Debris flows and debris torrents in the Southern Canadian cordillera'

D. F. VANDINE'
VanDine Geological Engineering Services, # 3 - 159 Clarence Street, Victoria, B.C., Carzada V8V 2H9
Received June 27, 1984
Accepted October 16, 1984
In Canada, debris torrents (also referred to as channelized debris flows) occur in parts of British Columbia, Alberta, and
the Yukon. At least 17 deaths and an estimated $100 million of damage to bridges and property can be attributed to this
natural hazard. The debris mainly comprises large boulders, rock fragments, gravel- to clay-sized material, tree and wood
mulch-materials that accumulate in the mountain creeks. To be susceptible to a debris torrent, a creek must have a
drainage area within a critical range, a profile that is sufficiently steep, an accumulation of debris, and some form of
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of North Dakota on 12/18/14

triggering mechanism. The most common triggering mechanism is an extreme water discharge, which may result from a very
intense rainfall or a temporary damming of the creek. In western Canada, the resulting torrents involve masses of debris,
typically less than 50 000 m3, that travel down creeks at speeds between 3 and 12 m/s.
Several passive and active forms of mitigation can be used to reduce the impact of debris torrents on creek crossings and
neighbouring residents. Passive mitigation methods include avoidance of the area, relocation of structures and facilities, land
use restrictions, and some form of warning system. Active mitigation methods include remedial measures to remove or counter
the causes, and various forms of designed protection. Constructing check dams near the headwaters of the creek and stabilizing
the valley slopes that border the creeks are examples of remedial measures. Constructing debris barriers or clear span bridges
with adequate clearance are examples of designed protection.
Howe Sound, north of Vancouver, British Columbia, has had a relatively high number of debris torrents. Recently, several
major studies have addressed the extent of the hazard and recommended mitigative measures for this area. Many of the examples
presented in this paper are drawn from this case history.
Key words: debris flows, debris torrents, slope stability, Southern Canadian Cordillera, Howe Sound, geological process,
design considerations.
Au Canada les torrents de dCbris (Cgalement connus sous le nom de coulCes de dCbris canaliskes) se produisent dans
certaines rCgions de la Colombie britannique, de 1'Alberta et du Yukon. Au moins 17 morts et des dommages B des ponts
et des propriCtCs, estimCs B $100 millions peuvent Ctre attribuCs a ce type de risque naturel. Les dCbris comportent surtout
For personal use only.

des blocs de grandes dimensions, des fragments de roche, des matkriaux allant du gravier B I'argile, des arbres et des
rCsidus de bois, matCriaux qui s'accumulent dans les torrents de montagne. Pour Ctre sujet a un torrent de dCbris, un ruisseau
doit avoir un bassin versant de dimension critique, un profil suffisamment abrupte, une accumulation de dCbris, et une forme
quelconque de mCcanisme de declenchement. Le mCcanisme de declenchement le plus frCquent est un debit d'eau extrCme
rCsultant d'une chute de pluie trks intense, ou le blocage tern oraire du ruisseau. Dans l'ouest du Canada, les torrents de dCbris
P
transportent des masses typiquement inferieures B 50000 m , se dCpla~antB des vitesses comprises entre 3 et 12 m/s.
De nombreuses mCthodes passives ou actives peuvent Ctre utiliskes pour rCduire l'impact des torrents de debris sur les ponts
et les propriCtCs voisines. Les mCthodes passives incluent I'abandon de la zone, le dCplacement des structures et Cquipements,
les restrictions B I'utilisation des terres et certaines formes de systbmes d'alarme. Les mCthodes actives comportent les mesures
correctives destinCes B Climiner ou contrebalancer les causes, et diffkrentes formes de protections. La construction de barrages
de contr6le prbs de la tCte des torrents et la stabilisation des pentes des vallkes qui bordent les torrents sont des exemples de
telles mesures. La construction de barribres dCbris ou de ponts B portCe libre avec une voie suffisante sont d'autres exemples
de protections.
Howe Sound, au nord de Vancouver, Colombie britannique, a souffert d'un nombre &lev6de torrents de dCbris. RCcemment
plusieurs etudes importantes se sont intCressCes B l'importance des risques et aux mesures correctives nicessaires dans cette
region. Nombre des exemples prCsentCs dans cet article sont tirCs de ces Ctudes.
Mots cle's: coulCes de debris, torrents de dCbris, stabilitC des pentes, cordillibre canadienne, Howe Sound, processus
geologique, projet.
Can. Geotech. J. 22, 44-68 (1985)
[Traduit par la revue]

Introduction
In Canada, channelized debris flows, also called debris tor-
rents, are common to British Columbia, Alberta, and the
Yukon. A rash of debris torrents since 1981 in British Columbia
has focussed the attention of many on this geological process.
Building on a foundation of knowledge established by the
Japanese, Swiss, Austrians, Americans, and others, Canadians
have initiated a great deal of applied research on this topic.
The purpose of this paper is to review the present status of o u r
knowledge of debris torrents in Canada: the pertinent character-
istics, causes, and effects, and suggested methods to mitigate
the hazard. Much of the information presented herein is derived
'This paper was presented as the 8th Canadian Geotechnical Col-
loquium, at the 37th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Toronto,
Ontario, September, 1984.
* ~ o r m e rwith
l ~ Thurber Consultants, Ltd., Victoria, B.C.
from recent studies of debris torrents along Howe Sound near
Vancouver, B.C. carried out for the British Columbia Ministry
of Transportation and Highways. This is currently the best
documented area of debris torrents in Canada.
Terminology
A debris torrent is defined as "a mass movement that involves
water-charged, predominantly coarse-grained inorganic and
organic material flowing rapidly down a steep, confined,
preexisting channel." Other terms that have been used, and are
still used, to describe similar phenomena include "alpine mud-
flows" (Winder 1965; Broscoe and Thomson 1969), "valley-
confined flows" (Brunsden 1979; Innes 1983), "channelized
debris flows" (Evans 1982), "mountain debris flows" (Zaruba
and Mencl 1982), and simply "debris flows" (Varnes 1978;
Nasmith and Mercer 1979; Takahashi 1981a).
 VANDINE

TABLE 1. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of d e b r i s f l o w s , d e b r i s t o r r e n t s , and r e l a t e d
phenomena

DEBRIS FUJd
w k!
m Y
2 2 5
$8 m
2
2 (O

8 2
CIWVCERISTICS
" 1 2 8 -!4 [ig B
Water With Normal X
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of North Dakota on 12/18/14

Sediment T r a n s p o r t

Predominantly Coarse-
Grained, Inorganic &
Organic M a t e r i a l

Flow X X X X
r------7
14 Channelized Pre-
X X

E x i s t i n g Drainage X X X

s
ji
For personal use only.

Planar s l o p e x x x

Saturated X X X X

jU
Wet X

ul
Dry X
3
I

The term "debris flow" is also used to refer to mass
movements on open or planar unconfined hillslopes. Because
the characteristics of channelized and planar debris torrents are
dissimilar and to avoid confusion, Swanston (1974) introduced
the term debris torrent. Table 1 summarizes the main character-
istics of debris torrents and related phenomena as used in this
paper.
Extent of the problem
Debris torrents have only relatively recently been distin-
guished from water floods, mudslides, mudflows, and even
landslides. The first documented Canadian debris torrent
occurred in July 1962 on Hell's Creek, a tributary to the Smokey
River, Alberta (Winder 1965). To June 1984,41 distinct events,
with known dates of occurrence, have been documented in
Canada. General references have been made to numerous
others. A tabulation of all known documented debris torrents in
the Southern Canadian Cordillera, with a brief description, is
presented in the Appendix. The geographic distribution of these
events is shown in Fig. 1. All the debris torrents have occurred
in areas of high relative relief and relatively high annual
precipitation. There appears, however, to be no relationship
between geology and the distribution of debris torrents. These
findings are consistent with those on a worldwide scale (Innes
1983).
At least 17 deaths can be directly or indirectly attributed to
debris torrents in western Canada. Numerous highways, rail-
ways, and logging roads have been blocked or washed out. Over
50 bridge structures have been damaged or destroyed. Damage
to houses has ranged from flooding through being nudged off
their foundations to being totally destroyed. A conservative
estimate of the structural and property damage caused by debris
torrents in Canada since 1962 exceeds $100 million.
By way of comparison, in Japan, a country more densely
populated than Canada, an average of 90 deaths are caused by
debris torrents each year. A recent survey found that more than
63 000 Japanese creeks, with five or more houses located on
their fans, have potential for debris torrents (Watanabe 1981).
Next to Japan, debris torrents are most common in the alpine
sectors of Switzerland, Austria, Italy, France, and Yugoslavia
and in the western United States. Owens (1972), Ward and
0' Brien (1980), Pack (1982), Eisbacher (1982a), and Innes
(1983) refer to debris torrents in many other parts of the world.
The physical characteristics of some of the better-documented
debris torrents have been summarized in Hungr (1981), Ishikawa
(1982), and Thurber Consultants Ltd. (1983n).
Nature of the debris
The material involved in a debris torrent is predominantly
coarse-grained inorganic and organic. It has been characterized
 CAN. GEOTECH. J.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of North Dakota on 12/18/14
For personal use only.
FIG. 1. Geographic distribution of documented debris torrents, physiographic subdivisions, and annual precipitation greater than 1500 mm in
the Southern Canadian Cordillera.
as well-graded (Rodine 1974; Hungr 1981; Innes 1983).
Broscoe and Thomson (1969) described the Steele Creek
(Yukon) debris as rock-charged mud with particle size ranging
from colloids to 4 m in diameter. Nasmith and Mercer (1979)
described the Port Alice (Vancouver Island) debris as rock
fragments, silt, sand, occasional boulders, and wood fragments
ranging from splinters to massive logs. Debris at Camp Creek
(Columbia Mountains) was proportioned as 30% rock and
boulders up to 1 m in diameter, 15% sand, 35% silt and clay,
VOL. 22, 1985
and 20% trees (Nasmith 1972). The rock fragments and
boulders in most debris torrents are angular to subrounded and
freshly broken; the trees and logs are often stripped of bark
and the ends are commonly "broomed" similar to the end of a
wooden pile.
The specific character of the debris changes from region to
region and indeed from creek to creek depending upon the local
geology and vegetative cover of the drainage area. Debris from
three creeks, which are only 6 km apart along Howe Sound,

