of

BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mapping and Assessing

Terrain Stability Guidebook

This Forest Practices Code Guidebook is presented for information only.

It is not cited in regulation. The Forest and Range Practices Act and its regulations took
effect on Jan. 31, 2004. This replaced the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act and
regulations. For further information please see the Forest and Range Practices Act.

Second Edition

August 1999

BC
Environment
Mapping and Assessing Terrain
Stability Guidebook
2nd Edition
August 1999

Authority

Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act

Operational Planning Regulation

Forest Road Regulation

Woodlot Licence Forest Management Regulation

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data
Main entry under title:
Mapping and assessing terrain stability guidebook

(Forest practices code)

Rev. ed.
Includes bibliographical references: p.
ISBN 0-7726-3893-4

1. Landforms - British Columbia - Maps.

2. Landslide hazard analysis - British Columbia.
3. Soil mapping - British Columbia. 4. Slopes
(Soil mechanics) - British Columbia. 5. Mass-wasting
- British Columbia. 6. Forest management -British
Columbia - Planning. I. British Columbia.
Ministry of Forests. II Series: Forest practices
code of British Columbia.

SD424.M36 1999 551.3’07 C99-960174-1

ii
 Preface

This guidebook has been prepared to help forest resource managers plan,
prescribe and implement sound forest practices that comply with the Forest
Practices Code.

Guidebooks are one of the four components of the Forest Practices Code. The
others are the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, the regulations,
and the standards. The Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act is the
legislative umbrella authorizing the Code’s other components. It enables the
Code, establishes mandatory requirements for planning and forest practices, sets
enforcement and penalty provisions, and specifies administrative arrangements.
The regulations lay out the forest practices that apply province-wide.
Standards may be established by the chief forester, where required, to expand
on a regulation. Both regulations and standards are mandatory requirements
under the Code.

Forest Practices Code guidebooks have been developed to support the

regulations, but they are not part of the legislation. The recommendations in the
guidebooks are not mandatory requirements, but once a recommended practice is
included in a plan, prescription or contract, it becomes legally enforceable.
Guidebooks are not intended to provide a legal interpretation of the Act or
regulations. In general, they describe procedures, practices and results that are
consistent with the legislated requirements of the Code.

The information provided in each guidebook is intended to help users exercise

their professional judgment in developing site-specific management strategies
and prescriptions designed to accommodate resource management objectives.
Some guidebook recommendations provide a range of options or outcomes
considered to be acceptable under varying circumstances.

Where ranges are not specified, flexibility in the application of guidebook

recommendations may be required, to adequately achieve land use and resource
management objectives specified in higher-level plans. A recommended practice
may also be modified when an alternative could provide better results for forest
resource stewardship. The examples provided in many guidebooks are not
intended to be definitive and should not be interpreted as being the only
acceptable options.

iii
 Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
Terrain and terrain stability mapping ............................................................... 2
Terrain survey intensity levels.................................................................... 2
Mapping ..................................................................................................... 3
Development of criteria for terrain stability classes ................................... 4
Reconnaissance terrain stability mapping (RTSM) ......................................... 6
Purpose ..................................................................................................... 6
Recommended specifications.................................................................... 6
Terrain survey intensity level for reconnaissance mapping .................. 6
Map scale ............................................................................................. 7
Classification and mapping conventions .............................................. 7
Detailed terrain and terrain stability mapping (DTSM) ................................... 9
Purpose ..................................................................................................... 9
Recommended specifications.................................................................... 9
Terrain survey intensity levels for detailed mapping ............................. 9
Map scale ........................................................................................... 10
Classification and mapping conventions ............................................ 11
Other interpretations ................................................................................ 14
Potential for landslide debris to enter streams ................................... 14
Soil erosion potential .......................................................................... 14
Risk of sediment delivery to streams ................................................. 15
Map legends and reports for RTSM and DTSM projects .............................. 16
Map legends ............................................................................................ 16
Reports .................................................................................................... 16
Terrain stability field assessments (TSFAs) .................................................. 19
Conducting TSFAs................................................................................... 20
Reports .................................................................................................... 22
Contents ............................................................................................. 22
Methods of describing cutblocks, gullies, streams,
roads and adjacent areas in TSFA reports .............................................. 26
Terminology ............................................................................................. 27

iv
 Contents

Appendices and attachments ....................................................................... 28

Reports in low hazard areas ......................................................................... 28
Limitations of TSFAs ..................................................................................... 28
References ........................................................................................................ 30
Appendix 1. Terrain stability mapping systems and criteria .......................... 32
Appendix 2. Example classification and related criteria for assessing
the likelihood of landslide-induced debris entering streams ...... 34
Appendix 3. Example classification: Soil erosion potential............................ 35
Appendix 4. Example classification and criteria for assessing the risk
of sediment delivery to streams ................................................ 36

v
 Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

Introduction
A careful evaluation of the landslide hazards and risks in any proposed Forest
Development Plan area is critical to good forest resource management. The
recommendations in this guidebook concentrate on practical terrain stability
mapping and assessment procedures, to help reduce the frequency and
magnitude of landslides associated with forest development.

The mapping and assessment procedures discussed in this guidebook include

reconnaissance terrain stability mapping, detailed terrain and terrain stability
mapping and terrain stability field assessments.

• Reconnaissance terrain stability maps identify unstable or potentially unstable

land areas from a broad perspective. They help identify areas where more
concentrated analysis is required such as detailed terrain and terrain stability
mapping and terrain stability field assessments.
• Detailed terrain maps present information with respect to spatial and physical
attributes of the land surface, its geologic materials and processes. They
provide detailed interpretive data on terrain stability conditions and soil
erosion potential.
• Detailed terrain stability maps provide a more comprehensive assessment of
terrain stability hazards. They help to more narrowly define where terrain
stability field assessments are required.
• Terrain stability field assessments focus on specific areas of concern for a
proposed cutblock or road location.

Besides outlining relevant standards and procedures for mapping and assessing
terrain stability, this guidebook is intended to enlighten foresters, managers and
field personnel about what to look for in mapping and assessment projects.
When everyone understands the process, more effective terrain stability
management and greater environmental protection is achieved.

The Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook is cited in the

Operational Planning Regulation (OPR), Forest Road Regulation (FRR)
and Woodlot Licence Forest Management Regulation (WLFMR). The
regulations (as indicated below) require that the following items be
determined or carried out in accordance with procedures set out in this
guidebook:
• terrain stability field assessment (OPR, FRR, WLFMR)
• indicators of potential slope instability (OPR, WLFMR)
• soil erosion potential (OPR, WLFMR)
• terrain stability hazard map (OPR, WLFMR)
• likelihood of landslides (OPR).

1
Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

Terrain and terrain stability mapping

Terrain mapping is a method to categorize, describe and delineate
characteristics and attributes of surficial materials, landforms, and geological
processes within the natural landscape. Terrain stability mapping is a method to
delineate areas of slope stability with respect to stable, potentially unstable, and
unstable terrain within a particular landscape. Terrain stability map polygons
indicate areas or zones of initiation of slope failure.

Both methods are undertaken initially by stereoscopic interpretation of aerial

photographs (supplemented with field-checking), and therefore require the
mapper to have advanced skills in recognising and interpreting terrain and
natural slope processes from both aerial photos and fieldwork. Terrain stability
mapping is a derivative of terrain mapping by utilizing the terrain and map
polygon attributes of the terrain mapping.

Terrain survey intensity levels

There are five terrain survey intensity levels (TSIL) used for terrain and terrain
stability mapping in British Columbia (Table 1). The survey intensity levels
represent the extent of field-checking done during mapping, expressed as a scale
ranging from A (most checks) to E (least checks). Each level is a measure of
the reliability of the mapping. It does not refer to a type of mapping or a
map scale.
The ranges used in Table 1 to describe the level of effort required for a given
TSIL are provided to help account for the range of mapper experience, terrain
complexity, and access difficulties (dense bush, severe topography, limited
helicopter landing sites). For example, for TSIL C on relatively gentle plateau
terrain with good road access, an experienced terrain mapper may need to
ground-check only 20% of the polygons and be able to achieve a high rate of
daily progress (e.g., 1200 ha/day). An inexperienced terrain mapper, however,
may need to ground-check a significantly higher number of polygons (30-
35%)—as well as have an experienced mapper review the results—to achieve a
comparable level of accuracy. In areas of difficult or complex terrain, even an
experienced mapper may need to ground-check a higher percentage of the terrain
units and will have difficulty achieving a progress rate of 600-700 ha/day.
Clearly, then, mapper experience, terrain complexity and access difficulties must
be accounted for when work plans and budgets are being developed and
reviewed for terrain and terrain stability mapping projects.

