• BC Sewerage System Regulation
• Issues in High-rise Building Envelope Performance
• Implications of the MIA Core Building Bylaw
• Letters of Assurance and Due Diligence
• Snow Loads on Arched Roofs: Special Change to the NBC 1995
• Snow Avalanche Assessments in the Forest Sector: Skill Sets for QRPs
• Building Envelope Practice
• Terrain Mapping and Interpretations
• Environmental Regulation and Qualified Professionals
• Ministry of Forests Terrain Stability Field Assessment Update
• Watershed Assessments
• Seismic Guidelines for Government Buildings
• Role of the Registered Professional
• Calculating Hourly Chargeout Rates
• Maximize Efficiency in Terrain Stability Field Assessments

Current Technical Bulletins

Important Information on BC’s New Sewerage System Regulation

In April 2005 APEGBC distributed the following important information to all engineers involved in designing and taking responsibility for onsite sewage disposal systems. This information was intended to clarify the new Sewerage System Regulation (www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/reg/H/Health/326_2004.htm), which was passed on July 7, 2004 and came into effect on May 31, 2005. The new Regulation will apply to:

a) a holding tank;
b) a sewerage system that serves a single family residence or a duplex;
c) a sewerage system or combination of sewerage systems with a combined design daily domestic sewage flow of less than 22,700 litres that serves structures on a single parcel of land, and;
d) a combination of sewerage systems with a combined design daily domestic sewage flow of less than 22,700 litres that serves structures on one or more parcels or strata lots or on a shared interest.

Changes that may affect professional engineers in this area of practice resulting from the implementation of the Regulation include:

1. Environmental Health Officers will no longer review and approve onsite sewage disposal systems.

2. Section 8 of the Regulation requires that documentation on planning, installation and maintenance of systems be filed with the health authority.

3. Under Section 1, Definitions, Treatment, the new regulation systems are categorized as:

a) Type 1 — treatment by septic tank only
b) Type 2 — treatment that produces an effluent containing less than 45 mg/L of total suspended solids and having a 5 day biochemical oxygen demand of less than 45 mg/L c) Type 3 — treatment that that produces an effluent consistently containing less than 10 mg/L of total suspended solids and having:

i) a 5 day biochemical oxygen demand of less than 10 mg/L, and
ii) a median fecal coliform density of less than 400 colony forming units per 100 mL.

4. Under Section 7 of the Regulation an “authorized person” is required to undertake the planning, installation and maintenance of onsite sewage disposal systems. The “authorized person” is either a “registered practitioner” (as registered by the Onsite Wastewater Registration Board for Type 1 or Type 2 systems) or a “professional,” which potentially includes biologists and agrologists in addition to professional engineers. A “professional” is required for all Type 3 systems and may also undertake Type 1 and 2 systems.

5. The BC Onsite Sewage Disposal Association has developed courses that are being delivered at Royal Roads University (Victoria) and by the Westcoast Onsite Wastewater Training Centre to train “registered practitioners” in the planning, installation and maintenance of Type 1 and Type 2 systems.

6. The Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of BC has been contracted by the Ministry of Health Services to administer the registration of “registered practitioners” and has set up the Onsite Wastewater Registration Board to register practitioners for Type 1 and Type 2 systems.

7. A draft Sewerage System Standard Practices Manual (www.healthplanning.gov.bc.ca/protect/bcsr_spm_draft_may2004.pdf) for Type 1 and Type 2 systems is in place. This Manual contains site condition trigger points which, when exceeded, will require the direct involvement of the appropriate “professional.”

8. “Professionals” are not required by the new Regulation to be registered with the Onsite Wastewater Registration Board administered by ASTTBC and may undertake Type 1, Type 2 or Type 3 systems by virtue of their professional registration/license and individual qualifications (training or experience).

9. Installers of Type 1 and Type 2 systems must be registered as “registered practitioners” by the Onsite Wastewater Registration Board unless such a person is acting under the direct supervision/responsibility of a “professional” who is registered/licensed by a professional association that (under Section 7 (3) (b) (ii)) “has, as its mandate, the regulation of persons engaging in matters such as supervision of sewerage system construction and maintenance.” Such a person would also be able to install and carry out maintenance of a Type 3 system provided that the person is acting under the direct supervision/responsibility of a “professional.”

10. The Onsite Wastewater Registration Board has no authority under the Sewerage System Regulation to register planners, installers or maintenance providers for Type 3 systems.

Any questions on the Regulation may be directed to Ross Rettie PEng, APEGBC Director, Professional Practice and Ethics, at 604-412-4851 or rrettie@apeg.bc.ca.

Issues in High-rise Building Envelope Performance

APEGBC’s Building Envelope Committee was created to provide a forum for issues arising from BC’s leaky condo problem of the past 10 years. As part of its activities the Committee considers the status of problems now becoming apparent with high-rise building envelopes.

The following article has been prepared for the Committee as an information item to make APEGBC members (who are not practitioners in this area) and other readers aware of some of the issues around the moisture performance of building envelopes on medium-rise and high-rise structures.

Philip Sunderland PEng

Chair, APEGBC Building Envelope Committee

Most readers will be familiar with the moisture-related problems that have occurred in wood-frame construction over the last 10 years, particularly in coastal BC. Similar problems have developed on the United States west coast and other areas, as well as in locales as far away as Scotland (where the frame building concept was introduced some years ago) and New Zealand.

For many years, building envelope practitioners have also been aware that the problem of moisture-related building envelope failures extends beyond wood-frame three-storey apartment buildings, townhouses and single family dwellings to medium- and high-rise buildings. In particular, the steel stud framing used in medium- and high-rise structures responds differently than wood to the penetration of exterior moisture into the wall assembly.

Types of Cladding Systems

“Medium- and high-rise buildings” means structures that are built to Parts 3 and 4 of the Building Code (noncombustible construction). These structures are higher or larger than permitted under Part 9 of the Building Code, which allows wood-frame buildings of up to three storeys but with particular restrictions regarding fire separations and building height.

Medium- and high-rise buildings do not use wood-frame construction in exterior walls, but typically use galvanized steel studs and tracks as the secondary structural framing for exterior wall cladding. These steel stud systems typically support the interior gypsum wallboard and an air/vapour barrier, contain glass fibre batt insulation, and support exterior grade gypsum wallboard, which forms the substrate for the exterior cladding.

A variety of exterior cladding materials are used including, but not limited to, brick or brick veneer, EIFS (External Insulated Finish System), conventional stucco, stone or ceramic tile, metal panels, fibre-cement panels, etc.

As well, medium- and high-rise buildings have various types of glazing systems. These include conventional windows occupying a portion of the height of the wall, sliding glass doors to balconies and, in some cases, window-wall systems.

“Window-wall system” means glazing installed full height from slab to slab, often with only a metal cover panel concealing the slab edges but sometimes with the glazing running past the slab edges at part thickness. Although they may appear to be similar to curtain wall systems, they are substantially different.

The structural system on which medium- and high-rise wall systems are installed is most commonly structural concrete. However, other structural systems are used including load-bearing steel stud, metal deck and concrete fill systems, and reinforced concrete vertical structure with post-tensioned concrete slabs. A combination of structural and light gauge steel, or structural steel and proprietary slab systems such as the Hambro system, are also possible.

Cladding System Corrosion

The steel studs and tracks are composed of galvanized sheet steel material that has been cut and cold formed after galvanizing. These studs and tracks have exposed bare steel on the edges and ends of the elements. They are typically assembled with screw fasteners that have only nominal corrosion protection.

Galvanized steel can have good corrosion resistance in atmospheric exposure, particularly in a rural environment where service life can exceed 20 years. However, when assembled in contact with paper-faced exterior gypsum boards that are subject to significant moisture, the steel’s zinc coating is attacked very rapidly. The result can be rapid corrosion of the underlying light steel, which is often 18 gauge.

In common with wood-frame construction, a continuous interior polyethylene film vapour barrier, and fairly high insulation values, are incorporated in the steel frame wall. The vapour barrier often functions as a reasonably effective (but unintentional) water barrier, preventing the building occupants from knowing that water has entered the wall system from the exterior. Water can cause corrosion of the galvanized steel framing and deterioration of the exterior gypsum wallboard which, in many cases, forms the substrate supporting the exterior cladding.

For example, in one common system, face-sealed EIFS, the material outboard of the exterior gypsum often comprises a layer of polystyrene foam beadboard attached with adhesive to the gypsum board. This is overlain on the outside by a glass-fibre-mesh-reinforced acrylic stucco system that is typically applied in two coats and usually back-wrapped around the edges to seal the styrofoam insulation against flame spread.

When moisture enters this system it penetrates to the exterior gypsum layer and increases the moisture content. This typically continues to a point where mould growth and other organic deterioration of the paper faces occur, accompanied by corrosion of both the light gauge steel construction, with which the gypsum board is in contact, as well as the screws that connect the components. In addition, the gypsum core softens and deteriorates with elevated moisture content.

In the long term, if left uncorrected, these situations can result in a loss of strength of the exterior gypsum wallboard, or the steel framing or the fasteners, to the point where substantial delamination of the EIFS can occur. In some cases, this has led to the separation of large areas of the EIFS system from buildings. This clearly poses a hazard to the public as well as a significant inconvenience to building occupants, who lose their exterior wall cladding.

The required repairs usually result in the substitution of an exterior cladding system that can better control water entry and provide drying. This system often incorporates exterior sheathing materials that are more durable than the paper-faced gypsum wallboards, such as silicone-treated glass-fibre-faced gypsum board or, occasionally, some type of cement-based board.

Envelope Failure and Post-tensioned Slabs

Another potential problem occurs in the case of buildings with post-tensioned concrete suspended slabs.