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of North Dakota on 12/18/14
FIG. 2. Coarse-grained inorganic and organic debris from the
February 11, 1983 Alberta Creek debris torrent.
For personal use only.
FIG. 3. Finer, more fluid afterflow from the February 11, 1983
Alberta Creek debris torrent.
have quite different characters (Lister et al. 1984): Charles
Creek debris consists of angular quartz diorite rock fragments
and boulders up to 3 m in diameter mixed with cobbles and sand.
It contains less than 5% organic material. Alberta Creek debris
consists of volcanic rock fragments and boulders up to 1.5 m
and more cobbles, sand, and silt than Charles Creek. Logs up to
20 m in length and I m in diameter and wood mulch (small
ground up wood fragments) are also common (Fig. 2). M Creek
has angular granodiorite rock fragments and boulders up to 2 m,
cobbles, and gravel, and approximately 20% by volunie wood
mulch.
Finer material is often transported down the creek and
deposited after the initial coarse-grained surge or surges. This
finer material has been called "afterflow." It is difficult to
differentiate the initial flow and afterflow material once the
event has occurred. However, in several cases along Howe
Sound the afterflow has been identified by eye witnesses and
described as a silty sand mixed with a wood mulch (Fig. 3).
Conditions conducive to debris torrents
Suitable conditions must exist along a creek for a debris
torrent to occur. Controlling variables include size of the
drainage area, creek profile, source of debris, and climatic
conditions.
Drainage area
The drainage area must be large enough to provide a source of
debris and to concentrate sufficient water in the creek bed to at
least saturate the debris already there. A large drainage area,
however, is usually drained by a creek, stream, or river with a
low gradient and therefore controlled by normal fluvial activi-
ties. In a given region there is an optimum range of drainage
areas in which debris torrents occur. For the Howe Sound area,
this range extends from 0.4 to 7.0km2. For comparison, a
similar range of drainage areas in Japan varies between 0.1 and
10 km2 (Mizuyama 1982).
Creek proJile
The profile of a creek that is subject to debris torrents can be
broadly divided into three zones: initiation, transportation and
erosion, and deposition. Initiation requires a gradient greater
than 25", but it can be as low as 15". If, however, the creek is
too steep, debris cannot accumulate. Along Howe Sound, the
initiating angle (assumed to be the steepest gradient on the
creek) ranges from 20" to 57", and is inversely related to
drainage area (Fig. 4).
The transportation and erosion zone must remain steep and
confined enough for debris to maintain its velocity. This usually
requires slopes greater than 10". Along Howe Sound this angle
(assumed to be the average creek gradient not including the
depositional fan) ranges from 13" to 35".
At 15", deposition of levees may begin; however, deposition
on the fan or cone usually begins once the gradient flattens to
less than 10". In the Howe Sound area the angle of the creek at
which deposition occurs, based on the average fan angle, ranges
between 8" and 18".
Creek gradients for initiation, transportation and erosion, and
deposition are dependent upon whether the channel is confined
or unconfined, the gradation of the debris, and the ratio of debris
to water. Hydraulics suggest that well-graded, fluid, confined
debris will flow at a lower gradient than poorly graded, viscous,
unconfined debris.
Source of debris
Volume of debris in a creek bed is dependent upon the
character of the creek banks and adjacent valley walls.
Important characteristics include slope, type and distribution
of bedrock and overburden, vegetation, and land use, both
adjacent to the creek and in the drainage basin. These
characteristics for the creeks along Howe Sound were grouped
so that the creek banks and valley walls could be classified for
their potential contribution to debris in the creek in the following
way (Thurber Consultants Ltd. 1983a):
Low-Unlikely to contribute much debris; channels incised
in competent rock (no matter to what depth), or incised in creek
banks less than 5 m in cohesive, dense soils or weak rock; creek
banks less than 15"; no logging along creek.
Moderate-May contribute debris under the right conditions;
channels incised greater than 5 m in cohesive, dense soils or
weak rock, or incised less than 5 m in cohesionless or loose
soils; creek banks 15" to 35"; logged, but replanted along creek.
High-Will contribute a large amount of debris; channels
incised greater than 5 m in cohesionless or loose soils or
weathered rock; channels bordered by landslide, talus, or
avalanche areas, creek banks steeper than 35"; logged and not
satisfactorily replanted along creek.
Over time, forested slopes naturally contribute logs to the
debris in a creek. Logging, however, tends to accelerate this
process. Froehlich (1973) reported that, in one Oregon study,
 CAN. GEOTECH. 3 . VOL. 22, 1985

-
0 0 c r e e k s on w h i c h d e b r i s t o r r e n t s have occurred
0 X c r e e k s on w h i c h no known d e b r i s torrents have occurred
-

- - - _ - -- . 0
0

- X
%
- ..- -
0

x-.
.--- - -
- -.
X
0
--
< - _ -- -
- X X 0
X X X
Approximate
X
--- . .--
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of North Dakota on 12/18/14

X X C r i t i c a l Line
- X
X
0
..- - -
...
-
-
(a)
I I I
l ' l ' i ' l ' l ' l l ~1 1 1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
DRAINAGE AREA ( k m 2 )

2 40 -
For personal use only.

E - a c r e e k s on w h i c h d e b r i s

"
0
torrents have occurred
30--~$-,
-is? - 0
0 X c r e e k s on w h i c h no known

- - - .- -
X
,.x- X
d e b r i s t o r r e n t s have occurred
W

--
_I X
0 x
z
Q
20 - X
X
X
0-
z
0
;1 0 -
X X --?-
- - -.- X

t
Approximate
Critical Line --- - - - - -
n
2
v, (b) - - -.
z 0 1 I I I 1 1 ' I
1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 1
u 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
C
DRAINAGE AREA (km2)

-
U
J 30
E 0 c r e e k s on w h i c h d e b r i s t o r r e n t s have occurred
m
a, x c r e e k s on w h i c h no known d e b r i s t o r r e n t s have occurred
2 20-
- ---x-
8
W - X
x 0---
X
- - -- - - Approximate C r i t i c a l L i n e
- --
-J X
u 0
-
z
Q
10
-
X
X -- - - -
xG-
Z
0
0
(c)
I I 1 1 ,
- -- -- ' I ' I ' I ' 1 1 1 [ 1 ( 1
v,

g 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
DRAINAGE AREA (km21

FIG. 4. (a) Initiating creek gradient (based on steepest creek gradient o f main channel i n drainage area) vs. drainage area for creeks along Howe
Sound; ( b )transportation creek gradient (based on average creek gradient above fan) vs. drainage area; (c) deposition angle (based on average fan
angle) vs. drainage area.

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of North Dakota on 12/18/14
o ~ l , , , l r l ,
J F M A M J J A S O
MONTH OF YEAR
FIG.5. Frequency of occurrence vs. time of year for western Canadian debris torrents
free-fall clear-cutting increased wood debris in the creek by
580%, directional clear-cutting caused an increase of 112%,
and free-fall clear-cutting with a buffer strip along the creek
caused an increase of 14%. Others have found that logging
activities, including poor logging road building practices, also
For personal use only.
contribute to an increase in landslides and erosion along the
creek, thus adding to the buildup of both inorganic and organic
debris in the creek (Dyrness 1967; Bell and Swanston 1973;
Swanson and Lienkaemper 1978; Wu and Swanston 1980).
Climatic conditions
Researchers agree that high-intensity rainfall, and the result-
ing large creek discharge, is a major cause of debris torrents
(Takahashi 1981b; Miles and Kellerhals 1981; Thurber Con-
sultants Ltd. 19830). Intense rainfall appears more suspect
when several debris torrents, on several neighbouring creeks,
occur during, or associated with, the same storm. This situation
has occurred at least seven times in western Canada (see
Appendix).
--
When the rainfall intensity data for western Canada are
analyzed, return periods for the storms associated with one or
more debris torrents are often less than 2-5 years (Miles and
Kellerhals 198 1; Thurber Consultants Ltd. 1 9 8 3 ~ ) .These
return periods are, however, much shorter than those of the
debris torrent events. Several possible explanations for this
incongruity exist.
Most storms in mountainous western Canada are cyclonic,
but modified by orographic effects. Within these storms, "cells"
as small as 5 km across of very intense rainfall exist, but may not
-
be recorded bv the coarse grid of weather stations. Therefore,
the cells and the resulting creek discharge may actually have a
longer return period, similar to that of the debris torrent, but it is
not recorded.
Snowmelt, when added to a low return period rainfall, can
also result in a large creek discharge. Snowmelt occurs during
warm winter rainstorms that are associated with rising freezing
levels. Most Vancouver Island, Cascade Mountain, Fraser
Lowland, South Coast, and Howe Sound debris torrents occur
during the winter months (Fig. 5). Debris torrents in the St.
Elias. Rockv. and Columbia Mountains usually occur in the
d ,
early summer months, the period of maximum snowmelt in the
*I SYMBOL
--
+
R E G ION
- St. Elias Mountains
- Vancouver Island
.
0 - Rocky Mountains
El
- Columbia Mountains
- Cascade Mountains
A - Fraser Lowlands
*
A - South Coast
l , l - Howe Sound
N D
higher interior mountains. Harr (1981) has quantified the
contribution of snowmelt to creek discharge and landslides on
two Oregon drainage areas, and concluded that 85% of all
landslides were associated with snowmelt during rainfall.
Another possible explanation of the relatively short return
periods of rainfall associated with debris torrents is the
antecedent rainfall-how much rain fell in the preceding 24
hours, week, or month. Thurber Consultants Ltd. ( 1 9 8 3 ~ )
found antecedent rainfall had little to contribute to debris
torrents along Howe Sound. Caine (1980), on the other hand,
found that in a worldwide sample, as rainfall duration increased,
landslide and debris flow causing rainfall intensity decreased.
Triggering events
Suitable terrain and climatic conditions do not initiate a debris
torrent without a triggering event. Common triggering events
include a critically large creek discharge or events related to
other forms of mass movement.
Critical creek discharge
Figure 6, adapted from theoretical and experimental hydraulic
engineering concepts (Takahashi 1978, 1981a), illustrates
various conditions for instability in a creek bed. The creek bed is
assumed to be an infinite slope of cohesionless material (c' = 0 ,
+
+' 0) of thickness z, sitting on bedrock at a slope 8. Three
conditions are considered: (1) a dry creek bed; (2) water
saturates a portion (mz) or all of the creek bed; (3) water
saturates all of the creek bed and extends above it by height h.
For condition 1 the limiting criterion for failure is
[ l ] tan 8 = tan +'
This occurs at very steep creek gradients. Since this type of
movement does not involve "water-charged debris," it is
technically not a debris torrent, but as explained later, may lead
to a debris torrent.
For condition 2 failure occurs by infinite slope sliding.
Takahashi (19810) neglected the decrease in shear strength due
to static and seepage water pressure, and arrived at a mathemati-
cal relationship similar to
[21 [(l-m)yd f mysat + myw]tan 6 = [(l-mhd + mysat] tan +'
 CAN. GEOTECH. J . VOL. 22. 1985

assumptions:

121' = 37.50

@sot = 2 0 kN/rn3

@d = 17.5 kN/rn3

BW= 1 0 kN/rn3
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of North Dakota on 12/18/14

\,lNwNn
SLOPE
1
For personal use only.

