s i b l e and to determine the v a r i a b i l i t y o f i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d by f i e l d o b s e r v a t i o n . The o n - s i t e i n s p e c t i o n was s u p e r v i s e d to ensure that a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s walked the same le n g t h of streambank. On s i t e , some questions were answered but again a minimum of i n f o r m a t i o n was given. Upon completion of On-Site C h e c k l i s t B, p a r t i c i p a n t s r e t u r n e d to the conference room. Steps 3 to 8 of the procedure (Appendix I, page 14) were o u t l i n e d and a h y p o t h e t i c a l example was used to demonstrate how informa-t i o n c o l l e c t e d o n - s i t e c o u l d be used to i d e n t i f y a management s t r a t e g y . Working i n d i v i d u a l l y , p a r t i c i p a n t s 37 then used i n f o r m a t i o n from t h e i r C h e c k l i s t s to i d e n t i f y a management s t r a t e g y and completed the Working Paper and Comment Sheet i n c l u d e d i n Appendix IV. ( O b j e c t i v e s 2 and 3 o f these f i e l d t e s t s were to evaluate the c o n s i s t e n c y of s t r a t e g i e s i n d i c a t e d and to gather the r e a c t i o n s of f i e l d personnel.) E. Methods of A n a l y s i s The o b j e c t i v e s of f i e l d t e s t i n g n e c e s s i t a t e d the use of s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t methods of a n a l y s i s to i n t e r p r e t the data c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g the t e s t s . 1. Consistency of i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d The responses to each item on the 114 On-Site Check-l i s t s B that were completed i n the f i e l d were coded n u m e r i c a l l y and punched on standard IBM computer cards. Numbers 1 to 6 were used f o r v a l i d responses; 7, f o r no response; 8, f o r m u l t i p l e responses; and 9, f o r "don't know" responses. Two computer sub-programs developed at the U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago and contained i n the S t a t i s t i c a l  Package f o r the S o c i a l Sciences (Nie, 1975) were used t o , f i r s t , determine the simple frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of the responses to each item i n each area t e s t e d and second, to cross - t a b u l a t e the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s of s i n g l e items over a l l areas t e s t e d . These sub-programs are r e f e r r e d to as FREQUENCIES and CROSSTABS i n the SPSS terminology (Nie, 1975, pages 194-201 and 218-245). From a n a l y s i s of the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s and cross - t a b u l a t i o n s p r o v i d e d by these sub-programs, and a comparison of the responses with 38 the g r e a t e s t frequency w i t h those of the author, c o n c l u s i o n s are drawn about the c o n s i s t e n c y o f i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d on On-Site C h e c k l i s t B. It i s re c o g n i z e d that the sample s i z e s f o r each area may not be l a r g e enough to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t and that the i n f e r e n c e s drawn from data gathered and analyzed i n t h i s way may not be s t a t i s t i c a l l y v a l i d . N evertheless i t i s f e l t t h a t even r e c o g n i z i n g these l i m i t a t i o n s , v a l i d o b s e r v a t i o n s and c o n c l u s i o n s can be drawn from these f i e l d t e s t s . (See N i e , 1975, pages 4-6 and 182-185.) 2. Consistency of s t r a t e g i e s i n d i c a t e d Using Procedure B, each of the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n an area chose a s t r a t e g y f o r the streambank s i t e v i s i t e d and recorded t h i s s t r a t e g y on the Working Paper and Comment Sheet. Each s t r a t e g y was l a t e r checked to ensure that i t had been c o r r e c t l y obtained and the s t r a t e g i e s were recorded i n t a b u l a r form a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r number (Appendix I, pages 64-70). Observations were made and c o n c l u s i o n s drawn from the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the i n d i c a t e d s t r a t e g i e s . 3. -Reaction to the procedure T h i r t y - t h r e e w r i t t e n q u a l i t a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n s of the u t i l i t y and p r a c t i c a l i t y o f the "Decision-Making Procedure f o r Streambank Management on Vancouver I s l a n d " (Appendix I) were made du r i n g f i e l d t e s t i n g . .Seventeeneletters were a l s o r e c e i v e d . A l l w r i t t e n comments were recorded and separated a c c o r d i n g to content and c o n c l u s i o n s were drawn as to the 39 u t i l i t y and p r a c t i c a l i t y of t h i s procedure from these comments. Those w r i t t e n comments and l e t t e r s that were r e c e i v e d during f i e l d t e s t i n g are presented i n Appendix V. 4. Need f o r r e v i s i o n and m o d i f i c a t i o n I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f s e c t i o n s of the procedure needing r e v i s i o n or m o d i f i c a t i o n was made from the analyses d e s c r i b e d above and a l s o from w r i t t e n comments on the Working Paper and Comment Sheet. Notes taken from d i s c u s s i o n s d u r i n g and a f t e r f i e l d t e s t i n g were a l s o used. 5. Time and e f f o r t r e q u i r e d The times r e q u i r e d to complete the On-Site C h e c k l i s t and to complete the procedure were recorded during t e s t i n g . These times, however, were i n f l a t e d because of the l a r g e number of p a r t i c i p a n t s and t h e i r u n f a m i l i a r i t y with the proposed procedures. Thus some w r i t t e n and v e r b a l comments are given to provide a more accurate assessment. CHAPTER V RESULTS OF FIELD TESTING A. Consistency of Information C o l l e c t e d An a n a l y s i s of the responses to On-Site C h e c k l i s t B (Appendix III) i n d i c a t e s that there was c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n i n the co n s i s t e n c y of i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d from f i e l d o b s e r v a t i o n . For a number of items on the c h e c k l i s t the responses were s u r p r i s i n g l y c o n s i s t e n t ; f o r others they were very incon-s i s t e n t . These t e s t s , however, were a f i r s t attempt and i n some ins t a n c e s the p a r t i c i p a n t s had not seen the c h e c k l i s t p r e v i o u s l y , or had not had time to read the d e f i n i t i o n s of terms on i t . Some i n c o n s i s t e n c y was t h e r e f o r e expected. Findings from the f o l l o w i n g a n a l y s i s can be used to improve or e l i m i n a t e the l e a s t c o n s i s t e n t items on the c h e c k l i s t and to support the use of those that were c o n s i s t e n t . Four main reasons e x p l a i n much of the i n c o n s i s t e n c y that d i d appear on the c h e c k l i s t s and they r e c u r throughout the a n a l y s i s that f o l l o w s . The reasons are: 1) the extreme v a r i a b i l i t y of some parameters over a l e n g t h of streambank made i t d i f f i c u l t to choose one response that d e s c r i b e d them; 2) the d e t a i l that was requested on the c h e c k l i s t was too f i n e , i n some cases, to be c o n s i s t e n t l y assessed from f i e l d o b s e r v a t i o n ; 3) the d e f i n i t i o n s of s e v e r a l items on the c h e c k l i s t were imprecise and l e d to i n c o n s i s t e n t i n t e r p r e t a -t i o n and assessment; and 40 41 4) i n some cases and f o r some items on the c h e c k l i s t the f i e l d t e s t p a r t i c i p a n t s l a c k e d the knowledge or the f a m i l i a r i t y with streambank parameters to a c c u r a t e l y assess them. A complete i l l u s t r a t i o n of the c o n s i s t e n c y of responses to each of c h e c k l i s t items i n the 6 areas t e s t e d i s p r o v i d e d i n Table: 18.. The most c o n s i s t e n t and l e a s t c o n s i s t e n t items are p r o v i d e d i n Tables. 29 and 3.u Table 4 shows the items i n which the m a j o r i t y of responses d i s a g r e e d more than once with the author and .Tables- 5• and:<<.6 "indicate-the d i s t r i b u -t i o n o f m u l t i p l e responses, "don't know" responses and "not a p p l i c a b l e " responses. These f i g u r e s c o n t a i n the i n f o r m a t i o n that i s presented i n t h i s s e c t i o n . In g e n e r a l , items p e r t a i n i n g to the p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s of the stream, stream edge and streambank were l e s s c o n s i s t e n t l y assessed than those p e r t a i n i n g to the users of the stream and streambank. These p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s account f o r 67% of the items on the c h e c k l i s t ^ but i n c l u d e 80% of the items f o r which 3 or more o f the 6 areas had l e s s than 65% c o n s i s t e n c y ^ and 53% of the items f o r which only 1 area had g r e a t e r than 85% c o n s i s t e n c y ^ . They a l s o account f o r 1 The responses to 58 items on the c h e c k l i s t were analyzed; 39 of these r e l a t e d to stream and streambank f e a t u r e s , 19 r e l a t e d to the users. A complete l i s t of items analyzed i s p r o v i d e d i n Figure 8. 2 Items to which the responses were l e s s than 65% c o n s i s t e n t i n 3 or more areas are co n s i d e r e d to be i n c o n s i s t e n t l y assessed. 3 Items to which the responses were l e s s than 65% c o n s i s t e n t i n only 1 area and more than 85% c o n s i s t e n t i n 3 or more areas are c o n s i d e r e d to be c o n s i s t e n t l y assessed. i a b l e i : C o n s i s t e n c y of Responses to On-Site C h e c k l i s t E Item on On-Site C h e c k l i s t B 1 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f C o n s i s t e n c y _ of Responses 2 Areas with 100% Con-s i s t e n c y Stream Stream . C l a s s i f i c a -t i o n Average Gradient Wetted Width Bank to Bank Width Discharge Predominant Substrate Channel S t a b i l i t y Shaded by Topography or Steep Bank Back Channels Dry, o l d Stream Channels Large Debris i n Place >85% 85-751 75-65% <65% 1 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 Areas Disagree-i n g with Author 1 3 3 1 2 2 1 4 Cumulative % D i s t r i -b u t i o n of C o n s i s t e n c y of Responses >85% >75% >65% <65% 83 83 83 17 17 33 33 67 33 33 67 17 50 67 33 33 50 67 33 17 17 50 50 50 67 83 17 33 67 67 33 33 67 83 17 50 50 67 33 50 67 83 17 1 On-Site C h e c k l i s t B i s i n c l u d e d i n Appendix I I I . 2 % c o n s i s t e n c y of responses was o b t a i n e d from SPSS program FREQUENCIES. They are shown here with the d i s t r i b u t i o n of c o n s i s t e n c y of responses over the 6 areas t e s t e d . ^T-ab-re2 Id (con't.) Item on On-Site C h e c k l i s t B Moving Debris 1 Debris Jamming 2 T r i b u t a r y Streams 4 Stream Edge Shape 1 M a t e r i a l 3 Streambank Slope of Streambank Cover of Shrub Layer Cover o f Ferns 4 Number of Leaning Trees Number o f Immature Trees Number of Deciduous Trees 1 % of Stream Shaded by Non-merchantable 3 Skunk Cabbage 1 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Con s i s t e n c y of Responses 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 3 3 6 5 2 6 Areas with 100% Con 3 s i s t e n c y 1 1 Areas Disagree-in g with Author 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 Cumulative % D i s t r i -b u t i o n of C o n s i s t e n c y of Responses 17 33 67 33 50 50 50 83 100 50 50 17 17 50 50 50 83 100 100 17 17 83 67 67 67 33 100 100 17 17 33 67 50 67 83 17 17 83 83 17 T-aUle- 1 (con't. J Item on On-Site C h e c k l i s t B SphagnumbMoss 3 Depth to Impermeable Layer 1 Type o f Impermeable Layer 1 Major S o i l Texture Depth of Coarse Roots O v e r a l l Rooting Depth 2 Exposed Bedrock Outcrops 3 Root r o t , Conks or M i s t l e t o e 3 Hummocky Ground Old Blowdown 4 G u l l y i n g 2 Wet Depres-sions on Slope 1 P i s t o l - b u t t or Jackstraw 1 Bank Slumping or I n s t a b i l i t y 2 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Consi s t e n c y of Responses Areas w i t h 100% Con-s i s t e n c y 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 4 4 3 1 2 2 4 3 2 1 1 2 Areas Disagree-i n g with Author 3 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 Cumulative % D i s t r i -b u t i o n of C o n s i s t e n c y of Responses 50 50 100 17 67 83 17 17 17 33 67 17 33 67 33 50 50 33 50 83 17 50 67 67 33 50 67 67 33 17 33 67 67 83 100 33 50 67 33 17 17 50 50 17 50 67 33 33 50 83 17 Table- 1 (con't) . Item on On-Site C h e c k l i s t B Status of Opposite Bank Streambank Users F i s h Observed Impassible F a l l s or O b s t r u c t i o n s Observed Number of P e l l e t s Extent of Browsing T r a i l s Tracks, !• ^ .Rubbings or Other Signs B i r d s Observed C a v i t i e s Observed Nests Observed Snags R e c r e a t i o n a l T r a i l s or R e c r e a t i o n a l Use 1 3 D i s t r i b u t i o n of C o n s i s t e n c y of Responses 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 Areas with 100% Con-s i s t e n c y 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 Areas Disagree-ing with Author 1 1 2 3 1 1 Cumulative % D i s t r i -b u t i o n of C o n s i s t e n c y of Responses 83 83 83 33 33 50 67 33 50 83 100 33 50 50 50 17 17 67 33 50 67 83 17 33 50 83 17 17 50 50 50 50 67 83 17 83 100 33 83 17 83 83 83 17 Ta-ble T- (con't) . Item on On-Site C h e c k l i s t B P r o x i m i t y to P o p u l a t i o n Center, R e c r e a t i o n a l Area 2 A c c e s s i b i l i t y of Area V i s u a l Features Of Stream 1 V i s u a l Features of Streambank V i s i b l e from Major T r a v e l Route 4 Close to R e c r e a t i o n a l Area or T r a i l 4 Commercial Value 1 Stand Decadence D i s t r i b u t i o n of C o n s i s t e n c y of Responses 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 Areas w i t h 100% Con-s i s t e n c y Areas Disagree-ing with Author 1 3 1 5 3 Cumulative % D i s t r i -b u t i o n of C o n s i s t e n c y of Responses 33 33 67 33 33 83 17 17 67 67 33 33 67 33 67 67 83 17 67 83 100 17 33 33 67 33 67 47 Table 2 Most C o n s i s t e n t Items on On-Site C h e c k l i s t B (areas with g r e a t e r than % c o n s i s t e n c i e s ) 3 or more areas >90%, 0 <65% 3 or more areas >85%, 0 < 65% T r i b u t a r y Streams Spagnum Moss Stream Edge - M a t e r i a l Old Blowdown Nests Observed Close to R e c r e a t i o n a l Area 3 or more areas > 90%, 0 <60% ' 3 or more areas >85%, 0^ 60% Stream C l a s s i f i c a t i o n W i l d l i f e - T r a i l s Channel S t a b i l i t y Impassible F a l l s or O b s t r u c t i o n s 3 or more areas >90%, 1 < 65% 5 or more areas > 85%, 1< 65% R e c r e a t i o n a l T r a i l s Large Debris i n Place V i s i b l e from Major T r a v e l % Shaded by Non-merchantable ^ ° u t e C a v i t i e s Observed 3 or more areas >90%, 1 < 60% Exposed Bedrock Outcrops Root r o t , Conks or M i s t l e t o e 3 or more areas > 75%, 1 <65% Back Channels Skunk Cabbage Depth to Impermeable Layer O v e r a l l Rooting Depth Bank Slumping or I n s t a b i l i t y Track, Rubbings or Other Sign 48 Table 3 Least C o n s i s t e n t Items oh On-Site C h e c k l i s t B (areas w i t h l e s s than 65% c o n s i s t e n c y i n 3 or more areas) 6 areas <65% Slope of Streambank Number of Leaning Trees Number of Immature Trees 4 areas <65% Average Gradient Wetted Width Number of Deciduous Trees Type of Impermeable Layer Major S o i l Texture Hummocky Ground Timber - Commercial Volume Stand Decadence 5 areas <65% Cover of Shrub Layer 3 areas < 65% Predominant s u b s t r a t e Moving Debris Debris Jamming Stream Edge - Shape Depth of Coarse Roots Wet Depressions on Slope Number of P e l l e t s B i r d s Observed 49 Table 4 M a j o r i t y of Responses I n c o n s i s t e n t With Author I n c o n s i s t e n t i n 5 Areas Timber - Commercial Volume I n c o n s i s t e n t i n 3 Areas Discharge Predominant Substrate Number of Immature Trees dumber of Deciduous Trees Spagnum Moss Type of Impermeable Layer W i l d l i f e - T r a i l s V i s u a l Features of Streambank Stand Decadence I n c o n s i s t e n t i n 4 Areas Large Debris i n Place Moving Debris O v e r a l l Rooting Depth I n c o n s i s t e n t i n 2 Areas Wetted Width Shaded by Topography ... Back Channels Slope of Streambank Cover of Ferns Number of Leaning Trees Skunk Cabbage Bank Slumping or I n s t a b i l i t y Extent of Browsing 50 T a b l e 5 D i s t r i b u t i o n of M u l t i p l e Responses (gr e a t e r than 2 responses) Predominant Substrate - 15 Stream Edge - M a t e r i a l 8 Stream Edge - Shape 6 Type of Impermeable Layer 6 Slope of Streambank 3 Major S o i l Texture 2 Status of Opposite Bank 2 Table ~6 13 D i s t r i b u t i o n of "Don't Know" and "Not A p p l i c a b l e " Responses Timber - Commercial Volume 4 Type of Impermeable Layer 3 Hummocky Ground 3 Discharge 3 Spagnum 1 Major S o i l Texture 1 Depth of Coarse Roots 1 O v e r a l l Rooting Depth 1 Exposed Bedrock Outcrops 1 Root r o t , Conks or M i s t l e t o e 1 P i s t o l - b u t t or Jackstrawed Trees 1 51 94% of the m u l t i p l e responses and 80% of the "don't know" and "not a p p l i c a b l e " responses. In a d d i t i o n they account f o r 77% of the items f o r which the m a j o r i t y of responses i n 2 or more areas were i n c o n s i s t e n t with those of the author. I f the two items p e r t a i n i n g to "Timber", which were the l e a s t c o n s i s t e n t l y assessed user items, are removed from these c a l c u l a t i o n s , the d i s t i n c t i o n between p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s and users becomes even more apparent. S e v e r a l of the important p h y s i c a l parameters i n c l u d i n g the slope of the streambank and the g r a d i e n t , s u b s t r a t e and wetted width of the stream were among the items that were l e a s t c o n s i s t e n t l y c o l l e c t e d . "Slope of the Streambank" was answered with l e s s than 65% agreement i n a l l 6 areas and i n a l l areas the responses covered a range of three of the p o s s i b l e c h o i c e s . In 2 of the areas the response with the g r e a t e s t frequency was i n c o n s i s t e n t with that of the author. "Average G r a d i e n t " was assessed with l e s s than 65% c o n s i s t e n c y i n 4 areas and i n 5 out of the 6 areas there was a range of responses i n c l u d i n g 3 of the p o s s i b l e answers. One steep stream, however, was assessed q u i t e c o n s i s t e n t l y (90%) and i t was on low g r a d i e n t streams where there was the g r e a t e s t i n c o n s i s t e n c y . "Predominant S u b s t r a t e " was a l s o h i g h l y i n c o n s i s t e n t and again a wide range of responses, i n c l u d i n g 5 of the p o s s i b l e answers i n 1 area, was e v i d e n t . In 3 of the areas there was l e s s than 65% agreement. 52 However, l i k e g r a d i e n t , the s u b s t r a t e was c o n s i s t e n t l y e valuated (100%) i n 1 area. This was a bouldery stream with very l i t t l e sand, g r a v e l or cobble and i t appears t h a t these streams, w i t h uniform s u b s t r a t e s or steep g r a d i e n t s are c o n s i s t e n t l y assessed. On other streams with mixtures of sands, g r a v e l s and cobbles or v a r i a b l e g r a d i e n t s , great i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s o c c u r r e d . The d i f f i c u l t y i n a s s e s s i n g these streams was emphasized by the f a c t that 15 p a r t i c i -pants used m u l t i p l e responses to d e s c r i b e the s u b s t r a t e even when i n s t r u c t e d to choose only one. "Stream Edge - Shape" was another p h y s i c a l parameter f o r which the responses were very i n c o n s i s t e n t . In 3 of the 6 areas, c o n s i s t e n c y was l e s s than 65% and i n 5 of the 6 areas there was a range of 3 or 4 of the p o s s i b l e answers. For t h i s item, 8 p a r t i c i p a n t s used m u l t i p l e responses. These parameters, slope of streambank, g r a d i e n t , sub-s t r a t e and stream edge shape are a l l important to the s u c c e s s f u l o p e r a t i o n of the decision-making procedure. However, i t appears that they are too v a r i a b l e over the l e n g t h of a streambank c u t - b l o c k to be c o n s i s t e n t l y assessed from f i e l d o b s e r v a t i o n and recorded i n a format that allows only one d e s c r i p t i o n of them. I t w i l l t h e r e f o r e be necessary to modify the way i n which they are assessed and recorded, and i t i s suggested that i n s t e a d of checking s i n g l e boxes, per cent c l a s s e s be assigned to each of the p o s s i b l e d e s c r i p t i o n s f o r these f e a t u r e s . 53 Another set of items that was very i n c o n s i s t e n t l y assessed was that p e r t a i n i n g to v e g e t a t i o n along the streambank. Both "Number of Leaning T r e e s " and "Number of Immature Tre e s " along the streambank were assessed with l e s s than 65% c o n s i s t e n c y i n a l l 6 areas. The "Number of Deciduous Tr e e s " was assessed with l e s s than 65% agreement i n 4 areas out of 6. The terms used to d e s c r i b e these f e a t u r e s were "none", "very few", "some" and "numerous" and the range of responses was wide, with 3 or 4 checked i n a l l areas. In at l e a s t 2 of the areas the responses with the g r e a t e s t f r e q u e n c i e s d i d not agree with those of the author. Combining the responses f o r "none" and "very few", and f o r "some" and "numerous", as i s done i n the handbook, improved the c o n s i s t e n c y markedly f o r "Number of Deciduous Trees',' (4 areas g r e a t e r than 75% and none l e s s than 65%). However f o r the other two items there was only marginal improvement. In.the case o f "Snags" the terms "none", "few", and "numerous" pr o v i d e s l i g h t l y b e t t e r c o n s i s t e n c y with only 1 area l e s s than 65% and 2 g r e a t e r than 75%. There are two p o s s i b l e reasons f o r these r e s u l t s . The d e t a i l i n these items may be too f i n e to c o l l e c t from f i e l d o b s e r v a t i o n and combining terms i n t o fewer, broader c a t e g o r i e s may improve the c o n s i s t e n c y . However i t may a l s o be that d e s c r i p t i v e terms such as "none", "very few", "some" and "numerous" are too imprecise to c o l l e c t c o n s i s t e n t informa-t i o n . This i s s u b s t a n t i a t e d by the item "% of Stream Shaded 54 by Non-merchantable and Deciduous V e g e t a t i o n " which c o l l e c t s the same i n f o r m a t i o n about the shading p r o v i d e d by the streambank v e g e t a t i o n . For t h i s item, the responses were much more c o n s i s t e n t . In 3 o f the 6 areas there was g r e a t e r than 85% agreement, with 1 area being 100% c o n s i s t e n t and another, 95% c o n s i s t e n t . Only 1 area was l e s s than 65% c o n s i s t e n t . In 5 out o f the 6 areas the response with the g r e a t e s t frequency was c o n s i s t e n t with that of the author. Thus i t appears that t h i s item which lumps the p r e c e d i n g three together and uses the numerical values <.50% and >50% c o l l e c t s i n f o r m a t i o n with much gr e a t e r c o n s i s t e n c y and should be used.. This i s f u r t h e r supported by the responses to "Cover of Ferns" which were a l s o c o l l e c t e d on a numerical b a s i s and which were g r e a t e r than 85% c o n s i s t e n t i n 4 of the 6 areas t e s t e d . The "Cover of the Shrub Layer", however, appears to c o n t r a d i c t these f i n d i n g s about .the use of per cent c l a s s e s as 5 areas had l e s s than 65% agreement on t h i s item. But the i n c o n s i s t e n c y i s more l i k e l y due to u n c e r t a i n t y about whether the "Cover o f Shrubs" r e f e r r e d to the e n t i r e stream-bank or only to the immediate stream edge than to the use of per cent c l a s s e s . The use of imprecise or u n c l e a r d e f i n i t i o n s e x p l a i n s a number of other h i g h l y i n c o n s i s t e n t items on the c h e c k l i s t . "Hummocky Ground", f o r example, had l e s s than 65% agreement i n 4 out of 6 areas. I t was an item that brought s e v e r a l 55 questions during f i e l d t e s t i n g and i t s o l i c i t e d 3 "don't know" responses and the g r e a t e s t number of m i s s i n g responses on the c h e c k l i s t . "Wet Depressions on Slope", with l e s s than 65% agree-ment i n 3 areas was another item that was u n c l e a r and i n t e r p r e t e d to mean v a r i o u s things by p a r t i c i p a