Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 227

REPORT TO: Council FOR: COW

REPORT FROM: Community Planning & Infrastructure


PRESENTED: February 5, 2019 FILE:
SUBJECT: Squamish River Floodplain Quantitative Risk Assessment Finalization

Recommendation:
That Council approve the following resolutions:
THAT the District of Squamish accepts the Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River
Floodplain report for finalization.

1. Objective:
Staff are seeking Council’s support to finalize the Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish
River Floodplain report by Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL). If Council passes a motion
accepting the report for finalization, KWL would finalize it (removing “draft” from report and
figures, minor text adjustments, etc.) and it would be accepted as final.
2. Background:
The District received grant funding of $178,000 under the National Disaster Mitigation Program
(NDMP) to cover 100% of the project costs to complete a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA)
for the Squamish River Floodplain. This project builds on the extensive technical work
completed for the District’s Integrated Flood Hazard Management Plan (IFHMP), which
prepared updated floodplain mapping for each of the District’s floodplains.
The Squamish River floodplain is home to more than half of the District’s residents and the
majority of commercial activity within the District. The Squamish River floodplain also contains
critical local and regional infrastructure including the CN Rail mainline, Highway 99, BC Hydro
substation and the wastewater treatment plant. The floodplain is protected by the Squamish
River dike. However, the Squamish River still poses a significant flood risk in the event of a dike
breach which could occur for a variety of reasons (overtopping, seepage, piping, undermining,
floating debris damage, etc.).
The IFHMP evaluated the consequences of a major flood in each floodplain within the District
and prepared a comprehensive mitigation plan including land use policy, floodproofing
regulations for new development, and a dike improvement plan. The IFHMP was a ‘hazard-
based’ assessment which primarily focused on the Provincial standard 1 in 200 year return
period flood event (defined as having a 0.5% probability of occurring in any given year). Hazard-
based approaches have some inherent weaknesses including that they don’t evaluate the
potential for, and consequences of, events larger than the pre-defined hazard probability (i.e.
1:200 year flood). This QRA advances this work by evaluating ‘flood risk’ which is defined as the
product of probability and consequence for a range of flood events from small to very large
with varying probability, magnitude and consequences. QRA’s ultimately have the ability to
inform and refine flood mitigation plans by evaluating benefit-cost ratios and risk to loss of life
under a variety of dike upgrade scenarios.
3. Project Information:
Completing this QRA involved the following activities:
1) Update flood model and mapping
2) Estimate inundation probability for each location on the floodplain
3) Complete an Economic Risk Assessment evaluating total economic damage
4) Complete a Loss of Life Risk Assessment
A detailed description of each of these activities is included in Attachment 1. Results of the
assessment are as follows.
Economic Risk Assessment Results
The Economic Risk Assessment indicated Benefit-Cost (B/C) Ratios for a variety of dike upgrade
scenarios. The benefit is defined as the ‘damages avoided’ in the event of a dike upgrade. The
following table summarizes the B/C ratios:

Any dike upgrade with a B/C ratio greater than 1 indicates that damages avoided exceed the
costs of the dike upgrade. All dike upgrading options produce B/C ratios greater than 1. The sea
dike indicates a B/C ratio greater than 100 due to very frequent flooding that would occur in
the absence of dike upgrades in anticipation of expected sea level rise. The results of the
Economic Risk Assessment provide a solid business case in support of the IFHMP dike upgrade
plan and provide excellent justification for future dike-related grant applications.
Loss of Life Risk Assessment Results
Loss of life risk assessments evaluate two types of risk:
1) Probability of Death for Individuals (PDI) – evaluates risk of death for the most
exposed/vulnerable person in the floodplain.
2) Probability of Death for Groups (PDG, sometimes called Societal or Group Risk) -
evaluates risk of death for all floodplain inhabitants.
The District has followed the precedent of several other jurisdictions (e.g. North Vancouver,
Canmore, Hong Kong) and adopted commonly used Risk Tolerance Criteria in our Official
Community Plan. The OCP’s risk tolerance criteria are summarized in Figure 1 below:

Grant Support February 5, 2019


Figure 1 – Risk Tolerance Criteria Summary
Risk to loss of life was evaluated using three different flood mortality functions for a variety of
dike upgrade scenarios. Each function has a unique way of estimating the risk to loss of life
based on various available flood characteristics (flood depth, velocity, rate of water rising,
hazard intensity).
Note: This QRA is considered rigorous and meets the standards for NDMP’s ‘Class A’ confidence
level (very high degree of confidence). However, it should be noted that the results involve
significant uncertainty from a variety of factors (see Table 6-1 in Attachment 1). KWL indicate in
their report that “QRA results should be considered indicative of the general risks facing the
community rather than numerically accurate and precise at a specific location”.
The results are summarized as follows:
Probability of Death for Individuals (PDI)

Grant Support February 5, 2019


Anything greater than 0.0001 (bolded) exceeds the District’s risk tolerance criteria . The risk to
loss of life does not meet the District’s risk-tolerance criteria for most scenarios, even with
dikes upgraded to the Provincial Standard or the ‘Super Dike’ (1:500 year return period)
standard.
Probability of Death for Groups (PDG)
Group/Societal Risk results are summarized in Appendix H & I in Attachment 1. The results
indicate that the risk to loss of life for groups exceeds the OCP’s risk tolerance thresholds for
the Upper and Lower Squamish River floodplains under nearly all dike upgrade scenarios. Risk
tolerance thresholds fall within the ‘ALARP’ (mitigate risk to ‘As Low As Reasonably Practicable)
zone for the coastal floodplain under the Proposed Sea Dike scenario.
Discussion
While the results of the Loss of Life risk assessment are concerning, it must be noted that the
results are subject to significant uncertainty due to the large number of inherent assumptions
included in the analysis. Despite some numerical uncertainty, the results indicate there is
significant current risk and the District should be taking all reasonable measures to reduce and
manage risk including continued implementation of IFHMP recommendations.
The IFHMP recommends dike upgrades beyond the Provincial standard for the Squamish River
floodplain, floodproofing new development in accordance with the Floodplain Bylaw, avoiding
new development in the highest risk areas and investing resources in emergency preparedness
including evacuation planning.
The District has invested over $20 million in flood risk mitigation initiatives over the past 12
years and plans to spend a minimum $2 million/year from municipal sources in the current
Financial Plan. The District also plans to aggressively target grant funding opportunities to
supplement the District’s funding and accelerate the dike improvement plan.
In summary, the District has a comprehensive mitigation plan and has been successfully
implementing it. This QRA should not result in a change of approach but rather, it should
reinforce the importance of ongoing implementation and strengthen future grant applications
from senior levels of government.
4. Implications:
a. Budget:
The District’s 2018-22 Financial Plan includes $4,000,000 each year for Flood Protection
Upgrades. It has been assumed that the District will fund $2M/yr. and will receive $2M/yr. in
grant funding to make up the total budget.
b. Organizational Impact:
Staff plan to continue IFHMP implementation with existing resources (staff and budgets
contained in the Financial Plan).
c. Policy:
This project and its’ recommendations have been completed in accordance with OCP policy.

Grant Support February 5, 2019


d. Bylaws:
N/A
5. Next Implementation Steps:
Continue implementation of IFHMP flood mitigation recommendations.
6. Attachments:
1. Draft Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain, Kerr Wood Leidal
Associates Ltd., November 2018
7. Alternatives to Staff Recommendation:
THAT the District of Squamish pursue further work prior to finalizing the report.
8. Staff Review
Prepared By:
David Roulston, P.Eng., Manager of Municipal Infrastructure
Reviewed By:
Chris Wyckham, P.Eng., Director of Engineering
Gary Buxton, GM of Community Planning and Infrastructure
Robin Arthurs, GM of Corporate Services

CAO Recommendation:
That the recommendation of the Engineering Department be approved.
Linda Glenday, CAO

Grant Support February 5, 2019


DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................i

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1-1


1.1 Project Scope and Report Structure ................................................................................................... 1-2
1.2 Hazard and Risk .................................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Project Team .......................................................................................................................................... 1-3

2. Dike Breach Model ................................................................................................... 2-1


2.1 Model Description ................................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Model Updates ....................................................................................................................................... 2-3
2.3 Dike Breach Simulation Results .......................................................................................................... 2-5
2.4 Coastal Flood Results........................................................................................................................... 2-6
2.5 Internal Consistency Checks ............................................................................................................... 2-7

3. Dike Breach Probability........................................................................................... 3-1


3.1 Expert Panel ........................................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.2 Relative Likelihood of Failure .............................................................................................................. 3-3
3.3 Dike Upgrading Scenarios.................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.4 Floodplain-Scale Conditional Failure Probabilities ........................................................................... 3-3
3.5 Validation Using Reliability Functions ................................................................................................ 3-5
3.6 Distribution of Failure Probability ....................................................................................................... 3-6
3.7 Conditional Probability Maps for Dike Breach Inundation ............................................................... 3-6

4. Economic Damages Assessment ........................................................................... 4-1


4.1 Scope and Approach ............................................................................................................................ 4-1
4.2 HAZUS Description ............................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.3 HAZUS Results ...................................................................................................................................... 4-3
4.4 HAZUS Adjustments ............................................................................................................................. 4-4
4.5 Infrastructure Losses............................................................................................................................ 4-7
4.6 Other Losses ......................................................................................................................................... 4-9
4.7 Extrapolation of Results to Other Events ......................................................................................... 4-10
4.8 Breach Probability Weightings .......................................................................................................... 4-10
4.9 Damage Integration Across Events ................................................................................................... 4-14
4.10 Benefit Cost Ratios for Dike Upgrades ............................................................................................. 4-14

5. Loss of Life Estimates ............................................................................................. 5-1


5.1 Risk Tolerance Thresholds .................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.2 Scope and Approach ............................................................................................................................ 5-2
5.3 Population At Risk Assumptions ........................................................................................................ 5-3
5.4 Exposure Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 5-3
5.5 Mortality Functions ............................................................................................................................... 5-5
5.6 Integrating Probability Scenarios ........................................................................................................ 5-8
5.7 Individual Risk Results ....................................................................................................................... 5-10
5.8 Societal (Group) Risk Results ............................................................................................................ 5-11

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

6. Discussion................................................................................................................ 6-1
6.1 Results for Lower and Coastal Floodplain ......................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Results for Upper Floodplain ............................................................................................................... 6-1
6.3 Potential Implications for Provincial Policy ....................................................................................... 6-2
6.4 Key Uncertainties .................................................................................................................................. 6-2
6.5 Mitigation Opportunities ....................................................................................................................... 6-4

7. Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................... 7-1


7.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Recommendations ....................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Closure ................................................................................................................................ 7-1

Glossary of Acronyms ....................................................................................................... 7-1

References .......................................................................................................................... 7-2

Figures
Figure 1-1: District of Squamish Flood Risk Management Initiatives .......................................................... 1-4
Figure 2-1: Conceptual Illustration of Internal Ponding due to Upstream Dike Breach ............................. 2-1
Figure 2-2: Model Domain and Modelled Dike Breach Locations for Squamish River Upper Floodplain 2-8
Figure 2-3: Model Domain and Modelled Dike Breach Locations for Squamish River Lower Floodplain 2-9
Figure 2-4: Preferred and Alternate Alignments for Proposed Sea Dike ................................................... 2-10
Figure 3-1: Joint Probability Concept for Dike Breach Floods...................................................................... 3-1
Figure 3-2: Relative Likelihood of Dike Breach for Upper Squamish River Dike and Mamquam River
North Dike ....................................................................................................................................... 3-8
Figure 3-3: Relative Likelihood of Dike Breach for Lower Squamish River Dike and Mamquam River
South Dike ...................................................................................................................................... 3-9
Figure 3-4: Recommended “Super Dike” Upgrade for Squamish River Dike and Mamquam River South
Dike ............................................................................................................................................... 3-10
Figure 3-5: Inundation Probability Mapping – Technical Approach ........................................................... 3-11
Figure 3-6: Conditional Probability of Inundation – Upper Floodplain Year 2100 200-Year Return Period
Flood with IFHMP “Super Dike” ................................................................................................. 3-12
Figure 3-7: Conditional Probability of Inundation – Lower Floodplain Year 2100 200-Year Return Period
Flood with IFHMP “Super Dike” ................................................................................................. 3-13
Figure 4-1: Typical Approach for Economic Damage Calculations .............................................................. 4-2
Figure 4-2: Probability-Damage Curves for Dike Breach Flooding - Squamish River Upper Floodplain 4-16
Figure 4-3: Probability-Damage Curves for Dike Breach Flooding - Squamish River Lower Floodplain 4-17
Figure 4-4: Probability-Damage Curves for Dike Breach Flooding - Squamish Coastal Floodplain ....... 4-18
Figure 5-1: Frequency-Number of Fatalities Diagram (Figure 11-2 in District of Squamish OCP) ............ 5-2
Figure 5-2: Typical Event Tree for Squamish River Floodplain Risk to Life Assessment ........................ 5-12
Figure 5-3: Mortality Zones for Upper Floodplain Dike Breach during Year 2100 200-Year Return Period
Flood – Netherlands Relationship.............................................................................................. 5-13
Figure 5-4: Mortality Zones for Lower Floodplain Dike Breach during Year 2100 200-Year Return Period
Flood – Netherlands Relationship.............................................................................................. 5-14
Figure 5-5: Mortality Zones for Sea Dike Breach during Year 2100 200-Year Return Period Flood –
Netherlands Relationship ........................................................................................................... 5-15

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Figure 5-6: Probability of Death for Individuals (PDI) - Upper Floodplain Year 2100 Conditions with
IFHMP “Super Dike” – Netherlands Relationship ..................................................................... 5-16
Figure 5-7: Probability of Death for Individuals (PDI) - Lower Floodplain Year 2100 Conditions with
IFHMP “Super Dike” – Netherlands Relationship ..................................................................... 5-17
Figure 5-8: Probability of Death for Individuals (PDI) - Sea Dike Breach under Year 2100 Conditions –
Netherlands Relationship ........................................................................................................... 5-18
Figure 5-9: Probability of Death for Groups (PDG) and Acceptable Risk Criteria - Upper Squamish River
Floodplain – Netherlands Relationship ..................................................................................... 5-19
Figure 5-10: Probability of Death for Groups (PDG) and Acceptable Risk Criteria - Lower Squamish River
Floodplain – Netherlands Relationship ..................................................................................... 5-20
Figure 5-11: Probability of Death for Groups (PDG) and Acceptable Risk Criteria – Squamish Coastal
Floodplain, 1 m SLR – Netherlands Relationship .................................................................. 5-21
Figure 6-1: IFHMP Conceptual Flood Risk Mitigation Strategies for Squamish .......................................... 6-6
Figure 6-2: Flood Risk Management: Buying Down Flood Risk.................................................................... 6-6
Figure 6-3: Partial Probability of Death for Individuals (PDI) - Lower Floodplain Year 2100 200-Year
Return Period Flood with IFHMP “Super Dike” and Intentional Outlet Breaches – Netherlands
Relationship ................................................................................................................................... 6-8
Figure 6-4: Partial Probability of Death for Individuals (PDI) - Lower Floodplain Year 2100 200-Year
Return Period Flood with IFHMP “Super Dike” – Netherlands Relationship........................... 6-9
Figure 6-5: Partial Probability of Death for Groups (PDG) and Acceptable Risk Criteria – Lower
Floodplain Year 2100 200-Year Return Period Flood with and without Intentional Outlet
Breaches – Netherlands Relationship ....................................................................................... 6-10

Tables
Table 2-1: Summary of Return Period Peak Flows for QRA Hydraulic Modelling ....................................... 2-4
Table 2-2: Return Periods for Concurrent River and Coastal Floods ........................................................... 2-5
Table 2-3: Water Surface Elevations for Coastal Flood Scenarios ............................................................... 2-6
Table 3-1: Expert Panel Consensus Estimates of Floodplain-scale Conditional Failure Probability........ 3-5
Table 4-1: HAZUS-MH Flood Damage Estimates ............................................................................................ 4-4
Table 4-2: HAZUS-MH Flood Damage Adjustment Factors ........................................................................... 4-6
Table 4-3: Valuation and Damage Assumptions for Specialized Facilities .................................................. 4-8
Table 4-4: Flood-Related Loss Assumptions for Specialized Infrastructure by Floodplain ...................... 4-9
Table 4-5: Probability-Weighted Flood Damage Estimates for Squamish River Upper Floodplain ........ 4-11
Table 4-6: Probability-Weighted Flood Damage Estimates for Squamish River Lower Floodplain ........ 4-12
Table 4-7: Probability-Weighted Damage Estimates for Dike-Protected Coastal Floodplain .................. 4-13
Table 4-8: Annualized Flood Damages and Dike Upgrading Benefits by Floodplain ............................... 4-14
Table 4-9: Benefit-Cost Ratios for Dike Upgrading ...................................................................................... 4-15
Table 5-1: Typical Residential Occupancies ................................................................................................... 5-3
Table 5-2: Daily Exposure Percentages ........................................................................................................... 5-4
Table 5-3: Evacuation Success Rates .............................................................................................................. 5-4
Table 5-4: Likelihood of Implementing District-Led Evacuation ................................................................... 5-5
Table 5-5: Mortality Functions and Parameters for the Netherlands Relationship ..................................... 5-6
Table 5-6: Mortality Functions and Parameters for the New Orleans Relationship .................................... 5-7
Table 5-7: Example Calculation for Integration of River Dike Breach Probability....................................... 5-9
Table 5-8: Summary of Loss of Life Event Tree Scenarios.......................................................................... 5-10
Table 5-9: Maximum PDI for Squamish River Floodplain ............................................................................ 5-11
Table 6-1: Key Uncertainties for Squamish River Floodplain QRA............................................................... 6-3
Table 6-2: District of Squamish Flood Risk Mitigation Actions since 2006 ................................................. 6-4

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Appendices
Appendix A: Dike Breach Model Output Maps for Upper Squamish River Floodplain
Appendix B: Dike Breach Model Output Maps for Lower Squamish River Floodplain
Appendix C: Representative Inundation Depths and Extents for Coastal Floodplain
Appendix D: Conditional Dike Breach Inundation Probabilities for Upper Squamish River Floodplain
Appendix E: Conditional Dike Breach Inundation Probabilities for Lower Squamish River Floodplain
Appendix F: Mortality Zone Maps for Upper Squamish River Floodplain
Appendix G: Mortality Zone Maps for Lower Squamish River Floodplain
Appendix H: Potential Loss of Life Results for Dike Breach on Upper Squamish River Floodplain
Appendix I: Potential Loss of Life Results for Dike Breach on Lower Squamish River Floodplain
Appendix J: Potential Loss of Life Results for Coastal Floodplain Protected by Proposed Sea Dike
Appendix K: Updated NDMP Risk Assessment Information Template

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Executive Summary
The District of Squamish (District) is a fast-growing community of about 20,000 that has developed on river and
coastal floodplains at the head of Howe Sound. Historical floods caused extensive damage to the community
and resulted in the construction of the Squamish River / Mamquam River dike system. The dike system
currently provides primary flood protection for the heart of the community, including Downtown Squamish.
The District’s recently-completed Integrated Flood Hazard Management Plan (IFHMP) identified a list of
recommended dike upgrades with a capital cost of about $80 million. Proposed IFHMP dike upgrades include a
more robust design standard for the Squamish River / Mamquam River dike system as well as a new 7 km long
sea dike that will protect the community against anticipated Sea Level Rise (SLR). The IFHMP also produced
floodplain mapping and policy tools to guide future planning and development.
When the IFHMP was adopted, staff recognized the need for further analysis to support its substantial and
ongoing financial commitments. The District applied for and received National Disaster Mitigation Program
(NDMP) funding to carry out a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) for the Squamish River floodplain.
IFHMP modelling assessed the potential effects of a river dike breach during the 200-year return period flood
under Year 2100 conditions. The QRA extends this analysis to produce additional parameters, incorporate
larger river flood events, and consider the potential effects of coastal floods. QRA results assess economic
damages and risk to life for three diking scenarios: the existing dike system; a dike system upgraded to meet
provincial standard criteria; and a dike system that meets more stringent criteria established in the IFHMP.
The location of a dike breach can have a strong influence on its consequences. The QRA assembled a panel of
experts who developed a procedure to account for the potential likelihood of dike breaches at different locations
along the dike. These probabilities were extrapolated across the floodplain to understand how the probability of
inundation changes at different locations during different river floods and in response to different dike upgrades.
Direct economic damages were estimated using HAZUS-MH and adjusted for local conditions. Calculations
account for different inundation probabilities in different parts of the floodplain. Results are integrated across a
range of flood events, producing an estimate of annualized damages for each dike upgrading scenario. The
difference in annualized damages before and after a dike upgrade is considered an economic “benefit” of that
upgrade. IFHMP cost estimates are used to produce benefit-cost ratios for each dike upgrading option.
Benefits exceed costs for all QRA dike upgrading scenarios. The benefit-cost ratio for the proposed sea dike is
over 100, reflecting the critical importance of protecting Downtown Squamish against 1 m of SLR. For areas
north of the Mamquam River, benefit-cost ratios of about two reflect the higher costs of upgrading a longer dike.
Loss of life estimates for the QRA build on IFHMP population analyses. The population at risk is adjusted by
applying simple evacuation assumptions. Mortality is estimated using three different published functions. Loss
of life estimates also account for different inundation probabilities in different parts of the floodplain.
The District’s 2018 Official Community Plan (OCP) defines acceptable risk criteria for natural hazards such as
landslides and debris flows. Based on these criteria, QRA results indicate an “Unacceptable” risk to life for
existing dike conditions. Risk to life may remain “unacceptable” even after IFHMP dike upgrades are complete.
Dike upgrades should target a level of protection that is “As Low As Reasonably Practicable” (ALARP). Risks
are considered ALARP when the cost of further mitigation becomes “grossly disproportionate” to the
corresponding reduction in risk.
Results from this QRA will inform the District’s future policy decisions on flood risk management (including both
structural and non-structural measures). Most directly, results will help the District and its partners better
understand the justification for significant ongoing expenditures on proposed dike upgrades.

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

1. Introduction
Squamish is a community of 19,500 people located in a spectacular natural setting. Its natural
advantages include rugged mountain vistas, pristine rivers and one of B.C.’s most beautiful fjords.
However, these same features also expose parts of Squamish to a range of natural hazards, including
floods and related processes. Different kinds of flood-related hazards are present in many areas of the
community, and include:
• river floods on the Squamish, Mamquam, Cheakamus, and Stawamus Rivers;
• debris flows and debris floods on the Cheekeye River and other local watersheds; and
• coastal floods and tsunamis from Howe Sound.
The District of Squamish (the District) is responsible for managing development in flood hazard areas,
as well as providing the community with appropriate flood protection. The Skwxwú7mesh Úxwumixw
(Squamish Nation) has similar responsibilities for reserve lands within the shared floodplain.
A significant portion of the Squamish community is located within the Squamish River floodplain.
Several damaging floods throughout the early and mid-20th century led to the construction of a major
diking system in the early 1980s. Extensive urbanization has occurred within the protected floodplain
since the dikes were completed. The total value of assets at risk within the Squamish River floodplain is
estimated at about $2.4 billion (2018 depreciated values).
In 2014, the District retained Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL) to complete a three-year
assessment of its flood hazards from an integrated or “systems-based” perspective. The result was the
District’s first Integrated Flood Hazard Management Plan (IFHMP). The IFHMP (KWL, 2017c) produced
updated floodplain maps for the Squamish River floodplain. It also identified physical hazards,
economic, social, and environmental consequences that could result if the Squamish River dike
breaches during the 200-year return period flood.
Flood risk mitigation strategies recommended by the IFHMP balance flood protection, community
growth, and environmental objectives. Key deliverables included a prioritized list of structural flood
protection upgrades, significant revisions to the District’s Official Community Plan, the District’s first
floodplain bylaw, and new Development Permit Area guidelines for hazard lands. The IFHMP also
recommended some $80 million in flood protection improvements.
A key District objective for the IFHMP was to reduce and share flood risk fairly. However, due to
resource constraints, the IFHMP was not able to consider all the important components of risk. For
example, the IFHMP was not able to consider the probability or location of a potential dike failure, or the
potential for floods larger than the 200-year return period event. Stakeholders raised questions about
these important issues during IFHMP community engagement activities.
Recognizing the need for further study, the District applied for and received provincial and federal
funding through the National Disaster Mitigation Program (NDMP). The NDMP project extends work
done by the IFHMP to provide a comprehensive Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) for the Squamish
River floodplain.
Results from the Squamish River floodplain QRA will inform the District’s future policy decisions on flood
risk management (including both structural and non-structural measures). Most directly, the results will
help the District and its partners better understand the justification for significant ongoing expenditures
on proposed dike upgrades.