[(I - rn) Bd + rn B,, + mBW] t a n 4 0 -0.5

= [(I - rn) @d + m@s,+]tanOr BLOCK SLIDING

tane> tan0

t a n 4 = tan 0'

CONDITION @ CONDITION @ CONDITION a

FIG.6. Example of conditions for creek bed instability for a wide stream.

where y,, yd, and y,,, are the unit weight of water, the unit
weight of the dry mass, and the unit weight of the saturated
mass respectively. When the water level reaches the surface of
the creek bed, m = I , and [ 2 ] simplifies to
131 (y,,, + y,) tan 0 = y,,, tan 4'
At this point the debris is completely saturated and a true
debris torrent can technically occur. However, as mentioned
previously, movement of the nonsaturated debris mass can
propagate a debris torrent. Because of the additional driving
forces due to seepage, the unstable slope angle for condition 2
is less than that for condition 1.
For condition 3, free water flows above the creek bed. In
condition 3 a , the height of water, when combined with the
creek gradient, is insufficient to cause movement of individual
particles or the creek bed. In condition 36, the height of water,
when combined with the creek gradient, is sufficient to cause
bedload transport-individual particles are propelled forward
by viscous drag (or traction) of the water. Several equations
have been developed to represent this limiting condition
between a stable bed and bedload transport (Meyer-Peter and
Mueller 1948; Ashida et al. 1973; Smart 1984).
In condition 3 c mobilization of the saturated creek bed, and
thus debris torrents, are initiated spontaneously by the height of
water flowing over the creek bed. Takahashi (1981 a) defines the
lower boundary of conditions 3 c by a form similar to
 VANDINE
141 [ysat a + yw(a + h)l tan 8 = y~ata tan $'
where a , the depth of the creek bed involved, must equal or
exceed the mean particle diameter, d. Therefore,
[5]
[ y,,, = y,
i t+ ) ]
1 - tan 8 = y,,, tan $'
As h increases, the thickness of the creek bed that fails and
becomes involved also increases.
Figure 6 shows that a creek bed in condition 3 c may be stable
under normal flow conditions but that, by increasing the depth
of water flowing over the bed, debris torrents can be triggered.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of North Dakota on 12/18/14
It also indicates that as the depth of flow increases the slope
required for mobilization of the creek bed decreases.
A critical stage of creek discharge can be caused, as discussed
earlier., bv, intense rainfall with or without snowmelt. It can also
be caused by a temporary damming of a creek with subsequent
dam break. Damming can occur in a number of ways: natural
buildup of debris in the creek bed; undercutting and slumping
of the creek banks; unsaturated block sliding or infinite slope
sliding of the creek bed; or debris avalanches, debris slides,
planar debris flows, or snow avalanches that occur on the valley
sides and terminate in the creek. These processes are common in
areas of high relief and high precipitation.
Debris torrents have also been triggered by jokulhlaups-an
unusually large water discharge caused by an outburst of a
glacial lake due to the failure of an ice dam. Slumping of loose
till banks, resulting from a jokulhlaup, was the main source of
For personal use only.
material in the large 1978 debris torrent at Kicking Horse Pass in
the Rocky Mountains (Jackson 1979).
Other triggering mechanisms
Although critical discharge levels are probably the most
common, other triggering mechanisms have been postulated for
the initiation of debris torrents. On a New Zealand creek, an
initial debris avalanche caused a debris torrent and represented
a large portion of the nearly 200 000 m3 involved in the torrent
(Pierson 1980). Bjermm and Jorstad (1968) described a major
talus flow in Norway that was triggered by the vertical impact of
a 1000 m3 block. A major rockslide initiated a lo9 m3 "debris
flow" in Peru (Kojan and Hutchinson 1978). In Canada, major
channelized slides have started in a similar manner-Rubble
Creek, 1855 (Moore and Mathews 1978) and Devastation
Creek, 1976 (Mokievsky-Zubok 1977; Smith and Patton 1984).
These latter mass movements were not, however, water-
saturated and therefore are not true debris torrents.
Effects
Transportation and erosion
Once a debris torrent begins, the water-saturated front of the
flow forms a moving "plug." During transportation, because of
the concentration difference between the "plug" and the creek
bed material underneath, further instability in the creek bed
occurs and the flow becomes self-propagating and more erosive
as it moves downstream (Takahashi 1981a). The existence of an
initial plug is confirmed by eyewitness reports of many debris
torrents. It also accounts for the initial surge of coarse-grained
material followed by a more fluid, finer-grained afterflow.
Many researchers, both in the laboratory and in the field, and
eyewitnesses have seen coarse boulders rise to the surface of a
debris torrent. It is as if the large boulders are riding on top of
a finer slurry. Ishikawa (1982) summarized the most popular
hypotheses that have been proposed to explain why coarse
material rises to the surface of the debris. These included
51
dispersive pressure, lift force, kinetic sieve mechanism, and
buoyancy in grain mixture.
The hydraulic processes involved in the movement of a debris
torrent down a creek channel have been approximated by
dispersion, and by the flow of a Newtonian fluid, a Bingham
fluid, a pseudo-plastic fluid, a quasi-plastic fluid, and a
Coulomb-viscous fluid. The arguments for and against each of
these models are in the field of hydraulics and beyond the scope
of this paper. For those interested, summaries of these models
are presented in Takahashi (1981a), Hungr (198 I), Ishikawa
(1982), and Ward and O'Brien (1980).
If the debris mass has a high enough viscosity to exhibit
typical laminar flow properties, a modified Poiseuille equation
can be used to provide a simple relationship between flow
velocity (u) and flow height (H) (Hungr et al. 1984):
y,,, sin 8 H2
[6] u=
cv
where y,,, is the unit weight of the debris, 8 is the creek
gradient, c is the channel cross-section coefficient (3 for a wide
rectangular channel, 5 for a trapezoidal channel, and 8 for a
semicircular channel), and v is the apparent viscosity. Based on
data from around the world, y,,, can range between 14 and 25
kN/m3 (Takahashi 1981a), and v can reach 3 kPa.s (30 000 P)
(Hungr 1981; Hungr et al. 1984). The advantage of using the
modified Poiseuille equation over more complex equations is
the small number of parameter approximations (only y,, and v)
that are required. In Canada, measured and back-calculated
peak velocities of debris torrents range from 3 to 12 m/s. In
Japan, velocities have been observed up to 20 m/s (Takahashi
1981~).
There are many areas of debris torrent transportation that
require further investigation. Owing to the nature of debris,
laboratory flume experiments offer solutions of only limited
range. In the field, debris torrents are difficult to study because
of their unpredictable and dangerous nature. Since 1973,
Japanese researchers have been filming debris torrents in the
Kamikamihori Valley of Japan (Okuda et al. 1980). These films
have provided invaluable firsthand observational data on the
flow of a debris torrent. During the Charles Creek (Howe
Sound) debris torrent of November 15, 1983, a television
camera crew filmed the flow of the last surge of this event; four
frames of this video are shown in Fig. 7. The velocity of this
debris was estimated to be 7 m/s.
During the transportation phase, a debris torrent erodes the
creek be; it travels over. his action adds large quantities of
material to the mass as it travels down the creek. Figure 8 shows
that almost 4 m of material was scoured from one location on
Charles Creek along Howe Sound during the November 15,
1983 debris torrent.
Deposition
Deposits from debris torrents have been described as coarse,
poorly sorted, unstratified, unconsolidated deposits with well-
defined levees and terminal lobes (Costa and Jarrett 1981).
Although the above succinct description was of deposits in
Colorado, it adequately describes the deposits of western
Canada. Details obviously vary from place to place depending
on the geology and vegetative cover of the drainage area. As the
volume of water associated with a debris torrent decreases, the
resultant deposit becomes more lobate.
Figures 9 and 10 show details of the geomorphic and
stratigraphic character of two debris torrents along Howe
 52 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 22, 1985
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of North Dakota on 12/18/14
For personal use only.
FIG.7. Sequence of four frames from a videotape of the last surge of the November 15, 1983 Charles Creek debris torrent. Large boulder is
3-4 m in diameter. Estimated velocity is 7 m/s.
Sound. To date, little detailed stratigraphic research has been
carried out on debris torrents in Canada. However, during
recent excavations along Howe Sound by the B.C. Ministry of
Transportation and Highways, what has been interpreted as
several debris torrent flows were penetrated. These flows have
been described as layers of poorly sorted, loosely packed,
coarse-grained angular boulders. Sand and silt loosely fill the
voids between the boulders. These layers are intercalated with
better sorted, rounded gravel and sand that have been inter-
preted as alluvial interbeds. Inverse grading of the debris torrent
layers was observed in places.
During deposition, avulsion and resultant flooding can also
occur. Avulsion occurs when a plug of debris blocks the creek
channel. This causes the creek to divert, leave its old channel,
and follow a new one. This can lead to a spreading out of the
debris material and (or) subsequent flooding by the normal
water flow that follows the debris torrent.
In the zone of deposition, the high-energy debris torrent
slows down, spreads out, and loses some of its energy. In the
extremities of the deposition zone, debris has often been noted
to "wrap" itself around trees or structures without causing
structural damage. An example of this from along Howe Sound
is shown in Fig. 11. The car shown was picked up by the
"docile" debris torrent flow and carried 20 m without denting or
scratching the exterior, or breaking the windows.
Deposition of a debris torrent occurs for one or both of the
following reasons: (1) a decrease in gradient, and (2) a widening
of the channel. In both cases the water and solids become
separated and the debris slows down and comes to rest.
Takahashi (198 1a) reported that the criterion for deposition due
to an abript change in slope with no channel expansion can be
simply stated as
tan ed tan ol
'71 tan<iG$
where Od is the downstream slope, 8, the upstream slope, cw the
kinetic friction angle, and +' the static friction angle.
Mizuyama and Uehara (1983) studied deposition by widen-
ing of the channel with no change in gradient and found that
depositional width is dependent upon discharge and can be
expressed as
where Bd is the width of deposition in an unconfined down-
stream channel, Q is the debris torrent discharge, and k, a
dimensional variable, ranges from 3.5 to 7.
Mitigation
When a creek that is prone to debris torrents is crossed by a
bridge or a culvert and fill structure and has residential housing
 VANDINE 53
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of North Dakota on 12/18/14
For personal use only.