In the case of conventional reinforced concrete, the typical moisture exposures that would occur at the slab edge will not result in serious corrosion of slab reinforcement before the wall cladding deterioration has progressed far enough to require replacement.

However, where slabs are post-tensioned, and the sealing of the ends of the strand tensioning pockets has been poorly performed in the original construction (these are typically exposed at the exterior edge of the slabs), moisture entering the wall system can penetrate into the slab edge and then into the post-tensioning strand sheathing.

This can, in the worst cases, result in stress corrosion and failure of the strand. At the very least it can result in a costly program of strand deterioration investigation and, if necessary, replacement. (This issue was addressed by the City of Vancouver Building Department Bulletin 94-1 of March 23, 1994, which is no longer in effect as the problem was addressed in later editions of CSA Standards.)

Conclusion

As can be seen, problems have been experienced with moisture penetration in medium- and high-rise buildings that are similar to the problems that have developed in their wood-frame cousins.

These problems are under active study by agencies like the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Institute for Research in Construction. In addition, most of BC’s major building envelope consulting firms are already significantly involved in the investigation and remediation of high-rise moisture performance problems. APEGBC’s Building Envelope Committee therefore believes that these problems are being addressed appropriately, although it will continue to monitor the situation.

Because building bylaws are at the centre of BC local government’s greatest exposure to liability risks, APEGBC members need to be aware of recent changes in this area that affect the way local governments regulate construction within their jurisdictions. These changes relate to the development of a Core Building Bylaw provision by the Municipal Insurance Association of BC (MIA), which provides insurance coverage for over 150 municipalities in BC.

The MIA developed the Core Building Bylaw in response to liability concerns that arose when the Corporation of Delta was successfully sued on a building project with water infiltration problems. That event spurred the MIA to review the liability exposure faced by municipalities that regulate the construction of buildings within their jurisdiction.

The ultimate intent of the Core Building Bylaw is to shift liability from the local authority and place it primarily on the owner and registered professional, consistent with existing provisions under the BC Building Code.

Project Development

In 2002, MIA prepared a document entitled “Municipal Insurance Association of British Columbia Building Bylaw Project,” the goal of which was to provide local governments insured by MIA with a Core Building Bylaw that could be adopted by the respective municipalities.

It was intended that the wording of the Core Building Bylaw would standardize the risk undertaken by local governments when regulating building construction within their jurisdictions. The bylaw provisions set out the scope of a building official’s duty of care under the requirements of the BC Building Code.

Conducted by the law firm Barnes, Twining and Short, the Building Bylaw Project consisted of the following elements:

1. Detailed review of background materials including the BC Building Code, local government Acts, current building bylaws and the jurisprudence.
2. Drafting of Core Bylaw provisions and background materials.
3. Distribution of draft material to local governments participating in the project for discussion and feedback.
4. Incorporation of finalized material and wording into a package for distribution to the MIA membership.
5. Distribution of a draft report to, and solicitation of comments from, all MIA members and various professional and government organizations involved in regulating construction in BC.

In two written submissions dated June 3 and 11, 2002, APEGBC expressed support for the principles expressed in the Core Building Bylaw since the concept of placing reliance on professionals is consistent with the requirements of the BC Building Code, the intent of the Letters of Assurance and the Engineers and Geoscientists Act. APEGBC also provided comments on the MIA document.

The MIA report was finalized and issued in July 2002, and responded to some of the changes proposed by APEGBC.

Elements of the Bylaw

Currently, 60 municipalities have adopted a version of the Core Building Bylaw contained in the MIA report, although variations occur in each. Therefore, registered professionals who work on building projects in one of these municipalities should confirm their roles and responsibilities as identified in the municipality’s approved Building Bylaw.

The Core Building Bylaw recommended to municipalities insured by MIA includes the following elements:

• The registered professional (professional engineer or architect) is responsible for ensuring that the design of complex buildings (essentially all Part 3 buildings as defined in the BC Building Code) is in compliance with the BC Building Code.
• Registered professionals are required to provide proof of adequate professional liability insurance.
• Registered professionals will provide all field reviews as required under the BC Building Code and municipalities will no longer conduct onsite construction inspections of complex structures.
• Registered professionals are required to assure the design of standard structures (essentially all Part 9 buildings as defined in the BC Building Code) in some circumstances or when deemed necessary by the building official.
• The foundation design of standard structures must be carried out in accordance with Part 4 of the Building Code or upon completion of a geotechnical investigation, unless the owner establishes that neither step is necessary.
• Building officials’ inspection of the construction of standard buildings is confined to reviewing the specified health, safety and protection of persons and property as defined in the building bylaw.
• Occupancy permits are issued only to certify that the municipality or other authority having jurisdiction has met its responsibility to monitor the completion of design and field review by registered professionals.

Discussion

Because the Core Building Bylaw is intended to establish a system for monitoring the process required under the BC Building Code, the authority of the municipal building official is focused on administering and enforcing the building bylaw’s monitoring process and not on ensuring compliance with the Building Code.

This approach is contrary to many building bylaws currently in place in various BC municipalities that formally designate the local government or one of its officers as the “authority having jurisdiction.” The Core Building Bylaw provisions deliberately avoid taking this step because the BC Building Code states that the “authority having jurisdiction” is the “government body responsible for the enforcement of any part” of the BC Building Code.

The Core Building Bylaw has been prepared so that a municipality can no longer be held responsible for enforcing compliance with the BC Building Code. As stated in the Policy Considerations section of the aforementioned MIA report, “The intent of the Core Bylaw provision is to shift responsibility of liability arising from the local authority and place it primarily on the owner and registered professional.”

Recommendations

Based on the foregoing, APEGBC makes the following recommendations to members who work on the design of buildings that fall under the authority of the BC Building Code:

1. Before beginning work on the design of a building, the APEGBC member should determine whether or not the municipality in which the building is located has adopted the MIA’s Core Building Bylaw and, if so, in what form.
2. An APEGBC member who works on the design of a complex building in a municipality that has adopted the Core Building Bylaw should advise the owner that the municipality in question has shifted its responsibility to monitoring the process required under the BC Building Code and away from enforcing compliance with the technical requirements of the Code. On this basis, it may be appropriate in some circumstances to engage a second registered professional to confirm that specific life safety related items, when involved, are constructed in compliance with the design.
3. The APEGBC member must ensure that an appropriate quality management system is in place to check that the design complies substantially with the BC Building Code, and that field reviews provide assurance that the constructed works comply substantially in all material respects with the design.

Letters of Assurance and Due Diligence

Letters of Assurance (LOA), which are submitted to local municipal authorities, are required before building permits or occupancy permits are granted. These letters are legal documents as provided for under the BC Building Code (1998). Uniform mandatory LOA have been incorporated as Schedules into the BC Building Code since December 1992 and the Vancouver Building Bylaw incorporates similar LOA.

The professional engineer or geoscientist who signs an LOA is responsible for assuring that all requirements identified in it are met. For example, in signing Schedule C-B, Assurance of Professional Field Review and Compliance, a professional engineer or geoscientist is responsible for assuring that the relevant aspects of the project for which they are responsible substantially comply “in all material respects” with the applicable requirements of the BC Building Code.

However, experience has shown that the use of LOA across BC is not uniform and there is some misunderstanding among owners, authorities having jurisdiction, engineers and architects about the responsibilities that stem from the LOA. APEGBC has become aware of instances where members have not exercised the appropriate due diligence before providing their signature and seal to the LOA. Examples include projects involving backfilling, welding of structural steel (see article in the March 1993 issue of The BC Professional Engineer), fire alarm systems and concrete reinforcement.

This article has therefore been prepared, with the involvement of APEGBC’s Consulting Practice Committee and Building Codes Committee, to clarify the roles and responsibilities of professional engineers and geoscientists under the LOA in accordance with the Engineers and Geoscientists Act.

LOA Intent and References
The collective intent of the LOA is to assure the authority having jurisdiction that:·

• The activities of the various registered professionals are coordinated.
• Building designs substantially comply with the BC Building Code or Vancouver Building Bylaw.
• The designer will undertake, and has undertaken, the necessary field reviews to ascertain that the building construction substantially complies with the BC Building Code or Vancouver Building Bylaw as well as the design submitted in support of the application for building permit.

In addition to the LOA themselves, owners, designers and registered professionals should be thoroughly familiar with the following:

• BC Building Code Section 2.6, Professional Design and Review
• Vancouver Building Bylaw Section 2.6, Professional Design and Review
• Guide to the Letters of Assurance published by the Building Policy Branch, BC Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women’s Services (Guide)

What the LOA Say
The LOA state clearly and succinctly that the signer(s) — owner, coordinating registered professional and registered professionals — are giving a personal assurance to the authority having jurisdiction. Specifically, those assurances are:

Owner — has engaged a coordinating registered professional to undertake certain responsibilities that are explained fully in the LOA.

Coordinating Registered Professional — will coordinate the design and field review of all applicable registered professionals for the duration of the project (and, in accordance with the Guide, will coordinate the submission of the LOA of the various registered professionals).

Registered Professionals — have designed their component of the project and have conducted the necessary field reviews to assure substantial compliance with the BC Building Code, Vancouver Building Bylaw and the design submitted in support of the application for building permit. The obligation to provide LOA applies to six disciplines: architectural, structural, geotechnical, mechanical, electrical and fire suppression. Occasionally, other disciplines may be requested by one or more of the primary registered professionals, or the authority having jurisdiction, to prepare a LOA for a specific item or component of the structure.

Building Envelope Professional — the Vancouver Building Bylaw also requires a building envelope professional to provide schedules D-1 and D-2, which provide assurance that the building envelope professional will carry out design review and enhanced field reviews of components and assemblies required by Part 5 of the Vancouver Building Bylaw.

The LOA permits a registered professional to sign on behalf of a firm. Thus, for civil liability purposes it may be that the firm is responsible, however; for Code of Ethics purposes the registered professional will remain personally responsible.

