Original Article
Landslides (2008) 5:121126 Ron Arksey . Doug VanDine
DOI 10.1007/s10346-007-0105-0
Received: 27 February 2007
Accepted: 27 September 2007 Example of a debris-flow risk analysis from Vancouver
Published online: 28 November 2007
Springer-Verlag 2007 Island, British Columbia, Canada
Abstract In July 2005, a debris flow and a water flood occurred on
two adjacent gullies in the White River area, on northern Vancouver
Island in British Columbia, Canada. The 16,000 m3 debris flow
buried approximately 7.5 ha of second-growth trees, buried approx-
imately 500 m of a forestry road, and reached two fish-bearing
streams. The water flood eroded approximately 240 m of the same
forestry road and plugged four culverts before overtopping and
inundating the road. To better plan for future events, risk analyses
of debris flows, debris floods, and water floods were carried out
for the two gullies involved, plus a third adjacent gully. The
elements at risk that were analyzed included, in order of priority:
users of the forestry road, the fish-bearing streams, the forestry
road itself, and a timber bridge. Using a series of qualitative, but
defined, relative-risk matrices, the following components of specific
risk were estimated for each of the three types of events on each
of the three gullies for each of the four elements at risk: probability
of occurrence, probability that the event will reach or otherwise
affect the site of the element at risk, the probability that the element
at risk will be at the site when the event occurs, and the probability
of loss or damage resulting from the element being at the site when
the event occurs.
Keywords Debris flows . Debris floods . Water floods .
Risk analysis . British Columbia . Canada
Introduction
During an intense rainfall event in July 2005, a debris flow occurred
in one gully, and a water flood occurred in an adjacent gully in the
White River area, approximately 50 km northwest of Campbell
River on northern Vancouver Island in British Columbia, Canada
(Fig. 1). For the purpose of this paper, a gully is a stream, or surface
drainage, that has a steep headwall, a deeply incised transport zone
and a colluvial/alluvial fan.
The 16,000 m3 debris flow buried approximately 7.5 ha of
second-growth trees, buried approximately 500 m of a forestry
road, and reached two fish-bearing streams. The water flood eroded
approximately 240 m of the same forestry road and plugged four
culverts before overtopping and inundating the road.
To assist in the design of appropriate mitigative measures,
Western Forest Products (WFPI), the forest licensee in the area,
retained Contour Geoscience and VanDine Geological Engineering
to carry out a risk analysis of debris flows, debris floods, and water
floods for the two gullies involved plus a third adjacent gully
(Contour Geoscience 2006).
This paper presents the method and results of the risk analysis
of the three geomorphic processes, on the three adjacent gullies, to
four elements identified as being potentially at risk. The elements
at risk, in order of priority as determined by WFPI are: users of the
WR305 Road, the fish-bearing streams that flow into the White
River, the WR305 Road itself, and the WR305 Bridge. As such, it is
an example of a multifaceted risk analysis.
Definitions
The definitions of debris flows, debris floods and water floods used
in this paper are based on Wilford et al. (2004, 2005) and Hungr
et al. (2001).
Debris flows are complex, heterogeneous sedimentwater mix-
tures with sediment concentrations between 70 and 90% by
weight. Flow velocities typically range between 1 and 20 m/s, and
discharges can be 5 to 40 times greater than peak water floods.
Debris flows characteristically result in the formation of marginal
levees and terminal lobes.
Debris floods occur when most of the streambed sediment is
mobilized by high water flow, but mixing of the water and
sediment is not complete. Debris floods have 40 to 70% sediment
by weight and can have discharges that are two to three times
larger than peak water floods. Deposits typically form bars, fans,
sheets, and splays.
Water floods have sediment concentrations between 1 and 40%
by weight, and sediment is deposited as bars, fans, sheets and
splays. Water floods in gravel, cobble or boulder channels rarely
mobilize the entire streambed.
Background
The White River study area (referred to as the WR305 area) is
located on Crown land that belongs to the Province of British
Columbia. WFPI has the license to harvest timber on this Crown
land. The area downslope of the debris-flow and water-flood
initiation sites was logged between 1966 and 1980. During active
logging, a forestry road (the WR305 Road) and four spur roads
(spurs A, B, C, and D) were constructed off of the White River
Mainline (Fig. 2). By July 2005, spurs A, B, and C had become
totally overgrown, and spur D had been permanently deactivated.
The WR305 Road is a maintained forestry road used by WFPIs
pick-up trucks for access but is not used by trucks to haul logs or
heavy equipment. Occasionally, public vehicles use the WR305
Road. Because of winter snow conditions, the road is seldom used
during the winter.
A broad, eastwest trending valley, at the north end of the study
area, is drained by a small stream (stream 2). The WR305 Road
crosses stream 2 by a timber bridge (the WR305 Bridge). Stream 2 is
a fish-bearing stream that flows west towards the White River, a
relatively large fish-bearing river located approximately 1.5 km
Landslides 5 (2008) 121
 Original Article
west of the WR305 Bridge. Another unnamed fish-bearing stream,
a tributary of stream 2, is located approximately 400 m west
northwest of the WR305 Bridge (Fig. 2).
The terrain south (upslope) of stream 2 consists of a series of
relatively gentle (<15) coalescing colluvial/alluvial fans that extend
up to the elevation of spur D and then transitions into hillslopes
with gradients that range between 30 and 40 (Fig. 3). The steep
hillslopes are dissected and drained by three northward-flowing
drainages, referred to as the West Gully, the Central Gully, and the
East Gully. During the July 2005 rainfall event, a debris flow occurred
along the Central Gully, and a water flood occurred along the East
Gully (Figs. 2 and 3). There was no debris-flow, debris-flood, or
water-flood activity along the West Gully in 2005.

