Smart Growth on the Ground
FOUNDATION RESEARCH BULLETIN:
Squamish
Research compiled by:
Murray Journeay, at
Natural Resources Canada
No. 6
March, 2005
Natural Hazards and Risk
1.0 Introduction
“Deciding how to use land is demanding enough. It is even more
daunting if there are competing views about the role that land
should play in reducing collective exposure to risk. Considerations
invariably revolve around whose land it is, whose risk is involved
most emphatically and who is to benefit. Too often, the desire
for short-term gains override anticipated benefits that stretch
further into the future. For these reasons, land-use management
and planning [at all jurisdictional levels] needs to be considered
as a natural extension of conducting hazard assessments and risk
mapping.” 1
Context & Focus
News reports provide us with an ongoing and sobering account of the frequency and
magnitude of natural hazards, and the extent to which they impact communities both near
and far. Within the space of only a few months this past year, we have witnessed the
impacts of paired mega-thrust earthquake and tsunami events in southeast Asia, a cluster of
landslide events that jarred neighborhoods in North Vancouver and the Lower Mainland, and
a succession of major flooding events that have impacted communities up and down the west
coast of North America. Natural disasters occur along the interface between this evolving
landscape and human activity.
As a mountain community nestled at the confluence of five major river systems that have
carved through towering glaciated peaks of an active volcanic belt, Squamish is no stranger to
the concepts of natural hazards, vulnerability and risk. The consequences of major flood and
landslide events of the past century are etched in the landscape and in the memories of those
who have made their home here over the years. The record of significant natural hazard
events stretches even further back in geologic time.
As the community continues to grow, so to do potential levels of vulnerability and risk
(physical and socio-economic) associated with increased exposure to natural hazards. There is
increasing pressure to preserve and protect remaining agricultural and ecologically sensitive
lands, and to optimize settlement patterns and operational systems to gain efficiencies
in land use, resource consumption and infrastructure development. Though motivated by
sound landscape ethics and a desire to promote social and economic well-being, these
design principles can in some cases be compromised by inadvertently situating people
and development in areas exposed to increased probabilities of natural hazard events.
Understanding hazard-related landscape risks associated with both existing settlement
and future development alternatives provides an important context for community design,
planning and strategic land use decision making, and is arguably one of the key foundations
for establishing ‘smart’ and resilient communities.
Design Centre for Sustainability at the University of British Columbia
1 - No. 6
This bulletin provides a brief snapshot of the most significant natural hazard threats for
Squamish, and introduces preliminary results of a multi-hazard risk assessment framework to
assist the community in evaluating:
Multi-hazard exposure expressed in terms of spatial extent, magnitude and likelihood
of occurrence at any point on the landscape,
The vulnerability of people and property assets expressed in terms of physical and
socio-economic impacts at any point on the landscape,
Choices and consequences of community development and land use alternatives,
expressed in terms of risk scenarios and evaluated in terms of costs and benefits
(‘what-if’ scenario modeling/portfolio analysis),
Levels of risk tolerance for various land use and community development activities,
and
Strategies for mitigating natural hazards (warning systems, physical barriers and land
use options) that take into account jurisdictional authority and available resources.
2.0
Dimensions of Risk
Multi-hazard risk assessment is a field of research
and practice that brings together expertise in
the fields of geology, geotechnical engineering,
economics, social and physical geography, policy
analysis and planning. The risk analysis component
(Figure 1, left-hand activity flow) addresses the
physical and probabilistic dimensions of the hazard
event and involves the compilation and synthesis
of available scientific and technical information
describing the extent, magnitude and spatial
probabilities of natural hazards in both human
and geological contexts. The risk assessment
Figure 1: As outlined in the ISDR report component of the process (Figure 1, right-hand
activity flow) addresses the consequences of multi‘Living with Risk’
hazard events and involves: a) analysis of physical
vulnerabilities as determined by landscape exposure and varying capacities of fixed assets
(property, infrastructure, etc.) to withstand structural and content damage, and b) analysis
of socio-economic vulnerabilities as determined by overall awareness and understanding of
potential consequences (risk perception) and community capacity to respond and recover
from a disaster event (social and economic capital). Iteration and feedback between these
activity streams facilitates the translation of hazard and vulnerability information into
an integrated landscape planning and policy development context, whereby choices and
consequences (scenario alternatives) can be evaluated in light of political and economic
constraints (cost/benefit analysis), community priorities, and values.