In the LOA the coordinating registered professional and the registered professionals undertake to notify the authority having jurisdiction in writing as soon as possible if their contract for field reviews is terminated at any time during construction.

Matters of Responsibility

Design and Field Reviews
It is the intent of APEGBC, AIBC, the Building Standards Branch and the City of Vancouver that the same coordinating registered professional and registered professionals are responsible for the design and field reviews. The Guide discusses the problems encountered when design and field reviews are conducted by different registered professionals.

Field reviews are the responsibility of the designing registered professional unless circumstances make this impractical. Generally, engineers should not accept an engagement to conduct field reviews for a project designed by another registered professional unless the designing registered professional is incapable of performing the role or it is impractical for him/her to do so.

If it is necessary to conduct such field reviews in place of the designing registered professional, he or she should still be available for reporting/two way communication during construction. Price shopping by owners is not an appropriate reason for field reviews to be undertaken by a registered professional other than the designer.

In circumstances where a divided responsibility is unavoidable, the Guide discusses the correct procedure for altering the wording of LOA (Schedules B and C). Some authorities having jurisdiction have refused to accept LOA in which the wording has been altered in accordance with the Guide. In these circumstances the authority having jurisdiction should be directed to the intent, as outlined in Section 2.6, of the BC Building Code and the Guide.

What Can Be Delegated
Bylaw 14(b)(4) under the Engineers and Geoscientists Act states that “Members and licensees shall establish quality management processes for their practices which shall include, as a minimum, field reviews, by members or licensees, of their projects during construction.”

In meeting the intent of the Bylaw, the responsibility for design and field reviews does not necessarily mean that the registered professional must personally conduct all design and field reviews, but must see that they are carried out under his/her supervision so that he/she can provide the necessary undertaking.

Deciding what field reviews to undertake, and who should undertake those field reviews, is necessarily left to the judgment of the registered professional. Engineers must appreciate that the tasks can be delegated to employees, colleagues and subconsultants but the responsibility cannot. The following guidelines are for instances where the design and field reviews are conducted by different registered professionals:

• If the “designing” registered professional is available and assumes responsibility for the design, there is no need for the “field review” registered professional to review the design or take responsibility for design matters. In this case the designing registered professional must be willing and able to consult with the field review registered professional as required during construction, and to clarify the design and approve any adjustments or changes as necessary during construction.
• If the designing registered professional is unable to consult with the field review registered professional during construction, the latter must consider whether he/she can provide the necessary undertaking for field reviews, or whether he/she must review and accept responsibility for the design before undertaking the field reviews.
• Where an engineer has provided sealed shop drawings for a certain component of the structure, he/she is responsible for conducting the necessary field reviews and reporting to the primary registered professional for that discipline. The primary registered professional is responsible for seeing that all necessary field reviews are carried out and that the necessary confirmation is received to enable him/her to issue the LOA at the conclusion of the project.

Finally, in carrying out field reviews, members may become aware of a deficiency in other aspects of the building that involves the practice of professional engineering. In these instances the engineer observing the deficiency has a duty to report it to the responsible registered professional. If that person does not respond appropriately, then APEGBC and the authority having jurisdiction must be informed of the deficiency by the observing member.

Ethical Considerations
The Code of Ethics contains two principles that apply directly to LOA matters:

• engineers shall conduct themselves with fairness, courtesy and good faith towards clients, colleagues and others;
• engineers shall uphold the principle of appropriate and adequate compensation for the performance of engineering work.

With these provisions in mind, engineers should require that the scope of an assignment to prepare a design include the signing of LOA and conducting all necessary field reviews if the project proceeds to construction. This means that an engineer should not accept an engagement to carry out a design unless the client accepts that the scope of work includes field reviews.

Similarly, an engineer should not accept an engagement to conduct field reviews of another’s design if the designer is available to conduct the field reviews. Engineers who represent owners should recognize that the division of design and field review responsibilities should occur only in unusual circumstances, such as when it is impractical for the designer to conduct the field reviews.

If an engineer is approached to provide field reviews because of an unresolved fee dispute between the owner and the design engineer, the engineer must consider his/her ethical obligations to the design engineer before accepting the engagement.

Summary
The LOA, together with Section 2.6 of the BC Building Code, the Vancouver Building Bylaw and the Guide to the Letters of Assurance, set out the procedures to be followed when using the LOA. Engineers must thoroughly familiarize themselves with, and abide by, these documents.

In cases where it becomes necessary for registered professionals to be replaced during the course of a project, engineers must respect the Code of Ethics. Engineers are encouraged to decline an assignment to conduct field reviews when the designing registered professional is available to conduct them.

If there is an unresolved fee dispute between the designing registered professional and his/her client, engineers should proceed cautiously before accepting any engagement and should review the Code of Ethics.

Snow Loads on Arched Roofs: Special Change to the NBC 1995

A Special Change to the National Building Code of Canada 1995 (NBC) corrects a design shortcoming that affects the partial snow load requirement for arched roofs with a rise to span ratio greater than 1 in 10, and the unbalanced snow load criteria for arched roofs with a rise to span ratio between 1 in 20 and 1 in 10.

The previous NBC requirements for snow load stated that only those arched roofs with a rise to span ratio equal to or less than 1 in 10 must be designed for both the specified uniform snow load on the entire roof surface and the partial snow loading stipulated in Sentence 4.1.7.2.(2). The Structural Commentaries stated that the unbalanced snow load condition applies to arched roofs with a rise to span ratio greater than 1 in 10.

Research indicates that the partial snow load should also be applied to roofs whose rise to span ratio is greater than 1 in 10 and that the unbalanced load applies to arched roofs with a rise to span ratio greater than 1 in 20.

The following changes to the NBC Part 4 and to the Structural Commentaries were approved by the Canadian Commission on Buildings and Fire Codes to rectify the situation:

• The limits for the rise to span ratio for arched or curved roofs be removed from the partial snow load condition in Sentence 4.1.7.2.(2) of the NBC.
• In Figures H-2(a) and H-2(b) of the Structural Commentaries, the limit on Case II of 2 Ss be replaced by a limit of 3 kPa, and the trigger for the application of the unbalanced load criteria be lowered to roofs with a rise to span ratio of 1 in 20.
• A transition formula be introduced in Figures H-2(a) and H-2(b) to account for the rise to span ratio of the roof.
• A corresponding modification be made to paragraph 31 of Structural Commentary H.

It is advisable that existing arched or curved roof structures with a rise to span ratio greater than 1 in 10 be analyzed for the partial snow load criteria of Sentence 4.1.7.2.(2) of the NBC as modified by this Special Change, and those with a rise to span ratio between 1 in 10 and 1 in 20 be reviewed against the unbalanced snow load of revised Figures H-2(a) and H-2(b) of the Structural Commentaries.

More information regarding the revised snow load design criteria can be obtained from the Canadian Codes Centre at (613) 993-9960 or e-mail at codes@nrc.ca or on the web at http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/newsletter/v6no4/snow_e.html.

Snow Avalanche Assessments in the Forest Sector: Skill Sets for QRPs

ABCPF/APEGBC Joint Practice Board

The Association of BC Professional Foresters and the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BC work together through a Joint Practice Board to address issues of mutual concern in the forest sector. This article is the sixth in a series produced by the Board to address the roles of professionals in the forest sector and areas of interdisciplinary practice.

The Need for Snow Avalanche Assessments
Avalanche-prone terrain in BC is characterized by slopes of greater than 60% in areas of moderate to high snow supply. These areas broadly include the steep mid to higher elevations of the coastal mountains, where the mean annual maximum snow accumulation exceeds 1,000 mm water equivalent, as well as the interior mountain ranges, where mean annual maximum snow accumulation exceeds 700 mm water equivalent.

The following defines the skill set required by qualified registered professionals (QRPs) who undertake snow avalanche assessments or terrain stability field assessments in avalanche-prone terrain, and gives guidance to RPFs responsible for winter operations in such terrain.

Current Requirements
Currently, several BC Ministry of Forests districts require that snow avalanche initiation and runout assessments be undertaken to estimate the risk associated with proposed forest harvesting. Additionally, a protocol agreement between the BC Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Forests requires that avalanche assessments be undertaken when harvesting is proposed on Crown land above provincial highways. Forest managers must ensure that harvesting does not lead to catastrophic avalanche damage to forest resources or other significant damage downslope.

Recent Advances in Knowledge
Researchers at the University of BC have documented 500 destructive avalanches affecting clearcuts in coastal BC and 500 in the interior. It is estimated that a substantially larger number of cutblocks have been affected across the province.

The majority of the affected cutblocks have sustained damage from large snow avalanches that run down into the block from above. In approximately 10% of the cases, large snow avalanches have initiated in clearcuts, causing significant resource loss and/or environmental damage within or below these blocks.

Forest roads may be blocked and bridges occasionally damaged by snow avalanches. The effects of small avalanches are less apparent, but frequent small events may delay or inhibit successful regeneration in plantations.

The Ministry of Forests has prepared a draft handbook for managing snow avalanche-prone forested terrain. The Snow Avalanche Land Management Handbook addresses issues relating to the potential loss or damage to resources as well as threats to public and worker safety from snow avalanches that initiate within and upslope of cutblocks and logging roads. The Handbook gives land managers a range of options that can be implemented, provided that the risk associated with snow avalanches is recognized before undertaking road building or harvesting. Research outputs include a set of decision trees to assist managers of avalanche-prone areas.

Recommended Training and Experience
A QRP who works in avalanche-prone terrain needs to be qualified by both formal training and experience, and be registered with a regulatory body in BC that has the legislated authority to regulate its members performing the activity. To meet these criteria, practitioners must be registered with either APEGBC or ABCPF. Certification with the Canadian Avalanche Association (CAA) is not sufficient.