FIG. 9. Overview of the February 11, 1983 Alberta Creek debris

torrent. Photo taken February 15, 1983. Note path of destruction,
deposition levees, and terminal lobe.

FIG. 8. Looking up Charles Creek before and after the November

15, 1983 debris torrent. Arrows point to the same bedrock knob.
Maximum depth of scour was 4 m.

bordering its banks, some form of mitigation must be imple-

mented to reduce structural and property damage, and to reduce
the risk to those who use the transportation routes and reside
beside the creek.
Mitigation of a debris torrent hazard initially involves an
identification or recognition of the potential hazard, a deter-
mination of the likelihood of occurrence, an estimation of the
"design" debris torrent, and an approximation of the potential
flow paths and depositional areas. Once these tasks have been
-
carried out, a rational decision can be made to initiate mitigative
measures, passive or active. Passive mitigation can involve
FIG. 10. Stratigraphic section of debris exposed during the
avoidance of the area, relocation of structures and facilities, November 15, 1983 Charles Creek debris torrent.
land use regulations, or some form of warning system. Active
mitigation can involve the implementation of remedial measures
tems are not popular in Canada. Since passive mitigation only
or the design and construction of some form of protection.
indirectly involves geotechnique, it is not discussed further.
Avoidance and land use regulations are excellent forms of
lessening the impact of debris torrents, but are only practical IdentiJication of a debris torrent hazard
under certain economic, social, and political conditions. Warn- Creeks that may be prone to debris hazards can be initially
ing systems have merit in some specific situations. The Japanese identified from certain gross characteristics:
are presently using prediction-type and trip-wire-type warning -The creek is located in a region of high relative relief and
systems on a number of creeks (Takahashi 19816; Thurber high annual precipitation and therefore generally considered
Consultants Ltd. 1984; T. Okada, personal communication, susceptible to debris torrents.
1983). The only debris torrent warning system in Canada at -The creek and its drainage area have characteristics similar to
present is a trip wire system that has been established by a those of creeks on which debris torrents are known to occur: an
private resident along Alberta Creek on Howe Sound (Strilaeff accumulation of debris; favourable topographic and geomorphic
1984). Because of technical and legal problems, warning sys- characteristics; climatic conditions favourable to initiation.
 54
TABLE 2. Evaluation of likelihood of occurrence of debris torrent for creeks along Howe Sound (Thurber 19830)
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of North Dakota on 12/18/14
no dot - no i n f l u e n c e ; e - r e l a t i v e l y rntnor i n f l u e n c e :
For personal use only.
FIG. 11. A car which was "freighted" along with debris in the
deposition zone of the February 11, 1983 Newrnan Creek debris
torrent.
-There is a history of debris torrents on similar streams in the
region.
-There is evidence that debris torrents have occurred pre-
viously on this particular creek: stratigraphic and geomorphic
characteristics of a debris torrent fan as opposed to an alluvial
fan; and evidence of discharges much greater than those that
could be attributed to water discharges.
The Austrians have developed a check list that they use to
help identify a potential debris torrent hazard on a particular
creek (Skermer 1983). Costa and Jarrett (1981), by means of
examples in Colorado, explained how they differentiate a creek
that has had a debris torrent from one that has had a water flood.
Likelihood of occurrence
How frequently a debris torrent will occur on a given creek is
difficult to estimate. As previously discussed, the occurrence of
a debris torrent is not solely dependent on climatic conditions
such as rainfall intensity, or hydrologic data such as streamflow.
Therefore it is not possible to apply the recurrence interval or
return period of these types of events to debris torrents. In
addition, there is usually not an extensive enough history of
debris torrents on a given creek to calculate the recurrence
CAN. GEOTECH. J . VOL. 22. 1985
@ - r e l a t ~ v e l ymajor influence
interval. And so rather than attempt to assign a probabilistic risk
of debris torrent occurrence, it is usually only possible to assign
a relative risk of occurrence-for example, creek A is more
likely to have a debris torrent, or have more debris torrents in a
given period of time, than creek B.
For the creeks along Howe Sound, factors that were identified
as influencing the likelihood of occurrence of a debris torrent are
shown in Table 2. For each creek, a dot matrix was applied to
these factors, relative to their prominence. This matrix was used
as the basis to rank the 26 creeks into five categories of relative
risk, ranging from "no risk" to "very high likelihood of
occurrence" (Table 3). Of the 26 creeks, 2 are considered to
have no risk, 3 have a low probability of occurrence, 7 have a
moderately high probability of occurrence, 11 have a high
probability of occurrence, and 3 have a very high probability of
occurrence.
Design debris torrent
Over a period of time, a creek may experience debris tor-
rents with a wide range of magnitudes. However, for planning
purposes, a reasonable upper limit of the volume of material that
is likely to be involved in a debris torrent and ultimately reach
the deposition zone must be estimated. This estimated volume is
the design debris torrent.
The design debris torrent is a function of the total available
debris in the creek bed, plus any additional material that may be
contributed to the creek from the valley walls during an event.
Obviously, many factors influence the estimation of the design
debris torrent. Therefore the most accurate method of deter-
mining the design debris torrent for a particular creek is by a
frequency analysis-a plot of the range of magnitudes of past
debris torrents on that creek vs. their frequency of occurrence.
However, such data is usually limited and therefore other means
of estimating the design debris torrent are often used.
Table 4 refers to 11 methods that have been used worldwide
for estimating the design debris torrent, and indicates which
parameters are used in the process. Basically, these methods can
be grouped into four types of analyses: comparative, empirical,
unit volume, and modified unit volume. The common factor is
the relationship of the design debris torrent to drainage area or
length of creek channel. (In a given region, drainage area and
creek length are often directly related as drainage density.)
 TABLE 3 . D e f i n i t i o n s o f p r o b a b i l i t y of
o c c u r r e n c e o f d e b r i s t o r r e n t s f o r Howe
Sound ( T h u r b e r 1983a)
DESCRIPTION
Very H i g h p r o b a b i l i t y o f occurrence; i n d i c a t e s t h a t
t o r r e n t s o f l e s s than t h e design magnitude can occur
f r e q u e n t l y w i t h h i g h r u n o f f c o n d i t i o n s , and t h e d e s i g n
t o r r e n t s h o u l d b e assumed t o o c c u r w i t h i n t h e s h o r t t e r m .
I t i s a p p l i e d t o c r e e k s t h a t have a h i s o r y o f more t h a n
one event i n v o l v i n g g r e a t e r t h a n 500 mS o r h a v e p h y s i c a l
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t a r e comparable t o these creeks.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of North Dakota on 12/18/14
High p r o b a b i l i t y o f occurrence; i n d i c a t e s t h a t t o r r e n t s o f
l e s s t h a n t h e design magnitude w i l l occur l e s s f r e q u e n t l y
than under category 4 b u t t h e design t o r r e n t should s t i l l
b e assumed t o o c c u r w i t h i n t h e s h o r t t e r m . It i s applied
t o creeks t h a t have a h i s t o r y o f a s i n g l e d e b r i s t o r r e n t .
I t i s a l s o a p p l i e d t o c r e e k s t h a t h a v e no known h i s t o r y o f
events b u t possess s e v e r a l s i g n i f i c a n t p h y s i c a l
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t a r e comparable t o category 4 creeks.
Moderately h i g h p r o b a b i l i t y of occurrence; i n d i c a t e s t h a t
t h e d e s i g n t o r r e n t s h o u l d b e assumed t o o c c u r d u r i n g t h e
l i f e o f a s i g n i f i c a n t l o n g - t e r m s t r u c t u r e ( s u c h as a
b r i d g e o r house). I t i s a p p l i e d t o t h o s e creeks t h a t have
significant physical characteristics that f a l l well within
t h e t h r e s h o l d where d e b r i s t o r r e n t s a r e p o s s i b l e , a l t h o u g h
n o t i n t h e range o f c a t e g o r y 4. To d a t e t h e s e c r e e k s h a v e
no r e c o r d e d h i s t o r y o f d e b r i s t o r r e n t s , o r have
experienced events of u n c e r t a i n o r i g i n .
Low p r o b a b i l i t y o f o c c u r r e n c e ; i n d i c a t e s a l o w p o t e n t i a l
f o r the design torrent. It i s a p p l i e d t o t h o s e c r e e k s
For personal use only.
whose p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p l a c e t h e m a t o r c l o s e t o
t h e t h r e s h o l d where d e b r i s t o r r e n t s a r e o o s s i b l e .
Although a s i g n i f i c a n t d e b r i s t o r r e n t i s ' p o s s i b l e during
t h e l i f e o f a l o n g - t e r m s t r u c t u r e , i t w o u l d r e q u i r e an
unusually h i g h (and thus i n f r e q u e n t ) r u n o f f c o n d i t i o n .