To ensure clear communication of results, we are adopting standardized definitions for the
components of an integrated risk assessment, as outlined by the International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction in their report ‘Living with Risk’.
Natural Hazard: A potentially damaging natural process or phenomenon (earthquake, landslide,
flood, volcanic eruption, etc) which may cause loss of life or injury, property damage, social and
economic disruption or environmental degradation. Hazards are measured and described in terms of
spatial extent, magnitude and likelihood of occurrence.
Design Centre for Sustainability at the University of British Columbia
2 - No. 6
Vulnerability: The extent to which people, socio-economic and biophysical assets are exposed to
a natural hazard in a given area. Vulnerability is measured as instances and categorized by type.
Physical aspects of vulnerability assessment answer the questions: What is vulnerable? Where is it
vulnerable? Socio-economic aspects of vulnerability answer the questions: Who is vulnerable? How
have they become vulnerable?
Risk: The probability of harmful consequences of expected losses (deaths, injuries, property,
livelihoods, economic disruption or environmental degradation) resulting from interactions between
natural or human-induced hazards and vulnerable conditions. Conventionally, risk is expressed by the
notation: Risk = Hazards x Vulnerability.
3.0
Natural Hazard Profiles for Squamish
Flood Hazards
Squamish is exposed to a wide range of flood
hazards. Melt water from snow pack and
receding ice fields in the headwater regions
of the watershed combine with atmospheric
disturbances and variable river flow to produce
a wide range of potential flood conditions.
Watershed gradients are relatively high in the
basin and most of the rivers transport large
volumes of sediment. Deposition of these
sediment loads can result in elevated river bed
levels, leading to increased water levels for
Figure 2: Downtown Squamish during the
the same amount of flow. In spite of extensive
flood of 1921.
mitigation efforts to protect agricultural,
industrial, and residential lands along the valley
bottom (dykes, pump stations), Squamish has experienced a number of major flooding events
(1921, 1940, 1955, 1968, 1975, 1980-1984, 1989-1991, and 2003) resulting in millions of
dollars in damages and indirect losses. The Flood Management Plan for Squamish2 identifies
areas exposed to threats of 200 year flood events, and land use management and planning
strategies for mitigating these hazards. Areas of principle flood hazard include:
SOURCE
Squamish River
Mamquam River
Cheakamus River
Cheekye River
Howe Sound high tides
POTENTIAL FLOOD HAZARD
Flooding in Brackendale, North Yards, Dentville and downtown Squamish
Flooding in Garibaldi Estates, North Yards, Dentville and downtown Squamish
Flooding and erosion in the Cheakamus Valley
Debris Flows and avulsion flooding on the Cheekye Fan
Flooding in downtown Squamish
The Provincial government completed initial flood hazard mapping for the District of
Squamish in 1986. The resulting maps (Appendix 1a) define the extent and magnitude of
potential flood hazards and recommended flood construction levels (FCL). FCL are based
on computed water elevations of the river during a 200-year flood event, and include an
allowance of ~4 meters to account for uncertainties in the analysis and variations in flood
conditions. The maps provide the basis for a regulatory and land use planning framework2 to
ensure that all new residential buildings are constructed with the underside of the first floor
above established FCL.
We have calculated water depths and flow directions for 200 and 20-year flood events using
standard interpolation techniques and available FCL elevation data. Resulting flood depth
maps (Appendix 1a) are used to assess physical vulnerability associated with inundation
of flood waters (standard depth-damage functions), and provide a basis for evaluating risk
scenarios for existing and future development.