2
 Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

During ground checks, all terrain attributes relevant to the entire polygon being
mapped must be investigated and described. Collecting detailed site data for one
point in a polygon rarely qualifies as appropriate mapping procedure. Emphasis
should be on walking across polygons and checking their boundaries. Vehicle
traverses of existing road networks and low-level helicopter inspections can be
used to supplement—not replace—information obtained from foot traverses.

Table 1. Terrain survey intensity levels (TSIL)a for terrain and terrain stability mapping
TSIL Preferred Estimated range % of polygons Method of field- Rate of field
map scale of average polygon ground- checking progress per
sizes (ha) checked crew day (ha)

A 1:5000 to 2–5 75–100 Ground checks by foot 20–100

1:10 000 5–10 traverses

B 1:10 000 to 5–10 50–75 Ground checks by foot 100–600

1:20 000 10–15 traverses

C 1:20 000 to 15–20 20–50 Ground checks by foot 500–1200

1:50 000 50–200 traverses, supported by
vehicle and/or flying

D 1:20 000 to 20–30 1–20 Vehicle and flying with 1500–5000

1:50 000 100–400 selected ground
observations

E 1:20 000 to 20–40 0 No field work, only photo n/a

1:100 000 200–600 interpretation

a Modified from “Guidelines and Standards for Terrain Mapping in British Columbia” (Resources Inventory Committee
1995). For forestry applications, typical map scales are: TSIL A, 1:5000; TSILs B and C, 1:20 000; and TSIL D, 1:20 000
or 1:50 000. This table does not apply to terrain stability field assessments. The field investigation and data collection
requirements for terrain stability field assessments are structured differently from those for terrain and terrain
stability mapping (see section on terrain stability field assessments).

Mapping

It is expected that the person who does the stereoscopic air-photo interpretation
work will carry out the field-checking. It is not acceptable to carry out
stereoscopic air-photo interpretation in the office and then send less experienced
staff out to collect field data. The nature of terrain and terrain stability mapping
demands that the mapper walk the ground.
Reconnaissance and detailed mapping
The decision whether to carry out detailed mapping or reconnaissance mapping
is based on a combination of factors.

3
Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

Reconnaissance mapping for the identification of unstable or potentially

unstable terrain is most suitable for plateau areas where there are only local
occurrences of potentially unstable terrain. In this case, it is not cost-effective to
terrain map large areas of stable terrain. The second situation for reconnaissance
is where extensive areas of steep terrain need to be mapped in a short time
period and as economically as possible. In this instance, reconnaissance
mapping can be used to identify areas that have potential hazards. Areas for
which the consequence of landslides is high (e.g., fish streams) can also be
scheduled for subsequent detailed terrain mapping.

Detailed mapping is most appropriate for areas that have a large proportion of
steep, landslide-susceptible terrain, as well as significant resources that might be
affected by landslides. Detailed terrain mapping is required to be completed in
all existing community watersheds by June 15, 2000.

Development of criteria for terrain stability classes

The criteria used to separate terrain stability classes are usually defined in terms
of slope gradient, surficial materials, material texture, material thickness, slope
morphology, moisture conditions and ongoing geomorphic processes. Because of
regional variations in climate, geology, soils and other factors, few specific
criteria apply universally across all regions of the province.

The mapper must develop criteria for terrain stability classes specific to the map
area. These criteria and the rationale used to develop them must be documented
in the report or legend accompanying the terrain stability maps. The terrain
stability class criteria should be applied systematically to all map polygons in a
given study area. Any exceptional conditions that change assigned terrain
stability classes should be noted in the list of criteria.

The criteria for terrain stability classes are typically qualitative and depend on
the knowledge and experience of the terrain mapper. The criteria for terrain
stability classes in reconnaissance terrain stability mapping are far less rigorous
than in detailed terrain stability mapping and by necessity must be based on
factors that can be determined primarily from air-photo interpretation. Polygons
containing naturally occurring landslides should be categorised as
reconnaissance stability class “U” (Table 2) on reconnaissance terrain stability
maps and terrain stability class “V” on more detailed terrain stability maps
(Table 3). An example of detailed terrain stability class criteria are provided in
Appendix 1 (Table 1B).

For detailed terrain stability mapping projects, it is essential that the mapper
investigate areas within the project area (or similar areas nearby) that have been
logged, and areas where roads have been built. The mapper should document

4
 Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

and report the types of terrain that typically experience landslides related to
timber harvesting or road construction. Certain types of terrain will be more
prone to failure than others. For example, steep, gullied terrain often experiences
higher rates of post-timber harvesting landslide activity than benchy, irregular
terrain. The mapper should use this information to develop criteria for ranking
the different types of terrain in the map area for the expected likelihood or
frequency of development-related landslide activity.

A highly systematic approach to collecting this type of data, termed a terrain

attribute study, has been carried out in several areas in the province (Rollerson et
al. 1997). A tentative terrain stability mapping methodology has also been
developed, using extensive landslide inventory data from the Kamloops Forest
Region (Pack 1994). As well, several exploratory approaches exist which use
digital elevation models to derive slope and catchment characteristics for terrain
stability interpretations (Pack et al. 1998). Studies of this type will be used more
in the future for developing terrain stability criteria and maps.

A number of approaches for selecting qualitative or quantitative criteria for

terrain stability maps have been developed in various parts of the world. These
range from simple slope maps and landslide inventories to complex statistical
analyses. A summary describing the most common of these approaches is
included in “Terrain Stability Mapping in British Columbia” (Resource
Inventory Committee, 1996b). Because terrain stability mapping is still evolving
in British Columbia, the development and application of innovative and more
quantitative approaches is encouraged.

A final note: The mapper must ensure that the terrain stability criteria and
interpretations are not overly cautious. Such interpretations can lead to
unnecessary terrain stability field assessments, increased logging and road
construction costs and unnecessary prohibitions on some forest practices.

5
Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

Reconnaissance terrain stability mapping (RTSM)

Purpose
The primary objective of reconnaissance terrain stability mapping (RTSM) is to
identify all unstable or potentially unstable land areas. Reconnaissance terrain
stability maps are useful for identifying land areas where more detailed mapping
is required. For instance, if a reconnaissance terrain stability map shows limited,
widely scattered problem areas, then additional detailed mapping of only those is
warranted. On the other hand, if extensive areas with potential stability problems
are identified, then detailed mapping over entire watersheds would help to
identify the areas where a terrain stability field assessment is required before
timber harvesting or road construction can be approved.

Since RTSM is slope hazard mapping, knowledge of specific forest development

proposals or downslope/downstream elements at risk is not needed.

A map polygon interpreted as unstable typically shows evidence of natural

instability. Unstable areas are expected to have a high likelihood of landslides
following timber harvesting or road construction. A map polygon interpreted as
potentially unstable may show no overt signs of instability under natural
conditions, but have characteristics similar to unstable areas nearby. Potentially
unstable areas have a moderate likelihood of landslides following timber
harvesting or road construction. A map polygon interpreted as stable delineates
an area that is considered to have a negligible or low likelihood of landslides
following timber harvesting or road construction (Table 2).

Recommended specifications

Terrain survey intensity level for reconnaissance mapping

RTSM is usually conducted at TSIL D. Mapping at this level relies primarily on

stereoscopic air-photo interpretation, supplemented with limited ground-
checking and helicopter reconnaissance. Field-checking should concentrate on
those terrain polygons that will be classified as unstable or potentially unstable.

Logistical difficulties will often restrict ground access to many unstable or

potentially unstable units. Low-level helicopter verification of mapped unstable
areas where tree cover is limited can be quite effective. In addition, frequent
landings are recommended so that distinctive terrain features (e.g., steep rock,
talus slopes, organic terrain and landslide scars) can be visually verified from
stationary viewpoints with the use of field glasses. Helicopters have minimal or
no utility for visual verification of terrain units in heavily forested areas. While
helicopter and long-distance visual inspections are necessary to compensate for

6
 Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

lack of ground access, representative ground checks must be made to calibrate

slope gradient estimates and confirm terrain conditions in the map area.

