review of the hydroriparian planning guide · 2004. 4. 5. · ecologia [email protected] may 30,...

Review of the Hydroriparian Planning Guide

Audrey F Pearson Ecologia

[email protected]

May 30, 2003 I tried to review the document both for form (quality of the writing, clarify of communication of ideas, level of vocabulary etc.) and content (scientific or technical accuracy of the information). I have 496 comments referenced in the text, which involve both form and content. This report is a summary of my comments. Form The document is too long, very poorly written, completely disorganized and massively confusing. There are a morass of terms. Sometimes synonyms for the same term are used (e.g. drainage basin versus watershed) or a series of related terms that are undefined e.g. target watershed, watershed unit, watershed groupings, subbasin, sub-drainage, primary watershed (which appears to have two disparate meanings) and small watershed. Some terms, such as subregion, sub-unit, physiographic region, physiographic subregion, appear to have been created by the authors, but their meanings and differences are completely unclear or different authors used different terms for the same idea or created their own terms. Aboriginal peoples especially have a low tolerance for fancy word bafflegab. Each technical term (e.g. stream morphology) needs a simple one-sentence explanation the first time the term is used in the text and a more complete explanation in the glossary. Many terms that need to be in the glossary aren’t and many definitions in the glossary are descriptions, not definitions. The authors need to be absolutely crystal clear about what they are talking about. Further the level of vocabulary ranges from overly simplistic “homes for organisms enveloped in trees” to the overly jargony and technical, especially for the geomorphology terms (e.g. valley trunk). I have some background in geomorphology and I didn’t understand some of the terms, so I doubt the target audiences will. Stage 3.0 (Watershed planning) appears to have been written by someone else and dropped into this document with little integration with the rest of the document. As a consequence, a lot of information is repeated in that section or concepts introduced (such as the definition of a hydroriparian zone or hydroriparian ecosystem network – which appears to be one of the main products, if not the key product) that should be in the introduction. Risk is discussed about three times, including in Stage 3.0. Since that section is generally well-written, with some cohesion and explanation of terms, I would suggest keeping it, and eliminating or substantially reducing the other sections so that they fit in with it. Appendix 9 (Adaptive management) also appears to have been written by someone else and dropped into this document with no integration. It’s actually a background document to the process of creating the guide, so should be deleted.

2

The introduction is especially very poorly written. The paragraphs are very poorly constructed and a lot of the information that is scattered throughout the text (e.g. definition of a hydroriparian zone) should be upfront in the introduction. If there are links to current planning guides e.g. FPC Best Practices they need to be explained upfront, not stuck as the last bullet on the last page. The document needs a strong, rigorously logical outline with no repetition of ideas and information. I tried to come up with an outline. (See the last page). I would strongly suggest sending the document to a professional editor or someone with the technical background who knows how to write, but who has not been involved in the creation of the document and is not ego-attached to any particular wording, doesn’t have any pet hobby horses (e.g. stream invertebrates) and won’t make any assumptions about what is written. One author could create a consistency in tone and language and terms and thus create clarity in conveying the information. A lot of the information, especially entire appendices, could be deleted or substantially reduced. (See specific comments in appendices.) I would also suggest compiling a table for the maps with the headings: stage; map; scale; content; purpose of the map. I would include the table of maps in the introduction (beside the outline of stages) or in the appendix, since the maps are the desired output of this process. People will know they’ve succeeded when they have all the maps and the authors will know they’ve succeeded at communicating the process when the users are successful at generating and using the maps they are supposed to generate use. I think there are about 12 maps that are the expected output. I think 12 maps is excessive for one watershed and there are probably duplications, but the text is too confusing to figure out where. I think a large part of the confusion and overlap comes from Stage 3.0 not being integrated with the rest of the document. I would also suggest testing the guide out on a group from the intended audience who have never seen it before (i.e.. with no involvement of the people who developed the guide who are attached to its outcome being successful and will make assumptions about the text or planning process, which may be totally unclear to others.) I think you’ll find that such a test group would be unable to work through the document. It’s too confusing. Content There are many, many mistakes with respect to content. The authors do not seem to have a solid background in riparian forest ecology or even ecology, although they seem to have a strong background in geomorphology. There isn’t a clear definition or understanding of hydroriparian ecosystem is, never mind what an ecosystem function is. Even something as simple as “hydroriparian” was not defined. Most people in the intended audiences will know about riparian systems, not hydroriparian ones. “Rare” ecosystems is not an ecosystem function. “Oligotrophic” is a very basic ecosystem term, yet it is inaccurately defined. These details are noted in the specific comments in the text. The authors missed the absolutely most fundamental concept possible in terms of designing a planning process for the maintenance of hydroriparian function under a

3

system of ecosystem-based management – the key to how. According to theory, the key to maintaining ecosystem function is maintaining the range of natural variability, the spatial and temporal variation in ecosystems driven by disturbances (Landres et al. 1999). In hydroriparian systems, geomorphic disturbances are the driver of that variability, and one of the key reasons why riparian systems, especially alluvial floodplain forests are so diverse. We can’t really emulate geomorphic disturbances as we can wind (such as through creation of remnant structure e.g. variable retention) in part because we don’t understand their attributes very well. The best we can do is not significantly alter them, which is what the authors are trying to get at in their various risk assessments. Stream morphology, hydrology, provision of downed wood, are all products of geomorphic processes and their variation on the landscape. These concepts need to be explained upfront, especially since this document is supposed to fit into a context of ecosystem-based management. Further, geomorphic disturbances vary with physiography, which is I think the intentions of the physiographic regions (or subregions). Physiographic regions or subregions Subregions are a vast improvement over Natural Disturbance Types (NDTs) because physiography captures variation in factors that influence wind and geomorphic disturbances (the predominant disturbance types in coastal temperate rain forests) such as variation in exposure, topography, site conditions etc. However, the criteria used to define each unit are not clear and what the units are actually called and their hierarchical organization are also not clear. The presence of glaciers is an extremely important criterion that isn’t mentioned. There is a huge difference between the Queen Charlotte Ranges (Haida Gwaii Mountains) and the Coast Mountains with respect to range of natural variability because of the presence of glaciers and concomitant influence on geomorphic disturbances (e.g. increased debris flows, precipitation and sedimentation in the Coast Mountains). (Montgomery 1997; Montgomery 1999) have more cohesive explanations of geomorphic variation in coastal temperate rain forests, (which he calls geomorphic provinces) and which are explicitly linked to variation in disturbances. Those references might provide some useful information for whomever devised the subregion classification. Risk assessment I really don’t know about those risk assessment curves. At the very least, they need to be more solidly substantiated, including the logic behind them and literature citations. Some of the information in Holt and Sutherland (2003) would be valuable for such a purpose. It’s more important to have citations in that section than in the Adaptive Management appendix. I would delete (or substantially reduce) the other appendices and put length saved into the risk assessment curves, since they seem to be one of the core concepts in this guide. There are also a lot of mistakes in the graphs, e.g. units are inconsistent. Area or percent area are not synonyms. Some of the graphs are simply confusing, especially 6.2 – 6.4. Again, a good editor should be able to fix all that. I think I found most of those mistakes though. (See specific comments in the text.) A major index, percent natural riparian forest (or old forest or old-growth forest or interior, deciduous, and old-growth forest) needs to be explicitly defined. And for clarity, I would only use one such index.

4

From my work in the Central Coast (Pearson in prep.) determining the area of development in a watershed will not be adequate unless the spatial context of that development is considered. The location of logging, both modern and historical is not random, but disproportionately concentrated in valley bottoms. In my study watersheds, at the watershed scale, 12% of the watershed area was logged, but on average 59% of the valley bottoms. Eighty percent of logging had occurred in the valley bottoms. These are not equivalent with respect to influence on ecosystem function, but were not evident at the scale of the entire watershed. The area of historic logging is also substantial, and accounted for 35% of the area of logging, but was not included in the GIS data base. Disturbance regimes My unpublished work is cited incorrectly, both the citation and the information, and no one told me it was going to be used in this guide (Appendix 5). Since it is unpublished, I’m probably the only one who will know that it is incorrect. I edited the text so that it is correct, but encompassed what I think the authors were trying to say. Please ask if you need further clarification. The information presented in the table in Appendix 5 is not disturbance regimes, but estimates of return interval and extent. Holt and Sutherland (2003) recalculated their data for analysis units (polygons of leading species plus productivity), which had highly variable mean return intervals. The authors need to consider at what scale values for natural disturbances are best incorporated e.g. at the subregional scale or a more detailed level. I would be happy to review the final table it would be helpful. In my experience, there is a lot of confusion about natural disturbances, especially with respect to the attributes that can be calculated from existing data sources. Technical reports It’s unfortunate that the technical reports that are the bases of the guide were not peer-reviewed prior to the process of creating the guide. Many of the problems with the guide probably could have been resolved up upfront. With the exception of Church and Bunnell, none of the authors are leading experts in their fields. Further, with the exception of Bunnell, the authors have reviewed the literature from the Pacific Northwest, although none have extensively work in that system. It would have been useful to know if the scientists who work in that system agree with the extrapolation to coastal temperate rain forests. Many of the mistakes with respect to lack of understanding of ecology and riparian systems appear to have come from Technical report 7 (Price and McLennan 2001), which could have easily be remedied through the peer review process. I question the validity of Technical Report #4 Kyle (2001). To say an unpublished report without any clear methods and assumptions can summarize 50 years of research by internationally recognized scientists is somewhat optimistic, to put it politely. I wouldn’t consider any method successfully developed until it was peer-reviewed. I was also unable to review the actual graphs generated, but I would be happy to do so if they could

5

be made available. I would be very cautious about using results from this study for the risk assessment curves until it was peer-reviewed. Conclusion I have enough of a background that I can understand what the authors are trying to do. There are some good ideas, some of which are just common sense. However, the devil is in the details. To be effective, those ideas and subsequent management actions need to be concisely and clearly explained. The authors of this guide absolutely do not succeed in accomplishing those goals and the guide is unworkable in its current form. However, if it were substantially rewritten, especially with rigorous attention to all the details, including resolving all the contradictions and errors in content, and had a logically constructed outline, there is a potential for a useful contribution to policy.

6

Hydroriparian Planning Guide Outline Goal/Task Information Needed 1. Goal: maintain hydroriparian function 1. Definition hydroriparian

ecosystems • river • marine • lakes/wetlands Distinguish between hydroriparian ecosystems and zone

2. How the goal is achieved: 2. Definition/discussion of risk a series of guidelines to protect/maintain function Discussion of which functions were chosen for the guidelines quantifying risk to functions from (not all functions are well known, management activities lack of data, some functions encompass others etc.) 3. How the goal is implemented: 3. Detailed plan a hierarchical planning framework with Steps 1, 2, etc. guidelines at each spatial scale The justification, details, background information etc. behind the choice of guidelines, rationale for risk assessment curves could be a separate document or in appendices. Literature Cited Landres, P. B., Morgan, P. and Swanson, F. J. 1999. Overview of the use of natural

variability concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications 9(4):1179 - 1188.

Montgomery, D. R. 1997. The Influence of Geological Processes on Ecological Systems. Pgs. 43-68 in: Schoonmaker, P. K., von Hagen, B. and Wolf, E. C. (eds.) The Rain Forests of Home: Profile of a North American Bioregion. Washington DC, Island Press.

Montgomery, D. R. 1999. Process Domains and the River Continuum. Journal of the Water Resources Association 35(2):1 - 14.

Pearson, A. F. in prep. Natural and logging disturbances in the temperate rain forests of the Central Coast of British Columbia. David Suzuki Foundation and Rainforest Solutions Project. manuscript in preparation

Coast Information Team

Coast Information Team - Hydroriparian Planning Guide Draft for Review Purposes 30 April 2003

REVIEW DRAFT Page 1 of 1

This document is a draft for peer review and distribution to Planning Tables in the CIT analysis area. It is subject to change in response to reviewers’ comments.

The seven background reports that provide source material for the Hydroriparian Planning Guide are available from the CIT Secretariat ([email protected]).

Note to reader: Audrey Pearson’s detailed peer review comments are referenced with a number in the text, and listed in full at the end of the document. She also made some edits that appear in red throughout the document. Due to formatting issues, the page numbers she notes do not necessarily match the pagination of this document.

Hydroriparian Planning Guide

DRAFT for Review

April 30, 2003




Table of Contents

List of Figures............................................................................................................................... 4 List of Tables................................................................................................................................ 4

Introduction ...................................................................................................................5 Relationship to Other Coastal Information Team Documents ........................................................... 5 Audience...................................................................................................................................... 5 Hydroriparian Ecosystems ............................................................................................................. 5 Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Assumptions................................................................................................................................. 7 Objectives .................................................................................................................................... 8 Overview of Guide ........................................................................................................................ 8

1.0 Stage 1: Define Subregion (Map Scale 1:250,000) .............................................11 1.1 Determine Subregion of Interest........................................................................................ 11 1.2 Describe Natural Disturbance Regime for the Subregion...................................................... 11 1.3 Gather Existing Information............................................................................................... 11 1.4 Assess Risk to Rare Ecosystems within Hydroriparian Areas................................................. 12 1.5 Plan Adaptive Management Procedures.............................................................................. 13

2.0 Stage 2: Define Landscape (Map Scale 1:50,000)...............................................14 2.1 Describe Landscape Character and Condition, and Determine Landscape of Interest............. 14 2.2 Identify and Assess Risk to Rare Ecosystems, Biodiversity, and Stream Channel Morphology. 15

3.0 Stage 3: Develop Watershed Plan (Map Scale 1:20,000)....................................16 3.1 Develop Interpretative Maps of Watershed Character and Condition .................................... 16 3.2 Determine Targets for Retention and Development Based on Precautionary Guidelines or Risk

Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 21 3.3 Design Reserves and Harvestable Area .............................................................................. 24 3.4 Develop Monitoring Plan for Adaptive Management within the Watershed ............................ 33

4.0 Stage 4: Develop Site Plan (Map Scale 1:5,000 or Larger) .................................34 4.1 Assess in Field, and Review as Required, the Components of the Hydroriparian Ecosystem

Network ........................................................................................................................... 34 4.2 Establish Site-level Reserves, Retention, and Management Zones Necessary to Protect

Hydroriparian Ecosystem Function(s) ................................................................................. 35 4.3 Identify Harvest Area (Cutblock or Multiple Cutblock) Components ...................................... 35

5.0 Stage 5: Feedback Information ...........................................................................38 5.1 Integrate Site-level Information into Watershed-level Plan and into Monitoring and Adaptive

Management Plans ........................................................................................................... 38 5.2 Enter Specific Information into a Hydroriparian Database.................................................... 38




Appendix 1 Hydroriparian functions ...........................................................................39

Appendix 2 Characteristics of ecological subregions ..................................................42

Appendix 3 Characteristics of coastal hydroriparian ecosystems, including stream, wetland, and marine ecosystems.............................................................44

Appendix 4 Abundance, importance, and influence of hydroriparian ecosystems in coastal regions .........................................................................................47

Appendix 5 Natural disturbance regimes for BEC subzones and variants ..................49

Appendix 6 Risk assessment and precautionary guidelines .......................................51 Hydrological Regime (Transporting Water) ................................................................................... 51 Stream Morphology..................................................................................................................... 52 Channel Bank Stability ................................................................................................................ 54 Downed Wood – Channels and Floodplains .................................................................................. 55 High-Value Fish Habitat............................................................................................................... 56 Biodiversity (Coarse Filter) .......................................................................................................... 57 Rare Ecosystems ........................................................................................................................ 59 Corridors .................................................................................................................................... 59 Ecosystem Productivity ............................................................................................................... 61 Organic Material ......................................................................................................................... 61 Further Work.............................................................................................................................. 61

Appendix 7 Methodology for mapping hydroriparian process zones ..........................62

Appendix 8 Recovery from disturbance ......................................................................64

Appendix 9 Adaptive management .............................................................................66 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 66 1. Assessing the Problem ........................................................................................................... 67 2. Designing the Program........................................................................................................... 70 3. Implementing, Monitoring, and Evaluating .............................................................................. 72 4. Adjusting Management Actions or Objectives .......................................................................... 73

Appendix 10 Technical and background reports .........................................................74

Glossary........................................................................................................................75




List of Figures

Figure 1[AFP1] Framework of hydroriparian planning guide. .........................................................9 Figure 6.1 Risk to hydrological regime associated with forest clearance..............................52 Figure 6.2 Risk to stream morphology associated with forest management activities. ........53 Figure 6.3 Risk to streambank stability associated with non-forested streambanks. ...........55 Figure 6.4 Risk to downed wood functions with forest management actions. ......................56 Figure 6.5 Risk curves for biodiversity...................................................................................58 Figure 6.6 Risk to corridor functions with proportion of streams with high deviation..........60 Figure 8.1 Expert-based recovery curves for structure in the spruce-leading.......................64 Figure 9.1 The steps in an adaptive management program...................................................68

List of Tables

Table 1[AFP2] Selected indicators for hydroriparian ecosystem function and contribution........29 Table 4.1 Landscape abundance of hydroriparian ecosystems in coastal regions. ..............47 Table 4.2 Importance of hydroriparian ecosystems for maintaining terrestrial ..................47 Table 4.3 Influence of hydroriparian ecosystems on other hydroriparian ecosystems........48




Introduction

Relationship to Other Coastal Information Team Documents

The Hydroriparian Planning Guide forms one component of the Ecosystem-based Management Framework designed to “ensure the coexistence of healthy, fully functioning ecosystems and human communities” in coastal British Columbia.1 It aims [AFP3]to facilitate the design of practices that are likely to maintain hydroriparian functions at a watershed scale during forest management [AFP4]in Central and North Coastal British Columbia and Haida Gwaii/Queen Charlotte Islands. It specifies [AFP5]a series of steps, consistent with those provided in the Ecosystem-Based Planning Handbook,2 needed to fulfill this aim. A series of technical background reports, commissioned by the hydroriparian planning team, detail aspects of hydroriparian ecosystems, list potential management impacts, and compare management policies among jurisdictions[AFP6].3

Audience

This planning guide has two principal audiences. First, it aims [AFP7]to inform and assist LRMP4 tables and First Nations Land Use Plans to manage risks associated with forest land use at a strategic level in a way that will effectively link to more detailed levels of planning. Second, it aims [AFP8]to inform and assist forest planners to [AFP9]design practices to achieve specified acceptable levels of risk. The guide accomplishes [AFP10]these goals for the intended audiences through a hierarchical framework that links the full range of hydroriparian functions at the various planning scales to variables [AFP11]that may impact those functions.

Hydroriparian Ecosystems

Hydroriparian ecosystems consist of aquatic ecosystems plus those of the adjacent terrestrial environment that are influenced by and influence the aquatic system. Such [AFP12]ecosystems occur wherever land and water interact in the earth’s surface environment[AFP13]. They [AFP14]extend along stream courses from steep alpine slopes to the ocean, transporting water, sediment, nutrients, organisms, and wood through watersheds. They also occur around lakes and wetlands, and along estuarine and ocean shores. They extend horizontally to the edge of the influence of surface water bodies and wetlands on the land, and of the land on those water bodies[AFP15]. They extend vertically below ground into a hyporheic zone [AFP16]inhabited by invertebrates and other microbial organisms [AFP17]and above the surface toward the vegetation canopy[AFP18]. Hydroriparian zones are the physical land and water surface areas occupied by biophysical hydroriparian ecosystems[AFP19].

Hydroriparian ecosystems contain much of British Columbia’s biodiversity and represent the most productive part of the landscape, including the most productive forest sites, particularly in

1 Ecosystem Based Management Framework Principles Draft 4. January 16, 2003. 2 Outline for Ecosystem-Based Planning Handbook. Draft. January 20, 2003. 3 Appendix 10. 4 Land and Resources Management Planning.




riverine [AFP20]riparian zones. Hydroriparian zones [AFP21]carry water from the surface of the land, the quality of which is critical to safeguard. British Columbia’s streams and lakes contain diverse and valuable fisheries. To ensure healthy fish habitat requires that land development practices be managed to maintain all hydroriparian ecosystem functions.

Hydroriparian ecosystems continually change, modified by disturbance effects of flooding, erosion and sedimentation and the ecological processes of recovery and succession[AFP22]. In the wet Central and North Coast of British Columbia (including Haida Gwaii/Queen Charlotte Islands), the distinction between upland and wetland is often unclear[AFP23], and riparian ecosystems can extend considerably beyond channels and wetlands[AFP24].

The implications of managing the hydroriparian zone extend to the entire drainage basin[AFP25]. Because drainage basins are systems with directionally fixed transfers [AFP26]of material and energy, impacts at a particular place in the hydroriparian ecosystem are determined by events in the entire upstream system. Furthermore, water, sediment, wood[AFP27], nutrients (in [AFP28]water and in solid materials), energy (in foodstuffs[AFP29]—principally organisms or parts of organisms), and organisms themselves move laterally [AFP30]into and out of the hydroriparian system. Hence, land management in the entire drainage basin has implications for successful management of the hydroriparian zone[AFP31].5 These implications are discussed by defining “hydroriparian process zones” that partition the drainage basin into discrete zones where the movement of water, sediment, and organic material toward and through streams and standing water occurs in distinct ways. A watershed spatial scale with a corresponding temporal scale of centuries is consistent with ecosystem-based management of hydroriparian ecosystems.

Approach

A fundamental problem faced by land managers is that we have imperfect knowledge about land resources [AFP32]and their associated ecosystems. Decisions about management must be made without complete information about land history and current condition and, sometimes, with only an approximate idea about likely outcomes for the ecosystem of particular resource development strategies.

Resource development changes patterns of material and energy flow and storage in the environment[AFP33]. These changes can, in turn, pose risks to continued ecosystem viability[AFP34]. Here, risk is exposure to danger or loss. This is different than the usual industrial definition of risk, which entails the probability of loss x the value of the object[AFP35]. Valuation of ecosystems is difficult and is, in the end, a social judgement rather than an expert procedure. In the present context[AFP36], then, risk signifies the probability that loss of ecosystem functions and reduction of ecosystem viability will result from some management action. In an ecosystem-based management philosophy, such losses must be minimized. Hence, the guide introduces [AFP37]a risk assessment procedure for forest land management on the Ccentral and Nnorth Ccoasts based on the potential for loss of ecosystem structure and function.

Sometimes, there is insufficient information to make an informed judgement about risk. In this case, it is recommended that a precautionary approach be adopted. A precautionary approach

5 Technical Report #3..




entails adopting management procedures that are unlikely to pose significant risk to ecosystem viability, even though thresholds for substantial change are not known. In this circumstance, failure to adopt precautionary procedures may result in substantial loss of resources in the long term. Precautionary management guidelines are conservative management recommendations based on forest management experience to date, as summarized in several of the supporting technical reports.

Both risk-based and precautionary approaches to management are based on planning indicators. An indicator is a measure of environmental condition. A planning indicator is a measure that can be obtained before resource extraction activities are commenced. Indicators are selected to be accessible (information is available), information-rich (relatively few indicators carry the necessary information), relevant (they pertain to planned activities), and economical[AFP38].

A further consequence of imperfect knowledge is that systematic efforts must be made to improve knowledge of the forest environment in the region, and of the effects of forest land management. Accordingly, the guide recommends [AFP39]that, whenever feasible, forest management actions be carried out within the context of “adaptive management.” Adaptive management is a process of “learning by doing[AFP40].” Properly applied, adaptive management entails the establishment of formal experimental techniques to ensure that critical comparative information is obtained to discriminate between desirable and undesirable management actions. Because risks associated with forest harvesting are themselves imperfectly known, adoption of the risk-based approach requires technical support and a commitment to adaptive management and appropriate monitoring. Adaptive management is also encouraged when development follows precautionary guidelines.

The guide is designed to evolve as knowledge improves. In particular, the risk curves forming the basis for the risk assessment represent hypotheses [AFP41]to be tested and refined through use of the guide.

Assumptions

Some important assumptions underlie the approach to hydroriparian management proposed in this guide. Basic assumptions include the following:

• the procedures proposed are appropriate to apply everywhere oin the Central and North Ccoasts and on Haida Gwaii;

• organisms are adapted to the contemporary regime of natural disturbances in the region;

• natural disturbance regimes provide a basis for making judgements about the comparative impact of proposed management actions;

• drainage basins [AFP42]are fundamental units of ecological organization of the landscape;

• the hierarchical organization of drainage basins [AFP43]in the landscape requires a hierarchical organization of planning and management through successive scales from sub-region to work site; and

• expert judgements [AFP44]provide a valid basis for estimating risk in the absence of documented results gathered for the purpose.




Objectives

The Coastal Information Team (CIT) established a broad objective of ecosystem-based management for coastal British Columbia. The definition of ecosystem-based management used by the CIT is

“an adaptive approach to managing human activities that seeks to ensure the coexistence of healthy, fully functioning ecosystems and human communities. The intent is to maintain those spatial and temporal characteristics and processes of whole ecosystems such that component species and ecological processes can be sustained, and human wellbeing supported and improved.”6

The ecosystem-based management framework includes maintaining ecological integrity [AFP45]and using ecological precaution [AFP46]amongst its guiding principles. These principles provide the context for the development of the Hydroriparian Planning Guide, and lead to application of risk assessment and adaptive management, and to establishment of precautionary thresholds for management activities.

In particular, the Hydroriparian Planning Guide is designed to fulfill the principle

“Conserve hydroriparian areas and maintain hydroriparian functions.”7

To be consistent with the ecosystem-based management framework, the hydroriparian planning guide operates at multiple spatial scales and uses an iterative process of assessment, design, integration, and implementation among scales. Elements to leave within the landscape are identified first. Precautionary guidelines and risk assessment guide implementation of proposed actions. The guide is based on the best available science, and incorporates both active [AFP47]and passive adaptive management to decrease uncertainty and improve management over time.

Hence, the objectives of this guide are [AFP48]to provide guidance for facilitating ecosystem-based management in hydroriparian ecosystems by assisting planners and managers in designing practices with a high likelihood of maintaining the hydroriparian functions [AFP49]listed in Appendix 1.

Overview of Guide

Because of the links between hydroriparian zones [AFP50]and entire drainage basins, and because of the relative independence of entire drainage basins, the Hydroriparian Planning Guide focuses [AFP51]on watershed-level planning and provides direction to site-level planning[AFP52]. The guide provides [AFP53]a set of procedures to help design watershed and site-level plans to manage for a consciously chosen level of risk to hydroriparian function.

Watersheds are situated in larger landscapes. Planners (both land-use planning tables and forest planners) use [AFP54]information gathered at four scales (sub-region, landscape, watershed, site;

6 Ecosystem Based Management Framework Principles Draft 4. January 16, 2003. 7 Definition, principles, and goals of ecosystem-based management (excerpted from the CCLCRMP Framework Agreement/Draft Interim Plan). The agreed definition, principles, and goals of EBM have been appended to the North Coast LRMP Terms of Reference, and will be appended to the Haida Gwaii/Queen Charlotte Islands LUP Terms of Reference.




Figure 1[AFP55]) to assess risks and opportunities associated with forest land use. There is some flexibility within lower levels providing that risks remain acceptable at higher levels[AFP56], and providing that ecosystem representation [AFP57]is not undesirably changed. For example, within a landscape, low- or no-risk management options may be chosen for some watersheds, while higher-risk options are used elsewhere[AFP58]. Similar opportunities may be available within watersheds to manage risk differently across sub-basins. In general, more sensitive (physically and biologically) ecosystems (at any scale) will be managed for low risk.

LRMP tables, and First Nations Land Use Planning teams will first set risk targets within the subregions and landscapes in their planning area to guide decisions on risk at lower levels. They may further set targets for specific watersheds or hydroriparian ecosystems (e.g., floodplains). Planning groups will also be responsible for committing to the adaptive management strategy necessary for use with the risk assessment procedures.

Figure 1[AFP59] Framework of hydroriparian planning guide. The width of each band represents

the emphasis placed at each spatial scale.

describe, gather

describe, assess, design

describe, design,

feed back watershed

site

subregion landscape




The Hydroriparian Planning Guide consists of the following stages[AFP60]:

1. Define subregion

a) determine [AFP61]subregion of interest

b) describe natural disturbance regime for the sub-region

c) gather existing information (e.g., rare ecosystems; guidance from higher [AFP62]level plans)

d) assess risk to rare ecosystems within hydroriparian areas and note constraints to watershed planning

e) plan adaptive management procedures

2. Define landscape

a) describe landscape character and condition and determine landscape of interest

b) identify and assess risk to rare ecosystems, biodiversity and stream channel morphology

3. Develop watershed plan

a) develop interpretative maps of watershed character and condition

b) determine targets for retention and development based on precautionary guidelines or risk assessment

c) design reserves and harvestable area

d) develop monitoring plan for adaptive management within the watershed

4. Develop site plan

a) assess [AFP63]in the field, and revise the components of the hydroriparian ecosystem network as needed

b) establish site-level reserves, and retention and management zones necessary to protect hydroriparian ecosystem function(s)

c) identify harvest area (cut block or multiple cut block) components

5. Feedback information

a) integrate site-level information into watershed-level plan and into monitoring and adaptive management plans

b) enter specific information into a hydroriparian database

The Guide describes [AFP64]each step in turn and places specific techniques or descriptions in appendices following the text. Although four distinct scales of activity are considered, the hierarchical organization of drainage basins [AFP65]means that processes and functions vary continuously over a range of scales. Hence, landscape- and watershed-level planning activities, in particular, will tend to merge together[AFP66].