n t s . More p r e c i s e d e s c r i p t i o n s and i n s t r u c t i o n s w i l l have to be p r o v i d e d . The three items p e r t a i n i n g to l o g g i n g d e b r i s , "Large Debris i n P l a c e " , "Moving D e b r i s " and "Debris Jamming", were a l s o i n c o n s i s t e n t l y and i n a c c u r a t e l y assessed. Both "Moving D e b r i s " and "Debris Jamming" were l e s s than 65% c o n s i s t e n t i n 3 areas and "Large Debris i n P l a c e " , while g r e a t e r than 85% c o n s i s t e n t i n 3 of the 6 areas, was i n a c c u r a t e l y assessed by the m a j o r i t y i n 4 of them. These items c l e a r l y p o i n t out the need f o r c l e a r and p r e c i s e d e f i n i t i o n of terms and the need to have personnel u s i n g a handbook of t h i s nature f a m i l i a r w i t h e x a c t l y what i s to. be recorded. One other-itemisaibs t a r i t i a t e s thesei.needs . "Skunk Cabbage" was q u i t e c o n s i s t e n t l y recorded with g r e a t e r than 75% agreement i n 4 areas but i n 2 areas the m a j o r i t y of responses d i f f e r e d from that of the author. I t had been intended that skunk cabbage would have to be present as a common f e a t u r e of the s i t e b e f o r e i t would be checked on the C h e c k l i s t . But t h i s i n t e n t i o n was not c l e a r and i f only one or two skunk cabbage p l a n t s were p r e s e n t , some 56 p a r t i c i p a n t s checked a "yes" response when a "no" was intended. A s i m i l a r problem arose to a much l e s s e r extent f o r " P i s t o l -b u t t or Jackstrawed Trees" and "Bank Slumping or I n s t a b i l i t y " . I f one small slump or one p i s t o l - b u t t t r e e was observed, some p a r t i c i p a n t s checked "yes" even though they were not common or t y p i c a l f e a t u r e s of the s i t e . T h i s a l s o w i l l have to be c l e a r i f more c o n s i s t e n t and u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n i s to be c o l l e c t e d . Another group of p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s t h a t was i n c o n s i s t e n t l y and i n a c c u r a t e l y assessed d u r i n g f i e l d t e s t s was that p e r t a i n i n g to s o i l s and t r e e r o o t i n g . "Type of Impermeable Layer" was l e s s than 65% c o n s i s t e n t i n 4 areas and g r e a t e r than 75% c o n s i s t e n t i n only 1 area. In a d d i t i o n i t was i n c o r r e c t l y assessed i n 3 of the 6 areas. "Major S o i l Texture" was somewhat b e t t e r but was s t i l l l e s s than 65% c o n s i s t e n t i n 4 areas. "Depth of Coarse Roots" was a l s o q u i t e i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h 3 areas l e s s than 65% and only 2 g r e a t e r than 75%. " O v e r a l l Rooting Depth" although much more c o n s i s t e n t l y assessed, was i n c o n s i s t e n t with the response of the author i n 4 areas. These fo u r items a l s o accounted f o r 8 m u l t i p l e responses and 6 "don't knows". I t appears that they cannot be c o l l e c t e d c o n s i s t e n t l y or a c c u r a t e l y by f i e l d personnel from a walking i n s p e c t i o n . A more d e t a i l e d method of o b s e r v a t i o n and a c l e a r e r understanding of each item w i l l be r e q u i r e d f o r them to be more c o n s i s t e n t l y assessed. A number of p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s were assessed q u i t e con-s i s t e n t l y . "Stream Edge - M a t e r i a l " f o r example was 57 assessed more than 85% c o n s i s t e n t l y i n 3 areas and i n 2 of those there was 100% agreement. In 5 out of 6 areas the m a j o r i t y of responses agreed w i t h that o f the author. Items p e r t a i n i n g to the s t a b i l i t y of the channel and of the streambank were a l s o c o n s i s t e n t l y assessed. "Channel S t a b i l i t y " had more than 85% agreement i n 3 areas and was 100% c o n s i s t e n t i n 2 of these. "Bank Slumping or I n s t a b i l i t y " was a l s o 100% c o n s i s t e n t i n 2 areas and was more than 75% c o n s i s t e n t i n 3. N e i t h e r of these items had any m u l t i p l e or "don't know" responses and the responses were c o n s i s t e n t with those of the author i n 4 of the 6 areas. The presence or absence of such f e a t u r e s as "Old Blowdown", "Back Channels", " T r i b u t a r y Streams", and "Impassible F a l l s or O b s t r u c t i o n s " was al s o c o n s i s t e n t l y assessed, each w i t h g r e a t e r than 75% agreement i n 3 or more areas and l e s s than 65% c o n s i s t e n c y i n only 1 area. "Dry, Old Stream Channels", "Exposed Bedrock Outcrops" and " P i s t o l - b u t t or Jackstrawed T r e e s " a l l had g r e a t e r than 75% c o n s i s t e n c y i n 3 or 4 areas and were 100% c o n s i s t e n t i n 1. None had more than 1 area i n which the m a j o r i t y of responses d i f f e r e d from those of the author. Thus' i t appears that these f e a t u r e s can be c o l l e c t e d from f i e l d o b s e r v a t i o n and, with b e t t e r d e f i n i t i o n s of terms and more p r a c t i c e w i t h the use of t h i s C h e c k l i s t , c o u l d be c o l l e c t e d c o n s i s t e n t l y . In general the c o n s i s t e n c y of the responses to the items p e r t a i n i n g to p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s was very v a r i a b l e . A number 58 of important f e a t u r e s such as the slope of the streambank and the g r a d i e n t o f the stream appear to be too v a r i a b l e to c o l l e c t u s i n g t h i s type of c h e c k l i s t . Other i n f o r m a t i o n such as shading p r o v i d e d by streambank v e g e t a t i o n can be b e t t e r assessed i f d i f f e r e n t items than those o r i g i n a l l y s p e c i f i e d are used. A number of items need b e t t e r d e f i n i t i o n i n the notes accompanying the C h e c k l i s t and s e v e r a l items w i l l r e q u i r e more i n t e n s i v e o b s e r v a t i o n than was used i n f i e l d t e s t i n g . N evertheless with these changes and with a g r e a t e r f a m i l i a r i t y and a b e t t e r understanding of the procedure, i t i s f e l t t h a t f i e l d p ersonnel c o u l d c o l l e c t c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n about the p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s of stream and streambank s i t e s i n a manner that c o u l d be used to a i d i n making d e c i s i o n s . C o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n a l s o e x i s t e d i n the c o n s i s t e n c y of responses to items a s s e s s i n g the users of the streambank. However as i n d i c a t e d e a r l i e r , these items were g e n e r a l l y more c o n s i s t e n t than those p e r t a i n i n g to the p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s . Items r e c o r d i n g the p h y s i c a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of use such as t r e e c a v i t i e s , animal t r a c k s and r e c r e a t i o n a l t r a i l s were q u i t e c o n s i s t e n t l y assessed. " R e c r e a t i o n a l T r a i l s or R e c r e a t i o n a l Use" f o r example, was more than 851 c o n s i s t e n t i n 5 out of 6 areas and was i n c o n s i s t e n t with the author i n only 1. "Tracks, Rubbings or Other S i g n s " was more than 65% c o n s i s t e n t i n 5 areas w i t h 1 area 100% c o n s i s t e n t and another, 91%. " C a v i t i e s Observed" i n t r e e s 59 was al s o more than 65% i n 5 areas and had g r e a t e r than 80% agreement i n 4 areas. Items such as "Number of P e l l e t s " and "Extent o f Browsing" which a l s o r e l a t e to p h y s i c a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of use appear l e s s c o n s i s t e n t at f i r s t glance. "Number of P e l l e t s " had l e s s than 65% agreement i n 3 areas and "Extent of Browsing" was l e s s than 65% c o n s i s t e n t i n 2. However, as w i t h "Number of Leaning Trees", the d e t a i l that was used to c o l l e c t t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was f i n e r than was intended f o r use i n the handbook and i f the four d e s c r i p t i o n s are combined i n t o two c a t e g o r i e s , the c o n s i s t e n c y of responses i s q u i t e h i g h . For "Number of P e l l e t s " , combining "none" and "few", and "moderate" and "many" gives g r e a t e r than 65% agreement i n a l l 6 areas and g r e a t e r than 85% i n 5 of these. Three areas had 100% agreement. Combining the same c a t e g o r i e s f o r "Extent of Browsing" p r o v i d e s 100% agreement i n 4 areas but leaves 2 with l e s s than 65% agreement. These two areas may r e f l e c t the same i n c o n s i s t e n c y that o c c u r r e d with the streambank v e g e t a t i o n and i t i s f e l t t h a t with a c l e a r d e f i n i t i o n of what c o n s t i t u t e s the streambank, browsing, too, c o u l d be c o l l e c t e d c o n s i s t e n t l y . The above items r e f e r to a c t u a l observed use and appear to have been c o l l e c t e d q u i t e c o n s i s t e n t l y . The same was true f o r items a s s e s s i n g the p o t e n t i a l f o r use, p a r t i c u l a r l y r e c r e a t i o n a l and v i s u a l use. "Close to R e c r e a t i o n Area or T r a i l " and "P r o x i m i t y to P o p u l a t i o n Centre." which form p a r t 60 of the assessment of r e c r e a t i o n a l p o t e n t i a l were both • c o n s i s t e n t l y assessed. The former was g r e a t e r than 85.% c o n s i s t e n t i n 4 areas and g r e a t e r than 65% i n a l l areas; the l a t t e r was g r e a t e r than 85% i n 2 and g r e a t e r than 65% i n 4 of the areas. Each was 100% c o n s i s t e n t i n l . a r e a and the m a j o r i t y of responses agreed with those of the author i n 5 areas. " V i s i b l e from Major T r a v e l Route", which forms p a r t of the assessment of the v i s u a l v a l u e , was assessed with g r e a t e r than 85% agreement i n 4 areas and with l e s s than 65% agree-ment i n only 1. The v i s u a l f e a t u r e s of the stream were a l s o q u i t e c o n s i s t e n t with 4 areas out of 6 having g r e a t e r than 75% c o n s i s t e n c y . The v i s u a l f e a t u r e s o f the streambank were l e s s c o n s i s t e n t with 2 areas l e s s than 65% and 3 areas i n which the m a j o r i t y of the responses d i s a g r e e d with those of the author. Nevertheless these f a c t o r s a s s e s s i n g r e c r e a -t i o n a l and a e s t h e t i c values are s u r p r i s i n g l y c o n s i s t e n t , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n view of the f a c t that t h i s was the f i r s t time any of the p a r t i c i p a n t s had used t h i s C h e c k l i s t and that a number of them had not seen i t or read the d e f i n i t i o n s of terms p r i o r to the f i e l d t e s t . With f u r t h e r p r a c t i c e and use i t i s f e l t that these c o u l d be c o n s i s t e n t l y assessed. The l e a s t c o n s i s t e n t l y assessed items p e r t a i n i n g to users were "Commercial Volume" and "Stand. Decadence" of the timber. The responses to both of these items were l e s s than 65% c o n s i s t e n t i n 4 of the 6 areas. "Commercial Volume" had the l a r g e s t number of "don't know" responses and 61 the t h i r d l a r g e s t number of m i s s i n g responses on the Check-l i s t . "Root r o t , Conks and M i s t l e t o e " which a l s o r e l a t e s to the "Timber" user had the second l a r g e s t number of m i s s i n g responses and a l s o 1 "don't know". I t appears that the f i e l d personnel u s i n g t h i s procedure were u n f a m i l i a r with these items. Therefore they cannot be c o l l e c t e d c o n s i s -t e n t l y and, s i n c e they do not f i g u r e i n the assessment of the streambank value and enter the decision-making procedure only at Step 8, should be e l i m i n a t e d from the C h e c k l i s t and c o l l e c t e d from other sources. This a n a l y s i s has p o i n t e d out those items on the c h e c k l i s t which have to be m o d i f i e d , defined," expanded or e l i m i n a t e d and a l s o those items which can be c o n s i s t e n t l y used as t e s t e d . In a d d i t i o n i t has made a number of other important f a c t o r s more obvious. "Back Channels", f o r example, would have had even g r e a t e r c o n s i s t e n c y i f s e v e r a l p a r t i c i p a n t s i n one area had walked the l e n g t h of the proposed c u t - b l o c k . By not walking the e n t i r e l e n g t h , they missed a very obvious back channel. In another area a very l a r g e and obvious d e b r i s jam was not observed f o r the same reason. I f c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n i s to be c o l l e c t e d , the e n t i r e l e n g t h of the proposed c u t - b l o c k must be walked. Otherwise, important f e a t u r e s w i l l be missed. The d e s c r i p t i v e c a t e g o r i e s used on the C h e c k l i s t must be adequate to cover the range of p o s s i b i l i t i e s without ambiguity. In the case of "Status of Opposite Bank" the 62 two c a t e g o r i e s used were "Logged" and "Unlogged". On one t e s t s i t e the o p p o s i t e streambank was logged but a s t r i p of timber had been l e f t along the stream edge and some p a r t i c i p a n t s checked "Logged" while others checked "Unlogged". Another category, " F r i n g e S t r i p " , w i l l have to be added to t h i s item. In another area h a l f o f the o p p o s i t e bank was logged and h a l f was unlogged'- producing i n c o n s i s t e n t r e s u l t s . The p o s i t i o n i n g and l a y o u t of items on a C h e c k l i s t are a l s o important as i s evidenced by the number of times c e r t a i n items were not assessed. The f i r s t item on the C h e c k l i s t , "Stream C l a s s i f i c a t i o n " , had no response on 9 C h e c k l i s t s and i t appears t h a t t h i s i s because p a r t i c i p a n t s jumped s t r a i g h t to the second item which commanded more v i s u a l a t t e n t i o n due to i t s p o s i t i o n i n g on the sheet. The f i n d i n g s from t h i s a n a l y s i s of the c o n s i s t e n c y of responses on On-Site C h e c k l i s t B can now be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a r e v i s e d C h e c k l i s t . In a d d i t i o n they have shown that c e r t a i n f a c t o r s p e r t a i n i n g to the p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s and the users o f streams and streambanks can be c o n s i s t e n t l y assessed, and they lend support to the c o n t e n t i o n that a w e l l - d e s i g n e d C h e c k l i s t c o u l d c o n s i s t e n t l y c o l l e c t the i n f o r m a t i o n necessary to use the decision-making procedure presented i n Appendix I. B. Consistency of S t r a t e g i e s I n d i c a t e d The c o n s i s t e n c y of the management s t r a t e g i e s i n d i c a t e d a f t e r i n f o r m a t i o n had been c o l l e c t e d on the C h e c k l i s t was a l s o q u i t e v a r i a b l e as can be seen i n Table 7. In some areas there ; Table 7 Consistency of S t r a t e g i e s I n d i c a t e d in, P i e l d Tests Area S t r a t e g i e s Area 1 B2b X 2 Port A l b e r n i B3b 18 Area 2 Bib 3 Sayward B2a 9 B2b 4 B3a 2 B3b 1 B4b 4 Area 3 2 Alb 11 Port Hardy A2a 1 Area 4 B2a 1 Langford B2b 8 B3a 2 Area 5 A2b 4 T o f i n o B2a 4 B2b 3 B3b 9 B4b 1 Area 6 B2a 17 Port M c N e i l l B2b 4 B4b 1 Area 7 B2a 1 Gold R i v e r B2b 5 B3b 6 D e s c r i p t i o n s and i l l u s t r a t i o n s of these s t r a t e g i e s are i n Appendix I, pages 64-70 Procedure A t e s t e d 64 was s u b s t a n t i a l agreement on a s t r a t e g y ; i n other areas there was great disagreement. In most i n s t a n c e s the v a r i a b i l i t y was due simply to the v a r i a b i l i t y of the i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d on-s i t e but an a n a l y s i s of the s t r a t e g i e s i d e n t i f i e d p r o v i d e s some a d d i t i o n a l understanding about the s e n s i t i v i t y of the decision-making procedure, as presented i n Appendix I, to c e r t a i n f e a t u r e s . The g r e a t e s t v a r i a b i l i t y i n s t r a t e g i e s occurred i n Area 5 and was i n l a r g e p a r t due to the o b s e r v a t i o n , on the second day of t e s t i n g , of s e v e r a l s m a l l , u n i d e n t i f i a b l e , f i s h i n the stream. This o b s e r v a t i o n meant that over the two days of t e s t i n g s t r a t e g i e s were determined f o r each of the three c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of f i s h users and consequently a number o f d i f f e r e n t s t r a t e g i e s were i d e n t i f i e d . I t i s apparent that the procedure, as t e s t e d , i s extremely s e n s i t i v e to the presence of f i s h and can, i n the absence of good i n v e n t o r y data, l e a d to v a r i a b i l i t y i n s t r a t e g i e s , depending on whether or not f i s h are s i g h t e d and can be i d e n t i f i e d . In t h i s Area and Area 1, i t a l s o became apparent that the procedure i s very s e n s i t i v e to the assessment of the slope of the streambank. In Area 5, the slope determined whether the streambank value f o r d e b r i s b u f f e r i n g was " h i g h " or "moderate" and since the assessment of the slope was very v a r i a b l e so were the s t r a t e g i e s i d e n t i f i e d . Another f a c t o r to which the procedure appears s e n s i t i v e i s the g r a d i e n t of the stream, which, i n the procedure, i s an important f a c t o r i n determining the streambank value f o r 65 shading. I t was the v a r i a b l e assessment of g r a d i e n t that accounted f o r some of the v a r i a b i l i t y i n Area 2 and a l s o f o r one of the s t r a t e g i e s i n Area 4 which was not c o n s i s t e n t . The s t a b i l i t y of the banks i s a l s o an important f e a t u r e to which the procedure i s very s e n s i t i v e . In Area 2, Area 4 and Area 7 s e v e r a l p a r t i c i p a n t s noted si g n s of bank slumping or i n s t a b i l i t y and t h e r e f o r e obtained a " h i g h " streambank value f o r s t a b i l i t y . Other p a r t i c i p a n t s d i d not n o t i c e these slumps or d i d not c o n s i d e r them as i n d i c a t i v e or t y p i c a l of the s i t e and thus chose a d i f f e r e n t s t r a t e g y . The importance of these four items i n determining the ap p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g y and the i n c o n s i s t e n c y with which they were c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g f i e l d t e s t i n g f u r t h e r support the recommendations made e a r l i e r i n t h i s Chapter. These f a c t o r s w i l l have to be c o l l e c t e d c o n s i s t e n t l y i f c o n s i s t e n t s t r a t e g i e s are to be i d e n t i f i e d . Unclear i n s t r u c t i o n was another f a c t o r which accounted f o r v a r i a b i l i t y i n s t r a t e g i e s . In three of the areas, back channels were observed by a number of p a r t i c i p a n t s and they were thus r e q u i r e d to choose a p a r t i c u l a r s t r a t e g y . I t was not c l e a r however i n the handbook that t h i s s t r a t e g y should apply only to the l e n g t h of streambank w i t h i n the backchannel. For the remainder of the streambank and along the backchannel the next h i g h e s t s t r a t e g y should apply. This was hot s t a t e d and the. r e s u l t i n g c o n f u s i o n e x p l a i n s much o f the v a r i a b i l i t y i n Area 2. In the other two areas i t 66 was c o r r e c t e d d u r i n g t e s t i n g and the r e v i s e d s t r a t e g i e s are shown i n Figure 14. Despite these problems, however, there was c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n s i s t e n c y i n the s t r a t e g i e s i d e n t i f i e d i n 3 Of the 6 areas t e s t e d f o r Procedure B and the 1 area t e s t e d f o r Procedure A. It i s f e l t t h a t with m o d i f i c a t i o n s based on these f i n d i n g s and more c o n s i s t e n t c o l l e c t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n , management s t r a t e g i e s can a l s o be c o n s i s t e n t l y i d e n t i f i e d . C. Q u a l i t a t i v e E v a l u a t i o n of Procedure The m a j o r i t y o f f i e l d t e s t p a r t i c i p a n t s who took the opp o r t u n i t y to make c r i t i c a l comment were p o s i t i v e i n t h e i r a p p r a i s a l o f "A Decision-Making Procedure f o r Streambank Management on Vancouver I s l a n d " and r e c e p t i v e to the concept. Some p a r t i c i p a n t s were simply impressed that a system which would work could be developed. "Your system works! F a i r l y easy to f o l l o w . " Company f o r e s t e r "Based on the one e x e r c i s e i t appears the system works." B.C.F.S. A s s i s t a n t ranger " . . . I f e e l you have achieved a workable method f o r making streambank d e c i s i o n s . Company f o r e s t e r Q u a l i t a t i v e comments were r e c e i v e d from 50 f i e l d t e s t p a r t i c i p a n t s . (In some cases these r e f l e c t e d the views of more than one person). T h i r t y - n i n e of these comments were judged to r e l a t e to the merit and/or u t i l i t y o f the procedure. Twenty-nine of these (74%) were judged to be p o s i t i v e ; Ten (26%) were judged to be n e g a t i v e . A complete t r a n s c r i p t of a l l w r i t t e n comments r e c e i v e d during t e s t i n g i s i n c l u d e d i n Appendix V. L e t t e r s r e c e i v e d are a l s o on f i l e w ith the F o r e s t Research D i v i s i o n , B.C. Fo r e s t S e r v i c e , V i c t o r i a . 67 "System appears workable." B.C.F.S. A s s i s t a n t ranger However, more s i g n i f i c a n t l y , a number of p a r t i c i p a n t s who responded s t a t e d that they f e l t the approach was sound and would be u s e f u l to them i n the management of streambanks. Such words as "good", " u s e f u l " , " p r a c t i c a l " , " f e a s i b l e " , "reasonable", " f a c t u a l " and " v a l u a b l e " were used to d e s c r i b e t h e i r r e a c t i o n s . "Your approach i s good and I t h i n k i t w i l l be u s e f u l . " Company b i o l o g i s t "I think t h i s procedure i s p r e t t y good f o r the p r o t e c t i o n o f w i l d l i f e , r e c r e a t i o n , and a p r a c t i c a l way of l o o k i n g at streams." Company f i e l d crew "This r e p o r t i s u s e f u l as a guide to ensure maximum p r o t e c t i o n . I t could be a u s e f u l . s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r d i s c u s s i o n between agency and developer." F e d e r a l f i s h e r i e s h y d r o l o g i s t "Consider t h i s method a f e a s i b l e approach with p r a c t i c e i n i t s use." B.C.F.S. Zone F o r e s t e r "A f a c t u a l and reasonable means o f assessment." Company engineer "I c e r t a i n l y f e e l the system can be a v a l u a b l e t o o l f o r i n d u s t r y i n e v a l u a t i n g proposed cut b l o c k s . " Company engineer Other p a r t i c i p a n t s q u a l i f i e d t h e i r p o s i t i v e comments with a note about the need to make m o d i f i c a t i o n s or r e v i s i o n s to the procedure as presented. But again such words as " u s e f u l " and " v a l i d " were used. 68 " E x c e l l e n t concept and with some m o d i f i c a t i o n s , should prove to be a u s e f u l a i d i n streambank management d e c i s i o n s . " Company f o r e s t e r " T h i s w i l l be a u s e f u l approach when the bugs are i r o n e d out." B.C.F.S. Management "The key needs m o d i f i c a t i o n but I f e e l t h e ' process and approach i s v a l i d . " Company f o r e s t e r I t was, of course, c l e a r l y r e c o g n i z e d before f i e l d t e s t i n g that q u i t e a number of r e v i s i o n s and m o d i f i c a t i o n s would need to be made and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f these s e c t i o n s was, i n f a c t , a s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e of f i e l d t e s t i n g . S e v e r a l other p a r t i c i p a n t s q u a l i f i e d t h e i r p o s i t i v e comments with a statement that a procedure of t h i s nature should be used only as a guide and should not be implemented as a bl a n k e t requirement. ' "Procedure, i f used as a g u i d e l i n e only, may prove to be a v a l u a b l e t o o l i n a s s e s s i n g need to p r o t e c t streams." Company engineer " I t seems a reasonable and f a c t u a l type of system to a i d i n decision-making - at l e a s t i t should help to make the process of l a n d management l e s s emotional and more f a c t u a l . " Company engineer Other w r i t t e n comments s t a t e d t h i s d i r e c t l y . "Must be a g u i d e l i n e o n l y , not a set r u l e . " Company engineer "People using i t have to re g a r d i t as a guide not as a c r y s t a l b a l l that w i l l t e l l them e x a c t l y what to do." B.C.F.S. Management 69 These comments support two o f the premises of t h i s t h e s i s ; that there was a need f o r a l t e r n a t i v e s to g u i d e l i n e s and that these a l t e r n a t i v e s should take the form of s i t e - s p e c i f i c d e c i s i o n -making procedures which would serve as aids or guides f o r d e c i s i o n -makers. The i n s i d e cover of "A Decision-Making Procedure f o r Streambank Management on Vancouver I s l a n d " s t a t e s t h a t , "The o b j e c t i v e of t h i s handbook i s to a i d i n making those streambank management d e c i s i o n s . " (Appendix I, i n s i d e c o v e r ) . A number of p a r t i c i p a n t s were s p e c i f i c i n s t a t i n g reasons f o r t h e i r p o s i t i v e r e a c t i o n to the proposed procedure and words and phrases such as " c o n s i s t e n t " , " o r d e r " , " i d e n t i f i e s p o t e n t i a l u s e r s " , " p i n p o i n t s i s s u e s " , "pins down p o l i c i e s " and "can be used by anybody" were used. '". "I l i k e the approach f o r the f o l l o w i n g reasons: 1. Information can be gathered i n a c o n s i s t e n t manner and kept as a permanent r e c o r d . 