Design Centre for Sustainability at the University of British Columbia
3 - No. 6
Debris Flow Hazards on the Cheekye Fan
Geotechnical investigations spurred by subdivision and
community development interests on the Cheekye Fan in
the 1970’s led to the recognition of significant landslide
hazard potential on the slopes south of the Cheekye
River. They also initiated what has become one of the
most thorough hazard-vulnerability-risk assessments of
landslide potential in Canada3. Commissioned by the
Municipality and the Provincial Gevernment, Thurber
Engineering and Golder Associates undertook extensive
geological and geotechnical studies of the Cheekye River Basin3. Although a number of
smaller areas of landslide hazard potential were identified, the principle focus of the
investigation was to characterize and evaluate potential impacts of a catastrophic debris
flow, similar in spatial extent and magnitude to post-glacial events preserved in the geologic
record.
Results of the Thurber-Golder study suggested the potential for a large magnitude debris flow
event (7 million m3; 1,700 m3/s) originating from a breached landslide dam on the Cheekye
River, with an return period of 10,000 years and corresponding annual probabilities of
occurrence (1/50 to 1/2,500) for the most hazardous zones (>2 m thickness), well in excess of
acceptable risk tolerances. Potential run-out zones were modeled for current state conditions
and for mitigation scenarios involving the construction of deflection berms on the fan surface
to protect exposed regions of Brackendale and critical infrastructure (Appendix1b). The study
also recommended land use and regulatory guidelines to reduce risk levels on Cheekye Fan,
many of which have been incorporated into the existing Official Community Plan.
Figure 3a: Looking WSW down the debris flow path to the Cheekye Fan, b: Example of a debris flow run-out zone
and associated impacts in a settled portion of Kootenay Lake (Kuskonook Creek slide)
Subsequent geologic investigations led to significant revisions of debris flow scenarios,
including trigger mechanisms, maximum credible magnitude and likely return period
estimates4. This new information is incorporated into geotechnical studies of Kerr Wood
Leidal,5 who were commissioned to assess overall feasibility and to develop design guidelines
for the construction of a series of deflection berms that would accommodate revised
estimates of debris flow magnitude and discharge rates. Scenario models were developed
to simulate run out areas, thicknesses and velocities of a large magnitude debris flow event
(5-7 million m3/15,000 m3/s), and to establish optimal mitigation design criteria (Appendix
1b). The model results suggest that debris flow hazards may have been over-estimated,
both in terms of magnitude and likelihood of occurrence. Nevertheless, thicknesses and flow
velocities for both debris flow scenarios are capable of producing loss of life and significant
damage in areas of greatest exposure (>2m thickness). Refer to Appendix 1b and original
studies for detailed explanations.
Design Centre for Sustainability at the University of British Columbia
4 - No. 6
Earthquake Hazards
Earthquakes in southwestern British Columbia occur along the subduction zone interface
between oceanic crust of the Juan de Fuca plate and overriding continental crust of the
North American plate (offshore Vancouver Island); within the down-going slab of oceanic crust
as it sinks beneath western North America; and along inter-locking networks of faults within
the overriding North American plate (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Cascadia subduction zone, highlighting key source areas for earthquakes.
Subduction Zone Event: Rupture along the entire locked portion of the subduction zone boundary
(~1000 km) would release seismic energy equivalent to a M9-9.2 earthquake (Flueck et al., 1997),
similar in magnitude to recent events in Southeast Asia. Ground motions associated with such an
event would be greatest along the outer coast of Vancouver Island, and would diminish inland. More
conservative scenarios suggest rupture along a shorter segment of the subduction zone boundary (~300
km), involving both the locked zone, and parts of the adjacent transition zone. It is estimated that
such an event, were it to occur along the northern segment of the Cascadia Subduction Zone, would be
capable of producing local ground motions near the epicenter equivalent to a M8.5 earthquake.
Intraplate ‘Benioff’ Zone Event: The distribution of earthquake epicentres, together with seismic
reflection and refraction profiling indicate that the subducting oceanic crust of the Juan de Fuca plate
steepens to ~30 o at a depth of 45-65 km beneath eastern Vancouver Island and the Strait of Georgia.