1.0 Stage 1: Define Subregion (Map Scale 1:250,000)

Within the Hydroriparian Planning Guide, planners determine the subregion [AFP67]and associated natural disturbance regime of an area of interest, and assess risk to rare ecosystems[AFP68]. The Guide does not specify [AFP69]explicit planning measures at the subregional scale, but supposes [AFP70]that planning at this scale has occurred elsewhere (for example, through an Ecosystem-based Management Planning Guide[AFP71]). The Hydroriparian Planning Guide incorporates the zoning and reserves that are created through other processes.

1.1 Determine Subregion of Interest

Use Figure 2 to locate subregion [AFP72]of interest

Use Appendix 2 to determine specific management concerns for subregion

British Columbia’s coast is geologically, climatically, and ecologically diverse. Hydrology, disturbance regimes,8 and ecosystems vary across subregions. Watershed processes and impacts of forest management likely also vary. Therefore, the first step is to locate a watershed or site of interest within an ecologically and hydrologically homogeneous subregion[AFP73]. Eleven subregions are defined within four regions, based on similarity [AFP74]of hydrology, slope conditions, and ecosystems (Figure 2, Appendix 2, HDG [AFP75]Background Paper # 1, Pojar et al. 1999).

Because the abundance and ecological importance of the hydroriparian ecosystems described in the Guide (Appendix 3) vary among subregions (Appendix 4), the level of acceptable risk to a particular ecosystem may vary among subregions[AFP76].

1.2 Describe Natural Disturbance Regime for the Subregion

List natural disturbance regime either from Appendix 5 or based on more specific information

Ecosystem-based management uses the range of natural variability to inform development activities. The most useful estimates for range of natural variability are calculated for areas with relatively consistent physio graphic, climatic, and ecological conditions. The subregions described in Step 1.1) fulfill thiese criteria.on. Hence, the Guide provides [AFP77]estimates of natural disturbance regimes associated with each subregion (Appendix 5). These disturbance regimes will be used to assess risk [AFP78]to several hydroriparian functions at the landscape and watershed scales. If more detailed and reliable information is available, it should be used.

1.3 Gather Existing Information

Gather information from higher level plans[AFP79]

8 Appendix 5 currently provides estimates for biogeoclimatic subzones for the North Coast. Relevant data for looking at sub-regions are expected by March 2003.




Gather information and maps on rare ecosystems using British Columbia Conservation Data Centre (CDC) lists and other regional reports

Higher level plans contain information on reserves and special management zones that may be relevant to planning hydroriparian management.

Consideration of rare ecosystems at the subregional scale provides important context for decisions made at more local scales. Therefore, the next step at the subregional scale is to gather information on rare ecosystems (both CDC-listed site series and unlisted ecosystems). Many rare site series in the region are hydroriparian ecosystems, particularly floodplain and shoreline forest ecosystems (Technical Report 7). The following step assesses risk to those rare ecosystems that are associated with hydroriparian function.

1.4 Assess Risk to Rare Ecosystems within Hydroriparian Areas and Note Constraints to Watershed Planning

Use Appendix 6 to assess the risk to rare hydroriparian ecosystems

[AFP80]




For rare hydroriparian ecosystems, a risk assessment at the subregional scale will show [AFP81]which ecosystems need special consideration at lower planning levels due to their rarity at the subregional scale [AFP82](Appendix 6, Rare Ecosystems section). The risk assessment will be used during watershed planning (Stage 3[AFP83]). Some rare ecosystems within an area of interest will be completely reserved from harvest during watershed planning because of an unacceptable level of risk subregionally.

1.5 Plan Adaptive Management Procedures

Identify adaptive management coordinator or group

Provide support for collaboration on adaptive management projects

Adaptive management entails experiments designed to compare a range of management options (see Appendix 9). For efficiency, such experiments require collaboration among agencies and companies over large areas. The design of adaptive management procedures or guidelines must begin at the subregional level and must involve planning groups with a subregional overview (e.g., LRMP tables and First Nations Land Use Plans). Effective collaboration requires coordination by an oversight authority.




2.0 Stage 2: Define Landscape (Map Scale 1:50,000)

Within the Hydroriparian Planning Guide, landscapes are chosen to surround a target watershed[AFP84]. The landscape must be defined sufficiently comprehensively to encompass all environmental considerations that may influence land management decisions within the watershed. Identifying watershed units [AFP85]and describing the surrounding landscape character and condition provides context for watershed planning. Landscapes are interacting, interdependent geographic areas that are bounded by physical features and that contain similar patterns of watersheds and vegetation cover[AFP86]. Practical sizes for landscapes in a forest planning context on British Columbia’s coast generally range from 50,000 hectares to 250,000 hectares. Landscape units [AFP87](defined through land-use planning) provide useful delineation of area, but should not preclude consideration of adjacent areas. For watersheds on islands or in the middle of a landscape unit, using the existing boundary should be adequate. However, for watersheds on the edges of landscape units, it will be necessary to modify the landscape defined for hydroriparian analysis to include adjacent watersheds that are within the ecological landscape of the watershed but outside the landscape unit. For hydroriparian planning, landscapes must be defined according to the target watershed, so that different landscapes may overlap geographically according to the location of the watershed[AFP88]. This is the only unit of analysis [AFP89]for which overlap may happen.

The amount and type of watershed units in similar situations in the immediate vicinity of a target watershed will influence the level of ecological protection required and the level of development-related disturbance deemed acceptable within the target watershed. The Hydroriparian Planning Guide focuses [AFP90]on watershed-level planning. It does not include planning at the landscape scale[AFP91], but requires that landscape-level planning occur in other planning activities (for example, through the Ecosystem-based Planning Handbook). The Guide incorporates the zoning and reserves that are created through other processes[AFP92].

Risk assessments at this scale include biodiversity (coarse filter), rare ecosystems[AFP93], unique features[AFP94], and stream morphology. Biodiversity risk assessment at the landscape scale may offer flexibility to watershed plans if risks are sufficiently low within the landscape as a whole.

2.1 Describe Landscape Character and Condition, and Determine Landscape of Interest

Delineate target watershed

Map landscape of interest; consider using landscape units as defined through planning processes, or ecological landscapes (e.g., watershed groupings [AFP95]defined by CIT Ecosystem Spatial Analyses)

Delineate target watersheds [AFP96]on landscape map

Gather existing information from maps, air photos, and reports (e.g., terrain mapping, ssPEM, age-class distribution by ecosystem, rare ecosystem mapping, CDC listings, cutblock [AFP97]and road locations, landslide occurrence)




Watershed groupings developed for the CIT Ecosystem Spatial Analyses (specifically, freshwater watershed classification based on physical characteristics) can provide [AFP98]guidance about landscape boundaries and about the consistency of physical features among watersheds within a landscape. The characteristics used to group watersheds are relevant to stream morphology and aquatic biodiversity[AFP99].

Describing the landscape around a target watershed provides the context for decisions made at the watershed level. Important issues to consider include the defining characteristics of the watershed [AFP100]within the landscape, its relative importance to biodiversity, and the condition (including level of development) of surrounding watersheds. For example, if an adjacent landscape or watershed has an extensive road system and/or has been extensively logged, there may be a need for greater precaution within the watershed [AFP101]or landscape of interest. The information gathered will help identify key features (for example, whether the major risk to stream morphology is debris flows or fine sediment[AFP102]) and will be used to assess risk to biodiversity and rare ecosystems in Stage 2.2.

2.2 Identify and Assess Risk to Rare Ecosystems, Biodiversity, and Stream Channel Morphology[AFP103]

Use Appendix 6 to identify and, where appropriate, to assess the risk to rare ecosystems, biodiversity, and stream morphology

Three hydroriparian functions (Appendix 1) are relevant for landscape-level assessment: maintaining characteristic stream morphology and processes, containing rare ecosystems[AFP104], and maintaining coarse filter biodiversity [AFP105](including high value fish habitat section in Appendix 6). The assessments provide [AFP106]direction to planning and assessment at lower levels[AFP107]. In particular, stream morphology is considered at this scale because major processes affecting morphology [AFP108]that will assist in risk assessment at lower levels can be identified. A landscape may consist of several discrete primary [AFP109]watersheds or of several watersheds all within a larger drainage[AFP110]. In the latter case, risk to stream morphology should be assessed at the landscape level, but quantitative indicators relating to stream channel morphology [AFP111]should not be averaged over more than one discrete drainage within a landscape.

The information from landscape-level rare ecosystem and biodiversity risk assessments will be used during watershed planning (Stage 3), and may either constrain options or provide added flexibility. For example, some rare ecosystems will be completely reserved from harvest during watershed planning because of an unacceptable level of risk at the landscape scale. Conversely, if landscape-level risk to biodiversity is low, higher risk levels may be acceptable in a component watershed of the landscape provided that ecosystems are represented adequately elsewhere within the landscape. At the landscape scale, it will be difficult to map hydroriparian ecosystems in detail[AFP112], although floodplains, deltas, estuaries, and alluvial fans can be mapped. Where identification of hydroriparian ecosystems is incomplete, risk assessment for coarse filter biodiversity is instead based on site series (Appendix 6).

In the absence of sufficient information at the landscape scale[AFP113], risk can be assessed for each watershed independently, reducing opportunities for flexibility in levels of acceptable risk.




3.0 Stage 3: Develop Watershed Plan (Map Scale 1:20,000)

This [AFP114]section describes the development of a plan for the target watershed of interest as delineated on the landscape-level map. Within the landscape, a watershed is the area drained by a river or stream and its tributaries[AFP115]. Obviously, the size of the watershed depends on the size of the main stream or river considered; on the coast, size varies from a few to over 100,000 hectares. However, watersheds are hierarchical, so that smaller ones are component parts of larger ones[AFP116]. From a practical planning standpoint, watersheds generally are selected to range from 1,000 to 50,000 [AFP117]hectares. The hydroriparian guide focuses on the watershed level [AFP118]because watersheds are defined by surface water flow (with the exception of some karst ecosystems). Therefore, the watershed is the appropriate scale at which to consider hydroriparian function (see Technical Reports 3, 4, and 7).

A watershed plan zones the watershed into areas available and unavailable for harvest over the short and long terms. The areas unavailable for harvest must be selected first to determine the operable timber land base. The goal of this stage, then, is to develop a plan for the watershed that focuses on a hydroriparian ecosystem network[AFP119], but includes reserves specified at subregional, landscape, and watershed scales. The rationale for including reserves from other scales within a hydroriparian ecosystem network is to develop a complete watershed-level ecosystem-based plan to improve operational planning efficiency, to recognize the high density of small, unmapped streams in most coastal watersheds, to recognize the widely variable influence of land on water within a watershed and between watersheds, and to meet overall ecosystem-based management goals at the watershed scale[AFP120].

3.1 Develop Interpretative Maps of Watershed Character and Condition

There are eight such maps. The following paragraphs describe each of them[AFP121].

Terrain [AFP122](interpretative map 1)

Consult terrain and terrain stability maps (developed by a registered geomorphologist or geotechnical engineer)

Highlight areas of sensitive (Class IV and V) terrain determined from terrain stability mapping

Slope failures that reach hydroriparian areas can affect a variety of hydroriparian functions. Terrain stability mapping is used to identify slope failures and potentially unstable terrain, to assess risk to stream morphology, and to aid in the design of areas for harvest.

Terrain mapping [AFP123]is a procedure to categorize and delineate characteristics and attributes of surficial materials, landforms, and geological processes within the natural landscape.

Terrain stability mapping uses terrain and map polygon [AFP124]attributes of terrain mapping to determine zones slope stability within a particular landscape.

Both procedures involve stereoscopic interpretation of aerial photographs [AFP125](supplemented with field-checking) by a qualified geomorphologist or geotechnical engineer. The criteria used to separate terrain stability classes are defined in terms of slope gradient, genetically classified




surficial materials, material texture, material thickness, slope morphology, moisture conditions, and ongoing geomorphic processes. Terrain stability maps are not to be used in lieu of a terrain stability field assessment for making site-specific prescriptions (see Stage 4.1: Field assessment and revision). Nor are they to be used to pre-judge or overrule the conclusions or management recommendations of a qualified registered professional who has made a terrain stability field assessment of a potential problem area9.

Hydroriparian process zones (interpretative map 2)

Map source, transportation and deposition zones on watersheds and sub-drainages down to 1,000 ha using terrain mapping (Appendix 7)

Where necessary for refinement or revision, conduct walk-through inspections to permit completion of mapping (but note that zoning will be verified or revised following site-level surveys -- Stage 4)

The watershed is further delineated into three “process zones,” areas within which material transfers—especially sediment and wood—between the land surface and stream channels occur in distinctly different ways. Hydroriparian functions, processes, and consequent risks to these vary among the three zones. This map will be used to define the areas within which to assess risk to streambank stability, downed wood, and corridors.

The source zone comprises upland areas, including all hillslopes within the watershed. Source zone channels are small upland/headwater streams where channeled drainage begins. Channels in source zones receive material directly from hillslopes via mass wasting processes (debris slides, landslides, rockfall) and snow avalanches. They deliver fine sediments and nutrients to larger channels continually, and large sediment and organic debris episodically via debris flows. In wetland source zones, streams may receive mainly organic materials, and may transport only fine organic material. Source zone channels comprise the majority of channel length within the watershed.

The transportation zone occurs in valleys that include a valley flat[AFP126]. The term refers to the fact that stream channels here receive material from source zone channels and directly from adjacent riparian zones and transport them to deposition zones. However, transport zone channels may be partly confined by hillslopes, migrate across valley floors, or alternate between confined and unconfined[AFP127], so they may still receive some inputs directly from hillslopes. They are associated with a discontinuous or continuous floodplain.

The deposition zone is the unconfined valley bottom [AFP128]where rivers are characterized by horizontal migration across floodplains. Deposition zones include alluvial fans and deltas. Deposition zone channels receive material from origin and transport zone channels as well as from adjacent riparian zones.

Hydroriparian ecosystems (interpretative map 3)

Use terrain mapping, TRIM, forest cover maps, and air photos to locate hydroriparian ecosystems as defined in Appendix 3

Map terrestrial extent of hydroriparian ecosystems

9 B.C. Ministry of Forests. 1999. Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook. 2nd ed.




Where reliable, detailed maps of small streams are not available, estimate the proportion of the source zone that is in cutblocks (e.g., as determined from forest history maps) to determine the proportion of small [AFP129]streams that have, or will have, harvesting around them

This map will be used to assess risk to biodiversity and to design reserves and harvestable areas[AFP130]. The terrestrial extent of hydroriparian ecosystems will be used to calculate amounts of riparian forest [AFP131]in natural condition for use in risk assessment and to define default reserve width prior to field surveys.

The biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification (BEC) was designed for classifying forested ecosystems at the stand level for areas of similar growing conditions for regeneration of trees. It does not consider [AFP132]hydrological connectivity, provide landscape context or combine sites into ecosystem complexes[AFP133]. These characteristics are all important aspects of riparian [AFP134]ecosystems. Hence, the hydroriparian planning guide provides information for specific hydroriparian ecosystems that commonly occur in the North and Central Coast and Haida Gwaii[AFP135]. Hydroriparian ecosystems include small very steep streams, torrented gullies, small steep streams, small low gradient streams, fans, floodplains, karst landscapes, forested swamps, sedge fens, slope/blanket bogs, wetland ponds, lakes, shoreline saltspray forests, and estuaries (Appendix 3). These ecosystems have different functions, sensitivities to disturbance and different influences on downstream systems.

Definition of the Hydroriparian Zone. To [AFP136]meet the objective of maintaining the functions of hydroriparian ecosystems (Appendix 1), hydroriparian zones must be defined with these functions in mind. Hydroriparian zones are delineated as extending to the edge of the influence of water on land defined by plant community (including high-bench or dry floodplain [AFP137]communities) and/or landform (e.g., gullies) plus one and a half site-specific tree heights (horizontal distance) beyond[AFP138]. In general, hydroriparian zones and hydroriparian ecosystems [AFP139]are coextensive but, if landform and plant communities delineate different areas, the Guide uses [AFP140]the feature extending furthest from water. In the transportation and deposition hydroriparian process zones, the entire valley flat [AFP141]plus one and a half tree heights is considered the hydroriparian zone. Physical functions are influenced by at least one tree height (Technical Report 4); biological functions are influenced over much greater distances (Technical Report 7). It is not possible to define a distinct boundary for animals because most riparian organisms [AFP142]also use upland areas. To this extent, the protection of riparian [AFP143]biodiversity must be integrated with the protection of general watershed-level biodiversity. The additional half tree height serves to protect conditions within the buffer. Wider buffers [AFP144]may be necessary in some cases.

Small streams in the source zone provide a particular challenge. Most small streams cannot be identified by remote means, and field surveys of entire watersheds are not feasible. In addition, in parts of the source zone, small streams will be so dense that hydroriparian zones will overlap. For watersheds over 1,000 ha, it is reasonable to assume that the proportion of the forested area in the source zone that has been harvested will approximate the proportion of small streams affected by harvesting.

High-value fish habitat, including marine habitats (interpretative map 4)

Identify and map high-value fish habitat including, if applicable, estuarine and marine habitats on a watershed map[AFP145]. Information can be gathered from fish habitat inventory databases,




stream classification inventories, consultation with federal and provincial fisheries agencies, First Nations, and stewardship groups. In areas with no inventory data or no available local knowledge complete an overview fish habitat assessment with a qualified fisheries biologist to identify high-value fish habitat zones.

In landscapes where land development has affected high-value fish habitat, identify candidate habitat refugia at the watershed scale.

Note the presence of rare and/or endangered species.

High-value fish habitat10

High-value fish habitat includes critical spawning and rearing areas for anadromous and non-anadromous fish. These areas are “biological hotspots”—specific places within aquatic systems where aquatic animals and their predators concentrate their activities and numbers. They usually receive salmon-derived nutrients and are highly productive ecosystems where nutrients are transferred from aquatic to terrestrial ecosystems. Alteration to the structure and composition of these areas may reduce the reproductive success for salmonids.

Working at the watershed scale (1:20,000) requires assessment of fish habitat at a reconnaissance level. High-value fish habitats that should be mapped for effective watershed-level planning are:

• estuaries (including eelgrass beds, and salmonid and eulachon rearing areas).

• wet floodplains (including main channel salmonid and eulachon spawning habitats, and off-channel habitats used for rearing and spawning).

In watersheds with a marine interface the following zones should also be mapped.

• high-value marine habitats (including shallow intertidal areas, kelp beds, herring spawn areas, and other nearshore habitats used by marine invertebrates for reproduction and rearing) and all estuaries.

The hydroriparian planning guide provides [AFP146]a method for assessing risk to coarse filter biodiversity, but not for assessing risk to rare species[AFP147]. The guide assumes [AFP148]that planning for listed fish [AFP149]will be guided by other processes.

Identify suitable habitat refugia in developed landscapes

Many types of refugia exist within a watershed, including localized habitats, unique reaches, riparian vegetation, and floodplains. These areas function as source areas for natural re-colonization of an area after a disturbance. All components of the food chain that have been impacted must be considered in addressing the needs of species at the community level.

At the watershed scale, refugia include rivers. As rivers are open, directional systems, protection of any segment requires that planning decisions consider the entire upstream network and surrounding landscape. Within a larger drainage basin certain sub-basins should be left undisturbed to provide refugia for fish stocks.

10 High-valued fish habitat will often overlap with interpretative map 3 (hydroriparian ecosystems). A separate map ensures that fish values, important in coastal British Columbia, will not be missed.




The objective of defining and protecting riverine refugia habitats in developed landscapes (on the watershed scale) is to protect remaining salmonid populations disproportionately dependent on these habitat pockets for short-term survival. Long-term recovery would be aided by managing these areas for the primary purpose of salmonid conservation until salmonid recovery trends are established and substantial habitat restoration in other areas has occurred[AFP150].

Terrestrial ecosystems (interpretative maps 5, 6, and 7)

Map site series [AFP151](or surrogate—small-scale Predictive Ecosystem Mapping (ssPEM) or timber analysis units, as available)

Map stand age, leading species, derived from forest cover information

Map rare ecosystems by site series, using CDC lists or other available reports[AFP152]

Stand age (by site series or by hydroriparian ecosystem) will be used in the next stage (stage 3.2) to assess risk. The hydroriparian ecosystem map (interpretative map 3) will overlap with terrestrial ecosystems to some extent (for example, floodplain units will be similar). Small, steep streams in the source zone, however, can flow through many different terrestrial ecosystems. The terrestrial ecosystem map will allow planning for protection of the entire suite of ecosystems adjacent to small streams. Stand age will be used with other maps to assess risk to hydroriparian function. Rare ecosystem maps will be used to assess risk to rare ecosystems and to plan reserve areas.

Information about forested riparian ecosystems is provided by terrestrial ecosystem mapping or some surrogate (e.g., ssPEM or timber analysis units). BEC site series are not just descriptions of plant communities. Because they integrate differences in climate, topography, and soil, and represent habitat for other organisms, they indicate more general ecological units[AFP153].

In the watersheds of the British Columbia Coast, riparian plant communities change fairly predictably from steep headwaters to valley bottoms. Small streams in the source zone influence moisture regimes [AFP154]relatively little, and plant communities near these streams may be those found in any upland ecosystem. Conversely, channels in the transportation and deposition zones influence riparian ecosystems considerably[AFP155]. Vegetation patterns can be used to delineate the extent of the influence of water[AFP156]. For example, different plant communities indicate high[AFP157], middle and low benches within floodplains, reflecting differences in flood frequency, duration and seasonality as a function of bench height [AFP158](Technical Report 7).

Seral stage is also an important variable, defining the structural attributes and age of forest ecosystems. Stand age will be used in stage 3.2 to assess the risk to hydroriparian function. In general, site productivity should be captured by site series representation; hence it does not need to be mapped separately[AFP159].

ssPEM is developed from computer modelling of spatial data using knowledge of ecological-landscape relationships, which are then used to define specific but highly variable ecological characteristics. Hence, ssPEM needs to be used with caution, but also with the recognition that it is the best approximation we have at the moment. If applied with caution, ssPEM provides a sound, albeit preliminary, basis for describing site series, subject to field assessments[AFP160]. Site-level verification can be used to upgrade ssPEM to TEM (Thematic Ecosystem Mapping) over time.




Development within watershed (interpretative map 8)

Planned and existing timber and non-timber development—map disturbance [AFP161]within watershed using forest cover information, forest development plans, and aerial photography as required

This map will be used in stage 3.1 to assess the risk to hydroriparian function posed by current levels of development and to assess opportunities for further development within the watershed.

Examination of air photosgraphs is important along floodplains and shorelines to identify old logging not recorded in GIS databases and is also useful to identify disturbance type[AFP162].

3.2 Determine Targets for Retention and Development Based on Precautionary Guidelines or Risk Assessment

Follow either the precautionary guidelines or risk assessment procedures (both provided in Appendix 6) to determine targets for watershed-level retention

If risk assessment shows [AFP163]that opportunities for harvesting exist within acceptable risk levels, note the current risk level within each process zone and hydroriparian ecosystem for use in planning hydroriparian ecosystem reserves (Stage 3.3)

If the risk assessment procedure is chosen, develop monitoring and adaptive management plan (Stage 3.4)

In this Guide, risk is defined as the possibility for hydroriparian features or functions to be changed or lost—in effect, exposure to potential loss. Risk is interpreted, then, as the probability that an undesired outcome (loss) will result from a particular management action[AFP164]. Risk assessment consists of determining acceptable levels of risk based on the consequences of the potential outcomes or the degree of potential loss to hydroriparian functions. Hydroriparian indicator values [AFP165]are used to determine potential exposure in the watershed or landscape. Indicator-risk curves [AFP166]are then used to determine the estimated risk associated with that exposure, which is in turn compared with acceptable levels. Hence, this [AFP167]step describes indicators developed for hydroriparian functions, lists considerations for determining acceptable levels of risk, and refers to curves (Appendix 6) estimating how risk to hydroriparian function changes with changes in the indicators. Consistent with the CIT ecosystem-based management principles, the Hydroriparian Planning Guide also offers precautionary guidelines for use when a risk assessment will not be completed[AFP168].

A decision to plan development in a particular watershed will be based on risk assessment[AFP169]. Risk assessment will show [AFP170]that risks of further development are either currently unacceptable throughout the watershed, unacceptable in certain process zones or hydroriparian ecosystems, or acceptable throughout the watershed. Opportunities for development can be assessed by comparing current condition either with precautionary guidelines provided by the hydroriparian planning guide or with results from a risk assessment based on the risk curves and thresholds provided by the Guide (Appendix 6). Because of uncertainties in the risk relationships, the latter option requires appropriate monitoring and inclusion in a well-designed adaptive management experiment (Stage 3.4). Modelling of recovery rates (see Appendix 8) may provide [AFP171]estimates of future opportunities for development. If a




decision is made to plan development, the levels of risk within process zones and hydroriparian ecosystems can be used to guide the locations of hydroriparian reserves.

3.2.1 Determining Indicators

The risk thresholds and relationships are based on planning indicators developed for the hydroriparian functions listed in Appendix 1. Several indicators could be used for each hydroriparian function. The planning guide selects [AFP172]a subset of indicators to minimize complexity and redundancy. A single indicator—deviation from natural proportion of riparian forest[AFP173]11—can be used for biodiversity (coarse filter), rare ecosystems, downed wood, and ecosystem productivity (Table 1). Related indicators—deviation from natural proportion of old-growth [AFP174]forest in the drainage basin[AFP175], and deviation from natural proportion of forest along stream channels—are useful to index water transport and channel stability. These indicators are useful because their future state is determined by a land management plan[AFP176], thus pre-harvest risk can be assessed.

In the source zone, the guide bases natural proportions of riparian forest on the disturbance return intervals provided for all forests within a subregion and BEC variant given [AFP177]in Appendix 5. Although disturbance rates in riparian forest adjacent to transition and deposition zones [AFP178]could be higher than elsewhere due to flooding and sediment deposition, the very few data that exist do not support using a higher rate of disturbance for these zones[AFP179]. Appendix 5 provides estimates of floodplain disturbance for a portion of the Central Coast.

The appropriate ecological division (i.e., unit of land) to use to calculate deviation from natural riparian forest varies among functions. For biodiversity and ecosystem productivity, the hydroriparian ecosystem (Appendix 3) is the appropriate unit because risk varies among ecosystems. For rare ecosystems, site series is the appropriate division to match existing CDC lists. For downed wood, process zones are appropriate divisions because downed wood functions differently in the different zones.

Precautionary requirements are more stringent for some indicators [AFP180]than others. Hence, where these indicators overlap, it is possible to simplify the set of indicators considered.

3.2.2 Determining acceptable levels of risk

Generally, acceptable levels of risk will be determined at the strategic level through public processes (e.g., Land and Resources Management Plans and First Nations Land Use Planning[AFP181]). Planning teams will set risk targets within subregions and landscapes to guide decisions at lower scales. Planning teams may be more specific and also set targets for specific watersheds or hydroriparian ecosystems. While this is a planning table decision, it will be informed by this Planning Guide and the Ecosystem-based Management Planning Guide. In this way, hydroriparian objectives can be balanced with other resource management objectives to best fit with different ecological characteristics and conditions at various scales. Basic information provided in the guide [AFP182]could inform tables about where risk increases rapidly and about the types of risks encountered in different subregions. Tables could then examine the current 11 Riparian forest includes forests influenced by adjacent surface water (including dry floodplain) plus 1.5 tree heights (to capture the influence of the land on the water).




level of risk in particular areas and model changes to risk resulting from different management options. Modelling exercises could demonstrate how decisions affect activities at the watershed and site level.

Acceptable levels of risk should be linked to the adaptive management strategy. For example, a planning team may accept a moderate level of risk in a certain area provided it is linked to a well-designed adaptive management plan that will document the consequences of the actions taken. Hence, levels of risk should be tied to the level of commitment to a well-designed adaptive management program with secure long-term funding[AFP183].

Acceptable levels of risk can be modified by an ecosystem’s importance, influence and abundance (all factors included in the planning guide[AFP184]; Appendix 4). Some ecosystems are more important for maintaining a given hydroriparian function than others (e.g., floodplains are more productive and diverse than small steep streams). Other ecosystems exert a strong influence elsewhere, particularly downstream (e.g., small steep streams provide more organic material to a system than do ponds). Finally, some ecosystems are especially abundant, defining the character of a region (e.g., bogs in the Hecate Lowland), or especially rare. More sensitive [AFP185]landscapes, watersheds and ecosystems requiring a higher degree of protection will be assigned lower risk targets.