Map scale

All RTSM should be done on 1:15 000 to 1:40 000 scale air-photos. The scale of
photos used will depend on the availability of photos with the requisite scale,
density of the forest cover and the complexity and steepness of the terrain being
mapped. For example, 1:15 000 to 1:20 000 scale air-photos are typically used in
steep, densely forested, coastal watersheds, but 1:40 000 scale photos may be
adequate for lightly forested, dry, interior valleys.

The reconnaissance terrain stability maps themselves should be at a scale of

1:20 000 to 1:50 000. Terrain Resource Information Mapping (TRIM) contour
maps at a scale of 1:20 000 with 20-m contour intervals can be used as base
maps. The RTSM maps must be clearly labelled as portraying reconnaissance-
level information.

Minimum map polygon size should be 1 cm2 irrespective of map scale.

Exceptions can be made for critical terrain stability features (e.g., steep
escarpments and gullies). Average polygon size will be a function of the natural
variability, steepness and complexity of the terrain being mapped.

Classification and mapping conventions

RTSM delineates map polygons for all unstable and potentially unstable terrain.
It is not necessary to map the stable portions of the landscape. All areas not
designated as unstable or potentially unstable are assumed to be stable. Unlike
detailed terrain stability mapping, RTSM does not involve producing a terrain
map first.

Map polygons should be as homogeneous as possible. Each map polygon should

contain a single slope class or terrain type whenever possible. Each map polygon
should be labelled with a single terrain stability class (see Table 2). In those
unavoidable cases when map polygons contain more than one stability class, the
entire polygon must be placed in the most hazardous category that occupies
more than 10% of the unit.

Similarly, when the interpretation for a map unit is in doubt, the more hazardous
class should be chosen. Because RTSM is less reliable than detailed terrain and
terrain stability mapping, a reconnaissance terrain stability map may show a
higher percentage of the land as hazardous than will a detailed terrain stability
map.

7
Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

Table 2. Reconnaissance terrain stability classificationa

Reconnaissance terrain stability class Interpretation

S • Stable. There is a negligible to low likelihood of

does not need to be mapped landslide initiation following timber harvesting or
road construction.

P • Potentially unstable.
• Expected to contain areas with a moderate likelihood
of landslide initiation following timber harvesting or
road construction.

U • Unstable. Natural landslide scars present.

• Expected to contain areas where there is a high
likelihood of landslide initiation following timber
harvesting or road construction.

a This classification is provided to avoid confusion with older Environmentally Sensitive Areas mapping, the 5-class
DTSM system and other terrain stability mapping systems used in the past.

For each polygon identified as unstable or potentially unstable, the following

information should be recorded on the reconnaissance terrain stability map or on
an attached table or legend:
• terrain symbol and geomorphic processes (avoid complex symbols); and
• slope, as a numerical range of slope gradients (% is recommended).

The terrain and slope information should provide some background for the
terrain stability classes assigned to each polygon. This information also allows
the interpretive assignments to be revised in light of new knowledge about
terrain stability conditions, without the area having to be remapped. Interpretive
classes alone do not provide this opportunity.

Reconnaissance terrain stability maps must show the location and type of
landslides, unstable gullies and other indicators of unstable terrain that are
identifiable on air-photos but too small to be mapped as separate polygons.
These features can be shown on the map with appropriate symbols.

8
 Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

Detailed terrain and terrain stability mapping (DTSM)

Purpose

Detailed terrain mapping is carried out to collect and present information about
the physical characteristics and properties of the land surface and its geologic
materials, and to provide detailed interpretive data on terrain stability conditions
and soil erosion potential.

A detailed terrain map should form the basis for the preparation of a detailed
terrain stability map. Detailed terrain stability maps can be used to identify
specific areas that require terrain stability field assessments. They are commonly
used in conjunction with other resource information to guide forest development
planning. In particular, detailed terrain stability maps help forest planners
anticipate and avoid those areas where road construction, trail construction or
timber harvesting could cause landslides.

Detailed terrain stability maps are not to be used for making site-specific
prescriptions in lieu of a terrain stability field assessment. 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 area. Since DTSM is slope hazard mapping,
knowledge of specific proposed forest development or downslope/downstream
elements at risk is not needed (unless specific additional interpretations are
made).

Recommended specifications

Terrain survey intensity levels for detailed mapping

Detailed terrain stability interpretations will normally be based on terrain

mapping conducted at TSIL C, in accordance with the specifications in Table 1.
In some circumstances, it may be appropriate to map at TSIL B (e.g., in
watersheds or portions of watersheds with very complicated or very hazardous
soil and terrain conditions). Mapping costs for TSIL B surveys will be
significantly higher than for TSIL C surveys. The move from a TSIL C to a
TSIL B survey is a management decision that should be based on, among other
factors, consultation with experienced terrain mappers. Levels D or E may be
specified for large contiguous inoperable or alpine areas within a DTSM area.

Field-checking should be concentrated in areas with complex terrain and areas of

potential instability or high consequence, especially near streams.
Notwithstanding this emphasis, the mapper must ensure that a representative

9
Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

sample of all terrain conditions present in the map area has been verified in the
field.

Field-checking of detailed terrain mapping usually involves ground-checking 20-

50% of the polygons on the conventionally accessible timber base, with a lower
intensity of ground checks required in areas of inoperable timber. Field-checking
at this intensity typically corresponds to a mapping rate (total map area per field
day) of 500-1200 ha per day, depending on the access, the ratio of accessible to
inaccessible timber, and the complexity of the terrain. These rates are suitable
for experienced mappers. Mappers with less experience will need to spend
significantly more time in the field (see Table 1).

The use of helicopters and stationary viewpoints outlined for RTSM is also
applicable to DTSM. Experienced mappers often conduct local terrain
verification flights at the beginning or end of each field day or will leave aerial
verification until they are familiar with the geography of the map area.

The increased use of helicopters to harvest in previously inoperable timber may

necessitate a higher intensity of field-checking in these areas than has occurred
in the past.

Map scale
All DTSM should be done on 1:15 000 to 1:20 000 scale air-photos. The air-
photos should be the most recent available unless older air-photos have better
resolution.

The most common map scale for presenting DTSM information for forest
management planning is 1:20 000. Terrain and terrain stability maps should be
presented at scales comparable to the photos used for the mapping (e.g., 1:20
000 scale maps for 1:15 000 to 1:20 000 scale photos). The scale of the air-
photos used for the mapping must be documented on each map.

Occasionally, maps are produced at a significantly larger scale than the air-
photos used for the mapping (e.g., polygon boundaries on 1:20 000 scale air-
photos are plotted on 1:5 000 scale maps). This practice is not recommended. In
these situations, a disclaimer outlining the limitations of the mapping must be
prominently displayed on every map.

Topographic base maps should be used for map presentation when available
(e.g., 1:20 000 scale TRIM maps with 20-m contour intervals, or privately
produced maps at 1:20 000 or larger scale). Enlarged 1:50 000 scale contour
maps should not be used.

Minimum map polygon size should be 1 cm2 (4 ha at 1:20 000 scale) except for
unusual or critical terrain features (e.g., gullies).

10
 Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

Classification and mapping conventions

The Terrain Classification System for British Columbia (Howes and Kenk 1997)
should be used for all detailed terrain mapping. The recommendations on
mapping standards and procedures in the Guidelines and Standards for Terrain
Mapping in British Columbia (Resource Inventory Committee, 1996a) are to be
followed These approaches can be supplemented with innovative terrain
stability mapping strategies on a trial basis where appropriate rationale is
presented to, and accepted by, government staff specialists.

Slope gradient and soil drainage labels

Terrain polygon labels should include descriptions of slope gradient and soil
drainage. Slope gradient can be derived by field measurements or from detailed
large-scale contour maps if available, and should be recorded as an estimated
range (or range and average) of typical slope gradients. Slopes of polygons that
are not field-checked should be based on air-photo interpretation and
extrapolation from similarly checked polygons. Soil drainage classes as
described in the Canadian System of Soil Classification (Agriculture Canada
1998) should be used. The drainage class reflects both the soil permeability and
site hydrology.