I
No r i s k ; i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e i s v i r t u a l l y n o p o t e n t i a l
f o r l a r g e d e b r i s t o r r e n t s t o o c c u r a l t h o u g h s m a l l and
l o c a l t o r r e n t s may o c c u r , a n d t o r r e n t s o f v a r y i n g
m a g n i t u d e s may d e v e l o p i n u p p e r r e a c h e s a n d t r i b u t a r i e s .
I t i s a p p l i e d t o c h a n n e l r e a c h e s whose p h y s i c a l
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f a l l w e l l below t h e t h r e s h o l d where d e b r i s
torrents are possible.
The comparative analysis compares specific yields (the
volume of debris per unit drainage area) or debris volumes of
past events in a specific region to the drainage area. The
empirical analysis uses an empirical factor to relate slope (of
either the creek or fan) and drainage area to match the debris
torrent magnitude of past events in a specific region. Without a
large number of past events in a given region, these methods are
of limited value. The unit volume analysis estimates a unit
volume of debris (volume of debris per unit creek length, or
creek width times scour depth per unit creek length) along
distinct reaches of the creek and sums the products to arrive
at the potential debris volume. This volume can be adjusted,
depending upon specific characteristics of the creek, to arrive
at the design debris torrent. The modified unit volume analysis
uses the creek width (expressed as a function of the drainage
area), a factor related to the erodibility of the channel (instead of
scour depth), and the creek length to determine the design debris
torrent. Both the unit volume and modified unit volume analyses
require field estimating, and without a long history of previous
events, these types of analyses are more accurate than the
comparative or empirical analyses.
A unit volume analysis was used to determine the design
debris torrent for 24 creeks along Howe Sound (Thurber Con-
sultants Ltd. 1983a). This involved examining all accessible
reaches of each creek by hiking and the remainder by helicopter.
From the fieldwork the unit volume of debris was estimated.
The resultant potential debris volume was adjusted based on
the shape of channel profile (concave, convex, or stepped),
percent of debris that realistically can be mobilized, and com-
parison with the few known past events. A plot of the design
debris torrents and known torrents vs. drainage area is shown
in Fig. 12. The scatter is the result of local variability in the
unit volumes and the adjusting criteria that were applied.
Remedial measures
The traditional geotechnical approach to slope stability is
to implement remedial measures to counter or remove the
contributing cause. For example, if high pore water pressures
are causing a slope to fail, surface and subsurface drainage can
be controlled. It is, however, more difficult to remove or
counter the causes of a debris torrent. Of the factors that
influence debris torrents, three are capable of modification:
creek gradient, debris accumulation, and the triggering mech-
anism.
Debris torrents often begin on steep portions of the creeks.
If the point of potential initiation can be accurately located, a
series of check dams can be constructed to "step" the creek
near the point of initiation and thereby locally reduce the steep
gradient. The construction of such structures can be difficult and
expensive at the locations on mountain sides where debris
torrents usually begin. However, check dams are common in
Europe and Japan and are constructed in relatively high
I locations, relying to a great extent upon manual labour.
I In Switzerland, Austria, and Japan, manuals have been.
developed for the design of debris torrent check dams (Switzer-
land 1973; Leys and Hagen 1971; Japan n.d.). The details of
locating debris torrent check dams and their design are beyond
the scope of this paper but are summarized in Thurber
Consultants Ltd. (1984). In general, the spacing between check
dams depends upon ( I ) creek gradient, (2) dam height, (3) angle
of deposition of material behind the dam, and (4) length of
potential downstream scour. Concrete gravity check dams are
presently the most common and are designed to withstand
hydrostatic, earth, and impact pressures. The spillway, which
has to accommodate debris torrents as well as flood discharge,
requires special attention.
Frequent causes for the failure of debris torrent check dams in
Europe are (1) abrasion of the dam structure, (2) impact on the
check dam wings, (3) underscour, (4) outflanking of the abut-
ments, and (5) inadequate spillway design. Figure 13 shows a
photograph of check dams under construction near Altdorf,
Switzerland.
The most common method of reducing the potential debris
volume and reducing the scour depth is also by means of a series
of check dams. During both normal flows and debris torrents,
these structures prevent downcutting of the creek bed and
subsequent instability of the valley sides. These structures keep
the flow channelized, thereby reducing undercutting of the
banks.
Check dams can also be constructed to inhibit the triggering
mechanism of a debris torrent. However, because in many cases
it is difficult to predict where the triggering event will occur,
check dams designed for this purpose must be constructed along
much of the creek. In Europe and Japan, many debris torrent
check dams are constructed over much of the initiation and
transportation zones of the creek. In Canada, however, this is a
less practical solution because of the very high construction
costs associated with labour-intensive work along poorly
accessible mountain creeks.
In Europe and Japan, attempts are also made to reduce debris
 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 22, 1985
TABLE 4. Summary of parameters used to determine magnitude
CHARACTERISTIC
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of North Dakota on 12/18/14
Okubo & Mizuyama (1981)
Watanabe (1981)
Kronfellner-Kraus (1983)
For personal use only.
'Ihurber (198%)
accumulation by stabilizing the valley sides. Methods include
terracing the slope (in places with gabions), vegetating or
revegetating the slope (Boll 1983), draining the groundwater
from the slope, and buttressing the unstable area.
Logging activities and associated forestry road construction
can be regulated to minimize the accumulation of organic and
inorganic debris in the creek bed. Once logging operations cease
in an area bordering a creek, efforts can be made to quickly
reestablish growth. Abandoned forestry roads can be "regraded"
where there is the possibility that a road fill failure could add
debris to the creek or concentrate drainage, resulting in more
erosion. Abandoned forestry road creek crossings can be
removed.
Designed protection
If countering the causes is not a practical remedy or does
not sufficiently reduce the risk, additional protection can be
designed and constructed. There are basically two methods of
protection: (1) decrease the energy of the flow mass and
encourage it to deposit before it reaches any development, or
(2) maintain the energy of the flow mass and encourage it to
flow, in a controlled manner, past the development. A com-
bination of these two methods can also be used.
Methods of encouraging deposition
Under natural conditions, debris torrents come to rest when
the creek gradient becomes relatively flat, when the creek
channel becomes less confined, or when the flow mass is
impeded by some form of barrier. Practical methods of
attempting to duplicate nature and thereby encourage deposition
include constructing check dams, constructing debris racks or
fences, or constructing debris barriers.
In addition to those uses previously discussed, debris torrent
check dams are used to provide flatter reaches of the creek to
encourage deposition. This deposition is considered to be
temporary because, during large water flows weeks, months, or
years after the torrent, the deposited debris is removed naturally
from upstream of the dam (J. Zeller, personal communication,
1983; Ikeya 1976). Material is not excavated from behind a
check dam after a debris torrent.
Debris racks and fences (Fig. 14) are designed to be used
on creeks with relatively low flows and creeks that have the
potential for small debris torrents. They inhibit the flow of a
debris torrent, retain the coarse debris, but allow fine debris
and water to pass (Mears 1977). Debris racks and fences are
often located upstream of bridges and culverts to prevent these
structures from becoming plugged with debris. On larger creeks
they are used in conjunction with other protective structures
(Hollingsworth and Kovacs 1981) or can be used on the debris
fan to protect individual structures. The coarse debris entrapped
behind the rack or fence must be excavated and removed.
These types of structures are commonly used in the mudflow-
prone creeks of the southwest United States (Reihsen 1964). In
Canada, only a few have been constructed as defences against
debris torrents. It is too early to tell how they will perform under
extreme field conditions.
Debris barriers are usually larger structures than debris racks
or fences, and are intended to stop or inhibit the flow of larger
debris torrents while allowing fine debris and water to pass.
Debris barriers in Europe range from 5 to 15 m in height. Unlike
 I x estimated design debris torrent
/I
1 @ data p o i n t s from past d e b r i s torrents
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of North Dakota on 12/18/14