Risk analysis method

Specific risk, R(S), is the risk from a particular hazard to a specific
element potentially at risk. The risk analysis procedure follows the
methodology outlined by Wise et al. (2004).
Mathematically, specific risk, R(S), is expressed as:

RS PH
PS : H
PT : S
V L : T;

where
Fig. 1 Location map
P(H) is an estimate of the probability, or likelihood, of occur-
rence of a specific hazardous event.
P(S:H) is an estimate of the probability that the hazardous event
will reach or otherwise affect the site of the element at
risk (spatial probability).
P(T:S) is an estimate of the probability that the element at risk
will be at the site when a hazardous event occurs (temporal
probability).
V(L:T) is an estimate of the vulnerability of, or probability of
loss or damage resulting from, the element at risk being
at the site when the hazardous event occurs.

Fig. 3 Photo looking south, looking up West and Central gullies. Photo taken July
Fig. 2 Overview of the WR305 area and the events of July 2005 13, 2005 by Shane Renouf of WFPI

122 Landslides 5 (2008)

Table 1 Definitions of relative qualitative terms for P(H) (modified from Wise et al. 2004)
Likelihood of Annual probability of occurrence Qualitative description
occurrence
Very high (VH) >0.05 (1 in 20 years) Event is imminent regardless of reasonable changes in assumed site conditions
High (H) 0.010.05 (1 in 100 years to 1 in 20 years) Event is probable unless the site conditions are significantly better than assumed
Moderate (M) 0.0020.01 (1 in 500 years to 1 in 100 years) Event is not likely but possible if there was a significant change to one or more
of the assumed conditions
Low (L) 0.00040.002 (1 in 2,500 years to 1 in 500 years) Event likelihood is remote although possible given site conditions
Very low (VL) <0.0004 (<1 in 2,500 years) Event likelihood is improbable under assumed site conditions