The QRP should be familiar with the winter climate and snowpack characteristics in the region or district of interest. The QRP should have studied the effects of different types and sizes of snow avalanches on forest cover, and understand the different runout characteristics of wet and dry snow avalanches.

Specific competencies include the ability to assess avalanche magnitude (destructive effects) and frequency (return period). Competence in statistical methods should include extreme value distributions and their application to runout modeling, calculation of likely impact pressures and estimation of uncertainty.

The QRP should have a working knowledge of the related disciplines of land use planning, zoning and forest harvesting, and be experienced in risk-based decision making. The QRP needs practical experience with avalanches and snow science gained through fieldwork in avalanche control operations over several winters.

Essential Courses, Skills and Experience
Avalanche work is a field that overlaps the geosciences, atmospheric sciences and engineering. Within BC universities the relevant subject matter is taught principally in physical geography, while in Alberta the University of Calgary offers avalanche courses through civil engineering.

QRPs who undertake avalanche work in BC should have completed the following elective courses from APEGBC’s Environmental Geoscience syllabus, and preferably have relevant graduate level courses or a master’s degree:

Essential Subject Areas (UBC courses; 2001 calendar)

• Advanced Geomorphology (Geog 406)
• Aerial Photo Interpretation (Soil 442 or For 442)
• Natural Hazards Analysis (Geog 404)
• Probability and Statistics (Stat 241)
• Quaternary Geology (Geog 308)
• Snow and Ice Processes (Geog 408)
• Weather and Climate (Geog 300)

Recommended Subject Areas

• Dendrology (For 111)
• Hydrology and Open Channel Flow (Civil 316)

Coverage of most of these topics is available through course equivalents offered by Simon Fraser University, the University of Victoria and the University of Northern BC.

In addition to university level courses, the following field oriented extension courses are considered essential for QRPs who undertake assessments in terrain that is prone to snow avalanches:

• Introductory Transport and Resource Industry Technical course (Level 1), and preferably a Level 2 avalanche course, offered by the CAA
• Advanced Avalanche Risk and Hazard Mapping course offered by the CAA and Forestry Continuing Studies Network

QRPs involved in avalanche work should also keep themselves informed of relevant articles in key technical and scientific journals. QRPs are encouraged to hold affiliate membership in the CAA and to attend the biannual International Snow Science Workshops.

The Role of Avalanche Technicians
A clear distinction needs to be drawn between the role of QRPs, who assess the potential of forested terrain to generate snow avalanches following harvest, and the role of skilled and experienced avalanche technicians (typically members of the CAA), who deal with winter avalanche safety issues in forest operations.

The Board recognizes that non-licensed avalanche technicians have an important role in winter operations by evaluating day-to-day weather-related snow stability. Appropriately qualified and experienced avalanche technicians who hold an advanced winter operations avalanche qualification should be retained to establish weather and snow monitoring programs, undertake rescue training, and assess the avalanche danger posed to forest workers and forest road users in winter.

An earlier Board article advocated teamwork as a strategy to maximize the effectiveness of terrain stability assessments. When issues of worker safety arise, snow stability assessments provide an ideal opportunity for a QRP and an experienced avalanche technician to combine their expertise.

Experienced avalanche technicians who may contemplate undertaking assessments of snow avalanche runout and identification of avalanche-prone terrain for the forest sector should obtain a limited license to practice. RPFs who rely on snow avalanche risk assessment information from others are accountable for ensuring that these individuals meet the appropriate skill sets and are appropriately registered. Any land management decisions made by a forester based on this information are the responsibility of the forester.

Conclusion
QRPs must adhere to guidelines established by professionals who specialize in avalanche work; a national standard for avalanche risk assessment has been developed. Risk matrices from this standard are incorporated in the Ministry of Forests Snow Avalanche Land Management Handbook. Non-licensed persons cannot undertake risk assessments, or provide estimates of maximum avalanche runout distance or impact pressures, unless a QRP with appropriate avalanche experience reviews this work.

An RPF involved in winter operations may need to address a potentially hazardous situation where an unstable snowpack has developed in a recently harvested cutblock located above a forest road. The RPF should ask the QRP to estimate the destructive potential of avalanches that may be released, before explosives are employed, to provide safe access for workers. The RPF should not approve the artificial release of a snow avalanche if it is judged that the release will be large enough to damage forest resources downslope.

Previous articles in the JPB series are available on APEGBC’s web site.

Building Envelope Practice - Roles and Responsibilities

David Ricketts, P.Eng.

The roles of architects and engineers with respect to building envelopes have evolved significantly over the last five years, as British Columbia has responded to the Leaky Condo disaster. Most notably this has resulted in greater attention being directed at the building envelope by the entire design and construction team. More extensive detailing, field testing and mock-ups are now common place both on new and rehabilitation construction projects. This greater attention to the building envelope has seen the emergence of a new area of practice in which both architects and engineers contribute expertise.

In recognition of this growing field, and shared expertise, AIBC and APEGBC developed the Building Envelope Professional (BEP) program. The intent was to establish minimum qualification standards for architects and engineers practicing in the building envelope consulting field. In addition, a joint task force (Building Envelope Practices Task Force) was established to define, and develop guidelines for the respective roles of architects and engineers with respect to the building envelope.

The task force completed its work and submitted its recommendations just prior to the court decision that resulted in the suspension of the BEP program (temporarily we anticipate). Despite the suspension of the BEP program both AIBC’s council and APEGBC’s council have approved the recommendations of the task force as Points of Principle. It is anticipated that once the BEP status is resolved that these Points of Principle will be incorporated into the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that defines other shared aspects of our professional roles and responsibilities.

In recognition of the considerable construction activity that is currently focused on building envelope rehabilitation projects, the Points of Principle were developed to reflect two types of projects; those of new construction (or those where more general renovations are being undertaken), and those for which building envelope rehabilitation is the primary focus of the work.

The approved Points of Principle refer to Schedules D and C-D which are anticipated will be added to the British Columbia Building Code in conjunction with the reintroduction of the BEP designation. Until that happens these schedules do not exist, except in the City of Vancouver where they are designated Schedules D-1 and D2.

Although the Points of Principle refer to the BEP program designation, which is currently suspended, in the absence of any other formal direction from either AIBC or APEGBC, a reasonable practicing engineer working in the building envelope field should follow the intent of these guidelines. In the absence of the BEP designation, engineers must rely solely on Article 2 of the Code of Ethics to govern their involvement in a building envelope consulting role for projects (Undertake and accept responsibility for professional assignments only when qualified by training or experience).The following are these Points of Principle:

“New Construction Projects

1. The architect of record shall have overall responsibility for the design and field review of the building envelope, reflecting the wide range of issues that must be considered in addition to Part 5 requirements. The architect of record (and only the architect) must sign the Schedules B-1, B-2 and C-B for building envelope components.
2. The architect of record will prepare an integrated set of construction documents for the building envelope.
3. Where a Building Envelope Professional (BEP) is required by the authority having jurisdiction with respect to Part 5 aspects of the building envelope, the BEP must sign Schedules D and C-D for the Part 5 aspects of the building envelope (Schedules D-1 and D-2 in the City of Vancouver).
4. The BEP may be either an architect or a professional engineer and shall provide support to the architect of record through design review and enhanced field reviews for Part 5 aspects of the building envelope as described in the Building Envelope Professional – Guidelines for Professional Practice.

Building Envelope Rehabilitation Projects

1. An architect (or professional engineer as permitted under the “Memorandum of Agreement between AIBC and APEGBC” –for some industrial projects) shall undertake a preliminary review of the rehabilitation program for all building envelope rehabilitation projects prior to building permit application, for the purpose of identifying issues beyond the scope of Part 5 and the need for further work by any architects or professional engineers.
2. The registered professional who is taking overall responsibility for the design and field review of the building envelope (prime building envelope registered professional) will prepare an integrated set of construction documents for a building envelope rehabilitation project.
3. The prime building envelope registered professional may be either an architect or a BEP. The prime building envelope registered professional must sign Schedules B-1. B-2 and C-B for building envelope components.
4. Where a BEP is required by the authority having jurisdiction with respect to Part 5 aspects of the building envelope, the BEP must sign Schedules D and C-D for the Part 5 aspects of the building envelope (Schedules D-1 and D-2 in the City of Vancouver).
5. The BEP may be either an architect or a professional engineer. The BEP will provide support to the prime building envelope registered professional through design review and enhanced field reviews for Part 5 aspects of the building envelope as described in the Building Envelope Professional – Guidelines for Professional Practice.
6. One individual could be both the prime building envelope registered professional and the BEP.”

The Points of Principle clarify the issue of which professional prepares the construction documents. This was previously being handled in an inconsistent manner by various professionals. For new construction the architect of record must prepare an integrated set of construction documents. For building envelope rehabilitation projects, a set of integrated set of construction documents needs to be prepared by either the architect of record, if one is involved with the project, or the BEP engineer who is taking overall responsibility for the design and field review of the building envelope. It is generally not acceptable to have two separate drawing and specification packages that document the intent for elements of the building envelope.

For building envelope rehabilitation projects a key change to current practices for many engineers is the introduction of a requirement for an initial review of the project by an Architect. This has been done in recognition of the fact that many projects may need professionals other than an engineer BEP involved in a project. Architects, rather than BEP engineers customarily evaluate these needs for new construction projects and therefore they are generally in a better position to do so on an informed basis for envelope rehabilitation projects. This requirement was also adopted because of growing concern that the aesthetics of buildings were being compromised in building envelope rehabilitation projects.