1-1

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

1.1 Project Scope and Report Structure


The QRA took advantage of the detailed dike breach model developed as part of the IFHMP. The
IFHMP’s 200-year dike breach inundation results were updated and extended to include dike breach
inundation during 500-year and 1,000-year return period river floods. The QRA also adopted the
IFHMP’s assumptions about future climate change and future development as described in the IFHMP
River Flood Risk Mitigation Options Report (KWL, 2017d). Further information on updates to the IFHMP
dike breach model are discussed in Section 2 of this report.
Section 3 of this report describes the critical process of accounting for the likelihood and location of a
potential dike breach during a given river flood event. Key deliverables include maps that show how
conditional likelihood of inundation changes across the floodplain during different background flood and
dike upgrading scenarios.
Assessment of potential economic damages using Natural Resources Canada’s HAZUS-MH model are
discussed in Section 4. The section summarizes results into benefit-cost ratios for the existing
Squamish River dike (present-day conditions), a dike upgraded to meet BC’s provincial standards, and
a dike that reflects the “super dike” vision presented in the IFHMP.
Section 5 presents estimates for potential loss of life. The approach combines IFHMP population
estimates with simple assumptions about evacuation and three separate mortality functions drawn from
technical literature. Results are integrated across the range of background floods to allow comparison
of total risk to life for each dike upgrading scenario. Outcomes are compared against risk management
targets outlined in the District’s 2018 Official Community Plan (OCP).
Section 6 summarizes results and describes key uncertainties that should be considered when
reviewing QRA results. Section 6 also describes opportunities to further mitigate flood risk in Squamish.
Summary-level conclusions and recommendations are provided in Section 7.

1.2 Hazard and Risk


The intent of the QRA is to further inform the District’s vision for flood risk mitigation. Risk may be
mitigated (reduced) by reducing either the probability that flooding will affect the community, or by
limiting the consequences that could result if the community is flooded. A brief discussion of the
relationship between hazard, consequence and risk is provided below.
Hazard
A hazard is a natural or man-made condition that can negatively affect society, infrastructure or the
environment. Natural processes like floods can produce both smaller, more frequent hazards and
larger, catastrophic hazards that occur only rarely. An individual hazard event typically has a defined
magnitude and probability (e.g., a 0.5 per cent probability (1 in 200 chance) of being exceeded each
year, also called the 200-year return period design flood). A hazard assessment is a study that
identifies the physical conditions that would be imposed on a community by one or more specified
hazard events.
Consequence
Consequence assessments explore how a community would be affected by specific hazard conditions.
Consequences of a flood could include lives lost, injuries, property damage, business interruption,
environmental degradation, population displacement, disruption of social services, or erosion of a
cultural heritage site. Assessing the consequences of flooding is often more difficult than assessing the
corresponding flood hazard. This project focusses on risk to life and economic damages.

1-2

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Risk
Probability of Expected Consequences
Risk is a function of hazard
probability and corresponding Hazard Low Moderate High
consequences. The table to the High Moderate Risk High Risk High Risk
left shows a simple example of
how risk depends on both Moderate Low Risk Moderate Risk High Risk
hazard and consequences. Low Low Risk Low Risk Moderate Risk
Risk assessment is the process
of evaluating a range of hazards and corresponding consequences. Consequences are often weighted
by hazard probability and combined to obtain an overall estimate of risk. Scenarios included in a risk
assessment typically span a range of consequences from negligible (frequent) to extreme (rare).
Interpreting Results
Risk may be assessed qualitatively by classifying it into descriptive categories. Risk may also be
assessed quantitatively, by providing numerical estimates of expected damages or potential fatalities.
The Squamish River floodplain QRA provides quantitative results for expected economic damages and
potential loss of life. The results are based on many detailed calculations that require a wide range of
assumptions. For example, outcomes reflect expected damages under assumed future development
conditions.
The objective of the QRA is to provide a representative overview of the District’s flood risk portfolio.
Results should not be interpreted as exact or precise at either the lot, reach, or floodplain scale. Further
discussion of key uncertainties is provided in Section 6.

1.3 Project Team


The project was coordinated on behalf of the District by Manager of Municipal Infrastructure David
Roulston, P.Eng., with direction and support from Senior District staff.
KWL’s technical team included the following key people and roles:
• David Roche, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. – Technical Lead
• David Sellars, M.Sc., P.Eng. – Senior Technical Review
• Alisson Seuarz, M.Eng., EIT – Project Engineer
• Eva Li, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. – Modelling Engineer
The project was managed on behalf of KWL by Lawrence Francois, M.Sc., P.Eng.
Ten Squamish Nation reserves are located throughout the local floodplains, creating an inseparable
common interest in flood protection between the District and the Squamish Nation. The Squamish River
and Mamquam River dikes cross or protect all or parts of five reserves:
• Waiwakum I.R. No. 14
• Aikwucks I.R. No. 15
• Seaichem I.R. No. 16
• Kowtain I.R. No. 17
• Yekwaupsum I.R. No. 18
Technical input and co-ordination of feedback from the Squamish Nation was provided on behalf of
Chiefs and Council by Squamish Valley Administrator Paul Wick.

1-3

0463.323-300
\\bbyfs1.kwl.ca\0000-0999\0400-0499\463-323\501-Drawings\b_Figures\463323_Fig1-1_OrgChart.cdr

District of Squamish
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain

Floodplain
Management Bylaw
(2017)
Risk-Informed
Site-Specific
Floodplain
Engineering Input
Development
Natural Hazards
Development Permit Area
(2018)

Future OCP
Updates
IFHMP
(2017) Official Community
Plan Updates
(2018)
Squamish Floodplain
Capital Funding Dike Construction
QRA
Decisions (On-going)
(2018)

Emergency Planning
Updates
(On-going)

Prioritized Plan for


Dike Upgrades
(2017)

Project No. 463.323


Date October 2018
District of Squamish
Flood Risk Management Initiatives Figure 1-1
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

2. Dike Breach Model


This section provides an overview of the dike breach model developed for the IFHMP and updates
completed to support the QRA. It also presents results of QRA dike breach simulations.

2.1 Model Description


The low-lying floodplain on the left bank of the Squamish River is diked from the Cheekeye Fan to
tidewater at Howe Sound. The Mamquam River divides the Squamish River dike into two sections. The
“upper” Squamish River dike connects to the Mamquam River’s north (right bank) dike. The “lower”
Squamish River dike connects to the Mamquam River’s south (left bank) dike. Development within the
diked upper and lower floodplains represents a substantial part of the Squamish community.
The diking systems that protect the upper floodplain and lower floodplain are completely independent.
This means that a dike breach along the dikes protecting the upper floodplain would not result in
flooding on the lower floodplain, and vice versa. This allows the upper and lower floodplain areas to be
modelled separately. It is important to note that independent dike breaches could still occur on both
floodplains at the same time. The probability of failure is related typically to the intensity of the flood
event, which affects both dike systems.
As water from a dike breach flows into the upper floodplain, dikes at the south end will stop that water
from returning to the river. This results in an internal ponding situation (a “bathtub” effect). In this
situation, water levels within the floodplain will continue to rise until water from the floodplain can flow
over the dike back to the river. The proposed sea dike around downtown Squamish (KWL, 2017b) will
create a similar situation for the lower floodplain south of the Mamquam River, as shown in Figure 2-1
below.

Figure 2-1: Conceptual Illustration of Internal Ponding due to Upstream Dike Breach

2-1

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3 show the modelling domains for the upper and lower floodplains, respectively.

Model Inputs
The IFHMP model combines a calibrated one-dimensional representation of the river network with a
detailed two-dimensional representation of the floodplain. The two-dimensional floodplain is required to
simulate how water will spread out across the floodplain during a dike breach.
Development of the 1D river model is described in a 2011 report titled “Squamish River and Mamquam
River Survey and Flood Assessment” (KWL, 2011). Key data for the 2D modelling component
(including river flows, coastal water levels, topography and bathymetry, orthophotos, and GIS / cadastral
information) are described in the IFHMP Background Report (KWL, 2017a) and River Flood Risk
Mitigation Options report (KWL, 2017d).
Peak flow hydrographs based on the 2003 flood provide the upstream boundary conditions for the
coupled 1D-2D model. Inflow from the river to the floodplain is calculated automatically within the Mike
Flood model based on user-specified dike breach geometry and timing as well as the relative water
levels calculated by the model on either side of the breach. Dike breach parameters and geometry are
described in the IFHMP River Flood Risk Mitigation Options report (KWL, 2017d).
The downstream boundary condition for the upper floodplain model is the corresponding flood elevation
at the confluence of the Mamquam River and Squamish River. The downstream boundary condition for
the 1D model and lower floodplain model is a winter tide series with a peak water level that reflects a
coincident coastal flood.
Water levels within the diked floodplains are generally independent of the downstream boundary
conditions, since the flow leaving the floodplain is controlled by the confining dikes rather than the
boundary condition itself.
The downstream boundary of the lower floodplain is shown as the “alternate” alignment for the
proposed sea dike in Figure 2-4. The preferred alignment was selected as part of the IFHMP process.
The choice of sea dike alignment is not expected to have a significant impact on model results.

Model Scenarios
The IFHMP concluded that a total of eight dike breach modelling scenarios were required to provide a
reasonable representation of hazard and consequence. Four breach locations were required on each of
the upper and lower floodplain areas. These eight breach scenarios collectively provide an acceptable
representation of the general hydraulic response of the floodplain under dike breach conditions.
The four upper floodplain breach locations include Judd Slough at I.R. No.14 (“I.R. No. 14”), Judd
Slough at 1050 Depot Road (“Upper Judd Slough”), Eagle Run at Dryden Creek pump station (“Eagle
Run”), and the eastern perimeter of the Squamish Valley Golf & Country Club (“Golf Course”).
The four lower floodplain breach scenarios include Brennan Channel at the Mamquam Reunion Intake
(“Brennan Channel”), the north end of Loggers Lane east of Highway 99 (“Loggers Lane”), the south
end of CN Rail’s Mamquam River bridge (“CN Rail”), and the north end of Whittaker Slough (“Whittaker
Slough”).
Selected dike breach locations for the upper floodplain and lower floodplain are shown on Figure 2-2
and Figure 2-3, respectively.
IFHMP 2D floodplain modelling focused exclusively on assumed Year 2100 development conditions. A
detailed description of Year 2100 development assumptions can be found in the IFHMP River Flood

2-2

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Risk Mitigation Options report (KWL, 2017d). A focus on Year 2100 conditions means that the results of
the modelling will remain relevant as a target throughout the implementation of a long-term mitigation
plan. However, results may not provide an accurate picture of flood hazard under present-day
conditions. The accuracy of results may also be limited if floodplain development follows a different
path from that assumed in the IFHMP.

2.2 Model Updates


The IFHMP model already contained most of the functionality required to support the QRA. Targeted
updates were required to the model software, dike heights, boundary conditions, and run-time
calculations.

Software Updates
IFHMP dike breach modelling utilized the Mike Flood-FM (Flexible Mesh) program produced and
maintained by software developer DHI. Mike Flood couples together two other DHI models: the 2D
model Mike 21 FM and the one-dimensional (1D) hydrodynamic model Mike 11.
To support the additional run-time calculations required by the QRA, the software was updated from
MikeFLOOD 2014 Service Pack 3 to MikeFLOOD 2017 Service Pack 1. Coherence testing successfully
confirmed that the 2014 and 2017 software versions provided comparable results; however, the results
were not an exact match. For consistency across QRA results, all IFHMP 200-year return period flood
simulations were recomputed using the updated software. The QRA is not intended to update “official”
IFHMP results incorporated into the District’s Floodplain Bylaw and OCP.

Dike Heights
The IFHMP assumed that dikes would be raised to the 200-year return period flood level plus
appropriate freeboard. Analysis of larger flood events for the QRA required further adjustments to the
assumed dike heights.
Dike crests for the lower model were set at an elevation that would not be exceeded during the 500-year
and 1,000-year floods (except at the assumed dike breach locations).
Dike heights for much of the upper model were also raised, with three notable exceptions. At these
locations, the dike was held at “provincial standard” elevations (200-year return period flood plus
freeboard):
• along Harris Slough at the downstream end of the lower floodplain, where water from a dike breach
flows back over the dike to the river;
• along Eagle Run upstream of Seaichem I.R. No. 16, where existing and future development limits
floodplain conveyance and forces water back out over the dike during the largest dike breach
events; and
• along the Mamquam River north dike, where the IFHMP did not recommend raising the dike crest
beyond the “provincial standard” criteria.
Dike heights along Eagle Run are particularly critical. Model results suggest that a dike breach at Upper
Judd Slough could divert as much as 25 per cent of the Squamish River peak flow into Brackendale.
The two major flood routes out of Brackendale (Judd Road / Government Road and Eagle Run Drive)
are constrained by adjacent development and fill assumptions. As breach inflow increases, these routes
begin to throttle the amount of flow that reaches the Eagle Viewing Area. As much as 40 per cent of the

2-3

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

inflow from a Judd Slough dike breach could be pushed back to the river over the Eagle Run dike during
a 1,000-year flood. The trade-off between lower dike protection and reduced consequences from an
upstream dike breach should be explored further as part of dike upgrading designs in this area.

Upstream Boundary Conditions


The 200-year return period inflow conditions at the upstream end of the 1D model were extrapolated to
incorporate 500-year and 1,000-year return period inflow conditions. Hydrographs from the 2003 flood
were re-scaled to match the required peak flows as described in the IFHMP Background Report (KWL,
2017a). Return period peak flows used in the QRA are summarized in the table below. All flows include
a +10 per cent precautionary allowance for climate change as recommended by Engineers and
Geoscientists BC (2018).
Table 2-1: Summary of Return Period Peak Flows for QRA Hydraulic Modelling
Instantaneous Peak Discharge (m3/s)
River/Creek Notes
200-year 500-year 1,000-year
Return Period Return Period Return Period
• at WSC 08GA022 (2,350 km2)
Squamish River 4,480 5,370 6,130
• Q200i from scaled 2003 hydrograph
• at WSC 08GA043 (965 km2)
Cheakamus River 1,760 2,260 2,700
• Q200i from scaled 2003 hydrograph
• IFHMP includes Cheakamus local inflow
Cheekeye River 290 340 400
• Q200i from regional analysis (71 km²)
• at mouth (377 km2)
Mamquam River 1,000 1,200 1,390
• Q200i estimated from regional analysis

Ring Creek N/A N/A N/A • accounted for in Mamquam River flow

Mashiter Creek N/A N/A N/A • accounted for in Mamquam River flow

• at mouth (20 km2)


Fries Creek 110 130 150
• Q200i estimated from regional analysis
Squamish • total area 19 km2
110 130 150
Tributary Area ‘A’ • Q200i estimated from regional analysis
Squamish • total area 14 km2
85 100 100
Tributary Area ‘C’ • Q200i estimated from regional analysis

Downstream Boundary Condition - Upper Model


Downstream boundary conditions for the IFHMP upper model were held constant at the 200-year return
period flood level at the Mamquam River confluence. Downstream boundary conditions for the QRA’s
500-year return period dike breach simulation was also held constant at the corresponding flood level.
The downstream flood level for the 1,000-year return period flood exceeds the provincial standard dike
level. Based on the dike crest assumptions described above, water from the Squamish River /
Mamquam River confluence would overtop the dike into Garibaldi Estates for a brief period. The 1,000-
year return period constant water level was replaced with a water level (“stage”) hydrograph to
approximate this effect.

2-4

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

A realistic stage hydrograph was obtained by completing from a preliminary run of the dike breach
model. The boundary condition stage hydrograph assumes that the lower Squamish River dike would
breach during the flood, providing relief flow through the lower floodplain and reducing water levels at
the confluence. This assumption is considered realistic for a 1,000-year return period flood event.

Downstream Boundary Condition – Lower Model


The IFHMP Background Report (KWL, 2017a) concluded that coastal and river floods in Squamish are
partially correlated. Based on the IFHMP analysis, it is reasonable to assume a 10-year return period
coastal flood concurrent with the 200-year return period river flood.
Coastal boundary conditions for the QRA’s lower floodplain dike breach model were obtained by
extrapolating the IFHMP’s 10:200 coastal-river flood frequency ratio to other combinations of coastal
and river flood conditions. Resulting return periods for all concurrent river and coastal floods are shown
in the table below. All coastal floods include a 1 m allowance for Sea Level Rise (SLR) as
recommended in provincial guidelines (BC MFLNRORD, 2018).
Table 2-2: Return Periods for Concurrent River and Coastal Floods

River Flood Coastal Flood


Return Period Return Period

200 years 10 years


500 years 20 years
1,000 years 50 years

Run-time Processing Tools


The IFHMP utilized DHI’s EcoLab module to estimate physical hazard in terms of the UK’s Hazard
Rating (HR), a mathematical combination of depth, velocity, and debris factors. Mortality functions used
in the QRA’s loss of life assessment required a simpler calculation of depth x velocity for use in loss of
life calculations. Some calculations also required an estimate of the maximum rate of rise over a one-
hour period. With updated MIKEFLOOD software, KWL was able to modify the EcoLab module to
complete these calculations. First-principles calculations verified the EcoLab results prior to undertaking
any QRA simulations.

2.3 Dike Breach Simulation Results


After testing the model updates, a total of 24 dike breach simulations were completed. Each simulation
provided five parameters of interest: water surface elevation, depth, velocity, depth x velocity, and rate
of rise. A total of 120 spatially-distributed maxima were extracted from the resulting outputs.
Dike breach zone calculations were updated for each output parameter based on the process described
in the IFHMP River Flood Risk Mitigation Options report (KWL, 2017d). Simulation results for 500-year
and 1,000-year conditions validate the breach zone prediction relationships identified by the IFHMP.
For efficiency, the breach zone width was held constant at IFHMP values for all events.
Dike breach zone results were combined with corresponding model output to generate composite
envelope maps for each parameter on each floodplain. As described in the IFHMP (KWL, 2017c),
composite envelope results show worst-case results for each location on the floodplain (rather than the

2-5

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

results of a single dike breach at a specific location). For the IFHMP, these results allowed the District
to plan mitigation options at the floodplain scale. For the QRA, the composite results provide a
reasonable (but conservative) basis for interpolating results at breach locations that were not modelled.
A total of 30 composite envelope maps were produced (5 parameters of interest x 3 river flood events x
2 floodplains). Composite envelope maps for the upper floodplain are provided in Appendix A.
Composite envelope maps for the lower floodplain are provided in Appendix B.

2.4 Coastal Flood Results


Coastal flood impacts were not originally part of the NDMP-funded QRA. The additional effort was
added to the project scope at District cost so that the benefits of the proposed sea dike could be
considered with (and prioritized against) improvements to the upstream river dikes.
For coastal flood inundation scenarios, depth maps were developed by extrapolating the appropriate
coastal flood level upstream across the floodplain until the water level matched the LiDAR ground
elevation. Representative maps showing inundation depth and extent for the coastal floodplain are
provided in Appendix C.
Scope and schedule limitations required that the QRA neglect potential wind set-up and wave effects
that could accompany a coastal flood. The analysis therefore focusses on the Designated Flood Level
(i.e., still-water flood level) at Howe Sound as defined in the IFHMP Background Report (KWL, 2017a).
DFLs for the coastal flood at various return periods are reported in the table below.

Table 2-3: Water Surface Elevations for Coastal Flood Scenarios


DFL Water Surface
Coastal Flood
Elevations
Return Period
(m)

5 years 3.60

10 years 3.69

20 years 3.77

50 years 3.87

100 years 3.93

200 years 3.99

500 years 4.06

1,000 years 4.11

2-6

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

2.5 Internal Consistency Checks


Since completion of the IFHMP, no new high-flow data is available to update the river model calibration.
No data exists to calibrate the dike breach model. For all scenarios, most of the Mike Flood
hydrodynamic simulation parameters were set to the values described in the IFHMP River Flood Risk
Mitigation Options report (KWL, 2017d).
While calibration was not possible, QRA results were validated against IFHMP results (for the 200-year
return period event) and checked for internal consistency. Internal consistency checks compared
results within and between events against physically-based expectations. For example, depths and
velocities for the 1,000-year return period event should generally be greater than those for the 200-year
return period event.
Final QRA hydraulic model results provided acceptable validation for all internal consistency checks.

2-7

0463.323-300
Path: O:\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\463323_Figure_2-2.mxd Date Saved: 11/7/2018 4:23:50 PM
Author: ASeuarz

"
/
I.R. No. 14
Dike Breach 2D Floodplain
Model Extent

"
/
Upper Judd Slough
Dike Breach

Eagle Run
Dike Breach

Existing Squamish River Dike


"
/

Upper Model
River
mish
ua
Sq
KK
@

Existing Mamquam River Dike

Golf Course
Dike Breach

Mam
"
/
qu
KK@
a
m
Ri

r
ve

DRAFT
Reference: 2013 Orthophoto from The District of Squamish.

Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL).
The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution
to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written
permission of KWL is prohibited.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2018 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Project No. Date


463-323 November 2018
Model Domain and Modelled Dike Breach Locations
400 0 400
(m) for Squamish River Upper Floodplain
1:18,000 Figure 2-2
Pa t
h :\\
b b yfs 1.
kwl.
ca\
0000-
0999\
0400-
0499\
463-
323\
430-
GIS\
MXD-
Rp\
Dra ft
Re port
\463323_Fig ure _2-
3.mx
dDa t
e Sa v
e d:1
1/21/
20182:
41:
56PM
Auth or:ASe ua rz

Existing Squamish River Dike


Existing Mamquam River Dike

"
/
RIVE
AM
"
/ R

U
@
KK

MQ
MA
CN Railway
Whittaker Slough Dike Breach "
/
Dike Breach
"
/

Loggers Lane Brennan Channel


Dike Breach Dike Breach

Lower Model

W
IL
S
O
N
R

2D Floodplain
S
VE

L
O
U

Model Extent
G
RI

H
SH

Area tion
MI

a
serv
UA

H
UG
SQ

Co n

LO
S
T
KK

N
E
@

C
ES
CR
KK@

Modelled Alignment
of Future Sea Dike
BRIDGE
POND
NEL
AN
CH
H
G
U

D
O

IN
SL

BL
LE
O

AM
M
R

r
U
E

ve
Q
T

ou
T

M
A

nc
A
C

Va
to
uth
So
y 99
Hw

HOWE SOUND Notes:

DRAFT
owe Sound
Th e IFHMPCoa s t a lFloodHa za rdMit ig a t
ion Stra t
egy
a ndFloodProt ec tion Opt ions Fina lDra ftRe port
(KWLFile No.0463. 278)re c om m e nde da s e a dike to
prot ectdownt own from c oa s t
a lfloodh a za rds .Th e Fut ure
Reference: 2013Ort
h oph ot
o from Th e Dis t
rictof Squa m is h .
Se a Dike h a s b e e n include din a lldike b re a c
h m ode lling .
Copyright Notice: Th e s e m a t e ria ls a re c opy rig h tof Ke rr WoodLe ida lAs s ocia t e s Ltd.( KWL) .
Th e Dis t rictof Squa m is h is pe rm it t e dt o re produc e th e mat e ria ls for a rch iv ing a ndfor dis t rib ut
ion
t
ot h irdpa rt ie s onlya s re quire dt oc onductb us ine s s s pe c ifica llyre la ting t ot h e Q ua ntit
at iv e Ris k Dis trict’s pre fe rre da lig nm e ntfollows T own Dike a nd
dive rg e s from t h e m ode lle da lig nm e nta ts om e loca t
ions .
As s e s s m e ntfor Squa m is h Riv e r Floodpla in.Anyot h e r us e of t he se m at e ria ls wit h outth e writ t
en
pe rm is s ion of KWLis proh ib it e d.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
©2018Ke rr WoodLe ida lAs s ocia t
e s Lt
d.

Proje ctNo. Da t
e
463-
323 Nove m b e r 2018
Model Domain and Modelled Dike Breach Locations
for Squamish River Lower Floodplain
400 0 400

Figure 2-3
(
m)
1:
19,
000
Legend Squamish Nation
Yekwaupsum I.R. No. 18 E
Existing Dike

Hwy 99 North to Whistler


Proposed SODC Flood and Erosion
Protection
Natural / Beach (> 5H:1V)

Bioengineering (3H:1V - 5H:1V)

Riprap (2H:1V - 5H:1V)

Seawall (Vertical) Industrial


Park

Squamish River Dike

Dentville

High Ground
(Landfill)

GH Study
U
O
Area tion
Area #4
L
S
a
T
serv
KK
N

Con
E

@
C
S

Alternate Town Dike


E

Study
R

ER
Sea Dike
C KK@

V
Area #3
RI
Alignment

H Downtown
Squamish
IS

Stawamus River Dike


Path: \\bbyfs1.kwl.ca\0000-0999\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\463323_Figure_2-4.mxd Date Saved: 11/21/2018 3:14:46 PM

M
UA

Preferred
Sea Dike
SQ

Alignment

Squamish River
Training Berm Study
Area #2

Squamish Nation
Stawamus I.R. No. 24
NEL
H

AN
G

Study
U

CH

Area #1
O
SL

D
LE

IN
O

BL
M
R

SODC Squamish Nation


E

AM

Lands Stawamus River Dike


T
T

U
A

Squamish
r
C

ve

Terminals
M

ou

DRAFT
A

nc
M

Va
to
uth
So

Reference: 2013 Orthophoto provided by the District of Squamish.


Note:
99

Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal


y

The preferred and alternate sea dike alignments have


Hw

Associates Ltd. (KWL). The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce


the materials for archiving and for distribution to third parties only as required been described in Section 7 (Figure 7-1 and Figure 7-2)
to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk Assessment
for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the E of the District of Squamish IFHMP Coastal Flood Risk
Mitigation Options Report (KWL File No. 0463.278).
written permission of KWL is prohibited.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2018 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Project No. Date


463-323 November 2018
Preferred and Alternate Alignments
Author: ASeuarz

500 0 500
for Proposed Sea Dike
Figure 2-4
(m)
1:24,000
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

3. Dike Breach Probability


There are many potential ways that a dike can fail. Potential failure mechanisms include overtopping,
outflanking, surface erosion, internal erosion, undermining, and instability under static, dynamic, or
seismic loads. Different failure modes can progress independently on different parts of the dike. This
makes assessing dike breach probability one of the most technically complex parts of the Squamish
River floodplain QRA.
Floodplain inundation due to dike failure is first and foremost dependent on the occurrence of a flood on
the adjacent river. During minor floods, a dike is very unlikely to fail even if it has pre-existing
deficiencies. During a major flood – for example, if an earthfill dike is overtopped by a substantial flow
for an extended period – failure is virtually certain. The likelihood of inundation on a diked floodplain
depends on both the probability of the flood and the probability that the dike will fail under flood loading.
This concept is illustrated graphically in Figure 3-1.