Modeling of seismic potential scenarios for this portion of the subducting plate suggests maximum
ground motions equivalent to a M7.0 -7.5 earthquake (Adams et al., 1996); similar to the Nisqually
earthquake, Feb., 2001.
Shallow Crustal Earthquakes: Based on historic recurrence intervals for earthquakes in northern
Cascadia (Basham et al., 1982), it is generally assumed that shallow seismic events of M6.5-M7.0 could
occur in the Cascade and Coast Mountains. There is not yet enough detailed information on active
fault structures in the region to refine hazard assessments for this type of earthquake scenario.
Corresponding peak ground acceleration and ground shaking indices (Modified Mercalli Index)
have been computed for a variety of credible earthquake scenarios in southwest British
Columbia using standard ground shaking algorithms6, and site response criteria (bedrock and
surficial geology) provided by the Earth Sciences Sector (Natural Hazards and Emergency
Response Program) of Natural Resources Canada. Outputs of these computed scenarios
include a series of maps that portray the spatial distribution of shaking intensity for the
Squamish area (Appendix 1c). To further constrain estimates of earthquake shaking hazard
(spatial extent and intensity), earth scientists with NRCan are in the process of conducting
detailed micro-tremor measurements to help identify areas with greatest potential for ground
motion amplification and liquefaction. Results of these studies will be incorporated into
seismic hazard micro-zonation maps used in this study to refine shaking intensity calculations
and to estimate vulnerabilities and risks associated with a variety of potential earthquake
scenarios.
Design Centre for Sustainability at the University of British Columbia
5 - No. 6
4.0
Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment
This bulletin highlights preliminary results of an integrated multi-hazard risk assessment
undertaken in support of ongoing strategic planning activities in the District of Squamish
(Appendix 1d,e). The scope of work encompasses both initial phases of multi-hazard risk
analysis and assessment (Figure 1). It is based on the premise that any development or
land use activity (existing or proposed) has the potential to either increase or decrease risks
associated with natural hazards. The study leverages available knowledge and expertise
from the scientific, geotechnical and planning communities to help identify and evaluate
community design and planning strategies that will reduce the impact of natural hazards,
thereby minimizing the risks to life, property and ecosystem services. The analysis is
based on a deterministic ‘what-if’ scenario modeling approach that evaluates physical
vulnerabilities (damage estimates) associated with single or combined hazard events that
have been already been identified and evaluated as likely threats to the community. These
include:
Floods: 20 and 200 year flood events modeled as part of the Klohn Leonoff Flood
Management Plan2 (Appendix 1a)
Landslides: large magnitude debris flow events (un-mitigated and mitigated) modeled
by Thurber-Golder3 and by Kerr Wood Leidal5 as part of the Cheekye Fan landslide
hazard and deflection berm mitigation studies (Appendix 1b), and
Earthquakes: a variety of maximum credible earthquake events (subduction zone,
benioff zone and shallow crustal events) modeled herein.
The risk assessment component of the study currently evaluates only physical vulnerabilities
(damage to property and fixed assets), using standard direct loss estimation methodologies
from the literature. The modeling approach has the capacity to include indirect loss
estimations (interruption of business, damage to critical infrastructure social capital), and
will be expanded as this information becomes available and as methodologies for evaluating
socio-cultural assets are refined.
To help frame the discussion and deliberation of risks
associated with community design and development
alternatives being considered as part of the Smart
Growth on the Ground design charrette and the DOS
Growth Management study, we are piloting the use of a
Disaster Risk Index (DRI) that measures both single and
multi-hazard vulnerabilities associated with multi-hazard
event scenarios. The index is currently evaluated in
terms of direct loss to property and fixed assets at any
given location on the landscape, and provides a uniform
Figure 4: Impacts of debris flow measure of impacts associated with a wide range of
natural hazard scenarios. The DRI methodology used in
this study is similar in principle to that introduced in 2004 by the United Nations Development
Programme (Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery)7 but uses building damage as the
principle indicator of vulnerability. Preliminary outputs of the Disaster Risk Index (Appendix
1d,e) are reported in terms of cumulative damage rate (Levels 1-10), and provide a lens
through which to evaluate damage cost estimates for both existing settlement and proposed
community development alternatives. These vlnerability and risk analyses will be used in
developing cost-benefit risk scenarios (using the USGS portfolio modeler8) to help support
ongoing deliberations and to optimize mitigation strategies in the community.