Risk targets [AFP186]are also influenced by the condition of the subregion, landscape, watershed, and sub-watershed. The more a particular ecosystem or cluster of ecosystems has been modified at one or more of these scales, the higher the degree of protection (i.e. lower risk) that is required.

Appendix 4 provides [AFP187]expert opinion on the importance, influence and abundance of each hydroriparian ecosystem in regions of the coast. When undertaking a complete risk assessment procedure[AFP188]12, the values in these tables can be used to modify acceptable risk thresholds (e.g., a lower level of risk is appropriate for ecosystems with high importance and/or influence). Rare ecosystems need special consideration. Abundant ecosystems, characterizing a region, need consideration for cumulative impacts. The numbers will be most useful for numerical modelling developed for LRMP tables. In the absence of such quantitative approaches, the values can be used to provide guidance about the relative levels of acceptable risk for each hydroriparian ecosystem.

Planners at the operational scale [AFP189]will use the planning team targets at the subregion and landscape scales and the direction for watersheds and hydroriparian ecosystems to set targets for specific watersheds and ecosystems. Risk within watersheds may in turn be managed differently across various sub-basins [AFP190]using the procedures and guidelines described in this guide, the Ecosystem-based Planning Guide, and the direction provided by the planning teams.

3.2.3 Determining actual risk

Risk is defined as:

1 – probability of maintaining a hydroriparian function (as defined in Appendix 1)

12 These tables will not be used if practices follow the precautionary guidelines listed in Appendix 6.




(hydroriparian functions listed in Appendix 1[AFP191]). Risk is expressed as a function of an indicator value, derived from risk curves. For indicators of terrestrial function, the planning guide uses natural disturbance regimes [AFP192]as the reference point (or benchmark) for comparison, a generally accepted method in ecosystem-based management. The approach assumes [AFP193]that indicator values within the range of natural variation pose low risk, and that risk increases as values diverge farther from natural. .

Ecologically based risk curves are often sigmoidal [AFP194](S-shaped, with areas of relative insensitivity at both extremes on the X-axis joined by a steep portion). Confirming this form is important, for it establishes a region of persistently low risk for low to moderate levels of disturbance. Levels of uncertainty, however, mean that evidence may be insufficient to distinguish a linear from a sigmoidal curve (in a linear curve, risk increases in simple proportion to disturbance). For management purposes, thresholds (where the curve becomes steeper) are most crucial to identify as these represent areas where a small change in management can change risk substantially. In some cases, change may be sudden and obvious (a step function); more often, change will be more gradual and hence more difficult to detect precisely.

The curves currently presented within the guide assume current forestry practices and that a given amount of harvesting will include a set length of road. For some ecosystems where harvesting is common both with and without roads, separate risk curves are developed with and without roads. Currently, risks for variable retention could be assessed by calculating the remaining proportion of forest and assuming equivalence of amount. As knowledge increases, specific curves can be developed. Variable retention can also be included as a factor that influences recovery curves (see Appendix 8).

Due to limited knowledge, all risk curves presented in the Hydroriparian Planning Guide should be considered as hypotheses awaiting testing[AFP195]. Carefully designed, long-term adaptive management experiments are needed to improve the risk assessment. Well-designed passive adaptive management is also necessary to complement active adaptive management experiments[AFP196].

Forest development differs from natural disturbance. Although guidelines within the Planning Guide are drawn in part from natural disturbance indications[AFP197], managers must remain sensitive to indications that some real threshold has been crossed and that the system is not remaining functionally viable . This outcome would be an indication that a limit of resilience has been crossed. In EBM it is sufficiently important to halt development, and it would indicate the need to modify management practice in similar areas.

3.3 Design Reserves and Harvestable Area

Combine interpretative maps to create the foundation for a hydroriparian ecosystem network (HEN).

Apply reserves from subregional and landscape plans (via the Hydroriparian Planning Guide, Ecosystem-based Management Guide, and/or other processes).

Identify and map reserves that are prescribed by this guide (e.g., wet [AFP198]floodplain).




Select small stream reserves (protection zones), stratified by site series (or surrogate) within each process zone.

Design the hydroriparian ecosystem network applying mapping and information collected above. This will include application of default hydroriparian reserves and reserves identified by air photos, both subject to refinement with field planning[AFP199]

From the Ecosystem-based Management Guide, identify watershed reserves for connectivity, old growth, rare ecosystems, representation, special elements and human use (e.g., cultural, visual) to complete reserve design for watershed[AFP200]

Ground truth selected watershed reserves and refine watershed reserve design based upon field assessments. Overlay map of potential operable areas on the map of the hydroriparian ecosystem network and watershed reserves

Determine area of the timber management landbase, characteristics of timber within timber management landbase, and rate of cut for watershed.

Thoughtful design integrates reserves, sensitive sites and the hydroriparian network to maintain hydroriparian ecosystem functions. Reserves planned for a variety of reasons [AFP201]may serve to protect hydroriparian functions. Zones and boundaries of reserves remain interim and are flexible until site-level assessments have been completed. The hydroriparian ecosystem network includes reserves and special management [AFP202]areas.

Mapping hydroriparian ecosystem networks will occur at both watershed (1:20,000) and site-level (1:5,000) planning. Delineation at the watershed level will be flexible until confirmed by ground-truthing at the site level. Site-level assessments will provide the opportunity to design more ecologically relevant boundaries.

There are no general rules for how much of a watershed’s hydroriparian zone should be retained[AFP203]. The guidelines or risk assessment carried out in the preceding exercise (Stage 3.2) can be used to define how much of a particular process zone, hydroriparian zone or site series should be

• reserved at any given time to maintain an acceptable risk level and to delineate special portions to be reserved from harvest,

• harvested with special management considerations (e.g., 50% retention of structure and function) or,

• available for harvest.

A hydroriparian ecosystem network will likely include essentially linear reserves around channels in the transportation and deposition zones and patches of reserves in the source zone around unstable terrain and concentrations of small streams. Linear reserves in the source zone may still be found where these streams are susceptible to debris flows or contain distinctive habitats. For example, a hydroriparian ecosystem network might include reservation of a red-listed floodplain community, designation of two stable fans for 50% structural retention, and reservation of patches of unique and/or representative small steep streams for connectivity, while other patches will be designated for partial retention and possible harvest. Under the biodiversity guidelines (Appendix 6), areas for reserve and harvest will be determined by site




series according to their representation on the landscape. The qualities of some reserved areas will dictate that they remain reserves in perpetuity (e.g., an area of high natural instability[AFP204]), whereas others may become available for harvest in the long-term future when recovery is well advanced in contemporary harvest areas (e.g., source zone patches for preservation of representative forest). The decision about permanence of reserves will be made in development of an ecosystem-based plan for the subregion and landscape that contains a particular watershed.

Modelling of recovery from various management activities (Appendix 8) can be used to calculate the change in development opportunities over time.

The design of hydroriparian reserves, and the resultant identification of harvestable area at the watershed and sub-drainage basin levels[AFP205], cannot be separated from subregional and landscape-level reserve designs. In [AFP206]particular, landscape-level reserve design, coupled with assessment of landscape character and condition, provides information and constraints for watershed-level reserve design, including hydroriparian reserves. Also, subregional and landscape levels of reserves may include entire watersheds, eliminating the need to plan hydroriparian and other reserves at the watershed level.

Similarly, hydroriparian reserve design in a watershed needs to be connected with a planned overall reserve design for the watershed. While hydroriparian reserves can be designed in isolation, without considering other scales and/or watershed reserves, this approach does not respect the basic tenet of ecosystem-based management that requires interconnected planning and reserve design at multiple spatial scales. It is also inefficient, as it is apt to lead to more area being withdrawn from the harvestable land base than if an integrated approach is taken. Appropriate reserve design at multiple spatial scales results in interdependent reserve designs at differing scales.

Therefore, the process described below to design hydroriparian reserves assumes that hydroriparian reserves will be designed as part of a broader process to identify reserves at multiple spatial scales.

The process designed below results in a mapped hydroriparian ecosystem network (HEN[AFP207]).

Step 1: Subregional information and constraints. Using the characteristics of ecological subregions (Appendix 2), specify particular characteristics and constraints for hydroriparian reserve design based upon the characteristics of the ecological subregions. This will include consideration of rare ecosystem types at the subregional scale.

Step 2: Landscape context. Use the characteristics [AFP208]of the landscape to identify the existence of rare ecosystems, ecologically sensitive areas [AFP209](e.g., mid-slope seepage zones). Use the condition of the landscape to determine the appropriate level of risk to apply in the watershed risk assessment approach for design of hydroriparian reserves. In landscapes that have been moderately to highly modified, the appropriate level of risk acceptable for hydroriparian reserves and upland reserves in the watershed will be low risk. For landscapes that have been only slightly modified to unmodified, the appropriate level of risk will generally be moderate, but could under some limited circumstances be




high risk. Generally speaking, however, high risk management options do not fall within the range of ecosystem-based management plans and practices[AFP210].

Step 3: List and, as required, map constraints for hydroriparian ecosystem functions 1 through 4 (Table 1). The constraints and information developed from reviewing the interpretative maps for hydroriparian ecosystem functions 1 through 4 [AFP211](maintaining hydrological regime[AFP212], maintaining stream morphology, maintaining channel bank stability, and providing down wood, respectively; see Table 1 for discussion) will identify both the need and potential locations of some hydroriparian ecosystem reserves in the watershed and sub-drainage basins that make up the watershed. These needs for sub-drainage basin [AFP213]and watershed-level reserves will be specified, used in locating various hydroriparian reserves throughout the watershed, and used to determine appropriate levels of risk to hydroriparian ecosystems. This step [AFP214]will identify hydroriparian ecosystem reserves based upon application of the precautionary guideline or the selected level of risk for functions 1 through 4. These reserves will be mapped as the beginning of the hydroriparian ecosystem network (HEN). Further hydroriparian ecosystem reserves will be added to the HEN as the process of identifying hydroriparian reserves continues in the steps that follow.

Step 4: Reserve areas of high-value fish habitat, and determine locations for watershed refugia, as required. In all watersheds, areas of high-value fish habitat will be added to the hydroriparian ecosystem network. In landscapes where development has affected high-value fish habitat, candidate watershed-level refugia will be selected from analysis of interpretative map 4, that synthesizes high-value fish habitat. These watershed refugia will be added to the hydroriparian ecosystem network, and mapped accordingly. Note that refugia created to protect fish habitat are reserved only until ecological/hydrological recovery is considered to be satisfactory elsewhere.

Step 5: Biodiversity for transport and deposition zones. Establish initial hydroriparian reserves, defined as the entire valley bottom plus 1.5 site-specific tree heights. These initial reserves are subject to review according to the level(s) of acceptable risk, to site-specific terrain/ecological features, and to representation analysis. Appropriate interpretative maps will provide important information regarding site series, stand age, and tree cover that are useful in defining appropriate boundaries for hydroriparian reserves for biodiversity in the transport and deposition zones. Once defined, these hydroriparian reserves in the transport and deposition zones will be added to the hydroriparian ecosystem network, and mapped accordingly.

Step 6: Sensitive terrain. The terrain interpretative map (map 1) will be used to identify locations of unstable terrain and soils in the watershed. This information will be used to identify reserves for sensitive terrain, and to identify potential areas for “groups of small streams” reserves (see interpretative map 3), due to terrain sensitivity. Once defined, areas of unstable terrain and soils in the watershed will be added to the hydroriparian ecosystem network, and mapped accordingly.

Step 7: Biodiversity for source zone. Identify small streams in the source zone that are fish bearing streams and their direct tributaries, and establish initial hydroriparian reserves of one and a half site specific tree heights for these streams[AFP215]. For other small streams, locate hydroriparian reserves for groups of small streams considering geographic




distribution of reserves, terrain sensitivity, site series representation, structural stage (stand age), and forest cover. Add hydroriparian ecosystem reserves for small fish-bearing streams and their direct tributaries, and hydroriparian ecosystem reserves for groups of small streams to hydroriparian ecosystem network, and map accordingly.

Step 8: Rare ecosystems. Using interpretative mapping[AFP216], identify the location of rare ecosystems in hydroriparian ecosystems. Ensure that these rare ecosystems are contained within already identified hydroriparian ecosystem reserves established in earlier steps, or establish additional hydroriparian ecosystem reserves for rare ecosystems. As necessary, add additional hydroriparian ecosystem reserves for rare ecosystems to the hydroriparian ecosystem network, and map accordingly.

Step 9: Riparian corridors. Review hydroriparian ecosystem network map to determine whether or not hydroriparian connectivity is well distributed throughout the watershed, including from headwaters to the bottom of the watershed, and laterally across the watershed, from drainage divide to drainage divide. If Uusing a risk assessment approach, identify any additional hydroriparian reserves necessary to provide adequate connectivity, based upon the selected level of risk. As appropriate, add additional hydroriparian reserves for corridors to hydroriparian ecosystem network, and map accordingly.

Step 10: Ecosystem productivity. Test the hydroriparian ecosystem network map with the site series map to determine whether the range of ecosystem productivity present in the watershed is well represented within the hydroriparian ecosystem network[AFP217]. Based upon the selected level of risk for ecosystem productivity, add, as required, additional hydroriparian ecosystem reserves to ensure representation of ecosystem productivity in the hydroriparian ecosystem network, and map accordingly.

Reserves for protection of cultural and historical sites are included in an ecosystem-based plan. These reserves are generally added in the process of human use zoning as described in the Ecosystem-based Management Guide but, if known, could be added during development of the hydroriparian ecosystem network and other watershed reserves.

Note 1: The hydroriparian ecosystem network (HEN) map is developed sequentially by addressing the key hydroriparian ecosystem functions through analysis of the interpretative maps described in Stage 3. Selection of hydroriparian ecosystem reserves may be based either on precautionary guidelines or on a risk assessment procedure.

Note 2: A rationale for the hydroriparian ecosystem network will be written as part of an ecosystem-based watershed plan, so that First Nations, community members, planners, and managers understand the basis for the HEN. The rationale will provide an important reference for people engaged in ongoing planning processes to approve, or revise the HEN.

Note 3: Determination of hydroriparian reserves as corridors and for maintaining representative ecosystem productivity (Steps 9 and 10) above may easily be combined into one step. This is particularly true because these two functions will likely be covered in the establishment of hydroriparian ecosystem reserves for other hydroriparian functions




analyzed earlier in the process of developing the hydroriparian ecosystem network (HEN).




Table 1 Selected [AFP218]indicators for hydroriparian ecosystem function and contribution to hydroriparian ecosystem network

Function Indicator Scale(s) Interpretative Maps[AFP219] Planning Functions

1. Maintaining [AFP220] hydrological regime

deviation from natural proportion of forest cover in sub-drainage basin

sub-drainage basin within process zone within watershed

Map 2 - sub-drainage basins within process zones

Map 6 - stand age (species)

Map 8 - development within watershed

Note: Overlay Map 2 on Maps 6 and 8

• apply precautionary guidelines or risk assessment for rate of cut (Appendix 6)

• identify potential watershed reserves

• determine appropriate level and location of development (including no development) by sub-drainage basin

2. Maintaining stream morphology

index of road length + area cut in terrain classes IV and V

landscape, process zone within watershed


Map 1 – terrain


Note: Overlay Map 2 on Maps 1 and 8

• apply sub-regional characteristics (Appendices 2 and 3)

• compare watershed condition with landscape condition[AFP221]

• compare watershed plans with landscape plans

• apply precautionary guideline or risk assessment for stream morphology (Appendix 6)

• identify potential watershed reserves


3. Maintaining channel bank stability

% deviation from natural proportion of standing forest along stream course



Map 3 - hydroriparian ecosystems Map 6 - stand age (species)


Note: Overlay Maps 2 and 3 on Maps 6 and 8

• determine current and future (based on plans) level of natural forest along stream course

• apply precautionary guideline, or risk assessment for % streambank cleared (Appendix 6)

• determine appropriate hydroriparian reserves by sub-drainage basin within process zone

• determine appropriate level and location of development (including no





development) by sub-drainage basin

4. Providing downed wood

transportation and deposition zones: deviation from natural proportion of old riparian forest; source zone: % forest younger than 30 years



Map 3 - hydroriparian ecosystems

Map 5 - site series/SSPEM/inventory type groups



Note: Overlay Maps 2 and 3 on Maps 5, 6, and 8

• apply precautionary guideline or risk assessment for providing down wood to channels and floodplains (Appendix 6)

• determine appropriate hydroriparian reserves by sub-drainage basin within process zone


5. Maintaining high value fish habitat

deviation from natural proportion of riparian forest cover; barriers to access; deviation from natural levels of sedimentation

landscape

watershed

sub-drainage basin

Map of landscape condition Map 2 - sub-drainage basins within process zones Map 4 - high value fish habitat Map 8 - development within watershed Note: Overlay Maps 2 and 8 on Map 4

• determine level of need for watershed refugia

• apply precautionary guidelines or risk assessment for maintaining high-value fish habitat (Appendix 6)

• determine level and location for watershed refugia






6. Maintaining biodiversity (coarse filter)5[AFP222]

deviation from natural proportion of riparian forest6 [AFP223]by hydroriparian ecosystem

landscape

watershed

sub-drainage basin

Map of landscape condition







• determine representation by sub-drainage basin within process zone

• determine small stream hydroriparian reserves based on geographic distribution, representation, and terrain sensitivity

• apply precautionary guidelines or risk assessment for biodiversity (coarse filter) (Appendix 6)

• determine location and nature of hydroriparian reserves and hydroriparian ecosystems requiring greater or lesser levels of protection


7. Containing rare ecosystems[AFP224]

deviation from natural proportion of riparian forest by site series amount of each rare ecosystem (ha)

sub-region

landscape

watershed

sub-drainage basin

Distribution and condition of rare ecosystem at sub-region and landscape scales



Map 7 - rare ecosystems by site series



• determine acceptable level of risk at watershed level

• determine location of rare hydroriparian ecosystems in relation to existing and planned developments

• apply precautionary guidelines or risk assessment for rare ecosystems (highly sensitive biodiversity) (Appendix 6)

• establish hydroriparian reserves for rare ecosystems


5 Fine filter biodiversity is not assessed in this guide. Planners should consult documents for assessing risk to rare or special riparian species, including terrestrial vertebrates (Technical Report 5). 6 Three categories of riparian forest should be examined: interior oldgrowth, oldgrowth equivalent, deciduous





8. Serving as corridor % streams with > one standard deviation from natural cover

process zone within watershed







• show distribution of ecosystem types and structural class within watershed and sub-drainage basin

• determine location of priority hydroriparian corridors

• apply precautionary guidelines or risk assessment for corridors (Appendix 6)

• establish hydroriparian reserves as corridors


9. Maintaining characteristic ecosystem [AFP225]productivity

deviation from natural proportion of riparian forest by hydroriparian ecosystem

watershed sub-drainage basin






• show distribution of ecosystems by productivity

• apply precautionary guidelines or risk assessment for ecosystem productivity (biodiversity) (Appendix 6)

• determine location of hydroriparian reserves to represent the range of productivity throughout the watershed





3.4 Develop Monitoring Plan for Adaptive Management within the Watershed

Follow guidelines in Appendix 9 to develop adaptive management and monitoring plan.

In the absence of an adaptive management and monitoring plan, follow precautionary guidelines for watershed planning.

The hydroriparian planning guide [AFP226]was designed to be part of an adaptive management program. Adaptive management is valuable whenever there is significant uncertainty about the outcomes of management activities, such as those recommended by the Hydroriparian Planning Guide. While existing research provides [AFP227]some direction, data for local ecosystems are lacking and considerable uncertainty exists around the development of the risk curves. Accordingly, uncertainty increases as planners choose increased risk in their management strategy. The hydroriparian planning guide [AFP228]requires development of an adaptive management and monitoring plan whenever development levels exceed the precautionary guidelines. Adoption of adaptive management procedures, even where precautionary guidelines are followed, will more rapidly improve knowledge and decrease the uncertainties associated with management, and will submit the precautionary guidelines to critical evaluation. The guide recommends that adaptive management always be considered[AFP229].

Planning at the subregional level (see Stage 1.5) should have initiated the development of a coordinated, collaborative adaptive management plan. The central focus of adaptive management is to formulate management approaches and policies as experiments that probe the responses of ecosystems as management activities change. Careful design, monitoring, evaluation, and feedback are critical components to this process (see Appendix 9)

Within watersheds, reserves and habitat refugia may serve as control sites. Sites undergoing continuing monitoring (e.g., monitored streams used to measure fish populations) should be considered for inclusion in reserves.

Appendix 9 gives [AFP230]an introduction to adaptive management, provides a general approach and lists some important questions specifically related to the hydroriparian planning guide.




4.0 Stage 4: Develop Site Plan (Map Scale 1:5,000 or Larger[AFP231])

At this stage, fieldwork is undertaken. Field assessment leads [AFP232]to revision, as required, of the components of the hydroriparian ecosystem network and the hydroriparian ecosystem network map. Site-level reserves, retention, and management zones necessary to protect hydroriparian ecosystem functions are established and recorded on a site plan map[AFP233]. Then the harvest area (cut block or multiple cut block) components, i.e., road locations, landing locations, drainage structures, and cut block boundaries may be identified and mapped.

4.1 Assess in Field, and Review as Required, the Components of the Hydroriparian Ecosystem Network [AFP234]

Key aspects of this stage, include:

• carry out field inspection to evaluate the HEN and other watershed reserves, considering

– process zones, terrain units, hydroriparian ecosystem functions, hydrologically active areas related to high-value fish habitat, site series and microterrain features;

– boundaries of the hydroriparian reserves as defined at the watershed level. Important factors to consider in this step are downed wood, anadromous and resident fish and fish habitat, windfirmness, microterrain sensitivity, natural slope breaks, and the importance of adjacent ecosystems to biodiversity of hydroriparian reserves

• correct information on watershed reserves map and revise watershed plans as necessary

• provide a technically verifiable rationale for changes (i.e., site conditions confirmed to vary from those inferred in watershed-level analysis), including additions and deletions made to HEN, other reserves, watershed features, and/or watershed plans.

Field surveys will be used to verify or revise watershed features, including process zones, terrain units, hydroriparian ecosystems, and site series mapped at the watershed level.

Through field surveys, it will be possible to delineate more ecologically appropriate, effective, realistic and feasible boundaries for hydroriparian ecosystem networks and other watershed reserves. Particular attention should be paid to drainage conditions near slope base, where mapped hydroriparian reserves are likely to need adjustment.

Ideally, Stage 4.1 will be carried out for the entire watershed. However, operational constraints may limit this assessment to the portions of the watershed where active development planning is occurring[AFP235].




4.2 Establish Site-level Reserves, Retention, and Management Zones Necessary to Protect Hydroriparian Ecosystem Function(s)

NB: This step is carried out within the area of interest for location and design of a specific cutblock.

Prepare the site plan map showing reserves, retention, and management zones. Key aspects of this stage include[AFP236]

• Identify and map small streams and other hydroriparian ecosystems, e.g., wet slopes, springs, seeps, wetlands.

• Establish, mark in the field, and map reserves, retention, and management zones, as required to protect hydroriparian functions by:

– identifying the hydroriparian functions that are most relevant to the reserve under consideration and applying precautionary guidelines appropriate to those functions to determine site-level reserves, retention, and management zones, including small sensitive areas as determined from microterrain features. For example, within a particular floodplain hydroriparian zone, the precautionary guideline allows for 10% deviation (by area[AFP237]) from natural levels of old forest. (Note: In ecosystem-based management the 10% removed must be representative of a stand’s profile, i.e., it does not allow for removal of all of the big spruce trees)

– determining small stream protection requirements based upon level of protection required for locations within the watershed (i.e. process zone, terrain sensitivity, site series/forest cover representation)

– considering the dependence of small stream channels on downed wood, and considering anadromous and resident fish/fish habitat, windfirmness, microterrain sensitivity, natural slope breaks, and the importance of adjacent ecosystems to biodiversity of hydroriparian reserves

– establishing reserves around high-value fish habitat

The results of this stage are a site plan map [AFP238]and rationale for site-level hydroriparian reserves, retention, and management zones necessary to protect hydroriparian ecosystem functions at the site scale. This map will be used to plan development in Stage 4.3 of the development of a site plan.

4.3 Identify Harvest Area (Cutblock or Multiple Cutblock) Components

NB: This step is carried out using the site plan map developed in Step 4b) that shows site reserves, retention, and management zones.

Key aspects of this stage include the following:

• Use site-level reserves, retention, and management zones to guide road location, landing location, and cutting unit boundary to protect hydroriparian functions. This is a key aspect of ecosystem-based management[AFP239]. Locations of reserves direct the location of harvesting.




• Design and locate in the field harvest system components.

• Add the harvest system components to the site plan map.

• Specify construction standards for roads, and management practices for treatment units [AFP240]within the site to protect hydroriparian functions. These standards will be established in conformity with the need to maintain hydroriparian functions. This step includes provision of a rationale for the harvest system design that focuses on explaining how the site plan provides an appropriate level of protection for hydroriparian ecosystems that is within the range of ecosystem-based management, and meets targets set by higher level plans.

Site-specific features are important factors in selecting the best location for the target levels of retention and harvesting within a watershed. For example, within a watershed, risk assessment might provide for 20% harvesting of fans. The areas available to harvest will depend upon the frequency and extent of disturbance events[AFP241]. Because the extent may vary from 30 m to over 1 km from the active channel, these field assessments are required to best locate reserves on fans[AFP242].

Important elements of site-level design include the following:

• Establish reserves and retention, as required to protect rare ecosystems and fish habitat and to meet representation targets.

• Identify important fish habitat features such as deep pools, undercut banks, and downed wood complexes and ensure that they are undisturbed by management practices. For example, retain trees rooted in the streambanks to maintain undercut banks; manage for recruitment of downed wood into wood dependent reaches; maintain shade over streams[AFP243].

• Concentrate retention around downed wood-dependent reaches, tributaries to fish bearing streams, and confluences.

• Design retention to be resistant to windthrow, considering where windward boundaries of retention patches are located (topographic exposure, rooting restrictions, etc.), the nature of the patches (tree species, density, height), and the pattern of retention in close proximity (which may reduce or increase exposure to damaging winds). A reserve of one and one-half tree lengths allows for moderate endemic blowdown in the first tree length. If more blowdown is expected, reserves will need adjustment. Retain windfirm patches, and design windfirm buffer widths and shapes, as opposed to just using fixed buffer widths around hydroriparian ecosystems. The key here is to strive to have effective buffers. In some portions of stream reaches, there may be small areas without buffers, but such situations will be compensated for with wider buffers in other locations, and/or through reserves of patches of small streams in areas near to, or adjacent to the area in question.

• Protect fans by following this approach: if the channel is not laterally confined, go to the edge of recent sediment deposits (current disturbance extent[AFP244]), then go another 50 m to establish the edge of the protective buffer. Check the age of cohorts [AFP245]next to the channel to determine frequency of disturbance. Plan roads and bridges appropriately.




• Prohibit machine traffic in reserves and retention areas, and minimize machine traffic in management zones. In most instances, machine traffic will not be necessary to carry out partial harvesting that may occur in management zones.

• Prohibit mechanical disturbance to streambank.

• Prevent overland flow of sediment to streams (for example, avoid disturbance to understory vegetation adjacent to streambanks, designate machine-free zones).

• Maintain fish passage by preventing the creation of obstructions to migration.

• Follow all FPC Best Management Practices[AFP246].




5.0 Stage 5: Feedback Information[AFP247]

Detailed information collected during site-level surveys should not be lost. Ensure effective recording of information and data gathered through adaptive management experiments. However, to set up opportunities for passive adaptive management [AFP248](Appendix 9), it is also necessary to record information from other areas of work and other operations.

5.1 Integrate Site-level Information into Watershed-level Plan and into Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plans

Incorporate site-level information into the watershed plan, modifying boundaries mapped at watershed level on the basis of site-level information. Use site-level information to revise ecosystems as appropriate.

5.2 Enter Specific Information into a Hydroriparian Database[AFP249]

To increase the chances of learning while managing, it is recommended that a hydroriparian database be established to record specific information on ecosystems and management plans. This database will eventually be a major resource for passive adaptive management analyses.




Appendix 1 Hydroriparian functions[AFP250]

As the interface between surface water and land[AFP251], hydroriparian ecosystems are ecologically important in several ways. Their ecological functions can be classified into three types: maintaining environmental character, movement of materials linking portions of the landscape, and reciprocal influences of water and land. Each bullet describes a function, lists coastal hydroriparian ecosystems in which the function is important, presents the extent of influence of the function and gives the time it takes to recover from disturbance [AFP252]

Hydroriparian ecosystems are important to the environment because they

• store water and evacuate excess water from the land. This is the fundamental reason for the occurrence of hydroriparian zones.