1
Probability

P(flood)
P(breach|flood)
P(flood) * P(breach | flood)

0
Increasing River Flood Peak Flow

Figure 3-1: Joint Probability Concept for Dike Breach Floods


The joint probability curve in Figure 3-1 shows that the likelihood of inundation due to dike breach
(green line) starts low, rises to a maximum, then begins to decline with inundation probability
approaching the probability of the background flood.
The QRA must balance an appropriate level of engineering effort against the need to capture a range of
flood and breach scenarios. River flood scenarios for the QRA (200-year, 500-year, and 1,000-year
return period events) were carefully selected to provide a context-appropriate characterization of the
floodplain. In addition, the chosen scenarios support comparison of upgrading alternatives for the
Squamish River dike. Scenarios selected for the QRA reflect three criteria:
1. A dike breach condition that occurs during the dike’s design flood, where the failure probability is or
should be relatively low (200-year return period event);
2. A “most likely dike breach condition” that is expected to maximize the likelihood of dike breach
inundation (500-year return period event); and

3-1

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

3. A flood that would result in sustained overtopping of the earthfill dike, resulting in a very high
likelihood of failure (1,000-year return period event).
To complete a quantitative assessment of flood consequences, a specific probability of inundation must
be assigned to each part the floodplain. Many studies adopt a simple assumption that the dike will
remain intact up to its design event and fail under all greater floods. A second assumption often follows:
that the assumed failure probability can be applied to inundation of the entire floodplain. These
assumptions can be reasonable for small, flat floodplains with relatively large flood sources.
The simplified assumptions described above were applied for the coastal floodplain. However, the
simplified assumptions omit a key element of risk for long, sloping floodplains like those of the Squamish
River. On both Squamish River floodplains, downstream conveyance and internal ponding (“bathtub”)
conditions are expected to be significant.
This section describes the general approach taken to:
• define dike failure probability at the floodplain scale;
• distribute floodplain-scale failure probabilities along the dike; and
• extrapolate failure probabilities from the dike to the inundated floodplain.
The process included an assessment of relative failure likelihood, identification of dike upgrading
alternatives, definition of consensus expert opinions based on experience and engineering judgement,
validation using dike fragility theory, distribution of breach probability along each dike reach, and
development of linkages between flood hazard areas and specific breach locations.
The process resulted in a series of maps showing conditional inundation probability for each location on
the floodplain, given specific dike upgrading assumptions and background flood conditions.
The following subsections provide a detailed discussion of each of these processes.

3.1 Expert Panel


An accurate understanding of dike failure probability requires very detailed knowledge of expected flood
loads and geotechnical conditions. Collection and analysis of this data is far beyond the scope of the
Squamish River floodplain QRA. The QRA adopted the more reasonable objective of producing
representative failure probabilities that are consistent with the best available local knowledge and
engineering judgement.
To achieve these results, the QRA assembled a panel consisting of three senior engineers recognized
for their river engineering experience throughout and beyond BC. The QRA’s expert panel included:
• C. David Sellars, M.Sc., P.Eng.
• Mike V. Currie, M.Eng., P.Eng., FEC
• Adrian G. Chantler, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Collectively, these experts bring over 130 years of engineering experience to the QRA’s expert panel.
Additional local knowledge support for the expert panel was provided by the District’s Manager of
Municipal Infrastructure David Roulston, who leads the District’s flood protection initiatives, and KWL’s
David Roche, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., who led the IFHMP and has previously completed comprehensive
inspections of all Squamish dikes on behalf of the District.

3-2

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

3.2 Relative Likelihood of Failure


The expert panel’s review began with a locally-informed discussion of relative failure likelihood. This
process established reaches along each dike where one or more factors suggest an increased
likelihood of failure. The review considered factors such as dike height, exposure to river attack,
riparian setback (or lack thereof), known dike deficiencies (e.g., history of geotechnical instability or
piping), presence of mature vegetation, and the location of appurtenant structures.
Each 100 m of dike was assigned one of four classes (low, moderate, high, extreme). A geometric
progression of relative likelihood was applied to the classes. As a result, each step up in class doubles
the assumed relative likelihood of failure.
Results were mapped along the Squamish River and Mamquam River dikes at 10 m increments. Figure
3-2 shows relative failure likelihood results for the upper Squamish River floodplain (upper Squamish
River dike and north Mamquam River dike). Figure 3-3 shows relative failure likelihood results for the
lower Squamish River floodplain (south Mamquam River dike and lower Squamish River dike).
Unlike the river dikes, failure of the proposed sea dike was assumed to be location-independent. The
likelihood of failure is assumed to be uniformly distributed along the length of the proposed sea dike.

3.3 Dike Upgrading Scenarios


The QRA estimated flood risk for three upgrading scenarios of river dike:
• “existing dike”, which reflects the dike status at the end of 2017, including upgrades currently in
progress but not those currently being planned or contemplated;
• “standard dike”, where the dike system has been upgraded to meet, but not exceed, provincial
standards in all material aspects; and
• “super dike”, where the dike system meets the IFHMP’s “super dike” criteria (shown in Figure 3-4)
along the upper Squamish River dike, south Mamquam River dike, and lower Squamish River dike,
and meets “standard dike” criteria for the north Mamquam River dike.
All upgraded river dikes are assumed to follow their present-day alignment.
The District’s coastal perimeter (including the existing sea dike) currently protects against a range of
coastal flood levels. For simplicity, the “existing sea dike” scenario was assumed to provide full
protection against water levels less than 3.6 m geodetic elevation. This value is approximately equal to
the present-day 200-year return period flood plus 0.6 m freeboard. With 1 m SLR, an elevation of 3.6 m
is expected to match the 5-year return period coastal DFL. The “existing sea dike” is not expected to
provide protection against future coastal floods larger than the 5-year return period DFL.
The proposed sea dike was assumed to meet the performance criteria established in the IFHMP, i.e.,
200-year still-water DFL plus the greater of 0.6 m freeboard or the height required to maintain maximum
10 L/s/m wave overtopping (KWL, 2017b).

3.4 Floodplain-Scale Conditional Failure Probabilities


Once relative failure likelihood and dike upgrading scenarios were clearly defined, the expert panel was
asked to estimate a conditional probability of dike failure for each pairing of background flood and dike
upgrading scenario. These “floodplain-scale” estimates describe the likelihood of a failure occurring at
some point along a defined dike reach. This in turn allows the expert panel’s estimate to implicitly

3-3

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

account for the effects of dike length (i.e., in the absence of other factors, a longer dike should have a
higher probability of failure than a shorter dike).
Dike reaches are defined as follows for the purposes of estimating floodplain-scale failure probability:
• the upper Squamish River dike from Waiwakum I.R. No. 14 to the Mamquam River CN Rail
crossing (length ±6.2 km);
• the lower Squamish River dike from Highway 99 to the Squamish Spit access (length ±2.8 km);
• the north Mamquam River dike from the upstream end of the Squamish Golf Club to the CN Rail
crossing (length ±3.2 km); and
• the south Mamquam River dike from high ground near the Coast Aggregates quarry to Highway 99
(length ±1.5 km).
The dividing point between the south Mamquam River dike and lower Squamish River dike is typically
taken as the south end of the Mamquam River CN Rail crossing. However, IFHMP and QRA modelling
results show that the fill prism of Highway 99 acts as a significant east-west flow separator as far south
as about Industrial Way. This means that the majority of inundation from dike breaches east of Highway
99 will remain on the east side of Highway 99 and vice versa. To account for this, failure probabilities
must be estimated separately for areas east and west of Highway 99.
A key exception to separating effects east and west of highway 99 is the underpass at Centennial Way.
The expert panel agreed that this effect could be addressed by “crossing over” the spatially-distributed
failure probabilities assigned to the dike for a short distance upstream and downstream of Highway 99.
A crossover distance of 300 m was deemed appropriate. This implies that a dike breach within 300 m of
Highway 99 will contribute to the likelihood of inundation on the other side of the highway fill.
The expert panel produced its results through independent review and a series of three facilitated
workshops. Each expert arrived at the workshops with a set of independently-derived probabilities.
Discrepancies between the individual estimates were largely resolved by reviewing and standardizing
the basis for each party’s initial findings. Comparison of expected responses for different dikes and dike
upgrading / flood scenarios played an important role in shaping the discussions. Final compromise
adjustments required to achieve consensus were typically in the range of 5-10 per cent.
The expert panel’s consensus estimates for floodplain-scale conditional dike failure probability are
summarized below in Table 3-1.
All members of the expert panel were satisfied that the consensus conditional probabilities are suitable
for the purposes of the QRA. All members of the expert panel also affirmed that the values should be
treated as judgement-based engineering estimates and interpreted with a corresponding degree of
uncertainty.
Table 3-1 includes failure probabilities during a 100-year return period flood for the existing dike and
standard dike upgrading scenarios. Modelling did not produce data for this event; however, the expert
panel agreed that this additional point should be included in risk calculations given the known
performance deficiencies of the existing dike during the 2003 flood. IFHMP frequency analysis (KWL,
2017a) confirmed that the 2003 flood had an estimated return period less than or equal to 100 years.
Some of the deficiencies observed in 2003 have not yet been addressed, suggesting that the existing
dike should have a significant probability of failure during the 100-year return period flood.

3-4

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Table 3-1: Expert Panel Consensus Estimates of Floodplain-scale Conditional Failure Probability
Flood Scenario
Upgrading
Dike
Scenario 100-year 200-year 500-year 1,000-year
Return Period Return Period Return Period Return Period

Existing Dike 15% 50% 100% Note 1

Squamish River
Standard Dike 5% 15% 90% Note 1
(Upper)

“Super Dike” 0% 2% 10% 50%

Existing Dike 10% 40% 100% Note 1

Squamish River
(Lower) Standard Dike 5% 10% 90% Note 1

“Super Dike” 0% 2% 5% 30%

Existing Dike 0% 20% 70% 90%


Mamquam River
(North)
Standard Dike 0% 10% 40% 80%

Existing Dike 0% 10% 30% 90%

Mamquam River
(South) Standard Dike 0% 5% 15% 80%

“Super Dike” 0% 2% 5% 25%

Proposed Standard Dike


0% 10% 35% 95%
Sea Dike (per IFHMP)

Note 1: Water levels would significantly overtop the dike along its entire length. Multiple dike failures expected.

3.5 Validation Using Reliability Functions


Other countries have advanced farther than Canada in the application of risk and reliability theory to
flood protection. A brief literature review found that the United States, United Kingdom, Netherlands,
and Germany have applied fragility theory as an approach for exploring dike failure probability. Fragility
theory involves a stochastic framework of physically-based and statistical methods that define failure
characteristics for homogeneous sections of dike where the consequences of breach are comparable.
A fragility-based analysis is far beyond the scope of the Squamish River floodplain QRA. However,
generalized fragility curves produced for the United Kingdom (Defra and EA, 2007) can be used to
provide a degree of validation for the expert panel consensus estimates of conditional dike failure
probability.
Specific fragility curves were selected based on the type of dike, its condition, and the presence or
absence of erosion protection measures on the front slope, crest, and backslope. As an initial

3-5

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

approximation, water levels were assumed to be separated by 0.6 m for each event (e.g., such that the
500-year return period water level would be at the crest level of a dike designed to have 0.6 m
freeboard above the 200-year flood). Water levels for each flood event were assumed to vary
stochastically, following a normal distribution centered on the “assumed” value and with a standard
deviation of 0.2 m (i.e., such that 99.7 per cent of possible values fall within ±0.6 m of the “assumed
value).
The subjective nature of these assumptions precludes direct application of the results. Notwithstanding
the significant assumptions, results from the fragility curves provides reasonable validation of the expert
panel’s consensus values. In particular, the approach provides useful context for validating the
consistency of results across different dike upgrading scenarios.

3.6 Distribution of Failure Probability


The expert panel’s consensus estimates for floodplain-scale conditional dike failure probability were
distributed along the dike at 10 m increments. The distribution process incorporated the relative dike
breach likelihood as described in Section 3.2. The cumulative probability assigned to each point reflects
the chance of a breach occurring at or upstream of that location. At the upstream end of the dike, these
cumulative probabilities increase quickly with each step downstream but are relatively low in magnitude.
Toward the downstream end of the dike, the incremental increases become smaller as the cumulative
probability of an upstream failure approaches the expert panel’s floodplain-scale estimate.
Once failure probabilities are defined along the dike, they must be associated with the areas that will be
inundated if a breach occurs. Hydraulic model results from individual dike breach scenarios confirm that
dike breaches at different locations can have very different inundation areas. For example, the I.R. No.
14 breach will inundate large parts of Brackendale, while the Eagle Run breach would only flood the
southeastern corner. Similarly, the CN Rail breach on the lower floodplain is unlikely to cause extensive
flooding east of the Highway 99 bridge.
The eight dike breach locations modelled for the QRA are not sufficient to generalize the inundation
extents for other breach locations. To approximate an area for any breach location, KWL used total
head (river level minus floodplain elevation) to estimate the potential depth in a dike breach at 10 m
intervals each length of the dike. These water levels provide an upper envelope to the elevation of
terrain that could be flooded by each potential dike breach.
A smoothed version of the floodplain Digital Elevation Model was used to extrapolate potential dike
breach water levels across the floodplain to high ground. The result defines an approximate (but
conservative) inundated area for each potential breach location.
At each location along the dike, the inundation area (based on expected breach water levels and
floodplain DEM) is combined with the cumulative upstream breach probability (from spatial distribution
of the expert panel’s estimates). The result is a conditional dike breach probability that can be assigned
to each grid cell in the floodplain.
The process of combining breach inundation area and cumulative probability is shown in Figure 3-5.

3.7 Conditional Probability Maps for Dike Breach Inundation


The spatial distribution process described above was repeated for each combination of dike upgrading
scenario and river flood scenario. The result in each case is a floodplain map that shows the likelihood
of each location being inundated by a dike breach during the corresponding background flood.

3-6

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

For the upper floodplain, conditional inundation probabilities for the Squamish River dike and Mamquam
River dike overlap. For the purposes of the QRA, the two failure scenarios are treated as independent
and combined at the grid cell level based on standard probability theory:
(PSquamish breach ∪ PMamquam breach) = PSquamish breach + PMamquam breach + (PSquamish breach ∩ PMamquam breach)
The lower floodplain is treated slightly differently. North of Industrial Way, probabilities were estimated
separately for areas to the east and west of Highway 99 (with appropriate allowance for the “crossover”
effect at the Centennial Way underpass).
Areas south of Industrial Way are assumed to be exposed to dike breach floods initiated both east and
west of Highway 99. However, the presence of a “crossover” effect means that a simple combination of
upstream results would double-count failure probability along several hundred metres of dike. To avoid
this, inundation probability for areas south of Industrial Way were estimated separately using combined
failure probabilities for the south Mamquam River dike and lower Squamish River dike. As a result of
this approach, conditional failure probability maps for the lower floodplain show three distinct zones.
These zones are consistent with the project team’s assumptions and expectations.
As described in Section 2 for hydraulic model results, conditional probability maps were subject to
internal consistency checks that compared results against physically-based expectations. For example:
• Different locations within each scenario were compared to confirm that inundation probabilities
increase in the downstream direction.
• Results from different dike upgrading scenarios were compared at common locations to confirm that
the “improved” dike yields lower conditional inundation probabilities.
• Results from different background floods were compared at common locations to confirm that the
larger flood yields higher conditional inundation probabilities.
Internal consistency checks provided reasonable validation for all conditional inundation probability
maps.
Examples of conditional inundation probability maps for the 200-year return period flood and “super
dike” upgrading scenario are shown in Figure 3-6 (upper floodplain) and Figure 3-7 (lower floodplain). A
full set of conditional inundation probability maps for the upper floodplain are provided in Appendix D. A
full set of conditional inundation probability maps for the lower floodplain are provided in Appendix E.
Conditional probability of inundation due to failure of the proposed sea dike does not depend on breach
location. The expert panel’s consensus estimate is applied uniformly to all locations in the coastal
floodplain.

3-7

0463.323-300
Path: \\bbyfs1.kwl.ca\0000-0999\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\463323_Figure_3-2.mxd Date Saved: 11/21/2018 2:48:41 PM
Author: ASeuarz

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

Legend
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!

Relative Failure Likelihood


!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! 1 Low
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
! 2 Moderate
!!
!
!!!
!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!
! 4 High
!!!
!!!
!!!
!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!! !!!!!! !!!!!
!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!
!!! !!!!! !!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!! !!!
!! !
!!!
!
!!!!!
! !!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!
! 8 Extreme
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!
!!!!!
!!!!
!!!
!!!
!!!!
!!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
Squamish River Dike
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
River

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
mish

!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
ua

!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
Sq

!
!!
!!
!!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
KK

!!
!!
!
@

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
Mamquam River Dike
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!!!
!!!!
!

!
!
!
! !!!!!!!
!! !!!!
!
!
! !!
!! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!!! !
!
!!! !!
!!! !
!
!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
! !
!
!!!
!!! !!!! !!!!! !!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !! !
!
!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!! !! !!
!! !
!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!
!! !
!
! !!! !!! !
!
Mam
!
! !
!! !!! !
! !! !
!
! !!!
qu
!!!!! !!!!! !
!
!!!!! !!!!! KK@ !!!!!!!!! !
!
a
!!!!!! !!! !
!
!! !!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!! !
!
! !
m

!
!! !
!
!! !
!
!
! !!
!
! !
!
Ri

!
! !
!
!! !
! !
r
!
!
! !
!
ve

!
! !
!!
!
! !!
!! !!!
!!!!!

DRAFT
Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL).
District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution to
third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the
written permission of KWL is prohibited.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


© 2018 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.
for Squamish River Floodplain

Relative Likelihood of Dike Breach for


Project No. Date
463-323 November 2018

400 0 400
Upper Squamish River Dike and Mamquam River North Dike
Figure 3-2
(m)
1:18,000
Path: O:\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\463323_Figure_3-3.mxd Date Saved: 11/7/2018 6:10:23 PM
Author: ASeuarz

Mamquam River Dike

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!! !!!!
!!!! !!!
!!!!!!
! !!
!
!
!!!! !
!
!!
! !!!
!
!!! !!!!
!
Mam
!
! !!!
!!!
! !!!!
qu
!
!!! !!! KK@
!
!! !!!!!!!!!
a
!! !!!!!!
!!!! !!!!!
!!!
! !!!
!! !!!!
!
!! !

m
! !!!

!
!
!! !!
!!
! !!
!
!! !
!
! !

Ri
!!
! !!
!
!! !!

r
!! !!!

ve
!
!! !!!
!
! !!!!
!
! !!!!
!
! !!!!!
!!
! !!!!!!!!
!! !!!!!!!!
!! !!!!!! !!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!! !!!
!!!!!!!! !!!
!!! !!!!!!
!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!
!
! !!!!!!!
!! !!!!!!!!
!
! !!!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

Squamish River Dike


River

!
mish
ua
Sq
KK
@

us R i v e r
am
Staw
KK
@

Legend
Relative Failure Likelihood

! 1 Low

DRAFT
! 2 Medium

Howe Sound ! 4 High

Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL).
District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution to
third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk
! 8 Very High
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the
written permission of KWL is prohibited.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2018 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Project No. Date


463-323 November 2018
Relative Likelihood of Dike Breach for
Lower Squamish River Dike and Mamquam River South Dike
400 0 400

Figure 3-3
(m)
1:18,000
sd

District of Squamish
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain

17 % Chance of
Dike Failure at or
Upstream of this Point

21 % Chance of
Dike Failure at or
Upstream of this Point

33% Chance of
Dike Failure at or
Upstream of this Point Area has

v er 17 % Chance of
Ri Increasing Probability of Inundation During
Upstream Dike Failure River Flood
Area has
21 % Chance of

1
Distribute Failure Probabilities
Inundation During

Area has
33 % Chance of
Inundation During
River Flood

River Flood
Distribute expert panel’s floodplain
scale dike failure probability along dike r
ve
to estimate probability at or upstream
of each potential failure location Maximum
Water Level in
+ Ri

Breach = 9.4 m
Maximum
Water Level in
Breach = 9.1 m

Maximum
Water Level in
Breach = 8.6 m

Ri
ve
r 3
2
Establish Inundation Areas
Create Map of Inundation Probability
For each potential failure location, assigning
failure probability (STEP 1)
To corresponding innundation area (STEP 2)
Use Breach Water Levels (WL) to
Establish Inundation Area for each
Potential Failure Location

Project No. 463.323


Date October 2018 Inundation Probability Mapping - Technical Approach
Scale Not to Scale Figure 3-5
Path: \\bbyfs1.kwl.ca\0000-0999\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\463323_Figure_3-6.mxd Date Saved: 11/21/2018 3:28:14 PM
Author: ASeuarz

Legend
Study Area Boundary
Existing Dike

Dike Breach Probability


0.002 - 0.025 0.501 - 0.525
0.026 - 0.050 0.526 - 0.550
0.051 - 0.075 0.551 - 0.575
0.076 - 0.100 0.576 - 0.600
0.101 - 0.125 0.601 - 0.625
0.126 - 0.150 0.626 - 0.650
0.151 - 0.175 0.651 - 0.675
0.176 - 0.200 0.676 - 0.700
0.201 - 0.225 0.701 - 0.725
0.226 - 0.250 0.726 - 0.750
0.251 - 0.275 0.751 - 0.775
0.276 - 0.300 0.776 - 0.800
0.301 - 0.325 0.801 - 0.825
0.326 - 0.350 0.826 - 0.850
0.351 - 0.375 0.851 - 0.875
0.376 - 0.400 0.876 - 0.900
0.401 - 0.425 0.901 - 0.925
0.426 - 0.450 0.926 - 0.950
0.451 - 0.475 0.951 - 0.975
0.476 - 0.500 0.976 - 1.000

Squamish River Dike

!
River
mish
ua
Sq
KK
@

Mamquam River Dike


!

Mam
qu
KK@
a
m
Ri

r
ve

DRAFT
Reference: 2013 Orthophoto from The District of Squamish.
Note:

Conditional probability of inundation is the expected likelihood


Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL). that a specific location on the floodplain will be inundated due
The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution to an upstream dike breach, given that the specified river
to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written
flood is underway. See Section 3 of the report for discussion
permission of KWL is prohibited. of assumptions that could affect or change these results.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2018 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Conditional Probability of Inundation for Upper Floodplain


Project No. Date
463-323 November 2018
400 0 400
Year 2100 200-Year Return Period Flood - IFHMP "Super Dike"
Figure 3-6
(m)
1:18,000
Path: \\bbyfs1.kwl.ca\0000-0999\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\463323_Figure_3-7.mxd Date Saved: 11/21/2018 3:29:07 PM
Author: ASeuarz

Mamquam River Dike

Mam
qu
KK@
a

m
!

Ri
r

ve
Squamish River Dike
River

Legend
mish

Dike-Protected Area
Existing Dike
ua

Future Sea Dike Alignment


Sq

Dike Breach Probability


0.002 - 0.025 0.501 - 0.525
KK
@

0.026 - 0.050 0.526 - 0.550


0.051 - 0.075 0.551 - 0.575
0.076 - 0.100 0.576 - 0.600
0.101 - 0.125 0.601 - 0.625
0.126 - 0.150 0.626 - 0.650
0.151 - 0.175 0.651 - 0.675
0.176 - 0.200 0.676 - 0.700
0.201 - 0.225 0.701 - 0.725
0.226 - 0.250 0.726 - 0.750
0.251 - 0.275 0.751 - 0.775
0.276 - 0.300 0.776 - 0.800
0.301 - 0.325 0.801 - 0.825
0.326 - 0.350 0.826 - 0.850
0.351 - 0.375 0.851 - 0.875
0.376 - 0.400 0.876 - 0.900
0.401 - 0.425 0.901 - 0.925
0.426 - 0.450 0.926 - 0.950
0.451 - 0.475 0.951 - 0.975
0.476 - 0.500 0.976 - 1.000

us R i v e r
am
Staw
KK
@

DRAFT Note:

Howe Sound
Reference: 2013 Orthophoto from The District of Squamish. Conditional probability of inundation is the expected likelihood
Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL). that a specific location on the floodplain will be inundated due
The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution to an upstream dike breach, given that the specified river
to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk flood is underway. See Section 3 of the report for discussion
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written
permission of KWL is prohibited.
of assumptions that could affect or change these results.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2018 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Conditional Probability of Inundation for Lower Floodplain


Project No. Date
463-323 November 2018
400 0 400
Year 2100 200-Year Return Period Flood - IFHMP "Super Dike"
Figure 3-7
(m)
1:18,000
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

4. Economic Damages Assessment


This section describes the development of total flood damage estimates for the Squamish River
floodplain and the determination of benefit-cost ratios for potential dike upgrades.
Baseline inundation maps from Section 2 are analyzed with HAZUS. Outputs are adjusted to the
present-day Squamish context. Adjusted HAZUS results are weighted using the conditional probability
maps presented in Section 3 and combined to estimate an estimate of annualized damages. Flood
protection “benefits” (damages avoided by upgrading the dikes) are combined with IFHMP cost
estimates to produce benefit-cost ratios.