Design Centre for Sustainability at the University of British Columbia
6 - No. 6
APPENDIX 1: Natural Hazard and Risk Maps
Design Centre for Sustainability at the University of British Columbia
7 - No. 6
Flood Hazard Assessment
Ch
ea
mu
a
k
s
DRAFT v1.0
R.
Cat
Lake
200 Year Flood Hazards
BCAA _parcels
FCL_elevations
Geodetic_Contours
Stump
Lake
Fan_Flood_Avulsion
DPTH_MAX
1.00
1.01 - 2.00
CHEEKYE FAN
Flood Depth (200yr)
Alice
Lake
0-1m
1-2m
2-3m
3-4m
4-5m
5-6m
5-7m
BRACKENDALE
7-8m
EAGLE
RUN
8-9m
9-10m
10-11m
GARIBALDI
ESTATES
GARIBALDI
HIGHLANDS
M
am
qu
am
R.
NOTE: See SGOG
Foundation Research
Bulletin on 'Living with
Natural Hazards,' for
explanation of the
Flood Hazard
Assessment
DENTVILLE
NORTHRIDGE
SQUAMISH
DOWNTOWN
LLE
VA
aw
St
2
a
F
LIF
YC
R
us
1
.
E
.
0
Kilometers
2
Landslide Hazard Assessment; Cheekye Fan Debris Flow
Un-Mitigated Debris Flow Scenario
Mitigation via Deflection Berm Scenario
Thurber-Golder Study 1993; Maximum Credible Debris Flow Scenario (7Mm3; 1,700 m3.sec).
TG-Scenario 1
DPTH_MAX
(0.3-2m) Debris filling the flood plain in some locations, possible temporary landslide
1.00 - 2.00 dam several metres high, complete change of flow patterns in river, possible small outburst
wave, erosion of fan margin scarp.
2.01 - 4.00 (2-4m) Slow movements, thin discontinuous deposits strongly controlled by topographic details
and obstructions. Structural damage minor, erosion by water flow in new channels.
4.01 - 6.00 (4-6m) Less rapid but still very destructive debris flow, deposits of variable thickness, preferential
flow along open corridors, some forest stands and structures will remain standing
(>6m) Extremely rapid movement of massive debris trains, deep deposition, forest cover and all structures destroyed, topography changed.
Un-Mitigated Debris Flow Scenario
Mitigation via Deflection Berm Scenario
Kerr-Wood Leidal Study 2003; Maximum Credible Debris Flow Scenario (7Mm3; 15,000 m3.sec)
KWL_Scenario1
DPTH_MAX
0
1.5
3
Kilometers
6
.
0.30 - 2.00 (0.3-2m) Debris filling the flood plain in some locations, possible temporary landslide
dam several metres high, complete change of flow patterns in river, possible small outburst
2.01 - 4.00 wave, erosion of fan margin scarp.
(2-4m) Slow movements, thin discontinuous deposits strongly controlled by topographic details
4.01 - 6.00 and obstructions. Structural damage minor, erosion by water flow in new channels.
(4-6m) Less rapid but still very destructive debris flow, deposits of variable thickness, preferential
6.01 - 8.00
flow along open corridors, some forest stands and structures will remain standing
8.01 - 10.00 (>6m) Extremely rapid movement of massive debris trains, deep deposition, forest cover and all structures destroyed, topography changed.
Seismic Hazard Assessment
Ch
ea
mu
a
k
s
DRAFT v1.0
R.