Terrain Mapping and Interpretations: Skill Sets for QRPs

ABCPF/APEGBC Joint Practice Board

The Association of BC Professional Foresters and APEGBC work together through a Joint Practice Board (JPB) to address issues of mutual concern in the forest industry. This article is the sixth in a series produced by the JPB (also published in Forum, ABCPF’s journal) that discusses the roles of professionals in the forest sector and areas of interdisciplinary practice.

The Need for Terrain Mapping
Terrain mapping is used in the evaluation of geologic hazards and risks associated with forest development. A terrain stability hazard map and a soil erosion potential map must be prepared for the part of a forest development plan that is within a community watershed. Terrain stability and soil erosion potential maps are also used in areas other than community watersheds to evaluate landslide and erosion hazards that might affect roads and cutblocks as well as areas adjacent to forestry operations.

This article outlines essential and supplemental skills, as recommended by the JPB, for professionals who undertake terrain mapping and make interpretations based on terrain mapping. Such interpretations include slope stability, surface erosion potential, landslide-induced stream sedimentation and potential for sediment delivery from surface erosion sources. The article is intended to guide those who seek to become a qualified registered professional (QRP) in this area and to assist established professionals in their self-evaluation.
A previous article by the JPB, “Using Teamwork to Maximize Efficiency in Terrain Stability Field Assessments” (published in the December 1999 issue of Innovation and posted at www.apeg.bc.ca; see Archives under Innovation link on the home page), provides more information on the skills required to undertake terrain stability field assessments.

Current Procedures and Requirements
Terrain mapping involves subdividing a landscape into polygons based on a terrain classification system. Whereas the classification defines and describes abstractions of objects based on geomorphological principles and understanding, the mapping separates real areas of land (terrain) that have similar and contrasting ranges of characteristics.

As a result, the process of mapping contains a personal component that combines elements of both sciences and the mapping “craft.” There is no one “right” way to map an area; rather, there is a range of options that will meet mapping objectives to a greater or lesser extent. Direction is provided in the Forest Practices Code Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook and in Ministry of Environment Manual 10, Terrain Classification System for British Columbia.

The mapping of terrain, slope stability and other interpretations requires a thorough understanding of landscapes and the processes that have shaped and continue to shape them. This encompasses the fundamental elements that determine the landscape: bedrock and surficial geology, geomorphology with an emphasis on glacial processes, and weather and climatic conditions.

In order to understand and predict the behaviour of materials under varying conditions, a thorough understanding of earth materials is required. This includes soil and rock mechanics pertinent to forestry; soil physics (in particular, the factors governing the retention and flow of water in porous media); forest, slope and groundwater hydrology; forest harvesting and road building techniques; and forest ecology and silvics as they relate to soil water regimes.

Since air photos are central to the mapping process, stereoscopic vision and advanced knowledge of, and extensive experience in, air photo interpretation in a variety of environments is essential for terrain mappers.
Imagery with the superimposed mapping is normally a preliminary product from which a cartographic or digital product is derived; therefore, a mapper needs to understand photogrammetry and cartography — in particular, those elements that determine the precision and accuracy of map production. The quality of mapping is also determined by basic field skills (including orienteering) as well as skills in recognizing and describing materials and landforms, which can only be gained from field courses and by mentoring under established professionals.

Recommended Training and Experience
The list below outlines essential and recommended supplemental skills for terrain mapping and its interpretations. In most cases, these skills will be obtained by completing university level courses.
The list of subjects does not outline a prescribed course of study leading to a degree. In most cases, such academic skills must be honed further by attaining field experience as guided by an appropriate mentor. A qualified terrain mapping professional should have background in all of the essential skills and many of the supplemental skills.

Essential skills
Basic geology — Physical geology; Introduction to mineralogy and petrology; Igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic petrology; Stratigraphy, sedimentology and sedimentation; Structural geology; Regional geology of western Canada
Geomorphology
Glacial processes and environments/Quaternary history
Soil/rock mechanics
Soil physics
Weather and climate
Hydrology (land use/forest/slope/groundwater/rivers)
Air photo interpretation (advanced)
Natural hazards/forest geoscience
Cartography and photogrammetry
Field geology and hydrogeology
Oral and written communication
Recommended/supplemental skills

Ecology/forest ecology
Geographic Information Systems
Statistics (eg, relating to terrain attribute studies)
Land use planning/resource management
Soil and water conservation (erosion and sediment control)
Regional ecosystems
Ecosystem biogeochemistry
Remote sensing
Conclusion
QRPs who practise in the area of watershed assessments should follow the above recommendations regarding appropriate training and experience. However, QRPs must always limit their practice to the area of expertise in which they are fully competent. In unusual and complex situations, specialists in the appropriate field of practice should be engaged.

Environmental Regulation and Qualified Professionals

BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks

As professionals, we are obliged to prepare for and adapt to change in an effective, measured and timely fashion — and the world of environmental regulation is no exception.

Gone are the days when government experts had all the answers (as if they ever did!); gone is the luxury of extensive review and approval of routine projects. Now is the time to embrace more effective and efficient regulatory approaches to ensure the protection of human health and the environment.

Over the past several years, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks has been moving from overly prescriptive systems to stewardship, performance-based and desirable-outcomes approaches — a trend that will continue. Engineers and geoscientists have an important role to play in this transition.

Achieving Desirable Outcomes
To achieve desirable environmental protection outcomes — cleaner land, water and air — the Ministry's role is to set clear environmental standards and requirements in consultation with industry, local governments, non-government environmental organizations, consultants, professional associations and other agencies. To ensure that desirable outcomes are met, the Ministry undertakes followup compliance and enforcement activities.

Focusing government efforts on these front-end and back-end activities results in more effective application of limited public resources. Without being prescriptive regarding the "how to," this new approach provides tremendous opportunities for regulated parties to be innovative and progressive, and to meet or exceed desirable environmental protection outcomes with advice from qualified professionals. Engineers and geoscientists can play key roles in this regard.

Roles and Responsibilities of Qualified Professionals
The appropriate knowledge, expertise and abilities are available within BC to successfully implement new environmental regulatory approaches.

Several new performance-based regulations (eg, the Contaminated Sites Regulation, the Municipal Sewage Regulation, the Mushroom Composting Regulation, the proposed Organic Matter Recycling Regulation and a contemplated Industrial Pollution Prevention Regulation) rely on the concept that dischargers must hire qualified professionals to address specific regulatory requirements. This provides tremendous business opportunities for qualified professionals and brings with it an elevated role and responsibility.

These types of regulations incorporate the principle of professional accountability by recognizing and relying upon the responsibility of professionals, within their area of practice, to ensure that the waste discharger is in compliance. The regulations and their accompanying guidelines, policies and procedures define the term "qualified professional" and outline expected professional standards.

For example, with respect to compliance measurement, the Municipal Sewage Regulation requires that dischargers hire qualified professionals to:

• design sewage facilities that include suitable sampling facilities
• develop operating plans that include suitable sampling and monitoring procedures
• design receiving environment monitoring programs
• analyze annual effluent monitoring data and environmental data for larger dischargers.

Qualified professionals are expected to follow the precautionary principle in exercising their responsibilities regarding facilities that may impact the environment. They are also expected, consistent with their professional Code of Ethics, to bring to the attention of their clients and the Ministry any situations or circumstances within their area of expertise that do not adequately protect human health or the environment — and to recommend protective measures.

Who is a Qualified Professional?
The term "qualified professional" describes individuals capable of fulfilling the new roles and responsibilities that the Ministry and the public require from the professional community. Depending on the nature of the activity to be regulated, there are numerous professionals who can play new roles: engineers, geoscientists, biologists, foresters, technologists, agrologists, lawyers, accountants and public health experts.

For example, the Municipal Sewage Regulation says:

"‘Qualified professional’ means an applied scientist or technologist specializing in a particular applied science or technology including, but not necessarily limited to, agrology, biology, chemistry, engineering, geology or hydrogeology and

• who is registered in British Columbia with their appropriate professional organization, acting under that association's Code of Ethics and subject to disciplinary action by that association, and
• who, through suitable education, experience, accreditation and knowledge, may be reasonably relied on to provide advice within their area of expertise."

Within the regulation, phrases such as "has expertise with respect to" and "has expertise in the particular aspect of" further clarify the type of qualified professional expected to provide advice in a particular area.

Where Does APEGBC Fit In?
The critical factor for the Ministry is accountability — and we are confident that members of APEGBC can meet this criterion. Documents such as APEGBC's Guidelines for Professional Excellence underpin this confidence. Moreover, the Ministry welcomes the opportunity to work in partnership with APEGBC to provide ongoing information and education opportunities for professionals relating to environmental regulation in BC. APEGBC's continued representation on the Ministry's Municipal Sewage Regulation Qualified Professional Subcommittee, and its active involvement in maintaining the Contaminated Sites Roster, are two specific examples.

Professionals who work in the environmental protection field can explore the Pollution Prevention web site. Professionals who practise in the sewage treatment, reuse and disposal arena might also want to bookmark http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/epd/.

The world of environmental regulation is changing and professionals will continue to play an important role in that change.

For further information, contact Chris Jenkins PEng of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks at (250) 387-6663.

Ministry of Forests Terrain Stability Field Assessment Update

The BC Ministry of Forests has made DEGIFS aware of a misinterpretation of the Forest Road Regulations (FRR), Section 6.1 (d (i)), by Qualified Registered Professionals (QRP) completing terrain stability field assessments (TSFA). This section states that: "A person required to prepare a road layout and design must ensure that it includes the results of a road location survey, which includes plans profiles and cross sections, if there is a moderate or high likelihood of landslides, based on a terrain stability field assessment."

The estimate of the likelihood of landslide occurrence is to be based on the use of side-casting of excavated material to create the fill portion of the road prism. The estimate of the likelihood of occurrence is not to be based on the final road construction method.