The recommended procedure for presenting slope information is to give a range

of the maximum and minimum commonly occurring slopes in the polygon. Two
ranges may be given where two disjunct slope ranges exist and the features
cannot be identified as a separate polygon; e.g. a terrace face and scarp. See the
Standard for Digital Terrain Data Capture in British Columbia (Resource
Inventory Committee, 1996a) for details. Another common procedure is to give
three slopes—a maximum, minimum and modal. Soil drainage classes should be
given as a primary and secondary class, where a range of classes is present.

Whenever possible, polygons should delineate homogeneous terrain and slope.

In certain areas of critical or complicated terrain, smaller polygons than the
preferred minimum size may be necessary. For example, deep, steep-sided
gullies create many forest management problems. The mapper should use
specific polygons for these wherever feasible.

Terrain stability classes

Terrain stability classes provide a relative ranking of the likelihood of a landslide
occurring after timber harvesting or road construction. They give no indication
of the expected magnitude of a landslide or potential downslope/downstream
damage. The 5-class terrain stability classification, a tool for forest development
planning, is used for flagging potential problem areas. It should not be
considered an on-site prescription tool for terrain stability field assessments.

11
Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

Where sufficient data is available, the mapper can use terrain stability classes
showing expected numerical frequency or likelihood of failure (e.g., 0.1
landslides/hectare) or other innovative approaches to complement the 5-class
terrain stability classification.

For the derived terrain stability map, each map polygon should be labeled with a
single terrain stability class (see below). In some places, highly variable terrain
types are intermixed and must be mapped as composite polygons. In these cases,
the entire polygon must be labeled as the more hazardous class. Similarly, when
the interpretation for a map polygon is in doubt, the more hazardous class should
always be chosen. This conservative approach to interpretation is necessary,
given the moderate intensity of field-checking represented by a TSIL C survey.
However, the mapper should not be overly conservative; the criteria used to
define terrain stability classes must be justified.

The assignment and interpretation of terrain stability classes is quite subjective.

The 5-class terrain stability classification system in Table 3 should be used on
detailed terrain stability maps.

The IVR-class terrain stability is used only where terrain responds, with respect
to slope stability, very differently to road construction than to timber harvesting.
For example, steep, irregular bedrock units can have a high likelihood for road
fill-slope failure, but a negligible likelihood of landslide initiation due to timber
harvesting. Similarly, in areas of low rainfall, the likelihood of slope failure due
to timber harvesting alone may be very low compared with the likelihood of
landslides from road construction. In these situations, it is appropriate to identify
the terrain stability class with IVR, indicating a low or very low likelihood of
landslides initiating after timber harvesting, but a moderate or high likelihood of
landslide initiation following road construction. For IVR areas, a terrain stability
field assessment would be required for road construction proposed through the
IVR polygon or if the proposed harvesting system included bladed or excavated
trails.

12
 Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

Table 3. Terrain stability classificationa

Terrain stability class Interpretation

I • No significant stability problems exist.

II • There is a very low likelihood of landslides following timber

harvesting or road construction.
• Minor slumping is expected along road cuts, especially for 1 or 2
years following construction.

III • Minor stability problems can develop.

• Timber harvesting should not significantly reduce terrain stability.
There is a low likelihood of landslide initiation following timber
harvesting.
• Minor slumping is expected along road cuts, especially for 1 or 2
years following construction. There is a low likelihood of landslide
initiation following road construction.

IVR • Expected to contain areas with a moderate likelihood of landslide

initiation following road construction and a low or very low
likelihood of landslide initiation following timber harvesting.

IV • Expected to contain areas with a moderate likelihood of landslide

initiation following timber harvesting or road construction.

V • Expected to contain areas with a high likelihood of landslide

initiation following timber harvesting or road construction.
a Modified from: Land Management Handbook 18 (Chatwin et al, 1994). The classification addresses landslides greater
than 0.05 ha in size, conventional timber harvesting practices, and sidecast road construction.

On-site symbols may be used to identify features that are important for terrain
stability interpretations, but too small to be mapped as distinct polygons (e.g.,
landslides, gullies or terrace scarps). The use of on-site symbols should not be
carried to the point where they result in a cluttered or unreadable map.

Where terrain stability is influenced by bedrock geology, relevant information on

bedrock geology may be included on the terrain and/or terrain stability maps
(e.g., symbols for strike and dip direction, faults) or be described in the
accompanying report.

13
Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

Other interpretations

Potential for landslide debris to enter streams

The potential for landslide debris to enter a stream is an interpretation of the

likelihood of bedload sized material and organic debris to colluvially enter a
stream. An example classification and criteria are given in Appendix 2. This is
based on a consideration of the hillslope gradient and slope morphology
downslope from the polygon, evidence of landslide runout, presence or absence
of a runout zone, length of the runout zone, and the presence of gullies that give
direct access to the stream channel. The interpretation can be attached to the
terrain stability symbol or provided on a separate map. Additional map symbols
in the polygon label should be separated by hyphens (e.g. IV-2). This
interpretation is made for polygons with terrain stability class IV, IVR or V.

This interpretation is best suited to site-specific assessments, for example, of

short segments of road. Landslide runout estimation is sometimes difficult to
apply to terrain polygons, however, many mappers have developed reasonable
criteria and standardized procedures for making this interpretation. Where there
is a specific need for assessing the likelihood of landslide debris entering a
stream in a particular project, mappers are expected to develop and substantiate
criteria relevant to their specific map area.

Soil erosion potential

Interpretation for soil erosion potential may be required to be included in a

terrain stability mapping project (e.g., in community watersheds). This
interpretation can be attached to the terrain stability symbol or provided on a
separate map. Additional map symbols in the polygon label should be separated
by hyphens (e.g. IV-M).

Most fine sediment production from soil erosion is from surfaces exposed by
roads and trails.

Classification of soil erosion potential should be based on terrain mapping.

Derive a simple soil erosion potential rating from the terrain map, based on slope
gradient, generic material, texture and soil drainage. Appendix 3 presents an
example of classification criteria for assigning a soil erosion potential based on
genetic material to terrain polygons. It is based on preliminary work done in the
Nelson Forest Region, and requires modification for use in other areas. The
slope classes given are hypothetical; they have not been tested1.

1 A research project in the Nelson Forest Region is being conducted to produce a final field-tested classification in late
1999.

14
 Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

The “soil erosion hazard key” (as described in the Hazard Assessment Keys for
Evaluating Site Sensitivity to soil Degrading Processes Guidebook) is not
recommended for use in terrain mapping.

Risk of sediment delivery to streams

The risk of sediment delivery to streams indicates the likelihood that sediment
derived from erosion sources in a specific terrain polygon will be transported or
delivered to a stream. This interpretation is made for polygons that have a high
or very high surface erosion potential.

This interpretation is better suited to site-specific assessments than to terrain

mapping. It is difficult to apply to terrain polygons, because the risk of sediment
delivery to streams often varies greatly throughout a polygon, and is highly
dependent on future road alignment and gradient. Therefore, this interpretation
is not recommended for most terrain stability mapping projects. Where
there is a specific need for assessing the risk of sediment delivery in a particular
project, mappers should use a classification and criteria such as the one given in
Appendix 4.

15
Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

Map legends and reports for RTSM and DTSM projects

Map legends

A legend must be attached to each terrain and terrain stability map sheet. The
legend must show the date of publication, the extent and date of field-checking,
and the TSIL. The legend must also summarize or define any terrain or
interpretive classifications and any on-site symbols used on the map. The
location of ground checks should be shown on the map. Each map sheet must
show latitude and longitude, UTM grid references, and map sheet numbers and
boundaries for the corresponding forest cover maps. See Guidelines and
Standards for Terrain Mapping in British Columbia (Resource Inventory
Committee, 1996a) and the Standard for Digital Terrain Data Capture in British
Columbia (Resource Inventory Committee, 1998) for examples of map layout
and other terrain mapping conventions. The professional accepting responsibility
for the mapping must sign and seal each map sheet.