Quantitatively, if it is certain a hazardous event will occur, the all three gullies, plus levees, flow lobes, and sediment deposits
probability of occurrence is 1. Similarly, if it is certain a hazardous identified in the field, indicate past debris-flow, debris-flood, and
event will reach or otherwise affect the site, the spatial probability water-flood activity. These features have developed since deglacia-
is 1; if the element is permanent, such as a stream, road or bridge, tion, approximately 10,000 years ago. Along the West Gully, a young
the temporal probability is 1; and if total loss is likely to occur, the stand of second-growth trees, extending about 200 m upslope and
vulnerability is 1. Otherwise, the probabilities range between 0 and downslope of spur D, is evident on 1994 airphotos and indicates a
1, with 0 indicating no probability. Qualitatively, these probabilities 40- to 60-year-old debris-flow/debris-flood event along this gully
are expressed in relative terms such as very high, high, moderate, (Fig. 3). From the end of logging in 1980 up until July 2005, there
low, very low, extremely low, and remote. had been no debris flows, debris floods or water floods in any of the
The relative qualitative terms for P(H), P(S:H), P(T:S) and V(L:T) gullies.
applied to this risk analysis are defined in Tables 1 and 2. In British Columbia, a model that uses watershed area and relief
Since the components of risk [P(H), P(S:H), P(T:S), and V(L:T)] (Melton ratio), combined with watershed length, has been found
are multiplied together, a series of qualitative multiplication matrices effective in suggesting the type of geomorphic process that can
can be used for this purpose. For this analysis, the multiplication occur in a gully (Wilford et al. 2004). Wilford et al. (2004) found
matrix shown in Table 3 was used to combine two probabilities that a gully is predisposed to water floods if the Melton ratio is
(x,y), and the result was then combined with probability (z) which <0.30 and predisposed to debris floods or debris flows if the
was then combined with the next probability, and so on. Melton ratio is >0.30. If the Melton ratio is >0.60 and the watershed
length is <2.7 km, debris flows are more likely than debris floods.
Results In the WR305 area, the West Gully has a Melton ratio of 0.91 and
a watershed length of 1.4 km; the Central Gully has a Melton ratio
Elements at risk of 1.19 and a watershed length 1.6 km; and the East Gully has a
As introduced earlier, four elements potentially at risk were Melton ratio of 0.97 and watershed length of 1.7 km. Therefore,
identified, and in order of priority as determined by WFPI, they based on Wilford et al. (2004), the three gullies are predisposed to
are: debris flows.
A snow avalanche assessment indicates that snow avalanches
1. Users of the WR305 Road have occurred along all three gullies in the past and concluded that
2. The fish-bearing streams that flow into the White River the gullies have the potential for size 2.5 to 3.0 (500 to 1,000 tonnes)
3. The WR305 Road snow avalanches in the future (Island Alpine Consulting 2005).
4. The WR305 Bridge Based on the start zones of the snow avalanches, the snow avalanche
assessment concluded that although snow avalanches increase
P(H) probability of occurrence debris loading in these gullies, they do not appreciably increase the
Naturally occurring debris flows, debris floods, and water floods likelihood of debris flows, debris floods, or water floods.
from the West, Central, and East gullies are the identified hazards. Based on the geomorphic evidence, airphoto evidence of a past
The presence of coalescing colluvial/alluvial fans emanating from event, the response of the three gullies to the July 2005 event, and
the work of Wilford et al. (2004), the probability of occurrence of
debris flows, debris floods, and water floods in each of the three
gullies was estimated (Table 4).
Table 2 Definitions of relative qualitative terms for P(S:H), P(T:S), and V(L:T)
P(S:H) spatial probability
Relative term Range of probabilities Spatial probability depends on the magnitude (volume of debris or
Very high (VH) 0.80 to 0.99 sediment involved) of the events, the location of the elements at
High (H) 0.60 to 0.79 risk, and the associated topography (potential flow paths). The
Moderate (M) 0.40 to 0.59 magnitude of events can obviously vary, but geomorphic evidence
Low (L) 0.20 to 0.39
from past events indicates that debris flows are typically the largest
Very low (VL) 0.05 to 0.19
events, and water floods are typically the smallest. Table 5 sum-
Extremely low (EL) 0.001 to 0.04
marizes the spatial probabilities by gully, type of event, and
Remote (R) <0.001
element at risk.

Landslides 5 (2008) 123

 Original Article
Table 3 Qualitative matrix for components of the risk analysis
P(z)=P(x)P(y) P(x) P(y)
VH H M L VL EL R
VH VH VH H H M M L
H VH H H M M L VL
M H H M M L VL VL
L H M M L VL VL EL
VL M M L VL VL EL EL
EL M L VL VL EL EL R
R L VL VL EL EL R R
Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for definitions of relative qualitative terms of P(H), P(S:H), P(T:S), and V(L:T).

