Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Geo-referenced landslide information system for characterization of landslide hazards at the reservoir… Baldeon Vera, Geidy Adriana 2014

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2014_november_baldeon_geidy.pdf [ 215.42MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0166050.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0166050-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0166050-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0166050-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0166050-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0166050-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0166050-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0166050-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0166050.ris

Full Text

   GEO-REFERENCED LANDSLIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR CHARACTERIZATION OF LANDSLIDE HAZARDS AT THE RESERVOIR SCALE, BRIDGE RIVER WATERSHED, SOUTHWESTERN, B.C.   by   Geidy Adriana Baldeon Vera   B.S., University of California Santa Cruz, 2009     A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF   MASTER OF SCIENCE   in   THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES  (Geological Sciences)     THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  (Vancouver)   September 2014   © Geidy Adriana Baldeon Vera, 2014 ii ABSTRACT Potential instabilities of reservoir slopes could endanger hydroelectric infrastructures, communication lines or communities. Reservoir slope inspections and on-going engineering geological assessments are the main components of dam safety programs. Even though institutions such as B.C. Hydro have been conducting slope-specific monitoring and assessments over long periods of time, there is a need to improve the current state of practice for landslide hazards on reservoir slopes. This thesis details the development of a preliminary standardized landslide information system, which consolidates essential spatial and non-spatial data necessary for reservoir slope assessments.  The thesis outlines the design of the geodatabase and incorporation of landslide attributes, allowing standardization of landslide information. As a pilot project, the database is specific to the Bridge River area, in southwestern British Columbia. The database structure is sufficiently general, to allow its use in other regions as well. However, it is important to refine or optimize the design by potential users in order to meet their specific needs.  One of the major results of the landslide geodatabase is the compilation of a landslide inventory of defined and potential landslides for the study area, which contains additional non-spatial data useful for reservoir slope inspections and assessments. In turn, the creation of a landslide geodatabase facilitates the characterization of landslide hazards at the reservoir scale by assessing specific available data, including the landslide inventory, terrain, bedrock and surficial geological and structural mapping. This provides a homogeneous and region-specific compilation of data relevant to landslide hazard assessment at the reservoir scale for bedrock and overburden-controlled slopes. Furthermore, this allows the study area to be divided into hazard sectors with iii approximately uniform characteristics. The results of this work should make landslide hazard information readily available at first hand to technically qualified users. iv PREFACE BC Hydro kindly provided most of the data collected for the study area (detailed in Section 4.3) and used for this thesis, as well as some input into the definition of landslide attributes (Section 4.2). Topographic maps, geology and terrain maps and aerial photos have been collected from existing resources maintained by the Provincial and Federal Government (detailed in Section 4.3).  The geodatabase was designed, constructed and implemented in ArcGIS by the Author. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................................. ii PREFACE ................................................................................................................................................................... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................ v LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................................... x GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................................................... xii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................... xiii DEDICATION .......................................................................................................................................................... xv CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Statement of Purpose & Objectives ............................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Organization of Thesis ...................................................................................................................................... 4 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Landslides in Rock .............................................................................................................................................. 5 2.1.1 Falls and Topples ........................................................................................................................................ 5 2.1.2 Slides ................................................................................................................................................................ 5 2.1.3 Flows ................................................................................................................................................................ 6 2.1.4 Spreading ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Slope Deformations ............................................................................................................................................ 7 2.2.1 Cases of Slope Deformation in Southwest B.C ............................................................................... 10 2.2.1.1 Affliction Creek ............................................................................................................................... 11 2.2.1.2 Handcar Creek ................................................................................................................................. 11 2.2.1.3 Mount Currie .................................................................................................................................... 12 2.2.1.4 Upper Ryan River ........................................................................................................................... 13 2.2.1.5 Devastation Creek.......................................................................................................................... 13 2.2.1.6 Pika Ridge ......................................................................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER 3: STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................................. 15 3.1 Physiography ...................................................................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Bedrock Geology ................................................................................................................................................ 17 vi 3.3 Quaternary History .......................................................................................................................................... 18 3.4 Quaternary Deposits ........................................................................................................................................ 19 CHAPTER 4: LANDSLIDE GEODATABASE DEVELOPMENT .................................................................... 20 4.1 Geodatabase Structure .................................................................................................................................... 24 4.1.1 Datasets ......................................................................................................................................................... 25 4.1.2 Feature Classes & Attributes ................................................................................................................ 27 4.2 Landslide Attributes ........................................................................................................................................ 28 4.2.1 General Landslide Information ........................................................................................................... 29 4.2.2 Location Characteristics ......................................................................................................................... 30 4.2.3 Landslide Classification .......................................................................................................................... 30 4.2.4 Movement Information .......................................................................................................................... 36 4.2.5 Land Characteristics ................................................................................................................................ 37 4.2.6 Potential causes ......................................................................................................................................... 38 4.2.7 Morphometric Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 38 4.2.8 Geology & Structure Characteristics ................................................................................................. 39 4.2.9 Reference & Editing Information ....................................................................................................... 40 4.2.10 Inspection History Information .......................................................................................................... 41 4.3 Data Collection ................................................................................................................................................... 42 4.3.1 Internal Maps and Reports ................................................................................................................... 42 4.3.2 Internal Imagery ........................................................................................................................................ 