/ &Design D e b r i s Torrent ( i n rn 31
/X = 10 000 Drainage Area ( i n km2)
For personal use only.

DRAINAGE AREA (km2)

FIG. 12. Estimated design debris torrents and recorded magnitudes of past events vs. drainage areas for creeks along Howe Sound.

flow of coarse debris of the torrent. The second component

FIG. 13. Debris torrent check dams under construction near Alt-
dorf, Switzerland.
check dams or debris racks and fences, debris barriers are
usually located on flatter, broader reaches of the creek or on the
depositional fan. Additional excavation behind the barrier
increases depositional width and reduces creek gradient, which
assists the torrent to deposit behind the barrier. After a debris
torrent occurs, the coarse material that has been entrapped must
be excavated and removed.
The function of the debris barrier is achieved with a
three-component design. The first component is a barrier that
usually straddles the creek channel and stops or impedes the
consists of some type of "decanting" or "straining" structure that
allows normal creek flows, and the fine debris and water of a
torrent to pass. The third component is the debris catchment
basin behind the barrier. It can be a natural or in-part excavated
basin.
The design of these components varies greatly and depends
upon (1) local topographic conditions, (2) local geologic
conditions, (3) estimated design debris torrent, and (4) land
ownership. Designs are discussed more fully in Thurber
Consultants Ltd. (1984). European and Japanese examples are
shown in Fig. 15.
Although these structures are common in European countries
and Japan, there are no design manuals similar to those for
check dams. In these countries, debris barriers are often an
initial form of defence that, because they are built near the
mouth of the creek, are easier to build. However, unlike check
dams they must be cleaned out, and this can add substantially to
the overall expense. Ultimately, a series of check dams is often
built upstream of the barrier in the initiation and transportation
zone, to inhibit the occurrence of a debris torrent. Small check
dams are often built in concert with debris barriers: a check dam
at the upstream end of the catchment basin prevents degradation
of the creek bed upstream; a check dam downstream of the
barrier inhibits scouring of the barrier and straining structure.
The first Canadian debris torrent barriers have just been
designed, for three creeks along Howe Sound. Their designs
have been based upon the European design but they have been
 CAN. GEOTECII. J. VOL. 22, 1985
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of North Dakota on 12/18/14
For personal use only.
FIG. 14. Examples of debris racks: (a) steel I-beams, Howe
Sound, B.C.; (b) railroad rails, West Vancouver, B.C. (Miles and
Kellerhals 1981).
adapted to North American design philosophies and construc-
tion methods (Fig. 16). The construction of these barriers will
be completed in 1985.
Methods to maintainjow
Debris torrents are retarded or stopped by obstacles in their
path, a decrease in gradient, or a spreading out of the debris.
Therefore, if obstacles are removed from the flow path, if the
gradient is kept constant or increased, if the roughness of the
channel is reduced, and (or) if the channel is kept confined, the
debris will be encouraged to flow.
Creek crossings, such as culverts and bridges, are probably
the most common and the most significant obstacles. Culverts,
even though designed to pass hydraulic flows, are usually not
able to handle debris torrent flows. Many bridges have structural
piers in the creek bed or insufficient clearances between the
creek bed and lowermost member of the bridge. If these struc-
tures are located in a well-defined and confined transportation
zone, they can be replaced with a clear span bridge. If the creek
crossing is located in the deposition zone, the problem of
ensuring that all debris will pass under a bridge is more difficult.
The debris will tend to spread out over the fan in an ill-defined
manner or come to rest beneath the structure, thereby reducing
clearance.
Other designs that can be considered for minor crossings
FIG. 15. Examples of debris barriers: (a) earth and concrete,
Inzing, Austria; (b) reinforced concrete arch, Virgen, Austria; (c) Steel
pipe crib, Ashianraideni, Japan.
include small bridges with strong concrete abutments and
"sacrificial" wooden decks, and bridges with decks that can be
lifted above the estimated flow height during a debris torrent.
These methods have been used in Europe.
Any form of clearance design must consider that the duration
of a debris torrent is usually much shorter than a water flood;
however, the discharge and flow height are correspondingly
much greater. Figure 17 shows the 200 year design water
discharge for 22 creeks along Howe Sound vs. an upper-bound
peak discharge from a debris torrent as estimated from Hungr
et al. 1984. It is apparent that for those creeks that are likely
to have a debris torrent, the bridges and culverts should be
designed for up to 40 times the 200 year flood design for small
creeks and 5 to 10 times the 200 year flood design for larger
creeks.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of North Dakota on 12/18/14
For personal use only.
FIG. 16. A 1:200 scale model of debris barrier presently under
construction on Charles Creek, Howe Sound, B.C. Earth and rock fill
and decanting/spillway structure shown in black.
An alternate solution to a bridge or culvert involves realign-
ing the road or railway through a tunnel under the creek bed. In
other situations the creek can be confined completely to a
concrete aqueduct and directed over the road or railway. A
combination of these two methods can be incorporated into
debris sheds, which are similar to avalanche sheds for roads and
railways.
In some instances, where conditions allow, the creek gradient
can be increased, or at least kept constant, as the creek
descends. Such a diversion may involve steepening the existing
creek bed or straightening the creek channel. Increasing the
creek gradient has another advantage in that it increases the
velocity, thereby decreasing the flow height and also increasing
the clearance between the creek bed and the lowermost portion
of the bridge.
Decreasing the friction along the channel also encourages the
debris to continue flowing. This is achieved by creating a
relatively broad, but still confined, uniform cross-sectional
shape and by lining the channel with concrete or similar
material. As with increasing the creek gradient, reducing
channel roughness will increase torrent velocity and decrease
flow height. Lining the channel also has the added benefit of
preventing degradation of the creek bed.
When encouraging the debris to flow through a developed
area, it is essential that the flow be controlled. This may entail
providing structures to deflect or guide the debris torrent around
or past areas of development. Deflecting structures can take the
form of earth embankments or dykes, structural walls, or a
grouping of posts or trees. The basic design of these deflecting
structures is borrowed from established snow avalanche protec-
tion procedures (Mears 1981). Physical model testing is a more
0 20 40 60 80 100
(01 200 YEAR DESIGN (WATER) DISCHARGE (rn3/s)
FIG. 17. Estimated peak debris discharge vs. estimated 200 year
design water flood discharge for creeks along Howe Sound.
refined design method and was used to design the debris torrent
deflection dykes at Port Alice on Vancouver Island (Nasmith
and Mercer 1979).
Conclusions
The potential for a creek to be susceptible to debris torrents
in Canada can now be recognized by identifying the controlling
conditions, the triggering mechanisms, and pertinent charac-
teristics of the initiation, transportation and erosion, and
deposition zones. In a given region, the relative likelihood of
occurrence and magnitude of the largest reasonable event can be
estimated. Further research should be directed toward predict-
ing the triggering climatic condition and refining the estimates
of the design debris torrent.
A rational method-either passive or active-of mitigating
the potential hazard can be selected. Passive methods include
avoidance of the area, relocation of structures and facilities,
land use restrictions, or some form of warning system. Active
mitigation can involve methods to counter the causes, such as
check dams, valley slope stabilization, and prudent logging and
postlogging activities. Active methods also include providing
protection from the flow and impact of a debris torrent, for
example by means of debris racks, debris barriers, clear span
bridges, and creek diversion.
Before any remedial measures or protective works are
designed, certain parameters concerning the flow and deposi-
tion of the debris torrent must be estimated. Such parameters
include flow depth, velocity, and discharge; superelevation;
 60 CAN. GEOTECH. J . VOL. 22, 1985
impact forces; and the geometry of the debris when it comes to
rest. Hungr et al. (1984) have recently presented an approach
for determining these parameters. The reader is referred to this
reference for this aspect of mitigating the debris torrent hazard.
T o date, the calculation of these parameters has been based upon
research in other disciplines and other geographic areas. Further
research is required to modify and confirm that the calculated
parameters are applicable to the site-specific debris torrents in
the Southern Canadian Cordillera.
Acknowledgements
The author is honoured to have been selected by the Associate
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of North Dakota on 12/18/14
Committee on Geotechnical Research to give the Canadian
Geotechnical Colloquium. The funds that accompanied the
award allowed the recipient to see how other countries deal with
the problem of debris torrents.
This paper was researched and written with the support and
assistance of many. Thurber Consultants Ltd. and the British
Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Highways provided
a stimulating applied research environment during the Howe
Sound studies. Thanks are extended to the many people-in
Canada and abroad-who were contacted and assisted the
author during the preparation of the paper-specifically,
Graham Morgan, Hugh Nasmith, Oldrich Hungr, and Don
Lister. The manuscript was greatly improved by the comments
of the two anonymous reviewers. Sincere thanks are extended
to Rosemary Pierce for her typing, Doug Broughton for his
For personal use only.
draughting, and Margot Edwards for compiling the references.
ALLEY,N. F., and THOMSON, B. 1978. Aspects of environmental
geology, parts of Graham Island, Queen Charlotte Islands. British
Columbia Ministry of Environment, Resource Analysis Branch,
Victoria, B.C.
ASHIDA,K., DAIDO,A,, TAKAHASHI, T., and MIZUYAMA, T. 1973.
Study on the resistance law and the initiation of motion of bed
particles in a steep slope channel. Annual report of the Disaster
Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, Uji, Japan 16 B,
pp. 48 1-494 (in Japanese).
BELL,J. R., and SWANSTON, D. M. 1973. Quantitative prediction of
mass erosion potential on shallow granitic soils influenced by road
building and logging. Prepared for the Pacific Southwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station and the Pacific Northwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station. Unpubished.
BJERRUM, L., and JORSTAD, F. A. 1968. Stability of rock slopes in
Norway. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute Publication 79, Oslo,
Norway.
BOLL,A. 1983. Lebendverbau bei der Sanierung von stielen Hangen.
Schweizerische Zeitschrift fiir Forstwesen, 134(3), pp. 167- 177.
BROSCOE, A. J . , and THOMSON, S. 1969. Observations on an alpine
mudflow, Steele Creek, Yukon. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences,
6, pp. 219-229.
BRUNSDEN, D. 1979. Mass movements. In Process in geomorphology.
Edited by C. Embleton and J. Thornes. Edward Arnold Ltd.,
London, pp. 130-186.
CAINE,N. 1980. The rainfall intensity-duration control of shallow
landslides and debris flows. Geografiska Annaler, 62A(1-2), pp.
23-27.
CHURCH, M. A., and RUSSELL,S. 0 . D. 1983. Recent history and
condition of Alberta Creek at Lions Bay, British Columbia:
Implications for the safety of settlement at Lions Bay. University
of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Unpublished.
CLAGUE, J. J. 1978. Terrain hazards in the Skeena and Kitimat River
basins, British Columbia. Geological Survey of Canada, Paper, No.
78-IA, pp. 183-188.
1981. Landslides at the south end of Kluane Lake, Yukon
Territory. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 18, pp. 959-971.
COSTA,J. E., and JARRET, R. D. 1981. Debris flows in small mountain
stream channels of Colorado and their hydrologic implications. Bul-
