BGC Debris Flow Risk
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
KERR WOOD LEIDAL ASSOCIATES CHEEKEYE RIVER DEBRIS FLOW RISK ASSESSMENT FINAL PROJECT NO: 0464-001 DISTRIBUTION: DATE: October 21, 2008 RECIPIENT 5 copies DOCUMENT NO: BGC 3 copies #500-1045 Howe Street Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6Z 2A9 Tel: 604.684.5900 Fax: 604.684.5909 October 21, 2008 Project No. 0464-001 Mr. M. Currie, P. Eng. Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Still Creek Road Burnaby, BC V5C 6G9 Dear Mr. Currie, Re: Fan Debris Flow Study - Debris Flow Risk Assessment Please find attached two copies of our above referenced draft report dated October 21, 2008. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at the number listed above. Yours sincerely, BGC ENGINEERING INC. per: Matthias Jakob, Ph.D., P.Geo. Senior Geoscientist Enc. MJ/lb Kerr Wood Leidal Associates October 21, 2008 Fan Debris Flow Study- FINAL Project No. 0464-001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report summarizes a risk analysis conducted to determine existing risk to loss of life from debris flow hazards on the Cheekeye River fan complex. The purpose of the risk analysis is to quantify the risk resulting from Cheekeye River debris flows under existing conditions, and to illustrate the degree of risk reduction that would be provided by a large debris barrier (roughly 1.4 Mm3 volume upstream of the Highway 99 crossing). This report analyses and evaluates risk for three principal aspects. The first is debris flow risk to Highway 99 users at the Cheekeye River bridge crossing. Risk is determined for the length of highway that could be affected by debris flow impact. Four scenarios are differentiated: Vehicles being caught by debris through direct impact; vehicles driving into the gap left if the highway bridge was to be destroyed by a debris flow; vehicles being stopped due to the debris on the road and following surges impacting the vehicles, and vehicles that are unable to stop in time and that drive into the debris mass. Analysis demonstrates that the risk to individuals using Highway 99 is classified as acceptable when comparing the calculated risk values to international standards. The risk to groups is unacceptable when compared to international standards. If a large debris barrier is constructed, risk is reduced substantially but still exceeds the unacceptable threshold for N=2 or more fatalities. An economic analysis was conducted by Stats B.C. for a scenario in which the Highway 99 bridge was severed. Resultant costs to the economy could be in the order of one million dollars per day. The second focus of this report was the existing development at the Cheekeye subdivision near the Cheekeye River – Cheakamus River confluence. Risk to individuals is unacceptable using the 10-4 annual probability standard applied in the District of North Vancouver and elsewhere, and group risk falls into the unacceptable region for all return periods including and exceeding 50 years. If a large debris barrier is constructed, individual risk would be reduced to acceptable levels for all return periods. The third area of focus is a potential development area on the southern portions of the fan. A hypothetical development area is used for this aspect of the risk analysis, but this is not intended to represent a specific development proposal. It was found that the risk to individuals in this area without mitigation is considered unacceptable for a large number of homes, but would be rendered acceptable for all homes if a large debris barrier is constructed. Group risk under the unmitigated scenario would be unacceptable, but would be moved into at least the ALARP zone with construction of the debris barrier. Additional risk mitigation strategies discussed in the text, such as construction of a berm south of the fan apex, would likely reduce risk fully into the acceptable region. N:\BGC\Projects\0464 MDC\001 Cheekye Fan\Report\Full Report Series\FINALS\Report 3 Risk Analysis FINAL REVISED - October 21 2008_mc1.doc Page i BGC ENGINEERING INC. Kerr Wood Leidal Associates October 21, 2008 Fan Debris Flow Study- FINAL Project No. 0464-001 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... ii LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................. iii LIST OF APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... iii LIMITATIONS OF REPORT ................................................................................................... iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 5 1.1. Risk Analysis Techniques .............................................................................................. 5 1.1.1. Background ......................................................................................................... 5 2.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 9 2.1. Risk Tolerance Criteria in British Columbia ................................................................. 9 2.2. Geohazard Risk Tolerance by the B.C. Ministry of Transportation ......................... 10 2.3. Subdivision Case Law .................................................................................................. 12 2.4. Hazard Acceptability Thresholds for Developments in the Fraser Valley Regional District ........................................................................................................... 14 3.0 RISK FROM VOLCANISM AND EARTHQUAKES ........................................................ 16 3.1. Risk from Volcanic Eruptions ...................................................................................... 16 3.2. Risk from Earthquakes ................................................................................................. 17 4.0 METHODS: RISK TO HIGHWAY 99 USERS ................................................................ 18 4.1. Assumptions ................................................................................................................. 18 4.2. Event Scenarios ............................................................................................................ 18 4.3. Risk Estimation ............................................................................................................. 19 4.4. Individual Risk Summaries .......................................................................................... 21 4.5. Group Risk Summaries ................................................................................................ 21 5.0 METHODS: RISK TO DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 23 5.1. Assumptions ................................................................................................................. 23 5.2. Elements at Risk ........................................................................................................... 23 5.3. Risk Estimation ............................................................................................................. 24 5.3.1. Spatial Probability PS:H ...................................................................................... 24 5.3.2. Temporal Probability (PS:T) ............................................................................... 25 5.3.3. Vulnerability (V) ................................................................................................ 25 5.4. Individual Risk summaries ........................................................................................... 26 5.5. Group Risk Summaries ................................................................................................ 26 N:\BGC\Projects\0464 MDC\001 Cheekye Fan\Report\Full Report Series\FINALS\Report 3 Risk Analysis FINAL REVISED - October 21 2008_mc1.doc Page ii BGC ENGINEERING INC. Kerr Wood Leidal Associates October 21, 2008 Fan Debris Flow Study- FINAL Project No. 0464-001 6.0 RESULTS: RISK TO HIGHWAY USERS ....................................................................... 27 6.1. Individual Highway Risk ............................................................................................... 27 6.2. Group Highway Risk ..................................................................................................... 27 7.0 RESULTS: EXISTING AND POSSIBLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ............................ 30 7.1. Individual Risk Summaries .......................................................................................... 30 7.2. Group Risk ..................................................................................................................... 30 8.0 RISK-BASED DECISION MAKING FRAMEWORK ...................................................... 32 9.0 RISK REDUCTION BENEFITS ...................................................................................... 33 10.0 CLOSURE ...................................................................................................................... 34 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................