2. Used c o n s i s t e n t l y i t can be used i n p l a n development w e l l b e f o r e f i n a l l a y o u t . 3. Decision-making v i a the key approach i d e n t i f i e s p o t e n t i a l uses that would otherwise be overlooked." Company f o r e s t e r "I c o n g r a t u l a t e you on your progress i n your endeavours to b r i n g some order i n t o d e c i s i o n -making f o r streambank management." Fede r a l F i s h e r i e s t e c h n i c i a n " . . . i t w i l l ensure that a l l uses are at l e a s t c o n s i d e r e d . " B.C.F.S. Management "...the process and approach i s v a l i d i n that i t tends to i s o l a t e the f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n a judgement of t h i s type. Then i f there i s disagreement we can focus on one or two f a c t o r s i n s t e a d of going around i n c i r c l e s . " Company f o r e s t e r 70 "I l i k e the f a c t that i t f o r c e s planners to co n s i d e r the f a c t o r s l i s t e d and have a good reason i f they want to o v e r r i d e the i n d i c a t e d s t r a t e g y . " B.C.F.S. A s s i s t a n t ranger "Based on the one e x e r c i s e i t appears the system works. I f any t h i n g i t pr o v i d e s a" good c h e c k l i s t . " B.C.F.S. A s s i s t a n t ranger "Very good attempt at p i n n i n g down agency p o l i c i e s which are o f t e n somewhat nebulous." F e d e r a l F i s h e r i e s h y d r o l o g i s t "The approach i s good and should be u s e f u l - the best p a r t i s that anyone can use i t , many in v e n t o r y methods are only fathomable to e x p e r t s . " Company b i o l o g i s t The above p o s i t i v e comments r e p r e s e n t e d a l a r g e m a j o r i t y of the f i e l d t e s t p a r t i c i p a n t s and s u b s t a n t i a t e many of the contentions made i n Chapter I. P o s i t i v e r e a c t i o n to the procedure was not unanimous however and negative comments were made by s e v e r a l f i e l d t e s t p a r t i c i p a n t s . Only one o f these comments was h i g h l y c r i t i c a l . " T h i s key appears to be extremely cumbersome and too time consuming to be of any r e a l value to f i e l d p e r s o n n e l . In our present stream i n s p e c t i o n s we are making many of these e v a l u a t i o n s and i d e n t i f y i n g problem areas without the added expense o f going through a key and f i l l i n g out forms. As a f i e l d o p e r a t i o n s man I am very s c e p t i c a l about the a b i l i t y o f t h i s system i n p r o v i d i n g a u s e f u l f u n c t i o n . I t i s however worthwhile to have a l l these problem areas i n l a y i n g out a lo g g i n g area made a v a i l a b l e to the people i n v o l v e d i n making the d e c i s i o n s . " F e d e r a l F i s h e r i e s O f f i c e r I t must be emphasized t h a t i t i s important to i d e n t i f y problem areas before the time at which F i s h e r i e s o f f i c e r s are making stream i n s p e c t i o n s and boundary approvals. Those 71 "problem areas" must be r e c o g n i z e d by the people doing the l a y o u t . Thus i f , as other p a r t i c i p a n t s i n d i c a t e d , a guide such as t h i s would i d e n t i f y "problem areas" and a i d i n the assessment of what type of streambank management was r e q u i r e d , then i t c o u l d p r o v i d e a u s e f u l f u n c t i o n . A second negative comment i n d i c a t e d that i n c o r r e c t d e c i s i o n s might be reached by u n t r a i n e d F o r e s t O f f i c e r s u s i n g the procedure. "The r e s u l t s of the streamside i n s p e c t i o n by a F o r e s t O f f i c e r would be based on l o c a l r a t h e r than a combination o f l o c a l and s c i e n t i f i c knowledge. F o r e s t O f f i c e r s are not t r a i n e d i n f i s h and w i l d l i f e matters, t h e r e f o r e d e c i s i o n s made could e a s i l y be i n c o r r e c t . B e t t e r r e s u l t s c o u l d be obtained by a j o i n t i n s p e c t i o n with a F i s h and W i l d l i f e O f f i c e r and a F o r e s t O f f i c e r , r a t h e r than the a d d i t i o n of paperwork r e s u l t i n g i n a h i t - o r - m i s s d e c i s i o n . " B.C.F.S. A s s i s t a n t ranger I t was p r e c i s e l y because Fore s t O f f i c e r s , and other d e c i s i o n makers not t r a i n e d i n streambank c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , were making i n c o r r e c t d e c i s i o n s that a decision-making procedure was proposed The use o f a format such as proposed i n Appendix I makes a great deal of s c i e n t i f i c knowledge r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e to u n t r a i n e d decision-makers and o u t l i n e s the concerns of resource agencies f o r them. These p o i n t s were made e a r l i e r i n the comments o f other p a r t i c i p a n t s and should make f o r " b e t t e r " , r a t h e r than " i n c o r r e c t " , d e c i s i o n s . On Vancouver I s l a n d j o i n t i n s p e c t i o n s are o f t e n e i t h e r not p o s s i b l e or create long delays because of the l a r g e number 72 of streams to be i n s p e c t e d and the small number of F i s h and W i l d l i f e and F o r e s t O f f i c e r s a v a i l a b l e . Even i n cases where j o i n t i n s p e c t i o n s can be made, a c o n s i s t e n t and l o g i c a l procedure u t i l i z i n g a v a i l a b l e s c i e n t i f i c knowledge would s t i l l be u s e f u l . A number of comments r e f e r r e d to the p r e s e n t a t i o n and l a y o u t of the handbook r a t h e r than to the concept, and words such as "bulky", " p a i n s t a k i n g " or "condense" and " s t r e a m l i n e " were used. "Too b u l k y . " Company engineer "The r e p o r t i s somewhat bulky. I t might be put i n t o a s e v e r a l page f l o w - c h a r t format. The r e p o r t could be used as back-up." Fe d e r a l F i s h e r i e s h y d r o l o g i s t "Very p a i n s t a k i n g f o r something I knew a l l the time. However i t made me aware of c e r t a i n n e g l e c t e d users of a water course." Company f i e l d crew "For p r a c t i c a l purposes the format should be condensed f u r t h e r . " B.C.F.S. A s s i s t a n t ranger "In c o n c l u s i o n , i f the d e c i s i o n - a i d i s to be a u s e f u l t o o l f o r the Forest O f f i c e r , more cons i d -e r a t i o n s toward f o r e s t management and s t r e a m l i n i n g of the a i d be implemented." B.C.F.S. A s s i s t a n t ranger These comments i n d i c a t e that the handbook i n c l u d e d i n Appendix I i s not yet c o n s i d e r e d to be an o p e r a t i o n a l f i e l d guide and that i t w i l l have to be reduced i n s i z e and made e a s i e r to f o l l o w . This however can be done and the need to do so was r e c o g n i z e d before f i e l d t e s t i n g . 73 Other comments r e f e r r e d to the procedure as " i m p r e c i s e " or having too many value judgements or " q u a l i t a t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n s " which might vary from area to area. "The general key i n t h i s format tends to bounce a l l around and I found I had s!ome conf u s i o n i n d e f i n i n g s t r a t e g i e s . A l s o some of the wording tends to c r e a t e i n d e c i s i o n i n p i c k i n g a s t r a t e g y . " F e d e r a l F i s h e r i e s O f f i c e r "Not sure that degree of v a l u e • d e f i n i t i o n ( r e f e r r i n g to a e s t h e t i c s ) may need more d e s c r i p t i v e d e f i n i t i o n . " B.C.F.S. P r o t e c t i o n O f f i c e r "The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a e s t h e t i c , r e c r e a t i o n a l values e t c . w i l l vary widely between areas such as Lower Vancouver I s l a n d and Northern remote areas." Company F o r e s t e r "More q u a n t i t a t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n c o u l d be used i n s t e a d of u s i n g general terms although i t c o u l d make your c h e c k l i s t s more awkward." B.C.F.S. Zone F o r e s t e r These comments i n d i c a t e a need, again, to make the procedure e a s i e r to f o l l o w and to have more p r e c i s e d e f i n i t i o n . They a l s o i n d i c a t e that more guidance may be necessary. However i t i s p o i n t e d out that t h i s procedure i s intended only as a guide, r e q u i r i n g judgement on the p a r t of the person u s i n g i t . As one p a r t i c i p a n t a l r e a d y quoted p o i n t e d out, "...people u s i n g i t have to regard i t as a guide not a c r y s t a l b a l l t h a t w i l l t e l l them e x a c t l y what to do." B.C.F.S. Management and i t i s f e l t t h a t q u a l i t a t i v e terms w i l l have to be used and i n t e r p r e t e d by f i e l d people. In s e v e r a l cases, however, those d e f i n i t i o n s which are i n c l u d e d i n the G l ossary w i l l have to be c l e a r l y understood. A number of d e f i n i t i o n s w i l l a l s o have to be added. 74 Se v e r a l p a r t i c i p a n t s i n d i c a t e d that i n a procedure of t h i s nature, economic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s need to be d e a l t with. "Economic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s should be i n c o r p o r a t e d , or at l e a s t given some weight i n stream assessment." Company Engineer "Whether j u s t one f i s h i s present or a l a r g e run? I think t h i s i s a very important f a c t o r to c o n s i d e r e c o n o m i c a l l y . " F e d e r a l F i s h e r i e s t e c h n i c i a n "I s t i l l t h i n k there should be a t r a d e - o f f on how many f i s h use the stream as compared to the volume of timber." Company Engineer P r o v i s i o n i s made i n the procedure i n Step 7 Strat e g y M o d i f i c a t i o n F a c t o r s f o r economic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and trade-o f f s . I t i s f e l t that t h i s can only be done a f t e r the streambank values have been assessed and a s t r a t e g y determined. Then i f timber values are f e l t to be high and f i s h values low a t r a d e - o f f can be made i f i t i s f e l t to be j u s t i f i a b l e . At t h i s p o i n t the q u e s t i o n expands beyond the scope o f t h i s procedure. The p o s i t i v e r e a c t i o n to the proposed procedure has been much gr e a t e r than the negative and t h i s has a l s o been true f o r v e r b a l comments made during d i s c u s s i o n s . P a r t i c i p a n t s i n the f i e l d t e s t s c l e a r l y f e l t that t h i s was a u s e f u l concept that would a i d them i n making streambank management d e c i s i o n s and t h a t with m o d i f i c a t i o n i t co u l d be reproduced as a p r a c t i c a l , o p e r a t i o n a l f i e l d guide. 75 The f i n a l t e s t w i l l be whether or not i t gets used, and there are p o s i t i v e s i g n s here too. "I hope people are going to use t h i s . " B.C. F i s h and W i l d l i f e . b i o l o g i s t "The best way to d i s c o v e r 'bugs' i s to use the t h i n g and then r e v i s e i t p e r i o d i c a l l y . I w i l l be us i n g the guide to assess some streambanks and w i l l inform you of the r e s u l t s ..." Company b i o l o g i s t "...would c e r t a i n l y use i t i n c o n t r o v e r s i a l areas." Company f o r e s t e r "We would be prepared to use the d e c i s i o n -making a i d as a r e g u l a r f i e l d guide." B.C.F.S. Deputy ranger "...we would use i t as a f i e l d guide on a r e g u l a r b a s i s . " Company engineer "We would c e r t a i n l y be w i l l i n g to give i t a t r y on an o p e r a t i o n a l b a s i s . " Company f o r e s t e r D. Need For R e v i s i o n and M o d i f i c a t i o n Many u s e f u l suggestions f o r r e v i s i o n , m o d i f i c a t i o n and improvement were made during f i e l d t e s t i n g . These f a l l i n t o two c a t e g o r i e s : 1) s t r u c t u r a l changes i n the Procedure to make i t e a s i e r to f o l l o w , more p o r t a b l e i n the f i e l d or more r e l a t e d to f i e l d c o n d i t i o n s . These i n c l u d e d reducing the bulk of the procedure, r e d e s i g n i n g the c h e c k l i s t s and p u t t i n g them pn p o c k e t - s i z e p l a s t i c i z e d cards and making g r e a t e r use of "flow c h a r t s " . 2) i n t e r n a l changes to p a r t i c u l a r words, l i n e s or paragraphs w i t h i n the Procedure or to items on the c h e c k l i s t s . Many of these have been o u t l i n e d i n the prec e d i n g three s e c t i o n s and s p e c i f i c examples of these suggested r e v i s i o n s can be seen i n Appendix V. 76 E. Time and E f f o r t Required Very l i t t l e comment was r e c e i v e d about the time and e f f o r t r e q u i r e d to complete the decision-making procedure. During f i e l d t e s t i n g t h i s was q u i t e v a r i a b l e and depended on such f a c t o r s as the weather, the number of p a r t i c i p a n t s , the length of streambank to be covered and the amount of p r e p a r a t i o n that p a r t i c i p a n t s had done f o r the t e s t . Three w r i t t e n comments, one of which was c i t e d e a r l i e r , i n d i c a t e that i t would be too lengthy and time-consuming to be of v a l u e . "I t h i n k your "Decision-Making Procedure f o r Streambank Management on Vancouver I s l a n d " w i l l prove to be a v a l u a b l e a i d i n streambank assessment. I found I t was simple and s t r a i g h t forward. However I t h i n k that the a c t u a l procedure i s too time consuming to be used on an o p e r a t i o n a l b a s i s . " Company f o r e s t e r "As d i s c u s s e d while you were here and then f o l l o w i n g a d d i t i o n a l v a r i o u s d i s c u s s i o n s with the p a r t i c i p a n t s of the f i e l d t e s t i n g of the decision-making procedure, i t q u i c k l y became apparent to me that some how a great deal of d e t a i l would have to be e l i m i n a t e d i n order to be f u n c t i o n a l . As things stand r i g h t now we r e q u i r e i n d u s t r y to submit 5 year p l a n s , 1-2 year p l a n s , C P . a p p l i c a t i o n s , commencement request, b r i d g e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s e t c . e t c . and they are n e a r l y to r e v o l u t i o n stage with t h i s and a l l the other government requirements.... I t f o l l o w s t h a t to t r y to s e l l i n d u s t r y on t h i s would be next to impossible i n view of t h i s p l u s a l l the other f o r e g o i n g requirements." B.C.F.S. Ranger However another p a r t i c i p a n t from the same government agency s t a t e d , "I don't t h i n k that i t w i l l be time consuming..." B.C.F.S. Management and as shown e a r l i e r , s e v e r a l i n d u s t r y p a r t i c i p a n t s f e l t t hat the procedure would be u s e f u l to them and that a f t e r some m o d i f i c a t i o n s they would be prepared to use i t . One other i n d u s t r i a l p a r t i c i p a n t i n d i c a t e d that he d i d not have the s t a f f or time to use such a procedure but i t i s f e l t t h a t t h i s r e f l e c t s more upon the workload and p r i o r i t i e s r a t h e r than the time-consuming nature of the procedure. "There i s no way anyone at D i v i s i o n would use t h i s procedure on a r e g u l a r b a s i s . We do not have the p e r sonnel or time to do so." Company engineer In general i t appears that with m o d i f i c a t i o n , with p r a c t i c e i n i t s use and w i t h proper c o - o r d i n a t i o n of f i e l d work with other f i e l d i n s p e c t i o n s , t h i s d e c i s i o n m a k i n g procedure would not be time consuming or r e q u i r e great e f f o r t . I t was f e l t d u r i n g f i e l d t e s t d i s c u s s i o n that the On-Site C h e c k l i s t could be completed i n the length of time i t would take to walk the l e n g t h of the streambank and that with p r a c t i c e , the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of an a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g y could be done very q u i c k l y a f t e r t h a t . The time and e f f o r t r e q u i r e d d i d not appear to be major concerns during f i e l d t e s t i n g . CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The o b j e c t i v e of t h i s t h e s i s was to develop an o p e r a t i o n a l s i t e - s p e c i f i c decision-making procedure to a i d f i e l d - l e v e l personnel make improved i n t e g r a t e d use streambank management d e c i s i o n s i n a r o u t i n e c o n s i s t e n t manner. A f i r s t approximation of a decision-making procedure has been developed and i s presented i n Appendix I. The program of f i e l d t e s t i n g suggested numerous improvements to t h i s procedure but a l s o p r o v i d e d the i n f o r m a t i o n from which a number of c o n c l u s i o n s about the procedure and i t s use can now be drawn. And i n the course of the development, of t h i s procedure and the subsequent f i e l d t e s t i n g a number o f o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h became apparent. A. Conclusions F i r s t , "A Decision-Making Procedure f o r Streambank Management on Vancouver I s l a n d " i s s e n s i t i v e to the p a r t i c u l a r f e a t u r e s of i n d i v i d u a l s i t e s and w i l l i n d i c a t e s t r a t e g i e s on a s i t e - s p e c i f i c b a s i s . In the f i e l d t e s t i n g program i t d i d i n d i c a t e d i f f e r e n t management s t r a t e g i e s when t e s t e d on d i f f e r e n t s i t e s . Second, use of the procedure w i l l l e a d to reasonably c o n s i s t e n t agreement among the decision-makers u s i n g i t i n the f i e l d . T e s t i n g showed that c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n c o u l d be c o l l e c t e d by d i f f e r e n t persons u s i n g the On-Site C h e c k l i s t p r esented i n Appendix I I I and although there were a c o n s i d e r a b l e number of items t h a t were not always c o n s i s t e n t l y assessed, 78 79 e x p l a n a t i o n s were p r o v i d e d and improvements suggested. S u f f i c i e n t items were c o l l e c t e d c o n s i s t e n t l y to support the c o n c l u s i o n and to o f f e r hope that g r e a t e r c o n s i s t e n c y can be achieved on an improved c h e c k l i s t . The s t r a t e g i e s that were i d e n t i f i e d a l s o showed s u f f i c i e n t agreement to support t h i s c o n c l u s i o n . S e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t s t r a t e g i e s were i n d i c a t e d i n some areas but again e x p l a n a t i o n s were p r o v i d e d and improvements can be made. With these improvements, and with experience i n the use of t h i s procedure, d i f f e r e n t resource management personnel c o u l d use i t to i d e n t i f y streambank management s t r a t e g i e s upon which they would agree. T h i r d , the procedure i s regarded as o r d e r l y , l o g i c a l and workable by f i e l d l e v e l decision-makers. S e v e r a l f i e l d t e s t p a r t i c i p a n t s used these words to d e s c r i b e i t . By c o l l e c t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on'a"standardized c h e c k l i s t , the procedure w i l l encourage agreement on an a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g y or, i n cases where there i s disagreement, i t w i l l p i n p o i n t the i s s u e s . Fourth, such a d e c i s i o n making procedure a l s o appears to be u s e f u l to f i e l d l e v e l decision-makers. Many w r i t t e n comments r e f e r r e d to the need to make m o d i f i c a t i o n s or changes to the procedure but the m a j o r i t y of p a r t i c i p a n t s who made w r i t t e n comments i n d i c a t e d t h a t such a procedure would be u s e f u l to them. Others i n d i c a t e d that they had not been t r a i n e d i n some of the f a c t o r s which i n f l u e n c e the streambank d e c i s i o n and that the procedure would be u s e f u l i n a i d i n g them to assess these f a c t o r s b e t t e r . 80 For these reasons i t i s concluded that use o f t h i s s i t e -s p e c i f i c decision-making procedure would a i d f i e l d ? . l e v e l decision-makers make improved streambank management d e c i s i o n s . S e v e r a l p a r t i c i p a n t s i n d i c a t e d that t h e i r companies or agencies would be prepared to use the procedure on an o p e r a t i o n a l b a s i s and i t appears that i t c o u l d be used i n a way that would not be time-consuming. As presented i n Appendix I, the procedure i s s t i l l too bulky to be co n s i d e r e d f u l l y o p e r a t i o n a l and there i s a need f o r numerous r e v i s i o n s and m o d i f i c a t i o n s . These r e v i s i o n s should now be made and f i e l d use of the procedure should be undertaken. Furt h e r feedback should be s o l i c i t e d i n t h i s way. It i s a l s o concluded that there i s a need f o r good, o p e r a t i o n a l t r a i n i n g f o r f i e l d l e v e l decision-makers i f c o n s i s t e n t i n t e g r a t e d use d e c i s i o n s are to be made. This was i n d i c a t e d by s e v e r a l of the i n c o n s i s t e n t items on the c h e c k l i s t and was o f t e n mentioned d u r i n g d i s c u s s i o n s . S e v e r a l p a r t i c i p a n t s p o i n t e d out th a t t h i s procedure c o u l d p r o v i d e a u s e f u l b a s i s upon which t r a i n i n g programs f o r f i e l d p e r s o nnel c o u l d be organized. And f i n a l l y t h e o e n t h u s i a s t i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f personnel from government agencies and p r i v a t e i n d u s t r y i n the f i e l d t e s t s , t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s to p a r t i c i p a t e i n d i s c u s s i o n s and o f f e r c o n s t r u c t i v e c r i t i c i s m and t h e i r g e n e r a l l y p o s i t i v e r e a c t i o n to the procedure, i n d i c a t e that a c l i m a t e e x i s t s i n which the p r a c t i c e of i n t e g r a t e d use p r a c t i c e s can be f o s t e r e d . The p o s i t i v e r e a c t i o n to t h i s decision-making procedure i s encouraging. 