letin of the Association of Engineering Geologists, 18, pp. 309-322.
DUMOULIN, J. 1965. Her Majesty the Queen v. Canadian Pacific
Railway Company, Twin Butte mudslide, judgment. Exchequer
Court of Canada, Victoria, B .C.
DYRNESS, C. T. 1967. Mass soil movements in the H. J. Andrews
Experimental Forest. United States, Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Research Paper, No. PNW-42.
EISBACHER, G. H. 1982a. Mountain torrents and debris flows.
Episodes, 1982(4), pp. 12- 17.
19826. Howe Sound debris flows. Geoscience Canada, 9(2),
p. 132.
1983. Slope stability and mountain torrents, Fraser lowland
and southern Coast Mountains, British Columbia. Field trip guide-
book, Trip 15, Geological Association of Canada, Mineralogical
Association of Canada, Canadian Geophysical Union Joint Annual
Meeting, Victoria, B .C.
EISBACHER, G. H., and CLAGUE, J. J. 1981. Urban landslides in the
vicinity of Vancouver, British Columbia, with special reference to
the December 1979 rainstorm. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 18,
pp. 205-216.
EVANS,S. G. 1982. Landslides and surficial deposits in urban areas
of British Columbia: A review. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 19,
pp. 269-288.
EVANS,S. G., and LISTER,D. R. 1984. The geomorphic effects of the
July, 1983 rainstorms in the southern Cordillera and their impact on
transportation facilities. Geological Survey of Canada, Paper, No.
84-lB, pp. 223-235.
FROEHLICH, H. A. 1973. Natural and man-caused slash in headwater
streams. Loggers Handbook, 33, pp. 15- 17,66,68,70,82,84,86.
HAMPEL,R. 1977. Geochiebewirtschaft in Wildbachen. Leitschrift
des Vereins der Diplomingenieure der Wildbach und Lawinenver-
bauung Osterreichs, 4, pp. 3-34, 53-144.
HARR, R. D. 1981. Some characteristics and consequences of
snowmelt during rainfall in western Oregon. Journal of Hydrology,
53, pp. 277-304.
HOLLINGSWORTH, R., and K o v ~ c s ,G. S. 1981. Soil slumps and
debris flows: Prediction and protection. Bulletin of the Association
of Engineering Geologists, 18, pp. 17-28.
HUNGR,0 . 1981. Dynamics of rock avalanches and other types of
slope movements. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
HUNGR,O., MORGAN, G. C., and KELLERHALS, R. 1984. Quantita-
tive analysis of debris torrent hazards for design of remedial
measures. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 21, pp. 663-677.
IKEYA,H. 1976. Introduction to sabo works; the preservation of land
against sediment disaster. The Japan Sabo Association, Tokyo.
1981a. A method of designation for area in danger of debris
flow. Erosion and sediment transport in Pacific Rim steeplands.
International Association of Hydrological Sciences (Christchurch,
New Zealand), No. 132, pp. 576-587.
1981b. Investigation for debris flow countermeasure. Trnns-
latedfiorn Civil Engineering Journal, 23(7) (original in Japanese).
IKEYA,H., and MIZUYAMA, T. 1982. Flow and deposit properties of
debris flow. Public Works Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan,
Report 157-2, pp. 88-153 (in Japanese).
INNES,J. L. 1983. Debris flows. Progress in Physical Geography. 7,
pp. 469-501.
ISHIKAWA, Y. 1982. Movements of debris flows. Public Works Re-
search Institute, Tsukuba, Japan, Technical Memorandum No. 1872.
JACKSON,L. E., JR. 1979. A catastrophic glacial outburst flood
(jokulhlaup) mechanism for debris flow generation at the Spiral
Tunnels, Kicking Horse River basin, British Columbia. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 16, pp. 806-813.
JAPAN.Ministry of construction, Sabo Department. n.d. Design and
exercise of sabo structures.
KOHAN,E., and HUTCHINSON, J. N. 1978. Mayunmarca rockslide
 VAh
and debris flow, Peru. In Rockslides and avalanches. Vol. 1, Natural
phenomena. Edited by B. Voight. Elsevier Scientific Publishing
Company, New York, NY. pp. 315-361.
KRONFELLNER-KRAUS, G. 1983. Torrent erosion and its control in
Europe and some research activities in this field in Austria.
SABO-The Erosion-Control Engineering Society-Japan, 35,
NO. 3(126), pp. 33-44.
LEYS,E., and HAGEN,G: 1971. Design of gravity dams against water
pressure and earth pressure. Imst Regional Construction Office,
Torrent and Avalanche Control, Austria. Unpublished (in German).
LISTER,D. R., MORGAN, G.C., VANDINE, D. F., and KERR,J. W. G.
1984. Debris torrents in Howe Sound, British Columbia. Proceed-
ings, 4th International Symposium on Landslides, Toronto, Vol. 1,
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of North Dakota on 12/18/14
pp. 649-654.
MARTIN,D. C., PITEAU,D. R., PEARCE, R. A., and HAWLEY, P. M.
1984. Remedial measures for debris flows at the Agassiz Mountain
Institution, British Columbia. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 21,
pp. 505-517.
MEARS,A. I. 1977. Debris-flow hazard analysis and mitigation, an
example from Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Colorado Geological
Survey, Information Series 8, Denver, CO.
1981. Design criteria for avalanche control structures in the
runout zone. United States, Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,
General Technical Report RM-84.
MEYER-PETER, E., and MUELLER,R. 1948. Formulas for bed-load
transport. Proceedings, 2nd Congress International Association of
Hydraulics Research, Stockholm, Sweden.
MILES,M. J., and KELLERHALS, R. 198 1. Some engineering aspects
of debris torrents. Proceedings, 5th Canadian Hydrotechnical
For personal use only.
Conference, Fredericton, N. B.
MIZUYAMA, T. 1982. Analysis of sediment yield and transport data
for erosion control works. In Recent developments in the explana-
tion and prediction of erosion and sediment yield (Proceedings of
the Exeter Symposium, July 1982). International Association of
Hydraulics Research, Publ. No. 137, pp. 177-182.
MIZUYAMA, T., and UEHARA,S. 1983. Experimental study of the
depositional process of debris flows. Transactions, Japanese Geo-
morphological Union, 4(1), pp. 49-64.
MOKIEVSKY-ZUBAK, 0 . 1977. Glacier-caused slide near Pylon Peak,
British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 14,
pp. 2657-2662.
MOORE,D. P. 1983. Highway and landslide tour, southern Coast
Mountains, British Columbia. Tour 2, VII Pan American Confer-
ence on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vancouver,
B.C.
MOORE,D. P., and MATHEWS,W. H. 1978. The Rubble Creek
landslide, southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of
Earth Sciences, 15, pp. 1039- 1052.
NASMITH,H. W. 1972. Engineering geology of the Southern Cor-
dillera of British Columbia. Guidebook, XXIV International Geo-
logical Congress, Montreal, Quebec, Excursion A08-C08.
NASMITH,H. W., and MERCER,A. G. 1979. Design of dykes to
protect against debris flows at Port Alice, British Columbia.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 16, pp. 748-757.
OKUBO,S., and MIZUYAMA, T. 1981. Planning of countermeasures
against debris flow. Translated from Civil Engineering Journal,
23(9) (original in Japanese).
OKUDA,S., SUWA, H., OKUNISHI,K., YOKOYAMA, K., and
NAKANO, M. 1980. Observations on the motion of a debris flow and
its geomorphological effects. Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie, Sup-
plementbond, 35, pp. 142-163.
OWENS,F. 1972. Morphological characteristics of alpine mudflows in
the Nigel Pass area. In Mountain geomorphology, Edited by H. 0 .
Slaymaker and H. J. McPherson. B.C. Geographical Series No. 14.
Tantalus Research, Vancouver, B .C., pp. 93- 100.
PACK, R. T. 1982. Selected annotated bibliography on factors
controlling debris torrents, techniques for forest road construction
through unstable terrain and slope stability mapping and hazard
rating systems for forest land. Utah State University, Logan, LIT.
Unpublished.
PIERSON,T. C. 1980. Erosion and deposition by debris flows at Mt.
Thomas, North Canterbury, New Zealand. Earth Surface Processes,
5, pp. 227-247.
READSHAW, E. E. 1968. Camp Creek slide. Internal report, British
Columbia Ministry of Highways, Victoria, B.C.
REIHSEN,G. 1964. Debris-control structures. Hydraulic Engineering
Circular No. 9, U.S. Bureau of Public Roads, Washington, DC.
RODINE,J. D. 1974. Analysis of the mobilization of debris flows.
Final report to the U.S. Army Research Office, Durham, NC.
Department of Geology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
RUSSELL,S. 0 . 1972. Behavior of steep creeks in a large flood. In
Mountain geomorphology. Edited by H. 0 . Slaymaker and H. J.
McPherson. B .C. Geographical Series No. 14. Tantalus Research,
Vancouver, B.C., pp. 223-227.
SKERMER, N. A. 1981. Report to Coroner's Department on 'M' Creek
debris flowslide. West Vancouver, B.C., unpublished.
1982. Supplementary report to Coroner's Department on 'M'
Creek debris flowslide. West Vancouver, B.C., unpublished.
1983. Austrian two-fold classification of torrents. Part of
submission to Office of the Chief Coroner of British Columbia on
Alberta Creek debris torrent, New Westminster, B.C., unpublished.
1984. M Creek debris flow disaster. Proceedings, 37th Cana-
dian Geotechnical Conference, Toronto, Ont., pp. 187- 194.
SMART,G. M. 1984. Sediment transport formula for steep channels.
ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 110(3), pp. 267-276.
SMITH, H. R., and PATTON,F. D. 1984. Comparison of the
Devastation Glacier Slide with other high velocity debris flows.
Proceedings, IV International Symposium on Landslides, Toronto,
Ont., Abstracts, 96 p.
STRILAEFF, P. W. 1984. Debris torrent alert system for Alberta Creek
at Lions Bay. B.C. Professional Engineer, 35(2), pp. 14-16.
SWANSON, F. J., and LIENKAEMPER, G. W. 1978. Physical conse-
quences of large organic debris in Pacific Northwest streams. United
States, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific North-
west Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical
Report PNW-69.
SWANSTON, D. N. 1974. Slopestability problemsassociated withtimber
harvesting in mountainous regions of the western United States.
United States, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical
Report PNW-2 1.
SWITZERLAND. Eigenossisches Amt fur Strassen-und Flussbau. 1973.
Dimensionierung von Wildbachsperren aus Beton und Stahlbeton.
Bern, Switzerland.
TAKAHASHI, T. 1978. Mechanical characteristics of debris flow.
ASCE Journal of the Hydraulics Division, 104, pp. 1153-1 169.
1980. Debris flow on prismatic open channel. ASCE Journal
of the Hydraulics Division, 106, pp. 381-396.
1981a. Debris flow. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 13,
pp. 57-77.
1981b. Estimation of potential debris flows and their hazard-
ous zones; soft countermeasures for a disaster. Journal of Natural
Disaster Science, 3, pp. 57-89.
THURBER CONSULTANTS LTD. 1979. Mitigation of debris flow hazard,
Springs Creek fan, report to Morgan Stewart and Company Limited.
Victoria, B.C.
1982. M-Creek mass movement. Report to British Columbia
Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Victoria, B .C.
1983a. Debris torrent and flooding hazards, Highway 99,
Howe Sound. Report to Ministry of Transportation and Highways.
Victoria, B.C.
1983b. Rogers Pass revision.Vo1. 2. Hydrology and debris
flow potential. Report to CP Rail Special Projects. Victoria, B.C.
1984. Debris torrents, a review of mitigative measures. Report
to British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Communica-
tions. Victoria, B .C.
VARNES,D. J. 1978. Slope movement types and processes. In
 62 CAN. GEOTECH. I. VOL. 22. 1985
Landslides; analysis and control. Edited by R. L. Schuster and R. J.
Krizck. Transportation Research Board, National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, DC, Special report 176, pp. 11-33.
WARD,T. J., and O'BRIEN,J. S. 1980. Flume study of the mechanics
of mud flows. Civil Engineering Department, Engineering Research
Center, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, Report
CER80-8 1TJW-JS02.
WATANABE, M. 1981. Debris flows and associated disasters. Tmns-
luted from Civil Engineering Journal, 23(6) (original in Japanese).
WILFORD,D. J., and SCHWAB, J. W. 1981. Soil mass movements in
the Rennell Sound area, Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia.
British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of North Dakota on 12/18/14
For personal use only.
WINDER, C. G. 1965. Alluvial cone construction by alpine mudflow in
a humid temperate region. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 2,
pp. 270-277.
WOODS, P. J. 1984. A debris flow landslide at Port Moody.
Proceedings, 37th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Toronto,
Ont., pp. 217-222.
Wu, T. H., and SWANSTON, D. N. 1980. Risk of landslides in shallow
soils and its relation to clearcutting in southeastern Alaska. Forest
Science, 26, pp. 495-5 10.
ZARUBA,Q., and MENCL,V. 1982. Landslides and their control.
Academia Press, Prague.
 APPENDIX.
Summary of recorded debris to rents in the Southern Canadian Cordillera