• are biodiversity hotspots, containing the most diverse structure, vegetation and animal communities of the coastal temperate rainforest. These characteristics are the consequence of their dynamic nature[AFP253], due to flooding, debris flows, downed wood, animal activity, productivity, landform, and elevation. Most coastal terrestrial vertebrates use hydroriparian ecosystems[AFP254]; invertebrate diversity is also high. Estuaries, fans, floodplains and wetlands are the most diverse ecosystems in the area[AFP255]. Extent is variable (different species travel different distances[AFP256]); core area extends to the edge of the influence of water on the land (BEC site series[AFP257]). Recovery after forest disturbance is variable (from <50 years for some features to >250 years for large structure[AFP258]).

• contain rare ecosystems[AFP259]. Several shoreline, fan and floodplain ecosystems are listed as rare (in old structural stage) in BC. Extent is easily defined by BEC site series. Recovery is long (250 years).

• are home to rare and important species[AFP260], including plants, fish, amphibians, birds, and mammals listed by the Conservation Data Centre as threatened or at risk. On the coast, estuaries are used by most listed birds; tailed frogs live in small steep streams in the Outer Coast Mountains; and grizzly bears rely heavily on floodplains, fans and estuaries on the mainland. Extent is variable; some habitat suitability models exist. Recovery can be very long; some populations may not recover.

• deliver water of a quality characteristic of the system. By definition, hydroriparian ecosystems are coincident with the principal flow pathways of water through the landscape[AFP261]. Prolonged contact of water with mineral and organic matter establishes the quality of water, including temperature, odour, colour, and dissolved mineral and organic content. On the central and north coasts, abundant water moves relatively quickly through most drainage basins [AFP262]and waters remain nutrient-poor. Lakes are dominantly oligotrophic[AFP263]. However, water quality may be significantly modified locally in wetlands and ponds. Forest disturbance accelerates both mineral and organic matter solution, but recovery normally is rapid (about 10 years for most characteristics[AFP264]).

Hydroriparian ecosystems, particularly stream systems, influence watersheds and landscapes by

• transporting water downstream above and below the ground[AFP265]. Forest canopies intercept a portion of precipitation, moderating water flows to hydroriparian ecosystems.




Forest soils further store water and modulate runoff. Effect extends throughout watershed. Recovery after forest disturbance is variable (10–25 years; roads may have permanent impacts on drainage pathways and timing).

• transporting sediment [AFP266]downstream, which modifies ecosystems as it moves. Sediment can increase productivity (e.g., by creating fans and floodplains in valley bottoms, renewing moderate gravel deposits along streams) or reduce productivity (e.g., by inundating stream channels with gravel, covering stream beds with fines, hence reducing habitat). Extends throughout watershed. Recovery is variable (increased input up to 40 years after harvest; chronic increase in fine sediment with active roads).

• transporting small organic material from small headwater streams to other hydroriparian ecosystems. This movement is particularly important in nutrient-poor systems like those of the coast. Extends in a ribbon along stream systems. Recovery is quick (5–15 years).

• transporting downed wood that accumulates in channels, on fans, and on floodplains. Influences flow and sediment dynamics, especially flood dynamics. This function is critically important to channel and floodplain complexity. Extends from unstable hillslopes to stream systems, particularly within the transport zone. Recovery is long (>100 years).

• serving as corridors [AFP267]for plant and animal movement. A variety of invertebrates and vertebrates feed and travel along hydroriparian ecosystems. Extends variable distance along stream systems. Recovery varies among organisms (5–200 years).

Land and water influence each other by:

• providing sediment that influences channel morphology, channel stability, and aquatic habitat quality, particularly gravel substrate in which invertebrate biota live and fish spawn. Sediment provision is important throughout the stream system, but its effect is ecologically significant in intermediate and larger channels and on alluvial fans, where the sediment is deposited[AFP268]. Recovery from disturbance is moderate and variable (10–100 years)

• providing downed wood that influences channel morphology, stores sediment and provides food and shelter for a variety of organisms. The rate of input depends on the type, frequency and intensity of disturbance in riparian forests and on steep upland slopes. This influence is important throughout the area. Extends to unstable hillslopes and two-tree height around [AFP269]stream systems. Recovery is long (>100 years).

• providing organic material in the upper watershed that supports hydroriparian food webs throughout the drainage. Organic matter recruitment is most important in small streams, but the effect is important in larger channels downstream. Extends less than a tree height from stream systems. Initial recovery is quick (5–15 years), but mid-seral closed canopy forests provide low levels.

• providing shade that moderates light and climate, hence water temperature, and so influences aquatic invertebrate communities and other organisms. This influence is most pervasive in small streams, but likely less important than in warmer climates[AFP270]. Extends several tree heights from stream systems. Recovery is quick (5–15 years[AFP271]).




• filtering sediment and dissolved materials. Sediment interception is important in steep terrain and on fans, and dissolved nutrient flushes are retained in riparian soils and plant communities. Effect extends variable distance from stream systems, depending on topography and water circulation pathways (usually 1–2 tree-heights or extent of valley flat). Recovery is variable (5–50 years).

• stabilizing banks and reducing erosion caused by flooding. This influence is important on streams, floodplains and fans across the coast. Direct effect extends less than one tree height but, where channels are laterally active, effective forest is coextensive with the amplitude of lateral instability. Recovery is moderate and variable (20–100 years).

• increasing ecosystem productivity by providing moisture and nutrients in well-drained soil. This influence is obvious in large floodplains, fans and estuaries. Extends variable distance from 1 m to width of valley flat, possibly over 1 km. Recovery may be long, particularly if subsurface flows change (>100 years).

• decreasing ecosystem productivity [AFP272]by promoting organic matter accumulation in poorly-drained soil. This influence is most noticeable in the extensive bogs of the Lowlands. Can extend over landscapes. Recovery period is unknown.

• modifying landscape morphology by [AFP273]creating depositional (fans, floodplains) and erosional (gullies, terraces) landforms along drainage systems, and by modifying the character of stream channels. This factor is strongly influenced by the mobility of sediments in stream systems. It is significant throughout the drainage system but is particularly important in intermediate and larger streams where diverse aquatic ecosystems include many fish species. Recovery is intermediate and variable (20–100 years), but some changes may be permanent.

• modifying the microclimate [AFP274]of adjacent land, influencing plant growth, soil microbes, amphibians and other organisms. This influence is most obvious in the shoreline forests of the Hecate Lowland; in other ecosystems, it is likely less important in the Central and North Coast than in warmer, drier climates. Extends several tree heights in some climates. Recovery is moderate (50–100 years).

Hydroriparian [AFP275]functions considered for risk assessment in the planning guide include maintaining hydrological regime (i.e., transporting water), providing downed wood, maintaining stream morphology, maintaining bank stability, maintaining coarse filter biodiversity, containing rare ecosystems, serving as corridors, and maintaining characteristic ecosystem productivity. Certain functions are combined in these categories. The planning guide does not consider special or rare species, but refers planners and managers to other existing models and tools. The guide does not assess risk to microclimatic modification because this function is less important in the wet, cool coastal climate.




Appendix 2 Characteristics of ecological subregions[AFP276]

BC’s Coast can be divided into four regions[AFP277]—Lowlands, Haida Gwaii Insular Mountains, Outer Coast Mountains and Inner Coast Mountains—differing in topography[AFP278], climate, hydrology, natural disturbance regimes and ecosystems (Pojar et al. 1992000; Price and McLennan 2001; Technical Report 1 and 2[AFP279]). The Lowlands [AFP280]form narrow, low-lying, boggy strips [AFP281]along the coast and islands. The Insular, Outer Coast and Inner Coast Mountains feature steep, rugged mountains, large watersheds, and ocean fjords, and are distinguished primarily by climate[AFP282]. Geomorphic disturbances (avalanches, debris flows and landslides[AFP283]) and flooding [AFP284]are common in the Inner and Outer Coast Mountains[AFP285]. ; fFire is significant only in the Inner Coast Mountains. ; Wwind is a minor disturbance agent except in the Insular Mountains. The planning areas also contain a small section of an interior region, the Nechako Plateau[AFP286]. The four major regions are further subdivided into eleven subregions according to physiography and hydrology[AFP287].

Sub-region Biogeoclimatic Subzone[AFP288]

Physiographic Region[AFP289]

Climate[AFP290]

Landscape Pattern Principal Stand-replacing Disturbances

Specific Management Concerns

Hecate Lowland Hypermaritime Coastal trough Very wet, cool, little snow

Small patches of scrubby forest [AFP291]in matrix [AFP292]of non-forested bogs

Very rare wind, debris flows, and landslides

Sensitive terrain re: bogs, organic soils; wind [AFP293]hazard

Milbanke Strandflat[AFP294]

Hypermaritime Coastal trough Very wet, cool, little snow

Small patches of scrubby forest in matrix of non-forested bogs


Sensitive terrain; drainage; wind hazard

Haida Gwaii Lowlands[AFP295]

Hypermaritime Coastal trough Very wet, cool, little snow

Small patches of scrubby forest in matrix of non-forested bogs


Sensitive terrain re: bogs, organic soils; wind hazard

Skidegate Plateau

Hypermaritime Insular Mountains

Very wet, cool, little snow

Old forest matrix Debris flows, landslides, flooding, wind

Wind hazard; slope stability

Haida Gwaii Mountains[AFP296]

Hypermaritime Insular Mountains

Very wet, cool, little snow

Old forest matrix Debris flows, landslides, flooding, wind

Slope stability; wind hazard




Sub-region Biogeoclimatic Subzone[AFP288]

Physiographic Region[AFP289]

Climate[AFP290]

Landscape Pattern Principal Stand-replacing Disturbances

Specific Management Concerns

Outer Coast Mountains [AFP297]– Pacific Ranges

Maritime Coast Mountains Very wet, cool summer, heavy snow

Old forest matrix (amabilis fir, hemlock, cedar, Sitka spruce) interrupted by slide tracks, wetlands and rock; glaciers present

Debris flows, landslides on steep terrain; flooding in valleys

Slope stability; flood hazard; channel stability; avalanche hazard; glacial runoff (some rivers)

Outer Coast Mountains – Kitimat Ranges


Old forest matrix (amabilis fir, hemlock, cedar, Sitka spruce) interrupted by slide tracks, wetlands, and rock[AFP298]


Slope stability; flood hazard; avalanche hazard

Outer Coast Mountains – Boundary/Skeena Ranges


Old forest matrix (amabilis fir, hemlock, cedar, Sitka spruce) interrupted by slide tracks, wetlands, and rock; glaciers present



Inner Coast Mountains – Pacific Ranges

Sub-maritime Coast Mountains Relatively dry to wet, warm summer, heavy snow

Old forest matrix (hemlock, cedar, some Douglas-fir) interrupted by slide tracks, wetlands, and rock; glaciers present

Debris flows, landslides on steep terrain; flooding in valleys; rare fire


Inner Coast Mountains – Kitimat Ranges

Sub-maritime Coast Mountains Relatively dry to wet, warm summer, heavy snow

Old forest matrix (hemlock, cedar, some Douglas-fir) interrupted by slide tracks, wetlands, and rock

Debris flows, landslides on steep terrain; flooding in valleys; rare fire

Slope stability; flood hazard; avalanche hazard

Nechako Plateau Continental Interior Plateau Moderately dry, warm to cool summers, and cold winters

Old forest matrix (subalpine fir, spruce, lodgepole pine)

Fire; debris flows, landslides on steep terrain

Slope stability




Appendix 3 Characteristics of coastal hydroriparian ecosystems, including stream, wetland, and marine ecosystems[AFP299]

Hydroriparian Ecosystem

Ecosystem Characteristics[AFP300] BEC Site Series[AFP301]

Small, very steep streams[AFP302]

(gradient >20%; width <3 m; flow perennial, seasonal or ephemeral)

network of perennial, seasonal and ephemeral13 streams [AFP303]expanding and shrinking with precipitation[AFP304]

seepage ecosystems often occur along the stream; range of site conditions and understory vegetation, including devil’s club, salmonberry, or red alder

some streams may be highly susceptible to debris flow; others have special microclimates[AFP305]

abundant in mountain zones; infrequent in lowlands

in-channel sedimentation restricted to forced deposits behind jammed logs or boulders

CWHvh2/04,06

CWHvm[AFP306]/01,05,08

CWHws/01,04,06

CWHwm/01,03,04

Torrented gullies

(gradient >20%; width <3 m; flow perennial or seasonal)

steep streams, often cut into deep glacial till or bedrock[AFP307]

unique vegetation community within gully due to continuously cool and damp microclimate; gully walls may be unstable glacial deposits, bedrock, or productive seepage ecosystems dominated by western hemlock and Sitka spruce with devil’s club and a rich herb community; lower gradient gully bottoms may have small floodplain with abundant shrubs, herbs, red cedar and amabilis fir

may be clear of sediment or filled with organic and mineral slide deposits

common along larger valleys throughout mountain zones; rare in lowlands

CWHvh2/04,06

CWHvm/01,05,08

CWHws/01,04,06

CWHwm/01,03,04

Small, steep streams

(4[AFP308]% < gradient <20%; width <10 m[AFP309]; flow perennial or seasonal)

adjacent vegetation varies from dry to wet sites[AFP310]

frequent log jams; mineral sediments structured

abundant on lower slopes; often connected to a range of small- and medium-sized lakes and pools; further inland, infrequent as seasonal streams in backchannel areas on major floodplains or fans; common in Insular Mountains

CWHvh2/01,11,12,13

CWHvm/variable

CWHws/variable

CWHwm/variable

Fans

(gradient 4–20%; width <10 m; flow perennial or seasonal)

characteristic fan formations that develop where streams reach the valley floor and deposit mineral sediment and organic debris; channels subject to frequent shifting on active fans

consequently, highly dynamic ecosystems

support coniferous or deciduous forests of various ages depending on disturbance history; very large Sitka spruce and western hemlock common in less active areas of the fan; conifer stands often feature wide spacing and large tree crowns, red alder and slide alder the most common deciduous species;

feature abundant berries and herbs and are important wildlife habitat[AFP311]

common in mountain zones where they form a characteristic valley floor

CWHvh2/06,07

CWHvm/05,08

CWHws/04,06

CWHwm/03,04

13 Perennial streams flow year round and have rich communities of aquatic invertebrates; seasonal streams are dry for a season, but have a stable source of water and have rich communities of aquatic invertebrates; ephemeral streams flow for a short period after storms and change routes periodically




Hydroriparian Ecosystem

Ecosystem Characteristics[AFP300] BEC Site Series[AFP301]

complex with floodplains; infrequent in lowlands

Small, low gradient streams

gradient <4%; width <10 m; flow perennial or seasonal

adjacent vegetation varies from dry to wet sites

may be associated with significant floodplain[AFP312]

abundant in lowlands, draining organic terrain in forested and non-forested ecosystems; often connected to a range of small- and medium-sized lakes and pools; occur as seasonal streams in backchannel areas on major floodplains or fans

CWHvh2/08,09,10

CWHvm/09,10,11

CWHws/07,08,09

CWHwm/05,06,07

Floodplains

(gradient <4%; width variable; flow perennial or seasonal)

complex ecosystems built from sediment deposited in low gradient reaches; constantly created and eroded; range from very narrow along small streams [AFP313]to 1 km wide or more

changing mosaic of high productivity ecosystems; forests range from stands of widely spaced, large Sitka spruce and western hemlock, to red alder or black cottonwood stands on younger surfaces, and willow, black cottonwood/red alder stands on the lowest benches; areas of poor drainage or beaver- and debris-dammed areas may support shrub and sedge wetlands; forested swamps occur in depressions, often along the base of the valley walls or at the toes of fans

feature abundant berries and herbs and are important wildlife habitat

rare (high-bench[AFP314]) to infrequent (low-bench) and small in lowlands; low- and high-bench floodplains common in Inner and Outer Coast Mountains on valley floors of larger valleys; where they meet the seas, floodplains on medium and large rivers often grade into estuaries; high-bench floodplains rare in Insular Mountains due to small channel size[AFP315]

CWHvh2/08,09,10

CWHvm/09,10,11

CWHws/07,08,09

CWHwm/05,06,07

Karst landscapes[AFP316]

(gradient and width variable; some entirely underground)

complex three-dimensional landscape with water travelling underground through channels and caves

nutrient rich soil and well-developed drainage supports very productive forests relative to neighbouring stands underlain by granitic bedrock; pH buffered, even temperature, streams support diverse and abundant invertebrate communities and rapidly growing fish

found only in Lowlands and Haida Gwaii

CWHvh2/05




Riparian System[AFP317]

Ecosystem Characteristics and Notes[AFP318] BEC Site Series

Forested swamps forested wetland ecosystems with mineral seepage that increases productivity compared with other wetlands

support western hemlock, Sitka spruce, and western redcedar on elevated mounds, skunk cabbage in depressions; open canopies with dense herb and shrub communities [AFP319]

infrequent in lowlands on lower slopes and depressional areas; common in mountain regions on depressions on larger floodplains adjacent to valley walls or at the base of fans

CWHvm/14

Sedge fens sedge-dominated wetlands occurring in landscape depressions with variable amounts of mineral seepage; soils mostly fibric and mesic peat [AFP320]over fluvial deposits

fringed by low and tall shrub [AFP321]communities, grading into forested swamp or upland ecosystems

infrequent in lowlands near river channels and small lakes where lateral seepage occurs; infrequent in mountain regions in depressions on floodplains, as fringes around lakes, at fan bases or back channels

CWHvh,vm,ws,wm/31

Slope/blanket bogs

level to sloping, large bogs; mostly organic veneers and blankets over bedrock and till;

supports sphagnum, sedges and heath shrubs, with scattered stunted western and mountain hemlock, and yellow-cedar [AFP322]at higher elevation

abundant and characteristic of lowlands, covering >50% of the landscape, and forming a mosaic with forested ecosystems [AFP323]on organic soils; infrequent further inland in transitional areas; common in Insular Mountains

CWHvh2/31

Wetland ponds small, shallow freshwater ecosystems, often with organic banks; forms complex of ponds and streams; hydrology determined by flows in adjacent organic soils

abundant algal [AFP324]and macrophytic vegetation

abundant in lowlands in forested and bog landscapes; infrequent further inland, associated with slope wetlands [AFP325](CWHvm2, MHmm1) and infilling stream meanders[AFP326]; common in Insular Mountains

not classified

Lakes freshwater ecosystems providing an important component of regional biodiversity

abundant small lakes in lowlands, often connected with ponds and small, low gradient streams; larger lakes infrequent throughout area; several deep, medium-sized lakes occur in faulted bedrock structures in Outer and Inner Coast Mountains

not classified

Shoreline saltspray forests

seaside forests that differ from other upland [AFP327]forests because of the effects of salt spray and strong winds[AFP328], tidal flooding and marine-related landforms such as beaches, estuaries, and glaciomarine sediments[AFP329]

Sitka spruce dominates; understory varies with landform and marine effects; unique and productive epiphytic lichen communities because of wind and salt spray[AFP330]

infrequent in lowlands [AFP331]and common on Insular Mountains on windy, unprotected shores

CWHvh2/14,15,16,17

Estuaries extremely rich and productive ecosystems created where tidal marine water and sediment mix with freshwater and river sediment

mosaic of unique forest wetlands, shrub thickets, sedge and grassland ecosystems, salt, brackish, and freshwater marshes, and mudflats

infrequent in lowlands (small because of small contributing areas and low sediment transport); infrequent in mountain regions [AFP332](very small to very large; large estuaries occur in conjunction with floodplain-

CWHvh2/18,19

similar site series in CWHvm




fan valley systems; small occur where fans empty directly into the ocean[AFP333])




Appendix 4 Abundance, importance, and influence of hydroriparian ecosystems in coastal regions[AFP334]

Table 4.1 Landscape abundance of hydroriparian ecosystems in coastal regions (rare = 1, infrequent = 2, common = 3, abundant = 4)

Hydroriparian Ecosystem Lowlands Outer Coast Mountains

Inner Coast Mountains

Insular Mountains

small steep streams[AFP335]14 2 4 4 4

torrented gullies 1 3 3 3

small low gradient streams 4 2 2 3

fans 2 3 3 3

high floodplain[AFP336] 1 3 3 1

low floodplain 2 3 3 3

karst 1 n/a n/a 2

bogs 4 2 2 3

forested swamps 2 3 3 3

sedge fens 2 2 2 2

ponds 4 2 2 3

lakes 2 2 2 2

shoreline forests 2 n/a n/a 3

estuaries 2 2 2 2

Table 4.2 Importance of hydroriparian ecosystems for maintaining terrestrial hydroriparian function in coastal regions (low = 1, moderate = 2, high = 3, very high = 4)



Insular Mountains

small steep streams 3 4 4 4



fans 4 4 4 4

high floodplain 3 4 4 2


karst 4 n/a n/a 4

bogs 4 2 2 3


sedge fens 1 2 2 2

ponds 2 1 1 1

lakes 1 3 3 3


estuaries 4 4 4 4

14 Includes small, very steep streams and small, steep streams as per Box 5.




Table 4.3 Influence of hydroriparian ecosystems on other hydroriparian ecosystems in a watershed in coastal regions (low = 1, moderate = 2, high = 3, very high = 4)a



Insular Mountains

small steep streams 4 4 4 4



fans 3 3 3 3

high floodplain 2 4 4 2


karst 4 n/a n/a 4

bogs 2 1 1 2


sedge fens 2 2 2 2

ponds 1 1 1 1

lakes 2 3 3 3


estuaries 4 4 4 4

Data derived from expert judgements. Each value has an associated uncertainty level (0–10) and rationale recorded (but not presented) to allow inclusion in a Bayesian Belief Network.




Appendix 5 Natural disturbance regimes [AFP337]for BEC subzones and variants15

On the coast, stand-replacing disturbances are very rare and most stands are characterized by gap-phase replacement[AFP338].

BEC Subzone[AFP339] Physiographic Unit[AFP340]

Return Interval (yr[AFP341])

% Old forest

[AFP342]

North Coasta

CWHvh2 HL 3,000 ± 1,300 >90

CWHvm, ws OCM 900 ± 150 78

MHmm1, ESSFwv OCM 850 ± 50 77

MHmm2 HL 3,000 ± 1,200 >90

Central Coastb

Haida Gwaii/Queen Charlotte Islandsb

a Based on current seral stage distribution in 20-year periods (Holt and Sutherland 2002). b Awaiting data.

Natural Disturbance Estimates for Floodplains Relative to Upland Forests[AFP343] The landscape pattern of stand-replacing natural disturbances over the past 140 years were investigated for 13 watersheds comprising 325,000 ha of the Central Coast (Pearson in prep). The watersheds ranged in size from 2000 – 100,000 ha. The majority of the watersheds were located in the Outer Coast Mountains, with the exception of the valley bottoms of three watersheds, which were located in the Inner Coast Mountains. Natural disturbances comprised 3 + 2% of watershed area, with one outlier at 20% due to the small forested area of that watershed. The percentage of valley bottom and upland disturbed naturally varied from 0 – 8% of the forested area, with one outlier at 19%. All disturbances were geomorphic, although processes varied between flooding in the valley bottoms versus landslides and avalanches in the uplands. Natural disturbances comprised 6 + 6% of the forested area of valley bottoms, and 6 + 5% of uplands, which were not significantly different. This pattern of equal distribution of disturbance area between valley bottom and uplands was not consistent however within individual watersheds. While only one watershed < 10,000 ha had any evidence of natural disturbance in the active floodplain, the latter was present in all watersheds > 10,000 ha. Area of natural disturbance in the active floodplain ranged from 2 – 20%, with mean value of 9 + 6%, within the range of values for valley bottoms and uplands. Active floodplains comprised relatively consistent area of the study watersheds regardless of watershed size (2 – 7 % of each watershed). In contrast, the area of valley bottom in active floodplain varied from 8 – 61% and increased with watershed size (22 ± 6 % of watersheds < 11,000 ha; 53 ± 5 % of watersheds > 20,000 ha). Natural disturbances comprised on average < 10% of the area in question, regardless of spatial context, although there is some variation. However, the extent of the active floodplain was strongly influenced by spatial context (entire watershed versus valley bottom) combined with watershed size. In 13 watersheds (covering over 300,000 ha) of the Central Coast, the total area of natural disturbance is equally distributed between valley bottoms and upland (although disturbance

15 Natural disturbance regimes have not yet been calculated for the sub-regions described in this guide. Relevant data are expected by March 2003.




type varies—flooding in valley bottoms vs. slides and avalanches in the upland[AFP344]) 16. Natural disturbance within the past 140 years in valley bottoms of the 13 watersheds (Outer and Inner Coast Mountains) covered <10% of valley bottoms (range 0–8% with one outlier at 19%; mean = 5 ± 1%).17 Floodplains in watersheds >10,000 ha are made up from 32 to 61% of the valley floor. Hence, even if all of the observed disturbance occurred on the floodplain, natural disturbance still only impacted at most 16% of the floodplain[AFP345]. There seems no need to use different return intervals for floodplains and upland forest from the available data.

16 Pearson, A F. 2002. in prep. Natural and Logging Disturbances in the Coastal Temperate Rain fForests of Central Coast, British Columbia. Draft. manuscript in preparation. 17 Pearson A . F.. 2002 in prep. Natural and Logging Disturbances in the Coastal Temperate Rain fForests of Central Coast, British Columbia. Draft.manuscript in preparation,




Appendix 6 Risk assessment and precautionary guidelines[AFP346]

This section provides [AFP347]risk curves and precautionary guidelines for assessing risk to hydroriparian function, for determining retention targets, and for planning development at the watershed level. Risk curves are based on published literature [AFP348]and expert opinion gathered at specially convened risk workshops. Precautionary guidelines correspond either with indicator values at which risk curves become steeper, or, for linear curves, values between the very low and low risk categories on a 5-point scale.

At the time of developing this guide, the specification of quantitative risk curves for application to forest management planning decisions was still novel. Very few data were presented in a manner appropriate for developing the curves; hence the reliance on expert opinion. Extensive empirical testing and refinement of these curves are still necessary, as may be gained from adaptive management procedures.

Hydrological Regime (Transporting Water[AFP349])

Scale

Watershed Indicator

Rate of cut (%) in watershed

The relationship between forest clearance and streamflow has been widely studied (see Technical Report 3) and is a complex matter. Streamflow regime can be divided into three critical criteria: (i) flood flows; (ii) mean flow; and (iii) low flows. There is general agreement that mean flows are increased in proportion to forest clearance, but no consensus on the other criteria. There is substantial evidence, however, that the frequency of moderate flood flows, which stress instream ecosystems, is increased following forest clearance. Hence, this criterion is considered to be most important. It has most often been related to a simple rate-of-cut criterion. A risk curve developed on this criterion is insensitive to 20% cleared (with roads) or 30% cleared (no roads), increasing thereafter to high risk for some level of clearance less than 100%, but not determined, in conformity with the majority of experience. Recovery occurs after about 20 years. Effect on minimum flows is considered to follow, at least qualitatively, a similar pattern.

Precautionary Guideline

The principal guideline for hydrological regime is based on the rate of cut at which the risk becomes noticeable.

• Rate of cut should not exceed 1% per [AFP350]year of the forested area averaged over 20 years applied to every watershed and sub-basin over 1,000 ha Stratify larger watersheds into sub-basins of approximately 1,000–3,000 ha area[AFP351]. Use more conservative guidelines if a practitioner’s experience indicates that a watershed may have a higher risk.




Figure 6.1 Risk to hydrological regime associated with forest clearance[AFP352].

• Exercise professional discretion in smaller drainage basins[AFP353]. Discretion consists of recognizing that while up to 50% of very small basins [AFP354]may be cleared within a short time, terrain conditions that indicate potential drainage-related slope instability, or channel conditions that indicate potential for substantial erosion, should be treated conservatively. In small basins, small opening or variable retention will nearly always represent superior practice (hydrologically), wherever they are feasible.

• See guidelines under fish section in relation to smaller drainage.

Stream [AFP355]Morphology

Scale

Landscape

Watershed

Indicator

Index of road length + area cut in terrain classes IV and V

Stream morphology depends in major degree upon the calibre and quantity of sediment delivered to the stream system. In managed forests, increments to sediment delivery derive largely from road building and maintenance, from activities in unstable terrain, and from destabilization of streambanks. Therefore, useful planning indicators are considered to be:

• (planned) length of road

• area of forest cleared in classes IV and V terrain

• percent of streambank cleared in transportation and deposition zones.




The first criterion is intended to cover the likelihood of landslide source from roads (and reaching the riparian [AFP356]zone), the second to cover landslide contributions from unstable terrain, while the third is intended to cover sediment derived from streambanks. Modification of the natural sedimentation regime, not the arrival of sediment in the channel per se, should be recognized as the concern. Streambank clearance is covered in the Maintaining Channel Bank Stability section.