81 B. Recommendations f o r Future Research The development of t h i s decision-making procedure has demonstrated that a methodology e x i s t s f o r making i n t e g r a t e d use resource management d e c i s i o n s on a s i t e - s p e c i f i c b a s i s . F u r t h e r work should t h e r e f o r e be undertaken to apply t h i s methodology to other resource management questions and fo r other geographic areas. For example, f o l l o w i n g l o g g i n g a d e c i s i o n has to be made about the p o s t - l o g g i n g s i t e treatment. In t h i s case, a choice has to be made from a range o f p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s - burning, windrowing, s c a r i f i c a t i o n , or no treatment - based on c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a number of s i t e - s p e c i f i c f e a t u r e s and management c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . A s i m i l a r decision-making procedure c o u l d be developed to deal with these d e c i s i o n s . The procedure developed i n t h i s t h e s i s f o r Vancouver I s l a n d c o u l d be adapted f o r the B.C. mainland coast or other areas i f c o n s i d e r a t i o n s f o r d i f f e r e n t streambank users were i n c l u d e d . I f use on Vancouver I s l a n d i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t i s acc e p t a b l e , these adaptations should be considered. Based on the experience with t h i s study i t i s recommended that f u r t h e r work of t h i s nature should a l s o use an i n t e r -d i s c i p l i n a r y working committee. I t serves a very v a l u a b l e f u n c t i o n i n r e p r e s e n t i n g the concerns of d i f f e r e n t d i s c i p l i n e s and d i f f e r e n t resource agencies and should t h e r e f o r e be employed. I t i s a l s o recommended t h a t e x t e n s i v e f i e l d t e s t i n g p r o v i d e s both a t e s t of the procedure and a very u s e f u l source o f feedback. I f decision-making procedures are to be o p e r a t i o n a l they must be t e s t e d and reviewed by f i e l d 82 personnel i n the course of t h e i r development. Use of the decision-making procedure presented i n t h i s t h e s i s would pr o v i d e an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i n t o the economic cost and b e n e f i t o f d i f f e r e n t management s t r a t e g i e s . A recent study ( G i l l i c k and S c o t t , 1975) contains an economic a n a l y s i s o f the costs and b e n e f i t s o f four d i f f e r e n t streambank management s t r a t e g i e s on one stream i n Washington. This type of study would be most e f f e c t i v e i f combined with the d e c i s i o n -making procedure developed i n t h i s t h e s i s and i t i s recommended that a case study be undertaken. S t r a t e g i e s should be determined f o r unlogged streambank s i t e s on the b a s i s o f an e v a l u a t i o n of the needs of the s i t e and i t s users as o u t l i n e d i n "A D e c i s i o n -Making Procedure f o r Streambank Management on Vancouver I s l a n d . " These s t r a t e g i e s should then be e v a l u a t e d economically u s i n g the techniques o u t l i n e d by G i l l i c k and S c o t t . Using t h i s approach a sound a n a l y s i s o f the costs and b e n e f i t s o f leave s t r i p s on s p e c i f i c streambank: s i t e s c o u l d be performed. O p p o r t u n i t i e s a l s o e x i s t now f o r resea r c h i n t o the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of d i f f e r e n t s t r a t e g i e s i n meeting such o b j e c t i v e s as p r e v e n t i n g l o g g i n g debris from e n t e r i n g the stream or p r o v i d i n g w i l d l i f e c o r r i d o r s on s p e c i f i c s i t e s . S t r a t e g i e s chosen on the b a s i s o f an e v a l u a t i o n of the needs o f a s i t e and i t s users are much more amenable to t h i s type o f r e s e a r c h than those p r e s c r i b e d by management g u i d e l i n e s . 83 LIST OF REFERENCES A s s o c i a t i o n of B r i t i s h Columbia P r o f e s s i o n a l F o r e s t e r s , 1970, " P o l i c y Statement", pamphlet 3 pages. Benskin, Henry J . , 1975, F i n a n c i a l I m p l i c a t i o n s and Some Costs and B e n e f i t s of Logging G u i d e l i n e s i n the C h i l l i w a c k P r o v i n c i a l F o r e s t . M.F. Thesis U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia F a c u l t y of F o r e s t r y , 123 pages and appendix. B r i t i s h Columbia F o r e s t Products L t d , 1972, "Statement of P o l i c y and General G u i d e l i n e s For the Management of Fo r e s t Land and Related Resources", pamphlet 12, pages. B r i t i s h Columbia F o r e s t S e r v i c e , 1972, "Pl a n n i n g G u i d e l i n e s For Coast Logging Operations", mimeo 5 pages. 1973, " P o l i c y Statement" F o r e s t a l k V o l 1 #1 Summer 1973', i n s i d e cover. , 1974a, "Vancouver D i s t r i c t C i r c u l a r L e t t e r VR74-245 Re: A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of P Clauses", c i r c u l a r l e t t e r J u l y 9 , 1974 ,. 1 page. . , 1974b, "For the Information of A l l Licensees and Operators i n the Vancouver F o r e s t D i s t r i c t " , c i r c u l a r l e t t e r , J u l y 10, 1974, 2 pages. Burns, J.E., 1970, "The Importance of Streamside V e g e t a t i o n to Trout and Salmon i n B r i t i s h Columbia" Department of R e c r e a t i o n and Conservation, F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch, Vancouver I s l a n d Region, F i s h e r i e s T e c h n i c a l C i r c u l a r #1, June 1970, 17 pages. C o u n c i l of P o r e s t I n d u s t r i e s , 1973, " B r i e f on Planning G u i d e l i n e s For Coast Logging Operations" , mimeo 7 pages. , 1974 , " P o s i t i o n Paper on P l a n n i n g G u i d e l i n e s For Coast Logging Operations"', mimeo 3 pages. Department of Lands and F o r e s t s , F o r e s t S e r v i c e , 1954. Management  Manual, V o l . I and I I , V i c t o r i a , B.C. Department of R e c r e a t i o n and Con s e r v a t i o n , 1975 "Submission to the Royal Commission on F o r e s t Resources", November 1975, mimeo 60 pages. F o r e s t Land Use L i a i s o n Committee of B.C. 1975. "Consensus Statement on the Management of Watersheds", mimeo 4 pages. G i l l i c k , Thomas and B i l l y Dean S c o t t , 1975.. " B u f f e r S t r i p s and the P r o t e c t i o n of F i s h e r y Resources: an Economic A n a l y s i s " State of Washington, Department of Natural•Resources ; DNR" Report 32, May 1975, 30 pages. 84 McMynn, R.G. 1970. '"Green B e l t s ' or 'Leave S t r i p s ' to P r o t e c t F i s h ! Why?" Department of R e c r e a t i o n and Conservation, Commercial F i s h e r i e s Branch, V i c t o r i a , B.C., 36 pages.:. Narver, D.W., J.C. Mason and J.H. Mundie, 1973 "A B r i e f to the S e l e c t Standing Committee on F o r e s t r y and F i s h e r i e s of the B r i t i s h Columbia L e g i s l a t u r e " Department o f Environment, F i s h e r i e s and Marine S e r v i c e , P a c i f i c B i o l o g i c a l S t a t i o n , Nanaimo B.C., mimeo 6 pages: Nie, N.H., C H . H a l l , J.G. J e n k i n s , K. Steinbrenner and D. H. Bent 1975 S t a t i s t i c a l Package For the S o c i a l Sciences McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 675 pages. O'Riordan, T. 1971 P e r s p e c t i v e s on Resource Management Pion L t d . , London, 1974 pagas. Timmis, D. 1974 "Comment" Trucklogger V o l . 30 #1, January.1974, page 42. U n i t e d States Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency. 1975. " F o r e s t H a r v e s t i n g - Regeneration A c t i v i t i e s and P r o t e c t i o n of Water Q u a l i t y " , V o l . I and I I , U.S. E.P.A. Region X, S e a t t l e , Washington. D r a f t manuscript. White, G.F. 1961 "The Choice of Use i n Resource Management" N a t u r a l Resources J o u r n a l V o l . 1, pages 23-40. 1964 "Choice of Adjustment to F l o o d s " U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago, Department o f Geography, Research Paper 93, 150 pages. 1969 , S t r a t e g i e s o f American Water Management U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 192 pages. 85 APPENDIX I A DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURE FOR STREAMBANK MANAGEMENT ON VANCOUVER ISLAND A stream i s any watercourse which has a flow o f water f o r a l l or p a r t of the year and which has a w e l l - d e f i n e d channel sho\v-ing signs o f s c o u r i n g or washing. It may be very l a r g e or very s m a l l , p e r e n n i a l or i n t e r m i t t e n t . For the purposes o f t h i s handbook, the d e f i n i t i o n of a stream does not i n c l u d e ephemeral flows of water which occur a f t e r p r e c i p i t a t i o n or snowmelt and which do not flow long enough or at l a r g e enough volumes to c r e a t e stream channels. The streambank i s c o n s i d e r e d to be the lan d , and the vegeta-t i o n i t supports, immediately i n con t a c t with the stream and s u f f i c i e n t l y c l o s e to i t to have a major i n f l u e n c e on i t s e c o l o g i -c a l c h a r a c t e r . I t has both a mix of uses ranging from timber u t i l i z a t i o n to w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t and v i s u a l enjoyment, and a complex b i o p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r with attendant a t t r i b u t e s and l i m i t a t i o n s . The stream edge i s the immediate i n t e r f a c e between the stream and streambank. The users o f the streambank p o t e n t i a l l y i n c l u d e l o g g e r s , anadromous and r e s i d e n t f i s h ( o n - s i t e and downstream), deer, Roosevelt e l k and other w i l d l i f e , b i r d s , a c t i v e r e c r e a t i o n i s t s , viewers, downstream r e c r e a t i o n i s t s and r e s i d e n t s u s i n g the stream water. They use the streambank as h a b i t a t , as p r o t e c t i o n f o r h a b i t a t or as a source of v a l u a b l e goods or s e r v i c e s . Some or a l l o f these users may" be found on any given streambank. Streambank management means the a p p l i c a t i o n o f f o r e s t p r a c t i c e s and t e c h n o l o g i e s that are c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the p h y s i c a l c o n s t r a i n t s of the s i t e and pro v i d e as f a r as p o s s i b l e f o r the management needs of the u s e r s . Streambank management may i n c l u d e a number of p r a c -t i c e s ranging from l o g g i n g across a small headwater stream to l e a v i n g a wide s t r i p o f timber along a l a r g e r i v e r . I t may a l s o i n c l u d e a number of remedial measures a f t e r l o g g i n g . The o b j e c t i v e of t h i s handbook i s to a i d i n making those streambank management d e c i s i o n s . INTRODUCTION This handbook i s a s i t e - s p e c i f i c guide to the manage-ment of a l l Vancouver Island streams and streambanks f o r which logging is proposed. It contains two simple decision-making procedures that indicate which logging strategies are most appropriate to p a r t i c u l a r streambank s i t e s . One procedure i s designed for small, steep headwater streams while the other is applicable to a l l other streams. Both procedures involve a review of available inventories and maps and an on-site inspection of the stream and streambank. The On-Site Checklists are designed to be taken i n t o , and completed i n , the f i e l d . They can then be used immediately, or at a l a t e r date to complete the decision-making procedures and to i d e n t i f y the appropriate streambank management strategy. The handbook assumes that the streambank timber i s acces-s i b l e to logging and of commercial value. If i t i s c u r r e n t l y i n a c c e s s i b l e , non-commercial or uneconomic, a streambank management decision does not need to be made at t h i s time. 59 1 1 DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURE (general) COLLECT STREAMBANK INFORMATION COMPILE AND INTERPRET INFORMATION IMPLEMENT AND MONITOR DECISION 4-CONSIDER OPTIONS * 1 MAKE DECISIONS j \ FEEDBACK CHOICE OF PROCEDURE For steep headwater streams with g r a d i e n t s PROCEDURE A exceeding 20% which have no users o n - s i t e For a l l other streams PROCEDURE B 91 V TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Decision-Making Procedure A Step 1 P r e - S i t e V i s i t a t i o n C h e c k l i s t A 2 Step 2 On-Site C h e c k l i s t A 4 Step 3 Value of the Streambank 6 Step 4 Streambank Management S t r a t e g i e s 12 Step 5 Choice of S t r a t e g y 12 Step 6 Implement and Monitor 12 Decision-Making Procedure B Step 1 P r e - S i t e V i s i t a t i o n C h e c k l i s t B 15 Step 2 : On-Site C h e c k l i s t B 18 Step 3 Users o f the Streambank 24 Step 4 Value of the Streambank 26 Step 5 Streambank Management S t r a t e g i e s 64 Step 6 I n i t i a l Choice, of S t r a t e g y 72 Step 7 S t r a t e g y M o d i f i c a t i o n F a c t o r s 85 Step 8 F i n a l Choice of S t r a t e g y 87 Step 9 Implement and Monitor 87 93 1 DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURE A (specific) 94 Procedure Decision Steps COLLECT STREAMBANK INFORMATION "7L on-site 2 r s , go to jcedure B 4~ STEP 1 Review a l l available inventory data, development history, resource capability maps, topographic maps and air photos to complete Pre-Site  Vis i t a t i o n Checklist A. STEP 2 V i s i t the proposed cut-block, walking a representative length of the stream-bank and making observations to complete 'On-Site Checklist A COMPILE AND INTERPRET INFORMATION STEP 3 Assess the Value of the Streambank to downstream users. CONSIDER OPTIONS STEP. 4 MAKE STEP 5 DECISION •s IMPLEMENT AND MONITOR DECISION STEP 6 Consider a l l possible Streambank  Management Strategies. Strategy. Implement Decision and observe s i t e over a period oi time to Monitor effectiveness. Procedure A 35 STEP 1 Review a l l a v a i l a b l e i n v e n t o r y data, development h i s t o r y , resource c a p a b i l i t y maps, t o p o g r a p h i c maps and a i r photos to complete P r e - S i t e V i s i t a t i o n C h e c k l i s t A. 3 Procedure A, PRE-SITE VISITATION CHECKLIST A Downstream Users Downstream Anadromous or Resident F i s h YesQj No( j Downstream Water Users Yes Q No f ~ ] Downstream Park or R e c r e a t i o n a l Area Yes Q No Q Downstream R e c r e a t i o n i s t s Yes Q No [ } Downstream Lake Yes Q No f ~ ] I£ Downstream Users: Distance downstream Close Q D i s t a n t Q P r o x i m i t y of stream Immediately t r i b u t a r y O —. Not immediately t r i b u t a r y ( ( S o i l and Landform Slope Class Major S o i l Texture Landform Logging H i s t o r y and Watershed Notes Extent of Logging i n Watershed Record of Debris Jamming Record of Bridge or C u l v e r t Washouts Record of Bank F a i l u r e s Size of Stream R e l a t i v e to Fish-Bearing Water Downstream ( i f any) 4 Procedure A V i s i t the proposed c u t - b l o c k , walking a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e l e n g t h of the streambank and making o b s e r v a t i o n s to complete On-Site C h e c k l i s t A. 5 ON-SITE CHECKLIST A Procedure A Stream Gradient < 2 0 % Q > 2 0 % D On-Site Users Yes [ ] Bank-to-Bank Width' 0-lm Q l - 3 m Q 3 - l O m Q > 1 0 m [ j Debris i n Place Yes • No • Moving Debris Yes Q . No [ ] Debris Jamming Yes Q j No Q Channel S t a b i l i t y W e ll-defined and st a b l e Q Not w e l l - d e f i n e d with signs of s h i f t i n g (_J Slope of Streambank f l a t Q 0 - 2 0 1 Q 2 0 - 7 0 1 Q > 7 0 l Q i f s l o p i n g , length of slope Short to Topographic B r e a k Q Long Bank Slumping or I n s t a b i l i t y Y e s Q No Bank P r o f i l e : ^ Procedure A STEP 3 Assess the Value of the Streambank to downstream u s e r s . 7 Procedure A 1 0 0 DOWNSTREAM USERS I f no downstream users Streambank Value i s Low. I f downstream u s e r s , c o n s i d e r the value o f the streambank vegeta-t i o n f o r a) p r e v e n t i n g the downstream movement of l o g g i n g d e b r i s b) s t a b i l i z i n g the streambank then c o n s i d e r c) o v e r a l l streambank va l u e . a) Debris B u f f e r i n g C o n s i d e r a t i o n E v a l u a t i o n B u f f e r i n g Value * 1. S i z e o f stream and I f bank to bank stream width channel s t a b i l i t y i s l e s s than 3 meters (10 f e e t ) w i t h d e b r i s i n p l a c e and a w e l l - d e f i n e d and s t a b l e channel, c o n s i d e r 2 I f bank to bank stream width i s g r e a t e r than 3 meters (10 f e e t ) or i f there i s evidence o f moving d e b r i s , d e b r i s jams or channel s h i f t i n g c o n s i d e r 3 2. P r o x i m i t y to I f c l o s e to or immediately downstream t r i b u t a r y to downstream users users Moderate I f not immediately t r i b u t a r y to or d i s t a n t from downstream users Low 3. Slope o f I f slope o f streambank i s streambank f l a t or l e s s than 20% .. Moderate I f s lope of streambank i s g r e a t e r than 20% High Refers to the value o f the streambank i n p r e v e n t i n g the down-stream movement of l o g g i n g d e b r i s . 101 r t o L e a u r e A b) Bank S t a b i l i t y Consideration Evaluation Streambank S t a b i l i z i n g Value * If bank to bank stream width is less than 3 meters (10 feet) , with debris i n place and with a well-defined and stable channel consider 3 If bank to bank stream width i s greater than 3 meters (10 feet) or i f there i s evidence of moving debris, debris jams or channel s h i f t i n g consider 2 Size of stream and channel s t a b i l i t y Slope of I f slope of streambank i s streambank le s s than 70%, consider 3. I f slope of streambank i s greater than 70% . „. High Proximity to I f immediately t r i b u t a r y to downstream or close to downstream users ..... Moderate users I f not immediately t r i b u t a r y •to or d i s t a n t from downstream users .«, . Low Refers to the value of the streambank vegetation f o r maintaining bank s t a b i l i t y . 103 11 Procedure A - 1 0 4 c) O v e r a l l Streambank Value The value o f the streambank f o r a) p r e v e n t i n g downstream movement of l o g g i n g d e b r i s b) s t a b i l i z i n g the streambank has been co n s i d e r e d . I f one or both values are High, the o v e r a l l streambank v a l u e i s High. I f n e i t h e r value i s High but one or both i s Moderate, the o v e r a l l streambank value i s Moderate. I f both values are Low, the o v e r a l l streambank v a l u e i s Low. Make i n i t i a l c h o i c e o f s t r a t e g y f o r O v e r a l l Streambank V a l u e . i d s 12 Procedure A STEP 4. Consider a l l p o s s i b l e Streambank Management S t r a t e g i e s (pages 65-71). STEP 5. Make i n i t i a l c h o i c e o f a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g i e s based on o v e r a l l Streambank Value to downstream users (page 13). Consider S t r a t e g y M o d i f i c a t i o n F a c t o r s (page 86). Streambank Value General G u i d e l i n e s Low Both s i d e s of the stream may be logged. No streambank v e g e t a t i o n i s r e -q u i r e d . No s p e c i a l f a l l i n g or y a r d i n g techniques are r e q u i r e d . No remedial measures are necessa r y . Moderate Both s i d e s o f the stream may be logged. No streambank v e g e t a t i o n i s r e q u i r e d . Yarding should be away from the • stream i f p o s s i b l e . Remedial measures such as y a r d i n g unmerchantable m a t e r i a l away from the streambank, c l e a r i n g out de b r i s or i n s t a l l i n g d e b r i s c a t c h -ers should be c o n s i d e r e d i f y a r d i n g across the stream i s necessa r y . High Both s i d e s of the stream may be logged. Yarding should be away from the stream. Immature c o n i f e r s and shrubbery along the streambank should be p r o t e c t e d as much as p o s s i b l e . Remedial measures such as y a r d i n g unmerchantable m a t e r i a l away from the streambank, c l e a r i n g out d e b r i s or i n s t a l l i n g d e b r i s c a t c h -ers should be c o n s i d e r e d . I n i t i a l S p e c i f i c C o n s i d e r a t i o n s S t r a t e g y I f both banks are unlogged.. A l a I f o p p o s i t e bank logged .... B l a I f both banks unlogged Alb I f o p p o s i t e bank logged .... Bib I f both banks unlogged A2a I f o p p o s i t e bank logged .... B2a 1 0 7 14 DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURE B ( s p e c i f i c ) Procedure D e c i s i o n Steps STEP 1 COLLECT STREAMBANK INFORMATION STEP 2 COMPILE AND INTERPRET INFORMATION STEP 3 STEP 4 CONSIDER OPTIONS STEP 5 STEP 6 MAKE DECISION Review a l l a v a i l a b l e i n v e n t o r y and c l i m a t i c d a t a , development h i s t o r y , r e s o u r c e c a p a b i l i t y maps, t o p o g r a p h i c maps and a i r photos t o complete P r e -S i t e V i s i t a t i o n C h e c k l i s t B. V i s i t the proposed c u t - b l o c k w a l k i n g the l e n g t h o f the streambank and. making o b s e r v a t i o n s t o complete O n - S i t e C h e c k l i s t B. U s i n g c h e c k l i s t s , i d e n t i f y and i s o l a t e the Users o f the Streambank. For each i d e n t i f i e d U s e r , Value o f the Streambank. a s s e s s t h e C o n s i d e r a l l p o s s i b l e Streambank Management S t r a t e g i e s . Make i n i t i a l Choice o f A p p r o p r i a t e  S t r a t e g y based on streambank v a l u e to i t s u s e r s . STEP 7 C o n s i d e r S t r a t e g y M o d i f i c a t i o n F a c t o r s , STEP 8 Make f i n a l Choice o f A p p r o p r i a t e  S t r a t e g y . i IMPLEMENT AND MONITOR DECISION STEP 9 Implement D e c i s i o n and o b s e r v e s i t e over a p e r i o d o f time to M o n i t o r e f f e c t i v e n e s s . 15 DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURE B 108 STEP 1 Note: Review a l l a v a i l a b l e i n v e n t o r y and c l i m a t i c d ata, development h i s t o r y , resource c a p a b i l i t y maps, topographic maps and a i r photos to complete P r e - S i t e V i s i t a t i o n C h e c k l i s t B The i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d to complete t h i s C h e c k l i s t may or may not be a v a i l a b l e from government agencie s , resource f o l i o s , l o c a l knowledge or a i r photos. I f a v a i l a b l e , i t can p o i n t out s p e c i f i c areas o f concern f o r f i e l d checking and a i d i n f i e l d e v a l u a t i o n . P o s s i b l e sources of the i n f o r m a t i o n are l i s t e d i n Appendix I . 16 PRE-SITE VISITATION CHECKLIST B Block* General 1. Stream Name 2. L o c a t i o n of Stream 3. T r i b u t a r y t o _ _ 4. E l e v a t i o n 5« Stream Gradient 6. Upstream Lakes or Marshes 7. Downstream Lakes or Marshes 8. T r i b u t a r i e s 9. A c c e s s i b i l i t y Streambank 10. Slope of Streambank 11. Landform 12. S u r f i c i a l M a t e r i a l s ' 13. P o t e n t i a l Problem Areas 14. O l d Slumps or F a i l u r e s 15. Old Stream Channels_ Streambank Users 16. F i s h Species on S i t e 17. F i s h Species Downstream 18. P r o x i m i t y of S i t e to Anadromous F i s h 19. Roosevelt E l k i n Watershed__ 20. Present R e c r e a t i o n a l Use 21. C a p a b i l i t y f o r R e c r e a t i o n 22. R e c r e a t i o n a l Users Downstream 23. Unusual N a t u r a l Features 24. Downstream Domestic Water users 17 25. P r o x i m i t y to Downstream Users Logging Plan 26. Length of Streambank to be Logged 27. Extent of Streambank a l r e a d y Logged 28. Type of Downstream Logging C l i m a t i c I n f o r m a t i o n 29. Annual R a i n f a l l ' 30. Winter Snow Depths 31. D i r e c t i o n of Storm Winds 32. S e v e r i t y of Storm Winds ^ Logging H i s t o r y 33. Record of Blowdown i n Watershed 34. L o c a t i o n of Blowdown i n Watershed 35. Record of A l d e r and Brush Problems i n Watershed 36. Record of A l d e r E r a d i c a t i o n s i n Watershed 37. Record of Bank F a i l u r e s or S l i d e s i n Watershed ] 38. Record of D e b r i s Jamming i n Watershed 39. Record of Washouts i n Watershed -. '• I l l 18 STEP 2 V i s i t the proposed c u t - b l o c k , walking the l e n g t h of the streambank and making observa-t i o n s to complete On-Site C h e c k l i s t B Note: The i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d to complete t h i s C h e c k l i s t should be completed while on-s i t e . Observations should be made along the stream edge and up to a d i s t a n c e of 2 chains back from the stream edge, depending upon topography. I f stream or streambank c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s change markedly over the l e n g t h of the c u t - b l o c k , two c h e c k l i s t s should be f i l l e d out. 19 ON-SITE CHECKLIST B 1 1 2 Date Crew. General Information Stream Name Location of Stream C u t t i n g Block Number D i r e c t i o n Stream Flows Location of Block ' Stream I n t e r m i t t e n t 0 P e r e n n i a l Q 3-5% • 5-8% Q 8-20% • >20%Q 1 - 3m • 3-10m • >10m 0 Stream C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Average Gradient 0-3% [_] Wetted Width 0-lm D Bank to Bank Width 0-lm [ j l-3m_] 3-10m D >10m '[j Discharge (at low flow) <10c.f.s. [_l 10-30c.f.s. C >30c.f.s.D Predominant Substrate F i n e r than sandsD SandsQ Gravels u CobblesQ B o u l d e r s f J B e d r o c k Q Channel S t a b i l i t y W e l l - d e f i n e d and s t a b l e f] Not w e l l - d e f i n e d or C3 w i t h s i g n s of s h i f t i n g Shaded by Topography or Steep Bank Back Channels . Yes CZI Dry, o l d Stream Channels Yes Q Large Debris in Place Moving Debris Debris Jamming T r i b u t a r y Streams i f Yes, Location D e s c r i p t i o n Yes • Yes • Yes • Yes • Yes • N o Q No n if Yes, Sketch No n No • No. • No • No • Stream Edge Shape Gently s l o p i n g Q Steeply s l o p i n g Q V e r t i c a l f l Undercut f ~ <45% >45% M a t e r i a l S i l t s and f i n e s 0 Sands and g r a v e l s Q Rock Q ^Streambank Slope of Streambank F l a t f l S l i g h t ( J G e n t l e H ModerateQ S t e e p Q c , . T ^ r c, Q-20% 20-451 45-70% >70% i f s l o p i n g , Length of Slope to — i . , Topographic break Short j | Long|_J Bank P r o f i l e ( s ) (Sketch w i t h s c a l e i n d i c a t e d ) a)Vegetation Tree species ( i n c l u d i n g deciduous) 1. ( i n order of abundance) 2. 