Reports

A brief report should accompany all RTSM and DTSM projects. For small
projects, an expanded legend or marginal notes on the map may be sufficient.
The following information should be presented in the report or marginal notes:

• An introductory section outlining pertinent background information and any

previous mapping or terrain stability assessment work, and a statement of the
objectives of the mapping project.

• A description of the project area, including project boundaries, physiography,

topography, general climatic regime, biogeoclimatic zone, general Quaternary
history and bedrock geology.

• Descriptions of the landforms, surficial materials and general Quaternary

stratigraphy of the area, as well as of the soil types and soil drainage
conditions associated with different landforms or surficial materials.

• A description of the active geomorphic processes, particularly the type,

magnitude and frequency of landslides present in the map area, and the
landforms or portions of landforms or terrain units typically associated with
landslide activity (in terms of the initiation, transport and deposition or runout
zones of landslides).

16
 Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

• An inset map showing the location of all helicopter traverses and foot
traverses, as well as:
• brief descriptions of the mapping methods, the percentage of polygons
ground-checked, and the reliability of the map data, and
• a description (with delineation on a map, if necessary) of the areas of high-
intensity versus low-intensity field-checking.

• The criteria and rationale used to develop terrain stability classes and other
interpretations.
• If background data have been collected on areas of previous timber
harvesting, summary tables or summary statistics should also be provided.
The report should describe the limitations of the interpretations.

• A concise summary that discusses any specific recommendations or concerns

with regard to terrain stability and forest management practices in the project
area.

The professional accepting responsibility for the report must sign and seal it.

Additional Tips for RTSM and DTSM:

Do...
• Ensure mapping contractors have appropriate qualifications, competence and
experience.
• Ensure that an experienced reviewer with extensive terrain and terrain stability
mapping experience in forested and mountainous terrain in British Columbia
is included in the project, to guide, supervise and correct the work of less
experienced mappers.
• Allocate adequate time for field-checking and data collection. Inexperienced
mappers will require more time than experienced mappers.
• Ensure air-photo typing is as precise as possible. Carefully position
boundaries that follow obvious slope breaks and other discontinuities in the
landscape that are clearly visible on the air-photos.
• Avoid messy symbols, sloppy linework, thick lines, etc. These create an
impression of haphazard, inaccurate and unreliable mapping.
• Box the air-photos and ensure that terrain polygon boundaries are never on
more than one air photo. Duplicate linework, especially lines that vary in
location, waste time, create the impression of inaccurate mapping, and may
cause errors during line transfer.
• Ensure that the final air-photos have complete polygon labels and finalize
mapping on the air-photos, as well as on the maps.
• Make neat, systematic and comprehensive field notes. Where less experienced
mappers are employed, field notes should be sufficiently detailed to allow an
experienced mapper/reviewer to evaluate mapping quality and the accuracy of
terrain/surficial material designations.

17
Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

• Develop local criteria for interpretations and provide a supporting rationale.

• Ensure that interpretations are consistent and are linked to terrain attributes
described for the terrain polygons mapped.
• Ensure that the terrain polygons mapped are consistent with known
geomorphic history and that landforms are identified correctly.
• Ensure that the conventions for terrain polygon descriptors, on-site symbols,
map polygon boundaries, etc., presented in the “Terrain Classification System
for British Columbia” (Howes and Kenk, 1997) and other supporting
documents are applied correctly.
• Update or modify terrain stability map class criteria and/or interpretations if
new studies show that the current criteria and/or the interpretations are no
longer valid. For example, TSFAs for cutblocks and road locations can serve
as part of the field-checking requirement for terrain mapping and terrain
stability mapping if the two activities are carried out concurrently. The results
of a single TSFA, however, should not be used to modify a pre-existing
reconnaissance or detailed terrain stability map. If TSFAs repeatedly indicate
that the existing RSTM or DTSM for a forest development plan area is overly
conservative or unreliable, then consideration should be given to revising the
mapping.

Do not...
• Map large generalized polygons that have substantive internal slope breaks or
terrain boundaries.
• Use photocopies for stereoscopic air-photo interpretation or line transfer to
digital files. Photocopies are not dimensionally accurate, and they lack the
resolution of the original air photos.
• Assume that terrain polygons mapped for purposes of terrain stability equate
to terrain polygons outlined for terrestrial ecosystem mapping and vice versa.
There can be differences.

18
 Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

Terrain stability field assessments (TSFAs)

A terrain stability field assessment (TSFA) is an on-site assessment of the
potential impact of timber harvesting, road construction, or the construction of
excavated or bladed trails on terrain stability. The purpose of a TSFA is to:
describe the terrain conditions within a proposed cutblock or along a proposed
section of road; evaluate the likely effect of timber harvesting or road
construction on terrain stability; and recommend site-specific actions to reduce
the likelihood of post-harvesting or road-related landslides including a
recommendation not to locate or construct trails on areas where the likelihood of
a landslide will be significantly increased or there is a moderate or high
likelihood of landslide debris entering fish streams or streams in community
watersheds, or cause damage to private property or public utilities. These actions
may involve modification of the cutblock layout, harvesting technique, road
location, trail location, construction techniques, or rehabilitation techniques.

A TSFA should not be considered mapping, because only areas of immediate

concern within a forest development plan (e.g., a cutblock or a road location) are
assessed. With few exceptions, TSFAs are based on inspections on the ground,
not on stereoscopic air-photo interpretation, although air-photos are often used
for background information. They require knowledge of the surficial geology
and terrain stability of the area, as well as of the proposed forest development,
including the proposed timber harvesting and road or trail construction and
rehabilitation methods.

Field assessments may involve several stages, depending on the nature of the
terrain or soil problems present, and the state of development planning.
Sometimes a recommendation will be that a further assessment or prescription is
needed by a different specialist.

Wherever possible, field assessments should be done with the forestry, logging
or engineering staff of the licensee or the forest district. Often, useful
information that is not in the written plan can be supplied by these people. As
well, agreement on prescriptions or changes to the plan on the site can often be
reached, which would not be possible if the assessor did the assessment in
isolation. Generally, the best results are achieved if a terrain specialist works as
part of a planning team, providing advice when needed.
The resulting TSFA reports for cutblocks and road locations may be used and
reviewed by a wide range of individuals:
• Forest operations staff;
• Regulatory agencies making land management decisions;
• Other professionals; and
• Public interest groups and other organizations.

19
Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

Professionals carrying out TSFAs must ensure that prepared reports provide
sufficient technical information to support their interpretations and judgment,
and that they are written concisely and in a language that is understandable to a
wide readership.

Conducting TSFAs

TSFAs can take several forms:

• a pre-layout field assessment of an area to identify potential landslide/
sedimentation hazards before cutblock boundaries or road locations have been
selected;
• a post-layout assessment of cutblocks or road locations; and
• assessments of specific sites or road sections where the rest of the cutblock/
road has either been assessed previously or does not require assessment.

Pre-layout assessments, especially if done with the layout personnel, can often
produce more cost-effective layout and environmental protection. Post-layout
reviews ensure that falling boundaries and roads are optimally located, and avoid
potential problem areas.

The level of field effort and the information provided in the report will depend
on what type of assessment is being done. The most detailed level for a terrain
stability assessment is generally a post-layout field assessment of a proposed
cutblock or proposed road locations.

In areas where there is no terrain mapping but slopes are greater than 60% and
previous studies have shown a low likelihood for landslides, a qualified
registered professional who is familiar with the forest development plan area
may carry out low-level aerial reconnaissance and stereoscopic air-photo
interpretation of the area. If, on the basis of this air-photo interpretation, the
professional can describe the terrain and confirm in writing and with supporting
logic that certain cutblock areas will have a low likelihood of post-harvesting
failure, then a report by the professional may be considered an adequate
substitute for an on-the-ground TSFA. Examples of such terrain for which this
approach may be adequate include steep, irregular bedrock bluffs and blocky
talus slopes. This approach is only suitable for areas where no roads will be
built, or harvesting will be by cable or aerial systems and excavated trails will
not be constructed.

A TSFA may be combined with other assessments such as those for soil erosion
hazard, risk of sediment delivery to streams, gully assessments, windthrow
hazards, snow avalanche hazards and stream channel stability. Considerable
efficiency can be gained by combining more than one type of assessment and
teaming with one or more professionals or specialists to carry out the work.