The first two criteria have been combined into one index using guidelines established in the Coastal Watershed Assessment Guidebook.18

Score Criteria

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

km of Class IV or V road (km/km2)

0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 >0.40

ha of Class IV or V logged [AFP357](%)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >10

As the range of raw data varies, the raw data are rescaled to a score between 0 and 1.0[AFP358]. The table above provides the conversions from raw data to scores. The index used in the risk curve is calculated by simply adding together the score for each criterion. An index of less than 0.8 means low impact, 0.8–1.2 means potential moderate impact, and greater than 1.2 means potential high impact.

Figure 6.2 Risk to stream morphology associated with forest management activities[AFP359].

18 Coastal Watershed Assessment Procedure Guidebook (CWAP), Level 1 Analysis, August 1995.




Precautionary Guidelines

These guidelines are based on expert opinion and literature review (Technical Report 3).

• Do not harvest hillslopes in stability class IV (detailed rating[AFP360]), failure of which might cause sediments to be delivered to any stream channel

• The entire wet floodplain [AFP361]and all wetlands are no-work zones. Wet floodplains should be considered to be part of the active channel.

• Road crossings of the wet floodplain should be minimized; roads should avoid dry floodplains where possible; roads crossing active fans must be constructed such that they will not influence natural processes[AFP362].

Channel Bank Stability

Scale

Process zone within watershed Indicator

Percent deviation from natural proportion of standing forest [AFP363]along stream course

Percent of streambank forest cleared (hence subject to loss of critical root strength) is considered to be the relevant criterion. Application of this indicator is different in different process zones. In the source zone (S), the proportion of streambank that is erodible (many source zone streams flow in gullies delimited by bedrock or other unerodible materials) influences the critical level of a forest management indicator. In the transport (T) process zone (banks largely alluvial), a linear function is proposed extending to maximum risk at (1-fraction of naturally erodible banks). This function may actually be convex (possessing high sensitivity at small levels of forest removal) because bank erosion yields additional sediment to the stream channel, which then forms deposits around which the stream must flow. Then, additional current attack [AFP364]and erosion of banks may occur. The deposition process zone (D) may be even more sensitive in this regard, because streambanks there are entirely composed of recent alluvium, but there is insufficient documentation to quantify any distinction.

With respect to streambank functions of shade and organic material[AFP365], it is proposed that the width of the riparian buffer relative to channel width is important. If buffer width is <0.5 channel width, the buffer has little effective function. If buffer width is >2 channel widths, functions approach undisturbed rates. These criteria are known to be deficient with respect to microclimate modification, but that factor was considered to be of low sensitivity in coastal forests[AFP366].


This guideline reflects the importance of streambank cover to transportation and deposition zone channels and the potentially convex shape of the risk curve.

• In transportation and deposition zones, leave windfirm [AFP367]buffers




Figure 6.3 Risk to streambank stability associated with non-forested streambanks. D, T, and S

indicate deposition, transport, and source zones, respectively, in the drainage basin[AFP368].

Downed Wood [AFP369]– Channels and Floodplains

Scale

Process zone within watershed

Process zones receive wood from different sources. In the source zone, most wood travels downslope during mass wasting events. In the transportation [AFP370]and deposition zones, most wood comes from adjacent riparian forest (though wood can still be delivered downslope to streams with a narrow valley flat[AFP371]). Old forest is a necessary part of the downed wood indicator in transportation and deposition zones[AFP372]. In the source zone, however, smaller pieces of wood may be effective[AFP373].

Although the distinction between coniferous and deciduous cover is important, the hydroriparian planning guide does not currently distinguish between forest types[AFP374].

Indicator

Source zone: % forest [AFP375]younger than 30 years

Transportation and deposition zones: % deviation from natural riparian forest (for amount of natural riparian forest, see Appendix 3[AFP376])

Precautionary guidelines

These guidelines are based on the % deviation [AFP377]from natural at which the risk curve becomes steeper.

• <30% of forest should be younger than 30 years in the source zone




• <20% deviation from natural riparian forest in the transportation and deposition zones

Figure 6.4 Risk to downed wood functions with forest management actions[AFP378].

High-Value Fish Habitat

Ensuring healthy fish habitat requires land development practices be managed in a low-risk manner to ensure all hydroriparian ecosystem functions are maintained. The precautionary guidelines for each function provide guidance. This section applies to identified and mapped high-value fish habitat.

Scale

Watershed

Indicator

Presence of development activities (roads, landings, log dumps, log sorts, cutblocks, etc.) in or adjacent to high-value fish habitat

Deviation from natural proportion of riparian forest cover; barriers to access; deviation from natural levels of sedimentation[AFP379]

For high-value fish habitat, there is no option to follow a risk assessment procedure; risk-averse guidelines must be applied[AFP380].

Precautionary guidelines[AFP381]

Reserve all high-value fish habitat and adjacent areas from development; adjacent refers to any land from which there may be direct impacts on the habitat as a result of development. Direct impacts refer to temperature, water quality, sedimentation, and bank stability[AFP382]

For watersheds [AFP383]larger than 1,000 ha (10 km2)




• apply the precautionary guidelines under Maintaining Hydrological Regime.

Because process characteristics differ between these systems [AFP384]and smaller watershed systems, a different set of precautionary guidelines apply to watersheds smaller than 1,000 ha. Smaller watersheds [AFP385]are headwater-driven systems where hillslope disturbances directly affect adjacent channels. For primary watersheds (i.e., those that are not part of a larger drainage basin[AFP386]) smaller than 1,000 ha (10 km2) that contain high-value fish habitat zones, the following guidelines apply:

• identify all hydrologically active areas, for example hydroriparian zones, headwater seepage zones

• limit disturbance to 10[AFP387]% of the forest area in the watershed averaged over 3 years

• deactivate road networks after harvesting to restore natural hydrological regime.

Biodiversity (Coarse Filter[AFP388])

Scale

Landscape

Watershed

Indicator

Percent deviation from natural riparian forest by [AFP389]hydroriparian ecosystem and/or site series (site series for landscape-level assessment[AFP390])

Ideally, this indicator would examine [AFP391]three forest conditions: interior old growth, old growth equivalent (based on recovery curves developed for various forest types following various management activities; see Appendix 8), and deciduous[AFP392]. Interior old growth gives the best indication of undisturbed riparian forest[AFP393]. Old growth equivalent could include edge or interior forest and can include recovery from variable retention. Deciduous ecosystems provide diversity in floodplains.

The curve is sigmoidal based on theory and empirical studies over a wide range of landscapes in many regions (see Technical Report 7). According to expert opinion , although the sigmoidal curve reflects the baseline biodiversity risk curve, risk to biodiversity within the area considered by the hydroriparian planning guide varies by hydroriparian ecosystem. Levels of certainty are sufficient to distinguish three classes of curves for risk to biodiversity: standard, moderately sensitive and highly sensitive (Figure 6.5). Different ecosystems follow different risk curves. The uncertainty band around the standard curve is broader than around the sensitive curves (uncertainty bands are not drawn) since it covers a wide range of conditions. Although the shape of the biodiversity curves does not vary by subregion, differences in natural disturbance regimes may lead to different deviations from natural, and hence different risks. These risk curves are drawn based on the assumption of conventional harvesting.




Figure 6.5 Risk curves for biodiversity[AFP394].

Estuaries, karst ecosystems and small (1–3 m) very steep (>20%) streams and gullies with high susceptibility to debris flow follow the highly sensitive curve. These small steep [AFP395]streams are often gullied, incised in deep till, with accumulation of large organic debris, and glacier-headed. They are usually infrequent in a watershed[AFP396], but may be concentrated in headwater scarps[AFP397]. They generate energy and materials to entire stream systems[AFP398]. Floodplains, fans, forested swamps and small (1–3 m) very steep (>20[AFP399]%) streams and gullies with distinctive microclimate[AFP400], follow the moderately sensitive curve. These small [AFP401]steep streams are located in more resistant bedrock, usually not gullied, and often bouldery with a tumbling step-pool structure. They provide a distinctive microclimate of [AFP402]high humidity within an envelope of trees[AFP403], and house specially adapted organisms [AFP404]with low adaptive capability. The remaining small streams (various sizes, including <1 m, various gradients), shoreline forests and wetlands (lakes, ponds, sedge fens, bogs) follow the standard curve [AFP405](sigmoidal to reflect literature values). In all cases, streams on unstable terrain follow the sensitive curve[AFP406].


Where risk follows a sigmoidal curve, the precautionary guideline occurs at the threshold at which the curve becomes steeper. For the sensitive and moderate curves, the [AFP407]value which gives less than 20% of total risk is the precautionary guideline.

Landscape scale

• All site series <30% deviation from natural levels of old forest[AFP408]

Biodiversity

0

0.5

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

% deviation from natural

Ris

k

moderatesensitivesigmoidal




Watershed scale

• Estuaries, karst ecosystems, small (1–3 m), very steep (>20%) streams with high susceptibility to debris flow or on unstable terrain: <3% deviation from natural riparian forest.

• Floodplains, fans, forested swamps, small very steep streams with low susceptibility to debris flow[AFP409], but distinctive microclimate: <10% deviation from natural riparian forest.

• All other small streams, shoreline forests, and wetlands (lakes, ponds, sedge fens, bogs): <30% deviation from natural riparian forest

• In any hydroriparian ecosystem, determine areas for reserve and harvest by site series according to their representation in the watershed[AFP410].

Rare Ecosystems

Scale

Subregion

Landscape

Watershed

Risk to all rare ecosystems based on deviation from natural [AFP411]follows the highly sensitive curve drawn for coarse filter biodiversity (see Figure 6.5). Rare ecosystems are a special case in which estimates of importance to biodiversity and landscape abundance are included in the risk curve (rather than being considered separately to set levels of acceptable risk[AFP412]).

An additional indicator, the amount of each rare ecosystem, is required to deal with the added fragility of small patches, but is not yet included in the hydroriparian planning guide[AFP413].


The first guideline is taken from the very low risk level (<20% of total risk) on the highly sensitive curve. The second guideline is based on expert opinion and literature review (Technical Report 7).

• <3% deviation from natural proportion of old riparian forest by rare site series

• Do not disturb potential red-listed ecosystems (these are no-work areas)

Corridors

Scale

Process zone within watershed

Indicator

% streams with natural levels of cover[AFP414]

The corridor function requires a different indicator [AFP415]to deal with connectivity. Overall abundance values [AFP416]would not discriminate between a watershed with half of the streams with all of their riparian forests harvested, and half undeveloped and a watershed with all




streams riparian forests harvested along half of their length. Modifying the indicator [AFP417]to describe the percentage of streams with natural riparian forest captures watershed patterns at a gross scale.

Due to high uncertainty about the use of riparian corridors, risk to this function is considered to increase linearly as the proportion of streams deviating from natural increases (Figure 6.6). Although natural levels of connected cover vary across the coast (e.g., Skidegate Plateau had streams with naturally connected forest from head to mouth; whereas mainland streams usually cross avalanche tracks, bogs and other non-forested ecosystems), a single curve for all regions reflects current knowledge. The curve does not apply at the level of individual streams, but to the population of streams within a watershed.

Figure 6.6 Risk to corridor functions with proportion of streams with high deviation from natural riparian forest[AFP418].

Because of uncertainty over the value of corridors, the precautionary guideline adopts a low-moderate risk in relation to the linear curve.


>60% of streams within a process zone have natural levels of cover

Corridor

0

0.5

1

0 20 40 60 80 100% streams with natural cover along length

Ris

k




Ecosystem Productivity[AFP419]

Scale

Watershed

Indicator

The biodiversity curves (Figure 6.5), reflecting current practices (including access), apply equally to ecosystem productivity.

Relative to upland ecosystems, risk to productivity in all hydroriparian ecosystems posed by increased road density follows a highly sensitive curve. This curve needs further development.


See biodiversity guidelines

Organic Material[AFP420]

Organic material initially recovers quickly, but then declines as the canopy closes. The biodiversity curves, examining deviation from natural apply to this function.


See biodiversity guidelines

Further Work [AFP421]

Further investigation of appropriate metrics for hydroriparian ecosystems (mean, 1 SD, range of natural disturbance), particularly ecosystems with highly variable disturbance regimes (e.g., floodplains), is needed. The long-term effectiveness of the HPG presupposes that such investigations will be pursued through the adaptive management strategy.




Appendix 7 Methodology for mapping hydroriparian process zones

Terrain mapping [AFP422]provides the information required to classify areas into the deposition, transport, and source process zones. The following table identifies the terrain symbols commonly used to designate landforms in the deposition and transport zones--hence providing a key to initial delineation of these zones from a terrain map. The source process zone is simply defined as the area not included in the deposition and transport zones.

Variants (including composite and stratigraphic symbols) exist and some familiarity with the B.C. Terrain Classification System will aid in accurately identifying which terrain symbols are associated with a given process zone. The table is intended as a guide, to be used in conjunction with the detailed descriptions of the three process zones (p. xx[AFP423]). To illustrate the method, a small watershed located in the Hecate Lowland region is shown below with terrain stability mapping and process zone delineation.

Process Zone General Terrain Symbol (Surficial Material/Surface Expression);

& comments

Deposition Ff (fluvial fan); Essentially a low gradient (here defined as 0–7%) alluvial fan/delta situated at the outlet of the watershed in question.

Fp (floodplain) or FAp (active floodplain[AFP424]); Extensive Fp or FAp terrain polygons found near the outlet in larger systems may also be included in this process zone.

Transport

Fp (floodplain), FAp (active floodplain) Ft (fluvial terrace) Cf , Cc (colluvial fan, colluvial cone); These landforms typically flank valley sides in the outer and inner coast mountain subregions. Ff (fluvial fan); Only if it does not fit the criteria for fluvial fans in the deposition process zone (e.g., low gradient, situated at outlet) LAj, LAp (lacustrine gentle slope, lacustrine plain) Op (organic plain) , Ov (organic veneer); When found in composite or stratigraphic symbols in conjunction with Fp **Also, any terrain polygon adjacent to the transport zone with slope class range of 2–3 or less




Example: Hecate Lowland Subregion




Appendix 8 Recovery from disturbance

After disturbance, ecosystems tend to recover to a viable [AFP425]state closely related to the original state. Recovery time following a disturbance depends on the intensity, extent, and legacy of the disturbance. In sensitive ecosystems, or following intense disturbances, some elements may not recover. Curves describing the recovery of ecosystem elements (e.g., stand structure, vegetation, soil biota, epiphytic biota) over time can be used to assess the functional integrity of a disturbed stand. Curves can be developed based on different types of disturbance (natural vs. managed; clearcutting vs. 50% retention).

Curves describe the recovery (from clearcutting) of structure (large live, dead, and downed trees), tree composition, understory vegetation, soil biota and epiphytes for 10 analysis units (based on leading species and site index[AFP426]) within the BEC variants of the North Coast (developed for the environmental risk assessment of the North Coast LRMP). Some of these analysis units are relevant to hydroriparian ecosystems (e.g., the spruce leading, high productivity analysis unit is a floodplain ecosystem). Initial curves have been developed describing recovery from 10, 30, and 70% variable retention for structure, vegetation, and soil biota for high and medium productivity spruce leading sites (Figure 8.1).

Figure 8.1 Expert-based [AFP427]recovery curves for structure [AFP428]in the spruce-leading, high site index (floodplain) analysis unit in the CWHvh2. Curves are based on initial management activities of clearcutting, and 10%, 30%, and 70% variable retention.

Development of an old growth equivalency index based on forest age [AFP429]and levels of structural retention requires further work[AFP430]. For the example shown, recovery of structure to a fully functioning, late seral stage on a floodplain in the Hecate Lowland takes 250 years following clearcutting[AFP431], 200 years following 30% retention, and 150 years following 70% retention. Such an index will [AFP432]facilitate comparisons of risk among different management options (e.g., variable retention, long rotation). Although recovery curves based on analysis unit can be applied to some hydroriparian ecosystems, curves for site series or hydroriparian ecosystem would be more appropriate. Similar recovery curves might in principle be constructed




for physical characteristics of the hydroriparian system but there is, in general, insufficient collated evidence to allow this to be achieved.




Appendix 9 Adaptive management [AFP433]

Introduction

“Adaptive management” is a systematic approach to improving management and accommodating change by learning from the outcomes of management interventions (Taylor et al. 1997[AFP434]). Adaptive management emerged as a means to achieve the goal of reconciling conservation of natural systems with sustainable economies (Lee 1999). With adaptive management not only are objectives and policies adjusted in response to new information, but also management policies are deliberately designed and implemented as experiments to enhance the rate of improvement (Holling 1978; Walters 1986; Taylor et al 1997). In this way learning is promoted as a high priority in resource stewardship[AFP435].

It is the focus on deliberately designing management to enhance learning that differentiates true adaptive management (AM) from trial-and-error approaches often promoted as AM. In addition, because AM requires documentation of objectives, assumptions, decisions, and outcomes, it increases the chances that knowledge gained through experience will be passed on to others.

Although AM has elements in common with traditional research (e.g., hypothesis testing, use of controls and replicates), it differs in several important respects: managers play an integral and often lead role; and policies are implemented at an operational scale, in an operational setting. A key element is to bring managers and researchers together with the common goal to learn something about ecosystem processes and structures. Management context is a critical element. However, experiments can often provide surprises, and require good scientists [AFP436]to recognize surprise and pursue its full implications (Lee 1999).

The central focus of AM is to formulate management approaches and policies as experiments that probe the responses of ecosystems as management activities change. Careful design, monitoring, evaluation, and feedback are critical components to this process. Because management time frames are long and the associated ecological questions are complex, imagination and creativity in applying these steps are important to deal effectively with change and complexity.

The HPG [AFP437]was designed to be part of an AM program. Adaptive management is valuable whenever there is significant uncertainty about the outcomes of management activities, such as those recommended by the hydroriparian planning guide (HPG). While existing research provides some direction for the HPG, data for local ecosystems are lacking and considerable uncertainty exists around the development of some of the risk curves. Accordingly, uncertainty increases as planners choose increased risk in their management strategy. A commitment to adaptive management is therefore an important element in the successful implementation of the HPG over time if hydroriparian functions are indeed to be maintained in the most effective and efficient manner.

A commitment to true adaptive management is no small undertaking. It may be technically challenging to design powerful experiments and effective monitoring schemes at large spatial scales, for indicators with long response times and high levels of natural variability. Managers and stakeholders must be convinced that the long-term benefits of adaptive management are worth the additional costs and effort involved in design, layout, monitoring, and data storage.




Ensuring continuity of funding, and support over the long time scales at which forest ecosystems operate will be a challenge and will require continued collaboration and leadership.

With these considerations in mind the general structure of the adaptive management program for the HPG is presented with recommendations for its implementation. The final adaptive management program will have to be built with input from managers and stakeholders at a strategic level. Above all, the program requires a solid commitment and a strong dose of realism in terms of time frames and budgets.

A structure for designing an adaptive management program for the HPG is described with some suggestions for program content. The final design will require thoughtful input and consideration by managers and stakeholders[AFP438].

1. Assessing the Problem[AFP439]

Securing a commitment to adaptive management, identifying budgetary constraints

Adaptive management is frequently discussed, but few good examples are evident. Weyerhaeuser’s [AFP440]adaptive management program for their “Forest Project” is felt by many to be one of the best local examples (Beese 2002). It involves collaboration with the scientific and stakeholder communities and a significant commitment to long-term funding. The Weyerhaeuser program was developed, and is directed, by an Adaptive Management Working Group that includes representatives from the UBC Centre for Applied Conservation Biology, the B.C. Ministry of Forests, the B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, the environmental consulting sector, and Weyerhaeuser BC Coastal Group. Support for this group requires a significant on-going commitment from upper management and leadership within the company at the strategic level.

Based on the options available and the identified priorities and potential outcomes, the adaptive management program for the HPG needs a similar long-term commitment to be successful. This commitment should occur at the LRMP strategic level where it can bring stakeholders, managers, and scientists together in a suitable collaborative framework to ensure continuity and consistency of implementation and funding across all scales over appropriate time periods. At the same time, long-term budget requirements should be explored and discussed. This discussion should be viewed as a reality check rather than a stumbling block and will help prioritize, focus, and perhaps refine the program to be effective within the bounds of what is feasible.




Steps in Designing an Adaptive Management Program for the HPG Nyberg (1999) described the steps in an adaptive management program (Figure 9.1).

Assess Problem

Design

Implement

Monitor

Adjust

Evaluate

Assess ProblemAssess Problem

Design

Implement

Monitor

Adjust

Evaluate

Figure 9.1 The steps in an adaptive management program, shown as a loop to promote

continual learning, adaptation, and re-examination of the management situation[AFP441].

Identifying the key questions that will be explored with the program

The HPG defines the challenge of managing riparian ecosystems in terms of clear goals. The goals are then translated into indicators explicitly related to ecosystem function. This is necessary initial step in AM.

Next the key management questions that hold the greatest potential to enhance learning, and tease out surprises were identified[AFP442]. The key questions to be explored were developed by the HPG team by: reviewing risk curves and thresholds for the range of hydroriparian functions to determine where the greatest uncertainty exists; determining which indicators with a reasonable degree of uncertainty have the most potential to impact management decisions; and examining other assumptions regarding the indicators themselves or the HPG decision-making process[AFP443]. The team also tried to consider the relationship between actions and indicators over a range of conditions, and the sensitivity of forecasts and management choices to alternative hypotheses.

The Weyerhaeuser experience stresses the importance of not trying to tackle all important questions at once. This can quickly become untenable in its volume and associated cost. The Weyerhaeuser Adaptive Management Working Group considered many focus questions for the Forest Project, but finally selected five key questions that would maximize the learning in the short to medium term. Accordingly, the HPG team tried to combine questions from interrelated




indicators and HPG process steps to focus on a small set of questions, most likely to enhance learning. The priority is to first address those questions that can yield answers more quickly and have the greatest impact on learning.

The HPG [AFP444]isolated the following questions to explore for riparian management.

Hydrological questions

1. What are appropriate ECA [AFP445]criteria in roaded and in non-roaded watersheds to assure maintenance of hydroecological [AFP446]functions?

ECA remains a controversial topic. It is unlikely that the precautionary specifications that can be drawn from current research literature are appropriate everywhere on the coast. The risk curve presented in the HPG represents only an arbitrary (although expert) extrapolation of those guidelines. Forest management deliberately designed to be sensitive to, and to monitor, ECA and hydrological effects, through an experimentally articulated program of comparative gauging, will eventually allow more secure and more flexible guidelines to be developed to govern rate of cut.

2. What criteria reliably identify watersheds that are “high risk” in the sense that high sediment delivery is apt to compromise the function of hydroriparian ecosystems?

Because geology, topography, and landscape history all vary, certain parts of the landscape are more prone to yield excessive amounts of sediment to stream systems than others, especially under certain land use practices. It is important to identify these areas before development occurs. The current HPG proposes a method based on the occurrence of terrain of stability classes IV and V, which is available from terrain mapping, and is consistent with current CWAP criteria. The method requires to be critically tested, and the possibility for more refined means to identify “high risk” areas needs to be examined. It is probable that initial work on this problem would constitute research (rather than AM) but, eventually, means need to be tested and adapted in the operational environment of forest land management.

Biodiversity/habitat questions

1. What are the impacts to biodiversity (at site and downstream) of various management practices around small streams? Is biodiversity best conserved through narrow buffers on most streams or by reserving selected patches including several streams?

The impacts of forest management around small streams remains controversial. Although harvesting around single streams likely have negligible downstream impacts, cumulative impacts can be high. Conversely, leaving buffers around all small streams can remove most harvest opportunity in some watersheds[AFP447]. In addition, buffers are susceptible to blowdown and may not achieve their aim.

This topic includes questions about impacts to the hydrology of very small, intermittently flowing streams. A relatively simple study [AFP448]looking at the number of weeks of flow of ephemeral, intermittent and perennial small streams throughout the summer before and after harvest would be very useful.




2. Are continuous strips of riparian vegetation valuable as corridors?

The value of remnant strips remains contentious. Unfortunately, this area of study is highly complex, and frequently troubled by ambiguous results; some recent research programs, however, have met with success[AFP449].

2. Designing the Program: Choosing the Adaptive Management Options to Address the Key Questions

Two adaptive management implementation options have been described (Nyberg 1999). Active adaptive management[AFP450]

Active adaptive management is considered by most as the foundation of an effective adaptive management program. Active adaptive management involves deliberate management experiments to discriminate between alternate management hypotheses developed to address key questions. As is typical with experimentation, active adaptive management involves setting hypotheses, controlling extraneous factors, and replicating to increase reliability. Such an approach is important for reliable knowledge, yet it may not always be easily achieved or most efficient with the types of questions posed. For this reason, passive adaptive management is often considered as well.

Passive adaptive management

With passive approaches, the manager evaluates existing information and implements the policy that is “best,” assuming that the most likely hypothesis about ecosystem function is indeed correct. Outcomes are monitored and compared to predictions and pre-treatment conditions.

Passive approaches must be used with a great deal of caution. They are attractive because they are less costly and onerous than active adaptive management. However, passive approaches may reduce adaptive management to simple trial and error, potentially leading to erroneous inferences and connections between cause and effect. Strong reliance on passive approaches therefore could hinder rather than advance learning.

Nyberg (1999) suggests that passive adaptive management may be a reasonable alternative where:

• it is impossible or impractical to design a powerful experiment;

• the ecological costs of testing a range of actions is unacceptably high;

• there is a high level of certainty and agreement about which hypothesis is true, and thus which action is best; and

• past actions or natural disturbances provide reliable information about response over a range of conditions.

The Weyerhaeuser Adaptive Management Working Group uses passive AM to supplement, rather than replace, active AM while exploring their focus questions. They are testing predictions




related to their five AM questions through carefully designed and replicated variable retention experiments in their operations.

Also, an experimental landscape unit is being used to address the relevant questions at the landscape scale. At this scale the working group realized that many questions would not be answerable by simple comparisons, when long time frames and large areas are involved. To address this problem they are developing predictive models and working to find effective means to assess and validate those models.

To supplement the active AM program, passive AM is being used at the stand level to address the questions related to habitat structure retention and impacts on local populations of selected organisms. Permanent sample plots were established after logging within a range of standard operational VR cutblocks and corresponding baseline information was collected to monitor differences over time between operational treatments. It is hoped that together the active and passive approaches will yield more comprehensive data more quickly.

Recommendations for the HPG questions

Applying AM to resolve the questions posed above presents difficulties related both to time scale and to spatial variability in the landscape. To tackle the question of ECA most directly, a series of drainage basins should be identified and subjected to different harvest rates (including zero harvest controls), with monitoring of water outputs[AFP451]. Time constraints suggest [AFP452]that some form of community-industry-public sector partnership will have to plan and execute the program (it has proven difficult to maintain institutional focus on programs of this kind for the requisite time). However, the greatest difficulty will lie in selecting basins that reasonably can be compared, so unequivocal lessons can be learned. Recent developments in hydrological scaling theory may help to resolve the problems, but this circumstance suggests that this program may have to begin with a specialist (scientific) review.

To address the biodiversity questions, initial work should document “natural” levels of connectivity along streams. This can be viewed as baseline data collection. Subsequent active studies and passive monitoring should examine how a variety of organisms (not just birds) use these corridors. This question will involve research (field and landscape-level modelling experiments) as well as adaptive management.

Also, scientists and managers have realized the inadequacy of practices to protect small streams over the past decade, and research and adaptive management has begun to address this question already (e.g., Weyerhaeuser’s small stream retention program). Further studies, preferably active, in other geographic areas are necessary.

In comparison, the question of identifying high risk basins might be pursued by compiling operational experience for analysis in a statistical experiment[AFP453]. In this case, the focus would have to be placed on defining operational measurements that are sufficiently standard to permit construction of a database that can be properly evaluated statistically.




3. Implementing, Monitoring, and Evaluating: Monitoring and Data Analysis Protocols

Three types of monitoring are associated with an AM program. A form of all three may be required in either active or passive approaches, depending on the key questions being explored.

Implementation monitoring[AFP454]

This monitoring ensures that the management prescribed by the HPG is actually being implemented correctly. If implementation is incorrect, outcomes will not be meaningful. Depending on the management action being explored correct implementation may at times be obvious, requiring only a cursory check. Others will need more rigorous monitoring.

Effectiveness monitoring

Effectiveness monitoring answers the question of “did it work for what we intended it to do?” This type of monitoring looks at whether the prescribed management action is attaining the objectives for each indicator.

Validation monitoring

Validation monitoring tests the assumptions associated with the HPG model parameters and relationships. This monitoring attempts to test areas of uncertainty.

Monitoring and data analysis requirements

At this point the following will be determined for each question being examined in the adaptive management program[AFP455]:

• the type and amount of baseline (pre-treatment) data required;

• frequency, timing, and duration of monitoring;

• indicators to be monitored at each interval;

• appropriate spatial scales for monitoring different indicators;

• who is responsible for undertaking different aspects of monitoring.

• specific method(s) that will be used to analyze data:

– set up system for managing data over the long term (e.g., storage, analysis, access).

– agree on who will interpret data and who will have access to it.