Table 4 Probability of occurrenceP(H)

Gully Debris flow Debris flood Water flood
West M M H
Central H H VH
East M H VH
Refer to Table 1 for definitions of relative qualitative terms.

Table 5 Spatial probabilityP(S:H)

Gully Debris flow Debris flood Water flood
WR305 Fish-bearing WR305 WR305 WR305 Road Fish-bearing WR305 WR305 WR305 Fish-bearing WR305 WR305
Road Users streams Road Bridge Users streams Road Bridge Road Users streams Road Bridge
West R L R R R L R R R VL R R
Central VH H VH L H L H VL H EL H EL
East VH M VH VL H VL H EL H EL H R
Refer to Table 2 for definitions of relative qualitative terms.

Table 6 VulnerabilityV(L:T)
Gully Debris flow Debris flood Water flood
WR305 Fish-bearing WR305 WR305 WR305 Road Fish-bearing WR305 WR305 WR305 Fish-bearing WR305 WR305
Road Users streams Road Bridge Users streams Road Bridge Road Users streams Road Bridge
West R M R R R L R R R VL R R
Central H M M VL M L L EL L VL VL R
East H M M VL M L L EL L EL L R
Refer to Table 2 for definitions of relative qualitative terms.

124 Landslides 5 (2008)

Table 7 Summary of specific risksR(S)
Elements at Risk Users of WR305 Road Fish-bearing streams WR305 Road WR305 Road Bridge
Risk Component P(H) P(S:H) P(T:S) V(L:T) R(S) P(S:H) P(T:S) V(L:T) R(S) P(S:H) P(T:S) V(L:T) R(S) P(S:H) P(T:S) V(L:T) R(S)
West Gully
Debris flow M R R R R L 1 M M R 1 R EL R 1 R EL
Debris flood M R R R R L 1 L M R 1 R EL R 1 R EL
Water flood H R R R R VL 1 VL L R 1 R EL R 1 R EL
Central Gully
Debris flow H VH R H M H 1 M H VH 1 M H L 1 VL L
Debris flood H H R M L L 1 L M H 1 L M VL 1 EL VL
Water flood VH H R L L EL 1 VL L H 1 VL M EL 1 R VL
East Gully
Debris flow M VH R H M M 1 M M VH 1 M H VL 1 VL VL
Debris flood H H R M L VL 1 L M H 1 L M EL 1 EL VL
Water flood VH H R L L EL 1 EL VL H 1 L H R 1 R EL
P(H), P(S:H), P(T:S) and V(L:T) are multiplied sequentially, using the matrix shown in Table 3, to obtain R(S).1 A permanent element; P(H) probability, or likelihood, of occurrence of a
specific hazardous event (from Table 4); P(S:H) probability that the hazardous event will reach or otherwise affect the site of the element at risk (from Table 5); P(T:S) probability that
the element at risk will be at the site when a hazardous event occurs; V(L:T) vulnerability of, or probability of loss or damage resulting from, the element at risk being at the site
when the hazardous event occurs (from Table 6)VH Very high, H high, M moderate, L low, VL very low, EL extremely low, R remote (refer to Tables 1 and 2)