For example, 75 metres of a proposed road crosses a ridge where the slope gradients vary from 60% and 85%. The expected surficial materials are sand and gravel, with some coarse rock. An estimated moderate to high likelihood of landslide occurrence exists following side-cast construction. A QRP recommends that this section of the road should be constructed on a three-quarter bench, using coarse rock and/or organics with an excavated key to support the road fill, with the excess material to be end-hauled. The road prism will be pulled back following harvesting. This recommendation has reduced the likelihood of landslide occurrence to low.

Even though the likelihood of landslide occurrence has been reduced to low, the FRR states that a road location survey must be completed. By not explicitly stating the likelihood of landslide occurrence associated with the use of side-casting, your client may be in non-compliance with their legislated requirements.

The terrain stability assessment measures schedule, completed by the QRP, must also reflect the likelihood of landslide occurrence based on side-cast construction.

Watershed Assessments: Skill Sets for Qualified Registered Professionals

ABCPF/APEGBC Joint Practice Board

The Association of BC Professional Foresters and the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BC work together through a Joint Practice Board (JPB) to address issues of mutual concern in the forest industry. This article is the fifth in a series produced by the JPB (also published in Forum, ABCPF's journal) to address the roles of professionals in the forest sector and areas of interdisciplinary practice.

The first two articles ("What is a Professional?" and "What Does it Take to be a Qualified Registered Professional?") were published in the July/August 1999 issue of Forum. The third article ("Using Teamwork to Maximize Efficiency in Terrain Stability Assessments") was published in the December 1999 issue of Innovation and the fourth article ("The Role of the Registered Professional in Forest Road Bridge Design") was published in the October 2000 issue of Innovation.

The Need for Watershed Assessments
A watershed assessment is required for any community watershed before a forest development plan is prepared. A watershed assessment may also be required for a watershed with domestic water licenses or significant downstream fisheries values, and "significant sensitivity," as well as for any other watershed specified by the District Manager. Watershed assessments may also be conducted for other purposes not necessarily required by regulation, such as watershed restoration.

Watershed assessments require the application of expertise in forest hydrology and fluvial geomorphology. Depending on the nature of the watershed and the information required, they may also require knowledge of and expertise in related disciplines such as slope geomorphology, engineering hydrology and fisheries biology.

The following outlines the recommendations of the JPB regarding the educational qualifications and work experience considered appropriate for Qualified Registered Professionals who work in the field of watershed assessments.

Current Requirements
The current Coastal Watershed Assessment Procedure Guidebook (CWAP) and Interior Watershed Assessment Procedure Guidebook (IWAP), collectively referred to as the "Guidebook," describe the procedure for carrying out watershed assessments and specify that these must be conducted by a Qualified Registered Professional (QRP).

The Guidebook further recommends that QRPs who undertake watershed assessments:

• should be qualified in forest hydrology and with experience in watershed cumulative effects assessment;
• should have expertise in mapping slope processes, terrain types and fluvial geomorphology; and
• must have a basic knowledge of forest harvest systems and forest road engineering.

The content of a watershed assessment may vary considerably depending on the geographic region and the circumstances under which it is required. Often, specific experience in the particular region, and knowledge of its history of disturbance and resource development, are important assets.

Depending on the purpose of the assessment, knowledge of several subdisciplines in hydrology, geomorphology, forestry, engineering or biology may be required. Therefore, a team approach is recommended, where the signing professional responsible for the assessment is assisted by one or more other persons with complementary skills and experience.

Recommended Training and Experience
It is generally accepted among hydrologists that hydrology is an interdisciplinary field practised by members of several professions. No bachelor's degree program in hydrology exists at any BC university.

Many practicing hydrologists, especially in the field of forest hydrology, acquired their training in postgraduate studies. Students can enter a master's degree program in hydrology from several undergraduate backgrounds including physical geography, forestry, geology, civil or geological engineering, agricultural sciences and biology. The University of BC offers an interdisciplinary hydrology program at the graduate school level.

The JPB therefore recommends that QRPs who undertake watershed assessments should possess a bachelors degree in a relevant discipline (geoscience, engineering or forestry) that is strongly focused on forest hydrology and geomorphology — or preferably that they hold a masters degree. The program of study should include specific courses and/or skills that may be acquired through a combination of academic training and work experience. Often, extensive work experience or professional development activities can substitute for specific university courses.

Applied experience is as important as academic qualifications. Persons who conduct watershed assessments should have adequate experience in applied forest hydrology and geomorphology in several regions of the province gained by working under the guidance of a more experienced QRP.
The list below outlines essential and recommended academic background and other skills and experience. UBC courses, current as of the 2000 calendar, are given as an example; other universities may offer equivalent courses:

Essential courses, skills and experience

• Surface water hydrology (Geography 205 or Civil Engineering 316)
• Forest hydrology (Forestry 387 and 485)
• Subsurface hydrology (Earth and Ocean Science 329)
• Geomorphology (Geography 306/Earth and Ocean Science 330)
• Fluvial geomorphology (Geography 405)
• Air photo interpretation (Forestry 442)
• Weather and climate (Geography/Soil Science 204, Geography 300)
• Experience and skill in air photo interpretation.
• Working knowledge of forest development planning, road engineering, harvesting and silviculture system.
• Appropriate communication and technical writing skills.
• Experience working with committees, including public interest groups and the public in general.

Recommended courses, skills and experience

• Quaternary and hillslope geomorphology (Geography 308, 406)
• Engineering hydrology (Civil Engineering 418)
• Forest soils (Soil Science 403 or Forestry 312)
• Natural hazards (Geography 404)
• Snow and ice processes (Geography 408)
• A basic understanding of forest ecology, land use planning and resource management.
• Practical experience in drainage control, erosion assessment and control, and watershed restoration projects is highly recommended.

Conclusion
QRPs who practise in the area of watershed assessments should follow the above recommendations regarding appropriate training and experience. However, QRPs must always limit their practice to the area of expertise in which they are fully competent. In unusual and complex situations, specialists in the appropriate field of practice involved should be engaged.

Joint Practice Board members are Ian Hamann PEng RPF, Chair; Doug Bennett PEng RPF, Dave Dobi RPF, Bill Grainger PGeo, David McDougall PEng, Douglas Meske RPF, Tim Smith PGeo and Peter Tweedie RPF. Dwight Yochim RPF and Peter Mitchell PEng are, respectively, ABCPF and APEGBC staff advisors to the JPB

Application of the Seismic Guidelines for Government Buildings

Seismic upgrading of government owned, funded, leased or maintained buildings must be addressed by engineers and other professionals involved in the renovation of government buildings. Solutions that do not consider seismic upgrading issues are unacceptable and will not be considered.

According to the Seismic Mitigation Program Guidelines for Existing Buildings Funded or Managed by the BC Government, section 2.1 reads as follows:

"2.1 Triggers Requiring Evaluation and Possible Mitigation

A building shall be evaluated and unacceptable risks mitigated when any of the following occur:

• a change in the building’s function that results in a significant increase in the building’s level of use, importance or occupancy;
• a project is planned that significantly extends the building’s useful life through alterations, renovations or repairs;
• fire, wind, earthquake or other cause has damaged the building or part of the building to the extent that, in the judgment of the agency, structural degradation of the building’s vertical or lateral load-carrying systems has occurred;
• the building is deemed by the agency to be an exceptionally high risk to occupants or the public at large;
• the building is added to the provincial inventory through purchase or donation after these Guidelines are adopted. This is intended to prevent additional unsafe buildings from getting permanently added to the provincial inventory, by triggering a seismic evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation when they are acquired. It is not intended to apply to buildings temporarily under provincial ownership, such as those acquired through default or foreclosures on provincially insured loans or mortgages;
• buildings that are intended to function immediately after an earthquake in a post-disaster function shall be identified and evaluated for their seismic capability. The need for mitigation will depend upon issues such as extent and type of deficiency, mitigation costs, alternative available facilities, expected life span, planned renovations, etc."

Whenever renovations are being considered, the situation should be evaluated and seismic upgrading should occur. Due to the destructive nature of seismic upgrade work, it makes sense to seismically upgrade a facility, or parts of a facility, when part of, or the whole facility, is being renovated. A review by a professional engineer can quickly determine if a seismic upgrade is required or beneficial. This program allows for partial upgrades of building.

For example, when a roof is being replaced, the roof should be seismically upgraded. The additional cost is minimized when this approach is used. Clearly it is not cost-effective to replace a 20-year roof and to tear it off 5 or 10 years later so the roof can be seismically upgraded.

All professional engineers are asked to watch for these types of situations and to insist on a seismic evaluation. The easiest time to undertake a seismic retrofit is when the building is being torn apart for a renovation. The proponents of projects should ensure that sufficient funds are requested to cover the seismic upgrade. The current government program has limited funds, so can not be expected to fund all seismic upgrades.

For more details, please obtain a copy of Seismic Mitigation Program Guidelines for Existing Buildings Funded or Managed by the BC Government, which is available on the government website at www.fin.gov.bc.ca/PT/rmb/smp.shtml.

Professional engineers should also make themselves familiar with the Non-Structural Guidelines, which can also be downloaded from the same website. These guidelines specify that existing, non-structural components should be restrained to meet today’s codes. It is often cost- effective to install restraints on all components in the immediate area when replacing one or more building components.

Gerry F Buydens PEng
Manager, Seismic Mitigation Branch
Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations
Tel: (250) 356-9449 Fax: (250) 387-3834

The Role of the Registered Professional in Forest Road Bridge Design

ABCPF/APEGBC Joint Practice Board

The Association of BC Professional Foresters and the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BC work together through a Joint Practice Board (JPB) to address issues of mutual concern in BC’s forest industry. This article is the fourth in a series produced by the JPB to address the roles of professionals in the forest sector and areas of interdisciplinary practice.