• specific protocols for prompt analysis and reporting as soon as useful information and trends are evident. The emphasis should be to provide feedback to the manager as rapidly as possible.

All of these requirements must be carefully considered to maximize efficiencies and meet budget expectations.




4. Adjusting Management Actions or Objectives

At the start of the adaptive management program, it may be useful to:

• Identify who needs what information, and when it is needed to make timely changes.

• Define the intensity and degree of response in an indicator that will trigger a change in management actions or objectives.

• Establish a system to communicate results.

As analysis of monitoring results start to suggest adjustments in management actions those adjustments will reflect the trade-off between the costs of acting if preliminary results later prove to be incorrect, and the costs of not acting if they later prove to be correct. Careful analysis and discussion with scientists, managers, and stakeholders at the strategic level will be required.

Timely communication of emerging results and information to all practitioners and stakeholders is critical to complete the feedback loop. The Weyerhaeuser Program uses an annual meeting of an international panel of scientists to communicate with the scientific community and ENGOs outside of their AM working group. As well, they have an operational working group within Weyerhaeuser with membership from all Timberland divisions to communicate results to the field. Responsibility for coordination of the entire program and the associated communication rests with designated staff at the Nanaimo Coastal Timberlands office.

References for Appendix 9

Beese, B. 2002. Personal communication.

Holling, C.S. (editor). 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Lee, K.N. 1999. Appraising adaptive management. Conservation Ecology 3(2):3.

Nyberg, B. 1999. An introductory guide to adaptive management for project leaders and participants. B.C. Ministry of Forests, Forest Practices Branch, Victoria, B.C.

Taylor, B., L. Kremsater, and R. Ellis. 1997. Adaptive management of forests in British Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Forests, Forest Practices Branch, Victoria, B.C.

Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. MacMillan, New York.




Appendix 10 Technical and background reports

Prior to the development of this hydroriparian planning guide, a series of technical reports reviewed the literature and made recommendations in relation to hydrological, aquatic, and terrestrial aspects of hydroriparian ecosystems. Background reports produced for LRMP processes in the North and Central Coast have also provided information. The guide does not cite primary literature, but refers interested readers to the reports listed below.

Technical Report #1: Trainor, K. 2001. Geomorphological/hydrological assessment of the Central Coast plan area.

Technical Report #2: Trainor, K. 2001. Ecosystem sub-units: Central Coast, North Coast & Haida Gwaii Plan Areas.

Technical Report #3: Church, M and B. Eaton. 2001. Hydrological effects of forest harvest in the Pacific Northwest.

Technical Report #4: Young, K. 2001. A review and meta-analysis of the effects of riparian zone logging on stream ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest.

Technical Report #5: Bunnell, F.L., G.D. Sutherland, and T.R. Wahbe. 2001. Vertebrates associated with riparian habitats on British Columbia’s mainland coast.

Technical Report #6: Zielke, K. and B. Bancroft. 2001. A comparison of riparian protection approaches in the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia.

Technical Report #7: Price, K and D. McLennan. 2002. Impacts of forest harvesting on terrestrial riparian ecosystems of the Pacific Northwest.

Holt, R. and G. Sutherland. 2001. Environmental risk assessment: base case coarse filter biodiversity. Background report for the North Coast LRMP.

Pojar, J. et al. 1999. Silvicultural options in the Central Coast. Report for the Central Coast LCRMP.

Price K. and D. McLennan. 2001 Hydroriparian ecosystems of the North Coast. Background report for the North Coast LRMP.




Glossary

Abundant ecosystems: Ecosystems that are especially common, that define the character of a region [AFP456](e.g., bogs in the Hecate Lowland). See Box 5 [AFP457]for a list of abundant ecosystems in each subregion.

Active channel: The area [AFP458]within the lower limit of continuous terrestrial vegetation, which is more or less well defined on most streambanks. Within the active channel, vegetation is restricted to species able to survive extended periods of inundation[AFP459]. (Technical Report 3)

Active floodplain: Areas adjacent to a stream channel that are flooded frequently. Some analysts describe the active floodplain as the wet floodplain. (Technical Report 3)

Adaptive management: A formal process of “learning by doing”, where management practices are designed to increase understanding about the impact of management on the system being managed. Adaptive management (“active” adaptive management) uses formal experimental techniques. “Passive” adaptive management has been defined as adaptive management that does not use formal experimental techniques. Although active adaptive management is more powerful; “passive” adaptive management may also be useful. (Technical Reports 6 & 7, North Coast Background Report)

Alluvial fan: Cone-like sediment accumulations that develop where streams reach the valley floor and deposit sediment and organic debris. From apex to toe, fans have a slope gradient up to and including 26%. (Technical Reports 1 & 7)

Biodiversity: The diversity of organisms in all their forms and levels of organization, including genes, species, ecosystems, and the evolutionary and functional processes that link them. (Technical Reports 5 & 7)

Biodiversity hotspots: Particularly diverse ecosystems (e.g., floodplains).

Biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification (BEC): A system that groups similar segments of the landscape (ecosystems) in categories of a hierarchical classification system. An ecosystem is the product of a complex interaction of vegetation, animals, microorganisms, and the physical environment. For the purposes of BEC, an ecosystem is defined as a particular plant community and its associated topography, soil, and climate

Blue-listed species: In British Columbia, the designation of an indigenous species, sub-species, or population as being vulnerable or at risk because of low or declining numbers or presence in vulnerable habitats. Included in this classification are populations generally suspected of being vulnerable, but for which information is too limited to allow designation in another category. (Technical Reports 5 & 7)

Coarse filter: An approach to managing biodiversity using broad ecosystem types to assess consequences of management. Coarse filter strategies aim to capture sufficient habitat to maintain most ecosystems, species, and genes through time. In contrast, fine filter approaches deal with species or other elements that may not be managed adequately through a coarse filter approach (e.g., rare species). In the hydroriparian planning guide risk is only addressesd risk




only to for coarse filter biodiversity, and refers managers to other processes and models for fine filter considerations.

CDC listings: The British Columbia Conservation Data Centre (CDC) systematically collects and disseminates information on the rare and endangered plants, animals and plant communities of British Columbia. This information is compiled and maintained in a computerized database which provides a centralized and scientific source of information on the status, locations, and level of protection of these rare organisms and ecosystems. (Technical Reports 5 & 7)

Deposition zone: Deposition zone channels receive material from source and transport zone channels as well as from adjacent riparian zones. Situated at drainage basin outlets, deposition zones [AFP460]include alluvial fans and deltas. Deposition zone channels are unconfined valley bottom rivers characterized by horizontal migration across floodplains and valley bottoms or channels on active alluvial fans. (Technical Report 1)

Disturbance regime: Disturbance regime encompasses the type, extent, frequency, and intensity of events that disturb or displace ecological processes. They create characteristic spatial and temporal patterns on landscapes and leave structural legacies within stands. In the area of the planning guide, most disturbance events are due to flooding, debris flows, slides, and snow avalanches with some wind and rare fire disturbances.

Downed wood: Dead wood in various stages of decay that provides habitat for fungi, micro-organisms, plants, animals, and their predators, and structures aquatic systems[AFP461]. Process zones receive wood from different sources. In the source zone, most wood travels downslope during mass wasting events. In the transportation and deposition zones, most wood comes from adjacent riparian forest. (Technical Reports 3 & 4)

Drainage basin: The area drained by a river or stream and its tributaries. See watershed.

Drainage divide: Ridge between two drainage basins that divides surface and shallow subsurface runoff between them.

Dry/high floodplain: Floodplain that is higher than wet floodplains, flooded infrequently (approximately once in 6 to once in 30 years), and does not exhibit wetland vegetation types (unless flooded from the valleyside). Within the biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification, “high fluvial bench” corresponds to dry floodplain. (Technical Reports 3 & 7)

Ecosystem-based management (EBM): An adaptive approach to managing human activities that seeks to ensure the coexistence of healthy, fully functioning ecosystems and human communities. The intent is to maintain those spatial and temporal characteristics and processes of whole ecosystems such that component species and ecological processes can be sustained, and human social, economic, and cultural activities can be enhanced. (Coast Information Team, April 2001 publication).

Ecosystem productivity: The ability of an ecosystem to produce, grow, or yield organisms.

Ephemeral streams: Streams that flow for only a short time. Ephemeral streams carry only storm runoff, derived from saturation seepage or from overland flow[AFP462]. They may change routes periodically. (Technical Report 3)




Estuary: The embayed mouth of a river where the tide meets the river flow, creating brackish water zones with a range of salinity. Extremely rich and productive ecosystems exist where tidal marine water and sediment mixes with freshwater and river sediment. (Technical Report 7)

Fan: See alluvial fan.

Forested swamp: Wooded mineral wetland or a wooded peatland [AFP463]with standing or gently flowing water in pools and channels. The water table is usually at or very near the surface. Waters are nutrient-rich. (Technical Report 7)

Hydrological regime: The pattern of occurrence in time of water at or near the surface of the Earth (e.g., temporal changes in stream flow, soil moisture, groundwater levels, precipitation). (Technical Report 3)

Hydroriparian ecosystem[AFP464]: Aquatic ecosystems plus adjacent terrestrial ecosystems that are influenced by, or influence, the aquatic system. They extend vertically, below ground in the soil [AFP465](especially in near-stream gravels), and above ground toward the vegetation canopy[AFP466]. (Technical Reports 3 & 7)

Hydroriparian functions: Hydroriparian functions can be classified into three types: (1) maintaining environmental character (e.g., containing rare ecosystems[AFP467]), (2) movement of materials linking portions of the landscape (e.g., transporting water downstream, above and below the ground); and (3) reciprocal influences of water and land (e.g., providing sediment, downed wood, shade).

Hydroriparian zone: Area that extends to the edge of the influence of water on land defined by plant community (including high-bench or dry floodplain communities) or landform (e.g., gullies) plus one and a half site-specific tree heights (horizontal distance) beyond. In the transportation and deposition process zones, the hydroriparian zone includes the entire valley bottom plus one and a half tree heights. (Technical Reports 3 and 6)

Hydroriparian ecosystem network: A geographically distributed system of riparian reserves and management areas that provides both habitat and corridor functions.

Hydroriparian process zone: Discrete zone in a watershed where the movement of water, sediment, and organic material toward and through streams and standing water occurs in distinct ways. Hydroriparian process zones include source zone, consisting of upland and slope areas; transport zone, the trunk valley [AFP468]through which sediment is moved with storage in a floodplain; and deposition zone, where sediments are stored for a long term (typically alluvial fans, downstream floodplains and deltas).

Hyporheic: Pertaining [AFP469]to the saturated zone immediately beneath and adjacent to a stream channel through which streamwater flows, with frequent exchange between channel and subsurface flow.

Indicators: Indicators are measures that index the state of complex functions that are difficult to assess. Good indicators respond to management actions, are related clearly to the function considered, can be measured or described simply, are relatively insensitive to factors beyond the management actions considered, and are appropriate for the purpose and scale considered. Indicators can be developed for planning, for monitoring management actions (e.g., seral stage




distribution along streams) and for monitoring the effects of actions (e.g., populations of riparian-associated organisms). Planning indicators usually describe landscape state and include spatial summaries (e.g., equivalent clearcut area) that can be read from maps and projected through time. These indicators can be used as the basis for risk assessment.

(North Coast Background Report)

Interior old growth: Old growth forest situated away from the effect of open areas[AFP470]. Forest interior conditions include particular microclimates and organisms found within large forested areas, and exclude edge species.

Karst: Pertains to landforms and processes associated with dissolution of soluble rocks such as limestone, marble, dolomite, or gypsum; characterized by underground drainage, caves, and sinkholes. (Technical Report 7)

Land-on-water influences: Land influences adjacent [AFP471]water by providing downed wood, organic material, and shade; filtering sediment and dissolved materials; stabilizing banks; and providing sediment. Land-on-water influences extend at least one tree height from the water (Technical Reports 4 and 7)

Landscapes: Interacting geographic areas that are bounded by physical features and that contain similar patterns of watersheds and vegetation cover. Ecological landscapes have no fixed size; practical sizes for landscapes in a forest planning context on British Columbia’s coast generally range from 50,000 hectares to 250,000 hectares. Describing the landscape around a watershed of interest provides the context for decisions made at the watershed level.

Microclimate: The climatic conditions (wind, temperature, humidity, etc.) of a local area. Microclimatic effects of streams can extend to several tree heights beyond the bank. (Technical Report 3)

Microterrain features[AFP472]: Small-scale terrain features not easily described using the range of surface expressions found in the B.C. Terrain Classification System (e.g., karst hollows, tree-throw mounds).

Natural disturbance regime: The disturbance regime in a landscape not significantly affected by post-colonization human activity, including, for example, landslides and other episodic mass wasting events, windthrow, diseases, and, more rarely, fire. (Technical Reports 1 & 3, North Coast Background Report)

Natural riparian forest: The amount and type (deciduous, old growth coniferous, etc.) of riparian forest that would occur under natural disturbance regimes. The actual amount and type varies over time within the range of natural variability.

Off-channel habitat: In streams, minor channels and pools in the floodplain, wetlands, and low areas adjacent to the channel that provide escape areas and habitat during seasonal or storm high flows

Old growth forests[AFP473]: Old forests that are defined by a group of attributes, including age, multi-layered canopies, canopy gaps, high levels of decayed wood, and large trees for the ecosystem productivity. Due to a lack of inventory for these attributes, old growth forests are considered to be those forests mapped as older than 250 years. On British Columbia’s coast, most




of these forests are actually much older than 250 years and likely much older than the age of individual trees because stand-replacing disturbances are rare. Old growth forests contain the highest level of biological diversity, compared to other seral stages.

Old growth equivalent: Forest that has been managed, but has recovered age and structure sufficiently to be considered of value equal to unmanaged old forest. Forests achieve oldgrowth equivalence more quickly following high levels of retention.

Oligotrophic: Nutrient poor. Containing [AFP474]few nutrients and few organisms.

Perennial stream: Stream that flows year round (Technical Report 3)

Polygon: A closed, irregular geometric figure. In this report, polygon refers to terrain polygons, areal units on the land surface that are uniform with respect to landform, surficial materials and slope, hence identified and classified on a terrain map. Terrain polygons are typically comparable in area with forest development sites[AFP475].

Precautionary guidelines: Guidelines that follow the precautionary principle. In this report, guidelines that are used when a risk assessment is not completed[AFP476].

Precautionary principle: The adoption of measures to reduce potential harm resulting from human activities or environmental change even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically". It includes taking action in the face of uncertainty; shifting burdens of proof to those who create risks; analysis of alternatives to potentially harmful activities. (Technical Reports 4 & 7)

Predictive Ecosystem Mapping (ssPEM): Surrogate for terrestrial ecosystem mapping that does not require field work, but instead uses existing maps, data, and knowledge of ecological – landscape relationships.

Primary watershed: A watershed that drains directly to the ocean; the term is usually applied to small, coastal watersheds that do not form tributaries within larger watersheds[AFP477].

Process zone: Watersheds can be split into three process zones [AFP478](source, transport, and deposition), among which hydroriparian functions, processes, and risks vary. (Technical Report 1)

Rare ecosystems: Uncommon ecosystems that require special consideration when determining acceptable levels of risk. The Conservation Data Centre compiles lists of rare ecosystems for British Columbia. Red-listed ecosystems typically have 20 or fewer good examples in British Columbia, blue-listed have fewer than 100. Not all rare ecosystems are listed by CDC. (Technical Report 7, North Coast Background Report)

Recovery curves: Curves describing the recovery of ecosystem elements (e.g., stand structure, vegetation, soil biota, epiphytic biota) over time. They can be used to asses the functional integrity of a disturbed stand.

Red-listed species: In British Columbia, the designation of an indigenous species, sub-species, or population as endangered or threatened because of its low abundance and consequent danger of extirpation or extinction. (Technical Reports 5 &7)

Riparian corridor: An area composed of continuous riparian habitat (e.g., the land on either side of a river bank or around a lake). (Technical Report 7)




Riparian forest: Forests [AFP479]influenced by water (including high-bench floodplain) plus an area extending one and a half tree heights beyond.

Risk: In ecological terms, risk denotes the possibility for ecosystem features or functions to be changed or lost—in effect, exposure to potential loss. In the context of land management, it is interpreted as the probability (i.e., relative exposure) that an undesired outcome (loss) will result from a particular management action. (Technical Report 6)

Risk assessment: Consists of calculating the exposure by use of an indicator value for a hydroriparian ecosystem, watershed, or landscape, determining the indicated risk from indicator-risk curves, determining acceptable levels of risk, and comparing the resulting values with acceptable levels. (North Coast Background Report)

Seasonal stream: Stream [AFP480]that flows throughout most of the year but may dry up during portions of the dry season. They are a stable source of water and may have rich communities of aquatic invertebrates[AFP481], including some specialist species found less frequently in perennial streams, that are useful discriminators between seasonal and ephemeral (q.v.) status. (Technical Report 3)

Sedge fen: Sedge-dominated wetland occurring in a landscape depression with mineral seepage. (Technical Report 7)

Sensitive terrain: Terrain units with a stability class rating of IV (potentially unstable) or V (unstable). Class IV terrain is expected to contain areas with a moderate to high likelihood of landslide initiation following timber harvesting or road construction by conventional means. Class V terrain exhibits evidence of instability and is expected to contain areas with a high likelihood of landslide initiation following timber harvesting or road construction.

Seral stage: Any stage of development of an ecosystem from a disturbed, unvegetated state to a climax plant community[AFP482]. It defines the structural attributes and age of a plant community. (Technical Reports 5 & 7)

Site: One or more discrete units, typically one hectare to several tens of hectares in size[AFP483]. The appropriate mapping scale for site-level planning ranges from 1:2,000 to 1:5,000.

Site series: Describes all land areas capable of producing the same late seral or climax plant community within a biogeoclimatic subzone or variant (Banner et al. 1993). Site series can usually be related to a specified range of soil moisture and nutrient regimes within a subzone or variant, but other factors, such as aspect or disturbance history may influence it as well. Site series form the basis of ecosystem units. In this report, site series is equivalent to “plant community” (Technical Report 7)

Slope/blanket bog: A peatland with the water table at or near the surface, sustained by precipitation. The bog surface (which my be raised or flat) is unaffected by minerotrophic ground water. Bogs are nutrient-poor and home to specialized species. Bogs may be treed or treeless, and they are usually covered with sphagnum moss and ericaceous shrubs. (Technical Report 7)

Source zone: The upland area of the watershed, constituting the majority of channel length[AFP484]. Source zone channels will generally be small upland/headwater streams. Channels in these steep source zones receive material directly from hillslopes via snow




avalanches and landslides, deliver fine sediments and nutrients to larger channels continually, and large sediment and organic debris to larger channels episodically via debris torrents, avalanches, and landslides. In wetland source zones, streams may receive mainly organic materials, and may transport only fine organic material. (Technical Report 1)

Stream morphology: The characteristics of a stream including width, depth, gradient, step-pool, and riffle sequences and bank characteristics. Stream channel morphology reflects the concentration and calibre of sediment [AFP485]moving down the channel. (Technical Reports 3, 4 & 6)

Subregion: An extended area that is homogeneous with respect to the defining criterion[AFP486]. In this guide, ecological and hydrological criteria define homogeneous subregions. Subregional analysis is carried out on 1:250,000 scale maps. The guide currently defines eleven such regions (Box 2[AFP487]). This division is based on similarity [AFP488]of hydrology, slope conditions and ecosystems within the subregions. It is expected that regional information describing hydrology, slope stability and ecosystems within each unit may lead to further sub-division. (Technical Reports 1, 2, & 7, Central Coast Background Report)

Surficial materials: Defined as non-lithified, unconsolidated sediments. They are materials produced by weathering, sediment deposition, biological accumulation, human and volcanic activity. In general, surficial materials are of relatively young geological age and they constitute the parent material of most soils. Other terms virtually synonymous with “surficial material” are “Quaternary sediments” and “unconsolidated materials.” Surficial materials are usually classified as to their genesis (e.g., fluvial sediments, colluvium, glaciolacustrine sediments). (Technical Report 1)

Terrain mapping: A method to categorize, describe and delineate characteristics and attributes of surficial materials, landforms, and geological processes within the natural landscape. (Technical Report 1)

Terrain resource inventory mapping (TRIM): The system of largest scale topographic mapping issued by the Province of British Columbia (scale 1:20 000). The complete mapping system includes overlays for terrain and cultural attributes[AFP489].

Terrestrial ecosystem mapping (TEM): The division of a landscape into map units, showing biogeoclimatic site series, defined by a combination of ecological features, primarily climate, physiography, surficial material, bedrock geology, soil, and vegetation. It provides a biological and ecological framework for land management[AFP490].

Transport zone: These channels receive material from source zone channels and directly from adjacent riparian zones[AFP491]. This zone is typically situated in major valleys, with a valley flat and channels of intermediate size. Transport zone channels may be confined by hillslopes, migrate across valley floors, or alternate between confined and unconfined. They are associated with a discontinuous or continuous [AFP492]floodplain. (Technical Report 1)

Variable retention: Harvesting regime that retains a portion of the original stand, including live and dead standing trees and downed wood. The amount and pattern of retention varies. In this report, variable retention is referred to in the context of meeting ecological goals. (Technical Report 6)




Vulnerable species: <def’n missing[AFP493]>

Water-on-land influences: Water influences adjacent land by increasing/decreasing ecosystem productivity, modifying landscape morphology and modifying the microclimate of adjacent land[AFP494]. Water-on-land influences extend a variable distance depending upon landform and surficial materials. (Technical Report 7)

Watershed: The area drained by a river or stream and its tributaries. The size of the watershed will depend upon the size of the stream or river considered. From a practical planning standpoint, a watershed generally ranges in size from 500 to 50,000 hectares. Equivalent to drainage basin in North American useage, but also used to mean “drainage divide” (European useage).

Wet/low floodplain: Area adjacent to a stream channel that is flooded more frequently than once in 5 years and commonly exhibits wetland vegetation. Wet floodplains include old, filled channels and low floodplain surfaces. They form part or all of the active floodplain. Within the biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification, wet floodplains correspond to “low and middle fluvial benches.” (Technical Reports 3 & 7)

Wetlands: Semi-terrestrial sites where the water table is at, near, or above the soil surface and soils are water-saturated for a sufficient length of time that excess water and resulting low soil oxygen levels are principal determinants of vegetation and soils development. Wetlands must have either plant communities characterized by species that normally grow in soils water-saturated for a major portion of the growing season (hydrophytes) or soils with surface peat horizons [AFP495]or gleyed mineral horizons within 30 cm of the soil surface[AFP496]. (Technical Reports 5 & 7)

Page: 4 [AFP1]Figure numbering is inconsistent. Either Figure 1 is 1.1, or the figures are numbered consecutively from Fig. 1 to Fig. 8. Page: 4 [AFP2]Table numbering is also inconsistent. See comment 1. Page: 5 [AFP3]This is the passive object acting and is a common grammatical error in scientific writing, usually to avoid the passive construction. A inanimate object (the guide) can’t have an aim or “do” anything. People drive cars. Cars are driven. Cars don’t’ drive. That’s the passive object acting. This will be abbreviated to POA. Suggested change “The aim (or objective) of this guide is… Page: 5 [AFP4]actions? activities? A word is missing here. Page: 5 [AFP5]POA. A series of steps are specified… Page: 5 [AFP6]Were these reports peer-reviewed before being used as the bases for the guide? I think not, based on their content. See general comments. Page: 5 [AFP7]POA. This is also a goal, not an audience. And presumably the people involved in the LRMP tables and First Nations Plans, not the tables or plans themselves. The first audience is participants in the LRMP tables… Page: 5 [AFP8]POA. Its second audience is those involved in.... Page: 5 [AFP9]Who are not involved in these other planning processes? Page: 5 [AFP10]POA. Guides can’t accomplish goals. And this paragraph is about the audience for the guide. For the intended audiences, a plan Page: 5 [AFP11]Variables don’t impact function. Human actions impact function. …variables that measure human actions that….And after reading through the document, you need a good definition of function, which is lacking. Page: 5 [AFP12]This paragraph is not an adequate technical definition of hydroriparian ecosystems, and belies a lack of understanding of these systems on the part of the authors. See general comments. This paragraph needs to be completely rewritten so it is technically correct. First, the term “hydroriparian” will not be well understood, especially by the intended audiences, in contrast with the term “riparian.” I assume the authors followed the Clayoquot Sound Scientific Panel definition of hydroriparian equals aquatic plus riparian systems. This needs to be defined upfront, with the reference to the CSSP cited in a footnote or somewhere. Page: 5 [AFP13]Land and water interact everywhere on the planet through the hydrologic cycle. It does not follow that the entire planet is part of the hydroriparian system. Page: 5 [AFP14]My guess is that the authors are trying to follow the definition of riparian zones in Ward and Stanford (1989), which I think is the best definition. According to their definition, riparian systems extend in three dimensions; longitudinal (headwater – estuarine), lateral (riverine-riparian/floodplain) and vertical (riverine-hyporheic zone/groundwater). However, the text is not adequate to make these dimensions clear. Page: 5 [AFP15]This sentence repeats the previous. Page: 5 [AFP16]The intended audiences will not know what a hyporheic zone is. Page: 5 [AFP17]Invertebrates aren’t necessarily microbial organisms. And invertebrates and microbes are everywhere, including the terrestrial and stream systems. They aren’t unique to the hyporheic zone, although the latter plays an important role in their ecology, especially for stream macroinvertebrates.

Page: 5 [AFP18]Canopy interception occurs wherever there is vegetation, and is part of the hydrologic cycle. It is not unique to hydroriparian ecosystems. Page: 5 [AFP19]No. The hydroriparian ecosystem is generally considered the zone of interaction between terrestrial and aquatic systems. Because we don’t know the extent of the hydroriparian ecosystem, and its extent varies with the variable of interest, for management purposes, a hydroriparian zone is defined, usually arbitrarily (e.g. number of tree heights or distance from stream bank.) The assumption is that the zone is sufficient for encompassing the processes of the hydroriparian system and that the zone of interaction between the aquatic/marine and terrestrial environments must be protected to maintain function in both systems. See (Gregory 1997). This sentence also repeats the first sentence. Page: 5 [AFP20]Riverine and riparian are redundant. Riparian refers to bank of a stream. And the most diverse systems are the low-elevation floodplain forests where river channels are unconstrained. Page: 5 [AFP21]Hydroriparian ecosystems and zones are generally not considered synonyms because zones are arbitrarily defined. The authors need to be clear about their terms and be consistent with their use. Page: 6 [AFP22]All ecosystems change with the influences of disturbance and succession. Page: 6 [AFP23]This statement makes no sense and is untrue. The implication is of the statement that the because of high precipitation, the distinction between uplands and wetlands is unclear, which is untrue. First, upland is generally considered the area of forest not influenced by riparian processes. However, that term will probably not be understood by the audiences (and is not in the glossary). Second, the distinction between wetlands and uplands can be quite clear. Often wetlands such as bogs form as a function of topography and parent material conditions. These can create very distinct boundaries on the landscape Page: 6 [AFP24]How did channels get into this discussion? All riparian ecosystems can extend well beyond wetlands and channels, e.g. the hyporheic zone in unconstrained alluvial channels can extend for several kilometres. But that has nothing to do with the climate, but the geomorphology of the system . I would delete this entire paragraph. It makes so sense and adds nothing. Page: 6 [AFP25]Drainage basin or watershed? Generally, the terms are considered synonyms, but to use both will be confusing for the audience. I’d use the term watershed. It is more commonly used and will be better understood by the audience. This paragraph actually has more to do with approach than with a definition of hydroriparian ecosystems. Page: 6 [AFP26]This sentence will not make any sense at all to the audience. There’s a better way of saying upstream actions and processes influence processes downstream. Page: 6 [AFP27]And deleted. Page: 6 [AFP28]Do the authors mean coarse and fine particulate matter? I would omit the parentheses. Page: 6 [AFP29]Energy is “foodstuffs.” Further, this statement is incorrect. Streams are detrivore-driven systems, primarily derived from forest inputs, i.e. leaves, twigs, wood etc. Plants (and trees) aren’t usually considered “organisms.” That terms usually refers to members of the animal kingdom. Page: 6 [AFP30]Wood, nutrients, sediment and organisms also move longitudinally and vertically as well as horizontally. Page: 6 [AFP31]Again, these statements are about the approach taken, not hydroriparian ecosystems. I would move or incorporate this paragraph in that section. Page: 6 [AFP32]and water

Page: 6 [AFP33]More simply stated, resource development changes ecosystem structure and thus function. Page: 6 [AFP34]Meaning? The term is not in the glossary. If the major objective of this planning guide is a means of minimizing risks to ecosystem viability, then that term needs to be explicitly defined. Page: 6 [AFP35]A further problem is that this measure is in terms of dollars, but it is difficult to put a monetary value on ecosystem services. I would add this into the statement because most users of this guide will think of risk in this way. Page: 6 [AFP36]Meaning this guide? If so, it should be explicitly stated that the authors define risk this way. Page: 6 [AFP37]POA. In this guide, a risk assessment procedure is proposed for …. Page: 7 [AFP38]Meaning inexpensive to determine? Page: 7 [AFP39]POA. Guides can’t recommend. Accordingly, wherever feasible, it is recommended… Page: 7 [AFP40]Many foresters would argue that’s what they already do. The difference is that adaptive management uses more rigorous criteria and a formal experimental technique, which needs to be incorporated into the definition, which it currently isn’t. I would combine these two sentences. “Adaptive management entails….” Page: 7 [AFP41]The intended audience will probably not know what “hypotheses to be tested means” or the significance of this statement. Page: 7 [AFP42]watersheds Page: 7 [AFP43]watersheds Page: 7 [AFP44]But were these developed by experts? After reading through the document, and the number of mistakes, especially with respect to understanding of ecology and riparian forest ecology, I doubt it. See comments on Technical Reports. Page: 8 [AFP45]Is this the same as ecosystem viability? If so, use one term, either viability or integrity, not both. Page: 8 [AFP46]What is “ecological precaution?” Ecological is not a modifier to the precaution. Page: 8 [AFP47]What is active versus passive adaptive management? The audience won’t understand these terms. Page: 8 [AFP48]This is the grammatically correct sentence structure. Page: 8 [AFP49]Why is this objective repeated in the audience section? I would eliminate the audience section, and put a couple of sentences in the objectives about the intended audiences. Page: 8 [AFP50]Again, zones are not ecosystems. Zone needs to be explicitly defined. Page: 8 [AFP51]POA…the focus of the HPG is…with direction… Page: 8 [AFP52]These sentences basically make no sense. Watersheds are recognized as functional units in coastal temperate rain forests (Montgomery et al. 1995) and are a logical framework for assessing changes of ecosystem structure and function associated with management on hydroriparian systems. Are site-level planning part of this guide or is it part of another planning system Page: 8 [AFP53]POA. A set of procedures (or steps or stages?) is provided.. Again, be consistent with terms.