P(T:S) temporal probability
Temporal probability depends on the element at risk being at the
site when the event occurs. Stationary elements at risk, such as
streams, roads and bridges are considered permanent and, there-
fore, P(T:S)=1 for all three elements at risk.
Users of the WR305 Road could be caught in an event or more
likely could drive into debris or sediment deposited on the road as
a result of an event. Because of the relative infrequent use, only in
the spring, summer and fall, the likelihood of an event occurring
while someone is using the road is remote. Similarly, because travel
speeds are typically less than 50 kph, the likelihood of someone
driving into debris or sediment on the road is also remote.
V(L:T) vulnerability
Based on geomorphic evidence from past events, it is assumed that
future debris flows will involve the largest volume of debris and
travel with the most energy, followed by debris floods and water
floods. Correspondingly, loss or damage from debris flows will be
greatest, with relatively less loss or damage from debris floods and
water floods. Therefore, the vulnerability of the elements at risk
due to a debris flow, debris flood, or water flood forms a continuum
of severity of loss or damage. These are summarized in Table 6.
R(S) specific risk
Specific risk is the risk of loss or damage to a specific element at
risk resulting from a specific hazardous affecting landslide. Based
on the above discussion of likelihood of occurrence, spatial prob-
ability; temporal probability and vulnerability; and the specific
risks to the users of the WR305 Road, to fish-bearing streams, to
the WR305 Road, and to the WR305 Bridge from debris flows,
debris floods, and water floods from each of the West, Central, and
East gullies are summarized in Table 7. In Table 7, the probabilities
P(H), P(S:H), P(T:S), and V(L:T), are multiplied sequentially, using
the multiplication matrix shown in Table 3, to obtain the specific
risk, R(S).
Discussion
WFPI has a Terrain Management Code of Practice (WFPI 2005).
Based upon that code, a criteria of a moderate or less risk to users
of the WR305 Road, fish-bearing streams, the WR305 Road, or the
WR305 Bridge is considered acceptable. From the results of the risk
analysis presented in Table 7, no estimated specific risks greater
than moderate were identified for the West Gully; for the Central
Gully, a high risk to fish-bearing streams and the WR305 Road was
estimated from debris flows; for the East Gully, a high risk to the
WR305 Road was estimated from debris flows and water floods.
Risks greater than moderate are shaded in Table 7.
WFPI has used the above results of this multifaceted risk
analysis to assist in the design of appropriate mitigative measures
to protect the WR305 Road from debris flows and water floods and
to protect fish-bearing streams, in particular stream 2, from debris
flows.
After word
The results of this risk analysis were tested during a rain on snow
storm event in November 2006. This storm exceeded the 1-in-100-year
rainfall estimate (Integrated Watersheds 2006) and resulted in a
water flood in the East Gully, a debris flood in the Central Gully, and
a debris flow in the West Gully. Due to the recommended mitigative
measures put in place after July 2005 (Contour Geoscience 2006),
the 2006 Central Gully debris flood did not affect any of the iden-
tified elements at risk. The 2006 water flood along the East Gully
buried some of the repaired and/or replaced culverts and over-
topped a portion of the WR305 Road. The 2006 debris flow along
the West Gully transported debris down to the deactivated spur B
but did not affect any of the identified elements at risk.

Landslides 5 (2008) 125

 Original Article
Acknowledgements Western Forest Products (WFPI) (2005) Terrain management code of practice. Internal
The authors would like to thank Mr Fred Baiocco and Mr Shawn Document, 41p plus maps
Wilford D, Sakals ME, Innes JL, Sidel RC, Bergerud WA (2004) Recognition of debris
Ellsworth, both Registered Professional Foresters with WFPI for flow, debris flood and flood hazard through watershed morphometrics. Landslides
their encouragement and assistance with this risk assessment, and 1:6166
Tyson Wheeler of GeoWest Solutions for his drafting expertise. Wilford D, Sakals M, Innes J (2005) Forest management on fans: hydrogeomorphic
This paper has been prepared with the approval of WFPI. It hazards and general prescriptions. Land Management Handbook 57, BC Ministry of
Forests, Victoria, BC, 35p
benefited greatly from the reviews of two anonymous reviews and
Wise M, Moore G, VanDine D (2004) Landslide risk case studies in forest development
the review of Dr Oldrich Hungr. planning and operations. Land Management Handbook 56, BC Ministry of Forests,
Victoria, 119p
References
R. Arksey ())
Contour Geoscience (2006) Risk analysis: West, Central and East Gullies, WR305, White Contour Geoscience Ltd,
River Area. Report for Western Forest Products, 17p plus maps. 829 Sandpines Crescent,
Hungr O, Evans SG, Bovis MJ, Hutchinson JN (2001) A review of the classification of Comox, British Columbia V9M 3V2, Canada
landslides of the flow type. Environ Eng Geosci 7:221238 e-mail: contourgeoscience@shaw.ca
Integrated Watersheds (2006) Preliminary assessment of the November, 15, 2006
rainfall period. Report for TimberWest Forest Corporation, 8 pages D. VanDine
Island Alpine Consulting (2005) Avalanche assessment desk review, WR305 Gullies, VanDine Geological Engineering Limited,
White River Drainage. Report for Cascadia Forest Products (now part of WFPI), 6p Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

126 Landslides 5 (2008)