3. Shrubs ( i n order of abundance) 1. 2. 3. Cover of Shrub Layer 0-25% Q 25-50% Q > 50% Q Ferns ( i n order of abundance) 1. 2. Cover o f Ferns 0-25%Q 25-50% Q > 5 0% Q Number o f Leaning Trees NoneQ Very f e w Q SomeQ NumerousQ Number o f Immature Trees(>3m) NoneQ Very f e w Q Some Q]Numerous Q Number o f Deciduous Trees None[j Very f e w Some ( [Numerous f~~| %age o f Stream Shaded by Non-merchantable —. and Deciduous Vegetation <50%[J > 50% j J Skunk Cabbage Y e s Q No Q Sphagnum Moss Yes ( | N o Q b ) S o i l Depth t o Impermeable Layer S h a l l o w Q Deep Q <lm >lm Type o f Impermeable Layer B e d r o c k Q Hardpansf~| Clays Q Stream gravelsQJ N o n e Q Major S o i l Texture F i n e Q CoarseQ] O r g a n i c ^ Depth o f Coarse Roots Shallow f l Deep ( H (> 5mm) <50cm >50cmL-J O v e r a l l Rooting Depth Shallow Q Moderate Q Deep Q <50cm 50-100cm ^lOOcm Water i n S o i l P i t Y e s O 21 114 c) Bedrock Exposed Bedrock Outcrops i f Yes d) Other Root r o t , Conks or M i s t l e t o e Hummocky Ground Old Blowdown i f Yes Yes Q No Q F r a c t u r e d Q Smooth( j Yes Q , NoQ Yes • N o Q Yes 0 N o D Uprooted|~~~| Snapped o f f r ~ | Both • G u l l y i n g Wet Depressions on Slope P i s t o l - b u t t or Jackstrawed Trees Bank Slumping or I n s t a b i l i t y Y e s Q Y e s Q Y e s Q Y e s Q LoggedD Status of Opposite Bank i f Logged, Extent of Bank Vegetation Streambank Users a ) F i s h (anadromous and r e s i d e n t ) Adult j^ J Smolt Number FewQ Numerous i f No, Reason N o Q N o Q N o Q Unlogged Q F i s h Observed i f Yes, Species S i z e or Unknown; ( F r y Q Impassible F a l l s or Obstructions Observed Observations Consistent w i t h Inventory i f No, Reason '• Yes D Yes Q N o D N o Q b ) W i l d l i f e Number of P e l l e t s Many • . None • F e w D M o d e r a t e d i f p e l l e t s observed, Species Deer Q E l k Q Other Q Extent of Browsing None Q L i g h t Q ModerateQ H e a v y Q T r a i l s Y e s Q No Q Tracks, Rubbings or Other Sign i f Yes, Describe Yes Q No Q c ) B i r d s B i r d s Observed i f Yes, Species _ i f unknown, Describe 22 Y e s d C a v i t i e s Observed Nests Observed i f Yes, L o c a t i o n Yes Q Y e s O No • Mature t r e e s or dead snags I—> C a v i t i e s or snags(_J Deciduous v e g e t a t i o n Q Species ' i f unknown, Describe None Q F e w Q NumerousQ Snags d ) A c t i v e R e c r e a t i o n . R e c r e a t i o n a l T r a i l s o r R e c r e a t i o n a l Use Yes No CI i f Yes, Extent o f Use L i g h t |_J Heavy£j P o s s i b l e R e c r e a t i o n a l A c t i v i t i e s None 1^ A n g l i n g L Campingd H i k i n g ~ j Winter j Viewing! Canoe i n g / k a y a k i n g Q - ^ O t h e r Q ' — 1 '—' L i m i t a t i o n s on A c t i v i t y None None; Nonef Few Few Few Moderate Moderate Moderate! Severe Severe Severe} P P r o x i m i t y to P o p u l a t i o n Centre, R e c r e a t i o n a l Area or Park A c c e s s i b i l i t y o f Area C l o s e Q D i s t a n t Q E a s y Q L i m i t e d Q In access i b l e ( ~ ~ j D i s t i n c t i v e Q CommonQ M i n i m a l Q V i s u a l Features of Streambank D i s t i n c t i v e Q CommonQ M i n i m a l Q i f D i s t i n c t i v e , Describe _ e ) V i s u a l A e s t h e t i c s V i s u a l Features of Stream i f D i s t i n c t i v e , Describe V i s i b l e from Major T r a v e l Route Y e s Q N o Q i f Yes, Observer Distance from Streambank <100n|J100-500n{_J>500ni|_J Close to R e c r e a t i o n a l Area or T r a i l Yes i f Yes, Observer Distance from Streambank ^ l O O n Q l O O - b Q n Q >500irQ f)Timber Commercial Volume Commercial Species Stand Decadence 3-0 Z-sQ S-SQ S*Q H e a l t h y Q D e c a d e n t Q Ver y D e c a d e n t Q Watershed Notes Extent o f Logging i n Watershed Extent o f F r i n g e S t r i p s i n Watershed Extent o f Blowdown i n F r i n g e S t r i p s L o c a t i o n o f Blowdown i n F r i n g e S t r i p s Blowdown i n Rest o f Watershed Extent o f Debris Jamming i n Watershed Extent o f Bank F a i l u r e s i n Watershed Number o f Downstream C u l v e r t s and Bridges Debris Catchers Downstream Number and S i z e o f Downstream T r i b u t a r i e s 24 STEP 3. Using C h e c k l i s t s , i d e n t i f y and i s o l a t e the Users o f the Streambank. 25 1 1 8 USERS OF THE STREAMBANK I f escapement r e c o r d s , stream i n v e n t o r y or o n - s i t e i n s p e c t i o n i n d i c a t e anadromous or r e s i d e n t f i s h use any pa r t o f the stream system, r e f e r to ... FISH USER (page 27) I f no evidence of f i s h i n stream system, do not con-s i d e r F i s h User. I f i n v e n t o r y r e c ords i n d i c a t e Roosevelt E l k are p r e s e n t or i f e l k t r a i l s , e l k p e l l e t s , browsed shrubbery or o t h e r evidence o f e l k i s found, r e f e r to WILDLIFE USER - Roosevelt E l k (page 55) I f no evidence of Roosevelt e l k do not c o n s i d e r E l k User. I f b i r d s are seen or heard, n e s t s or numerous t r e e c a v i t i e s observed or i f stream i s i n an area which l a r g e b i r d s are known to use, r e f e r to .BIRD USER (page 57) I f no evidence of b i r d s do not c o n s i d e r B i r d User. I f stream i s p e r e n n i a l and i f present r e c r e a t i o n a l u s e , or p o t e n t i a l use, i s observed on streambank, r e f e r t o .... ACTIVE RECREATIONAL USER (page 58) I f stream i s i n t e r m i t t e n t or i f no prese n t o r poten-t i a l use i s observed, do not c o n s i d e r A c t i v e R e c r e a t i o n a l User. I f stream i s p e r e n n i a l and i f stream and streambank are viewed or are p o t e n t i a l l y viewed from a major t r a v e l r o u t e , t r a i l or r e c r e a t i o n a l a rea, r e f e r to VISUAL USER (page 60) I f stream i s i n t e r m i t t e n t or not viewed do not c o n s i -der V i s u a l User. I f water from stream i s used as domestic water o r i f stream i s t r i b u t a r y to a l a k e , r i v e r or c o a s t a l i n l e t t h a t i s used by r e c r e a t i o n i s t s , viewed from a major t r a v e l r o u t e , or i s of value to other resource u s e r s , r e f e r to WATER USER (page 63) I f no evidence o f downstream use o f water do not con-s i d e r Water User. 1 1 9 26 STEP 4. For each i d e n t i f i e d u s e r , assess the Value o f the Streambank. 1 2 0 FISH USER For a l l streambanks, c o n s i d e r the value to f i s h i n the stream. Make an i n i t i a l streambank c l a s s i f i c a t i o n based on f i s h presence and f i s h s p e c i e s i n the stream, and then, based on t h i s c l a s s i f i -c a t i o n c o n s i d e r a set of f a c t o r s to determine streambank v a l u e . Streambank C l a s s i f i c a t i o n - F i s h User C o n s i d e r a t i o n E v a l u a t i o n C l a s s i f i c a t i o n F i s h p r e s e n t I f anadromous f i s h are observed on s i t e on s i t e or b e l i e v e d to use the s i t e or i f i n v e n t o r y denotes anadro-mous f i s h are present or stream has p o t e n t i a l to support anadromous f i s h * I f sport f i s h are known to use s i t e or i f i n v e n t o r y denotes s p o r t "Fish are presen t I f s m a l l r e s i d e n t f i s h are observed on s i t e or are b e l i e v e d to be on s i t e but no anadromous f i s h are b e l i e v e d to be on s i t e or i f i n v e n t o r y denotes r e s i d e n t TTsh, are present but no anadro-mous f i s h p r e s e n t I f no f i s h are observed on s i t e and none are b e l i e v e d to use s i t e but may be presen t downstream or i f i n v e n t o r y denotes no f i s h are p r e s e n t C l a s s A (page 29) C l a s s A (page 29) Co n s i d e r a l s o A c t i v e R e c r e a t i o n a l U s e r - A n g l i n g (page C l a s s B (page 39) C l a s s C (page 49) * For example, i f F e d e r a l F i s h e r i e s escapement r e c o r d s i n d i c a t e anadromous f i s h presence or i f stream i s c o l o r e d r e d o r blue i n F i s h and W i l d l i f e Branch stream i n v e n t o r y . CO STREAM SHADING CONS I DERATION I. D i r e c t i o n stream flows 2. Local topography Gradient and - discharge o f stream 1. Upstream area Block on n o r t h northwest o r northeast s i d e o f stream Block on south southwest or southeast s i d e o f stream Block on east or west s i d e o f stream Stream Is In narrow v a l l e y o r deep draw o r w e l l shaded by 3oca? topography Stream is or. f l a t o r In wide v a ) l e y and r e c e i v e s l i t t l e shade from l o c a l topography  _l_ Gradient l e s s than 3% and discharge less than 10 c f . s . Gradient more than 3% o r discharge more than 10 c . f . s . STREAMBANK VALUE Low low Gradient less ! than 3% and | discharge less than 10 c . f . s . Upstream areas are s t e e p , t u r b u l e n t o r w e l l -shaded Hfgh Upstream areas are extens!vely c l e a r - c u t o r open marsh o r lake areas Low Gradient more than 3% o r d i s c h a r g e morel than 10 c . f . s —t m > o o I o fl) i n N J CO Upstream areas are steep,' t u r b u l e n t or w e l l -shaded Moderate High Upstream areas are extens I vely! c l e a r - c u t or„ open marsh or lake areas Low Moderate 4 29 1 2 2 FISH USER - C l a s s A For streams with anadromous f i s h or sport f i s h p r e s e n t on s i t e , or which have p o t e n t i a l to support anadromous f i s h , c o n s i d e r the value of the streambank f o r : (a) shading the stream (below) (b) b u f f e r i n g i t from l o g g i n g d e b r i s (page 31) (c) p r o t e c t i n g back channels (page 33) (d) s t a b i l i z i n g the banks (page 35) Then c o n s i d e r : (e) the o v e r a l l streambank value (page 37) (a) Stream Shading C o n s i d e r a t i o n 1. D i r e c t i o n stream - flows and l o c a - • t i o n of b l o c k L o c a l topography-Gradient and d i s c h a r g e o f stream Upstream area o f stream Streambank Shading E v a l u a t i o n Value*  I f b l o c k i s on N, NW or NE s i d e of stream Low I f b l o c k i s on S, SW or SE s i d e o f stream c o n s i d e r 2. I f b l o c k i s on E or W s i d e o f stream c o n s i d e r 3. I f stream i s i n a narrow v a l l e y or deep draw and w e l l shaded by l o c a l topo-graphy or steep streambank .Low I f stream i s on f l a t or i n a wide v a l l e y and not shaded by l o c a l topography or steep streambank c o n s i d e r 3. I f g r a d i e n t i s g r e a t e r than 1% or d i s c h a r g e g r e a t e r than 10 c . f . s . at.low flow c o n s i d e r 4. I f g r a d i e n t i s l e s s than 3% and d i s c h a r g e l e s s than 10 c . f . s . at low flow High I f upstream areas are steep or t u r b u l e n t or w e l l shaded Low I f upstream, areas are exten-s i v e l y c l e a r cut or i f there are l a k e s , open marshes or other l a r g e unshaded areas Moderate * Refers to the value of the streambank v e g e t a t i o n f o r shading the stream. ro GO o m TO 71 DEBRIS BUFFERING CO CONSIDERATION t. S l o p * o f stresxfaank 2. Si ond gradient of stream If s lope Is less less than 20% 3. substrate and b a n k prof I le STREAMBANK VALUE If s lope Is 20%-70% If s lope Is . greater than 70% If stream width Is less than 3 mecres or gradient less than 3% Low If stream width Is more than 3 metres or gradient more than 3% If substrate Is sands or g rave l s , If stream shows signs of s h i f t i n g or If there are debr is Jams High If substrate is cobbles, boulders o r bedrock and If banks are weiI def ined High Moderate 73 2 a i o 0) in O High i FISH USER - C l a s s A 31 1 2 4 (b) Debris B u f f e r i n g C o n s i d e r a t i o n 1. Slope of stream-bank S i z e and g r a d i e n t o f stream 3. S u b s t r a t e and channel s t a b i l i t y E v a l u a t i o n I f slope of streambank i s l e s s than 20% Streambank B u f f e r i n g V a l u e * Low I f s lope 20% - 70% of streambank c o n s i d e r 2. is I f slope of streambank i s g r e a t e r than 70% , I f stream i s l e s s than 3 meters (10 f t . ) wide or has l e s s than 3% g r a d i e n t , I f stream i s l a r g e r than 3 meters (10 f t . ) wide and g r e a t e r than 3% g r a d i e n t c o n s i d e r 3. I f s u b s t r a t e i s f i n e s , sands or g r a v e l s or i f stream channel shows sign s of s h i f t -ing or i f there are n a t u r a l d e b r i s j ams High High High I f s u b s t r a t e i s c o b b l e s , boulders or bedrock and I f banks are w e l l d e f i n e d and s t a b l e w i t h no evidence of channel s h i f t i n g or d e b r i s j ams Moderate Refers to the value o f the streambank v e g e t a t i o n as a b u f f e r p r e v e n t i n g l o g g i n g d e b r i s from e n t e r i n g the stream. 1 2 5 32 BACK CHANNELS - Class A 1/1 0 c c •o <0 t i -C > o i . 41 tn nj O 4) o u z <s •_> < t-2 (A **- "«J O i : r: 4) II) g-s 41 •/> .y 4) o V. o] A . .O 5 Z CO t-33 1 2 6 FISH USER - Cla s s A (c) Back Channel P r o t e c t i o n C o n s i d e r a t i o n E v a l u a t i o n Streambank P r o t e c t i v e Value* 1. Presence o f back I f back channels are channels observed . . . H i g h I f no back channels are observed Low * Refers to the value of the streambank v e g e t a t i o n f o r p r o t e c t i n g back channels from l o g g i n g damage. BANK STABILITY CONSIDERATION 1. Topography 2. Bank c o n d i t i o n 3. S l o p s k. S i t e i n d i c a t o r s o f s l o p e f a i l u r e STREAMBANK VALUE F l a t or gently s l o p i n g I Sloping j Banks not weiI I defined o r signs I o f o l d channels I o r e roc!ng banks Danks s t a b l e and w e i l - d e f I n e d Slope less than US% Slope more than kS% but l e s s than 70% j Slope more \ than 70% Signs o f o l d bank f a i l u r e Signs o f p o t e n t i a l f o r bank f a i l u r e High Low Low High High No s ign o f o l d or p o t e n t i a l f a l l u r e s Low High f-I28 FISH USER - Class A d) Bank S t a b i l i t y C o n s i d e r a t i o n 1. Topography 2. Channel s t a b i l i t y 3. Slope 4. S i t e i n d i c a t o r s o f bank f a i l u r e E v a l u a t i o n Streambank S t a b i l i z i n g Value * I f streambank i s f l a t c o n s i d e r 2 I f streambank i s s l o p i n g con-s i d e r 3 I f stream channel i s w e l l - d e f i n e d and s t a b l e Low I f stream channel i s not w e l l -d e f i n e d or has sign s o f o l d -stream channels, dry stream channels or eroding banks High I f streambank i s g e n t l y s l o p i n g (<45%) Low I f streambank i s moderately s l o p i n g (45-70%) c o n s i d e r 4 I f streambank i s s t e e p l y s l o p i n g (>70%) . High I f s i g n s o f o l d bank f a i l u r e s are evid e n t i . e . i f there are many f e r n s , many p i s t o l b u t t or j a c k -strawed t r e e s , d i s t u r b e d s o i l h o r i z o n s or open stumps High I f s i g n s o f p o t e n t i a l f o r bank f a i l u r e s are evi d e n t i . e . i f there are l a c u s t r i n e c l a y s , hard-pans, water i n the s o i l p i t , wet depr e s s i o n s or skunk cabbage on slope High I f no evidence, of bank f a i l u r e s or p o t e n t i a l f o r bank f a i l u r e s .. . Low * Refers to the value of the streambank v e g e t a t i o n f o r m a i n t a i n i n g bank s t a b i l i t y . 1 2 9 . 37 130 FISH USER - Cla s s A (e) O v e r a l l Streambank Value - Cl a s s A Streambanks The value f o r each of the f o l l o w i n g f u n c t i o n s : (a) Stream Shading (b) Debris B u f f e r i n g (c) Back Channel P r o t e c t i o n (d) Bank S t a b i l i z i n g has been c o n s i d e r e d I f one or more valu e s are High, the o v e r a l l streambank value i s High. I f no value i s High but one or more i s Moderate, the o v e r a l l streambank value i s Moderate. I f a l l values are Low, the o v e r a l l streambank v a l u e i s Low. Make i n i t i a l c h o i c e o f s t r a t e g y f o r O v e r a l l Streambank Value (page 73-76). CO STREAM SHADING CONS I DERATIONS 1. Gradient and v e l o c i t y o f stream 2. G r a d l e n t and discharge o f stream 3. L o c a t i o n o f b l o c k k. Local Topography 5. Upstream area 6. Anadromous f i s h and downstream coolIng STREAMBANK Stream g r a d i e n t g r e a t e r than i% Stream g r a d i e n t less than 8% Gradient Is less than 3% and discharge] less than 10 c . f . s . Gradient Is more than 3% o r discharge g r e a t e r than 10 c. f . s 5 1 Block on north northwest o r northeast s ide o f stream Block not on north northwest or northeast s i d e or on both s i d e s o f st ream . X Stream In deep draw o f narrow v a l l e y o r small enough to be shaded by bank Low Low Stream on f l a t o r In wide v a l l e y r e c e i v i n g l i t t l e shade Low c H 73 m > ~ CT I O Oi (/I tn CO co Upstream areas o r w e l l shaded iteep Upstream areas not steep or c l e a r c u t o r l a k e s , marshes o r large unshaded areas.  No anadromous f i s h High Low I Anadromous f i s h but Inputs of coolIng water Low 1 Anadromous f i s h and no Inputs of coolIng water Moderate High 39 FISH USER - C l a s s B C l a s s B Streambanks 1 3 2 I f r e s i d e n t f i s h are present on s i t e , c o n s i d e r the value of the streambank both to o n - s i t e r e s i d e n t f i s h and to p o s s i b l e downstream anadromous f i s h . Consider the value of the streambank f o r : (a) shading the stream (below) (b) b u f f e r i n g i t from l o g g i n g d e b r i s (page 43) (c) s t a b i l i z i n g i t s banks (page 45) Then c o n s i d e r : (d) the o v e r a l l streambank value (page 47) (a) Stream Shading C o n s i d e r a t i o n 1. Gradient Discharge and g r a d i e n t o f stream L o c a t i o n o f b l o c k L o c a l topography E v a l u a t i o n I f stream g r a d i e n t i s g r e a t e r than 8% I f stream g r a d i e n t i s l e s s than 8% c o n s i d e r 2. I f d i s c h a r g e at low flow i s l e s s than 10 c . f . s . and i f g r a d i e n t i s l e s s than 3% c o n s i d e r 3. I f d i s c h a r g e at low flow i s •greater than 10 c . f . s . or i f g r a d i e n t i s g r e a t e r than 3% c o n s i d e r 5. I f on N, NW or NE s i d e o f stream . . Streambank Shading Value I f not on N, NW or NE s i d e of stream or proposed f o r both banks c o n s i d e r 4. I f stream i s i n a narrow v a l l e y or deep draw and w e l l shaded by topography or steep streambank . I f stream is. on f l a t or i n wide v a l l e y and not shaded by topo-graphy or steep streambank Low Low Low High (cont. ) L 3 3 41 1 3 4 FISH USER - C l a s s B Cons i d e r a t i o n E v a l u a t i o n Streambank Shading Value 5. Upstream area 6. Anadromous f i s h presence and downstream c o o l i n g I f upstream areas are steep or w e l l shaded Low I f upstream areas are not steep , and e x t e n s i v e l y c l e a r c u t or i f there are l a k e s , marshes or other l a r g e unshaded areas c o n s i d e r 6 I f no anadromous f i s h down-stream I f anadromous f i s h downstream but inputs of c o o l i n g t r i b u -t a r y water, and downstream shading I f anadromous f i s h downstream with no in p u t s of c o o l i n g t r i b u t a r y water, or i f ex t e n s i v e openings downstream Low Moderate High DEBRIS BUFFERING CONSIDERATION 1, Slope o f 1 Slope Is f l a t o r less than 20% Slope Is g r e a t e r than 20% S i z e and g r a d i e n t o f stream 3. Anadromous f i s h presence STREAMBANK VALUE Stream gradient g r e a t e r than 'i% and bank to bank width g r e a t e r than 3 metres Stream g r a d i e n t g r e a t e r than 3% but bank to bank j width l e s s than 3 metres Anadromous f i s h downstream Low No anadromous f i s h downstream High Moderate Low Stream g r a d i e n t l e s s than 3% o r bank to b a n k width l e s s than 3 metres Moderate 43 1 3 6 FISH USER - C l a s s B (b) Debris B u f f e r i n g C o n s i d e r a t i o n 3. Slope of streambank S i z e and g r a d i e n t o f stream Anadromous f i s h presence E v a l u a t i o n I f s lope of streambank i s f l a t or l e s s than 201 , Streambank B u f f e r i n g Value* Low I f s lope of streambank i s g r e a t e r than 20% c o n s i d e r 2. I f stream g r a d i e n t i s g r e a t e r than 3% and bank to bank wid t h i s g r e a t e r than 3 meters (10 f e e t ) c o n s i d e r 3. I f stream g r a d i e n t i s g r e a t e r than 3% but bank to bank width i s l e s s than 3 meters (10 f e e t ) . . , I f stream g r a d i e n t i s l e s s than 3% or bank to bank width i s l e s s than 3 meters (10 f e e t ) I f anadromous f i s h downstream .., •If no anadromous f i s h downstream. Low Moderate High Moderate * Refers to the value of the streambank v e g e t a t i o n as a b u f f e r p r e v e n t i n g l o g g i n g d e b r i s from e n t e r i n g the stream and moving downstream. BANK STABILITY CONSIDERATION 1. Topography 2. Sank condi t ion 5. 3 5ope ^. S i t e ind ica tors of s lope f a i l u r e STREAMBANK VALUE F l a t or gently s loping T | Banks not weiI • defined or signs t o f o ld channels I or eroding banks High Low Banks s table and wei1-defIned Slope less than M% Signs o f o l d bank f a i l u r e Low High "ZL S l o p i n g Slope more than • 3 45% but less than 70% j Signs o f po tent i a l f o r bank f a i l u r e ZL •Slope more than 70% No s ign of o l d or po tent i a l f a i l u r e s Hfgh Low High 45 FISH USER Cl a s s B c)Bank S t a b i l i t y C o n s i d e r a t i o n Topography 2. Channel s t a b i l i t y Slope S i t e i n d i c a t o r s o f bank f a i l u r e E v a l u a t i o n Streambank S t a b i l i z i n g Value* I f streambank i s f l a t con-s i d e r 2 I f streambank i s s l o p i n g c o n s i d e r 3 I f stream channel i s w e l l -d e f i n e d and s t a b l e Low I f stream channel i s not w e l l -d e f i n e d or has sign s o f o l d stream channels, dry stream channels or eroding banks High I f streambank i s g e n t l y s l o p i n g C< 4 5 % ) . Low I f streambank i s moderately s l o p i n g (45-70%) c o n s i d e r 4 I f streambank i s s t e e p l y s l o p i n g 070%) High I f signs o f o l d bank f a i l u r e s are e v i d e n t i . e . i f there are many f e r n s , many p i s t o l b u t t or jackstraw t r e e s , d i s t u r b e d s o i l h o r i z o n s or open stumps High I f s i g n s of p o t e n t i a l f o r bank f a i l u r e s are evi d e n t i . e . i f there are l a c u s t r i n e c l a y s , hard-pans, water i n the s o i l p i t , wet depressions or skunk cabbage on slo p e High I f no evidence of slope f a i l u r e s or p o t e n t i a l f o r slope f a i l u r e .... Low * Refers to the value of the streambank v e g e t a t i o n f o r maintaining, bank s t a b i l i t y . 139 47 1 4 0 FISH USER - C l a s s B (d) O v e r a l l Streambank Value - Class B Streambanks The value f o r each of the f o l l o w i n g f u n c t i o n s (a) Stream Shading (b) Debris B u f f e r i n g (c) Bank S t a b i l i z i n g has been c o n s i d e r e d . I f one or more values are High, the o v e r a l l streambank v a l u e i s High. I f no value i s High but one or more i s Moderate, the o v e r a l l streambank value i s Moderate. I f a l l v a l u e s are Low, the o v e r a l l streambank value i s Low. Make i n i t i a l c h o i c e o f s t r a t e g y f o r O v e r a l l Streambank Value (page 73-76). DEBRIS BUFFERING o m co ZD CONSIDERATION 1. S i z e o f stream and channel s t a b i l i t y Proxlml ty to anadromous f i s h water 3. Slope of streambank Stream less than 3 metres, with debris In place and w e l l - d e f i n e d channel Stream wider than 3 metres o r with evidence o f having d e b r i s , Jams or channel s h i f t i n g Close to anadromous f i s h water STREAMBANK. VALUE D i s t a n t from anadromous f i s h water Moderate 73 Z O I o Ol </> in Slope Is f l a t o r less than 20%! Low Slope greater than 20% Moderate High FISH USER - C l a s s C 49 1 4 2 For streams with no f i s h present on s i t e , c o n s i d e r the value of the streambank to p o s s i b l e downstream f i s h . C onsider the value o f the streambank f o r p r e v e n t i n g : (a) the movement of l o g g i n g d e b r i s (below) (b) downstream sedimentation from bank f a i l u r e s (page 51) Then cons i d e r (c) o v e r a l l streambank value (page 53) (a) Debris B u f f e r i n g Streambank B u f f e r i n g C o n s i d e r a t i o n E v a l u a t i o n Value* 1. S i z e o f stream I f stream i s l e s s than 3 meters and channel (lOft„)wide, with d e b r i s s t a b i l i t y i n p l a c e and with a w e l l d e f i n e d and s t a b l e channel cons i d e r 2. I f stream i s wider than 3 meters ( 1 0 f t . ) o r has evidence o f moving d e b r i s , d e b r i s jams or channel s h i f t i n g , c o n s i d e r 3 2. P r o x i m i t y to I f c l o s e to anadromous f i s h anadromous f i s h water ., Moderate water I f d i s t a n t from anadromous f i s h water Low 3. Slope o f I f sl o p e o f streambank i s streambank f l a t or l e s s than 20% Moderate I f s lope of streambank i s g r e a t e r than 20% High * Refers to the value of the streambank v e g e t a t i o n as a b u f f e r p r e v e n t i n g l o g g i n g d e b r i s from e n t e r i n g the stream. 