Cat
Lake
Stump
Lake
NOTE: The 'Maximum Credible
Earthquake (MCE) used to generate
thjs scenario is an intraplate 'Benioff
Zone' event with a magnitude of 6.8
and at a depth of 50km. Similar in
magnitude to the recent deep focus
event in the Seattle- Tacoma area.
See SGOG Foundation Research
Bulletin on 'Living with Natural Hazards,'
for details
CHEEKYE FAN
Alice
Lake
BRACKENDALE
EAGLE
RUN
Seismic Hazards
BCAA _parcels
Micro Tremor Stations
<all other values>
GEOLOGY
.
!
'Soft' Sediments
.
!
Glacial Till-1
.
!
Glacial Till-2
GARIBALDI
ESTATES
MCE_Scenario2_BZ_MMI
MMIVALUE
GARIBALDI
HIGHLANDS
4.50000
4.50001 - 5.50000
.
5.50001 - 6.50000
M
am
qu
am
R.
DENTVILLE
NORTHRIDGE
SQUAMISH
DOWNTOWN
LLE
VA
aw
St
2
a
F
LIF
YC
R
us
1
E
.
0
Kilometers
2
NOTE: See SGOG Foundation Research Bulletin on
'Living with Natural Hazards,' for explanation of the
Disaster Risk Index methodology and interpretation of
results.
Ch
ea
m
ka
R
us
.
Cat
Lake
Multi-Hazard
Risk Analysis
Stump
Lake
DRAFT v1.0
CHEEKYE FAN
Alice
Lake
BRACKENDALE
EAGLE
RUN
Disaster Risk Index (DRI)
BCAA _parcels
MH_Index
mh_raw
ٛ
ٛ
"
ٛ
"
ٛ
"
ٛ
"
ٛ
"
ٛ
"
ٛ
"
ٛ
"
ٛ
"
ٛ
"
GARIBALDI
ESTATES
Level 1
Level 2
GARIBALDI
HIGHLANDS
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Level 6
Mamquam R.
Level 7
Level 8
Level 9
Level 10
.
DENTVILLE
NORTHRIDGE
SQUAMISH
DOWNTOWN
LLE
VA
a
St
2
wa
F
LIF
YC
R
us
.
E
Multi-Hazard Profile
Earthquake Scenario: Benioff Zone Intraplate Event
(Magnitude 6.8/50km), located in Georgia Strait
Landslide Scenario: Kerr-Wood Leidal (un-mitigated)
debris flow event (7Mm3/15,000m3/s)
Flood Event: 200yr Flood Event (FCL's as determined by
Klohn-Leonoff Flood Management Study)
1
0
Kilometers
2
NOTE: The analysis of potentially developable
lands was prepared by Sheltair in support of
the DOS Growth Management Study.
NOTE: See SGOG Foundation Research Bulletin on
'Living with Natural Hazards,' for explanation of the
Disaster Risk Index methodology and interpretation of
results.
Ch
ea
m
ka
R
us
.
Cat
Lake
Multi-Hazard
Risk Analysis
Stump
Lake
DRAFT v1.0
CHEEKYE FAN
Alice
Lake
BRACKENDALE
EAGLE
RUN
Disaster Risk Index (DRI)
BCAA _parcels
Potentially_Developable_Lands
MH_Index
mh_raw
ٛ
ٛ
"
ٛ
"
ٛ
"
ٛ
"
ٛ
"
ٛ
"
ٛ
"
ٛ
"
ٛ
"
ٛ
"
GARIBALDI
ESTATES
Level 1
Level 2
GARIBALDI
HIGHLANDS
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
Level 6
Mamquam R.
Level 7
Level 8
Level 9
Level 10
.
DENTVILLE
NORTHRIDGE
SQUAMISH
DOWNTOWN
LLE
VA
a
St
2
wa
F
LIF
YC
R
us
.