Page: 8 [AFP54]Currently? Or this is the procedure proposed in this guide? Page: 8 [AFP55]Figure 1 does not convey these scales. See comments with the Figure. Page: 9 [AFP56]Will the audience understand that higher level is subregion and lower level is site? Page: 9 [AFP57]What is ecosystem representation? Page: 9 [AFP58]This sentence makes no sense. Page: 9 [AFP59]This figure takes up half a page in a document that is too long, and makes no intuitive sense. I think what the authors are trying to say is that the emphasis in the guide is at the watershed scale, which only takes up one sentence. I would delete this figure as the idea of different scales in already stated in the text. Most people will understand the idea of landscape, watershed and site. Subregion will probably need to be defined, but it could be defined in that section of the text, or as a footnote. Page: 10 [AFP60]Or steps or procedures? Use one term and stick with it. Page: 10 [AFP61]The numbering in this section is inconsistent with the text. Using letters would be very confusing, since the letters repeat. I would stick with the 1.1., 1.2 etc. format for clarity. Page: 10 [AFP62]What are higher level plans, when subregions are supposed to be the highest level of plan in this document? Page: 10 [AFP63]assess what? Page: 10 [AFP64]POA. Each step is described… Again, is it a stage, step or something else? And are they synonyms or something different? Page: 10 [AFP65]watersheds Page: 10 [AFP66]So why separate them in this guide? This paragraph makes no sense, and can easily be deleted. Page: 11 [AFP67]What is a subregion? A short (one sentence) definition is necessary. And is a subregion different or the same as the sub-units in the map? Again, be consistent with terms. Page: 11 [AFP68]Is this the purpose of this step? If so, say so. As it is written, all planners do in the HPG is determine subregion etc. If this is the overall approach of the HPG, this statement should be in that section. Page: 11 [AFP69]POA. Explicit planning measures are not specified…. Page: 11 [AFP70]POA… but it is assumed that planning at this… Page: 11 [AFP71]If planning at this stage (or scale?) has occurred elsewhere, why is this step (or scale or stage) in the HPG? Page: 11 [AFP72]The map is of sub-units. Page: 11 [AFP73]The subregions are not ecologically and hydrologically homogeneous. See comments at Appendix 2. Page: 11 [AFP74]homogeneous and similar are not synonyms. And the audience won’t know what homogeneous means. Page: 11 [AFP75]HPG?

Page: 11 [AFP76]Is risk determined at this stage? If not, omit this sentence. Page: 11 [AFP77]POA. Estimates of … are provided for each subregion… Page: 11 [AFP78]The data presented are not natural disturbance regimes and they cannot be used to assess risk. See comments Appendix 5. Page: 11 [AFP79]What are higher level plans? At a larger spatial scale? Page: 12 [AFP80]Fig. 2 is not in the Table of Contents. There are a lot of mistakes in this figure, including a confusing inconsistency of terms. Are subregions the same as sub-units? The biogeoclimatic subzones are not in the legend and should properly be designated as CWHvh etc.. The physiographic zones and subzones are not in the legend. Are subregions the same as physiographic subzones? If not, how are they different? This figure would be less confusing if it were larger. I would move this figure to the section on defining subregions. The other obvious question on seeing the figure are “what are subregions?”, which isn’t answered in this section. Page: 13 [AFP81]POA. through a risk assessment…which ecosystems that need… Page: 13 [AFP82]Most of Appendix 6 has risks at the watershed scale, so how can it be used at the subregional scale? Page: 13 [AFP83]I think what the authors are trying to say is that ecosystems that are rare at the broad regional scale (e.g. alluvial floodplain forests) need to be identified upfront and they could be missed at smaller scales, such as the watershed scale. However, this is important, but not at all clear from the text, especially by referencing Appendix 6. Page: 14 [AFP84]What’s a target watershed? Page: 14 [AFP85]What’s a watershed unit and is it different from a target watershed? Page: 14 [AFP86]This definition won’t make any sense to the target audiences. I would omit defining a landscape. I think the concept is generally well understood, and doesn’t a strict academic (and so confusing) definition. Watersheds haven’t been defined, and again I think the idea of “a watershed” is well understood. Page: 14 [AFP87]What are landscape units? And defined through what land-use planning? If this is an attempt to link to planning terms already in use, say so eg. the landscape used in HPG is similar to landscape units in Planning Book X. Page: 14 [AFP88]This phrase makes no sense. Different landscape units overlap? Page: 14 [AFP89]But if watersheds are the unit of analyses used, then this statement is unnecessary. Page: 14 [AFP90]POA. The focus of the HPG is…And if this is the focus of the HPG, it should have already been stated upfront, and doesn’t need to be repeated here. Page: 14 [AFP91]So why is there Stage 2.0 Define Landscape then? Page: 14 [AFP92]ecosystem processes or planning processes? Page: 14 [AFP93]Weren’t rare ecosystems covered in Stage 1? Page: 14 [AFP94]What are unique features? Do they include fish traps, middens and other elements of concern for aboriginal peoples? Page: 14 [AFP95]What are watershed groupings and what is the CIT Ecosystem Spatial Analyses? If the watershed

groupings are similar to Cheong (1996), they won’t be sufficiently sensitive to pick up geomorphic variation between the watersheds (Pearson in prep). Page: 14 [AFP96]More than one? Do the authors mean that this planning process must be conducted for each watershed, or for groups of watersheds within the same landscape?? Page: 14 [AFP97]You also need something very basic, the area of the landscape that has already been cut, including old logging, and the spatial location. The extent of previous harvesting especially in valley bottoms, has been extensive, but is not necessarily evident at the watershed scale (Pearson in prep). See general comments. Page: 14 [AFP98]POA. Watershed groupings… contain information… Page: 15 [AFP99]They might be quite useless then for assessing range of natural variability in terrestrial and riparian systems, or describing watershed features that are germane to harvesting considerations. Page: 15 [AFP100]The target watershed? Page: 15 [AFP101]Target watershed? Or the watershed that has been extensively logged? And is some cases, the adjacent landscape will be high elevation, and so not logged. Does that mean that more development can occur in the target watershed? The way it’s written, the answer to that question is yes. Page: 15 [AFP102]This is more likely a function of geology and geomorphology, which should have been encompassed in subregions, which are supposed to be similar in these features. E.g. debris flows are minor features in the Hectate Lowland because of the subdued topography, versus the Coast Mountains where they are common because of steep terrain and extensive glaciation (and so source of abundant surficial material). Page: 15 [AFP103]What is stream channel morphology? Each time a new term is introduced, it needs a one-sentence explanation. Otherwise the text is confusing, and most people will not flip back and forth to the glossary. Page: 15 [AFP104]Rare ecosystems is not a hydroriparian function. Functions are ongoing ecosystem processes, such as photosynthesis, decomposition, hydrologic cycling etc. Often hydroriparian ecosystems are rare (e.g. alluvial floodplain forests) because they have been preferentially logged. It has nothing to do with hydroriparian function. “Rare” and “high value” are human judgements, not functions. Page: 15 [AFP105]What is coarse filter biodiversity? And how is it different from biodiversity? The target audiences will not understand this term. Page: 15 [AFP106]POA. The assessments can be used as a basis for planning… Page: 15 [AFP107]What are lower levels? The watershed scale? If so, what stage is it? And do these attributes need to be assessed more than once? Remember, to a geographer (and probably planner) small scale means 1:60,000 and the landscape-scale and large scale means 1:20,000 and the watershed scale. To foresters and the public (and aboriginal peoples) small-scale means more detailed e.g. the watershed, and small scale mean less detail, i.e. the landscape scale. The meanings are completely opposite depending on who the audience is, so be careful, be explicit, or use different terms. Page: 15 [AFP108]I would say that stream morphology is assessed at this scale, because it’s the scale at which processes that influence it operate. Page: 15 [AFP109]What is a primary watershed? How is it different from a target watershed? Page: 15 [AFP110]What is a “larger drainage?” Do you mean subwatersheds within a watershed (or a primary watershed?) Generally, a watershed is defined is the area from sea-level to height of land that is drained by the same river system. How is a drainage basin different?

Page: 15 [AFP111]What are “quantitative indicators to stream channel morphology?” Do you mean only average values within one watershed, or between several watersheds within the same drainage basin (assuming these are not synonyms?) Page: 15 [AFP112]Based on Appendix 3, most of those features can be determined on 1:50,000 air photos, although small streams might be difficult. Page: 15 [AFP113]Given GIS data bases and air photos, why would there be a lack of information at the landscape scale? Does this statement mean that a series of watersheds should be planned for at the same time in this stage? If so, it’s not clear. Page: 16 [AFP114]Upon reading through this section, it strikes me it was written by someone else (it’s much better written than the previous sections) and was dropped into this document, without being integrated into the whole. See general comments. Page: 16 [AFP115]Finally, a definition of watershed, but it’s way too late. If the focus of the HPG is watersheds, then a watershed needs to be defined upfront. I would add to the definition a watershed encompasses sea-level to height of land. Page: 16 [AFP116]This has already been said. Page: 16 [AFP117]What about watersheds that are > 50,000 ha, e.g. the Kimsquit? Page: 16 [AFP118]You’ve already said this about three times. Why is attribute of surface water flow important? This section should be deleted or moved to the approach section. It’s a repeat. Page: 16 [AFP119]What is an hydroriparian ecosystem network? What does it have to do with reserves specified at the other scales? It doesn’t make sense to say that you develop a watershed plan that includes reserves at the watershed scale. Have these reserves been determined in previous stages, which were not at the watershed scale? Delineation of hydroriparian ecosystem networks and associated steps are not in the overview on p. 10 Page: 16 [AFP120]Isn’t this the goal of the HPG? If so, it should be in the approach section. Page: 16 [AFP121]This sentence is redundant. Page: 16 [AFP122]I would put in headings 3.1.1. etc. for clarity. Page: 16 [AFP123]This is a good example to follow: the terms are defined when they are first used. Page: 16 [AFP124]I doubt the audience will know what a map polygon is. Page: 16 [AFP125]The term is either air photos or aerial photography. Page: 17 [AFP126]When does a valley not include a valley flat? And what is a valley flat anyhow? (It’s not in the glossary). Page: 17 [AFP127]Will the audience know what a confined and unconfined channel are? They are not in the glossary, but are important with respect to the extent of the riparian forest. Page: 17 [AFP128]Is this different from a valley flat? Page: 18 [AFP129]What is a small stream? They are currently a source of lot of controversy, so need to be defined. And I can’t tell if this assumption is true, unless I know how a small stream is defined.

Page: 18 [AFP130]So what do you do with the maps that were generated in the previous stages? Page: 18 [AFP131]And what about bogs, swamps etc. i.e. other hydroriparian ecosystems? Page: 18 [AFP132]POA. Hydrologic connectivity… are not considered. Page: 18 [AFP133]I agree, but why are you using site series then in other stages? Page: 18 [AFP134]Riparian or hydroriparian? These are not synonyms. Page: 18 [AFP135]POA. And you already said this in the introduction, or should have. This paragraph essentially repeats the introduction or should be there. These ideas are part of the approach. Page: 18 [AFP136]This is an EXTREMELY important assumption, in fact the key assumption made in this document. It should be upfront in the introduction, not buried here. You can’t know the extent of hydroriparian ecosystems, therefore you arbitrarily define a zone for management purposes. Page: 18 [AFP137]What are high bench and dry floodplains? Page: 18 [AFP138]Make it clear that you have made this arbitrary decision. Page: 18 [AFP139]I don’t agree, and you contradict yourself a couple of sentences later. Page: 18 [AFP140]POA. The feature extending … is considered Page: 18 [AFP141]valley bottom? Page: 18 [AFP142]We also don’t know what constitutes the area of riparian influence for most mammals, never mind other organisms and it certainly is highly variable between species e.g. what a bear uses and a salamander uses are probably very different. Page: 18 [AFP143]Or hydroriparian? Page: 18 [AFP144]Wider than 1.5 tree heights? Page: 18 [AFP145]Which watershed map? The one generated in this exercise, or previous maps at previous stages or in this stage? Page: 19 [AFP146]POA. In the HPG, there is a method for… And I don’t agree that there is a method. Page: 19 [AFP147]Then make it clear that only rare ecosystems, not species are considered. Page: 19 [AFP148]POA. It is assumed…Planning processes or ecosystem processes? Page: 19 [AFP149]What are listed fish? Page: 20 [AFP150]This section is good. What about provisions for riparian/stream restoration? I think that is a crucial step in habitat refugia for salmon and maintaining hydroriparian function over the long term, which is the goal of this guide.. Page: 20 [AFP151]You previously said BEC wasn’t any good. So why are you using it? Page: 20 [AFP152]Haven’t you already done this in Step 1.4? Page: 20 [AFP153]This contradicts what you said about BEC earlier.

Page: 20 [AFP154]The influence of streams on terrestrial ecosystems isn’t solely moisture. The disturbance regimes are fundamentally different, which influences productivity, soil characteristics, parent material etc. in riparian versus upland forests. Page: 20 [AFP155]That depends on whether they are constrained or unconstrained channels. A bedrock constrained channel in the transport zone won’t have an extensive influence. Page: 20 [AFP156]Yes. But you’re not interested in a range of xeric to subhygric ecosystems. You are interested in hydroriparian systems. Water influences plant communities and their composition everywhere on the planet. Page: 20 [AFP157]What are these? Again, define your terms. These are not in the glossary either. Page: 20 [AFP158]These differences are a function of natural disturbance processes, and bench height is a result of those processes, not a cause of these differences. Page: 20 [AFP159]Since stand-replacing disturbances are rare, structure and structural diversity are more strongly linked to productivity than age per se. I would map productivity explicitly for two reasons. First, to see the degree of development that has already occurred in the most productive ecosystems, and is projected to occur, and second it will easily identify the most important areas for biodiversity. Holt and Sutherland (2003) follow this approach and show explicitly the degree to which productive ecosystems have been disproportionately harvested. The most productive forests are the most important economically and the most important for biodiversity. That is the essential dilemma of riparian forests in coastal temperate rain forests so you might as well be upfront about it. Further, not depending on valley floor width and other factors, not all alluvial floodplain forests will be equally productive. It would be valuable to explicitly identify the most productive sites (with the largest trees and the highest structural diversity). In terms of the objective of maintaining function in hydroriparian zones, maintaining productivity is one of the most important functions to maintain because it is the key to many other valuable attributes, such as habitat quality, for both terrestrial and aquatic species. Page: 20 [AFP160]Determining site series from field assessment will be very difficult as many of the watersheds are remote with difficult access. Page: 20 [AFP161]Natural disturbance? If you mean logging, say so. Page: 21 [AFP162] Why do you care about identifying natural disturbance type here? Page: 21 [AFP163]POA. If based on the risk assessment, there are … Page: 21 [AFP164]Risk was already defined in the introduction. This section is about approach, not what to do. It should be deleted, or added to the introduction. Page: 21 [AFP165]What are these? Page: 21 [AFP166]What are these? Page: 21 [AFP167]This sentence details what this step is about. Page: 21 [AFP168]Again, this should be in the introduction under approach. Page: 21 [AFP169]This paragraph is all introduction again. Page: 21 [AFP170]POA. Based on the risk assessment, risks of further development… Page: 21 [AFP171]POA. Based on modelling of recovery rates, estimates for future…

Page: 22 [AFP172]POA. A subset of indicators were selected.. Page: 22 [AFP173]This isn’t an adequate definition of riparian forest. Further, it’s the definition of riparian zone, not riparian forest. And why is something as important as this definition stuck in a footnote on p. 22? Whoever stuck this section into the main document didn’t seem to read the latter first. Are you assuming that previous to logging and in unlogged watersheds that the proportion of natural riparian forest is 100%? And do you mean “natural” in terms of influenced or created by natural disturbance processes? And are areas of red alder that naturally occur in active floodplains considered part of the “natural” riparian forest? If this is your key indicator, then it needs to be more clearly defined and the assumptions made explicit. Page: 22 [AFP174]Explain the difference between natural forest and natural old-growth forest. Page: 22 [AFP175]or watershed? Page: 22 [AFP176]The plan doesn’t determine their future state. Actions based on the plan do. Plans can’t “do” anything. Page: 22 [AFP177]If so, this assumption is false. See general comments. Page: 22 [AFP178]The key difference here is between disturbances (e.g. flooding) and stand-replacing disturbances. Alluvial floodplain forests have high rates of disturbance, but the forest itself is relatively stable because of the nature of its development. See general comments. Page: 22 [AFP179]This is incorrect. See general comments. Page: 22 [AFP180]But you only give one main indicator, proportion of natural riparian forest. Page: 22 [AFP181]This paragraph contains extremely important assumptions that should be in the introduction, not buried on p. 22. Page: 22 [AFP182]This is the correct grammatical construction i.e. not The Guide provides basic information… Page: 23 [AFP183]If that’s the case, it will never happen. I haven’t seen such a thing as “secure long-term funding” in 20 years. And if this is the approach, then the level of risk is not based on ecological indictors, but political ones. [AFP184]The further elaboration is separated by another paragraph in between, which is confusing. Page: 23 [AFP185]What is a sensitive landscape etc.? Page: 23 [AFP186]Move this paragraph, so that the two paragraphs discussing abundance etc. are consecutive. Page: 23 [AFP187]POA. Expert opinion on … is presented in Appendix 4. (Or just reference Appendix 4). Page: 23 [AFP188]This is an important distinction with respect to how to proceed, and so shouldn’t be stuck in a footnote. Page: 23 [AFP189]What is the operational scale? Page: 23 [AFP190]What is a subbasin? This paragraph makes no sense. Page: 23 [AFP191]See comments Appendix 1. Page: 23 [AFP192]You haven’t presented data on regimes. See general comments. Page: 23 [AFP193]POA. It is assumed that…

Page: 24 [AFP194]Does the audience need to know this (or will they understand these details?) The key consequence of sigmoidal curves is there is an inflection point, i.e. a small change in the axis can result in a huge change in the y axis if the value of x is near the inflection point. This is consistent with the behaviour of systems. I would state this upfront. Page: 24 [AFP195]Elaborate. I doubt the audience will understand what this means, and why it is important. Page: 24 [AFP196]Delete this sentence. No one will know the difference between passive and active adaptive management until they get to the Appendix 9. Page: 24 [AFP197]indicators? Page: 24 [AFP198]I would use the term “active” floodplain, which is the terms using in the Riparian Management Guide. It will be more familiar than wet and dry floodplains. Page: 25 [AFP199]or assessment? Page: 25 [AFP200]If all these are determined from the EBMG, what is the purpose of this Guide? Page: 25 [AFP201]such as? And from the EBMG or this guide? Page: 25 [AFP202]What is a special management area? Page: 25 [AFP203]You’ve defined hydroriparian zone as valley bottom (or stream channel edge) plus 1.5 tree heights. Does this statement mean that harvesting can occur within that zone as you’ve defined it? I would say not. But if the answer is yes, then it needs to be explicitly stated, including the rationale. Or are you talking about areas > 1.5 tree lengths? Page: 25 [AFP204]or alluvial floodplain forests. Page: 26 [AFP205]What are sub-basin drainage levels? Page: 26 [AFP206]Yes. Which is presumably why you have Stages 1 and 2. Why is this information repeated here? Or why do you have those two stages? Page: 26 [AFP207]So why are there 10 steps within one stage that repeat Stages 1 and 2? Either 1 and 2 are redundant, or these steps are. Given the clarity with which this is written, I would eliminate stages 1 and 2. See general comments. Page: 26 [AFP208]What are landscape characteristics, condition etc.? And why aren’t these in Stage 2? Page: 26 [AFP209]Ecologically “sensitive” needs to be explicitly defined, and before this point. Page: 26 [AFP210]This is an important statement that needs to be upfront in the risk section, not buried in this section. Page: 26 [AFP211]Which maps of interpretative maps 1 – 8 are these? Are do you mean four more maps (for a total of 12 maps for one watershed?) Page: 26 [AFP212]Maintaining hydrologic regime is not a function. It is a management decision. Hydrologic regime is a function. Page: 27 [AFP213]Which are? Page: 27 [AFP214]POA. In this step,.. will be identified…

Page: 27 [AFP215]In many cases, this will mean most of the upland forest. Do you mean that? And what about the importance of small streams to hydroriparian function e.g. source of allochthonous inputs? Page: 27 [AFP216]which map? And this is about the third time that rare ecosystems have been mapped. Page: 28 [AFP217]It won’t be and it shouldn’t be. You don’t want to protect the range of ecosystem productivity. You need to protect the most productive ecosystems, which are the most valuable for biodiversity. Low productivity ecosystems are not in any danger of being logged. High productivity ecosystems are, and have already been substantially altered. Page: 29 [AFP218]This table makes Appendix 1 redundant. See comments Appendix 1. Page: 29 [AFP219]And what about the other maps in Stages 1 and 2? Page: 29 [AFP220]Hydrologic regime is the function, not the maintenance thereof. Page: 29 [AFP221]meaning? Page: 31 [AFP222]What is “fine-filter” biodiversity? Page: 31 [AFP223]This footnote is important, and should be in the text, because natural proportion of riparian forest and the three categories are very different. Page: 31 [AFP224]This isn’t an ecosystem function. Page: 32 [AFP225]Ecosystem productivity is the function. The planning action (or desired outcome) is to maintain the function. Page: 33 [AFP226]Upper or lower case? Be consistent, which this paragraph isn’t. Page: 33 [AFP227]POA. While there is some direction provided by existing research… Page: 33 [AFP228]POA. A guide can’t require anything. While adaptive management is required…Does this mean it is legally enforceable? Page: 33 [AFP229]POA. It is recommended that.. Is adaptive management required or recommended? It was required a couple of sentences ago. Page: 33 [AFP230]POA. And sentence is redundant. Reference Appendix 9 in the text. Page: 34 [AFP231]Geographers and foresters think of scale differently. Larger scale means 1:2500 to a geographer and 1:20,000 to a forester and maybe planners. Page: 34 [AFP232]POA. Based on field assessments, the components … are revised as required. Page: 34 [AFP233]Didn’t you do this in Stage 3.3? Does this mean more maps? I think you’re already up to 8 (interpretative maps) plus 4 (function maps) plus 2 (Stage 1 and 2 maps.) That’s a helluva lot of maps for one watershed. Page: 34 [AFP234]How does these stages fit in with the 12 steps I just went through? Page: 34 [AFP235]And you physically can’t get to a lot of places. Page: 35 [AFP236]Didn’t I do this in the previous stage?

Page: 35 [AFP237]These are important assumptions, and should not be just mentioned as an example. Page: 35 [AFP238]Didn’t I already have a map before this stage? Page: 35 [AFP239]This repeats previous information. The audience is supposed to already know this by page 36. Page: 36 [AFP240]What’s a treatment unit? Do you mean a standard unit? Page: 36 [AFP241]And you haven’t provided any data on disturbance attributes on fans. And why do fans get special mention? Page: 36 [AFP242]Do some degree, you may be able to tell the movement of channels from air photos, depending on their scale and dates. Again, why are fans suddenly special? Page: 36 [AFP243]Are you implying that harvesting would come close enough to streams that trees in the stream channel would need to be protected? I hope not. Aren’t these attributes already identified in the HEN and the hydroriparian zone? Page: 36 [AFP244]Again, why do fans get special consideration? Will the people doing the field assessment (who are probably RPFs i.e. not geomorphologists) be able to determine accurately the extent of recent sediment deposits? And what’s recent? Last year, last 10 years? Page: 36 [AFP245]The chances of this being done accurately is very small. First, this statement assumes that each disturbance event creates 100% mortality, which is probably untrue. Second, determining which trees started from each disturbance event, and determining their age, plus timing of release in legacy trees is extremely difficult and would require the use of dendrochronology techniques most field managers won’t know or have access to. You can’t just core some trees, and field count the rings. That’s very inaccurate, and I would argue a waste of time. Page: 37 [AFP246]How did the FPC wind up as a bullet on p. 37? If there are links to current policy (such as the FPC or Riparian Management Guidelines), they need to be stated upfront in the introduction. Page: 38 [AFP247]This section needs more detail. The level of detail presented isn’t parallel with other sections. Page: 38 [AFP248]This term still hasn’t been defined. Page: 38 [AFP249]What is a hydroriparian database? Page: 39 [AFP250]I would delete this Appendix. The information isn’t very well synthesized (and so it’s too long for the information content) and there are a lot of misstates. It also appears to have been come from somewhere else and was dropped into this document with no integration with the rest of the text. The information presented is repeated in Table 2, where the information is better presented, i.e. more synthesized and easier to follow. A lot of the information has already been repeated in the text. If you don’t delete it entirely, a good editor could reduce it to about half its length. Page: 39 [AFP251]No. Hydroriparian ecosystems are the zone of interaction between marine/aquatic systems and terrestrial systems. They are interacting systems. Water and land interact everywhere on the planet. Page: 39 [AFP252]I would say the estimates of recovery from disturbance are basically guesses. Page: 39 [AFP253]No. This implies the most “dynamic” ecosystems have the highest diversity, which isn’t the case. The diversity in hydroriparian systems is a function of the fact that they are a zone of interaction between two systems, and the diversity created by geomorphic disturbances. Page: 39 [AFP254]Run on sentence.

Page: 39 [AFP255]What area? Hydroriparian zone, or coastal temperate rain forests. Page: 39 [AFP256]which is why you have to define a hydroriparian zone, as should have been stated in the introduction. Page: 39 [AFP257]The parentheses make no sense. Page: 39 [AFP258]I’d say much longer. Page: 39 [AFP259]This isn’t a function, and is a result of human actions. The most productive ecosystems (with the biggest trees) have been preferentially logged. Page: 39 [AFP260]This and the previous two bullets could easily be combined into one “habitat” bullet. Page: 39 [AFP261]You said this in first bullet. Again, this bullet and first bullet could be combined. Page: 39 [AFP262]This is a consequence of bedrock parent material and shallow soils and so little soil storage capacity, and not necessarily of hydroriparian systems. Page: 39 [AFP263]Oligotrophic means nutrient-poor. Why not just use the latter instead of a term the audience probably won’t understand. Page: 39 [AFP264]I don’t agree. It could be a long time depending on the nature of the disturbance, and whether changes in sediment accompany it. Page: 39 [AFP265]You’ve said this three times now. Page: 40 [AFP266]Streams usually transport all these elements at the same time. Again, these bullets could be easily combined. Page: 40 [AFP267]Again, this could be combined in a “habitat” bullet. Page: 40 [AFP268]So why not state “deposition” process zone? Page: 40 [AFP269]Not necessarily. It depends on the geomorphology. Page: 40 [AFP270]What is a “warmer” climate in coastal temperate rain forests? Page: 40 [AFP271]I don’t think the shade from an old-growth tree is equivalent to that of a 15-year old tree, which in many cases would be deciduous (i.e. no shade in the winter.). Trees might also ameliorate the climate in the winter too, i.e. protect against freezing. In that case, an alder and an old-growth tree are definitely not equivalent. Page: 41 [AFP272]This isn’t a function of the hydroriparian zone, but underlying geology. You can extensive bogs in the Hectate Lowland because of it is a low-lying bedrock plain i.e. poor drainage, both by topography and soil conditions. Percolation is greatly reduced in bedrock parent material. Page: 41 [AFP273]This isn’t’ a function of the hydroriparian zone, but geomorphic processes. Page: 41 [AFP274]The stream modifies the terrestrial microclimate? Is this the same as shade? Page: 41 [AFP275]This paragraph is redundant with the text and Table 2. Page: 42 [AFP276]This appendix contains important ideas that need more precise definitions and information eg. differences between regions and subregions. See general comments.