4.1 Scope and Approach


Economic assessment of flood damages is a relatively well-defined process. A typical step-by-step
process is shown in the graphic below.

1. Estimate inundation across all developed areas.

2. Convert inundation to building (structural) damages, usually based on data from historical floods.

3. Adjust building damages to account for damage to contents.

4. Estimate other classes of expected monetary damages (e.g., infrastructure, indirect losses).

5. Add together all losses from a given scenario to give an estimate of total expected damages.

6. Plot total damage estimates against corresponding annual probability of inundation.

7. Integrate under the probability-damage curve to produce an estimate of annualized damages.

8. Apply an appropriate time frame and discount rate to calculate the Present Value (PV) of damages.

9. If desired, calculate the difference in PV between alternative scenarios (e.g., dike upgrading).

10. Calculate benefit-cost ratios by comparing change in PV to implementation cost for each scenario.

The process begins by estimating the inundation expected for a range of flood scenarios (Step 1). In
this case, the input data are drawn from the composite envelope flood depth maps described in Section
2 of this report.
Inundation is then converted to damage based on observations from historical floods (Step 2). The
most common approach is to utilize published curves that relate the depth of flooding to damage as a
percentage of the value of a specific type of flooding. Contents are usually assumed as a proportion of
the building’s value (Step 3).

4-1

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

The number and extent of other types of damage considered varies from study to study (Step 4). Some
studies have shown that total damage (Step 5) can be much greater than damage to buildings and
contents (e.g., for intensive agriculture areas with high-value perennial crops).
Plotting the expected value of damages versus corresponding probability (Step 6) gives a graphical
representation of the probability-damage relationship. Integrating to calculate the area under the
probability-damage curve (Step 7) effectively weights the different damage estimates by their annual
probability of occurrence to give an estimate of annualized losses. Annualized losses can be thought of
as the annual average of damages expected from a natural series of floods occurring over a very long
period.
A conceptual example of a probability-damage curve is provided in Figure 4-1. The area under the
“without flood protection” curve but above the “with flood protection curve” are the damages avoided by
implementing flood protection. Damages avoided define the “benefits” in a benefit-cost analysis for
flood protection works.

Figure 4-1: Typical Approach for Economic Damage Calculations

4.2 HAZUS Description


Economic damage to structures and contents were assessed using the HAZUS-MH 2.1 Canada
(HAZUS) modelling platform maintained by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). The NRCan Hazus
model is based on the US version of HAZUS originally developed by the United States Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS).
HAZUS uses census data and simplified algorithms to estimate expected damage from multiple hazards
at the Census Dissemination Block (CDB) scale. Although HAZUS can assess different kinds of
hazards, the river flood hazard module is the only module that is relevant for the IFHMP. The upper and
lower floodplain areas include different CDBs and were modelled as separate regions within HAZUS.

4-2

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

NRCan has incorporated extensive building data (including repair and replacement costs) into the
HAZUS model. The model does not include any information on utilities, transportation infrastructure,
critical facilities (e.g., specialized equipment and disaster response), or vehicles. As a result, HAZUS
model damage calculations provide lower-bound estimates of total expected economic losses.
Within each CDB, the NRCan building data is grouped by structure type, occupancy type, and first floor
elevation. Buildings within each group are assumed to be evenly spaced throughout the CDB
regardless of their actual location. This simplification means that the model cannot predict damages to
specific properties.
HAZUS calculates the percentage of each CDB flooded to a given depth. Because buildings are
assumed to be evenly spaced throughout the CDB, the model applies the flood depth to the same
percentage of the building inventory. For example, if 25 per cent of the CDB area is inundated to a
depth of 1 m, HAZUS assumes 25 per cent of the buildings in each building group are also inundated to
a depth of 1 m. Inundation depth is converted to economic damages (i.e., repair and replacement
costs) using FEMA depth-damage relationships specific to each type of building.
The HAZUS assessment uses flood depths from the IFHMP composite maps as a user-specified input.
The water depths shown on IFHMP composite flood hazard maps incorporate allowances for future
floodproofing fill.

4.3 HAZUS Results


HAZUS was run for multiple flood events on the upper Squamish River floodplain, the lower Squamish
River floodplain, and the coastal floodplain.
River dike breach results were assessed for the 200-year, 500-year and 1,000-year return periods.
For efficiency, coastal flood results were assessed at approximately 0.1 m increments of flood depth.
The relatively small change in depth means that damages for coastal flood events not modelled with
HAZUS can be interpolated with a high degree of confidence.
Flood damage calculations for the coastal floodplain are limited to areas that will be protected by the
IFHMP’s proposed sea dike.
The resulting damage estimates are summarized in the table below.

4-3

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Table 4-1: HAZUS-MH Flood Damage Estimates


Flood Return Estimated Damages (000s CAD)
Period Upper Floodplain Lower Floodplain Coastal Floodplain

5 years - - 98,775

10 years - - 103,413

20 years - - 107,971

50 years - - 113,123

100 years - - -

200 years 143,907 188,773 119,113

500 years 149,120 196,773 -

1,000 years 155,188 202,757 125,078

4.4 HAZUS Adjustments


HAZUS damage estimates are based on 2011 census building stock and are calculated using US
national average replacement costs in 2006 US dollars. Damage calculations need to be converted to
Canadian dollars, localized to Squamish, inflated to present day, and updated to reflect the extensive
development and redevelopment that has occurred in Squamish since 2011. Given the focus of the
IFHMP and QRA on future (Year 2100) development assumptions, it is also appropriate to provide a
preliminary adjustment for future infill development. Each of these factors is discussed separately
below.

Location and Inflation


Adjustments for location and inflation were obtained from construction cost indices published by RS
Means. US national averages were converted to Vancouver, BC metrics then brought forward from
2006 to 2018 dollars. The adjustment from US national average to Vancouver local data is 1.10. The
Vancouver local adjustment from 2006 to 2018 dollars is 1.32.

Currency Conversion
US currency was converted to Canadian currency using a factor of 1.25. This factor is within four
percent of the current exchange rate as of October 2018 (approximately 1.29), the 5-year average
exchange rate (1.26), the 20-year average (1.24), and the 30-year average (1.26). It is conservative
relative to the 10-year average exchange rate (1.15).

4-4

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Historical Development Allowances


From 2011 to 2018, the District of Squamish experienced very rapid growth and development within the
floodplain area. KWL obtained BC assessment data for 2011 and 2018 and compared improvement
values for the two years. The assessment identified the total net increase in improvements for two
types of lots:
• lots that received new roll numbers between 2011 and 2018 (indicating subdivision and/or new
development); and
• lots where the value of improvements increased by more than a factor of 10 (assumed to reflect infill
development and densification).
The resulting total value of improvements for each floodplain was reduced by a representative factor of
20 per cent to allow for depreciation and changing inventory structure. Values were then compared to
the sum of all 2018 improvement values in each floodplain. The comparison produced a percentage of
improvement values that is associated with new development and redevelopment since 2011.
From this process, new development and redevelopment between 2011 and 2018 is estimated to
increase the at-risk value of the building stock by a factor of 1.54 for the upper floodplain and 1.43 for
the lower floodplain. The lower floodplain factor was also applied for the coastal floodplain.

Future Development Allowances


Lastly, an allowance for future infill development was applied. For properties where the 2018
improvement value is less than 10 per cent of the average improvement value for the applicable zoning
class, the improvement value was replaced with the zoning class average. The future infill allowance
produced relatively modest adjustments of 1.07 for the upper floodplain and 1.15 for the lower
floodplain.

Summary
Economic valuation adjustments for the Squamish River floodplain QRA are summarized in Table 4-2.
Since adjustment factors are cumulative, the individual values are combined by multiplication. To reflect
the subjective nature of some adjustment factors, the total adjustment was simplified and rounded to 3.
The final factor of 3.0 shown above was also used to adjust coastal floodplain damage assessments.

4-5

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Table 4-2: HAZUS-MH Flood Damage Adjustment Factors


Source Adjustment Factor
Description Upper Lower
Floodplain Floodplain
US Average to Vancouver (2006) RS Means 1.10

Vancouver Local Inflation (2006-2018) RS Means 1.32

Currency Conversion (USD to CAD) Exchange Records 1.25

Total Adjustment for Location, Date and Currency 1.81

Recent Development (2011-2018) BC Assessment 1.54 1.43

BC Assessment /
Future Infill (Year 2100) 1.07 1.15
KWL

Total for All Adjustment Factors 2.99 2.96

Final Adjustment Factor (Rounded) 3.0

Depreciated versus Full Replacement Costs


HAZUS damage estimates are based on full replacement costs rather than depreciated values. This
approach offers several advantages:
• Full replacement cost is the cost that most likely would be borne by society to rebuild a damaged
community.
• Using full replacement cost maintains consistency with prior studies (e.g., NHC, 2016).
• Full replacement costs are simpler to estimate, since HAZUS does not incorporate any detailed
Canadian data on depreciation of the building inventory.
KWL compared BC Assessment’s 2018 improvement values against HAZUS full replacement cost
(multiplied by the final adjustment factor of three) to obtain a reasonable adjustment for depreciated
losses. Based on this comparison, losses estimated at full replacement value can be reduced by about
30 per cent to obtain a depreciated estimate of damages.

Validation of Adjustment Factors


The IFHMP did not consider the full range of adjustment factors described herein, resulting in lower
estimates of flood damage. The adjustment factors adopted for the QRA are considered both more
complete and more correct than those used for the IFHMP.
The Fraser Basin Council’s 2016 regional assessment of flood vulnerability (NHC, 2016) cites work
done in 2015 for the City of Vancouver. The 2015 study applied a more detailed “User Defined
Facilities” approach and found that the results were 2.7 times greater than those obtained using HAZUS

4-6

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

general building stock. These values were considered too high for use as a regional scaling factor;
however, the City of Vancouver results seem to be consistent with the independent review of
adjustment factors completed for this QRA.
In lieu of the City of Vancouver’s adjustment factor, the Fraser Basin Council report adopts a regional
adjustment factor of 1.6. This factor was obtained from Marshall & Swift benchmarking data to 2014
local costs at Vancouver. Incorporating the study’s currency conversion factor of 1.1 and a slight further
adjustment to update values to 2018, the combined adjustment factor is 1.80. This value is consistent
with the comparable adjustment applied for the QRA (i.e., including factors for location, date, and
currency but excluding allowances for post-2011 development). The Fraser Basin Council regional
study had a much broader area and as such did not attempt to update the HAZUS building stock.

4.5 Infrastructure Losses


One of the key limitations of HAZUS is that it does not have built-in capability to estimate losses to
specialized infrastructure. While specialized facilities can be manually incorporated into HAZUS, the
QRA opted instead for consistency with the Fraser Basin Council’s regional assessment of flood hazard
vulnerability. The Fraser Basin Council regional study adopted FEMA valuations for specialized
infrastructure and damage assumptions as outlined in the tables below. Values used in the regional
study were adjusted to 2018 local dollars and applied to infrastructure in the upper, lower, and coastal
floodplains. For simplicity, loss values are assumed to be constant and independent of flood
characteristics.

4-7

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Table 4-3: Valuation and Damage Assumptions for Specialized Facilities


Valuation Assumed
Facility (2018 local, Loss Value Loss Assumptions
000s CAD) (000s CAD)
Electrical Substation 36,000 18,000 Repair cost amounts to 50% of valuation

Rail Tracks (per km) 2,700 1,350 1 km must be rebuilt at 50% of valuation

Railway Maintenance
5,040 2,520 Repair cost amounts to 50% of valuation
Facility
Major Road (4 lanes,
18,000 9,000 1 km must be rebuilt at 50% of valuation
per km)
Urban Road (2 lanes,
9,000 4,500 1 km must be rebuilt at 50% of valuation
per km)
Wastewater
Treatment Plant 360,000 36,000 Repair cost amounts to 10% of valuation
(Medium)
Police / Emergency
- 4,255 Repair / clean-up cost $2,600/m² x 1000 m²
Services Centre
Municipal Hall /
- 4,091 Repair / clean-up cost $2,500/m² x 1000 m²
Works Yard

Schools - 3,927 Repair / clean-up cost $2400/m² x 1000 m²

Minor Lift Stations 540 270 Repair cost amounts to 50% of valuation

Major Lift Stations 1,890 945 Repair cost amounts to 50% of valuation

Dike Breaches
- 1,636 200 m must be rebuilt at $5000/m
(Repair, per breach)
Drainage Pump Based on value of major lift station
1,890 945
Stations Repair cost amounts to 50% of valuation
Allowance informed by vehicle valuation in
other studies and HAZUS manual.
Valuation at about 10% of building-related
Vehicles 17,182 8,591
losses, repairs at 50% of valuation.
Corresponds to about 1.2 cars / damaged
building and $6,250 damage to each vehicle.

4-8

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Table 4-4: Flood-Related Loss Assumptions for Specialized Infrastructure by Floodplain


Assumed Number Affected Assumed Loss (000s CAD)
Facility Loss Value
Upper Lower Coastal Upper Lower Coastal
(000s CAD)
Electrical Substation $18,000 0 1 1 - 18,000 18,000

Rail Tracks (CN Rail) $1,350 1 1 1 1,350 1,350 1,350

Rail Maintenance
Facility (CN Rail, $2,520 0 2 0 - 5,040 -
Heritage Park)

Major Road (Hwy 99) $9,000 1 1 1 9,000 9,000 9,000

Urban Road
$4,500 1 0 0 4,500 - -
(Government Road)
Wastewater
$36,000 1 0 0 36,000 - -
Treatment Plant
Police / Emergency
$4,256 1 1 0 4,255 4,255 -
Operations Centre
Municipal Hall /
$4,091 1 1 1 4,091 4,091 4,091
Works Yard

Schools $3,927 1 4 3 3,927 15,709 11,782

Minor Lift Stations $270 4 15 10 1,080 4,050 2,700

Major Lift Stations $945 1 2 1 945 1,890 945

Dike Breaches
$1,636 2 2 1 3,273 3,273 1,636
(Repair, per breach)
Drainage Pump
$945 3 1 1 2,835 945 945
Stations
66% of
Vehicles $8,591 - - 8,591 8,591 5,670
Lower

Total 79,846 76,193 56,119

4.6 Other Losses


The diked Squamish River floodplain does not contain any major agricultural operations. Agricultural
losses have not been included in this QRA.
The impact of a dike breach flood on either or both floodplains would extend far beyond the direct
damages estimated by HAZUS. Local indirect losses could be very significant for a small community like
Squamish. These losses are complex and difficult to quantify. Estimates of indirect losses are beyond
the scope of this QRA.

4-9

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

One important category of indirect loss is the economic value of lives lost. Experts define the economic
benefit of preventing a fatality using the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL). VSL represents the cost of
safety improvements that society is willing to bear to reduce the expected number of fatalities by one
life. In 2016, the US DOT estimated VSL as 9.6 million USD (12 million CAD based on the QRA
conversion rate of 1.25). As with other indirect losses, the QRA has not attempted to define a local VSL
or incorporate VSL into economic damage calculations.

4.7 Extrapolation of Results to Other Events


The primary focus of the QRA is on the 200-year, 500-year and 1,000-year return period river flood
events that were modelled for the dike breach analysis. However, the QRA process identified the need
for additional damage estimates that could bracket and provide context for the main floods of interest.
Additional estimates were also required to infill and extend the coastal flood series.
Total expected flood damages for upper and lower floodplain dike breach events were plotted against
corresponding peak river discharge upstream of the dike breach. A near-linear second-order
polynomial function was curve-fit to the damage estimates with R² = 1.00. The fitted functions were
extended to extrapolate damage estimates for dike breach scenarios during the 100-year return period
and 2,000-year return period river floods.
A similar process was applied to interpolate coastal flooding between and beyond the modelled events.
Results for the 100-year and 500-year return period coastal floods were interpolated, while results for
the 2,000-year return period coastal flood were extrapolated.

4.8 Breach Probability Weightings


A single set of HAZUS results was generated for each river flood scenario (200-year, 500-year, 1,000-
year return periods) based on composite envelope flood depths. HAZUS results are produced at the
Census Dissemination Block scale and aggregated to the floodplain scale. These results must be
adjusted to account for the probability of different parts of the floodplain being inundated under each
river flood and dike upgrading scenario.
For each scenario, the QRA combined 2018 property tax data with a conditional probability map
(Section 3.7) to produce an inundation probability-weighted value of development on each floodplain.
The ratio of probability-weighted development value to total development value provided an “exposure
factor” that was used to adjust HAZUS results.
The process produced a unique exposure factor and corresponding damage estimate for each river
flood and dike upgrading scenario. Scenario-specific exposure factors and damage estimates for the
upper floodplain are summarized in Table 4-5. Scenario-specific exposure factors and damage
estimates for the lower floodplain are summarized in Table 4-6.
Inundation probability for the coastal floodplain is independent of location and the exposure factor is
simply equal to the dike breach probability defined in Table 3-1. Scenario-specific exposure factors and
damage estimates for the coastal floodplain are summarized in Table 4-7.

4-10

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Table 4-5: Upper Floodplain Damage Estimates Weighted by Conditional Inundation Probability
River Flood Composite Envelope Dike Scenario-Specific
Exposure
Return Period Damage Estimate Upgrading Damage Estimate
Factor
(years) (000s CAD) Scenario (000s CAD)
Existing 9% 47,742

100 503,299 Standard 3% 15,698

“Super Dike” 0% -

Existing 38% 194,974

200 511,567 Standard 13% 66,764

“Super Dike” 6% 28,298

Existing 93% 492,783

500 530,099 Standard 79% 420,577

“Super Dike” 26% 137,663

Existing 99% 544,679

1,000 551,670 Standard 98% 541,216

“Super Dike” 66% 364,528

Existing 100% 582,059

2,000 582,059 Standard 100% 582,059

“Super Dike” 100% 582,059

4-11

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Table 4-6: Lower Floodplain Damage Estimates Weighted by Conditional Inundation Probability
River Flood Composite Envelope Dike Scenario-Specific
Exposure
Return Period Damage Estimate Upgrading Damage Estimate
Factor
(years) (000s CAD) Scenario (000s CAD)
Existing 8% 50,546

100 622,395 Standard 4% 25,246

“Super Dike” 0% -

Existing 38% 245,729

200 642,512 Standard 12% 76,571

“Super Dike” 3% 21,066

Existing 91% 608,304

500 669,741 Standard 80% 534,769

“Super Dike” 8% 54,142

Existing 99% 685,390

1,000 690,108 Standard 99% 681,403

“Super Dike” 41% 282,531

Existing 100% 709,852

2,000 709,852 Standard 100% 709,852

“Super Dike” 100% 709,852

4-12

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Table 4-7: Coastal Floodplain Damage Estimates Weighted by Conditional Inundation Probability
River Flood Estimated Scenario-Specific
Exposure
Return Period Flood Damage Diking Scenario Damage Estimate
Factor
(years) (000s CAD) (000s CAD)
Existing 100% 342,862
5 342,862
Proposed Sea Dike 0% -

Existing 100% 358,961


10 358,961
Proposed Sea Dike 0% -

Existing 100% 374,783


20 374,783
Proposed Sea Dike 0% -

Existing 100% 392,666


50 392,666
Proposed Sea Dike 0% -

Existing 100% 403,113


100 403,113
Proposed Sea Dike 2% 8,062

Existing 100% 413,458


200 413,458
Proposed Sea Dike 10% 41,346

Existing 100% 425,547


500 425,547
Proposed Sea Dike 35% 148,941

Existing 100% 434,163


1,000 434,163
Proposed Sea Dike 95% 412,455

Existing 100% 441,046


2,000 441,046
Proposed Sea Dike 100% 441,046

4-13

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

4.9 Damage Integration Across Events


As noted in the introduction to this section, scenario-specific damage estimates can be combined in a
probability-damage curve. Probability-damage curves for the three floodplains (upper, lower, coastal)
and corresponding dike upgrading scenarios are provided in Figure 4-2, Figure 4-3, and Figure 4-4.
Calculating the area under the curve yields an annualized value for expected damages. The difference
between annualized damages for two dike upgrading options represents the amount of flood damages
that can be avoided by completing that upgrade. As such, these differences represent the economic
“benefits” of each dike upgrade. Annualized damage estimates and dike upgrading benefits are
summarized in Table 4-8.

Table 4-8: Annualized Flood Damages and Dike Upgrading Benefits by Floodplain
Dike Annualized Annualized Damages Avoided by
Floodplain Upgrading Flood Damages Implementing Dike Upgrades
Scenario (000s CAD) (000s CAD)

Existing 2,969
900
Upper Standard 2,068 1,870
970
“Super Dike” 1,098

Existing 3,625
1,016
Lower Standard 2,609 2,688
1,672
“Super Dike” 937

Existing
124,524
(with 1 m SLR)
Coastal 123,360
Proposed Sea
1,164
Dike

The QRA estimates that the proposed sea dike will avoid annualized damages in excess of $123
million. This very large value represents the necessity of a sea dike to protect downtown from coastal
floods with an assumed 1 m of SLR. Over 90 per cent of these benefits (damages avoided) arise from
protecting downtown against future coastal floods with a return period of less than 50 years.

4.10 Benefit Cost Ratios for Dike Upgrades


The IFHMP produced order-of-magnitude (Class ‘D’) cost estimates for:
• fully restoring all river dikes to “provincial standard” criteria;
• upgrading designated river dikes to “super dike” specifications; and
• constructing the proposed sea dike.

4-14

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

These estimates may be treated as present-value costs and compared to corresponding benefits
described in the preceding section. Dividing the present value of benefits (accrued over an assumed
lifespan at a specified rate of return) by costs produces a benefit-cost ratio. A value greater than 1.0
implies that the benefits of each option outweigh its costs.
A project with a high benefit-cost ratio provides a good return on investment but may not mitigate risk
enough to achieve other District objectives. Benefits and costs for individual projects may be combined
to create a portfolio of projects that collectively achieve risk mitigation targets at an acceptable overall
benefit-cost ratio.
Table 4-9 below provides example benefit-cost ratios for dike upgrading options considered in this QRA.
Results calculated using a net discount rate of 2 per cent and a 100-year lifespan. These values are
considered realistic based on present-day economic conditions and assumptions documented in this
QRA. Hazard intensities and damage estimates are assumed constant over the lifespan of the benefit-
cost assessment. Costs do not include an allowance for operation and maintenance costs, since the
District already supports an active dike maintenance program.

Table 4-9: Benefit-Cost Ratios for Dike Upgrading


Current Upgraded Cost Benefits Benefit-
Dike
Status Status (000s CAD) (000s CAD) Cost Ratio
Existing Dike Standard Dike 15,218 38,796 2.5
Upper Standard Dike "Super Dike” 26,010 41,803 1.6
Existing Dike “Super Dike” 41,228 80,599 2.0

Existing Dike Standard Dike 2,908 43,807 15.1


Lower Standard Dike “Super Dike” 9,104 72,051 7.9
Existing Dike “Super Dike” 12,012 115,858 9.6

Sea Dike “Existing” Dike Proposed Dike 27,552 5,316,610 193.0


As recommended
All Dikes Existing Dike 80,792 5,513,067 68.2
by IFHMP
At a 2 per cent discount rate and 100-year lifespan, all dike upgrading options produce benefit-cost
ratios greater than 1.0. This means that economic benefits exceed costs in every case. The lowest
benefit-cost ratios are calculated for the upper floodplain, which is vulnerable to failures along a much
longer length of river dike.
The highest benefit-cost ratios are calculated for the proposed sea dike, reflecting the critical role these
upgrades will play as SLR approaches 1 m. For simplicity, QRA calculations of present value assumed
that damages will be constant for a 100-year period (i.e., a 100-year period where sea levels are 1 m
higher than today). In reality, rising sea levels will gradually increase the benefit-cost ratio from its
present-day value of less than 1.0 toward the values indicated in Table 4-9.

4-15

0463.323-300
Probability-Damage Curves for Dike Breach Flooding
Squamish River Upper Floodplain - Year 2100 Conditions
700,000

Existing Dike
600,000
Standard Dike

"Super Dike"
500,000
Flood Damage (000s CAD)

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0
10,000 2,000 1,000 500 200 100 50 20 10
Flood Return Period (years)
KERR WOOD LEIDAL ASSOCIATES LTD.
DRAFT
Consulting Engineers
20181029_HazusResults_UPDATED_SEADIKE_DSellReviewed.xlsx[Upper Probability-Damage Curves]
Figure 4-2
Probability-Damage Curves for Dike Breach Flooding
Squamish River Lower Floodplain - Year 2100 Conditions
800,000

Existing Dike
700,000
Standard Dike

"Super Dike"
600,000
Flood Damage (000s CAD)

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0
10,000 2,000 1,000 500 200 100 50 20 10
Flood Return Period (years)
KERR WOOD LEIDAL ASSOCIATES LTD.
DRAFT
Consulting Engineers
20181029_HazusResults_UPDATED_SEADIKE_DSellReviewed.xlsx[Lower Probability-Damage Curves]
Figure 4-3
Probability-Damage Curves for Dike Breach Flooding
Squamish Coastal Floodplain - Year 2100 Conditions
500,000

"Existing" Dike
Proposed Sea Dike

400,000
Flood Damage (000s CAD)

300,000

200,000

100,000

0
10,000 2,000 1,000 500 200 100 50 20 10 5 2
Flood Return Period (years)
KERR WOOD LEIDAL ASSOCIATES LTD.
DRAFT
Consulting Engineers
20181029_HazusResults_UPDATED_SEADIKE_DSellReviewed.xlsx[Coastal Probability-Dmg Curves]
Figure 4-4
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

5. Loss of Life Estimates


This section describes the assumptions and methods applied to estimate loss of life from potential dike
breach events. Baseline inundation characteristics (flood depth, velocity, depth x velocity, and rate of
rise) are analyzed based on the flood maps presented in Section 2. Estimates of Population At Risk
(PAR) are based on IFHMP assumptions for residential population and employment in the floodplain.
PAR is adjusted to account for evacuation and shelter-in-place assumptions, then combined with hazard
using three independent mortality functions. Estimates for potential loss of life are compared to risk
tolerance thresholds defined in the District’s OCP.