20
 Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

Method
The following is intended as a guide to professionals carrying out TSFAs. Each
professional must exercise their professional judgment in selecting the
methodology that best suits the site conditions, the goals of the assignment and
the client’s needs.

Before conducting a TSFA, the following background information, where

available, should be obtained and reviewed:
• Air-photos. These are an essential component of a TSFA. If they were not
available for review, the report should state this as a limitation. In some cases,
different ages of photography may be used to investigate the landslide history
of an area.
• Topographic maps of appropriate scale
• Forest cover maps (timber harvesting/wildfire history of adjacent areas)
• Local knowledge of terrain conditions and post-harvesting behaviour
• Previous reports in the area (e.g., terrain reports, windthrow assessments,
landslide assessments)
• Bedrock, surficial geology and/or terrain stability maps
• Road profiles and cross-sections
• Deflection lines
• Gully assessment reports
• Watershed and/or channel assessment reports
• Stream classification maps or reports
• Results from terrain attribute studies
• Other research data applicable to the area

A TSFA should assess the existing and potential terrain stability hazards of all
critical areas within and adjacent to the cutblock and road location such as:
unstable areas, moderate to steeply sloping areas, potentially unstable areas, and
steep gully headwalls. As well as ground traverses, helicopter overviews can be
useful. Areas of highly erodible soils should be assessed in locations where soil
erosion or stream sedimentation is a concern.

Traverses along falling boundaries should describe and evaluate the terrain
inside and immediately outside the falling boundary. Traverses along road
alignments should describe and evaluate the terrain immediately upslope and
downslope of the centerline. These assessments should identify stability hazards
that could affect the road or cutblock (such as snow avalanche tracks, debris
flows, rockfalls upslope of the road, etc.). For small cutblocks, traverses of the
falling boundaries and road locations may suffice. In large cutblocks or in
complex terrain, additional traverses within the cutblock area may be necessary
to fully describe and evaluate terrain conditions. For areas with no topographic
mapping or for which the only available mapping does not have adequate
resolution (e.g., TRIM), it is best to record geographic features that can be easily
identified (e.g., bedrock bluffs, talus slopes, windthrow patches, tall snags).

21
Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

Traverses of the hillside and valley floor below a cutblock or road location may
be necessary for a full assessment of the areas that could be adversely affected
by road drainage, potential landslide runout zones and geomorphic consequences
of landslide activity.

The assessment should cover the potential on-site and off-site effects of
harvesting and road construction, including possible downslope consequences of
post-timber harvesting and road construction landslide activity. It should also
cover the potential stability hazards to workers carrying out harvesting or road
construction, including stability hazards (natural, harvesting and road related)
that may originate upslope of the subject area.

Sufficient field time must be allowed to adequately traverse all areas of concern.
Complex or difficult terrain may require several days of field investigation.
Return trips to pick up missing information are very costly, especially for remote
sites or sites requiring helicopter access. TSFAs must be carried out when the
area is not covered with snow.

Reports

Contents

A TSFA report should normally include the following. The order and headings
shown are to assist the author; they are not meant to establish a report template.
Not all information is necessarily relevant in all cases.

Assignment information
• Client name
• Site location/name (general geographic location)
• Purpose or objectives of the assessment
• Type of assessment (pre or post-layout, road layout)
• Scope of the assessment (i.e., the areas/sections investigated and how the
assessment was carried out)
• Type of harvesting method proposed (e.g., helicopter, cable-based, ground-
based)

Field assessment
• Sources of information used for the assessment
• Traverse description or traverse map
• Date of field assessment
• Personnel on site during field assessment
• Time spent on field assessment
• Length of road (km) or size of cutblock area (ha) assessed
• Weather conditions at the time of assessment

22
 Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

• Limiting factors (e.g., snow cover, weather, heavy groundcover or windthrow)

• Any critical or non-critical areas not traversed, with an explanation of why
they were not visited

Background
• General geographic location/setting
• General terrain and terrain conditions in the vicinity of the cutblock or road
examined
• Distribution and geomorphic consequences (size, runout length, adverse
geomorphic effects on downslope resources) of natural landslides or post-
harvesting landslides and associated terrain conditions in adjacent areas
• Windthrow/wildfire history of the general area relevant to the stability
assessment

Site information
Site descriptions for in-block harvesting, road locations and adjacent areas
should be sufficiently complete, clear and concise to support the conclusions and
recommendations. It is not sufficient to describe areas using terrain mapping
and/or 5-class terrain stability mapping nomenclature or labels. Ensure
descriptions of the following are provided:
• Bedrock type and condition
• Soil and/or surficial material types, textures, stratigraphy and depths
• Slope morphology
• Soil drainage
• Numerical slope gradients (range and mean) and point slope gradients, where
helpful.
• Elevation and aspect relevant to a discussion of terrain behavior
• Vegetative indicators for high soil moisture or slope movement
• Soil creep, seepage, gully channel conditions and snow avalanches
• Indicators of potential slope instability (see Table 5)
• Natural landslide activity:
• presence or absence
• distribution, age, approximate area, magnitude and effects
• location of initiation zones, runout zones and deposition zones
• Windthrow/wildfire history relevant to terrain stability or erosion/
sedimentation

23
Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

Table 4. Example field indicators of potential slope instabilitya

Field indicators Potential landslide type

• recent landslide scars high likelihood of

• revegetated landslide scars landslides of the same
type and size
• partially revegetated strips (may also be snow avalanche tracks) • debris avalanches
• jack-strawed trees (trees tilted in various directions) • debris flows
• linear strips of even-aged timber • debris slides
• landslide debris piled on lower slopes
• soil and rocks piled on the upslope side of trees
• curved or sweeping trees (may also indicate snow creep)
• mixed or buried soil profiles
• poorly developed soils relative to other comparable slopes
• tension fractures
• poorly drained or gullied*, fine-textured materials <3 m deep
on slopes >50%
• poorly drained or gullied* coarse-textured materials
on slopes >50%
• wet site vegetation on slopes >50%
• shallow, linear depressions
• shallow, wet, organic soils on slopes >40%
• recently scoured gullies* • debris flows
• exposed soil on gully sides* • debris slides
• debris piles at the mouths of gullies*
• vegetation in gully much younger than the adjacent forest
• poorly developed soils on gully sides relative to adjacent slopes
(repeated shallow failures continually remove the
developed soil profile)
• tension fractures • slumps
• curved depressions • earthflows
• numerous springs at toe of slope, sag ponds
• step-like benches or small scarps
• bulges in road
• displaced stream channels
• jack-strawed trees (trees tilted in various directions), split trees
• poorly drained medium- to fine-textured materials
(e.g., till, lacustrine, marine and some glaciofluvial deposits)
>3 m deep
• mixed or buried soil profiles
• ridged marine deposits

• talus or scattered boulders at base of slope rock slides or rock fall

• rock faces with freshly exposed rock (can be induced by excavation
• steeply dipping, bedrock discontinuities (bedding planes, joints and blasting for roads)
or fracture surfaces, faults) that parallel the slope
• bedrock joint or fracture surface intersections that dip steeply
out of the slope

*Apply the Gully Assessment Procedure Guidebook to any gullied areas on the Coast.
aModified from Land Management Handbook 18 (Chatwin et al, 1994). Consult LMH 18 for background information.