The first two articles ("What is a Professional?" and "What Does it Take to be a Qualified Registered Professional?") were published in the July/August 1999 issue of Forum, ABCPF's journal. The third article in the series ("Using Teamwork to Maximize Efficiency in Terrain Stability Assessments") was published in the December 1999 issue of Innovation.

Forest Road Regulation Amendments
In March 2000, amendments to the Forest Road Regulation (FRR) under the Forest Practices Code came into effect. These amendments require that registered professionals (PEng or RPF) assume design responsibility for all bridges, either directly or indirectly, through the use of standard design drawings, tables or charts established by professionals who specialize in this activity.

The purpose of the FRR amendments is to clarify forest road bridge design responsibilities and to maintain user safety and environmental integrity, while controlling costs and administrative delays for stable sites and simple structures. The FRR amendments acknowledge that there is a role for individuals with long-standing experience in designing and constructing shorter, simple span structures, while recognizing the role of professional engineers in the design of more complex structures.

The FRR amendments also reinforce the team concept among professionals working in the forest sector. The forest road engineering team responsible for the layout and design of forest roads and bridges includes the professional engineer, professional forester and supporting non-professionals working under their direction.

All team members must understand their appropriate roles and functions as stipulated in the FRR and as provided for in their respective professional legislations. Consistent with the principles of professional ethics and accountability, professionals must also operate within their appropriate levels of training and experience. Poor or improper bridge design can not only be costly to correct but can result in serious safety and environmental consequences.

Legislated Requirements
As a result of changes to the legislation, FRR section 10(1)(b) now stipulates that a PEng is required to take design responsibility for all forest road bridges unless:

i) The bridge is single span, between 6 m and 12 m centre to centre of bearings, and a professional engineer or professional forester has determined that all of the following apply:

a) a professional forester has taken, is taking, or will take design responsibility;

b) the bridge is located outside the wetted perimeter at the design high water;

c) the channel is historically stable with erosion resistant banks;

d) the bridge superstructure will be non-composite;

e) the bridge substructure

i) bears on the original ground, an excavation below original ground or a shallow ballast layer that assures full bearing of the substructure unit, and

ii) consists of cribs up to and including 4 m high, or consists of sills or pads up to and including 1.5 m high;

f) the person preparing the design is preparing it based on standard drawings, tables, charts and other tools that

i) are prepared by a professional engineer,

ii) individually and together reproduce the specific structure to be used at the site, including member size and connections, and

iii) are referenced in the road layout and design, or

ii) If the span is less than 6 m centre to centre of bearings, then items b) to f) above apply but a PEng or RPF is not required to take design responsibility.

Other criteria in the FRR regarding forest road bridges must be considered by those assuming design responsibility. For example, for installations involving reused portable bridge structures, the FRR bridge design responsibility criteria also apply.

Design Responsibility
A common misconception is that bridge design pertains only to the structural design of individual bridge components. In assuming "design responsibility" for bridges, a professional engineer or professional forester takes responsibility for ensuring that all aspects of the design for a specific site have been appropriately addressed.

The assumption of design responsibility includes, but is not limited to, appropriate consideration of the following: environmental issues; structure alignment relative to approach road and stream channel; complete structure configuration (substructure, superstructure and connections); suitability of selected foundations for the specific site; design flood and debris passage; and scour protection design (other potential design considerations are outlined in the following section).

In the case of structures over 12 m, structures that do not meet the FRR criteria, or complex structures (including composite bridges such as welded shear connector structures), design responsibility rests with a PEng with specialized training and experience in forest road bridge design.

Bridge designs by registered professionals must be signed and sealed. Where a registered professional assumes overall design responsibility that includes work completed by others, the design should indicate who has carried out the other work. For example, it may be necessary to engage an appropriately trained and experienced engineer to specify welding procedures on projects using CWB certified fabricators. If non-CWB certified fabricators are used, this engineer must take design and field review responsibility. After construction, a registered professional is also required to sign and seal a statement confirming that the bridge structure is in general conformance with the design prepared in his or her professional capacity.

Design Considerations
The registered professional must be able to demonstrate a combination of education and experience appropriate to the proposed forest road bridge design and construction. As a guide, some of the relevant training and experience recommended for forest road bridge design and construction includes an understanding and working knowledge of the following:

• suitable bridge site locations including consideration of local and downstream risk
• stream classification
• stream and channel morphology
• related riparian and aquatic environmental issues
• design flood and debris potential
• design flood hydrology
• scour and scour protection including riprap design
• site foundation/geotechnical factors
• forest road layout, design and construction
• bridge approach design considering vertical/horizontal alignment of road
• design vehicle configurations for design load and alignment considerations
• requirements for site plan/data composition for design purposes
• deactivation strategy for bridge structures
• design life factors in selection of bridge type
• factors and options for bridge superstructure and substructure onfigurations and connections
• log stringer/crib design characteristics and criteria
• bridge construction methodology, strategy and project management
  bridge construction layout, inspection and monitoring
• as-built verification and documentation
• available professionally engineered standard drawings, tables, charts and other tools

The degree of education and experience necessary for the forest road bridge design will depend on the particular site characteristics and parameters as well as the complexity of the assignment. For specialized designs, more training and experience and/or collaboration with more experienced registered professionals is required.

Recommendations

• For single span bridges less than 12 m, a PEng must take design responsibility unless the following apply:
  1. The PEng or RPF has determined that the conditions outlined in the FRR allow an RPF to assume responsibility for the design and "as-built" certification, and the RPF can demonstrate the education and experience necessary to assume professional responsibility, or
  2. The conditions outlined in the FRR for structures less than 6 m are met and a PEng or RPF can demonstrate that the design does not require the expertise of a professional.

• Where an RPF assumes design responsibility, the RPF must use and reference standard design documentation prepared by a PEng for the site specific bridge structure. The design documentation should clearly demonstrate the component configurations, dimensions and connection details as well as relevant reference drawings, tables, charts and design tools. The design documentation should also confirm that the proposed structure addresses relevant design requirements and that the structure is suitable for the specific site.
• Registered professionals who assume responsibility for a forest road bridge design should exercise professional discretion in terms of the level of detail required on design or "as-built" drawings they sign and seal. Registered professionals must also ensure due diligence in addressing all necessary design considerations (as itemized in the previous section).
• Registered professionals who assume responsibility for forest road bridge design must follow guidelines and procedures established by professionals who specialize in this activity. A key reference document is the Forest Service Bridge Design and Construction Manual, available through the Ministry of Forests at http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rte/engineering/roads%26struct%2Dpub.htm.

Any concerns raised by an RPF during the planning, design or construction phases should be addressed by consulting with an experienced PEng. Being a professional means knowing when to consult with others.

Calculating Hourly Chargeout Rates: Draft Guideline for Sole Practitioners of Professional Engineering and Geoscience Services

A draft Guideline was recently prepared by APEGBC's Consulting Practice Committee to assist sole practitioners to establish hourly chargeout rates for professional engineering or professional geoscience services. The Guideline is generally modeled on calculation formulas used for many years by other associations including the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta.

Members are invited to submit comments or suggestions on the draft Guideline to Peter Mitchell PEng, Deputy Director, Professional Practice at (604) 412-4853 or toll free in BC: 1-888-430-8035. All input will be considered by the Committee prior to forwarding the final Guideline to Council for consideration.

Further information on professional fees is available in the Fee Guidelines for Engineering Services endorsed by the Consulting Engineers of BC and APEGBC.

Preamble
This Guideline is intended to provide APEGBC members with a means of establishing the cost of providing professional services based on an hourly chargeout rate. It is aimed in particular at sole practitioners, who often do not base their compensation on a predetermined annual salary.

For the purposes of this document, a sole practitioner is defined as a member of APEGBC who provides professional engineering or professional geoscience services through a business entity of which he or she is the sole owner and employed professional.

Three steps are used to calculate an hourly chargeout rate. Step 1 calculates the hourly payroll cost based on either annual working hours or annual billable hours; Step 2 determines the payroll multiplier; and Step 3 applies the payroll multiplier to the hourly payroll cost to arrive at the hourly chargeout rate.

The examples provided in this Guideline are not intended to reflect the actual rates charged for any specific engineering or geoscience activity. For instance, Exhibit 13 of the 1998 Report on Members’ Compensation and Benefits (2000 survey now available) shows that the total annual compensation reported by APEGBC members varies according to geographic location. Therefore, an appropriate hourly chargeout rate in one area of BC may not be applicable in another location, even if the same type of professional service is involved.

Step 1: Calculation of Hourly Payroll Cost

Annual Salary Cost can be calculated using the 1998 Report on Members’ Compensation and Benefits (2000 survey now available) . For example, under Exhibit 8 of the Report, the median salary for a professional engineer with an employment rating factor of 449 who graduated in 1982 would be $73,600. The sole practitioner must evaluate his or her individual circumstances to determine a representative salary based on experience and job rating factors using the data contained in the most recent Report.

Fringe Benefits Cost includes annual vacation, statutory holidays, medical and hospitalization insurance, life/dental/other insurance premiums, sick leave provisions, Canada pension and company pension. The fringe benefit cost is typically 20% to 30% of an individual's salary.

Annual Working Hours is defined as the regular working hours per week multiplied by 52. For example, 37.5 hours worked/week x 52 weeks/year = 1,950 working hours/year.

Annual Billable Hours is the estimated annual chargeable hours for which a sole practitioner will be billing clients. For example, 1,950 working hours/year x 80% billable = 1,560 billable hours/year.

Step 2: Determination of Payroll Multiplier
The payroll multiplier, which covers overhead costs borne by the consultant as well as profit (described in more detail at the end of this Guideline), can vary from 2.0 to 3.0 or more depending on various factors. The applicable payroll multiplier may be at the lower end of this range if the requirement for services is large (in the hundreds of billable hours) and on a continual basis. A payroll multiplier at the higher end of the scale is typically used for projects that are shorter in duration with intermittent time demands.