143 50 BANK STABILITY - Class C < »- -t n < o ~Z X VI Q> 4) "O 4-1 cn u c e > g c X o w 4) t- O u-1) c -—I 4) _ —r * > e a> o n a _ u e 4J — o -t l X c 4-< •— — tt-S 4) — VI —• 4) — 4) « X 4) E <« —»-o c fl) c n> e> X <J 4> fl) v> a. in u c S tfi 4) flj — C 41 <-cU _Q ro 4. (11 X to "O o 41 4) 3 O 4> xi -o c a) (a a. o — to -3" c t-fl> 3 c XI — oi — o — "> z m O 4- ro JC 0 — C 4) w ra v. in c .a 3 c <u •— cn 4-> t- — O O <0 to O.H- I*. x O C 4) It) V. VI X 3 c — I— —. a) (to O ** u o 4) r-4) 4-1 a. ID c o 4) 13 — u X n cn 4-» _! 4> C t. 10 3 C X •— cn — 0 — 14-03 z HI O " -r  14* 0 — C B l i Q t C X 3 c 4) — cn U L -o o «• to JZ a; o te. o E •o 4) u — 4J 4) t l C )> C 4J 14- ro *— °-5 = 1) X I I -o 10 c o >»-VI >• J V - '0 O X 0) fl) n . iu o ' • /.» to </> i n u O 3 4-» — IS _ O 10 — tv-•o C - * — c (0 4) X U l CO ' 51 FISH USER Class C b) Bank S t a b i l i t y C o n s i d e r a t i o n S i z e of stream and channel s t a b i l i t y P r o x i m i t y to anadromous f i s h water Slope o f streambank S i t e i n d i c a t o r s o f bank f a i l u r e E v a l u a t i o n Streambank S t a b i l i z i n g Value * I f stream i s l e s s than 3" meters (10 f t . ) wide, with d e b r i s i n p l a c e and with a w e l l - d e f i n e d and s t a b l e channel c o n s i d e r 2 I f stream i s wider than 3 meters (10 f t . ) or has e v i -dence o f moving d e b r i s , d e b r i s jams of channel s h i f t i n g c o n s i d e r 3 I f c l o s e to or immediately t r i b u t a r y to anadromous f i s h water c o n s i d e r 3 I f d i s t a n t from anadromous f i s h water I f s lope o f streambank i s l e s s than 451 I f slope o f streambank i s between 45% and 701 c o n s i d e r 4 I f slope o f streambank i s g r e a t e r than 70% I f signs of o l d bank f a i l u r e s are ev i d e n t i . e . i f there are many f e r n s , many p i s t o l b u t t or ja c k -straw t r e e s , d i s t u r b e d s o i l h o r i z o n s or open slumps .......... Low Low High High I f s i g n s o f p o t e n t i a l f o r bank f a i l u r e s are evi d e n t i . e . i f there are l a c u s t r i n e c l a y s , hard-pans, water i n the s o i l p i t , wet depressions or skunk cabbage on slo p e I f no evidence o f bank f a i l u r e s or p o t e n t i a l f o r bank f a i l u r e s ... . High Low * Refers to the value of the streambank v e g e t a t i o n f o r m a i n t a i n i n g bank s t a b i l i t y . 145 1 4 6 FISH USER - C l a s s C The value of the streambank f o r p r e v e n t i n g (a) the movement of l o g g i n g d e b r i s (b) downstream sedimentation from bank f a i l u r e s has been c o n s i d e r e d . I f one or both v a l u e s are High, the o v e r a l l streambank v a l u e i s High. I f n e i t h e r value i s High but one or both are Moderate, the o v e r a l l streambank value i s Moderate. •> • I f both v a l u e s are Low, the o v e r a l l streambank v a l u e i s Low. Make i n i t i a l c h o i c e o f s t r a t e g y f o r O v e r a l l Streambank Value (page 73-76). CONS I DERATION 1. E levat ion 2. Winter P r e c i p i t a t i o n 3. A v a i l a b i l i t y of cover h, Elk Movement in stream 5. Steepness and condi t ion o f opposite bank STREAMBANK VALUE WILDLIFE USER ROOSEVELT ELK Over 500 metres (1500 f t ) — o o oo m < Under 500 metres (1500 ft) r P r e c i p i t a t i o n predominantly ! ra in and snow depths do not excee'd 2 feet P r e c i p i t a t i o n p r e d o m i n a n t l yI snow and snow depths co I exceed 2 feet I Opposite Bank access ib le and unlogged Low Opposite bank unaccesslble to e lk or logged Low Gradlent less than 5%, substrate sand, gravel or cobbles with no high banks and no wide gravel bars Moderate Gradient greater than 5%, or substrate boulders or bedrock, or high banks or wide gravel bars Opposite bank logged or stream In steep-s lded canyon Moderate Opposite bank unlogged and stream not In canyon High Moderate •148 If inventory records indicate Roosevelt elk arc present on s i t e or i f elk t r a i l s , e l k p e l l e t s , browsed shrubbery or other evidence o f e l k use i s found on s i t e , consider streanibank value to elk. ! _ • . ' , . Streambank Consideration Evaluation Value 1. Elevation I£ over 500 meters (1500 feet) ....... j , o w I f below 500 meters (1500 f e e t ) , consider 2. 2. Winter I f x^inter precipitation i s pre-pre c i p i t a - dominantly. r a i n , and winter snow' ~ tion depths in open areas do not exceed 2 feet, consider 3„ " , If winter precipitation i s pre-dominantly snow and winter snow . depths in open areas do exceed 2 feet, consider 4. 3. A v a i l a b i l i t y I f the opposite bank i s unlogged of cover or greened-up and i f the stream can be crossed by elk or i f timber i s accessible nearby .........«,„ Low If the opposite bank i s recently* logged or not accessible to e l k and i f no timber i s accessible -nearby ............. ~. . „ „«... „ Moderate 4. Elk I f stream gradient is less than 5% •movement in and substrate sand, gravel or"cobbles stream, and'if banks are not high and there are not wide gravel bars to prevent elk entering and leaving stream course ............^-.»«.«.^ Mode"rs.t:e-I f gradient i s greater than 52 or substrate boulders or bedrock----or i f banks are high, or there are -wide gravel bars to prevent e l k entering and leaving stream - -course, consider 5 5. Steepness I f opposite bank i s unlogged and and i f stream is not i n a condition of steep-sided canyon Mode-rate o p p o s i t e bank I f o p p o s i t e bank i s l o g g e d t o str e a m edge o r i f stream i s in a s t e e p - s i d e d canyon ............ High Make c h o i c e o f s t r a t e g y f o r WILDLIFE USER - R o o s e v e l t E l k C m c p 7 7"\ • . CD BIRD USER CONSIDERATION 1. Type of use observed 2. Type o f nests 3. Typ« of bi r d i k. Streambank vegetat ion Nests seen r C a v i t i e s seen | Large nests] In mature trees o r snags Nests In cavi t i e s ir. snags Small open nests in c o n i f e r s o r deciduous j v e g e t a t i o n ' STREAMBANK VALUE High Numerous deciduous trees and shrubs Con I ferous f o r e s t with l i t t l e o r no deciduous veqetat ion Moderate B l r d s seen Large perching b i r d s e a g l e s , hawks, ospreys e t c . Low No b l r c s , nests o r cavi t i e s seen but C l a s s A stream CD cr C/l C a v i t y excavating b i r d s such as wood-p e c k e r s , f l i c k e r s sapsuckers e t c . Cavity n e s t i n g b i r d s such as wood ducks, owls, e t c . ZL Smal1 open n e s t i n g bi rds such as jays J uncos, k i n g l e t s , vtreos e t c .  VJ1 CTA Numerous deciduous t r e e s and shrubs Coni ferous f o r e s t with l i t t l e or no dec!duous y e a e t a t i o n Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Moderate SI • BIRD USER I f b i r d s are seen or heard on s i t e or known to use the a r e a o r i f numerous c a v i t i e s are observed i n snags, c o n s i d e r stream-bank v a l u e to b i r d s . Streambank C o n s i d e r a t i o n E v a l u a t i o n V a l u e 1. Type o f use I f ne s t s are seen, c o n s i d e r 2. I f n ests not seen but b i r d s seen or heard c o n s i d e r 3. I f c a v i t i e s are observed ......... Moderate I f no b i r d s , n e s t s o r c a v i t i e s observed but stream i s of low g r a d i e n t and used by migrat-i n g or spawning salmon Moderate 2. Type o f n e s t ( s ) I f l a r g e n e s t ( s ) i n mature c o n i f e r s or dead, snags, o f e a g l e s , herons or ospreys High I f n e s t ( s ) are i n c a v i t i e s o f snags Moderate I f n e s t s are s m a l l or i n d e c i -duous t r e e s or shrubbery, c o n s i d e r 4. 3. Type of b i r d s I f b i r d s observed are e a g l e s , o s p r e y s , k i n g f i s h e r s or o t h e r p e r c h i n g b i r d s f e e d i n g i n " stream Moderate I f b i r d s are woodpeckers, sap-s u c k e r s , f l i c k e r s or oth e r c a v i t y e x c a v a t i n g b i r d s * ......... Moderate I f b i r d s are woodducks, gol d e n e y e s , b u f f l e h e a d s , hooded mergansers, owls or o t h e r c a v i t y n e s t i n g b i r d s * . . . . M o d e r a t e I f b i r d s are jun c o s , j a y s , t h r u s h e s , v i r e o s o r o t h e r s m a l l open n e s t i n g b i r d s , c o n s i d e r 4. 4. Streambank I f numerous deciduous t r e e s and v e g e t a t i o n shrubs e x i s t along streambank .... Moderate I f streambank i s c o n i f e r o u s f o r e s t w i t h l i t t l e or no deciduous v e g e t a t i o n Low Make c h o i c e o f s t r a t e g y f o r BIRD USER (page 78). * See Appendix IT. 151 58 ACTIVE RECREATIONAL USER For a l l streambanks of p e r e n n i a l streams, and a l l streambanks on which r e c r e a t i o n a l use i s observed or i s p o t e n t i a l , c o n s i d e r the streambank value f o r a c t i v e r e c r e a t i o n . Two c o n s i d e r a t i o n s are e v a l u a t e d s e p a r a t e l y , then combined i n matrix form to i n d i c a t e the streambank v a l u e . These c o n s i d e r a t i o n s are: 1 . Q u a l i t y o f streambank r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y 2. Extent of streambank use C o n s i d e r a t i o n E v a l u a t i o n C l a s s i f i c a t i o n 1. Q u a l i t y I f one or more r e c r e a t i o n a l of a c t i v i t i e s are p o s s i b l e with r e c r e a - few or no l i m i t a t i o n s High q u a l i t y t i o n a l a c t i v i t y I f no a c t i v i t y has a h i g h q u a l i t y but one or more i s p o s s i b l e with o n l y moderate l i m i t a t i o n s Moderate q u a l i t y I f no a c t i v i t i e s are p o s s i b l e or i f a l l p o s s i b l e a c t i v i t i e s have severe l i m i t a t i o n s Low q u a l i t y 2. Extent o f I f the streambank has evidence streambank of heavy pres e n t use or i s use c l o s e to or e a s i l y a c c e s s i b l e to populated areas or r e c r e a t i o n a l areas Heavy use I f the streambank has some evidence of prese n t use but i s d i s t a n t from populated areas and r e c r e a t i o n a l areas and has l i m i t e d a c c e s s i b i l i t y or i f the streambank has no evidence o f present use but i s becoming a c c e s s i b l e to populated areas .... Moderate use I f the streambank has no evidence of present use .and i s d i s t a n t from populated areas and r e c r e a t i o n -a l areas and remaining i n a c c e s -s i b l e L i g h t use (cont.) 59 " 1 5 2 ACTIVE RECREATION USER Streambank Value Matrix Streambank Value Extent o f Make c h o i c e of s t r a t e g y f o r ACTIVE RECREATIONAL USER (pages 79-80). 3 60 VISUAL USER For a l l streambanks of p e r e n n i a l streams and streams viewed from t r a v e l routes or r e c r e a t i o n a l areas consi d e r the streambank value f o r v i s u a l a p p r e c i a t i o n . Two c o n s i d e r a t i o n s are ev a l u a t e d s e p a r a t e l y , then combined i n matrix form to i n d i c a t e the stream-bank v a l u e . C o n s i d e r a t i o n V a r i e t y c l a s s of stream and streambank E v a l u a t i o n C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Sens i t i v i t y l e v e l I f e i t h e r the stream or stream-bank are d i s t i n c t i v e * C l a s s A D i s t i n c t i v e I f e i t h e r the stream or stream-bank i s common* but n e i t h e r i s d i s t i n c t i v e I f both the stream and stream-bank are of minimal* v a r i e t y . Cla s s B Common Cla s s C Minimal I f the stream and streambank are viewed from major r e c r e a -t i o n a l or s c e n i c t r a v e l routes or from r e c r e a t i o n a l t r a i l s or high use r e c r e a t i o n a l areas L e v e l 1 High I f the stream and streambank are Viewed from primary t r a v e l r o u t e s * where scenery or r e c r e a -t i o n are not major concerns or from secondary t r a v e l routes or low use r e c r e a t i o n a l areas L e v e l 2 Moderate I f the stream and streambank are viewed from secondary t r a v e l r o u t e s * L e v e l 3 Low D e f i n i t i o n s are i n c l u d e d i n the' Glossary. 61 VISUAL USER Streambank Value Matrix Sensitivity-Level Variety 1 2 3 Class A B C y/ tv r ; > . £ y . f * ^ / - • * ><A- " J. • * v - xv:. }'i • » i « • .. * « • " • » ' \ v : : - * - ^ : ( " V r : ' c . » • • XXVI /SXXl * " *-v. • 1 •>. c -*- r . • •* • ' » • . . • # a . * • * • . * • - * -<56o x x X . t * Streambank Value High. Moderate Low Make choice of strategy for VISUAL USER (page 81-83). WATER USER CONSIDERATION 1. Downstream Downstream Domestic water users fish users Consider FISH USER page 23 2. Size of stream 3. Topography k. Evidence of stream changing course or bank InstabIIIty 5. Slope 6. Site Indicators of bank failures STREAMBANK VALUE Lew 1 Small stream or distant from water users Large stream or close to water users f Flat Sloping Old or dry stream channeSs, debris Jams, undercut or eroding banks No evidence of stream changing course and stable banks High J Slope k5% Moderate , Moderate Slope between 1*5% and 70% Slope 70% Signs of old bank fai lures 1 Signs of potential for bank M lure No signs of bonk fai lure "Igh HIdh Moderate High cn s: > a m 73 Downstream recreatlonlsts Smal1 stream or \ from recreational user j Large stream or ! j close to recreational | user M m m Sloping Old or dry stream channels debris Jams, undercut or eroding banks Lew [No evi dence of stream changing course and stable banks Slope 1*5% Slope between k5% and 70% Signs of old bank failures Slope 70% Signs of potential for bank failure Highj Moderate High Moderate High Moderate High WATER USER For a l l streambanks, consider the streambank value to down stream water users. E v a l u a t i o n 1. 2. Consideration Downstream users Streambank Value Size of stream 3. Topography Evidence of stream changing course or bank i n s t a b i l i t y Slope o£ streambank S i t e i n d i c a t o r s of bank f a i l u r e or bank erosion If f i s h are present downstream, consider FISH USER (page 27). If stream water i s used as domestic water supply, consider 2. I f stream water flows through a rec r e a t i o n a l area or into a lake or coastal i n l e t . t h a t has p u b l i c access, consider. 2. If stream i s small r e l a t i v e to main stem of stream or i f stream i s distant from used areas . * e. • f> L o w I f stream i s r e l a t i v e l y large or close to used areas, consider 3. If slope of streambank i s f l a t , consider 4. If streambank i s sloping, consider 5. I f o l d channels or dry channels, old debris jams, bank under-c u t t i n g or erosion are evident ... High I f no evidence of stream changing course and bank appears stable ... Moderate I f bank gently s l o p i n g (<4S)% Moderate. I f bank i s moderately sl o p i n g (45-70?) consider 6. If bank i s steeply sloping (>70%).High I f signs of old bank f a i l u r e s are evident i . e . i f there are many ferns, many p i s t o l butt or jackstrawed trees, disturbed s o i l horizons or open slumps High If signs of p o t e n t i a l f o r bank f a i l u r e s are evident i . e . i f there are l a c u s t r i n e c l a y s , hard-pans, water i n the s o i l p i t , wet depressions or skunk cabbage on slope High If no evidence of slope f a i l u r e s or p o t e n t i a l for slope f a i l u r e s .. Moderate 7 64 STEP 5. Consider a l l p o s s i b l e Streambank Management S t r a t e g i e s . 65 1 5 8 Logging on both s i d e s of stream c o n c u r r e n t l y A l Removing a l l t r e e s to stream edge on both s i d e s o f stream. (a) f a l l i n g t r e e s a c r o s s OR (b) f a l l i n g t r e e s away stream and y a r d i n g from stream and a c r o s s stream t o . y a r d i n g t o l a n d i n g s l a n d i n g on one s i d e on both s i d e s 1 5 9 66 A2 Removing mature c o n i f e r o u s t r e e s to' stream edge- on both s i d e s o f stream, but r e t a i n i n g deciduous t r e e s , s t a n d i n g snags, immature c o n i f e r s and shrubbery a l o n g the streambank. (a) l e a v i n g no merchant- OR (b) r e t a i n i n g some w i n d f i r m able t r e e s but c o n i f e r s , l e a n e r s , and r e t a i n i n g a l l non- i s o l a t e d t r e e s merchantable t r e e s and shrubbery -67 160 A3 Removing trees on both s i d e s of stream, but r e t a i n i n g coniferous trees in a s t r i p along both streambanks. (a) r e t a i n i n g a l l trees OR (b) removing some co n i f e r s by s e l e c t i v e logging Jl 68 B. Logging on one s i d e o f stream o n l y ( o p p o s i t e bank e i t h e r greened-up, to be l e f t u n t i l green-up a c h i e v e d on t h i s b l o c k , or to be l e f t permanently) BI Removing a l l t r e e s to stream edge on one s i d e o f the stream (a) f a l l i n g trees across OR (b) f a l l i n g a l l trees . stream and yarding away away from, or p a r a l l e l from stream to stream and yarding away from stream 69 1 6 2 B2 Removing mature c o n i f e r o u s trees to stream edge on one side of stream but retaining deciduous t r e e s , standing snags, immature conifers and shrubbery along the streambank. (a) leaving no OR merchantable trees but r e t a i n i n g a l l non-merchantable trees and shrubbery. (b) r e t a i n i n g some windfirm c o n i f e r s , leaners and i s o l a t e d t r e e s . 163 B3 70 Removing t r e e s on one s i d e but r e t a i n i n g a l l t r e e s i n a narrow s t r i p along the streambank. (a) o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y one c h a i n i n width. OR (b) to the t o p o g r a p h i c break. The w i d t h . w i l l vary. 71 1 6 4 Removing trees on one side but retaining coniferous trees in a wide s t r i p of up to 5 chains in width. removing some conifers by s e l e c t i v e logging OR (b) r e t a i n i n g a l l trees 1 6 5 72 STEP 6 Make i n i t i a l c h o i c e of a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g i e s based on streambank value to i d e n t i f i e d u s e r s . S t r a t e g i e s are i l l u s -t r a t e d on pages 65-71. For each Streambank User i d e n t i f i e d i n STEP 3, choose the a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g y based on the value of the streambank to the user i n d i c a t e d i n STEP 4. A f t e r determining the a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g y f o r each user, make i n i t i a l s t r a t e g y choice of the h i g h e s t s t r a t e g y i d e n t i f i e d . B s t r a t e g i e s are hi g h e r than A s t r a t e g i e s and (b) s u b - s t r a t e g i e s are hi g h e r than (a) s u b - s t r a t e g i e s . 4 s t r a t e g i e s are highe r than 3 s t r a t e g i e s and 3 s t r a t e g i e s are h i g h e r than 2 s t r a t e g i e s . FISH USER Streambank Value General G u i d e l i n e s Low Both s i d e s o f the stream may be logged. No v e g e t a t i o n i s r e q u i r e d to be l e f t but on C l a s s A and B streams some immature t r e e s and deciduous v e g e t a t i o n should be l e f t along the streambank. On C l a s s A and B streams a l l f a l l i n g and y a r d i n g must be away from the stream. S p e c i a l f a l l i n g techniques such as ja c k s or cable a s s i s t f a l l i n g should be used i f necessary. On C l a s s A and B streams remed i a l measures such as removing l o g g i n g d e b r i s from the stream should be co n s i d e r e d . On C l a s s C streams no s p e c i a l f a l l i n g or y a r d i n g techniques or remedial measures are necessary. I n i t i a l S p e c i f i c C o n s i d e r a t i o n s S t r a t e g y C l a s s A and B streambanks I f both banks unlogged A l b I f o p p o s i t e bank logged . Bib Cl a s s C streambanks I f both banks unlogged A l a I f o p p o s i t e bank logged B l a Streambank Value General Guidelines Moderate (a) for Both sides of the stream may stream be logged, shading Deciduous trees and shrubs and immature conifers should be l e f t along the streambank and streambank vegetation protected as much as possible. A l l f a l l i n g and yarding must be away from the stream. (b) for Both sides of the stream debris may be logged, buffering Deciduous trees and shrubs, immature conifers, leavers and snags should be l e f t along the streambank. A l l f a l l i n g and yarding should be away from the stream. Remedial measures such as yarding unmerchantable material away from stream and cleaning out debris should be considered, S p e c i f i c Considerations I n i t i a l 0 ? Strategy^-' If both banks unlogged A2a If opposite bank logged ............. B2a If both banks unlogged A2b If opposite bank logged B2b l-H CO 15 C CO m jo Streambank Value General G u i d e l i n e s High (a) f o r Only one s i d e of the stream stream should be logged. shading A l l deciduous t r e e s and shrubs and immature c o n i f e r s should be l e f t along the streambank and streambank v e g e t a t i o n pro-t e c t e d as much as p o s s i b l e . ' A l l f a l l i n g and y a r d i n g must be away from the stream. (b) f o r Only one s i d e of the stream d e b r i s should be logged, b u f f e r i n g V e g e t a t i o n should be l e f t along stream edge. A l l f a l l i n g and yard i n g should be away from the stream. Remedial measures such as y a r d i n g unmerchantable m a t e r i a l away from the stream and c l e a n i n g out d e b r i s should be co n s i d e r e d . High c o n t i n u e d I n i t i a l S p e c i f i c C o n s i d e r a t i o n s S t r a t e g y I f 50% o f o r i g i n a l shading can be pr o v i d e d by non-merchantable and deciduous v e g e t a t i o n B2a If 50% o f o r i g i n a l shading cannot be p r o v i d e d by non-merchantable and deciduous v e g e t a t i o n B2b Width o f s t r i p o f l e f t v e g e t a t i o n should be a t l e a s t equal to width of stream but need not exceed 1 ch a i n . I f stream i s smal l w i t h low g r a d i e n t or w i t h signs o f n a t u r a l d e b r i s jams B2a I f streambank i s s t e e p l y s l o p i n g w i t h a shor t s l o p e to a topographic break B3b If streambank i s steep but a long unbroken slope B2b I—I •x a, cn trt CT3 GO Streambank Value General G u i d e l i n e s High or (c) f o r back channel p r o t e c -t i o n or (d) f o r bank s t a b i -l i t y A l l v e g e t a t i o n should be l e f t between back channel and stream edge. V e g e t a t i o n should a l s o be l e f t to p r o t e c t back channel Only one s i d e should be logged. V e g e t a t i o n should be l e f t on streambank to p r o t e c t s t a b i l i t y Remedial measures should be c o n s i d e r e d i f banks are b e i n g undercut or are eroding. CD I n i t i a l S p e c i f i c C o n s i d e r a t i o n s S t r a t e g y B4b Width w i l l depend on d i s t a n c e from back channel to stream edge. I f streambank i s moderately or s t e e p l y s l o p i n g w i t h s h o r t slope to t o p o g r a p h i c a l break B3b I f streambank i s moderately or s t e e p l y s l o p i n g w i t h a long unbroken sl o p e B4b I f streambank i s f l a t w i t h p o o r l y d e f i n e d stream channel B3a I f streambank i s f l a t w i t h banks . being undercut B2a WILDLIFE USER - Roosevelt E l k Streambank Value General G u i d e l i n e s Low Both s i d e s o f the stream may be logged. No streambank v e g e t a t i o n i s r e q u i r e d . No s p e c i a l f a l l i n g or y a r d i n g techniques or remed i a l measures are n e c e s s a r y . Moderate Both s i d e s o f the stream may be logged. Non-merchantable t r e e s and l e a n e r s should be l e f t and bank v e g e t a t i o n p r o t e c t e d as much as p o s s i b l e . Timing should be such that a c t i v e o p e r a t i o n does not c o i n c i d e w i t h e l k movement i n the area. High Both s i d e s o f stream may be logged. Mature c o n i f e r o u s t r e e s should be l e f t a long the streambank. Timing should be such that a c t i v e o p e r a t i o n does not c o i n c i d e with e l k movement i n the area. I n i t i a l S p e c i f i c C o n s i d e r a t i o n s S t r a t e g y I f both s i d e s unlogged Al I f o p p o s i t e side logged BI I f both s i d e s unlogged, w i t h some or numerous a l d e r and non-merchantable t r e e s along stream edge A2a I f both s i d e s unlogged but none or very few a l d e r and non-merchantable t r e e s along stream edge A2b I f one s i d e unlogged with some or numerous a l d e r and non-merchant-able t r e e s along stream edge ,. . B2a I f one s i d e unlogged but none or very few a l d e r and non-merchant-able t r e e s along stream edge .. B2b I f o p p o s i t e s i d e unlogged ...... A3 Tf o p p o s i t e s i d e logged ........ B4 Width of s t r i p should be 2 times d i s t a n c e from stream edge to e l k t r a i l s and at l e a s t 1 c h a i n . TF g r e a t e r than 3 chains and h i g h crown c l o s u r e A3a or B4a General G u i d e l i n e s Both s i d e s o f the stream may be logged. No streambank v e g e t a t i o n i s r e q u i r e d . Both s i d e s o f the stream may be logged. A l d e r and deciduous t r e e s , immature t r e e s and shrubbery should be l e f t . Some snags and l e a n e r s should a l s o be l e f t . Both s i d e s o f the stream may be logged. Mature c o n i f e r o u s timber should be l e f t around nest s i t e s . Timing o f a c t i v e o p e r a t i o n should be such as not to d i s t u r b n e s t i n g b i r d s . I n i t i a l S p e c i f i c C o n s i d e r a t i o n s S t r a t e g y I f both s i d e s unlogged A l I f o p p o s i t e s i d e logged B l I f c a v i t i e s are observed or nests i n c a v i t i e s A2b or B2b I f c a v i t y n e s t i n g or c a v i t y e x c a v a t i n g b i r d s are observed.. A2b or B2b I f p e r c h i n g b i r d s are observed and t h e r e are numerous snags and dead top t r e e s A2a or B2a I f p e r c h i n g b i r d s are observed and there are few snags or dead t r e e s A2b or B2b I f b i r d s (or nests observed) are s m a l l open n e s t i n g birds.'.. A2a or B2a I f both s i d e s unlogged ........ A3 I f o p p o s i t e side logged B4b Width w i l l depend on topo-graphy, number of nests and so on. Minimum width should be 1 c h a i n . ACTIVE RECREATIONAL USER Streambank Value Low Moderate General G u i d e l i n e s Both s i d e s may be logged. No streambank v e g e t a t i o n i s r e q u i r e d . No s p e c i a l f a l l i n g or y a r d i n g techniques or remedial measures need be i n c o r p o r a t e d . Only one s i d e should be logged. F a l l i n g and y a r d i n g should be away from the stream. A l l a l d e r , immature c o n i f e r s and deciduous shrubbery along the streambank should be l e f t . A l l snags and unsafe t r e e s should be removed. Remedial measures such as y a r d i n g unmerchantable m a t e r i a l away from the streambank, c l e a n i n g d e b r i s from stream, removing s l a s h from t r a i l s or p r o v i d i n g a camping area i n another l o c a t i o n should be considered, S p e c i f i c 'Con s i d e r a t i o n s I f both s i d e s unlogged .. I f o p p o s i t e s i d e logged . I n i t i a l S t r a t e g y A l B l B2a «3 (cont.) CO General G u i d e l i n e s Only one s i d e should be logged. Some mature c o n i f e r s should be l e f t along the streambank and a l l l e a n i n g t r e e s along the stream edge should be l e f t . I f s t r i p i s to be 1 c h a i n or l e s s w i t h mature t r e e s removed, re m e d i a l measures such as remov-ing s l a s h from streambank and removing d e b r i s from stream should be c o n s i d e r e d . I f a wide s t r i p i s to be l e f t f o r camping, a l l unsafe t r e e s and snags should be removed. I n i t i a l S p e c i f i c C o n s i d e r a t i o n s S t r a t e g y I f streambank value i s high f o r : 1. Camping or viewing a c t i v i t i e s . . B4 Width of s t r i p w i l l depend on s u i t a b l e area f o r camping. I f width g r e a t e r than 3 c h a i n s B4a 2. F i s h i n g or canoeing a c t i v i t y . I f the slope of the bank i s f l a t or g e n t l y s l o p i n g , w i t h numerous a l d e r s , immature c o n i f e r s and l e a n e r s B2a I f the slope o f the bank i s f l a t or g e n t l y s l o p i n g with few non-commercial t r e e s over stream .... B2b I f the slope i s steep with a c l e a r topographic break B3b I f the slope i s a long steep s l o p e with no topographic break B3a 3. T r a i l a c t i v i t i e s ( h i k i n g , f i s h i n g , or other t r a i l s ) I f the slope o f the bank i s f l a t or g e n t l y s l o p i n g or a long steep slope .B4b Width should be 2 X d i s t a n c e o f stream edge to t r a i l and at l e a s t 1 c h a i n . I f s l o p e i s steep with a c l e a r t opographic break B3b Width w i l l depend on the l o c a t i o n of the break. VISUAL USER Stream Dank Va ?ae General G u i d e l i n e s Lr .v Both s i d e s of the stream may be logged. No streambank v e g e t a t i o n i s r e q u i r e d . No s p e c i a l f a l l i n g or y a r d i n g techniques or r e m e d i a l measures are n e c e s s a r y . Moderate Deciduous t r e e s and immature c o n i f e r o u s t r e e s should be l e f t a l o n g the streambank and stream-bank v e g e t a t i o n p r o t e c t e d as much as p o s s i b l e . Remedial measures such as y a r d i n g unmerchantable m a t e r i a l from the streambanks, c l e a n i n g d e b r i s from the stream or r e p l a n t i n g deciduous t r e e s should be c o n s i d e r e d . S p e c i f i c C o n s i d e r a t i o n s I f both banks unlogged I f o p p o s i t e bank logged I n i t i a l S t r a t e g y A l B l I f a rea i s of low s e n s i t i v i t y ( L e v e l 3) with some or numerous deciduous or immature t r e e s along streambank A2a I f area i s of low s e n s i t i v i t y ( L e v e l 3) with none or ve r y few deciduous and immature t r e e s along streambank ...... A2b I f area i s o f moderate or h i g h s e n s i -t i v i t y ( L e v e l 1 or 2) wit h some or numerous deciduous or immature t r e e s along streambank B2a I f area i s of moderate or high s e n s i -t i v i t y ( L e v e l 1 or 2) wit h none or very few deciduous and immature t r e e s along streambank B2b Streambank Value General G u i d e l i n e s High Only one side o f the stream 1 should be logged. V e g e t a t i o n should be l e f t along the streambank. S p e c i a l f a l l i n g and ya r d i n g techniques should be used to p r o t e c t l e f t v e g e t a t i o n i f t r e e s are removed. Remedial measures such as yard-ing unmerchantable m a t e r i a l , c l e a r i n g stream d e b r i s from stream or r e p l a n t i n g deciduous 2 v e g e t a t i o n should be con s i d e r e d . V a r i e t y i f important. A uniform s t r i p o f v e g e t a t i o n should not be l e f t along the e n t i r e stream-bank i f area i s viewed from a road, Harmony i s a l s o important. I f observer i s d i s t a n t and opposite s i d e i s logged, the l e f t vegeta-t i o n should be i n keeping with o p p o s i t e bank. High continued ,,.. •J I n i t i a l C n . S p e c i f i c C o n s i d e r a t i o n s S t r a t e g y For d i s t a n t observer ( g r e a t e r than 500 m (1500 f t ) from stream edge) I f some or numerous deciduous or immature t r e e s along stream edge B2a I f none or v e r y few deciduous and immature t r e e s along stream edge B2b For moderately c l o s e observer oo (100 - 500 m (300-1500 f t ) from ^ stream edge) I f area i s of h i g h s e n s i t i v i t y ( L e v e l 1) w i t h some or numerous deciduous and immature t r e e s along streambank B2b I f area i s o f h i g h s e n s i t i v i t y ( L e v e l 1) w i t h none or ve r y few deciduous and immature t r e e s a l o n g streambank B3a I f stream i s d i s t i n c t i v e ( C l a s s A) but s e n s i t i v i t y moderate ( L e v e l 2) w i t h some or numerous deciduous and immature t r e e s along stream-bank B2a Streambank Value High S p e c i f i c C o n s i d e r a t i o n s I n i t i a l S t r a t e g y continued I f stream i s d i s t i n c t i v e ( C l a s s A) but s e n s i t i v i t y moderate (Lev e l 2) wit h none or very few deciduous and immature t r e e s along streambank B2b I f streambank i s d i s t i n c t i v e ( C l a s s A) B3a For c l o s e r observer ( l e s s than 100 m (300 f t ) from stream edge) » I f stream and streambank are of common v a r i e t y ( C l a s s B) and area i s of h i g h s e n s i t i v i t y ( L e v e l 1) w i t h some or numerous deciduous or immature t r e e s along streambank B2b I f stream and streambank are of common v a r i e t y ( C l a s s B) and area i s of h i g h s e n s i t i v i t y w i t h none or very few deciduous and immature t r e e s along streambank . B3a < I f stream i s d i s t i n c t i v e ( C l a s s - • > A) . ,. . B3a r~ a CO ( C l a s s A) B4b 3 I f streambank i s d i s t i n c t i v e £g St voambank V a 11: e 1.0\\' Moderate General Guideli:ies Both sides of the stream may be logged. No streambank vegetation is required. Both sides of the stream may be logged. F a l l i n g and yarding should be away from the stream. A l l deciduous and non-merchantable vegetation should be l e f t along the streambank. Remedial measures such as yarding unmerchantable material away from the streambank, cleaning out debris or i n s t a l l i n g debris catchers should be considered I n i t i a l Sj)ecific Considerations Stratcgy If both banks unlogged Ala If opposite bank logged Bla If both banks unlogged with slope of streambank less than 45% . A2a If opposite bank logged with slope of streambank less than 45% B2a If slope i s greater than 45% B2b CO High Only one side of the stream should be logged. A l l deciduous and non-merchantable vegetation, and in seme cases mature c o n i f e r s , should be l e f t along the stream edge. Remedial measures such as debris clearances and bank s t a b i l i z a t i o n should be considered, If slope of streambank is less / than 4 5% with old stream channels or dry stream channels or old debris jams evident in the stream B3a If slope of streambank i s less than 45% with banks being undercut or eroding , , B2a If slope of streambank i s more than 4S?« but with a topographic break B3b If slope of streambank i s more than 45% without a clear topographic break , B4b 8 5 : 1 7 8 STEP 7 Consider S t r a t e g y M o d i f i c a t i o n F a c t o r s f o r a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g y . 86 STRATEGY MODIFICATION FACTORS BEFORE MAKING FINAL STRATEGY CHOICE CONSIDER - LOGGING CHANCE - ALDER PROBLEMS - SNAG SAFETY - BLOWDOWN - STAND DECADENCE - STAND VALUE f o r example: IF INITIAL STRATEGY IS Alb FACTORS Drainage d e n s i t y Logging chance A2a or B2a A l d e r weed problem EVALUATION I f drainage den-s i t y o f area i s hi g h or l o g g i n g chance low or i f topography i s such t h a t y a r d i n g across stream i s i n e v i t a b l e I f area i s on wet west coast with t h i n humus l a y e r and ex-posed m i n e r a l s o i l or a l r e a d y has a l d e r problems FINAL STRATEGY A l a I f streambank value i s moderate, con-s i d e r d e b r i s c l e a n o u t or othe r remedial measures A2b or B2b removing a l d e r 87 Make f i n a l c h o i ce o f Streambank Management St r a t e g y . 1 8 1 '182 N o t e s f o r P r e - S i t e V i s i t a t i o n D a t a S h e e t B A P P E N D I X I 5 - 8 . C r u i s e n o t e s , T o p o g r a p h i c m a p s , A i r p h o t o s . 9 . I n d i c a t e w h e t h e r b y r o a d , w a t e r , e t c . a n d i f a c c e s s i b l e t o p u b l i c . 1 0 . C r u i s e n o t e s , f o r e s t c o v e r m a p s . 1 1 - 1 4 . F o l i o m a p s , s o i l a n d l a n d f o r m m a p s , a i r p h o t o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , c r u i s e n o t e s 1 5 . T o p o g r a p h i c m a p s , a i r p h o t o s . 1 6 - 1 8 . E s c a p e m e n t r e c o r d s ( F e d e r a l F i s h e r i e s ) o r s t r e a m i n v e n t o r y ( F i s h a n d W i l d l i f e B r a n c h ) . L o c a l k n o w l e d g e o f c r u i s e r s , e n g i n e e r s . 1 9 . W i l d l i f e I n v e n t o r y ( F i s h a n d W i l d l i f e B r a n c h ) . L o c a l k n o w l e d g e . 2 0 . S t e e l h e a d S o c i e t y , R o d a n d G u n C l u b s , H i k i n g C l u b s , L o c a l k n o w l e d g e . 2 1 . F o l i o m a p s . R e c r e a t i o n a l c a p a b i l i t y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n B . C . F . S . 2 2 . S a m e a s # 2 0 . 2 3 . F o l i o m a p s . 2 4 . W a t e r R i g h t s B r a n c h . 2 5 . I n d i c a t e w h e t h e r c l o s e b y , o r d i s t a n t a n d i f o n s a m e s t r e a m o r o n m a i n s t e m s t r e a m o r l a k e . 2 6 - 2 8 . F r o m d e v e l o p m e n t m a p . 5 y e a r p l a n . 2 9 - 3 1 . E . L . U . C . C l i m a t e a n d D a t a S e r v i c e , A t m o s p h e r i c E n v i r o n m e n t S e r v i c e . 3 2 . L o c a l k n o w l e d g e o r c o m p a n y e x p e r i e n c e . I n d i c a t e d i r e c t i o n v a l l e y o p e n s . 33-39. Company experience. F o r e s t Ranger. F e d e r a l F i s h e r i e s . C r u i s e Notes. 1 8 3 APPENDIX II ' I T Y K I T T I N G B I R D S Or B . C . 'ITY KXCAVATIKC BIii!).i F l i c k e r P i l c i ' . t e d woodpucker Red-breaated Sapuvukfcr Ye l l o v . - be i i i e c t i~.ap*u.::ker V.' i l l i-r .nt;r>:i ' s Sapruokc-r Ha i r y '.."codpecker Dov:ny Woodpscker White-headed Woodpecker B l ack -backed Th ree - toad Woodpecker Nor thern Three - toed Woodpecker Wh i t e -!; .v e a s t e d i : a t j: a. t c h Fed -b r^a s ted Kutha tch Pygray Ku tha tch ITY EXCAVATING BIRDS THAT MAY USE OLD HOLES B lack -capped Chickadee Ches tnut -backed Ch ickadee HOLE NESTING BIRDS THAT MAY EXCAVATE Mountain Ch ickadee B o r e a l Chickadee -EXCAVATING HOLE NESTING BIRDS Wood Duck Common Goldeneye Ba r r ow ' s Goldeneye B u f f l o h e a d Hooded Merganser Sc reech Owl Pygny Ov;l B o r e a l Owl Saw-whet Owl Vaux ' s Sv: i f t Tree Swal low P u r p l e M a r t i n House Wren Western B l u d b i r d Mountain B l u e b i r d 184 WITY WRITERS (non-excavat ing) THAT MAY NEST EI.EE WHERE Cor.mion Merganser (on ground) Brown Creeper (behind l oo se bark) Bew i ck ' s Wren- ( i n c r e v i c e o r cranny) kVITY WESTERS THAT MAY USE OLD OPEN NESTS Pigeon Hawk Sparrow Hawk Hawk Owl (may b u i l d new nest) Barred Owl Spotted Owl 185 GLOSSARY Back channel - A shallow, s l o w l y f l o w i n g channel to the s i d e of the main channel and separated from i t by l a n d and v e g e t a t i o n . Back channels are h i g h l y important t o f r y and j u v e n i l e salmonids. C a v i t i e s - Round or oblong h o l e s , excavated i n the r o t t i n g wood or s o f t bank of sound snags by such b i r d s as woodpeckers, sapsuckers and nuthatches. C a v i t i e s are important as cover and n e s t i n g h a b i t a t f o r numerous f o r e s t d w e l l i n g b i r d s . Coarse t e x t u r e d s o i l s - Includes a l l g r a v e l s and g r a v e l l y s o i l s , a l l sands and sandy s o i l s . D ebris - Debris may be n a t u r a l or a s s o c i a t e d with l o g g i n g . N a t u r a l d e b r i s i s that which i s i n the stream p r i o r to l o g g i n g and Logging d e b r i s e n t e r s the stream d u r i n g or a f t e r l o g g i n g , i n f a l l i n g o p e r a t i o n s , i n y a r d i n g o p e r a t i o n s , or a f t e r l o g g i n g i s completed. F i n e d e b r i s i s s m a l l e r than branches. Coarse d e b r i s i s l a r g e r than l a r g e branches. D i s t i n c t i v e stream - A stream of l a r g e s i z e or volume or having d i s t i n c t i v e flow c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as canyons, l a r g e p o o l s , r a p i d s , hot s p r i n g s , caves, water f a l l s or h i s t o r i c f e a t u r e s . D i s t i n c t i v e Streambank - A streambank having very l a r g e t r e e s or mixture of t r e e s p e c i e s , or having an open u n d e r s t o r y and d i v e r s i t y or herbs, mosses and f e r n s or be i n g a l a r g e open a l l u v i a l t e r r a c e . Fine t e x t u r e d s o i l s - Includes a l l s i l t and s i l t y s o i l s , a l l c l a y and c l a y s o i l s . F r i n g e s t r i p - A s t r i p of v e g e t a t i o n , which may be of v a r i o u s widths and of v a r i o u s v e g e t a t i o n a l compositions, which i s l e f t along a stream. The l e a v i n g of a f r i n g e s t r i p i s a streambank management p r a c t i c e . H i g h l y o r g a n i c s o i l s - Include those w i t h a high p r o p o r t i o n o f hu m i f i e d m a t e r i a l . Minimal streams - A stream of minimal v a r i e t y ; i . e . a s m a l l , p e r e n n i a l or i n t e r m i t t e n t stream having no d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s . Minimal streambank - A streambank of minimal v a r i e t y ; i . e . v e r y steep w i t h common t r e e s , l i t t l e d i v e r s i t y , t h i c k u n d e r s t o r y and few herbs. Leaners - Those t r e e s along the streambank which cannot be f e l l e d s a f e l y away from the stream. Non-merchantable t r e e s - Includes a l l a l d e r and deciduous t r e e s , immature c o n i f e r o u s t r e e s ( l e s s than 7" d.b.h.) and snags. Primary t r a v e l r o u t e s - Include a l l p u b l i c roadways and main-l i n e l o g g i n g roads. Snags - Dead or dying t r e e s . A l l snags r e p r e s e n t a hazard to saf e o p e r a t i o n s . Sound snags are those w i t h the m a j o r i t y of the e x t e r i o r s u r f a c e sound or not i n r o t t e d c o n d i t i o n . They may be of v a l u e to c a v i t y n e s t i n g b i r d s . Snags w i t h r o t t e d i n t e r i o r s are known as s o f t snags, those w i t h s o l i d i n t e r i o r s , hard snags. S e n s i t i v i t y l e v e l s - Measures or degrees o f the viewer's i n t e r e s t and concern f o r the s c e n i c q u a l i t i e s o f the landscape 1 8 7 he i s veiwing. V a r i e t y c l a s s e s - Represent l e v e l s of v i s u a l v a r i e t y or d i v e r s i t y i n the p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s of the landscape. Landscapes w i t h the g r e a t e s t v a r i e t y g e n e r a l l y have the h i g h e s t p o t e n t i a l f o r s c e n i c beauty. See D i s t i n c t i v e , Common and Minimal. 188 APPENDIX II 1 8 9 F i l e : 0333087 March 3, 1976 Dear I have e n l i s t e d y o u r h e l p i n f i e l d t e s t i n g t h e d e c i s i o n m a k i n g p r o c e d u r e s t h a t I am d e v e l o p i n g f o r s t r e a m b a n k management. I now e n c l o s e a p r e l i m i n a r y d r a f t o f " A D e c i s i o n - M a k i n g P r o c e d u r e , f o r S t r e a m b a n k Management on V a n c o u v e r I s l a n d " w h i c h we w i l l be u s i n g i n t h e f i e l d t e s t s . The work on t h i s d e c i s i o n making p r o c e d u r e has been funded by the F o r e s t R e s e a r c h D i v i s i o n o f t h e B . C . F o r e s t S e r v i c e as an e x p e r i m e n t a l p r o j e c t and i t i s s t r e s s e d t h a t t h i s work i s s t i l l i n an e x p e r i m e n t a l s t a g e . The f i e l d t e s t i n g s t a g e now b e i n g embarked upon w i l l h e l p us to d e t e r m i n e t h e p r a c t i c a l i t y o f t h i s p r o c e d u r e and i t s r e l i a b i l i t y i n the f i e l d . E x t e n s i v e r e v i s i o n s may be n e c e s s a r y a f t e r t e s t i n g and y o u r h e l p i n t h i s r e g a r d w i l l be a p p r e c i a t e d . W r i t t e n comments r e g a r d i n g t h e need f o r o r m e r i t o f t h i s d e c i s i o n m a k i n g p r o c e d u r e o r comments r e g a r d i n g i t s use i n t h e f i e l d may be s e n t t o : K e i t h M o o r e , F r a n k P e n d l , o r R e g i o n a l R e s e a r c h O f f i c e r , B. C. F o r e s t S e r v i c e . S i n c e t h e e n c l o s e d d r a f t i s p r e l i m i n a r y and s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e , i t w o u l d be a p p r e c i a t e d i f c i r c u l a t i o n was l i m i t e d t o t h o s e who w i l l be i n v o l v e d i n f i e l d t e s t i n g . I f q u e s t i o n s o r p r o b l e m s a r i s e , p l e a s e t r y to c o n t a c t me a t F o r e s t R e s e a r c h D i v i s i o n -o r a t home S i n ce re 1 y , KM/1 d E n c l o s u r e K e i t h M o o r e , R e s e a r c h D i v i s i o n . ON APPENDIX I I I SITE CHECKLIST B 1 9 0 Date •Crew Gener a l I n f o r m a t i o n Stream Name L o c a t i o n o f Stream C u t t i n g B l o ck Number D i r e c t i o n Stream Flows L o c a t i o n o f B l o c k Stream Stream C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Average G r a d i e n t 0-3%0 Wetted Width 0-lm D Bank to Bank Width 0-lm I n t e r m i t t e n t Q P e r e n n i a l Q 3-5%C 5-8% • 8-20% • >20%Q l-3m • 3-10m • >10m • l-3mQ . 3-10m [ j >10m L J D i s c h a r g e (at low flow) < 1 0 c . f . s . C ] 1 0 - 3 0 c . f . s , L J >30c.f.s£j Predominant S u b s t r a t e F i n e r than s a n d s D SandsCj G r a v e l s C Cobbles'^ B o u l d e r s L j Bedrock Q] Channel S t a b i l i t y W e l l - d e f i n e d and s t a b l e Q Not w e l l - d e f i n e d o r w i t h s i g n s o f s h i f t i n g Shaded by Topography or Steep Bank Yes L J No( | Yes Q No n Yes Q No Q Back Channels. D r y , o l d Stream Channels L a r g e D e b r i s i n P l a c e M o v i n g D e b r i s D e b r i s Jamming T r i b u t a r y Streams i f Yes, L o c a t i o n D e s c r i p t i o n i f . Yes, S k e t c h ... m r e s t_J Yes • Yes • Yes • No Q No • No • Stream Edge Shape Gently s l o p i n g [ j S t e e p l y s l o p i n g Q . V e r t i c a l Q Undercut <45% >45% M a t e r i a l S i l t s and f i n e s Q Sands and g r a v e l s Q Rock Q St reambank 191 Slope of Streambank ^ a t | _ j f l i g h t (_! (ientle; Moderatef" Steep ( j - r i • , „, r c i 0-20%• ~ " Z0-45 ? u''~ 4 5 - 7 0 % > 7 0 % i f s l o p i n g , Length of Slope to ( / U o Topographic break Short ( j Long! ; Bank P r o f i l e ( s ) (Sketch with, s c a l e i n d i c a t e d ) a ) V e g e t a t i o n Tree s p e c i e s ( i n c l u d i n g deciduous) . 1. ( i n order of abundance) 2. 3. Shrubs ( i n order of abundance) 1. 2. 3. Cover of Shrub Layer 0 - 2 5 % Q 25- 50% f ] >50%(~j Ferns ( i n order of abundance) 1. 2. Cover of f e r n s 0 - 2 5 2 5 - 5 0 % [ _ J . > 5 0 % f ] Number of Leaning Trees NoneQ Very fewQ SomeQ NumerousQ •Number of Immature Trees (> 3m) Nonef~j Very few Some Numerous Number of Deciduous Trees None[_ ; Very fewQjSome ( JNumerous Q %age of Stream Shaded by Non-merchantable • and Deciduous V e g e t a t i o n <50%[J >50%[_J Skunk Cabbage Yes[~J No [J Sphagnum Moss Ye s Q j No | ' b ) S o i l Depth to Impermeable Layer S h a l l o w Q -Deep Q <lm >lm Type of Impermeable Layer B e d r o c k Q HardpansQ Clays Q Stream g r a v e l s j ^ j None | j Major S o i l Texture F i n e Q C o a r s e Q Organicj j Depth of Coarse Roots Shallow Deep j I (> 5mm) <50cm >50cm L J . O v e r a l l Rooting Depth Shallow Q Moderate Q Deep Q <50cm 50-100cm >100cm Water i n S o i l P i t Y e s Q No(H c)Bedrock Exposed Bedrock Outcrops i f Yes Yes H l o L F r a c t u r e d .' j Smooth Q d)Other Root r O t , Conks or M i s t l e t o e Yes Q N o Q Hummocky Ground Yes Q N o Q O l d Blowdown Yes Q i f Yes Uprootedf j Snapped N o Q of.fQ B o t h Q G u l l y i n g Y e s Q N o Q Wet D e p r e s s i o n s on Slope Y e s Q N o Q P i s t o l - b u t t or Jac k s t r a w e d Trees Y e s Q N o Q Bank Slumping o r I n s t a b i l i t y Y e s Q N o Q S t a t u s of O p p o s i t e Bank Logged L J Unlogged Q i f Logged, E x t e n t o f Bank V e g e t a t i o n Streambank Users a) F i s h (anadromous and reside-nt) F i s h Observed i f Yes, S p e c i e s S i z e Y e s f N o Q or Unknown I Number i f No, Reason A d u l t FewQ Smolt r ! Numerou I m p a s s i b l e F a l l s or O b s t r u c t i o n s Observed O b s e r v a t i o n s C o n s i s t e n t w i t h I n v e n t o r y i f No, Reason _ _ ' • Yes • i—i Yes U N o D N o Q b ) W i l d l i f e _ n r t Number of P e l l e t s None I ' Few 1—1 i f p e l l e t s observed, Species Deer Q Extent of Browsing None Q L i g h t Q T r a i l s Y e 50 T r a c k s , Rubbings or Other Sign Y e s Q i f Yes, Describe M o d e r a t e C j M a n y Q E l k Q O t h e r Q M o d e r a t e Q Heavy[ j N o Q No Q c ) B i r d s B i r d s Observed i f Yes, S p e c i e s V c s Q No n 1 9 3 i f unknown, Describe C a v i t i e s Observed Nests Observed i f Yes, L o c a t i o n S p e c i e s Y e s Q Y e s Q * - — r t r e e s — n C a v i t i e s or snags[ I No • _ NoLT n Mature t r e e s or dead snags I—I Deciduous v e g e t a t i o n Q i f unknown, Describe Snags None Q d ) A c t i v e R e c r e a t i o n F e w Q Numerous [~j R e c r e a t i o n a l T r a i l s o r R e c r e a t i o n a l Use —. i f Yes, Extent o f Use L i g h t U Yes Heavy P o s s i b l e R e c r e a t i o n a l A c t i v i t i e s None f l A n g l i n g H i k i n g Canoeing/kayaking L i m i t a t i o n s on A c t i v i t y None None None/ Few Few Few V.'int er Other Q Moderate Moderate Moderat No • Camping! I V i e w i n g Q Severe. S e v e r e M I S e v e r e f j P r o x i m i t y to P o p u l a t i o n C e n t r e , R e c r e a t i o n a l Area or Park A c c e s s i b i l i t y o f Area e ) V i s u a l A e s t h e t i c s V i s u a l Features of Stream i f D i s t i n c t i v e , D escribe C l o s e Q D i s t a n t Q E a s y Q L i m i t e d Q I n a c c e s s i b l e ^ ] D i s t i n c t i v e Q ComrnonQj Minimalf j V i s u a l Features o f Streambank D i s t i n c t i v e ! | Common • M i n i m a l • i f D i s t i n c t i v e , D e s c r i b e , l_ V i s i b l e from Major T r a v e l Route Y e s Q NoCJ j — i f Yes, Observer D i s t a n c e from Streambank <100irf_)l 0 0 - 5OOnf_j>S00m Q C l o s e to R e c r e a t i o n a l Area or T r a i l Y e s Q No ( } i f Yes, Observer D i s t a n c e from Streambank HOOirf [10 0- 500nQ >50 0 I T Q f ) T i m b e r Commercial Volume Commercial Species Stand Decadence 3-D S-sD S - 8 D 8+Q Healthy Q DecadentQj V e r y D e c a d e n t Q 1 9 4 APPENDIX IV. USERS STREAMBANK VALUE STRATEGY S t r a t e g y I d e n t i f i e d Is s t r a t e g y a p p r o p r i a t e ? Is s t r a t e g y m o d i f i c a t i o n n e c e s s a r y Genera ] Comments. APPENDIX V Q u a l i t a t i v e Comments -' Area 1, Port A l b e r n i P a r t i c i p a n t 1 - 5 "Carry on!" 1 - 6 "Good e x e r c i s e to p r a c t i c e i n f i e l d . " 1 - 7 " I n t e r e s t i n g . " 1 - 9 "More s p e c i a l i z a t i o n o f t o p i c s . " 1 - 1 3 a. "Procedure, i f used as a g u i d e l i n e only,'may prove to be a v a l u a b l e t o o l i n a s s e s s i n g need to p r o t e c t streams." b. "Economic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s should be i n c o r p o r a t e d or at l e a s t given some weight i n stream assess-ment. 1 - 1 4 "I l i k e the approach f o r the f o l l o w i n g reasons: 1. Information can be gathered i n a c o n s i s t e n t manner and kept as a permanent r e c o r d . 