24
 Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

Results and recommendations

The results and recommendations should be clearly stated in plain language so
that forestry personnel fully understand the planning/management implications.
Included should be:

• Expected outcomes of timber harvesting for individual boundary segments

and landforms within and adjacent to the cutblock:
• likelihood and/or expected frequency of landslide activity.
• expected landslide runout zone/size and relative geomorphic consequences
• potential for soil erosion/stream sedimentation
• expected outcomes of road construction for individual road sections as
outlined above for the cutblock
• downslope/downstream terrain stability concerns related to road or
logging trail drainage
• potential effects of windthrow on terrain stability on adjacent slopes
• safety: potential terrain hazards originating both within and upslope of the
subject area and which present an undue risk to workers, and an
assessment of whether this risk is similar or greater than adjacent areas.
The client and professional conducting the assessment should ensure that
current Workers’ Compensation Board requirements and concerns are
addressed.
• downslope/downstream elements at risk and possible consequences

The results and recommendations must also state whether proposals for
clearcutting and construction of excavated or bladed trails will be in compliance
with the Timber Harvesting Practices Regulation. For example:
• In a community watershed, on areas with a moderate likelihood of landslides
and a high risk of landslide debris entering directly into streams, the
recommendations must state whether there are reasonable grounds to believe
that clearcutting will not significantly increase the risk of a landslide.
• Outside of a community watershed, on areas with a high likelihood of
landslides, the recommendations must state whether there are reasonable
grounds to believe that clearcutting will not significantly increase the risk of a
landslide and that there is a low likelihood of landslide debris:
• entering into a fish stream or perennial stream that is a direct tributary to a
fish stream; or
• damaging private property or public utilities.
• Inside or outside of a community watershed, on areas with a moderate
likelihood of landslides, the recommendations must state whether there are
reasonable grounds to believe that an excavated or bladed trail can be located,
constructed and rehabilitated in a manner that will not significantly increase
the risk of a landslide, and there is a low likelihood of landslide debris:
• entering into a perennial stream in a community watershed, a fish stream
or a perennial stream that is a direct tributary to a fish stream; or
• damaging private property or public utilities.

25
Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

Documentation of any inherent limitations of the TSFA

The recommendations must be clearly written so that forestry personnel fully
understand what needs to be done. They should address by segments/areas along
the falling boundary, reserve areas and interior of the cutblock or road sections:
• harvesting issues (e.g., falling boundary relocation, alternative harvesting
methods, in-block reserves, gully/stream management)
• windthrow relevant to stability in and around a cutblock (e.g., in-block
reserves, falling boundary relocation, feathering, crown modification)
• roads and stream crossings (e.g. relocation, sidecast limitations, ditchwater
control, cutslope control, designed fills, gully crossing advice, endhaul
sections, spoil site locations, deactivation considerations)

As well, they should identify any additional investigations or other expertise that
is needed (e.g., windthrow assessment, geotechnical engineering design of
specific sites, snow avalanche assessments, hydraulic design or rock slope
assessments).

The results and recommendations should be supported by a rationale, including:

• Geomorphic, hydrologic, geotechnical, geological or pedologic inferences
• Past response of comparable natural or logged areas nearby (the effects of
timber harvesting may mimic the response of specific terrain units to natural
wildfire or extensive windthrow)
• Local knowledge/history of terrain performance
• Applicable research data/knowledge where available
• Applicable models if any, or new information
• Other rationales

The report should indicate whether a professional or a designate need be on site

during road construction or deactivation. Typically an on-site specialist is
required if:
• the design and design changes are dependent on actual conditions and
materials encountered during construction;
• the design is complex or non-standard and the specialist needs to explain it
and consult with on-site forest operations personnel to ensure that it is
correctly built; or
• there are significant downslope/downstream elements at risk.

Methods of describing cutblocks, gullies, streams,

roads, and adjacent areas in TSFA reports

Cutblocks
• linearly, by falling boundary section (delineated by falling corners or other
geographic references), supplemented with map polygons, points, groups of
points or spatial descriptions, as necessary, to clearly describe the interior of
the block or adjacent areas. This is the preferred and more common approach.

26
 Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

• by map areas (polygon), with an appropriate detailed description for each unit
delineated. These descriptions must be accompanied by linear traverse notes
that clearly document the extent of field investigation carried out to define the
polygons. The use of map polygons as a descriptive tool does not satisfy the
requirement for complete foot traverses of all critical areas within, adjacent
and above the block. Descriptions based on single point observations or
incomplete foot traverses of critical areas are not acceptable. Map area
(polygon) boundaries and descriptions must be accurate and must not mislead
readers as to the extent, variability or character of the terrain included in each
polygon.

Gullies and streams

• linearly, by reach for critical harvesting areas; and by point descriptions at
road crossings.

Roads
• linearly, by homogenous road design section (delineated by station numbers),
or on a map that shows traverse routes.

Terminology

Accepted standard terminology should be used in TSFA reports to avoid

confusion or misinterpretation. The following are the conventions in common
use for this type of work in the forest sector:
• Forest soils: Canadian System of Soil Classification (Agriculture Canada
1998)
• Terrain and surficial materials: Terrain Classification System for British
Columbia (Howes and Kent 1997)
• Engineering design: Unified Soil Classification System (1953); The Use of the
Unified Soil Classification System by the Bureau of Reclamation (Wagner
1957)
• Gully and stream descriptions: use the current versions of the following Forest
Practices Code guidebooks: Channel Assessment Procedure Guidebook; Fish-
stream Identification Guidebook; Gully Assessment Procedure Guidebook;
Riparian Management Area Guidebook. Some habitat information is still in
the form of the Coastal Fisheries Forestry Guidelines conventions, and is
acceptable for use provided it is properly referenced.

(If the author chooses to use another convention, he or she should state what
convention that is.)

Maps should use the cartographic conventions specified by the Terrain

Classification System for British Columbia and the Guidelines and Standards for
Terrain Mapping in British Columbia to indicate map reliability.

27
Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

Appendices and attachments

Presentation of information will depend to some extent on the specific

requirements of the client (e.g. format requirements) and the manner in which
the TSFA report is submitted. For example, if the report is submitted along with
the forest development plan documents, other information relevant to the
assessment may already be in the forest development plan (e.g., stream
classifications, terrain classification/stability mapping, 1:20 000 location maps,
etc.). On the other hand, if the TSFA is a stand-alone document, or is being
forwarded for review or other information purposes, it may be helpful to attach
some of these other documents in full or in part.

Typical attachments include the following:

• 1:5000/1:10 000 maps showing topography, obvious and critical terrain
features, cutblock boundaries and road locations, traverse routes and stability
hazard areas
• additional sketches to delineate relatively homogenous areas or segments of
the cutblock or road location, identify specific terrain hazards, or illustrate
recommendations
• 1:20 000 (or in some cases 1:50 000) location map of the cutblock and roads
• photos, where feasible and useful
• summaries of gully assessment data or stream classifications, where relevant
• where measures to maintain terrain stability or water quality are required, any
sketches or plans necessary to describe the measures to forest operations
personnel

Reports in low hazard areas

A TSFA report can be abbreviated where an on-the-ground inspection (required

for road and cutblock location) determines that, for selected road location, the
assessed terrain has a likelihood of landslide initiation no more severe than low.
A report rationale must be included to explain why an area is determined to have
a low likelihood of landslides. Sufficient attachments, such as maps at 1:5000 to
1:10 000 and other items as listed above, must be included to clearly identify the
areas traversed.

Limitations of TSFAs

Limitations

A TSFA depends on surface features and natural exposures observed during the
field visit, supplemented by air photo interpretation and evaluation of
topographic maps and other available information. This type of assessment does

28
 Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

not include subsurface investigation or measurement of the engineering

properties of materials. It is, by nature, a qualitative assessment based on the
professional’s training, observational skills and experience in similar terrain.
Prediction of terrain stability is based on an understanding of past and present
geomorphic processes and the extent to which they are influenced by forestry
operations. Terrain stability predictions are more accurate for some types of
terrain and certain types of instability than for others.

29
Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

References
Agriculture Canada. 1987. Canadian system of soil classification. Ottawa, Ont.

Benda, L.E. and T.W. Cundy. 1990. Predicting deposition of debris flows in mountain channels. Can.
Geotech. J. 27:409-417.

B.C. Ministry of Forests. 1995. Gully Assessment Procedure Guidebook. Victoria, B.C.

___________ . 1995. Riparian Management Area Guidebook. Victoria, B.C.

___________ . 1996. Channel Assessment Procedure Guidebook. Victoria, B.C.

___________ . 1998. Fish-stream Identification Guidebook. Victoria, B.C.

___________ . (1999). Hazard Assessment Keys for Evaluating Site Sensitivity to Soil Degrading
Processes - 2nd Edition . Victoria, B.C.

Church, M. 1983. Concepts of sediment transfer and transport on the Queen Charlotte Islands. FFIP
Working Paper 2/83, Fish Forestry Interaction Program, B.C. Ministry of Forests, B.C.
Ministry of Environment, Canada Department of fisheries and Oceans.