Page: 42 [AFP277]The four regions need to be in the table too. Otherwise, there’s no way of knowing which subregion goes with each region. Page: 42 [AFP278]And geology! These divisions are primarily geological. Glaciation is also a factor in these divisions, especially with respect to influence on geomorphic processes. Page: 42 [AFP279]Price and McLennan (2002) isn’t an original reference. And the real reference here is [Holland, 1976 #372]. These divisions appear to be an elaboration of his physiographic units. Page: 42 [AFP280]I think it’s singular i.e. Hectate Lowland. Page: 42 [AFP281]This is incredibly bad writing. The Lowlands are a low-lying bedrock plain with extensive muskeg forest. Page: 42 [AFP282]and geology and presence/absence of glaciers. The ocean fjords are distinguished primarily by climate? I think you mean the subregions are. Misplaced modifiers create confusion. Page: 42 [AFP283]Debris flows are usually considered landslides. Do you mean debris slides versus debris flows? If so, you need another word other than landslides. Page: 42 [AFP284]Flooding is also geomorphic disturbance. Page: 42 [AFP285]Run on sentence. Page: 42 [AFP286]Why does this matter? It is outside the region considered coastal temperate rain forest? Page: 42 [AFP287]This sentence should be at the beginning of the paragraph. I think there are more criteria used in these divisions than these two. And the physiographic regions are the same for many of these subregions, so it can be a criterion for division then. Page: 42 [AFP288]If these are subzones, then they should be delineated as CWHvh etc. Otherwise, this is a climatic division. Page: 42 [AFP289]From Holland (1976)? It appears so. If that’s correct, I would reference Holland, which is well-known and well accepted. Page: 42 [AFP290]Description of climate is the same for each subzone. You could re-arrange the table to reduce the repetitions. Page: 42 [AFP291]What’s “scrubby forest” Page: 42 [AFP292]“Matrix” has a very specific meaning in landscape ecology, which is presumably why the matrix is described under landscape pattern. Will the audience know that meaning? Matrix isn’t in the glossary. Page: 42 [AFP293]If stand-replacing wind disturbances are rare, why is wind a management hazard? I consider this statement is correct, but you need to explain the apparent contradiction. Page: 42 [AFP294]Is the Milbanke Strandflat sufficiently different from the Hectate Lowland to be a different subregion? In Holland (1976), it’s part of the Hectate Lowland. Page: 42 [AFP295]This is presumably the Massett Lowlands. If those, the quaternary sand deposits on the Massett Lowlands make them distinct geomorphically from the bedrock plain of the Hectate Lowland, which influences properties of the hydroriparian system e.g. The “Rio Negro” rivers. Because of the parent material of coarse sand, rivers and streams in the Massett Lowland are often dark brown because of the lack of retention of organic material. It’s the same as the Rio Negro in the Amazon.

Page: 42 [AFP296]Are the Skidegate Plateau and the Queen Charlotte Ranges sufficiently distinct based on your criteria to be different subregions? (Since I don’t know what the criteria are, I can’t tell.) The main difference between them is the Ranges have steeper relief and higher maximum elevation. I think geomorphic processes would be different, but that may not be your defining criteria. Page: 43 [AFP297]Again, are the differences between Pacific, Kitimat ranges etc. sufficient for them to be considered different subregions? According to Holland (1976), these divisions are based on valleys created my major river systems. Where does that fit in your criteria? Page: 43 [AFP298]No glaciers are present? Really? According to Holland (1976) the Kitimat Ranges contain fewer glaciers, with no extensive icefields, which isn’t’ the same as no glaciers. Page: 44 [AFP299]The phrase is redundant. Page: 44 [AFP300]What about their functional roles? e.g. source allochthonous inputs etc. A short description of function could go here, which would further eliminate Appendix 1. Generally, these are not very good descriptions of ecosystem characteristics. They are too basic and inconsistent with respect to the features described. Another basic delineation is constrained versus unconstrained channels, which strongly influences hydroriparian characteristics, but it isn’t mentioned. Punctuation is also very inconsistent, which makes the text hard to follow. I’d put all the information in bullets after re-writing the content. After reading through it, it appears this table has come from somewhere else and been dropped in with little integration with the guide, including consistency of terms and which ecosystem characteristics are emphasized. Page: 44 [AFP301]I don’t know my site series for these variants to know if these are correct. Page: 44 [AFP302]So are small streams streams < 3 m in width? If so, they should have been defined much earlier. Page: 44 [AFP303]The aquatic invertebrate diversity isn’t relevant to the definition of ephemeral. And streams change course occasionally, not just ephemeral ones. The footnote is irrelevant, other than defining the difference between ephemeral and perennial. Page: 44 [AFP304]Most streams “expand and shrink” with precipitation. It’s call runoff. Page: 44 [AFP305]Does this matter? Page: 44 [AFP306]Usually, there is a submontane and montane variant, but I could be wrong. CHWvm, strikes me as a subzone, not a variant. Page: 44 [AFP307]Actually, I think colluvium too. Gullies in bedrock doesn’t make sense. Page: 44 [AFP308]Does this mean the gradient is between 4 – 20%? Page: 44 [AFP309]Are small streams now defined as < 10m in width, or does it vary with gradient? Be consistent. Page: 44 [AFP310]Meaning? Vegetation usually varies from dry to wet sites. Page: 44 [AFP311]These are too simplistic description of value for wildlife. Page: 45 [AFP312]Significant as in ecologically significant (e.g. high biodiversity values) or significant as in extensive? Page: 45 [AFP313]Do small, steep streams have floodplains? No, but the way you’ve written it, they can. Page: 45 [AFP314]High and low bench haven’t been defined, and are not in the glossary.

Page: 45 [AFP315]And I would say differences in valley floor width is also a factor. And I would think it’s not just channel size, but sediment load as well. [AFP316]I think you mean limestone i.e. calcifitic bedrock? Most people will understand limestone better than buffered pH. Page: 46 [AFP317]Hydroriparian Ecosystem? The table headings aren’t parallel with the previous two pages Page: 46 [AFP318]Heading are not parallel. Page: 46 [AFP319]Based on how hydroriparian ecosystem is defined, i.e. zone of interaction between terrestrial and aquatic systems, I don’t think forested swamps as described here are included, unless they occur on the floodplain, which in my experience they do. Page: 46 [AFP320]Peat deposits come from Sphagnum, and if Sphagnum is present, it’s not a fen. It’s actually gyttja. Page: 46 [AFP321]What are low and tall shrub communities? Page: 46 [AFP322]And redcedar and shore pine. Page: 46 [AFP323]It only forms a mosaic on organic soils? Misplaced modifier Page: 46 [AFP324]Algal isn’t a modifier for vegetation. And what’s “macrophytic” vegetation? Page: 46 [AFP325]Which are? Page: 46 [AFP326]Meaning? Page: 46 [AFP327]What other upland forests? Or do you mean different from other riparian (or hydroriparian) forests? Page: 46 [AFP328]Winds don’t matter. The key distinguishing feature is saltspray, the extent of which can be determined by wind patterns, including force and prevailing direction, both of which can be modified by topography. Page: 46 [AFP329]These are attributes that distinguish estuarine forests. These forests are solely defined by salt-spray but can also occur in estuarine environments. Not all salt-spray forests occur in the estuarine zone. Page: 46 [AFP330]Does this detail matter? If so, lichens haven’t been mentioned anywhere else, and aren’t generally considered a characteristic of riparian forests. Page: 46 [AFP331]Actually they are common on the Massett Lowlands (Haida Gwaii) i.e.. beach fringe along East and North Beach. Page: 46 [AFP332]Obviously estuaries don’t occur in the mountains. You need the ocean to have an estuary. There are no oceans in the mountains. Page: 46 [AFP333]The parentheses doesn’t make sense. Page: 47 [AFP334]If the purpose of these tables are for use in a Bayesian Belief Network (as per the footnote), which most people won’t know what it is, I would delete this appendix from this document. You don’t use Bayesian Belief Networks, and where using this table is referenced, it’s pretty fuzzy on what to do with it. Page: 47 [AFP335]What is Box 5, or do you mean Appendix 3? And if you combine them here, why not in Appendix 3?

Page: 47 [AFP336]What are high and low floodplains? Page: 49 [AFP337]These aren’t disturbance regimes. Disturbance regime refers to frequency, intensity, type and extent of disturbances (and is correctly defined in the glossary.) These values are frequency and extent. You could call them “range of natural variability” if you pushed it, since these are estimates of spatial and temporal variability. Page: 49 [AFP338]This statement may be true, but it makes the table misleading because it looks like the return intervals are for gap-phase replacement events, which they aren’t. Page: 49 [AFP339]These are a mix of variant and subzones. And these data were re-calculated by Holt and Sutherland (2003) for “analysis units” which are based on leading species and productivity. It was recognized that variants were not useful units for calculating disturbance attributes, which is correct. Variant isn’t strongly related to variables that influence disturbance attributes, e.g. topography, exposure, species, site conditions. There’s an order of magnitude variation in mean return interval for the analysis units. How valid will it be to calculate return intervals for subregions which will contain a range of analysis units? And it’s a bit bizarre to send a document out for peer review with incomplete data. Page: 49 [AFP340]Or subregions? Page: 49 [AFP341]Return intervals of STAND-replacing events (which is very different from gap-phase regeneration.) I would also explicitly define “return interval” i.e. the time interval between disturbance events at the same point on the landscape. Return interval is often confused with rotation period, the time required to disturb the study area once, which is the only value you can calculate from GIS data bases. As far as I can tell from the methods in Holt and Sutherland (2003), they did calculate return interval from the GIS data base, not rotation period. I don’t know the validity of the formula they used, however. Someone who is a modeller, such as Brigitte Dorner, would be able to tell. Page: 49 [AFP342]Do you mean “old-growth” forest (i.e.> 250 years?). I would also add another column “Area of stand-replacing disturbances” (in percent) i.e. 100 – percent old-growth forest. That value would give you an estimate of extent. Page: 49 [AFP343]This is my unpublished study and the information and citation are incorrect. It’s also very badly written. I’ve edited the paragraph so it is correct, and included the data I think the authors were trying to get at. If you change it substantially, please check with me. Because my work is unpublished, no one else will know if it’s incorrect. Page: 50 [AFP344]The correction citation is Pearson, A. F. in prep. Natural and logging disturbances in the temperate rain forests of the Central Coast, British Columbia. manuscript in preparation. Page: 50 [AFP345]I have no idea what the authors are trying at get at here. Page: 51 [AFP346]If these risk assessment curves are important to the guide (which they appear to be), I would take some of the space saved by deleting other appendices by solidly substantiating these curves, including the logic behind them, and include relevant citations. E.g. some of the material in Holt and Sutherland (2003) could be used to substantiate the biodiversity curve. They appear to come out of thin air. The attitude of “trust us we’re experts” I doubt will work. This guide is supposed to be based on best available science. Further, none of these indicators consider the spatial context of management actions, which I think is crucially important in influencing their effects on function. See general comments. Page: 51 [AFP347]POA. In this section… are provided. Page: 51 [AFP348]If these curves are based in the literature, I would include the citations. A lot of people (including me) will have trouble with these curves.

Page: 51 [AFP349]This appendix needs better formatting for clarity. I’d suggest 6.1 Hydrologic Regime (Fig. 6.1) Page: 51 [AFP350]If rate of cut is supposed to be based on range of natural variability, which specify an arbitrary amount? And 20% of the area in one year, and left alone for 19 years, and 1% per area per year over 20 years would meet your criteria, but I think their effects on function, especially stream flow, would be very different. Page: 51 [AFP351]Do you mean 20% of each subbasin? I sincerely hope not. The way it’s written, you could cut 20% of every subbasin 1000 – 3000 ha in size, and leave it alone for 19 years. That would be a disaster. Page: 52 [AFP352]Rate of cut per year? Percentage of watershed cut? It’s has to be a rate of something. And how does variable retention fit on the x axis? Page: 52 [AFP353]Or watersheds or subbasins? Page: 52 [AFP354]Are these then subbasins? If not, what’s the difference? Page: 52 [AFP355]6.2 etc. Page: 53 [AFP356]Or hydroriparian zone? Page: 53 [AFP357]It’s either ha or % area logged. It can’t be both. My guess is it’s percent. If so, the units aren’t relevant, as long as they are the same. Page: 53 [AFP358]The way this table is presented, it looks like a density of roads of 0.03 with 1 ha of Class IV and Class V equals a score of 0.1, but I don’t think that’s what you mean. Page: 53 [AFP359]Again, area cut and percent area cut are not the same values. Can you call the index something e.g. Road/stability indicator. There are many indicators and indices, so it’s easy to get confused. Page: 54 [AFP360]What is a detailed rating? Page: 54 [AFP361]Why is this here? Isn’t your hydroriparian zone defined as 1.5 tree heights from the valley bottom? Wouldn’t that encompass the “wet” floodplain, which I think you mean is the active floodplain. Why are wetlands included in stream morphology? Page: 54 [AFP362]Is this possible, given how active fans are? Page: 54 [AFP363]Is this different from percent of old forest? And do you mean directly adjacent to the stream, i.e. growing right at the edge of the stream bank? Are alder and old-growth conifers equivalent in this indicator? Page: 54 [AFP364]This sounds a bit dramatic. And I don’t understand what you mean. Page: 54 [AFP365]These aren’t part of channel bank stability. If this indicator applies more generally to functions influenced by trees directly adjacent to the stream bank, then say so, but this section needs another name. Page: 54 [AFP366]But are they sufficient with respect to organic matter input and shade? Page: 54 [AFP367]Ideally, all buffers would be windfirm. But we don’t know how to do it yet. And it may actually not be possible. Page: 55 [AFP368]This figure is very confusing, especially the S % erodible bank section. And channel bank and streambank stability are not synonyms. And is it drainage basin or watershed?

Page: 55 [AFP369]It would be simply to say “wood” or “large wood debris” or “coarse woody debris.” Obviously if the wood is a stream, it’s “down.” There aren’t snags in streams. Page: 55 [AFP370]Doesn’t wood from the transport zone come from the source zones, i.e. from debris flows/mass wasting events? Isn’t that why it’s called the transport zone? If so, the phrase in the bracket doesn’t make sense. Page: 55 [AFP371]Streams don’t have a narrow valley flat. Watersheds do. Page: 55 [AFP372]Of course old forest is part of the indicator because the quality and longevity of the wood in streams is vary superior to that of smaller trees and deciduous trees. Page: 55 [AFP373] Page: 55 [AFP374]POA. …forest types are not distinguished. I profoundly disagree. I think the difference between the quality of wood between conifer and deciduous species is crucially important, especially in alluvial floodplains, and should be recognized. See (Hyatt and Naiman 2001). Page: 55 [AFP375]Percent area? Page: 55 [AFP376]There’s nothing in Appendix 3 about area of natural riparian forest. Again, this indicator needs to be more explicitly defined. Page: 55 [AFP377]Again, area? Page: 56 [AFP378]What are T, D and S? Do you divide the area of T by D i.e. T/D or do you mean that line applies to both T and D? Again, this figure is very confusing. “Downed wood functions” doesn’t make sense. Do you mean risk to loss of wood?.” Page: 56 [AFP379]How do you determine that? Page: 56 [AFP380]Then state explicitly that there will be no development that impacts high-value fish habitat. Page: 56 [AFP381]Why are there precautionary guidelines, when the main indicator seems to be no impact on high quality fish habitat. Page: 56 [AFP382]How do you determine these? Page: 56 [AFP383]The entire watershed or the “subbasin” or smaller watershed? Page: 57 [AFP384]What systems? And what process characteristics? This paragraph doesn’t make much sense. Page: 57 [AFP385]Are these subbasins? Page: 57 [AFP386]A primary watershed is usually one that where the river system drains directly into the ocean e.g. (Moore 1991). The definition in the glossary is in contradiction. One term can’t have two disparate definitions. Page: 57 [AFP387]Where that 10% is located could have a strong influence on the effects on fish habitat. Page: 57 [AFP388]Again, you need to define this term. Page: 57 [AFP389]in? Page: 57 [AFP390]The bracket doesn’t make sense.

Page: 57 [AFP391]POA. Indicators can’t examine. Ideally, …. would be examined. Page: 57 [AFP392]Yes. But you didn’t do this, so why talk about it? It just adds confusion. Page: 57 [AFP393]What is interior old growth and how would you determine it? Page: 58 [AFP394]Percent deviation for natural what? Forest? Riparian forest? Old forest? Area of old forest? Page: 58 [AFP395]Steep or very steep? In Appendix 3, they are distinguished. Page: 58 [AFP396]I disagree. I think they could be abundant, especially in the Coast Mountains. Page: 58 [AFP397]Meaning? Page: 58 [AFP398]Is this important here? Page: 58 [AFP399]Didn’t you just say that small very steep streams are highly sensitive? Page: 58 [AFP400]So gullies without distinct microclimates follow the sensitive curve (as stated previously?) This makes no sense. Page: 58 [AFP401]What small steep streams? And steep and very steep were delineated by gradient, not channel type or constrained or unconstrained. Page: 58 [AFP402]But you stated previously that microclimate was not an important criterion. Page: 58 [AFP403]Trees aren’t in envelopes. This is pretty flowery for a technical document, and the analogies make no sense. Page: 58 [AFP404]“Organisms” don’t live in houses. Critters live in houses. Organisms have habitat. Flowery writing is for New Age journals or something, not technical documents. Page: 58 [AFP405]Why not say sigmoidal? “Standard” curve isn’t on the graph. Page: 58 [AFP406]This entire paragraph is completely mixed up, inconsistent with Appendix 3 and previous information, contains irrelevant information and is very confusing. Page: 58 [AFP407]What value? Page: 58 [AFP408]Within the hydroriparian zone or entire watershed? And percent or percent area? Page: 59 [AFP409]What about very steep streams with low susceptibility to debris flow and no distinct microclimate? You can tell debris flow susceptibility, but not microclimate. Page: 59 [AFP410]This isn’t about this risk indicator. You were already supposed to do that somewhere back in Stage 3 or 4. Page: 59 [AFP411]Natural what? Page: 59 [AFP412]I don’t understand what you mean here. Page: 59 [AFP413]If it’s not included, why mention it? And isn’t the landscape pattern of rare ecosystems considered in the subregional or watershed stages? If not, it could be easily. Page: 59 [AFP414]Is this the same indicator as channel bank stability? If not, why not combine them?

Page: 59 [AFP415]Different from what? Page: 59 [AFP416]Then your abundance values don’t have a spatial context and are pretty useless. Page: 60 [AFP417]what indicator? Page: 60 [AFP418]Natural cover and natural riparian forest are not synonyms. And is percent number of streams or percent area of streams? These won’t generate the same values. And directly adjacent to the stream with no width criteria? That means a little fringe adjacent to the stream, in a large clearcut would still be included, which I wouldn’t consider valid. Page: 61 [AFP419]Forget this indicator. You can’t really measure it anyhow. Structure is a surrogate for function. If you maintain the structure of the hydroriparian system, you’ll maintain function and productivity is a function. If the curve is the same as coarse filter biodiversity, then that indicator encompasses productivity. Page: 61 [AFP420]Again, forget this indicator for the same reason. Keep structure, you’ll keep function. If you keep forests adjacent to the stream within the range of natural variability, you’ll keep this function. Page: 61 [AFP421]Forget this section too. This is a planning document. The list of future research needs is a very long one. Page: 62 [AFP422]POA. The information required to classify.. is provided by terrain mapping. Page: 62 [AFP423]Page numbers are missing. Page: 62 [AFP424]If you are going to base delineation of floodplains etc. on geomorphology, then I’d use the terms active or inactive floodplain (or floodplain terrace) rather than wet or dry floodplains. Page: 64 [AFP425]What is a “viable” state? This sounds like the equilibrium view of ecosystems, which most scientists no longer consider valid. Page: 64 [AFP426]How do analysis units fit with site series? Page: 64 [AFP427]These curves are based on expert opinion, not experts. (You didn’t go out an measure a bunch of experts to derive these curves.) Page: 64 [AFP428]forest structure? Page: 64 [AFP429]Or time since disturbance? These aren’t the same values. Page: 64 [AFP430]So are these curves considered valid? Page: 64 [AFP431]I totally disagree. If you clearcut the floodplain, it will take a lot longer than 250 years to get the range in structure (of both dead and live components) back. And recovery for the stream system could take centuries because of the lack of large wood. Page: 64 [AFP432]Meaning this index? Page: 66 [AFP433]This appendix appears to have been written by someone else and dropped into this document with no integration with the latter. It’s too long, especially in relation to the length of the other appendices. Page: 66 [AFP434]Why does this Appendix have literature citations and while none of the other appendices do (especially Appendix 6). After reading through this appendix, it appears to be the results of a workshop or background information on what variables were chosen for the risk curves, and how their attributes were derived. It’s not information about adaptive management, but rather background information on how the

guide was developed. As such, it should be deleted from this guide and be a background paper, along with the other technical reports, especially given it’s 8 pages (i.e. nearly 10% of the length of the entire guide.) The relevant information about adaptive management (i.e. how to do it) should be in Stage 5.0, which is pretty skimpy on details. Page: 66 [AFP435]This reads like a sales brochure. Page: 66 [AFP436]Managers aren’t scientists. In fact, often managers have a very poor understanding of science. Page: 66 [AFP437]HPG? Page: 67 [AFP438]This introduction is too long, and as I said reads like a sales brochure. One paragraph introducing and defining adaptive management would be sufficient. Page: 67 [AFP439]Ecological or administrative or? Page: 67 [AFP440]These paragraphs aren’t about assessing the problem. They are about an example of how adaptive management was implemented and what managers “should” do. Don’t managers decide what they “should” do or what their key questions are? Page: 68 [AFP441]If these are the steps in adaptive management, they should be in Stage 5.0 Page: 68 [AFP442]Then this appendix isn’t about how to do adaptive management, but rather a series of questions for adaptive management were identified by the HPG team for hydroriparian systems. Page: 68 [AFP443]Did you do all this before developing Appendix 6? If so, this appendix isn’t relevant to the guide, but is a background document to its development. Page: 69 [AFP444]POA. The authors of the guide Page: 69 [AFP445]What is ECA? Page: 69 [AFP446]What are hydroecological functions? Page: 69 [AFP447]And everybody knows it, which is why small stream management is so controversial. Page: 69 [AFP448]Simple in theory, but messy to do with replication and variation within factors that influence flow. Page: 70 [AFP449]such as? Page: 70 [AFP450]These two paragraph actually describe what adaptive management is. Page: 71 [AFP451]You have to find homogeneous watersheds to be able to have replicates and know that the differences observed are a result of the treatment (area logged), not variation in the watersheds. This is a fantastically simplistic idea. Whoever wrote this isn’t a hydrologist or geomorphologist. Page: 71 [AFP452]POA. Based on time constraints, there will need.. And time constraints for humans or ecological time frames? Page: 71 [AFP453]It can’t be an experiment if the cutting has already occurred. Again, this is fantastically simplistic. Page: 72 [AFP454]These paragraphs (with the exception of a few sentences) describe what adaptive management is. Again, these steps should be in 5.0 Page: 72 [AFP455]All of these are not trivial to answer. Do you expect managers to do this? Or companies?

Page: 75 [AFP456]being common and defining the character of a region are not synonyms. Page: 75 [AFP457]Appendix 4? Page: 75 [AFP458]stream channel? Page: 75 [AFP459]Channel implies stream. There can’t be vegetation in the active channel i.e. in the stream. Do you mean streambed or streambank or stream-side forests? Page: 76 [AFP460]What’s the difference between deposition zones and deposition zone channels? Page: 76 [AFP461]This definition does not exclude snags. Page: 76 [AFP462]and what about during the winter when precipitation is higher? Can streams be ephemeral seasonally and still be considered “ephemeral?” This definition is different from the one in Appendix 3. Page: 77 [AFP463]A peatland is not a swamp. A swamp is nutrient-rich, a peatland or bog is nutrient-poor. They are very different ecosystems. Page: 77 [AFP464]You need a better definition, especially including the zone of interaction between terrestrial and aquatic systems. Page: 77 [AFP465]the streambed, not the soil. Page: 77 [AFP466]No. Interception is not unique to the hydroriparian ecosystem. Page: 77 [AFP467]Again, this isn’t a function . You need a better definition of function, which are ongoing ecosystem processes, e.g. photosynthesis, hydrologic regime etc. Page: 77 [AFP468]Which is? Page: 77 [AFP469]No. The hyporheic zone, which means “beneath the flow” is the zone of interaction between the stream channel and groundwater. It has many distinct functions e.g. area of interchange of carbon etc. See (Edwards 1998) Page: 78 [AFP470]I would say more simply forest beyond the area of edge influence. Page: 78 [AFP471]This isn’t a definition, but a description. Page: 78 [AFP472]I don’t think you’ve used this term in this guide. Page: 78 [AFP473]You have used the term “old” forest, not old-growth forest in this guide. Page: 79 [AFP474]No. Oligotrophic means nutrient poor. “Oligo” means scant, and “trophic” means food. It has nothing to do with the number of organisms. Page: 79 [AFP475]They are? I don’t think so at all. Page: 79 [AFP476]Or there is insufficient information available to do the assessment? Page: 79 [AFP477]These two definitions together don’t make sense. It’s one or the other. Page: 79 [AFP478]This isn’t a definition. Process are similar in xxx properties.

Page: 80 [AFP479]This is a definition of a riparian zone, not a forest. Riparian forest is forest located in the zone of interaction between terrestrial and aquatic systems (usually stream systems.) Page: 80 [AFP480]Seasonal streams are in the text in Appendix 3, but aren’t distinguished from ephemeral streams. If the distinction is important, it should be in the text in that appendix. Page: 80 [AFP481]Why do the invertebrate communities matter? Page: 80 [AFP482]This assumes an equilibrium view of succession, which is false. And not all communities are “unvegetated.” A seral stage is a successional stage. Page: 80 [AFP483]This is not how most foresters understand “site.” Site usually means physical conditions, e.g. soil, moisture characteristics. Page: 80 [AFP484]which is the source of…. Again, definition not description. Page: 81 [AFP485]and wood? Wood influences channel morphology too. Page: 81 [AFP486]or criteria (more than one criterion). This isn’t an adequate definition. See general comments. Page: 81 [AFP487]Appendix 2? Page: 81 [AFP488]similarity and homogeneity are not synonyms. Page: 81 [AFP489]It does, really? Page: 81 [AFP490]In contrast with PEM, site series are derived from field assessments. Page: 81 [AFP491]Yes. This is a good definition. What the transport zone is is concisely explained in the first sentence. Page: 81 [AFP492]What is a discontinuous and continuous floodplain? Page: 81 [AFP493]You obviously need a definition. Page: 82 [AFP494]This is a description, not a definition. Page: 82 [AFP495]Bogs are generally considered wetlands. Wetlands have soils derived from mineral soil or sedge not peat. Organic soils and peat are not synonyms. Page: 82 [AFP496]You can have forests with gleyed horizons too. This isn’t a diagnostic feature of wetlands. Literature Cited Edwards, R. T. 1998. The hyporheic zone. Pgs. 399 - 423 in: Naiman, R. J. and Bilby, R. E. (eds.) River

Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. New York, NY, Springer-Verlag.

Gregory, S. V. 1997. Riparian management in the 21st century. Pgs. 69 - 86 in: Kohm, K. A. and Franklin, J. F. (eds.) Creating a Forestry for the 21st Century: The Science of Ecosystem Management. Washington, DC, Island Press.

Hyatt, T. L. and Naiman, R. J. 2001. The residence time of large woody debris in the Queets River, Washington, USA. Ecological Applications 11(1):191 - 202.

Montgomery, D. R., Grant, G. E. and Sullivan, K. 1995. Watershed analysis as a framework for implementing ecosystem management. Water Resources Bulletin 31:369 - 386.

Moore, K. M. 1991. An Inventory of Watersheds in the Coastal Temperate Forests of British Columbia. Earthlife Canada Foundation and Ecotrust/Conservation International.

Pearson, A. F. in prep. Natural and logging disturbances in the temperate rain forests of the Central Coast of British Columbia. David Suzuki Foundation and Rainforest Solutions Project. manuscript in preparation

Ward, J. V. and Stanford, J. A. 1989. The four-dimensional nature of lotic systems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 8:2 - 8.