2. Used c o n s i s t e n t l y i t can be used i n p l a n development w e l l b e f o r e f i n a l l a y o u t . 3. D e c i s i o n making v i a the key approach iden-t i f i e s the p o t e n t i a l uses that would otherwise be over-looked. I have two r e s e r v a t i o n s 1. Regardless o f how i n s i g n i f i c a n t a creek appears they a l l have downstream users -hence a h i g h value of some kind i s i n e v i t a b l e . At some p o i n t the l o g g i n g developer must make a d e c i s i o n where to enter the water c o l l e c t i o n process. Good s i l v i c u l t u r e and housekeeping by l o g g i n g w i l l do more f o r watershed p r o t e c t i o n than any l e a v i n g of a b u f f e r s t r i p . 2. A r e s p o n s i b l e land manager w i l l reach the r i g h t d e c i s i o n without the key, nor w i l l the key make the i r r e s p o n s i b l e l a n d manager change h i s ways. I t i s only as good as the person i n t e r p r e t i n g i t and hence i t needs to be s o l d on i t s m e r i t s o n l y . " "Based on the one e x e r c i s e i t appears that the system works. I f anything, i t p r o v i d e s a good c h e c k l i s t . " "For p r a c t i c a l purposes the format should be condensed f u r t h e r . " "I t h i n k t h i s procedure i s p r e t t y good f o r the p r o t e c t i o n o f w i l d l i f e , r e c r e a t i o n , and a p r a c t i c a l way of l o o k i n g at the stream s i t u a t i o n . " Q u a l i t a t i v e Comments' - Area 2, 'Say ward P a r t i c i p a n t 2 - 1 4 a. "I hope people are going to use t h i s . " b. "A few d e f i n i t i o n s of terms on the On-Site C h e c k l i s t B, such as s u b s t r a t e c a t e g o r i e s , would be b e n e f i c i a l to your X f o r e s t e r . May be necessary to break up some c a t e g o r i e s i n t o % age c l a s s e s a l t h o your keys would prob. become more complex (which would be d i s a d v . ) " 2-1515 " " I t seems a reasonable and f a c t u a l type of system to a i d i n d e c i s i o n making -- at l e a s t i t should help to make the process of land management l e s s emotional, and more f a c t u a l . " 2-1616 a. "A f a c t u a l and reasonable means of assessment." b. I t s t i l l r e q u i r e s i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y c o o p e r a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t to i n t e r p r e t i n g " p o t e n t i a l uses." I f present communications are an example, t h i s may be a long time be f o r e being r e a l i z e d i n a mutually a c c e p t i b l e manner." 2-g222 "A few m o d i f i c a t i o n s may be r e q u i r e d , i . e . , w i t h i n a s s e s s i n g the stream s e v e r a l o f v a r i a -b l e s f l u c t u a t e d c o n s i d e r a b l y . " 2 - 23 " E x c e l l e n t concept and with some m o d i f i c a t i o n s should prove to be a u s e f u l a i d i n stream bank management d e c i s i o n s . " 1 9 9 Q u a l i t a t i v e Comments - Area 4, Langford No comments pro or con.• 2 0 0 Q u a l i t a t i v e Comments - Area 5, T o f i n o P a r t i c i p a n t 5 - 1 "Need more f i e l d t r i p s . Need r e v i s i o n of procedure." 5 - 4 "More options i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o key. S t r a t e g i e s developed i n f i e l d are as v a l i d or more so than those keyed out i n the o f f i c e . " 5 - 5 "I t h i n k the b a s i c format i s q u i t e sound but i s e a s i l y a f f e c t e d by s i t e - s p e c i f i c circum-stances ." 5 - 6 "I s t i l l t h i n k there should be a t r a d e - o f f on how many f i s h use the stream as compared to the volume of timber." 5 - 1 1 '.'This w i l l be a u s e f u l approach when the bugs are i r o n e d out. I don't t h i n k that i t w i l l be time consuming and i t w i l l ensure that a l l uses are at l e a s t c o n s i d e r e d . As Ive s a i d before people u s i n g i t have to regard i t as a guide, not as a c r y s t a l b a l l t h a t w i l l t e l l 5 - 12 them e x a c t l y what to do." "Very good attempt at p i n n i n g down agency p o l i c i e s which are o f t e n somewhat nebulous." "The r e p o r t i s somewhat bulky. It might be put i n t o a s e v e r a l page flow c h a r t format. The r e p o r t c o u l d be used as back-up." "Th i s r e p o r t is u s e f u l as a guide to ensure maximum p r o t e c t i o n . I t co u l d be a u s e f u l s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r d i s c u s s i o n between agency and developer." " T h i s key appears to be extremely cumbersome and too time consuming to be of any r e a l value to f i e l d p e r s o n n e l . In our present stream i n s p e c t i o n s we are making many of these evalu-a t i o n s and i d e n t i f y i n g problem'areas without the added e x e r c i s e of going through a key and f i l l i n g out forms. As a f i e l d o p e rations man I am very s k e p t i c a l about the a b i l i t y of t h i s system i n p r o v i d i n g a u s e f u l f u n c t i o n . I t i s however worthwhile to have a l l these p o t e n t i a l problem areas i n l a y i n g out a l o g g i n g area made a v a i l a b l e to the people i n v o l v e d i n making the d e c i s i o n s . " "Whether j u s t one f i s h i s present or a l a r g e run? I t h i n k t h i s i s a^very important f a c t o r to c o n s i d e r e c o n o m i c a l l y . " "Consider t h i s method a f e a s i b l e approach with p r a c t i c e i n i t s use." "This key needs m o d i f i c a t i o n but I f e e l the process and approach i s v a l i d i n that i t tends to i s o l a t e the f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n a judgement of t h i s type. Then i f there i s disagreement, 202 Area 5, cont. P a r t i c i p a n t we can focus on one or two f a c t o r s i n s t e a d of going around i n c i r c l e s . Keep working on i t ! T h i s problem i s a thorny one w i t h very l i t t l e r e a l concensus to date. Whatever you f i n a l l y come up with w i l l undoubt-e d l y be of some use i f not i n s o l v i n g the problems, at l e a s t i n p i n p o i n t i n g the i s s u e s . " Q u a l i t a t i v e Comments - Area 6, Port M c N e i l l  P a r t i c i p a n t 6 - 1 "The approach i s good and should be u s e f u l --the best p a r t i s that anyone can use i t , many in v e n t o r y methods are only fathomable to e x p e r t s . " 6 - 3 "Your system works! F a i r l y easy to f o l l o w . " 6 - 4 "The general key i n t h i s format tends to bounce a l l around and I found I had some c o n f u s i o n i n d e f i n i n g s t r a t e g i e s . A l s o some of the wording tends to cr e a t e i n d e c i s i o n i n p i c k i n g a s t r a t e g y . " 6 - 9 "System appears workable. I l i k e the f a c t t h at i t f o r c e s planners to c o n s i d e r the f a c t o r s l i s t e d and have a good reason i f they want to o v e r r i d e the i n d i c a t e d s t r a t e g y . " 6 - 1 4 "I c e r t a i n l y f e e l the system can be a v a l u a b l e t o o l f o r i n d u s t r y i n e v a l u a t i n g proposed cut blocks." Main o b j e c t i o n s 1. Too bulky. 2. Must be a g u i d e l i n e only not a s e t r u l e . 3. I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a e s t h e t i c , r e c r e a t i o n a l values e t c w i l l vary w i d e l y between areas such as lower Vancouver I s l a n d or Northern remote r e g i o n s . 4. A primary c h a r a c t e r i s t i c which should be cons i d e r e d i s w i n d f a l l p o t e n t i a l 6 - 2 1 "More q u a n t i t a t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n c o u l d be used i n s t e a d o f u s i n g general terms although i t co u l d make your c h e c k l i s t more awkward." 6 - 2 4 "Not sure t h a t degree of value d e f i n i t i o n ( r e f e r r i n g to a e s t h e t i c s ) may need more d e f i n i t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n . " Q u a l i t a t i v e Comments - Area 7, Gold River  P a r t i c i p a n t 7 - 1 "Good course!" 7 - 9 "Very p a i n s t a k i n g f o r something I knew a l l the time. However, i t made me aware of c e r t a i n " n e g l e c t e d " users of a water course." 2 0 6 Text of Letters Received 1 After general (and heated) discussion among our staff, the following points of view have been voiced: (1) - Our consideration is the stream and i t s relation to the whole logged opening, not only the stream bank strip adjacent to the stream. Therefore, the consensus of opinion is that: (a) - a l l infected trees must be removed, (b) - where pest trees (e.g. alder) are present and pose a threat of encroachment on the logged area, they must.be removed. (2) - The results of the streamside inspection by a Forest Officer would be based on local rather than a combination of local and s c i e n t i f i c knowledge. Forest Officers are not trained i n f i s h and w i l d l i f e matters, therefore decisions made could easily be incorrect. (3) - Better results could be obtained by a joint inspection with a Fish and Wildlife Officer and a Forest Officer, rather than the addition of paperwork resulting i n a hit-or-miss decision. (4) - There appears to be many conflicts with legislation (e.g. Forest Act, Workers Compensation Regulations). More intense research i n streamside treatments with regards to legislation should be carried out. In conclusion, i f the decision-aid is to be a useful tool for the Forest Officer, more considerations toward forest management and the streamlining of the aid (such as Slash Evaluation cards) be implemented. 2 0 7 2 I congratulate you on your progress i n your endeavours to bring some order into decision-making for streambank management. Your presentation was quite comprehensive; however, in the s p i r i t of constructive criticism, I wish to put forward the following for your attention:-1. A p o o l : r i f f i e ratio observation made during the on-site checklist would be a useful tool i n determining the value of the habitat for f i s h . 2. As mentioned, your definition of "travel routes" should include major water routes. 3. Recreational and visual values of land are d i f f i c u l t to assess and, for small blocks of timber, may be highly overrated. These values might better be applied to the watershed or geographic feature as a whole and therefore would be constant for cutting a l l contained cutting blocks. 4. It is usually helpful during such on-site inspections for recommend-ations as to suggested locations of crossing sites and other construction causing major stream disturbances. 5. Bank s t a b i l i t y observations seemed scattered throughout the checklist. Owing to the importance of this factor may I suggest that they be grouped under their own heading. I hope you find the above helpful i n the development of your procedure and I look forward to seeing your completed work. 3 I have enclosed a few comments on your streambank guide. I hope they are useful. The best way to discover 'bugs' is to use the thing, and then to revise i t periodically. I w i l l be using the guide to assess some streambanks, and w i l l inform you of the results. Your- approach is good and I think i t w i l l be useful. As discussed while you were here and then following additional . various discussions with the participants of the f i e l d testing of the decision making procedures, i t became quickly apparent to me that somehow a great deal of the detail would have to be eliminated i n order to be functional. As things stand right now, we require industry to submit 5 year plans, 1-2 year plans, CP. applications, commencement requests, bridge specifications, etc., etc., and they are nearly to revolution stages with this and a l l the additional government requirements. It also became evident during our f i e l d t r i p that we were a l l going to get individual differing answers for only a very short piece of a stream. It follows that to try to s e l l industry on this would be next to impossible i n view of this plus a l l other foregoing requirements. Please find below a l i s t of written comments on our recent f i e l d t r i p regarding your procedure for Streambank Management on Vancouver Island. 1. Under vegetation, possibly should add foliose lichens on trees because of elk winter browse (part of Pt. a, Pg. 16). 2. The part of page 23 which says " i f small resident fi s h are observed...". In many cases the water i s brown or dirty (humic acid or spring runoff) when fis h cannot be seen. Our Section feels that every major stream that flows at or below a certain speed can be assumed to have resident fi s h of some sort. 3. Somewhere at the beginning, i t should be made clear that the occurrence of certain indicators should not be counted. For example, the presence of 1 or 2 single skunk cabbage plants i n a tiny microhabitat should not be counted. Similarly, one bird flying over should not be counted either. 20 [ 4. Re page. 59 water user - this section i s somewhat confusing when keying out - should be clearer. 5. Re page 54 active recreational user - there should be more than one activity possible with few or no limitations to classify i t as a high quality value instead of the present one or more a c t i v i t i e s . On our f i e l d t r i p i n Sayward, there were not any f i s h observed i n the stream however i t had few limitations on i t as far as angling was concerned and therefore the streambank rated a high quality classification when i n actual fact i t was more of a moderate quality. 6. The on-site checklist appears quite bulky and complex at f i r s t especially i n stands where there is a great deal of variety i n s o i l s , topography, tree species, etc. Once the information has been recorded and streambank values have been determined, everything starts to f a l l into place much better and the procedure to find a management strategy begins to make more sense. 7. Generally - quite good: It would be helpful to have the f i e l d use check l i s t on a card that could be carried and f i l l e d out i n the f i e l d easier. Requires streamlining i n the f i e l d and possibly i n the preliminary draft. Both and were very impressed by the system and would certainly use i t on controversial areas. We would like to see i t i n a unit which is easier to handle inn the f i e l d . Such as Field Note Book size. I cannot say yet whether I would be prepared to use your (or some similar) procedure on a regular basis. If I were a f i e l d biologist, I would probably be willing to give i t a f a i r try. I f resulting decisions appeared rational and were implemented most of the time, I would probably use the procedure regularly. But i f I disagree frequently with the results, or i f good decisions were often blocked by economic or p o l i t i c a l considerations, I might abandon the procedure in favour of higher priority a c t i v i t i e s . However, I am not a f i e l d biologist at the moment and have had l i t t l e experience with actual forestry referrals. One more point before I close. As a professional, I would like to see the literature references, data, and rationale behind your system before I committed myself to using i t . Perhaps you could accomplish this by publishing the thesis that you are (I believe) writing on the topic. Thank you for involving us with your f i e l d testing program and subsequent discussion of your handbook. It is a very thorough effort and i f used properly can be of great assistance to those not readily familiar with other resource needs. M § B has just recently revised their Land Use Policy manual and now has Protecting the Forest Environment Volumes I and II for the use of their f i e l d personnel. I believe that by following this manual and by f u l l y involving BCFS personnel and Fish and Wildlife we can manage the stream in an effective manner. I think the need for Stream-bank management i s a necessity although I disagree with this type of format. I would prefer to see guidelines set down rather than going through such a procedure. I didn't care for the book type idea because of i t s size and length making i t impractical for f i e l d work. I feel that we could manage our rivers and streams much better i f we had a more definate set of guidelines l a i d down by the Forest and Fisheries Departments. 2 1 1 10. There i s no way that anyone at would use this procedure on a regular basis. We do not have the personnel or time to do so. A l l aspects are being continuously checked and considered by the f i e l d crew. There are some occasions when your check l i s t would be useful but is too time consuming to be used for every opening. 11. 1. I feel the system can be a valuable training aid for junior engineering personnel involved i n setting layout along streams. Once the procedure has been used a few times, consideration of the various factors should become almost automatic. It could also be invaluable in determining ultimate setting boundaries where government agencies and logging companies do not agree i n i t i a l l y . 2. One problem inherent to the procedure was the very lengthy sets of ' factors to go through before coming up with an answer. I believe that this would have to be considerably shortened to be more practical and uneable in the f i e l d . A much shortened set of factors put on f i e l d card forms would be useful. Also, as was evident in the f i e l d , a number of ambiguities are present as far as definition of terms and these would have to be resolved. 3. One item of considerable concern to most individuals present on the f i e l d t r i p was the danger of your procedures being incorporated into another inflexible Forest Service "Guideline". I am pleased i n general with your system, but I would not like to see i t instituted throughout B.C. except on a voluntary basis. We've already seen what can happen when a generally good set of guidelines is inflexibly applied at the f i e l d level. 4. The only real shortcoming that has a direct effect on my responsibilities as Divisional Forester i s the lack of consideration of s i l v i c u l t u r a l aspects of streamline management. The problem of alder invasion of better site bottomlands from alder seed trees l e f t along stream banks i s not an easy one to resolve, but in some cases compromises for forest management or 212 environmental values must be made. Some further incorporation of s i l v i c u l t u r a l values in your procedures would be appreciated. 12. I found your f i e l d t r i p on "A design-making procedure for stream bank management on Vancouver Island" very interesting. The day was very worthwhile for the interreaction between various Company and Agency people. After working through the system I believe i t could be a useful training tool. However I do not believe any system could take the place of an experienced person's judgement after personal inspections of individual areas. 13. I think your "Decision Making Procedure for Stream Bank Management on Vancouver Island" w i l l prove to be a valuable aid in stream bank assessment. I found that i t was simple and straight forward. However, I think that the actual procedure i s too time consuming to be used on an operational basis. Instead i t ' s best use would be as a training tool to alert f i e l d staff and decision makers to the many different aspects of the stream bank habitat and how to deal with each of them. In the f i n a l analysis I believe that experienced people would be better suited to assessing a specific situation than someone following a guide. 14. As far as this office is concerned we feel that the decision making procedure would be very helpful in that i t would support the decision of the experienced personnel as well as give the inexperienced person a hand in making a decision of stream bank management. We would be prepared to use the decision making aid as a regular f i e l d guide. Only minor changes would be required to suit our needs. One would be to condense the amount of information required on a Field sheet to make i t easier to handle. Antoher thing is that the resource p r i o r i t y for the areas must be established prior to the f i e l d t r i p (i.e. f i s h , timber, 2 1 3 w i l d l i f e , or a combination of these), also water course potential must be defined for the past, present, and future i n order that an end value of the stream may be determined. 15. Basically, I was very impressed with what you have done so far. The manuscript looks formidable at f i r s t , but is quite easy to use as I discovered while working through an example and with frequent use would become 'a snap'. I can't think of any technical wrinkles to be worked out, other than the ones that were mentioned on our f i e l d t r i p . My greatest concern is the variety of interpretation. Everyone seems to observe the parameters differently and ultimately arrive at different conclusions. This is something that may work i t s e l f out in time as everyone gets a chance to become more familiar with the keys. Or i t might mean more f i e l d trips with the various Government agencies and industry to get everyone thinking along the same lines. To me, this appeared to be the biggest hangup at the session we attended in Tofino. I feel the project is very worthwhile, and we would use i t as a f i e l d guide on a regular basis. Keep us posted on further developments. 16. I wish to commend you on an excellent approach to the streambank problem. At present I can find no major fault with the decision making guide you developed. We would certainly be w i l l i n g to give i t a try on an operational basis. The only problem I can see i s in the individuals involved and we are livi n g with that situation at the present time. There w i l l be individual and organization biases which w i l l creep into the assessment but the results should not be any worse than the present system which leans towards over-protection . 2 1 4 17. I believe that your procedure could be used on a regular basis as a f i e l d guide. We should know the values involved before we make decisions regarding the streambank. The only problems I noted were that some measurements were quite fine (e.g.: stream gradient) and could drastically affect the ratings. This could lead to interpretation problems. Apart from these minor problems, I feel that you have achieved a workable method for making stream bank decisions. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093807/manifest

Comment

Related Items