5.1 Risk Tolerance Thresholds


Loss of Life is often the most important consequence category in a QRA. It is typically assessed using
two complementary criteria:
• Individual Risk is the risk of death for the person most exposed to the hazard (in this case, someone
who spends all their time in the at-risk zone).
• Societal (or group) risk is the relationship between the frequency of a particular hazard and the
casualties that would occur if that hazard is realized. Group risk captures society’s reduced
tolerance for events that could result in a large number of fatalities and is usually represented
graphically as a plot of cumulative frequency (F) versus number of fatalities (N).
These definitions are widely used and recognized throughout the dam safety industry as well as in other
risk-aware fields such as healthcare, nuclear science, and geohazard management.
Section 11 of the District’s 2018 OCP (District of Squamish, 2018) defines risk tolerance criteria for
areas subject to landslides, debris flows, debris floods, and rockfall. The District’s tolerances are
consistent with a growing number of jurisdictions and sectors that recognize similar limits (e.g.,
geohazards, dam safety, nuclear energy, medicine).
This QRA applies the OCP’s risk tolerance thresholds to flood risk as summarized below:
i. for existing development, the individual risk to loss of life per annum
shall not exceed 1:10,000; and
ii. for new development, the individual risk to loss of life per annum shall
not exceed 1:100,000; and
iii. societal (group) risk for loss of life per annum shall be within the
Broadly Acceptable or As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP)
zones shown in [Figure 5-1 below]; and
iv. where societal risks to life fall within the ALARP zone, the risk
assessment report shall explain to the satisfaction of the Approving
Officer why the cost of reducing the risk further is considered grossly
disproportionate to the benefit gained (as per the definition of ALARP).

5-1

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Figure 5-1: Frequency-Number of Fatalities Diagram (Figure 11-2 in District of Squamish OCP)

5.2 Scope and Approach


Potential loss of life is estimated by defining a broad range of scenarios, assessing consequences for
each scenario independently, then combining the results based on the probability of each scenario
occurring. The scope of hazards and extents must be carefully selected so that the results will be useful
for decision-making when compared to acceptable risk criteria.
For this QRA, the hazard under consideration is flooding from the Squamish River, Mamquam River,
and Howe Sound. Other hazards (e.g., Daisy Lake dam failure or debris flow runout from the upstream
Cheekeye Fan) are not considered.
One of the primary applications of this QRA is to inform decisions about flood risk management in the
District’s distinct dike-protected floodplains. As such, results are compiled independently for the dike-
protected upper floodplain, lower floodplain, and coastal floodplain. Each set of results can be
compared to the District’s risk tolerance thresholds to support decisions pertaining to that floodplain.
Potential loss of life calculations are more complex than the economic damage calculations described in
the preceding section of this report. To maximize accuracy and efficiency, results for dike breach floods
were only compiled for events with available flood maps, namely the 200-year return period, 500-year
return period and 1,000-year return period dike breach scenarios. This simplifying assumption is
considered appropriate for the context of the loss of life assessment, which is to provide a relative and
approximate estimate of potential fatalities. Results for coastal floods needed to consider more frequent
events, particularly for the case of the “existing” dike (which could be overtopped in a future 5-year
return period coastal event).
Other critical assumptions for the analysis include the potential movement of people into, out of, and
within the floodplain throughout the day (e.g., daytime versus nighttime) as well as the potential for
successful evacuation and the opportunity for exposed persons to shelter in place. These factors have
also been approximated using simplifying assumptions. Given these assumptions, results of the loss-of-
life analysis should not be considered exact or definitive.

5-2

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

It is helpful to think of the analysis in the form of an “event tree”, where each branch describes a
scenario with a different suite of assumptions, probability of occurrence, and unique estimate of
fatalities. An example event tree for this QRA is shown in Figure 5-2.

5.3 Population at Risk Assumptions


The QRA adopts PAR estimates from the IFHMP social consequence assessment. The IFHMP
considered two main components: residential PAR and employment PAR. Each is described separately
below.

Residential PAR
The IFHMP estimated residential PAR based on the total occupancy attributed to each type of
residential zoning (including Comprehensive Development). All other zoning types are assumed to have
zero residential occupancy.
PARs were assigned to each lot based on zoning type and standard occupancies defined in the
District’s DCC plan (KWL, 2012; as shown in Table 5-1 below). The number of dwelling units on multi-
family lots was taken from BC Assessment tax roll entries.

Table 5-1: Typical Residential Occupancies


Number of Representative Standard Occupancy
Zoning Type
dwelling units (persons / dwelling unit)

Residential – Low Density


(Single Family / Duplex) 1-2 3.1

Residential High Density


(Apartments, mobile homes) 2 - 20 2.3

Residential High Density


(Apartments, mobile homes) > 20 1.7

Manual adjustments were made to capture the expected addition of nearly 1,000 new residents at the
Squamish Oceanfront lands. The PAR analysis did not consider population demographics (age,
gender, mobility, etc.).

Employment PAR
Employment PAR for each floodplain was calculated using Year 2031 employment projections by Traffic
Analysis Zone (TAZ). These estimates were originally prepared to support the District’s 2012
Development Cost Charge bylaw (KWL, 2012).
Within each TAZ, projected total employment at Year 2031 (excluding students) was divided by the total
area of all Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) lots. The resulting employment density was
then multiplied by lot area to produce an estimate of employment PAR for each ICI lot in the TAZ.

5.4 Exposure Assumptions


Before loss of life can occur, persons at risk must be exposed to flooding. PAR is adjusted for exposure
by considering a number of factors:

5-3

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

• the percentage of the PAR expected to be present on the floodplain when the dike breach occurs;
• the mitigating effects of floodproofing and shelter-in-place opportunities; and
• the potential for a portion of the PAR to evacuate the floodplain plan prior to inundation.
Floodplain PAR will change daily (e.g., as people travel to and from work or school); weekly (e.g.,
weekday versus weekend activities); seasonally (e.g., due to tourism); and gradually over time in
response to floodplain development. For this study, PAR remains constant at weekly, seasonal, and
long-term scales. The daily variation of population was based on the simple daytime / nighttime
distribution shown in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2: Daily Exposure Percentages


Description “Daytime” “Nighttime”

Residential PAR 40% of total 100% of total


Employment PAR 100% of total 2% of total
0.33 0.67
Temporal Probability
(8 of 24 hours) (16 of 24 hours)
PAR on multi-family residential lots is reduced to 10 per cent of its potential value to reflect people
sheltering in place on higher floors of the development. Flood depths are reduced by 1.5 m for all other
residential lots to maintain consistency with the IFHMP’s assumption that all residential lots will have
structural floodproofing by Year 2100.
In addition to the above, the QRA reduces PAR to account for potential evacuation. Evacuation
assumptions can have a complex influence on risk to life results. For simplicity, the project team agreed
to adopt the simplified evacuation assumptions shown in Table 5-3 and Table 5-4 below. No explicit
allowance was made for partial implementation of a District-led evacuation.

Table 5-3: Evacuation Success Rates


Percentage of PAR Evacuated
Time of Day PAR
District-Led Evacuation District-Led Evacuation
Fully Implemented Not Implemented

Residential 90%
Daytime 10%
Employment 98%
Residential 90%
Nighttime 10%
Employment 50%*
* 50% success rate reflects the retention of critical services at 1% of daytime employment total.

5-4

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Table 5-4: Likelihood of Implementing District-Led Evacuation


Flood Event Probability of District-Led Evacuation
Return Period
(years) Fully Implemented Not Implemented

Up to 200 0.5 0.5


500 0.7 0.3
1,000 0.9 0.1

A 90 per cent success rate for District-led evacuation of residential PAR assumes that some residents
will defy the evacuation order and remain to defend their property. The 98 per cent daytime success
rate for employment PAR allows for a small percentage of employees who remain to support essential
services. The nighttime success rate for employment PAR is much lower (50 per cent) since most of
the nighttime employment PAR is already assumed to be providing essential services.

Table 5-4 indicates an increasing probability of evacuation for larger flood events (from 50 per cent at
the 200-year return period flood to 90 per cent at the 1,000-year return period flood). This relationship
reflects the increasing likelihood that a warning of extreme flood risk from the River Forecast Centre
would result in a precautionary evacuation prior to the arrival of the flood.

5.5 Mortality Functions


A mortality function relates the characteristics of an imposed hazard to a corresponding loss of life
within the exposed population. Technical literature provides a wide variety of methods for estimating
mortality. Three functions were selected to provide comparative results for this QRA:
• a mortality function developed in 2008 based on loss of life during historical dike breach failures in
the Netherlands and Japan, referred to herein as the “Netherlands Relationship” (Jonkman et al.,
2008);
• a mortality function developed in 2009 based on loss of life at New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina
in 2005, referred to herein as the “New Orleans Relationship” (Jonkman et al., 2009); and
• a fatality relationship developed by the US Bureau of Reclamation based on an extensive review of
dam failure case studies, referred to herein as the “RCEM Relationship” (USBR, 2014).
All three functions consider water depth and velocity in varying combinations. Each relationship was
applied on a lot-by-lot basis. Results from each function were compiled as described in Section 5.6 to
provide three independent estimates of both individual and societal risk on each floodplain.
The three mortality functions are described separately below.

Netherlands Relationship
The Netherlands relationship was developed based on data from historical dike breaches, most notably
a series of breaches that occurred in the Netherlands in 1953. The approach uses velocity, depth x
velocity, and rate of rise to subdivide the flood hazard area into three zones:
• a breach zone where high-energy flow is expected to result in building collapse and very high
mortality;

5-5

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

• a zone of rapidly-rising water where the exposed population may not have time to evacuate and
where buildings may collapse due to unbalanced hydrostatic pressure; and
• a remaining zone not subject to either of the preceding conditions.
Fatalities in the breach zone are assigned a mortality rate of 1.0. This implies that no one caught within
the breach zone when the dike breaches will survive. The remaining two zones apply lognormal
functions that use water depth to estimate mortality based on the form and parameters shown in Table
5-5.

Table 5-5: Mortality Functions and Parameters for the Netherlands Relationship
Mortality Zone Criteria Mortality Function
Mortality
Depth x Rate of
Zone Depth Velocity Standard
Velocity Rise Function Mean
(m) (m/s) Deviation
(m²/s) (m/hr)

Breach Zone ≥7 - ≥2 - FD = 1 - -

Rapidly Rising
<7 ≥ 2.1 <2 ≥ 0.5 1.68 0.37
Water Zone ln h -µN
FD =ФN
σN
Remaining
all areas not meeting above criteria 7.60 2.75
Zone

Since the QRA did not simulate a sea dike breach, depth x velocity data were not available for the
coastal floodplain. Mortality calculations for scenarios involving a breach of the proposed sea dike do
not account for a potential Breach Zone. Rate of rise was assessed based on inundation volumes and
expected inflow rates. Based on this calculation, all areas where water depth exceeds 2.1 m were
assigned to the Rapidly Rising Water Zone.
Mortality calculations for “existing dike” coastal flood scenarios assume all areas are part of the
Remaining Zone. This assumption reflects the expected slow rate of rise (<0.5 m/hr) as coastal flood
levels exceed 3.6 m geodetic elevation.
Example maps showing mortality zones for the 200-year return period flood dike breach scenario and
the Netherlands Relationship are provided in Figure 5-3 (upper floodplain), Figure 5-4 (lower floodplain),
and Figure 5-5 (coastal floodplain). A full set of upper floodplain mortality zone maps are provided in
Appendix F. A full set of lower floodplain mortality zone maps are provided in Appendix G. The coastal
floodplain mortality zones shown in Figure 5-5 were applied for all coastal flood events involving a sea
dike breach.

New Orleans Relationship


The New Orleans relationship was developed based on data collected from levee overtopping and
failures during Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The approach follows the same general approach as the
Netherlands relationship and was found to produce generally consistent results. However, the New
Orleans relationship adopts a simpler framework that uses depth x velocity to distinguish between two
mortality zones:

5-6

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

• a breach zone where high-energy flow is expected to result in building collapse and higher mortality;
and
• a remaining zone not subject to the preceding conditions.
Fatalities in the Breach Zone are assigned a mortality rate of 0.053 (5.3 per cent). This fatality rate is
much lower than for the Netherlands Breach Zone relationship; however, the New Orleans Breach Zone
is defined using less severe criteria and as a result encompasses a larger area. The Remaining Zone
applies a lognormal function that uses water depth to estimate mortality based on the form and
parameters shown in Table 5-6. The parameters indicated for the New Orleans Remaining Zone will
produce a higher number of fatalities, partially offsetting the lower fatality rate recommended for the
Breach Zone.

Table 5-6: Mortality Functions and Parameters for the New Orleans Relationship
Mortality Zone Criteria Mortality Function
Mortality
Depth x Rate of
Zone Depth Velocity Standard
Velocity Rise Function Mean
(m) (m/s) Deviation
(m²/s) (m/hr)

Breach Zone ≥5 - - - FD = 0.053 - -

Remaining ln h -µN
all areas not meeting above criteria FD =ФN 5.20 2.00
Zone σN

Since the QRA did not simulate a sea dike breach, depth x velocity was not available. Mortality
calculations for scenarios involving a breach of the proposed sea dike do not account for a potential
Breach Zone.
A full set of upper floodplain mortality zone maps are provided in Appendix F. A full set of lower
floodplain mortality zone maps are provided in Appendix G. All coastal flood hazard areas were
considered part of the Remaining Zone.
The authors of the New Orleans relationship point out that their results focus on the expected loss of life
due to flooding and did not include loss of life resulting from the subsequent adverse health situation
that often follows a catastrophic flood event. For Hurricane Katrina, the authors report that post-flood
fatalities amounted to about one-third of total fatalities.

Reclamation Consequence Estimating Methodology (RCEM) Relationship


The third method applied for estimating potential loss of life is based on RCEM guidelines prepared by
the US Bureau of Reclamation in 2014. The RCEM guidelines were prepared specifically for dam safety
risk analysis and are cited in British Columbia’s 2017 guidelines for determining the downstream
consequences of a dam failure (BC MFLNRO, 2017).
The RCEM approach uses depth x velocity to estimate a range of fatality rates based on case history
data. The ranges are provided in graphical form. Different relationships apply for scenarios where:
• the PAR receives little to no warning of the impending flood wave; and
• the PAR receives adequate warning (e.g., in time to implement an evacuation).

5-7

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

A broad range of fatality rates is provided for each of the above scenarios, with the extreme limits
spanning multiple orders of magnitude. The RCEM methodology also notes a third class of scenarios
where partial warning was provided. As expected, fatality rates for “partial warning” case histories are
generally less severe than case histories that had little to no warning, but more severe than case
histories with adequate warning.
For Squamish, a range of potential dike breach scenarios could result in a range of warning times. It is
possible for a dike to fail unexpectedly when the water level is below the crest, resulting in little to no
warning time. It is also possible that weather and streamflow forecasts will provide enough notice of an
impending flood to complete a full evacuation of the floodplain. There are also several logistical
challenges that could be considered, for example:
• A dike can breach as rapidly as a dam of comparable size but maintain maximum breach discharge
for longer due to the relatively unlimited quantity of upstream storage (river discharge).
• Unlike many dams, the developed area commences immediately downstream of the point of failure.
• The IFHMP showed that some dike breaches could rapidly inundate evacuation routes.
• Inundation could directly impact a large proportion of the community’s area and population.
Evacuation and sheltering of a large population in the remaining unaffected areas could be
logistically difficult.
Based on the considerations outlined above, the “partial warning” classification is most appropriate for
areas downstream of a Squamish River dike breach. The “overall upper limit” for adequate warning
scenarios (Figure 4 in USBR, 2014) was applied to generate RCEM fatality estimates. This curve
provides a relatively central fit through the RCEM’s plotted partial warning case histories. Using a more
conservative upper envelope curve for partial warning case histories would increase the RCEM fatality
rate by about one order of magnitude. Using a less conservative lower envelope curve for partial
warning scenarios would decrease the RCEM fatality rate by about one-half order of magnitude.
The RCEM relationship gives fatality rates for depth x velocity values greater than 10 m²/s. However,
the RCEM upper limit curves are well suited for linear regression below depth x velocity = 100 m²/s.
Linear regression was applied to extend the overall upper limit curve through the range of depth x
velocity values estimated for the Squamish River floodplain.
Because warning time is included in the selection of a preferred relationship, RCEM authors emphasize
that calculations should be based on the PAR rather than the exposed population (i.e., analyses should
not account for evacuation separately). The QRA’s RCEM estimates account for residential
floodproofing and occupants of multi-family developments sheltering on higher floors, but not for
systematic evacuation of the floodplain.
Depth x velocity values were not calculated for coastal flood or sea dike breach conditions. As a result,
RCEM fatality rates could not be calculated for the coastal floodplain.

5.6 Integrating Probability Scenarios


On a long floodplain with a significant downstream gradient, the location of a dike breach will typically
determine how much of the dike-protected floodplain is inundated. No loss of life is expected in areas
that are not flooded, so the QRA must consider the different consequences that would result from
breaches at different locations. Determining precise inundation extents for all possible breach locations
would require extensive modelling that is well beyond the scope of this QRA.

5-8

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

As a simpler approach, the conditional probability maps described in Section 3.7 were used as a proxy
for determining the inundation extents of breaches at different locations along the river dike. This
approach harmonizes assumptions about inundation extents with corresponding assumptions about the
incremental probability of flooding.
Conditional probability values were assigned to each lot based on the maps presented in Section 3.7.
The process was repeated for each conditional probability map, giving each lot a unique conditional
probability value for each river flood and dike upgrading scenario.
Lot-specific conditional probability values were then used to determine which dike breach locations were
likely to inundate each lot. Lots were grouped by decile of conditional probability. The resulting 10
groups of lots define the areas that would be affected by hypothetical river dike breaches at 10 different
locations. The decile probability value defines the likelihood that each group of lots will be flooded.
Lot-by-lot fatality estimates were added together to produce a cumulative total for each breach location.
Cumulative fatality estimates were matched with their corresponding decile probability value, creating a
series of 10 paired estimates for each river flood and dike upgrading scenario. Table 5-7 provides an
example calculation for this process.

Table 5-7: Example Calculation for Integration of River Dike Breach Probability
Conditional Conditional Probability of Inundation Estimated
Number of
Probability Decile Value By Scenario Fatalities for
Lots in Group
Exceeds (Cumulative) 1
(Incremental) 2 Lots in Group
0th Percentile 100% of
7.7% 7.7% 4.34
(all lots) floodplain total
10th 90% of
17.7% 10.0% 4.34
Percentile floodplain total
20th 80% of
22.5% 4.8% 3.82
Percentile floodplain total
30th 70% of
26.9% 4.4% 3.64
Percentile floodplain total
40th 60% of
30.0% 3.1% 3.46
Percentile floodplain total
50th 50% of
33.1% 3.1% 3.29
Percentile floodplain total
60th 40% of
36.1% 3.0% 3.25
Percentile floodplain total
70th 30% of
41.8% 5.7% 3.21
Percentile floodplain total
80th 20% of
48.3% 6.5% 3.07
Percentile floodplain total
90th 10% of
55.0% 6.7% 1.42
Percentile floodplain total
Notes:
1. Decile (or cumulative) conditional probability values reflect the likelihood that lots in the group will be flooded by a
dike breach at or upstream of the current location.
2. Scenario (or incremental) conditional probability values reflect the likelihood that lots in the group will be flooded
by a dike breach “at” the current location.
3. This table is provided to illustrate the general concept of integrating dike breach probability. Values correspond to
a breach of the existing dike on the upper floodplain during a 200-year return period flood on the Squamish River.

5-9

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Sensitivity analysis confirmed that the results do not change significantly if the lots are grouped by
percentile (producing results for 100 potential breach locations) instead of by decile (producing results
for 10 potential breach locations).
A much simpler approach was adopted for potential sea dike breaches. Since a breach at any location
is assumed to inundate the entire coastal floodplain, the effects of a breach are independent of the
breach location. Estimates of potential fatalities from a coastal flood depend only on the coastal flood
and sea dike upgrading scenario.
To fully define the event tree (e.g., as shown on Figure 5-2), the process described above must be
repeated for all combinations of the QRA parameters. A complete summary of the loss of life scenarios
evaluated for the QRA is presented in the table below.

Table 5-8: Summary of Loss of Life Event Tree Scenarios


Number of Scenarios
Definition
River Floods Coastal Floods

Flood Events 3 8
Floodplains 2 1
Dike Upgrading Alternatives 3 2
Breach Locations 10 1
Time of Day 2 2
Mortality Functions 3 2
Evacuation Status 2* 2
Total Number of Scenarios 1,800 128
* Two evacuation scenarios (evacuation / no evacuation) were considered for the
Netherlands and New Orleans mortality functions. One evacuation scenario (no
evacuation) was considered for the RCEM mortality function.

5.7 Individual Risk Results


Individual Risk is the risk of death for the person most exposed to the hazard (in this case, someone
who spends all their time in the at-risk zone). It is typically expressed as the Probability of Death for an
Individual (PDI). The QRA assessed PDI for each lot, with the highest result providing a governing
value for the floodplain. Results were smoothed to produce maps that illustrate regions of relatively
higher and lower risk.
Figure 5-6 and Figure 5-7 show example PDI maps that apply the Netherlands mortality relationship to
“super dike” results for the upper and lower floodplains, respectively. Figure 5-8 shows an example PDI
map that applies the Netherlands mortality relationship to the “proposed sea dike” results for the coastal
floodplain. Full sets of PDI maps for the upper, lower, and coastal floodplains are provided in
Appendices H, I, and J respectively.
Maximum PDI for each floodplain under each dike upgrading scenario is shown in Table 5-9 below.
Values shown in bold exceed the PDI criteria for existing development defined in the District’s OCP.

5-10

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Maximum PDI values for the upper and lower floodplains approach or exceed the District’s acceptable
risk thresholds even after accounting for the IFHMP’s proposed “super dike” level of protection.
Maximum PDI values for the coastal floodplain would exceed the District thresholds if 1 m of SLR
occurs before the IFHMP’s proposed sea dike is completed.

Table 5-9: Maximum PDI for Squamish River Floodplain

Dike Maximum Probability of Death for an Individual (PDI)


Floodplain Upgrading
Scenario Netherlands New Orleans RCEM
Relationship Relationship Relationship
Existing 0.00185 0.00010 0.00157

Upper Standard 0.00130 0.00007 0.00124

“Super Dike” 0.00084 0.00005 0.00029

Existing 0.00099 0.00006 0.00067

Lower Standard 0.00052 0.00003 0.00055

“Super Dike” 0.00008 0.00001 0.00013


Existing
0.00104 0.00241 N/A
(with 1 m SLR)
Coastal
Proposed Sea
0.00007 0.00001 N/A
Dike

5.8 Societal (Group) Risk Results


Societal risk results are expressed as Probability of Death for Groups (PDG) and are shown in a suite of
F-N curves for each floodplain and mortality function. Figure 5-9 and Figure 5-10 show example F-N
curves obtained by applying the Netherlands mortality relationship to the upper and lower floodplain,
respectively. Figure 5-11 shows an example F-N curve obtained by applying the Netherlands mortality
relationship to the coastal floodplain.
Complete sets of PDG F-N curves for the upper, lower, and coastal floodplains are provided in
Appendices H, I and J respectively.
PDG results for the upper floodplain and lower floodplain exceed acceptable risk thresholds published in
the District’s OCP for all mortality functions and dike upgrading assumptions.
PDG results for the “existing dike” coastal floodplain scenario exceed the District’s acceptable risk
thresholds by a wide margin. This result is consistent with the (unrealistic) combination of:
• future sea levels that could flood downtown Squamish during a 5-year return period event; and
• no upgrades to coastal flood defenses.
Coastal floodplain results drop about two orders of magnitude toward (but do not completely fall below)
the District’s acceptable risk thresholds after accounting for the IFHMP’s proposed sea dike.