Location and reference Date(s) of event(s) Climatic data Drainage area Brief description Cause of event Damage Author(s)'s terminology

I. St. Eiias Mountains. Yukon

1. Steele Creek 11 July 1967, 60 mm rainfall in Fan slope 13" Occurred in surges Rainfall, high dis-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of North Dakota on 12/18/14

Alpine mudflow
(Broscoe and evidence of preceding 36 h 1.8 to 2.5 m high; charge, erosion of
Thomson 1969) previous events no snowmelt viscous rock-charged banks and channel
mud; colloids to
boulders 4 m across
2. Unnamed creek, Summer 1967 Intense rainfall Associated debris Blocked highway Debris torrent
south end of flows and floods
Kluane L., general
ref. to others
(Clague 1981)
11. North Coast Mountains, B.C.
3. Prince Rupert. Occur mainly in Consist of sediment, Interrupts rail and Mudflows, slush flows
Port Edward, spring water, and snow; highway traffic
general reference associated with
(Clague 1978) debris and snow
avalanches
For personal use only.

111. Queen Charlotte Islands, B.C.

4. Rennel Sound, Recorded 250 mm Begin at gradients Associated with Debris avalanche, Debris torrent
general reference in 36 h >35" debris avalanches slide, or flow; con-
(Wilford and and slides centrated storm
Schwab 1981) runoff; logging
road crossings
5. Haines Creek Associated with Debris avalanche;
(Alley and debris avalanche, seismic activity
Thomson 1978) slide, and flow could be a factor
IV. Vancouver Island, B .C.
6. Port Alice- south 15 December 1973 120 mm rainfall in 0.8 km'; 1.7 km Rock fragments, silt, Small slump at log- Moved a house Debris flow
(Nasmith and preceding 24 h; length; 660 m relief; sand, occasional ging road crossing; off its foundation;
Mercer 1979) 100-200 cm top 45", 26", 6" boulders, and wood possible snow flooding
accumulated fan; some logging fragments ranging avalanche
snow; rising from splinters to
freezing levels massive logs;
knocked down trees
3 m diameter; moved
by true flow;
22 000 m3; 1.5 m/s
on fan
7. Port Alice -north 12 November 170 mm rainfall in Similar to above; Debris similar to Similar to above Flooding Debris flow
(as above) 1975 preceding 24 h; some logging above; 4500 m3;
100-200 cm 5-8 mls in confined
accumulated channel
snow; rising
freezing levels
 APPENDIX
(Continued)
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of North Dakota on 12/18/14

Location and reference Date(s) of event(s) Climatic data Drainage area Brief description Cause of event Damage Author(s)'s terminology

V. Rocky Mountains, Alberta and B.C.

8. Hell's Creek, 17 July 1962 Rainfall on Flowed more than Heavy rainfall, Blocked two Alpine mudflow
Alta. (Winder preceding 10 1 km down creek; possibly intense access roads
1965) days; exception- contained angular clap of thunder
ally heavy rainfall boulders, slabs of initiated ancillary
on day of event; silt-stone. trees slide
no snow
9 . Barrett Creek, 17 July 1962 As above Alpine mudflow
Alta. (as above)
10. Nigel Pass, Alta. Reference to 19 Relatively small Alpine mudflow
(Owens 1972) debris torrents
11. Cathedral Gulch, 6 September 1968; Steady rainfall on 3.7 km'; 3 km path Rocks, sand, silt, Jokulhlaup Blocked railway Debris flow
B .C. (Kicking other events in 5 September; no length; 1400 m uprooted trees; and highway
For personal use only.

Horse Pass) 1925, 1946, 1962 cioudbursts; relief; top 25", 25", 60-70% gravel;
(Jackson, Jr. I .8 mm rainfall in 8" fan large amount of
1979) preceding 24 h water; 2 surges;
175 000 m3; 6 m/s
VI. Columbia Mountains, B .C.
12. Rogers Pass area Reference to 10 Logging on 8 1 was greater than Largest possibly Debris flow
(Beaver River and debris torrents creeks; no logging 35 000 m3; 1 greater caused by
Mountain Creek on 2 creeks than 10000 m3, 8 < jokulhlaup;
Valley) (Thurber 10 000 m3 most caused by
Consultants Ltd. erosion of loose
1983b) overburden
13. Illecillewaet and Reference to 92.5 m and Large amount of logs Intense rainfall Damaged and Debris torrent
Akolkolex valleys numerous debris 82 mm rainfall and trees included destroyed high-
(Evans and Lister torrents that occur- measured in pre- with mobilized sur- way bridges;
1984) red 11-12 July, ceding 24 h; no ficial material; highway and rail-
1983 rising freezing associated with way blocked; 23
levels, but some debris flows logging bridges
snowmelt destroyed
14. Twin Butte; 1 1 May 1961 Clear weather 5-7.5 km2 Mud, rocks, and Possibly a debris Derailed train, Mudslide
general reference rubble; 2.5-3 m slide or tributary plugged UP
to others between deep; 30 m in length; debris torrent culvert, blocked
Revelstoke and associated with railway
Field (Dumoulin debris slides
1965)
15. Camp Creek 5 June 1968 Heavy rainfall, 3.2 km path length; 30% rock, 35% silt, Debris slide or flow 5 people killed; Mudlrock flow,
(Readshaw 1968; snowmelt 1050 m relief 15% sand, 20% near headwaters blocked highway mudflow
Nasmith 1972) trees; maximum rock
size 4 m; 100 000 m3;
9 m/s in confined
channel
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of North Dakota on 12/18/14
For personal use only.
 APPENDIX
(Continued)
m
0\

Location and reference Date(s) of event(s) Climatic data Drainage area Brief description Cause of event Damage Author(s)'s terminology
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of North Dakota on 12/18/14

IX. South Coast Mountains, B .C.

24. Culliton Creek 26 December 100 mmrainfall in Debris and logs; High rainfall Blocked culvert, This event may be a
(Eisbacher 1983) 1980, reference to preceding 48 h associated with many washed-out flood
earlier debris floods in the area highway
torrents
25. Cheekeye River <5890 years Massive angular Debris flow
(Eisbacher 1983) before present boulders, deposits,
up to 1.5m
26. Rubble Creek ,600 years before Volcanic rock Rock avalanche (?) Debris flow
(Moore and present fragments
Mathews 1978;
Moore 1983)
X. Howe Sound/South Coast Mountains, B.C.
27. Disbrow Creek 13 December 1931 130 mm rainfall in 1.3 km2; 1170 m Freshet-ridden Heavy rainfall Destroyed one Debris torrent (?),
(Thurber Con- preceding 72 h relief; max. 44", Stream house, damaged possible flood
average 32", 12" fan another
For personal use only.

sultant> Ltd.
1983a) no logging
28. Charles Creek 18 September 75 mm rainfall in 1.8 km2; 1220 m Rock rubble and - Highway and Debris torrent %
(Thurber Con- 1969 preceding 48 h relief; max. 46", debris accompanied railway bridges 0
sultants Ltd. ave. 27", 16Ofan flood water; 85- destroyed
1983a; Eisbacher 1% logged 115 m3/s discharge
19826; 1983; estimated
Lister et al. 1984;
Russell 1972;
Hungr et al. 1984) 3 November 1972 66 mm rainfall in As above Sluny mixture of - Blocked creek, Debris torrent
(formerly called preceding 48 h rocks, small boulders caused avulsion
Strachan I1 Ck) gravel and some and damage to
logs; fines to 1 m houses
boulders; lasted
3-4 h
7 November 1972 75 mm rainfall in As above Rocks wedged under - Blocked railway, Debris torrent, mudslide
preceding 48 h the BCR bridge washed out
access road.
damaged 2
houses
4 December 1981 35 mm rainfall in As above Very coarse debris Erosion of talus Damaged bridge, Debris torrent
preceding 48 h up to 3 rn with sandy accumulation in caused avulsion,
gravel to clean sand; creek damaged 2
10 000- 15 000 m3; houses; 1 person
3 m/s; 100 m3/s killed
15 November 110 mm rainfall in As above Boulders up to 3 m, Erosion of talus Destroyed rail- Debris torrent
1983 preceding 48 h with cobbles and accumulation in way bridge, 2
sand; associated with creek access road
debris slides; bridges; damaged
15 000-20 000 m3; highway bridge
7 m/s; 300 m3/s; 4 and 2 houses
surges
 APPENDIX
(Continued)

Location and reference Date(s) of event(s) Climatic data Drainage area Brief description Cause of event Damage Author(s)'s terminology
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of North Dakota on 12/18/14

29. Turpin Creek 11 February 1983 100 mm rainfall in 0.4 km2; 800 m Rock debris with High rainfall Flooded high- Debris torrent
(Thurber Con- preceding 48 h; relief; max. 52", 15% logs way, blocked
sultants Ltd. rising freezing ave. 35", no fan; railway
1983a) levels 25% logged
30. Newman Creek 1.8 krn2; 1l00m Event interpreted from
(Thurber Con- relief; max. 52", airphotos
sultants Ltd. ave. 30°, 17' fan;
1983a; Russell 16% logged
1972)
18 September 75 mm rainfall in As above Boulders and debris Highway bridge Debris torrent
1969 preceding 48 h piled onto bridges, was damaged
85 m3/s estimated,
associated bank
erosion
4 December 1981 35 mm rainfall in As above Mud and small Plugged railway Debris torrent
For personal use only.

preceding 24 h boulders, some large bridge and over-

boulders topped access
road bridges
11 February 1983 100 mm rainfall in As above Average0.6 m, max. Blocked and Debris torrent
preceding 48 h; 2.5 m boulders, little overtopped 2
rising freezing forest debris; access roads;
levels 7500 m3 covered parking
area with debris
3 1. Harvey Creek 18 September 75 mm rainfall in 7.0 km'; 1220 m Debris and water, Local high Destroyed water Uncertain whether a
(Thurber Con- 1969 preceding 48 h relief; max. 32", associated with intensity rainstorm; intake; threatened debris torrent or a flood
sultants Ltd. ave. 14", 9" fan; debris slides, debris slide 5 houses
1983a; Russell 22% logged 100 m3/s estimated
1972)
32. Alberta Creek 1.2 km2, 1300 m Event interpreted from
(Thurber Con- relief; max. 57", airphoto
sultants Ltd. ave. 27", 14" fan; no
1983a; Moore clear-cut logging,
1983; Lister et al. but a logging road
1984; Skermer
1983; Hungr et al.
1984; Church and
Russell 1983) 3 December 1982 62 mm rainfall in As above Rock and log debris, Possible debris Debris torrent
preceding 24 h freshly broken, up to slide, rock slide
1 m; 600 m3
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of North Dakota on 12/18/14

APPENDIX
(Concluded)

Location and reference Date(s) of event(s) Climatic data Drainage area Brief description Cause of event Damage Author(s)'s terminology

1l February 1983 100 mm rainfall in As above Boulders up to 2 m Possible snow Destroyed 5 Debris torrent
preceding 24 h with cobbles, gravel, avalanche access road cross-
sand, silt, and silty ings, highway, 3
houses; damaged
For personal use only.

sand afterflow,
10 000-15 000 m3; railway bridge
0
6 m/s; 250- and 1 house >
350 m3/s, 6 surges destroyed; 2 z
people killed a
Trees, gravel, and Intense rains Highway and Debris torrent Srn
33. Magnesia Creek 12 October 1962 Intense rainfall 4.7 km2; 1440 m 0
(Thurber Con- (Hurricane Freda) relief; max. 20°, mud railway bridge 3:
sultants Ltd. ave. 19", 10" fan; destroyed; one ?
house destroyed <
1983a) 32% logged 0
r
28 October 1981 75 mm of rainfall As above Rock and boulders Railway bridge Uncertain whether a 1.2

in preceding 48 h plugged, one debris torrent or -

N

\D
house damaged flooding CO
VI

34. M Creek (Thurber 28 October 1981 75 mm of rainfall 3.8 km2; 1470 m Coarse and angular Debris avalanches Destroyed high- Debris torrent
Consultants Ltd. in preceding 48 h relief; max. 32O, boulders up to 2 m; or rockfall way bridge,
1982, 1983a; ave. 28", 8" fan; 10% fines; 15 000- buried railway
Eisbacher 19826, 38% logged 20 000 m3; 5 m/s; bridge, destroyed
1983; Hungr et al. 200-250 m3/s, at 1 house; 10
1984; Lister et al. least 2 surges people killed
1984; Skermer
1981, 1982, 1983,
1984)