Chatwin, S.C., D.E. Howes, J.W. Schwab, and D.N. Swanston. 1994. A guide for management of
landslide-prone terrain in the Pacific Northwest. B.C. Ministry of Forests, Land Manage.
Handb. No. 18 (2nd ed.). Victoria, B.C.

Howes, D.E. and E. Kenk. 1997 (contributing editors). Terrain classification system for British
Columbia (Version 2). B.C. Ministry of Environment, Recreational Fisheries Branch, and
B.C. Ministry of Crown Lands, Surveys and Resource Mapping Branch, Victoria, B.C.

Hungr, O., G.C. Morgan, and R. Kellerhals. 1984. Quantitative analysis of debris torrent hazards for
design of remedial measures. Can. Geotech. J. 21:663-677.

Pack, R.T. 1994. Inventory of forest landslide occurrences in the Kamloops Forest Region. Terratech
Western Profile Consultants Ltd., Salmon Arm. Report to the B.C. Ministry of Forests,
Kamloops Forest Region. 67 p.

Pack, R.T., D.G. Tarboton and C.N. Goodwin 1998. The SINMAP approach to terrain stability
mapping. Paper submitted to the 8th Congress of the Internat. Assoc. of Engineering
Geology, September 21-25, 1998, Vancouver, B.C.

Resources Inventory Committee. 1996a. Guidelines and standards for terrain mapping in British
Columbia. Government of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C.

___________ . 1996b. Terrain stability mapping in British Columbia: A review and suggested
methods for landslide hazard and risk mapping. Government of British Columbia. Victoria,
B.C.

30
 Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

___________ . 1998. Standard for digital terrain data capture in British Columbia. Government of
British Columbia, Victoria, B.C.

Rollerson, T., B. Thomson, and T.H. Millard. 1997. Identification of coastal British Columbia terrain
susceptible to debris flows. First Internat. Symp. on Debris Flows, August 1997, San
Francisco, Calif. United States Geological Survey/ASCE.

VanDine, D.F. 1985. flows and debris torrents in the southern Canadian Cordillera. Can. Geotech. J.
22:44-68.

___________ . 1996. Debris flow control structures for forest engineering. B.C. Ministry of Forests
Working Paper 22/1996, Victoria, B.C. 68 p.

Wagner, A. 1957. The Use of the Unified Soil Classification System by the Bureau of Reclamation.
Proc. of the 4th Internat. Conf. on Soil Mechanics.

___________ .U.S. 1953. The United Soil Classification System. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station Technical Memorandum (Waterways Experiment Station).

31
Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

Appendix 1. Terrain stability mapping systems and criteria

Table 1A. Comparison of various terrain stability mapping systems used in BC.

Terrain stability Reconnaissance ESA soil

class stability sensitivity class
class
I S unclassified

II S unclassified

III S unclassified

IV P Es2

V U Es1

32
 Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

Table 1B. An example of terrain stability class criteria

Terrain stability class Sample criteria

I • floodplains and level to undulating coastal plain areas
• most terrain with slopes <20%. Exceptions are noted in higher
classes
II • most gently sloping (20-40%), poorly to well-drained lower
slope landforms. Exceptions are noted in higher classes
• moderately sloping (40-60%), well-to rapidly drained surficial
deposits
III • moderately sloping (40-60%), imperfectly to poorly drained
surficial deposits that are not glaciomarine or glaciolacustrine
• level to gently sloping (0-40%), imperfectly to poorly drained
deep glaciomarine clays and glaciolacustrine deposits
• moderately sloping, deeply gullied surficial deposits that are
not glaciomarine or glaciolacustrine
IV • steeply sloping (>60%), well drained, deeply gullied surficial
deposits
• steeply sloping, poorly drained surficial deposits
• moderately sloping, deeply gullied or imperfectly to poorly
drained glaciolacustrine or glaciomarine deposits
V • any areas where natural landslide scars are visible on air-
photographs or in the field
• very steeply sloping (>70%), imperfectly to poorly drained,
deeply gullied surficial deposits

Caution: These criteria are hypothetical. They do not necessarily represent any particular area in
the province. They should not be used as default criteria for terrain stability mapping. Mappers
must develop criteria specific to each mapping project based on the historical response of the
terrain to timber harvesting and road construction in their map area or similar areas nearby.

33
Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

Appendix 2. Example classification and related criteria for assessing

the likelihood of landslide debris entering streamsa

Class Interpretation Example criteria

1 • Low likelihood that a landslide • The hillslope below the polygon is

originating in the polygon will uniform and the toe of the slope is
enter a stream. >100 m from the stream edge.
• Gully channels within and below
the polygon terminate on fans that
do not impinge on the stream
channel.
• There is no air-photo or field
evidence of landslides entering the
stream.

2 • Moderate likelihood that a landslide • The hillslope below the polygon is

originating in the polygon will enter a uniform and the toe of the slope is
stream. 50-100 m from the stream edge.
• Gully channels within and below
the polygon terminate on fans that
impinge on or are partially
truncated by the stream channel.
• There is air-photo or field evidence
of limited landslide debris entering
the stream.

3 • High likelihood that a landslide originating • The hillslope below the polygon is
in the polygon will enter a stream. uniform and the toe of the slope is
<50 m from the stream edge.
• Gully channels within and below
the polygon terminate at the stream
channel (there is no fan present).
• There is clear air-photo or field
evidence of landslides entering the
stream.

a
This is an example classification developed from experience on Vancouver Island and the Queen
Charlotte Islands. Modifications to suit other areas will be necessary. The reader is referred to
Benda and Cundy (1990), Church (1983), Hungr et al. (1984), and VanDine (1985 and 1996) for
additional background information on landslide runout lengths, deposition zone characteristics and
debris yield predictions.

34
 Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

Appendix 3. Example classification: Soil erosion potential

Class Rating Example criteria Management implications

VL Very low • Blocky colluvial deposits No or only very minor surface

• Terrain dominated by competent bedrock erosion.
L Low • Morainal veneers; most rubbly colluvial Expect minor erosion of fines in
deposits with high coarse fragment ditch lines and disturbed soils.
content
M Moderate • Morainal blankets (depends on texture Expect moderate erosion when
and coarse fragment content; varies across water is channeled down road
the province) surfaces or ditches.
• Glaciofluvial gravels
• Soft, friable bedrock
H High • Some morainal blankets steeper than 60%, Significant erosion problems can
or steeper than 30% if gullied or poorly be created when water is
drained (depends on texture and coarse channeled onto or over exposed
fragment content; varies across the province) soil on these sites.
• Fine textured lacustrine (silts & clays),
glaciolacustrine, glaciomarine, glaciofluvial
or aeolian silts, slopes less than 15%
• Glaciofluvial or fluvial sands with low bulk
density, slopes less than 30%
• Colluvial deposits derived from the above
materials with the same slope or moisture
criteria
• Colluvium derived from soft, friable rock
(e.g., soft phyllites, some pyroclastics), steeper
than 60% or steeper than 30% if gullied
VH Very high • Fine textured lacustrine (silts & clays), Severe surface and gully erosion
glaciolacustrine, glaciomarine, glaciofluvial problems can be created when
or aeolian silts, slopes steeper than 15%, water is channeled onto
or gullied or poorly drained or over these sites.
• Glaciofluvial or fluvial sands with low bulk
density, steeper than 30% or gullied or poorly
drained
• Peat, organic soils or tufa on sloping ground
• Colluvial deposits derived from the above
materials with the same slope or moisture
criteria
aThis is an example classification only. Modifications will be necessary to suit local conditions.

35
Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook

Appendix 4. Example classification and criteria for assessing

the risk of sediment delivery to streams

Risk of sediment Proximity of stream channel to polygon

delivery to streams

No stream channel Minor stream* Major stream**

in or adjacent to channel in or channel in or
polygon adjacent to polygon adjacent to polygon

Very Low Gentle to Steep slope

Low Gentle slope

Moderate Moderate slope Gentle slope

High Steep slope Moderate slope

Very High Steep slope

Slope steepness downslope from polygon to stream channel

* Minor streams are those perennial streams with channel widths that are less than or equal to 1.5m, or any ephemeral
stream.
** Major streams are perennial streams with channel widths that are greater than 1.5m.

Note: Perennial streams are defined in this guidebook as any stream where it is reasonably likely that the stream flows
after July 15 (during the summer period) in most years.

36