5-11

0463.323-300
O:\0400-0499\463-323\501-Drawings\b_Figures\463323_Fig5-2_Decision Tree.cdr

District of Squamish
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation

Evacuation
No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No
Night

Night

Night

Night

Night

Night

Night

Night

Night

Night
Day

Day

Day

Day

Day

Day

Day

Day

Day

Day
Breach Breach Breach Breach Breach Breach Breach Breach Breach Breach
Location Location Location Location Location Location Location Location Location Location
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

200 - Year
Flood Event

Breach Breach Breach Breach Breach Breach Breach Breach Breach Breach
Location Location Location Location Location Location Location Location Location Location
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

500 - Year
Flood Event

Breach Breach Breach Breach Breach Breach Breach Breach Breach Breach
Location Location Location Location Location Location Location Location Location Location
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1000-Year
Flood Event

FLOODPLAIN

Project No. 463.323


Date November 2018 Typical Event Tree for Squamish River Floodplain Risk to Life Assessment
Scale Not to Scale Figure 5-2
Path: \\bbyfs1.kwl.ca\0000-0999\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\463323_Figure_5-3.mxd Date Saved: 11/21/2018 3:56:52 PM
Author: ASeuarz

Legend
Study Area Boundary
Existing Dike

Mortality Zones
Breach Zone
Rapidly Rising Water Zone
Remaining Zone

Squamish River Dike

!
River
mish
ua
Sq
KK
@

Mamquam River Dike


!

Mam
qu
KK@
a
m
Ri

r
ve

DRAFT
Reference: 2013 Orthophoto from The District of Squamish.

Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL).
The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution
to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written
permission of KWL is prohibited.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2018 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Mortality Zones for Upper Floodplain Dike Breach during


Project No. Date
463-323 November 2018
400 0 400
Year 2100 200-Year Return Period Flood - Netherlands Relationship
Figure 5-3
(m)
1:18,000
Path: \\bbyfs1.kwl.ca\0000-0999\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\463323_Figure_5-4.mxd Date Saved: 11/21/2018 3:59:27 PM
Author: ASeuarz

Mamquam River Dike

Mam
qu
KK@
a

m
!

Ri
r

ve
Squamish River Dike
River

!
mish
ua
Sq
KK
@

us R i v e r
am
Staw
KK
@

Legend
Dike-Protected Area

DRAFT
Existing Dike
Future Sea Dike Alignment

Mortality Zones

Howe Sound
Reference: 2013 Orthophoto from The District of Squamish. Breach Zone
Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL).
The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution Rapidly Rising Water Zone
to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written Remaining Zone
permission of KWL is prohibited.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2018 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Mortality Zones for Lower Floodplain Dike Breach during


Project No. Date
463-323 November 2018
400 0 400
Year 2100 200-Year Return Period Flood - Netherlands Relationship
Figure 5-4
(m)
1:18,000
Path: O:\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\463323_Figure_5-5.mxd Date Saved: 11/21/2018 4:37:30 PM
Author: ASeuarz

Mamquam River Dike

Mam
qu
KK@
a

m
!

Ri
r

ve
Squamish River Dike
River

!
mish
ua
Sq
KK
@

us R i v e r
am
Staw
KK
@

Legend

DRAFT
Dike-Protected Area
Existing Dike
Future Sea Dike Alignment

Howe Sound
Reference: 2013 Orthophoto from The District of Squamish.
Mortality Zones
Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL).
The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution
to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk
Rapidly Rising Water Zone
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written
permission of KWL is prohibited.
Remaining Zone

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2018 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Mortality Zones for Sea Dike Breach during Year 2100


Project No. Date
463-323 November 2018
400 0 400
200-Year Return Period Flood - Netherlands Relationship
Figure 5-5
(m)
1:18,000
Path: O:\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\463323_Figure_5-6.mxd Date Saved: 12/3/2018 1:56:14 PM
Author: ASeuarz

Legend
Study Area Boundary
Existing Dike

Probability of Death for Individuals


(x106)
0 - 0.01
0.01 - 0.1
0.1 - 0.2
0.2 - 0.5
0.5 - 1
1-2
2-5
5 - 10
10 - 20
20 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 10,000

Squamish River Dike

!
River
mish
ua
Sq
KK
@

Mamquam River Dike


!

Mam
qu
KK@
a
m
Ri

r
ve

DRAFT
Reference: 2013 Orthophoto from The District of Squamish.

Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL).
The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution
to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written
permission of KWL is prohibited.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2018 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Probability of Death for Individuals (PDI) for Upper Floodplain


Project No. Date
463-323 December 2018
400 0 400 Year 2100 Conditions with IFHMP "Super Dike" - Netherlands Relationship
Figure 5-6
(m)
1:18,000
Path: O:\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\463323_Figure_5-7.mxd Date Saved: 12/3/2018 2:04:39 PM
Author: ASeuarz

Mamquam River Dike

Mam
qu
KK@
a

m
!

Ri
r

ve
Squamish River Dike
River

!
mish
ua
Sq
KK
@

us R i v e r
am
Staw
KK
@

Legend
Dike-Protected Area
Existing Dike
Future Sea Dike Alignment

Probability of Death for Individuals


(x106)
0 - 0.01
0.01 - 0.1
0.10 - 0.2
0.2 - 0.5
0.5 - 1

DRAFT
1-2
2-5
5 - 10
10 - 20
20 - 50
Howe Sound
Reference: 2013 Orthophoto from The District of Squamish.

Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL). 50 - 100
The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution
to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk 100 - 10,000
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written
permission of KWL is prohibited.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2018 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Probability of Death for Individuals (PDI) for Lower Floodplain


Project No. Date
463-323 December 2018
400 0 400
Year 2100 Conditions with IFHMP "Super Dike" - Netherlands Relationship
Figure 5-7
(m)
1:18,000
Path: O:\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\463323_Figure_5-8.mxd Date Saved: 12/3/2018 2:07:33 PM
Author: ASeuarz

Mamquam River Dike

Mam
qu
KK@
a

m
!

Ri
r

ve
Squamish River Dike
River

!
mish
ua
Sq
KK
@

us R i v e r
am
Staw
KK
@

Legend
Dike-Protected Area
Existing Dike
Future Sea Dike Alignment

Probability of Death for Individuals


(x106)
0 - 0.01
0.01 - 0.1
0.1 - 0.2
0.2 - 0.5
0.5 - 1
1-2

DRAFT
Reference: 2013 Orthophoto from The District of Squamish.

Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL).
Howe Sound
2-5
5 - 10
10 - 20
20 - 50
50 - 100
The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution
to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk 100 - 10,000
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written
permission of KWL is prohibited.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2018 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Probability of Death for Individuals (PDI) for Sea Dike Breach


Project No. Date
463-323 December 2018
400 0 400
under Year 2100 Conditions - Netherlands Relationship
Figure 5-8
(m)
1:18,000
Probability of Death for Groups and Acceptable Risk Criteria
Upper Squamish River Floodplain - Netherlands Relationship
1.0E-02
Existing Dike PDG for F-N Curve
Standard Dike PDG for F-N Curve

1.0E-03 Super Dike PDG for F-N Curve


F (Frequency of N of more fatalities)

1.0E-04

UNACCEPTABLE
1.0E-05

1.0E-06 ALARP
(As Low As Reasonably
Practicable)

1.0E-07
INTENSE
SCRUTINY
BROADLY ACCEPTABLE REGION
1.0E-08

1.0E-09
1 10 100 1000 10000
N (Number of fatalities)
DRAFT
Figure 5-9

T:\0400-0499\463-323\400-Work\LossofLife\20181018_Loss_Life_Calcs_Upper_DRreviewed_filteredPDI.xlsx
Probability of Death for Groups and Acceptable Risk Criteria
Lower Squamish River Floodplain - Netherlands Relationship
1.0E-02
Existing Dike PDG
Standard Dike PDG

1.0E-03 "Super Dike" PDG


F (Frequency of N of more fatalities)

1.0E-04

UNACCEPTABLE
1.0E-05

1.0E-06 ALARP
(As Low As Reasonably
Practicable)

1.0E-07
INTENSE
SCRUTINY
BROADLY ACCEPTABLE REGION
1.0E-08

1.0E-09
1 10 100 1000 10000
N (Number of fatalities)
DRAFT
Figure 5-10

T:\0400-0499\463-323\400-Work\LossofLife\20181121_Loss_Life_Calcs_Lower_REV_DRreviewed_filteredPDI.xlsx
Probability of Death for Groups and Acceptable Risk Criteria
Squamish Coastal Floodplain, 1 m SLR - Netherlands Relationship
1.0E-01
PDG with "Existing" Dike

1.0E-02 PDG with Proposed Sea Dike


F (Frequency of N of more fatalities)

1.0E-03

UNACCEPTABLE
1.0E-04

1.0E-05

1.0E-06
ALARP
(As Low As Reasonably
Practicable)

1.0E-07
INTENSE
BROADLY ACCEPTABLE SCRUTINY
1.0E-08
REGION

1.0E-09
1 10 100 1000 10000
N (Number of fatalities)
DRAFT
Figure 5-11

T:\0400-0499\463-323\400-Work\LossofLife\20181121_Loss_Life_Calcs_SeaDike_ASBreviewed_filteredPDI__updated08mortalityzones.xlsx
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

6. Discussion
This section provides a high-level overview of the QRA results, reviews key uncertainties and their
potential effect on study outcomes and discusses the role of risk mitigation.

6.1 Results for Lower and Coastal Floodplain


Early in the IFHMP planning stages, the District recognized that there would be complex trade-offs
between two key flood risk management issues:
• a sea dike was recognized as the most realistic option to mitigate increasing flood risks in
Downtown Squamish due to SLR; and
• constructing a sea dike to protect against future coastal floods could potentially exacerbate the
consequences of an upstream river dike breach.
QRA results for the lower floodplain confirm that these issues remain of critical relevance to the District.
Sea dike benefit-cost ratios of over 100 demonstrate the absolute necessity of coastal flood protection
as SLR approaches 1 m.
At the same time, the sea dike clearly exacerbates risk to life from an upstream river dike breach. QRA
results indicate that risk to life for the lower floodplain could remain “unacceptable” even after upgrading
the river dikes to meet IFHMP “super dike” criteria. With a benefit-cost ratio of about 10, implementation
of the IFHMP “super dike” vision for the lower floodplain’s river dikes clearly falls within the scope of
reasonable actions to mitigate risk.

6.2 Results for Upper Floodplain


QRA results indicate that potential loss of life for the upper Squamish River floodplain is a full order of
magnitude above the acceptable risk thresholds defined in the OCP, even after upgrading the upper
Squamish River dike to meet IFHMP “super dike” criteria. Overlapping hazards from the Cheekeye Fan
could further increase risk in some areas. The risk to life results suggest that further improvements (i.e.,
beyond the IFHMP “super dike”) will be required to achieve ALARP status.
The benefit-cost ratio for the proposed dike upgrades on the upper floodplain is about two, excluding
any allowance for indirect economic damages or valuation of risk to life. This result is more consistent
with the typical range of values expected for past diking projects in BC. The benefit-cost ratio is
significantly less than that of the lower floodplain for two key reasons:
• the length of river dike where failure could inundate a significant portion of the upper floodplain is
about double the corresponding length of dike for the lower floodplain; and
• HAZUS damage estimates for the upper floodplain are about 20 per cent lower than corresponding
estimates for the lower floodplain.
While the benefit-cost ratio for upper floodplain dike upgrades is not as attractive as lower floodplain
dike upgrades, the higher risk to life creates a much more compelling case for upper floodplain dike
improvements. The dike upgrades recommended in the IFHMP clearly fall within the scope of
reasonable actions to mitigate risk. The benefit-cost ratio for these upgrades would increase if the QRA
were extended to incorporate valuation of risk to life and other indirect damages.

6-1

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

The results of the QRA have been used to update the National Disaster Mitigation Program’s Risk
Assessment Information Template (RAIT) for Squamish (Appendix K).

6.3 Potential Implications for Provincial Policy


Provincial standard design criteria for the Squamish River dike specify that the dike should be designed
to safely pass the 200-year return period flood event.
Very different requirements would apply if the risk profile defined by this QRA was associated with a
dam instead of a dike. BC Dam Safety Regulation would classify the “dam” as having “extreme”
consequences of failure. This classification would then require that the structure be designed to safely
withstand the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF), the largest reasonably plausible flood that could occur.
By definition, the PMF is much larger than the 1,000-year return period event.
While this comparison is not entirely realistic, it identifies a potential policy gap between provincial
requirements for dikes and dams with similar risk profiles.

6.4 Key Uncertainties


Quantitative Risk Assessment is a very powerful approach to understand risk and support risk
mitigation. This report describes the results of a thorough and detailed QRA focused on economic
losses and risk to life. The QRA process is considered rigourous and meets the standards for NDMP
“Class A” confidence level (very high degree of confidence). A “Class A” confidence level means that
the risk assessment:
• is based on a thorough knowledge of the natural hazard risk event;
• leveraged a significant quantity of high-quality data;
• leveraged a wide variety of data and information including historical, geospatial, and other sources;
and
• was completed by subject matter experts.
Despite its “Class A” confidence level, a large number of assumptions mean that QRA results remain
subject to uncertainty. QRA results should be considered indicative of the general risks facing the
community rather than numerically accurate and precise at a specific location. Results can provide
greater confidence that the IFHMP’s risk mitigation measures will have a net benefit to the community
but should not be viewed as defining a conclusive threshold for whether or not any specific risk
mitigation decision is justified.
The table below summarizes key sources of uncertainty in the QRA as well as their expected influence
on results. The table defines relative impact for each source (LOW / MED / HIGH based on KWL’s
qualitative judgement) and specifies whether reducing uncertainty is likely to increase (+) or decrease (-)
the estimated level of risk. Where direction of effect is shown as “+ / -“, KWL did not conclusively
identify an expected direction of effect.
This discussion of uncertainty is provided to assist the District with understanding the appropriate
context of uncertainty when discussing, presenting, and making decisions based on the project’s
conclusions. Further work to reduce the uncertainties listed above is not expected to fundamentally
change the general conclusions of this QRA.

6-2

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Table 6-1: Key Uncertainties for Squamish River Floodplain QRA


Economic Risk Risk to Life
Source Description
Impact Direction Impact Direction
Using incremental probabilities for 200-, 500-
Event
and 1,000-year return period events results in a LOW - MED +
Selection
step-function for the loss of life analysis.
Standard uncertainties for Flood Frequency
Peak Flow
Analysis are compounded by extrapolation to LOW +/- LOW +/-
Hydrology
1,000-year return period.
Extensive redevelopment and floodproofing
Year 2100
assumed for Year 2100 conditions affects HIGH +/- HIGH +/-
Development
floodplain conveyance.
The IFHMP allows for floodplain densification
Future
not considered in the model, but proponents LOW + LOW +
Rezoning
must avoid adverse impacts on others.
“Super dike” crest for Eagle Run and Harris
River Dike
Slough was left at 200-year level so breach HIGH + HIGH +
Crest Height
inflow could flow over the dike back to the river.
Sea dike crest was set at IFHMP design value of
Sea Dike
4.7 m. Allowing for intentional outlet breaches HIGH - HIGH -
Crest Height
would reduce consequences for Downtown.
The dike breach model is very detailed but
Hydraulic
remains an approximation of reality. Relies on LOW +/- LOW +/-
Modelling
assumed breach development parameters.
Floodplain-scale dike breach probability are
Dike Breach
based on expert knowledge rather than detailed HIGH +/- HIGH +/-
Probability
data collection and performance assessment.
KWL developed and applied a simplified method
Distribution
for estimating the likelihood that a given property MED - MED -
of Probability
would be affected by dike breach inundation.
Inundation probabilities were applied indirectly
Application of
for economic risk (using pro-rated improvement LOW +/- LOW +/-
Probability
values) and risk to life (using probability deciles).
Consequences were determined using
Envelope
composite envelope results rather than actual HIGH - HIGH -
Results
results for dike breaches at different locations.
HAZUS assumes development is evenly
HAZUS
distributed across each census block without HIGH - N/A N/A
Approach
regard to elevation or actual location.
HAZUS adjustments (final factor 3.0) are
HAZUS
determined from regional indices and relative LOW +/- N/A N/A
Adjustments
changes in local improvement values.
Economic risk analysis did not include all types
Excluded
of infrastructure (e.g., sewers, municipal lighting) HIGH + N/A N/A
Damages
and did not account for indirect losses.

6-3

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Economic Risk Risk to Life


Source Description
Impact Direction Impact Direction
Exposed population was determined using
Population average occupancies, property tax rolls, and N/A N/A LOW +/-
employment density by Traffic Analysis Zone.
Evacuation and shelter-in-place assumptions.
Evacuation /
are based on engineering judgement and N/A N/A HIGH +/-
Sheltering
qualitative guidance provided by District staff.
Mortality functions estimate fatalities based on
Mortality
past events. Three functions produced relatively N/A N/A LOW +/-
Functions
consistent results for this study.
This QRA is focused on dike breach flood risk
Other
and does not consider other risks like BC Hydro MED + MED +
Hazards
dam breach or Cheekeye Fan debris flows.

6.5 Mitigation Opportunities


The results of this QRA will help the District build on the successful program of flood risk mitigation it
has pursued since the 2003 flood. Table 6-2 below summarizes an extensive list of completed,
ongoing, and pending flood risk mitigation initiatives over the past 12 years. The list represents an
investment of over $20 million by the District and its local, provincial, and federal partners. Activities
related to 2003 flood recovery have not been included.

Table 6-2: District of Squamish Flood Risk Mitigation Actions since 2006

Year
Activity
Completed

Harris Slough pump station upgrade


2006 Highway 99 bridge twinning over Mamquam River north dike
Dike crest gauges installed (Squamish River, Cheakamus River, Mamquam River)
Geotechnical Assessment of Squamish dikes (Thurber Engineering)
2007 Sea Dike Reconstruction/Upgrade at Bridge Pond (Skye/Aqua development)
Squamish River Level Monitoring Station installed at Dryden Creek
Erosion Protection on Squamish River dike at Upper Judd Slough and Mid-Island
2008
Squamish River dike raise downstream of CN Rail bridge (Industrial Park development)
2009 Gates and driveways built against Squamish River Dike in Upper Judd Slough
Automation of 3rd Ave tide gates
2010
Extension of 2008 erosion protection at Upper Judd Slough
2011 Squamish River and Mamquam River Survey and Flood Assessment (KWL)
Dryden Creek pump station upgrade
2012
Sediment removal at Cheekeye River and Mamquam River confluences

6-4

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Year
Activity
Completed

Whittaker Slough floodbox upgrade / tide gate installation


Stawamus River dike rip rap upgrade
Electrical upgrades at Harris Slough Pump Station
Cheakamus River Level Monitoring Station installed at Fergie’s Bridge
2013 Squamish River dike raise at North Yards and Lower Judd Slough
Dike sinkhole repair and toe berm construction upstream of Eagle Viewing Area
Improvements to operating logic at 3rd Ave tide gates
2014 Forebay capacity restoration at Dryden Creek Drainage Pump Station
Mature vegetation management along Mamquam River south dike
Squamish River dike raise at North Yards and erosion protection at Lower Judd Slough
2015
Secure right-of-way for flood protection upgrades at south Eagle Viewing Area
Complete Integrated Flood Hazard Management Plan (KWL and Arlington Group)
2017
Adopt Floodplain Bylaw
Secure statutory right-of-way for flood protection works at Upper Judd Slough
Sea dike construction on Mamquam Blind Channel, Winnipeg St to Victoria St
2018 Complete Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River floodplain
Assume local authority status for Paradise Valley Road training berm (Dike 5C)
Squamish River dike raise and related upgrades at Upper Judd Slough
Complete Flood Annex for Community CEMP flood annex
Planned Sea dike construction on Mamquam Blind Channel at Xwu'nekw Park
Eagle Run / Seaichem Dike Master Plan

Through its IFHMP, the District has also established long-term plans looking forward for managing flood
risk (Figure 6-1) using all practicable approaches (Figure 6-2). Particular focus is given to sustainable
redevelopment of floodplain areas and implementing the “super dike” concept. The QRA confirms the
importance of these initiatives.
Even beyond the firm plans laid out in the IFHMP, the study process identified opportunities to go even
further. These opportunities have not been directly incorporated into the QRA but offer significant
potential to further reduce dike breach flood risk. Examples of these opportunities include:
• developing effective and efficient evacuation plans; and
• intentionally breaching the proposed sea dike during an upstream breach of the river dikes.
The IFHMP identified intentional outlet breaches as a potential means to reduce the “bathtub effect”
imposed by the proposed sea dike during a river dike breach scenario. The lower floodplain’s response
was modelled with assumed intentional outlet breaches at carefully-selected locations. The approach is
promising enough that it was cited as support for continuing downtown’s historical FCL exemption for
non-residential spaces.

6-5

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Figure 6-1: IFHMP Conceptual Flood Risk Mitigation Strategies for Squamish

Figure 6-2: Flood Risk Management: Buying Down Flood Risk


Adapted from 2008 US Army Corps of Engineers Flood Policy White Paper prepared by D. Riley.

6-6

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Since the sea dike has not yet been built, detailed plans for intentional outlet breaches are not available
and they could not be incorporated into the QRA. However, preliminary results from the IFHMP’s
assessment of intentional dike breaches can be compared to corresponding QRA results. A
comparison relying on just the 200-year return period dike breach scenario cannot provide a complete
picture of risk but can provide an indication of the degree of risk reduction that may be achievable.
Potential loss of life for the 200-year return period dike breach assessment was re-calculated by
applying the QRA process to the IFHMP’s intentional outlet breach results. Figure 6-3 shows the partial
Probability of Death to Individuals (PDI) for the 200-year return period dike breach flood achieved with
intentional outlet breaches.
Figure 6-3 cannot be directly compared to Figure 5-7, since the former is based exclusively on the 200-
year return period flood while the latter also includes the effect of the 500-year and 1,000-year events.
To support an appropriate comparison, Figure 6-4 provides a corresponding PDI results limited to the
200-year return period event but without intentional outlet breaches. As expected, the change in PDI
results is most significant in Downtown Squamish but effects extend northward through Dentville.
Figure 6-5 shows a comparison of partial Probability of Death for Groups (PDG) results for the 200-year
return period dike breach flood with and without intentional outlet breaches. As expected, results show
a noticeable reduction in risk to life associated with the intentional outlet breaches. Based on this
simple comparison, it is not possible to say whether “super dike” results for a full assessment would plot
fully within the ALARP region.
IFHMP results with intentional outlet breaches were also analyzed using HAZUS-MH. HAZUS damage
estimates were compared directly to the corresponding QRA scenario. The comparison indicates that
intentional outlet breaches would reduce direct economic damages by about one-third (32 per cent).
Overall, the simple comparison confirms the IFHMP’s conclusion that intentional outlet breaches could
help to further mitigate flood risk.

6-7

0463.323-300
Path :O: \
0400- 0499\
463-
323\
430-
GIS\
MXD-
Rp\
Draf
tRepor
t\
463323_Fig u r
e_6-
3.m xd DateS av
ed :12/
3/20182:
19:
08PM
Au th or
:AS eu ar
z

Mamquam River Dike

Mam
qu
KK@
a

m
!

Ri
r

ve
Squamish River Dike
River

!
mish
ua
Sq
KK
@

Legend
us R i v e r
am
Dike-
Protec ted Ar
ea
Staw Existing Dike
Fu tu r
eS eaDikeAlig nm ent
KK
@

ProbabilityofDeath f
orI
nd ivid u als
(x106)
0-0.
01
0.
01-0.
1
0.
1-0.
2
0.
2-0.
5
0.
5-1
1-2
2-5
5-10
10-20
20-50
50-100

DRAFT
Reference: 2013Or
th oph oto f
rom Th eDistr

Copyright Notice: Th esem ater


ic tofS qu am ish .

ials ar ec opy r
ig h tofKerrWood Leid alAssoc iates Ltd .( KWL) .
Howe Sound
Note:

200-
100-10,

yearr
000

Th esem aps sh owth einc r


Pr obabilityofDeath f
etu r
n per
intentionalou tletbr
orI
em entalc ontr
nd ivid u als (
iod d ikebr eac h f
eac h es in th epr
PDI
ibu tion to
)from th e
lood with
oposed sead ike.
Th eDistr ic tofS qu am ish is per m itted to reprod u c eth em ater ials f
orar c h iving and f ord istr
ibu tion Th ese“par tial”PDIr esu lts d o notac c ou ntf orth ef u ll
to th ir
d par ties onlyas requ ir ed to c ond u c tbu siness spec ific allyrelating to th eQu antitativ eRisk rang eofpotentialf lood h az ard s and sh ou ld notbe
Assessm ent f orS qu am ish Riv erFlood plain.Anyoth eru seofth esem ater ials with ou tth ewritten
per m ission ofKWLis pr oh ibited .
c om pared to ac c eptabler isk c riteria.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
©2018Ker
rWood Leid alAssoc iates Ltd .

Pr
ojec tNo.
463-
323
Date
Dec em ber2018 Partial Probability of Death for Individuals (PDI) for Lower Floodplain
400 0 400 Year 2100 200-Year Return Period Flood with IFHMP "Super Dike" and
Intentional Outlet Breaches - Netherlands Relationship
Figure 6-3
(
m)
1:
18,
000
Path :O: \
0400- 0499\
463-
323\
430-
GIS\
MXD-
Rp\
Draf
tRepor
t\
463323_Fig u r
e_6-
4.m xd DateS av
ed :12/
3/20182:
19:
50PM
Au th or
:AS eu ar
z

Mamquam River Dike

Mam
qu
KK@
a

m
!