Typically, the payroll multiplier is arrived at based on cost records for projects with varying effort requirements. It should reflect the total fees required to sustain a mature and competent consulting practice capable of providing a high standard of professional service on an ongoing basis.

If a sole practitioner opts to use annual billable hours rather than annual working hours to calculate hourly payroll cost, the payroll multiplier must reflect the fact that it no longer covers costs related to non-billable time.

Step 3: Calculation of Hourly Chargeout Rate
The hourly chargeout rate is the product of the hourly payroll cost and the payroll multiplier.

Other Factors

Specified Hourly Rates
Specified hourly rates are set on the basis of a stated hourly rate. Anticipated adjustments of such rates during the life of a project should be explicitly documented.

Special Expertise
Fees for senior personnel rendering specialized or expert service such as a concept review or testimony for which they are eminently qualified can be calculated at twice the hourly chargeout rates.

Overhead Costs
Overhead costs relate to the general operation and maintenance of a professional practice and are not directly billable to the project. These costs, which vary according to the size of operation, location of office and nature of services provided, include:

Physical Plant

• office rental and operating costs
• furnishings
• usual tools and equipment (excluding specialized equipment and software covered by negotiated rates)
• telephones, fax, etc
• word processing equipment, copiers, etc

Operating Costs

• business and professional licences
• professional and general liability insurance
• stationery and office supplies
• technical library and periodicals
• staff recruitment, training and severance
• audit and legal fees
• bad debts and bank financing interest
• administrative salaries (accountants, clerks, receptionists, librarians)
• secretaries whose time is not directly billable to client projects
• non-billable time by professional and technical staff for updating procedures, attending technical seminars, research and development, and other activities
• business development

Profit
The balance remaining after direct costs and overhead costs are deducted from total revenue represents the before-tax, before-dividend and before-bonus profit. The level of profit on a specific project should reflect the consultant’s exposure to risk on the project. The client should expect competent and efficient services at a fee that provides an appropriate profit to the consultant.

Using Teamwork to Maximize Efficiency in Terrain Stability Field Assessments

ABCPF/APEGBC Joint Practice Board

The Association of BC Professional Foresters (ABCPF) and the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BC work together through a Joint Practice Board (JPB) to address issues of mutual concern in the forest industry. This article is the third in a series produced by the JPB (and published in Forum, ABCPF's journal) to address the roles of professionals in the forest sector and areas of interdisciplinary practice, and will be of particular interest to APEGBC members working in this industry.

The first two articles (published in the July/August 1999 issue of Forum) discuss the definition of a professional in terms of public responsibility ("What is a Professional?") and the skill sets required by a registered professional forester (RPF) to act as a qualified registered professional to carry out terrain stability field assessments, as well as instances where a Limited Licence from APEGBC may be prudent or necessary for this type of work ("What Does it Take to be a Qualified Registered Professional?"). Copies may be obtained from Lina Bowser at APEGBC.

The Question
"I am a geotechnical engineer who regularly carries out terrain stability field assessments (TSFAs) for forest licensees. During the past couple of years, I have developed good working relationships with several forestry professionals and technicians with responsibility for road and block layout. Their assessments of onsite conditions, and the need for TSFAs, have been in general agreement with my conclusions during the field review.

Using the 60% slope criteria as the basis for conducting TSFAs has proven to be overly conservative in several geographic areas, leading to TSFAs at sites that are determined to be a low hazard for clearcutting and conventional (sidecast) road construction. How can teamwork be used to reduce the number and/or extent of TSFAs?"

Requirements
Under the Forest Practices Code, the design of forest roads requires the completion of TSFAs, which are the responsibility of a qualified registered professional (QRP). TSFAs are a key component in evaluating and mitigating potential landslide hazards in the forest planning process. They typically require the interpretation and evaluation of surface and subsurface geologic conditions, as well as an indication of how the proposed forest activities will affect slope stability.

There is no provision to reduce the number of TSFAs where and when they are required by the FPC, as this is not at the discretion of the professional forester responsible for the forest development plan. In cases where the 60% slope criteria is used, terrain stability mapping (or updating existing mapping) may reduce the number of TSFAs, assuming that many steep areas are stable and mapped as Class III.

Depending on the operational and legislative requirements at the site, a TSFA may be required to assess potential stream sedimentation, landslide hazards and risks, and the risk to crew safety from upslope terrain hazards. The requirements are usually based on the extent to which the proposed forest activities may affect the terrain processes at the site as well as the resources downslope and downstream of the site.

While there is no flexibility as to when and where a TSFA is required, the QRP has discretion as to how the TSFA is carried out. This involves working closely with the forest licensee's professional and technical staff to prepare the road and cutblock plans for the forest development plan. In some cases, it may be beneficial to vary from the TSFA standard in the Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook to better address site specific objectives and potential risks to downslope and downstream resources.

Teamwork
The TSFA team consists of the QRP, his/her assistants and layout personnel. Other members may include the RPF responsible for the forest development plan, the road construction crew and the RPF responsible for the silviculture prescription at the site. Consultation with agency staff may be warranted at high risk sites.

All team members must understand the TSFA objectives and timelines to make the process as efficient as possible. It is important to identify and communicate site specific objectives and any broad level terrain concerns (such as streams sensitive to sedimentation) prior to fieldwork. Often, written objectives can help focus the team both prior to and during the fieldwork. Ideally, the QRP is involved early in the forest development planning process to assist with access planning.

Team members must operate within their levels of training and experience, and are responsible for the information that will be used in the TSFA (such as cutblock boundary locations and road design data). Some aspects of the TSFA may be delegated to other team members. In delegating specific aspects, it is important for the QRP to ask for data and observations (such as measured slopes) rather than interpretations (such as soil drainage conditions).

The QRP must also be prepared to justify actions taken to streamline the TSFA process. In some cases, the liability insurance of the QRP may restrict the aspects of a TSFA that can be delegated to team members not employed by the same company as the QRP.

Guidelines and Examples

Overview Information
Overview information may include terrain mapping, terrain stability mapping, watershed assessments, terrain attribute studies or a more qualitative assessment regarding landslide occurrence in nearby logged areas. Previous TSFA reports in nearby areas can also be very useful. Field notes from layout personnel trained to identify signs of existing or potential landslides can also be extremely valuable.

Overview information is critical to assist the QRP to identify areas of potential concern, and can often significantly reduce the amount of field time needed. Previous TSFAs may identify patterns of stable and/or unstable terrain; this information can be used by layout personnel to improve road and cutblock locations so that few changes are needed as a result of the TSFA.

Of course, the quality of overview information is important. If accurate topographic mapping and air photos are not available, more field time is generally needed to traverse all slopes and not just those that are potentially unstable.

Fieldwork
The fieldwork for a TSFA is critical in areas of moderate to high landslide hazard, but many areas of low hazard exist. Many slopes greater than 60% (or mapped as Class IV) may be a low landslide hazard for specific clearcutting and/or road construction plans. It may be appropriate to reduce the amount of fieldwork done by the QRP in steep, low hazard areas. Conversely, it is necessary to traverse slopes less than 60% where field indicators of instability are observed by field layout staff.

Fieldwork is typically required in situations where local conditions may affect stability (such as road construction on a steep, relatively stable slope). In these cases, data and observations of layout personnel can be used to prioritize the cutblock and road areas, minimizing the amount of fieldwork.

Reporting
Streamlining can also be achieved through concise communication of the TSFA results. It many cases it may be useful to have the road designer or forester comment on a draft report to ensure the recommendations are feasible. For simple sites, TSFA reports can also be reduced to report only objectives, site observations and conclusions/recommendations along with a map of the TSFA area. Obviously, the QRP must keep all overview and site information on file for followup work if necessary.

Field Reviews
Field reviews of road construction or deactivation by the QRP are recommended where the design is dependent on ground conditions encountered during the work, a specialized design is planned, or high value resources exist downslope (such as residential development or fisheries habitat). A field review may also be needed if adverse unexpected conditions are encountered. A discussion paper on field reviews can be found on the DEGIFS web site at www.apeg.bc.ca.

Our Recommendations
Since you are the QRP responsible for the TSFA, you have the discretion to delegate some aspects of the TSFA to make the process more effective. However, you must provide "direct supervision," which in this context is specific instruction or guidance. You become fully responsible for the recommendations as accountability for the TSFA rests with you.

We recommend delegating some tasks to other forestry team members only when and where you have:

• Sufficient knowledge of the general area and firsthand information on potentially unstable terrain types.
• Detailed overview information strongly suggesting that the proposed development is a low landslide hazard, and/or local experience directly applicable to the TSFA area.
• A long standing relationship with layout personnel, whose abilities to collect data and recognize indicators of slope instability have been verified.
• Data, direct observations and photos from layout personnel rather than interpretations.
• Verification of all the above conditions through random checks.

We recommend that you do not delegate tasks for a TSFA when and where:

• Terrain and site conditions are complex.
• Site conditions that are critical for stability cannot be determined from overview information (such as the soil textures and drainage conditions along road locations on steep slopes).
• Substantial portions of the slope are steep and long landslide runout is possible.
• The safety of forestry crews or the public is at risk from potential landslides.

Good communication and explicit recommendations can increase the efficiency and effectiveness of TSFAs. Streamlining the TSFA reports, and tailoring them to specific objectives at the site, can save some reporting costs. However, vague recommendations can lead to increased design and construction costs.

It may also be beneficial to carry out a pre-layout assessment for a proposed development area or a terrain attribute study for the watershed. These results can be used by layout personnel to improve cutblock and road locations. The costs for these types of preliminary studies may be less than carrying out TSFAs on terrain that is identified as a low hazard.