E
Multi-Hazard Profile
Earthquake Scenario: Benioff Zone Intraplate Event
(Magnitude 6.8/50km), located in Georgia Strait
Landslide Scenario: Kerr-Wood Leidal (un-mitigated)
debris flow event (7Mm3/15,000m3/s)
Flood Event: 200yr Flood Event (FCL's as determined by
Klohn-Leonoff Flood Management Study)
1
0
Kilometers
2
APPENDIX 2: Backgrounder
The work presented in this bulletin represents initial outputs
of cross-border collaboration between the Earth Sciences
Sector of Natural Resources Canada (ESS Pathways Project/
Natural Hazards and Emergency Response Program), the U.S.
Geological Survey (Science Impacts Program) and a consortia
of academic and private sector partners.
The study builds on the results of ground-breaking work by the
geotechnical community in evaluating flood2 and landslide3,5
hazards on lands within the District of Squamish (extent,
magnitude and likelihood), and in providing expertise and
recommendations to Municipal and Provincial governments on
how best to incorporate this knowledge into a formal planning
context (mitigation strategies, land use guidelines, etc). It
also leverages ongoing studies to refine existing landslide and
seismic hazard assessment along the Sea-to-Sky corridor by private and academic partners
and by research colleagues working with the Natural Hazards and Emergency Response
Program of the Earth Science Sector (NRCan). Preliminary outputs of the study include:
1) development of an integrated multi-hazard risk assessment framework that brings
together leading edge approaches to hazard susceptibility mapping and risk-based
scenario modeling,
2) a draft hazard-vulnerability-risk assessment (HVRA) for use by the Squamish
community and its partners in evaluating strategic growth alternatives, and
3) Implementation of ‘what-if’ scenario modeling and web-based decision support tools
to promote the uptake and use of available scientific and geotechnical information in
support of ongoing strategic and emergency planning activities.
Together, these components form the basis of an operational decision support system to assist
planners in evaluating risk levels of existing settlement and future development alternatives.
Ongoing work focuses on the refinement of risk assessment and scenario modeling
methodologies and an evaluation of their use in support of community planning. Our intent
is to broaden the dimensions of risk analysis to include both landscape-based heuristic
assessment of landslide susceptibility, and spatial assessment of multi-hazard probability for
the purpose of validating and refining existing model outputs, and to better evaluate the
likelihood (and associated uncertainties) of unanticipated natural hazard events that may
impact the community.
For more information, contact:
Murray Journeay, Research Scientist
Earth Sciences Sector, Natural Resources Canada
101-605 Robson St. Vancouver, BC V6B 5J3
ph: 604.666.1130
email: [email protected]
Design Centre for Sustainability at the University of British Columbia
13 - No. 6
Notes
ISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction), 2001. Living with Risk; A Global Review of
Disaster Reduction Initiatives.
2
Klohn- Leonoff, 1994. Flood Management Plan for Squamish (Final report and background study)
3
Thurber Associates and Golder Associates Ltd. 1993. The Cheekeye River Terrain Hazard and Landslide Study. Final
Report prepared for British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Bumaby, B.C.
4
Clague, J.J., Friele, P. and I. Hutchinson. 2003. Chronology and hazards of large debris flows in the Cheekye River
basin, British Columbia. Environmental and Engineering Geoscience, v.9, pp99-115.
5
Kerr Wood Leidal Associates. 2003. Preliminary Design Report for Cheekye Fan Deflection Berms.
6
Webb, T.M., 1999. NHEMATIS. Project overview and future framework. A report prepared for Emergency
Preparedness Canada by Nobility Environmental Software Systems.
7
Reducing Disaster Risk; A Challenge for Development, 2004. A Global Report, produced by the United Nations
Development Programme (www.undp.org/bcpr)
8
Bernkopf, R., Dinitz, l., Rabinovici, J.m., and Evans, A.M. 2001. A Portfolio Approach to Evaluating Natural Hazard
Mitigation Policies. International Geology Review, v43. pp. 424-440.
1
Contact Us
Design Centre for Sustainability
University of British Columbia, 394-2357 Main Mall, V6T 1Z4 t. 604-822-5148, f. 604-822-2184
For more information visit the following websites: www.designcentreforsustainability.org, ww.sgog.bc.ca
Design Centre for Sustainability at the University of British Columbia
14 - No. 6