Ri
r

ve
Squamish River Dike
River

!
mish
ua
Sq
KK
@

Legend
us R i v e r Dike-
Protec ted
am
Staw
Existing Dike
KK Fu tu r
eS eaDikeAlig nm ent
@
ProbabilityofDeath f
orI
nd ivid u als
(x106)
0-0.
01
0.
01-0.
1
0.
1-0.
2
0.
2-0.
5
0.
5-1
1-2
2-5
5-10
10-20
20-50
50-100

DRAFT
Reference: 2013Or
th oph oto f
rom Th eDistr

Copyright Notice: Th esem ater


ic tofS qu am ish .

ials ar ec opy r
ig h tofKerrWood Leid alAssoc iates Ltd .( KWL) .
Howe Sound
Note:

200-
100-10,

yearr
000

Th esem aps sh owth einc r


Pr obabilityofDeath f
etu r
n per
intentionalou tletbr
orI
em entalc ontr
nd ivid u als (
iod d ikebr eac h f
eac h es in th epr
PDI
ibu tion to
)from th e
lood with ou t
oposed sead ike.
Th eDistr ic tofS qu am ish is per m itted to reprod u c eth em ater ials f
orar c h iving and f ord istr
ibu tion Th ese“par tial”PDIr esu lts d o notac c ou ntf orth ef u ll
to th ir
d par ties onlyas requ ir ed to c ond u c tbu siness spec ific allyrelating to th eQu antitativ eRisk rang eofpotentialf lood h az ard s and sh ou ld notbe
Assessm ent f orS qu am ish Riv erFlood plain.Anyoth eru seofth esem ater ials with ou tth ewritten
per m ission ofKWLis pr oh ibited .
c om pared to ac c eptabler isk c riteria.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
©2018Ker
rWood Leid alAssoc iates Ltd .

Pr
ojec tNo. Date
463-
323 Dec em ber2018 Partial Probability of Death for Individuals (PDI) for Lower Floodplain
400 0 400 Year 2100 200-Year Return Period Flood with IFHMP "Super Dike"
1:
18,
000
(
m)
Netherlands Relationship Figure 6-4
Partial Probability of Death for Groups and Acceptable Risk Criteria - 200-year RP Flood
Lower Floodplain with Intentional Outlet Breaches - Netherlands Relationship
1.0E-02
Existing Dike
Existing Dike with Intentional Outlet Breach

1.0E-03 Standard Dike


Standard Dike with Intentional Outlet Breach
F (Frequency of N of more fatalities)

"Super Dike"
1.0E-04 "Super Dike" with Intentional Outlet Breach

UNACCEPTABLE
1.0E-05

1.0E-06 ALARP
(As Low As Reasonably
Practicable)

1.0E-07
INTENSE
SCRUTINY
BROADLY ACCEPTABLE REGION
1.0E-08

1.0E-09
1 10 100 1000 10000
N (Number of fatalities)
DRAFT
Figure 6-5

T:\0400-0499\463-323\400-Work\LossofLife\20181122_Loss_Life_Calcs_Lower_Q200_IntBreach_DRreviewed_filteredPDI.xlsx
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

7. Conclusions and Recommendations


7.1 Conclusions
This section summarizes the key conclusions from the Quantitative Risk Assessment for the Squamish
River Floodplain.

Scope and Purpose


1. This QRA was undertaken with financial support from the National Disaster Mitigation Program to
provide supplementary information regarding flood risks on the Squamish River floodplain.
2. The QRA focusses on includes economic damages and potential loss of life associated with dike
breach flood events on the Squamish River floodplain.
3. QRA results will support the implementation of flood risk mitigation measures recommended in the
IFHMP, including a prioritized list of $80 million in dike upgrades.

Dike Breach Modelling


4. IFHMP river dike breach modelling was updated to produce the additional results needed to assess
risk to life and support a more extensive assessment of economic impacts.
5. All results incorporate IFHMP assumptions for flood hazards and development at Year 2100.
6. The QRA focused on 200-year, 500-year and 1,000-year return period river flood events. This
range includes events where local dikes would have a relatively small likelihood of failure and
events where failure is virtually certain.
7. The QRA focused on coastal flood events that include a 1 m allowance for SLR. Events ranged
from the 5-year return period coastal flood to the 1,000-year return period coastal flood.
8. Results from the QRA’s updated dike breach modelling are consistent with, but do not replace, the
IFHMP results that have been adopted into District policy.

Dike Breach Probability


9. The QRA considers three river dike upgrading scenarios: the existing (2017) dike system, a dike
system upgraded to meet Provincial Standard criteria, and a dike system that reflects IFHMP
recommendations for a “super dike” that exceeds provincial standards.
10. The QRA considers two coastal flood protection scenarios: an “existing” dike upgraded to a crest
elevation of 3.6 m, and the proposed sea dike described in the IFHMP.
11. To evaluate and compare flood protection alternatives, the QRA incorporates both the probability of
a given river flood and the probability of a dike breach occurring during that flood. An expert panel
used local knowledge and judgement to estimate the likelihood of failure under different flood and
upgrading assumptions.
12. The expert panel provided estimates of dike breach probability at the floodplain or reach scale.
These probabilities were validated using fragility theory then distributed along the dike to reflect
areas of higher and lower relative risk.

7-1

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

13. GIS tools were used to extrapolate dike breach probabilities across the floodplain. The resulting
maps show the conditional probability of inundation everywhere in the floodplain under each river
flood and dike upgrading scenario.

Economic Damages
14. Economic damages were assessed at the floodplain scale using HAZUS-MH and adjusted to local
present-day values. Specialized infrastructure could not be assessed by HAZUS and was
estimated separately. Indirect losses (including the economic value associated with potential loss of
life) were not included.
15. Economic damage estimates were adjusted for dike breach probability and integrated across the full
range of flood events. This produced an annual expected value of damages for each river flood and
dike upgrading scenario.
16. The annual expected value of damages for a river dike breach on the upper Squamish River
floodplain ranges from $3.0 million for the existing dike scenario to $1.1 million for the IFHMP “super
dike” scenario.
17. The annual expected value of damages for a river dike breach on the lower Squamish River
floodplain ranges from $3.6 million for the existing dike scenario to $0.9 million for the IFHMP “super
dike” scenario. These values include the effects of the proposed sea dike.
18. The annual expected value of damages from a coastal flood with 1 m SLR given an “existing” dike
at 3.6 m crest elevation is $125 million. This very large value is largely the result of damages from
less extreme but more frequent floods.
19. Constructing the proposed sea dike decreases the annual expected value of coastal flood damages
to $1.1 million.
20. The difference in expected damage estimates between two dike upgrading scenarios represents the
damages avoided by implementing that dike upgrade. These “benefits” were combined with IFHMP
cost estimates to calculate the following benefit-cost ratios:
• Upgrading the upper floodplain’s existing dikes to IFHMP “super dike” status produces a
benefit-cost ratio of 2.0.
• Upgrading the lower floodplain’s existing dikes to IFHMP “super dike” status produces a
benefit-cost ratio of 9.6.
• Implementing the IFHMP’s proposed sea dike produces a benefit-cost ratio in excess of 100
because of the potential flood damages from SLR.

Risk to Life
21. The District’s OCP defines acceptable risk thresholds for loss of life due to landslide, debris flow
and debris flood hazards. This study extended these risk thresholds to flood hazards.
22. IFHMP assumptions about floodplain population were adopted to define the Population at Risk
(PAR). The PAR was then adjusted for exposure by accounting for time of day, shelter-in-place
opportunities, and District-led evacuation.
23. Potential loss of life within the exposed PAR was estimated using three independent published
formulae that use flood characteristics to define a mortality rate. Calculations were performed at the

7-2

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

lot scale for each flood and dike upgrading scenario to incorporate the site-specific probability of
inundation during a dike breach event.
24. Results from a total of 1,800 river flood dike breach scenarios and 128 coastal flood / sea dike
breach scenarios were integrated to provide an overall estimate of potential risk to life on each
floodplain.
25. Maximum values for individual risk (PDI) on the upper and lower floodplains approach or exceed the
District’s acceptable risk thresholds even after accounting for the IFHMP’s proposed “super dike”
level of protection. Risk to life is higher for the upper floodplain than for the lower floodplain.
26. Maximum values for individual risk (PDI) on the coastal floodplain would exceed the District
thresholds if 1 m of SLR occurs before the IFHMP’s proposed sea dike is completed.
27. Societal risk (Probability of Death for Groups or PDG) results for the upper floodplain and lower
floodplain exceed the District’s acceptable risk thresholds for all mortality functions and dike
upgrading assumptions.
28. PDG results for the “existing dike” coastal floodplain scenario exceed the District’s acceptable risk
thresholds by a wide margin. This further demonstrates the necessity of the proposed sea dike to
protect against future sea levels.
29. After accounting for the IFHMP’s proposed sea dike, societal risk (PDG) estimates for the coastal
floodplain drop about two orders of magnitude toward (but do not completely fall below) the District’s
acceptable risk thresholds.

Analysis
30. The results of the QRA confirm that there are complex trade-offs between the economic necessity
of a new sea dike to protect against SLR and the exacerbating effect the dike will have on the
consequences of an upstream breach on the river dikes.
31. The IFHMP’s recommended “super dike” upgrades on the upper and lower floodplain clearly fall
within the scope of reasonable actions to mitigate flood risk to a level that is ALARP.
32. Benefit-cost ratios for the required upgrades would increase if VSL and other indirect damages were
incorporated.
33. The QRA process is considered rigourous and meets the standards for NDMP “Class A” confidence
level (very high degree of confidence).
34. The results of the QRA demonstrate that the IFHMP’s risk mitigation measures will have a net
benefit to the community and have been used to update the NDMP’s RAIT for Squamish.
35. While rigorous, QRA results still incorporate a range of uncertainties. Results should not be viewed
as defining a conclusive threshold for whether or not any specific risk mitigation decision is justified.
36. In some situations, improvements beyond the IFHMP “super dike” will be required to achieve
ALARP status. A dam with a similar risk profile would have to be able to withstand the PMF, a
theoretical maximum flood event much greater than the 1,000-year return period event.
37. One promising opportunity for further flood risk mitigation involves intentionally breaching
downstream dikes (particularly the proposed sea dike) to limit floodplain inundation depths.

7-3

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

7.2 Recommendations
Building on the results of this QRA, it is recommended that the District pursue the following actions:
A. Submit this summary report, including the updated RAIT, to fulfill the requirements of the project’s
funding partners.
B. Proceed with implementation of the IFHMP’s prioritized upgrades to the local dike system as
resources permit.
C. Provide the results of this QRA to potential funding partners as justification for funding of dike
upgrades.
D. Review trade-offs for target dike crest elevations when considering “super dike” upgrades between
Judd Slough and Seaichem I.R. No. 16 as well as along Harris Slough on Kowtain I.R. No. 17.
E. Review flood-related aspects of the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP),
particularly with respect to evacuation protocols in the event of a possible, imminent, or ongoing
dike breach.
F. Evaluate and make provision for intentional outlet dike breaches in the CEMP’s flood annex.

7-4

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Closure
Prepared by:
KERR WOOD LEIDAL ASSOCIATES LTD.

Alisson Seuarz, EIT David Roche, M.A.Sc., P.Eng.


Project Engineer Senior Water Resources Engineer

Reviewed by:

David Sellars, M.Sc., P.Eng.


Technical Reviewer

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Glossary of Acronyms
ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable
CAD (000s CAD) Quantities expressed in (thousands of) Canadian dollars
CDB Census Dissemination Block
CEMP Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
DFL Designated Flood Level
ICI Industrial, Commercial and Institutional
IFHMP Integrated Flood Hazard Management Plan
KWL Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.
NDMP National Disaster Mitigation Program
NRCan Natural Resources Canada
OCP Official Community Plan
PAR Population At Risk
PDG Probability of Death for Groups
PDI Probability of Death for an Individual
QRA Quantitative Risk Assessment
RAIT Risk Assessment Information Template
RCEM (US Bureau of) Reclamation Consequence Estimation Methodology
SLR Sea Level Rise
USD Quantities expressed in United States Dollars
VSL (Economic) Value of a Statistical Life

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

References
BC MFLNRO (British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations). 2017.
Downstream Consequence of Failure Classification Interpretation Guideline. Revised March 2017. 20pp.
BC MFLNRORD (British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural
Development). 2018. Flood Hazard Area Land Use Management Guidelines. As amended by BC
MFLNRORD January 2018.
Defra (United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) and EA (Environment Agency).
2007. Performance and Reliability of Flood and Coastal Defences. R&D Technical Report FD 2318/TR1.
August 2007.
District of Squamish. 2018. #squamish2040 - Official Community Plan. Bylaw 2500,2017. Bylaw Schedule A.
Engineers and Geoscientists BC. 2018. Professional Practice Guidelines – Legislated Flood Assessments in a
Changing Climate in BC. Version 2.1 published August 2018.
Jonkman, S.N., J.K. Vrijling, and A.C.W.M. Vrouwenvelder. 2008. Methods for the estimation of loss of life due
to floods: a literature review and a proposal for a new method. Natural Hazards 46: 353-389.
Jonkman, S.N., B. Maaskant, E. Boyd, and M.L. Levitan. 2009. Loss of Life Caused by the Flooding of New
Orleans After Hurricane Katrina: Analysis of the Relationship Between Flood Characteristics and
Mortality. Risk Analysis 29(5): 676-698.
KWL (Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.). 2011. Squamish River and Mamquam River Survey and Flood
Assessment. Revised Final Report dated July 2011. KWL file no. 0463.186-300.
KWL (Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.). 2012. Development Cost Charge Bylaw Update. Final report dated
May 2012. KWL file no. 0463.229-300.
KWL (Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.). 2017a. Integrated Flood Hazard Management Plan – Background
Report. Final report dated September 2017. KWL file no. 0463.278-300.
KWL (Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.). 2017b. Integrated Flood Hazard Management Plan – Coastal Flood
Risk Mitigation Options. Final report dated September 2017. KWL file no. 0463.278-300.
KWL (Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.). 2017c. Integrated Flood Hazard Management Plan – Final Report.
Final report dated October 2017. KWL file no. 0463.278-300.
KWL (Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.). 2017c. Integrated Flood Hazard Management Plan – Final Report.
Final report dated September 2017. KWL file no. 0463.278-300.
NHC (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants). 2016. Lower Mainland Flood Management Strategy Project 2:
Regional Assessment of Flood Vulnerability. Final report prepared for Fraser Basin Council. NHC ref.
no. 3000149.
US DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 2016. Memorandum to Secretarial Officers and Modal
Administrators from M.J. Moran and C. Monje Re: Guidance on the Treatment of the Economic Value of a
Statistical Life (VSL) in U.S. Department of Transportation Analyses – 2016 Adjustment dated August 8,
2016. 13pp.
USBR (United States Department of the Interior – Bureau of Reclamation). 2014. RCEM – Reclamation
Consequence Estimating Methodology. Interim Guidelines for Estimating Life Loss for Dam Safety Risk
Analysis. 55pp.

0463.323-300
DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain
Draft Report
November 2018

Statement of Limitations
This document has been prepared by Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL) for the exclusive use and benefit of District of Squamish for
the Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. No other party is entitled to rely on any of the conclusions, data, opinions,
or any other information contained in this document.
This document represents KWL’s best professional judgement based on the information available at the time of its completion and as
appropriate for the project scope of work. Services performed in developing the content of this document have been conducted in a manner
consistent with that level and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the engineering profession currently practising under similar
conditions. No warranty, express or implied, is made.

Proprietary and Confidentiality Notice


This document is submitted in confidence as provided under Section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (BC).
Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. considers the information contained in this document to be proprietary. District of Squamish shall not
disclose this document to any other party and shall not duplicate or use it, in whole or in part, for any purpose other than to evaluate the
document itself.

Copyright Notice
These materials (text, tables, figures, and drawings included herein) are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL). District of
Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution to third parties only as required to conduct business
specifically relating to Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written
permission of KWL is prohibited.

Revision History
Revision # Date Status Revision Author

A 22 November 2018 DRAFT Initial Draft for internal review DR

B 6 December 2018 DRAFT Incorporated internal review comments, draft to client DR

0463.323-300
Dike Breach Model Output Maps for
Upper Squamish River Floodplain
List of Figures
Figure A-1: Composite Maximum Water Surface Elevation for Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 200-Year Return Period Flood
Figure A-2: Composite Maximum Water Surface Elevation for Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 500-Year Return Period Flood
Figure A-3: Composite Maximum Water Surface Elevation for Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 1000-Year Return Period Flood
Figure A-4: Composite Maximum Water Depth for Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 200-Year Return Period Flood
Figure A-5: Composite Maximum Water Depth for Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 500-Year Return Period Flood
Figure A-6: Composite Maximum Water Depth for Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 1000-Year Return Period Flood
Figure A-7: Composite Maximum Velocity for Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 200-Year Return Period Flood
Figure A-8: Composite Maximum Velocity for Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 500-Year Return Period Flood
Figure A-9: Composite Maximum Velocity for Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 1000-Year Return Period Flood
Figure A-10: Composite Maximum “Depth x Velocity” for Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 200-Year Return Period Flood
Figure A-11: Composite Maximum “Depth x Velocity” for Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 500-Year Return Period Flood

DRAFT
Figure A-12: Composite Maximum “Depth x Velocity” for Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 1000-Year Return Period Flood
Figure A-13: Composite Maximum Rate of Rise for Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 200-Year Return Period Flood
Figure A-14: Composite Maximum Rate of Rise for Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 500-Year Return Period Flood
Figure A-15: Composite Maximum Rate of Rise for Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 1000-Year Return Period Flood
Path: \\bbyfs1.kwl.ca\0000-0999\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\2019-01-18\AppendixA\463323_Figure_A-1.mxd Date Saved: 1/29/2019 12:35:40 PM
Author: jkaur

Legend
Study Area Boundary
Existing Dike

Max Water Elevation (m)


<10.00 15.51 - 16.00
10.01 - 10.50 16.01 - 16.50
10.51 - 11.00 16.51 - 17.00
11.01 - 11.50 17.01 - 17.50
11.51 - 12.00 17.51 - 18.00
12.01 - 12.50 18.01 - 18.50
12.51 - 13.00 18.51 - 19.00
13.01 - 13.50 19.01 - 19.50
13.51 - 14.00 19.51 - 20.00
14.01 - 14.50 20.01 - 20.50
14.51 - 15.00 20.51 - 21.00
15.01 - 15.50 >21.00

Notes:

1. Results represent an envelope of the effects


expected from a single dike breach event ocurring
at any location along the dike.

2. This map was produced exclusively to support the


Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River
Floodplain and is not an official flood hazard map.
Official flood hazard maps may be found in the
District of Squamish Integrated Flood Hazard
Management Plan.

Squamish River Dike

!
River
mish
ua
Sq
KK
@

Mamquam River Dike


!

Mam
qu
KK@
a
m
Ri

r
ve

DRAFT
Reference: 2013 Orthophoto from The District of Squamish.

Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL).
The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution
to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written
permission of KWL is prohibited.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2019 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Project No. Date


463-323 January, 2019 Composite Maximum Water Surface Elevation for
400 0 400 Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios
(m)
1:18,000 Year 2100 200-Year Return Period Flood Figure A-1
Path: \\bbyfs1.kwl.ca\0000-0999\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\2019-01-18\AppendixA\463323_Figure_A-2.mxd Date Saved: 1/29/2019 12:30:54 PM
Author: jkaur

Legend
Study Area Boundary
Existing Dike

Max Water Elevation (m)


<10.00 15.51 - 16.00
10.01 - 10.50 16.01 - 16.50
10.51 - 11.00 16.51 - 17.00
11.01 - 11.50 17.01 - 17.50
11.51 - 12.00 17.51 - 18.00
12.01 - 12.50 18.01 - 18.50
12.51 - 13.00 18.51 - 19.00
13.01 - 13.50 19.01 - 19.50
13.51 - 14.00 19.51 - 20.00
14.01 - 14.50 20.01 - 20.50
14.51 - 15.00 20.51 - 21.00
15.01 - 15.50 >21.00

Notes:
1. Results represent an envelope of the effects
expected from a single dike breach event ocurring
at any location along the dike.

2. This map was produced exclusively to support


the Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish
River Floodplain and is not an official flood
hazard map. Official flood hazard maps may be
found in the District of Squamish Integrated Flood
Hazard Management Plan.

Squamish River Dike

!
River
mish
ua
Sq
KK
@

Mamquam River Dike


!

Mam
qu
KK@
a
m
Ri

r
ve

DRAFT
Reference: 2013 Orthophoto from The District of Squamish.

Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL).
The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution
to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written
permission of KWL is prohibited.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2019 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Project No. Date


463-323 January, 2019 Composite Maximum Water Surface Elevation for
400 0 400 Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios
(m)
1:18,000 Year 2100 500-Year Return Period Flood Figure A-2
Path: \\bbyfs1.kwl.ca\0000-0999\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\2019-01-18\AppendixA\463323_Figure_A-3.mxd Date Saved: 1/28/2019 4:24:31 PM
Author: jkaur

Legend
Study Area Boundary
Existing Dike

Max Water Elevation (m)


<10.00 15.51 - 16.00
10.01 - 10.50 16.01 - 16.50
10.51 - 11.00 16.51 - 17.00
11.01 - 11.50 17.01 - 17.50
11.51 - 12.00 17.51 - 18.00
12.01 - 12.50 18.01 - 18.50
12.51 - 13.00 18.51 - 19.00
13.01 - 13.50 19.01 - 19.50
13.51 - 14.00 19.51 - 20.00
14.01 - 14.50 20.01 - 20.50
14.51 - 15.00 20.51 - 21.00
15.01 - 15.50 >21.00

Notes:
1. Results represent an envelope of the effects
expected from a single dike breach event ocurring
at any location along the dike.

2. This map was produced exclusively to support


the Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish
River Floodplain and is not an official flood hazard
map. Official flood hazard maps may be found in
the District of Squamish Integrated Flood
Hazard Management Plan.

Squamish River Dike

!
River
mish
ua
Sq
KK
@

Mamquam River Dike


!

Mam
qu
KK@
a
m
Ri

r
ve

DRAFT
Reference: 2013 Orthophoto from The District of Squamish.

Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL).
The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution
to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written
permission of KWL is prohibited.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2019 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Project No. Date


463-323 January, 2019 Composite Maximum Water Surface Elevation for
400 0 400 Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios
(m)
1:18,000 Year 2100 1000-Year Return Period Flood Figure A-3
Path: \\bbyfs1.kwl.ca\0000-0999\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\2019-01-18\AppendixA\463323_Figure_A-4.mxd Date Saved: 1/28/2019 4:30:40 PM
Author: jkaur

Legend
Study Area
Existing

Max Water Depth (m)


< 0.25 3.26 - 3.50
0.26 - 0.50 3.51 - 3.75
0.51 - 0.75 3.76 - 4.00
0.76 - 1.00 4.01 - 4.25
1.01 - 1.25 4.26 - 4.50
1.26 - 1.50 4.51 - 4.75
1.51 - 1.75 4.76 - 5.00
1.76 - 2.00 5.01 - 5.25
2.01 - 2.25 5.26 - 5.50
2.26 - 2.50 5.51 - 5.75
2.51 - 2.75 5.76 - 6.00
2.76 - 3.00 >6.00
3.01 - 3.25
Notes:

1. Results represent an envelope of the effects


expected from a single dike breach event
ocurring at any location along the dike.

2. This map was produced exclusively to support


the Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish
River Floodplain and is not an official flood
hazard map. Official flood hazard maps may be
found in the District of Squamish Integrated
Flood Hazard Management Plan.

Squamish River Dike

!
River
mish
ua
Sq
KK
@

Mamquam River Dike


!

Mam
qu
KK@
a
m
Ri

r
ve

DRAFT
Reference: 2013 Orthophoto from The District of Squamish.

Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL).
The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution
to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written
permission of KWL is prohibited.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2019 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Project No. Date


463-323 February, 2019 Composite Maximum Water Depth for
400 0 400 Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios
(m)
1:18,000 Year 2100 200-Year Return Period Flood Figure A-4
Path: \\bbyfs1.kwl.ca\0000-0999\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\2019-01-18\AppendixA\463323_Figure_A-5.mxd Date Saved: 1/28/2019 4:30:50 PM
Author: jkaur

Legend
Study Area Boundary
Existing Dike

Max Water Depth (m)


0.00 - 0.25 3.26 - 3.50
0.26 - 0.50 3.51 - 3.75
0.51 - 0.75 3.76 - 4.00
0.76 - 1.00 4.01 - 4.25
1.01 - 1.25 4.26 - 4.50
1.26 - 1.50 4.51 - 4.75
1.51 - 1.75 4.76 - 5.00
1.76 - 2.00 5.01 - 5.25
2.01 - 2.25 5.26 - 5.50
2.26 - 2.50 5.51 - 5.75
2.51 - 2.75 5.76 - 6.00
2.76 - 3.00 > 6.00
3.01 - 3.25

Notes:
1. Results represent an envelope of the effects
expected from a single dike breach event ocurring
at any location along the dike.

2. This map was produced exclusively to support


the Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish
River Floodplain and is not an official flood
hazard map. Official flood hazard maps may be
found in the District of Squamish Integrated
Flood Hazard Management Plan.

Squamish River Dike

!
River
mish
ua
Sq
KK
@

Mamquam River Dike


!

Mam
qu
KK@
a
m
Ri

r
ve

DRAFT
Reference: 2013 Orthophoto from The District of Squamish.

Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL).
The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution
to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written
permission of KWL is prohibited.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2019 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Project No. Date


463-323 February, 2019 Composite Maximum Water Depth for
400 0 400 Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios
(m)
1:18,000 Year 2100 500-Year Return Period Flood Figure A-5
Path: \\bbyfs1.kwl.ca\0000-0999\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\2019-01-18\AppendixA\463323_Figure_A-6.mxd Date Saved: 1/28/2019 4:31:03 PM
Author: jkaur

Legend
Study Area
Existing Dike

Max Water Depth (m)


0.00 - 0.25 3.26 - 3.50
0.26 - 0.50 3.51 - 3.75
0.51 - 0.75 3.76 - 4.00
0.76 - 1.00 4.01 - 4.25
1.01 - 1.25 4.26 - 4.50
1.26 - 1.50 4.51 - 4.75
1.51 - 1.75 4.76 - 5.00
1.76 - 2.00 5.01 - 5.25
2.01 - 2.25 5.26 - 5.50
2.26 - 2.50 5.51 - 5.75
2.51 - 2.75 5.76 - 6.00
2.76 - 3.00 > 6.00
3.01 - 3.25

Notes:
1. Results represent an envelope of the effects
expected from a single dike breach event ocurring
at any location along the dike.

2. This map was produced exclusively to support


the Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish
River Floodplain and is not an official flood
hazard map. Official flood hazard maps may be
found in the District of Squamish Integrated
Flood Hazard Management Plan.

Squamish River Dike

!
River
mish
ua
Sq
KK
@

Mamquam River Dike


!

Mam
qu
KK@
a
m
Ri

r
ve

DRAFT
Reference: 2013 Orthophoto from The District of Squamish.

Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL).
The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution
to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written
permission of KWL is prohibited.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2019 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Project No. Date


463-323 February, 2019 Composite Maximum Water Depth for
400 0 400 Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios
(m)
1:18,000 Year 2100 1000-Year Return Period Flood Figure A-6
Path: \\bbyfs1.kwl.ca\0000-0999\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\2019-01-18\AppendixA\463323_Figure_A-7.mxd Date Saved: 1/28/2019 4:32:44 PM
Author: jkaur

Legend
Study Area
Existing Dike

Max Water Velocity (m/s)


0.00 - 0.25 2.76 - 3.00
0.26 - 0.50 3.01 - 3.25
0.51 - 0.75 3.26 - 3.50
0.76 - 1.00 3.51 - 3.75
1.01 - 1.25 3.76 - 4.00
1.26 - 1.50 4.01 - 4.25
1.51 - 1.75 4.26 - 4.50
1.76 - 2.00 4.51 - 4.75
2.01 - 2.25 4.76 - 5.00
2.26 - 2.50 5.01 - 5.25
2.51 - 2.75 > 5.25

Notes:
1. Results represent an envelope of the effects
expected from a single dike breach event ocurring
at any location along the dike.

2. This map was produced exclusively to support


the Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish
River Floodplain and is not an official flood
hazard map. Official flood hazard maps may be
found in the District of Squamish Integrated
Flood Hazard Management Plan.

Squamish River Dike

!
River
mish
ua
Sq
KK
@

Mamquam River Dike


!

Mam
qu
KK@
a
m
Ri

r
ve

DRAFT
Reference: 2013 Orthophoto from The District of Squamish.

Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL).
The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution
to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written
permission of KWL is prohibited.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2019 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Project No. Date


463-323 February, 2019 Composite Maximum Water Velocity for
400 0 400 Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios
(m)
1:18,000 Year 2100 200-Year Return Period Flood Figure A-7
Path: \\bbyfs1.kwl.ca\0000-0999\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\2019-01-18\AppendixA\463323_Figure_A-8.mxd Date Saved: 1/28/2019 4:33:20 PM
Author: jkaur

Legend
Study Area Boundary
Existing Dike

Max Water Velocity (m/s)


0.00 - 0.25 2.76 - 3.00
0.26 - 0.50 3.01 - 3.25
0.51 - 0.75 3.26 - 3.50
0.76 - 1.00 3.51 - 3.75
1.01 - 1.25 3.76 - 4.00
1.26 - 1.50 4.01 - 4.25
1.51 - 1.75 4.26 - 4.50
1.76 - 2.00 4.51 - 4.75
2.01 - 2.25 4.76 - 5.00
2.26 - 2.50 5.01 - 5.25
2.51 - 2.75 > 5.25

Notes:
1. Results represent an envelope of the effects
expected from a single dike breach event ocurring
at any location along the dike.

2. This map was produced exclusively to support


the Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish
River Floodplain and is not an official flood
hazard map. Official flood hazard maps may be
found in the District of Squamish Integrated
Flood Hazard Management Plan.

Squamish River Dike

!
River
mish
ua
Sq
KK
@

Mamquam River Dike


!

Mam
qu
KK@
a
m
Ri

r
ve

DRAFT
Reference: 2013 Orthophoto from The District of Squamish.

Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL).
The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution
to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written
permission of KWL is prohibited.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2019 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Project No. Date


463-323 February, 2019 Composite Maximum Water Velocity for
400 0 400 Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios
(m)
1:18,000 Year 2100 500-Year Return Period Flood Figure A-8
Path: \\bbyfs1.kwl.ca\0000-0999\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\2019-01-18\AppendixA\463323_Figure_A-9.mxd Date Saved: 1/28/2019 4:33:42 PM
Author: jkaur

Legend
Study Area
Existing Dike

Max Water Velocity (m/s)


0.00 - 0.25 2.76 - 3.00
0.26 - 0.50 3.01 - 3.25
0.51 - 0.75 3.26 - 3.50
0.76 - 1.00 3.51 - 3.75
1.01 - 1.25 3.76 - 4.00
1.26 - 1.50 4.01 - 4.25
1.51 - 1.75 4.26 - 4.50
1.76 - 2.00 4.51 - 4.75
2.01 - 2.25 4.76 - 5.00
2.26 - 2.50 5.01 - 5.25
2.51 - 2.75 > 5.25

Notes:
1. Results represent an envelope of the effects
expected from a single dike breach event ocurring
at any location along the dike.

2. This map was produced exclusively to support


the Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish
River Floodplain and is not an official flood
hazard map. Official flood hazard maps may be
found in the District of Squamish Integrated
Flood Hazard Management Plan.

Squamish River Dike

!
River
mish
ua
Sq
KK
@

Mamquam River Dike


!

Mam
qu
KK@
a
m
Ri

r
ve

DRAFT
Reference: 2013 Orthophoto from The District of Squamish.

Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL).
The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution
to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written
permission of KWL is prohibited.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2019 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Project No. Date


463-323 February, 2019 Composite Maximum Water Velocity for
400 0 400 Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios
(m)
1:18,000 Year 2100 1000-Year Return Period Flood Figure A-9
Path: \\bbyfs1.kwl.ca\0000-0999\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\2019-01-18\AppendixA\463323_Figure_A-10.mxd Date Saved: 1/28/2019 4:34:10 PM
Author: jkaur

Legend
Study Area Boundary
Existing Dike
2
Max "Depth x Velocity" (m /s)
0.00 - 0.20 3.61 - 3.80
0.21 - 0.40 3.81 - 4.00
0.41 - 0.60 4.01 - 4.20
0.61 - 0.80 4.21 - 4.40
0.81 - 1.00 4.41 - 4.60
1.01 - 1.20 4.61 - 4.80
1.21 - 1.40 4.81 - 5.00
1.41 - 1.60 5.01 - 5.20
1.61 - 1.80 5.21 - 5.40
1.81 - 2.00 5.41 - 5.60
2.01 - 2.20 5.61 - 5.80
2.21 - 2.40 5.81 - 6.00
2.41 - 2.60 6.01 - 6.20
2.61 - 2.80 6.21 - 6.40
2.81 - 3.00 6.41 - 6.60
3.01 - 3.20 6.61 - 6.80
3.21 - 3.40 6.81 - 7.00
3.41 - 3.60 > 7.00

Notes:
1. Results represent an envelope of the effects
expected from a single dike breach event ocurring
at any location along the dike.

2. This map was produced exclusively to support


the Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish
River Floodplain and is not an official flood
hazard map. Official flood hazard maps may be
found in the District of Squamish Integrated
Flood Hazard Management Plan.

Squamish River Dike

!
River
mish
ua
Sq
KK
@

Mamquam River Dike


!

Mam
qu
KK@
a
m
Ri

r
ve

DRAFT
Reference: 2013 Orthophoto from The District of Squamish.

Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL).
The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution
to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written
permission of KWL is prohibited.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2019 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Project No. Date


463-323 February, 2019 Composite Maximum "Depth x Velocity" for
400 0 400 Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios
(m)
1:18,000 Year 2100 200-Year Return Period Flood Figure A-10
Path: \\bbyfs1.kwl.ca\0000-0999\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\2019-01-18\AppendixA\463323_Figure_A-11.mxd Date Saved: 1/28/2019 4:34:31 PM
Author: jkaur

Legend
Study Area Boundary
Existing Dike
2
Max "Depth x Velocity" (m /s)
0.00 - 0.20 3.61 - 3.80
0.21 - 0.40 3.81 - 4.00
0.41 - 0.60 4.01 - 4.20
0.61 - 0.80 4.21 - 4.40
0.81 - 1.00 4.41 - 4.60
1.01 - 1.20 4.61 - 4.80
1.21 - 1.40 4.81 - 5.00
1.41 - 1.60 5.01 - 5.20
1.61 - 1.80 5.21 - 5.40
1.81 - 2.00 5.41 - 5.60
2.01 - 2.20 5.61 - 5.80
2.21 - 2.40 5.81 - 6.00
2.41 - 2.60 6.01 - 6.20
2.61 - 2.80 6.21 - 6.40
2.81 - 3.00 6.41 - 6.60
3.01 - 3.20 6.61 - 6.80
3.21 - 3.40 6.81 - 7.00
3.41 - 3.60 > 7.00

Notes:
1. Results represent an envelope of the effects
expected from a single dike breach event ocurring
at any location along the dike.

2. This map was produced exclusively to support


the Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish
River Floodplain and is not an official flood
hazard map. Official flood hazard maps may be
found in the District of Squamish Integrated
Flood Hazard Management Plan.

Squamish River Dike

!
River
mish
ua
Sq
KK
@

Mamquam River Dike


!

Mam
qu
KK@
a
m
Ri

r
ve

DRAFT
Reference: 2013 Orthophoto from The District of Squamish.

Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL).
The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution
to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written
permission of KWL is prohibited.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2019 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Project No. Date


463-323 February, 2019 Composite Maximum "Depth x Velocity" for
400 0 400 Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios
(m)
1:18,000 Year 2100 500-Year Return Period Flood Figure A-11
Path: \\bbyfs1.kwl.ca\0000-0999\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\2019-01-18\AppendixA\463323_Figure_A-12.mxd Date Saved: 1/28/2019 4:34:39 PM
Author: jkaur

Legend
Study Area Boundary
Existing Dike
2
Max "Depth x Velocity" (m /s)
0.00 - 0.20 3.61 - 3.80
0.21 - 0.40 3.81 - 4.00
0.41 - 0.60 4.01 - 4.20
0.61 - 0.80 4.21 - 4.40
0.81 - 1.00 4.41 - 4.60
1.01 - 1.20 4.61 - 4.80
1.21 - 1.40 4.81 - 5.00
1.41 - 1.60 5.01 - 5.20
1.61 - 1.80 5.21 - 5.40
1.81 - 2.00 5.41 - 5.60
2.01 - 2.20 5.61 - 5.80
2.21 - 2.40 5.81 - 6.00
2.41 - 2.60 6.01 - 6.20
2.61 - 2.80 6.21 - 6.40
2.81 - 3.00 6.41 - 6.60
3.01 - 3.20 6.61 - 6.80
3.21 - 3.40 6.81 - 7.00
3.41 - 3.60 > 7.00

Notes:
1. Results represent an envelope of the effects
expected from a single dike breach event ocurring
at any location along the dike.

2. This map was produced exclusively to support


the Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish
River Floodplain and is not an official flood
hazard map. Official flood hazard maps may be
found in the District of Squamish Integrated
Flood Hazard Management Plan.

Squamish River Dike

!
River
mish
ua
Sq
KK
@

Mamquam River Dike


!

Mam
qu
KK@
a
m
Ri

r
ve

DRAFT
Reference: 2013 Orthophoto from The District of Squamish.

Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL).
The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution
to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written
permission of KWL is prohibited.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2019 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Project No. Date


463-323 February, 2019 Composite Maximum "Depth x Velocity" for
400 0 400 Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios
(m)
1:18,000 Year 2100 1000-Year Return Period Flood Figure A-12
Path: \\bbyfs1.kwl.ca\0000-0999\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\2019-01-18\AppendixA\463323_Figure_A-13.mxd Date Saved: 1/29/2019 2:35:02 PM
Author: jkaur

Legend
Study Area Boundary
Existing Dike

Max Rate of Rise (m/hr)


0.05 - 0.50
0.51 - 1.00
1.01 - 1.50
1.51 - 2.00
2.01 - 2.50
2.51 - 3.00
3.01 - 3.50
3.51 - 4.00
> 4.00

Notes:

1. Results reflect the maximum increase in water


levels expected over a one-hour period. Water
levels may increase more quickly over
shorter time periods.

2. Results represent an envelope of the effects


expected from a single dike breach event ocurring
at any location along the dike.

3. This map was produced exclusively to support


the Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish
River Floodplain and is not an official flood hazard
map. Official flood hazard maps may be found in
the District of Squamish Integrated Flood Hazard
Management Plan.

Squamish River Dike

!
River
mish
ua
Sq
KK
@

Mamquam River Dike


!

Mam
qu
KK@
a
m
Ri

r
ve

DRAFT
Reference: 2013 Orthophoto from The District of Squamish.

Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL).
The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution
to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written
permission of KWL is prohibited.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2019 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Project No. Date


463-323 February, 2019 Composite Maximum Rate of Rise for
400 0 400 Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios
(m)
1:18,000 Year 2100 200-Year Return Period Flood Figure A-13
Path: \\bbyfs1.kwl.ca\0000-0999\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\2019-01-18\AppendixA\463323_Figure_A-14.mxd Date Saved: 1/29/2019 2:40:44 PM
Author: jkaur

Legend
Study Area Boundary

Existing Dike

Max Rate of Rise (m/hr)


0.05 - 0.50
0.51 - 1.00
1.01 - 1.50
1.51 - 2.00
2.01 - 2.50
2.51 - 3.00
3.01 - 3.50
3.51 - 4.00
> 4.00

Notes:
1.Results reflect the maximum increase in water
levels expected over a one-hour period. Water
levels may increase more quickly over
shorter time periods.

2. Results represent an envelope of the effects


expected from a single dike breach event ocurring
at any location along the dike.

3. This map was produced exclusively to support


the Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish
River Floodplain and is not an official flood hazard
map. Official flood hazard maps may be found in
the District of Squamish Integrated Flood Hazard
Management Plan.

Squamish River Dike

!
River
mish
ua
Sq
KK
@

Mamquam River Dike


!

Mam
qu
KK@
a
m
Ri

r
ve

DRAFT
Reference: 2013 Orthophoto from The District of Squamish.

Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL).
The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution
to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written
permission of KWL is prohibited.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2019 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Project No. Date


463-323 February, 2019 Composite Maximum Rate of Rise for
400 0 400 Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios
(m)
1:18,000 Year 2100 500-Year Return Period Flood Figure A-14
Path: \\bbyfs1.kwl.ca\0000-0999\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\2019-01-18\AppendixA\463323_Figure_A-15.mxd Date Saved: 1/29/2019 2:45:36 PM
Author: jkaur

Legend
Study Area Boundary
Existing Dike

Max Rate of Rise (m/hr)


0.05 - 0.50
0.51 - 1.00
1.01 - 1.50
1.51 - 2.00
2.01 - 2.50
2.51 - 3.00
3.01 - 3.50
3.51 - 4.00
> 4.00

Notes:
1. Results reflect the maximum increase
in water levels expected over a one-hour period.
Water levels may increase more quickly over
shorter time periods.

2. Results represent an envelope of the effects


expected from a single dike breach event ocurring
at any location along the dike.

3. This map was produced exclusively to support


the Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish
River Floodplain and is not an official flood
hazard map. Official flood hazard maps may
be found in the District of Squamish Integrated
Flood Hazard Management Plan.

Squamish River Dike

!
River
mish
ua
Sq
KK
@

Mamquam River Dike


!

Mam
qu
KK@
a
m
Ri

r
ve

DRAFT
Reference: 2013 Orthophoto from The District of Squamish.

Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL).
The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution
to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written
permission of KWL is prohibited.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2019 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Project No. Date


463-323 February, 2019 Composite Maximum Rate of Rise for
400 0 400 Upper Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios
(m)
1:18,000 Year 2100 1000-Year Return Period Flood Figure A-15
Dike Breach Model Output Maps for
Lower Squamish River Floodplain
List of Figures
Figure B-1: Composite Maximum Water Surface Elevation for Lower Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 200-Year Return Period Flood
Figure B-2: Composite Maximum Water Surface Elevation for Lower Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 500-Year Return Period Flood
Figure B-3: Composite Maximum Water Surface Elevation for Lower Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 1000-Year Return Period Flood
Figure B-4: Composite Maximum Water Depth for Lower Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 200-Year Return Period Flood
Figure B-5: Composite Maximum Water Depth for Lower Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 500-Year Return Period Flood
Figure B-6: Composite Maximum Water Depth for Lower Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 1000-Year Return Period Flood
Figure B-7: Composite Maximum Velocity for Lower Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 200-Year Return Period Flood
Figure B-8: Composite Maximum Velocity for Lower Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 500-Year Return Period Flood
Figure B-9: Composite Maximum Velocity for Lower Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 1000-Year Return Period Flood
Figure B-10: Composite Maximum “Depth x Velocity” for Lower Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 200-Year Return Period Flood
Figure B-11: Composite Maximum “Depth x Velocity” for Lower Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 500-Year Return Period Flood
Figure B-12: Composite Maximum “Depth x Velocity” for Lower Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 1000-Year Return Period Flood
Figure B-13: Composite Maximum Rate of Rise for Lower Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 200-Year Return Period Flood
Figure B-14: Composite Maximum Rate of Rise for Lower Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 500-Year Return Period Flood
Figure B-15: Composite Maximum Rate of Rise for Lower Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios - Year 2100 1000-Year Return Period Flood
Path:\\b b y
fs1.
kwl.
c a\0000-
0999\0400-
0499\463-
323\430-
GIS\MX D-
Rp \DraftRe p ort\2019-
01-
18\Ap p e nd ixB\463323_Figure _B-
1.m xd Date Save d :1/
28/
20194:
52:
31PM
Author:jkaur

Mamquam River Dike

Mam
qu
KK@
a

m
!

Ri
r

ve
Squamish River Dike
River

!
mish

Legend
Stud yAre aBound ary
ua

Existing Dike
Sq

Future Se aDike Alignm e nt

Max Wate rEle vation (


m)
KK

<4.
00 7.
51-8.
00
@

4.
01-4.
50 8.
01-8.
50
4.
51-5.
00 8.
51-9.
00
5.
01-5.
50 9.
01-9.
50
5.
51-6.
00 9.
51-10.
00
6.
01-6.
50 10.
01-10.
50
6.
51-7.
00 10.
51-11.
00
7.
01-7.
50 >11.
00

Notes:

1.Re sultsre p re se ntan e nve lop e of the e ffe c ts


e xp e c te d from asingle d ike b re ac h e ve ntoc urring at
anyloc ation along the d ike .

2.Thism ap w asp rod uc e d e xc lusive lyto sup p ortthe


Quantitative Risk Asse ssm e ntfor Squam ish Rive r
Flood p lain and isnotan offic ialflood hazard m ap .
Offic ialflood hazard m ap sm ayb e found in the
Distric tofSquam ish I nte grate d Flood Hazard
Manage m e ntPlan. ”

3.How e Sound flood le ve lsre fle c tre asonab le


c onc urre ntstill- w ate r c ond itionsfor arive r d ike
b re ac h d uring the sp e c ifie d rive r flood e ve ntas
d e sc rib e d in the QRAre p ort.

4.The I FHMPre c om m e nd e d ase ad ike to p rote c t


d ow ntow n from c oastalflood hazard s.The Future
Se aDike hasb e e n inc lud e d in alld ike b re ac h
m od e lling.

us R i v e r
m
a
Staw
KK
@

DRAFT
Reference: 2013Orthop hoto from The Distric tof Squam ish.
Howe Sound
Copyright Notice: The se m ate rialsare c op yrightofKe rr Wood Le id alAssoc iate sLtd .( KWL) .
The Distric t ofSquam ish isp e rm itte d to re p rod uc e the m ate rialsfor arc hiving and for d istrib ution
to third p artie sonlyasre quire d to c ond uc tb usine sssp e c ific allyre lating to the Quantitative Risk
Asse ssm e ntfor Squam ish Rive r Flood p lain.Anyothe r use ofthe se m ate rialswithoutthe writte n
p e rm ission ofKWLisp rohib ite d .

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2019Ke rrWood Le id alAssoc iate sLtd .

Proje c tN o. Date
463-323 Fe b ruary
,2019 Composite Maximum Water Surface Elevation for
400 0 400 Lower Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios
(
m)
1:
18,
000
Year 2100 200-Year Return Period Flood Figure B-1
Path: \\bbyfs1.kwl.ca\0000-0999\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\2019-01-18\AppendixB\463323_Figure_B-2.mxd Date Saved: 1/28/2019 4:52:41 PM
Author: jkaur

Mamquam River Dike

Mam
qu
KK@
a

m
!

Ri
r

ve
Squamish River Dike
River

!
mish

Legend
Study Area Boundary
ua

Existing Dike
Sq

Future Sea Dike Alignment

Max Water Elevation (m)


KK
@

< 4.00 7.51 - 8.00


4.01 - 4.50 8.01 - 8.50
4.51 - 5.00 8.51 - 9.00
5.01 - 5.50 9.01 - 9.50
5.51 - 6.00 9.51 - 10.00
6.01 - 6.50 10.01 - 10.50
6.51 - 7.00 10.51 - 11.00
7.01 - 7.50 > 11.00

Notes:

1. Results represent an envelope of the effects


expected from a single dike breach event ocurring at
any location along the dike.

2. This map was produced exclusively to support the


Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River
Floodplain and is not an official flood hazard map.
Official flood hazard maps may be found in the
District of Squamish Integrated Flood Hazard
Management Plan

4. Howe Sound flood levels reflect reasonable


concurrent still-water conditions for a river dike
breach during the specified river flood event as
described in the QRA report.

5. The IFHMP recommended a sea dike to protect


downtown from coastal flood hazards. The Future
Sea Dike has been included in all dike breach
modelling.

us R i v e r
m
a
Staw
KK
@

DRAFT
Reference: 2013 Orthophoto from The District of Squamish.
Howe Sound
Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL).
The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution
to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written
permission of KWL is prohibited.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2019 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Project No. Date


463-323 February, 2019 Composite Maximum Water Surface Elevation for
400 0 400 Lower Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios
(m)
1:18,000
Year 2100 500-Year Return Period Flood Figure B-2
Path: \\bbyfs1.kwl.ca\0000-0999\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\DraftReport\2019-01-18\AppendixB\463323_Figure_B-3.mxd Date Saved: 1/29/2019 2:28:43 PM
Author: jkaur

Mamquam River Dike

Mam
qu
KK@
a

m
!

Ri
r

ve
Squamish River Dike
River

!
mish

Legend
Study Area Boundary
ua

Existing Dike
Sq

Future Sea Dike Alignment

Max Water Elevation (m)


KK
@

3.69 - 4.00 7.51 - 8.00


4.01 - 4.50 8.01 - 8.50
4.51 - 5.00 8.51 - 9.00
5.01 - 5.50 9.01 - 9.50
5.51 - 6.00 9.51 - 10.00
6.01 - 6.50 10.01 - 10.50
6.51 - 7.00 10.51 - 11.00
7.01 - 7.50 >11.00

Notes:

1. Results represent an envelope of the effects


expected from a single dike breach event ocurring at
any location along the dike.

2. This map was produced exclusively to support the


Quantitative Risk Assessment for Squamish River
Floodplain and is not an official flood hazard map.
Official flood hazard maps may be found in the
District of Squamish Integrated Flood Hazard
Management Plan.

3. Howe Sound flood levels reflect reasonable


concurrent still-water conditions for a river dike
breach during the specified river flood event as
described in the QRA report.

4. The IFHMP recommended a sea dike to protect


downtown from coastal flood hazards. The Future
Sea Dike has been included in all dike breach
modelling.

us R i v e r
m
a
Staw
KK
@

DRAFT
Reference: 2013 Orthophoto from The District of Squamish.
Howe Sound
Copyright Notice: These materials are copyright of Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd. (KWL).
The District of Squamish is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving and for distribution
to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically relating to the Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Squamish River Floodplain. Any other use of these materials without the written
permission of KWL is prohibited.

District of Squamish - Quantitative Risk Assessment


for Squamish River Floodplain
© 2019 Kerr Wood Leidal Associates Ltd.

Project No. Date


463-323 February, 2019 Composite Maximum Water Surface Elevation for
400 0 400 Lower Floodplain Dike Breach Scenarios
(m)
1:18,000
Year 2100 1000-Year Return Period Flood Figure B-3
Path: \\bbyfs1.kwl.ca\0000-0999\0400-0499\463-323\430-GIS\MXD-Rp\FinalReport\AppendixB\463323_Figure_B-4.mxd Date Saved: 1/17/2019 11:07:12 AM
Author: jkaur

Mamquam River Dike

Mam
qu
KK@
a