43 4.3.3 Governmental Datasets .......................................................................................................................... 43 4.4 Data Processing ................................................................................................................................................. 44 4.4.1 Datum & Projections ................................................................................................................................ 45 4.5 Data Input ............................................................................................................................................................. 46 4.5.1 Datasets ......................................................................................................................................................... 46 4.5.2 Feature Classes & Rasters ..................................................................................................................... 46 4.5.2.1 Naming Convention ...................................................................................................................... 47 4.5.3 Attributes ..................................................................................................................................................... 47 CHAPTER 5: DATA ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................... 49 5.1 Landslide Inventory ......................................................................................................................................... 49 5.1.1 Previous Work ............................................................................................................................................ 49 5.1.2 Validation/Visual Inspection ............................................................................................................... 50 5.1.3 Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 51 vii 5.1.4 Limitations ................................................................................................................................................... 61 5.2 Structural Features ........................................................................................................................................... 62 5.2.1 Faults and Lineaments ............................................................................................................................ 62 5.2.2 Landslide Features Mapped by BCH ................................................................................................. 62 5.2.3 Structural Analysis of Imagery ............................................................................................................ 63 5.3 Terrain Mapping ................................................................................................................................................ 63 5.3.1 Previous Work ............................................................................................................................................ 63 5.3.2 Validation/Visual Inspection (Terrain Reassessment) ............................................................. 63 5.3.3 Limitations ................................................................................................................................................... 64 5.4 Site Investigation and Monitoring Sites ................................................................................................... 64 5.4.1 Santa Claus Mountain .............................................................................................................................. 65 5.4.2 Wedge Drop Mountain ............................................................................................................................ 66 CHAPTER 6: HAZARD SECTORS ...................................................................................................................... 68 6.1 Dominant Landslide Factors (Bedrock Slopes) .................................................................................... 68 6.1.1 Lithology ....................................................................................................................................................... 69 6.1.2 Dominant Structures ............................................................................................................................... 72 6.1.3 Structural Relationships ........................................................................................................................ 72 6.1.3.1 Slope and Aspect ............................................................................................................................ 72 6.1.4 Bedrock slope categories ....................................................................................................................... 76 6.2 Dominant Landslide Factors (Overburden Slopes) ............................................................................ 78 6.2.1 Materials ....................................................................................................................................................... 78 6.2.1.1 Identified Overburden ................................................................................................................. 78 6.2.1.2 Talus .................................................................................................................................................... 79 6.2.2 Debris Flow and Avalanches ................................................................................................................ 80 6.3 Sector Classification ......................................................................................................................................... 81 6.3.1 Seton Reservoir, Sector 1 ....................................................................................................................... 86 6.3.2 Seton Reservoir, Sector 2 ....................................................................................................................... 89 6.3.3 Seton Reservoir, Sector 3 ....................................................................................................................... 92 6.3.4 Seton Reservoir, Sector 4 ....................................................................................................................... 95 6.3.5 Seton Reservoir, Sector 5 ....................................................................................................................... 97 6.3.6 Seton Reservoir, Sector 6 .................................................................................................................... 100 6.3.7 Seton Reservoir, Sector 7 .................................................................................................................... 102 6.3.8 Seton Reservoir, Sector 8 .................................................................................................................... 105 6.3.9 Carpenter Reservoir, Sector 9 ........................................................................................................... 107 viii 6.3.10 Carpenter Reservoir, Sector 10 ........................................................................................................ 110 6.3.11 Carpenter Reservoir, Sector 11 ........................................................................................................ 113 6.3.12 Carpenter Reservoir, Sector 12 ........................................................................................................ 115 6.3.13 Carpenter-Downton Reservoir, Sector 13 ................................................................................... 117 6.3.14 Downton Reservoir, Sector 14 .......................................................................................................... 119 6.3.15 Downton Reservoir, Sector 15 .......................................................................................................... 120 6.3.16 Downton Reservoir, Sector 16 .......................................................................................................... 122 6.3.17 Downton Reservoir, Sector 17 .......................................................................................................... 124 6.3.18 Downton Reservoir, Sector 18 .......................................................................................................... 126 CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................ 128 7.1 Discussion and Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 128 7.2 Recommendations for future work ........................................................................................................ 131 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 133 APPENDIX I GIS LANDSLIDE SCHEMA & FEATURE CLASS DESCRIPTION .................................. 138 APPENDIX II LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY ........................................................ 144 APPENDIX III BRIDGE RIVER LANDSLIDE INVENTORY WITH ATTRIBUTE INFORMATION  ....   ................................................................................................................................................ 190 APPENDIX IV BRIDGE RIVER LANDSLIDE INVENTORY MAPPING AT A SCALE OF 1:20,000 ....   ................................................................................................................................................ 241  ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1:  Geodatabase structure for feature and raster datasets ................................................................ 26 Table 2:  Summary of attributes for the general landslide information ................................................... 29 Table 3:  Summary of attributes based on location characteristics ........................................................... 30 Table 4:  Material types after Hungr et al. (2013) ............................................................................................. 32 Table 5:  Classification Scheme for rock and soil type landslides (Modified after Hungr et al., 2013) .................................................................................................................................................................. 35 Table 6:  Summary of attributes for the landslide classification ................................................................. 36 Table 7:  Summary of attributes for the landslide movement characteristics ....................................... 37 Table 8:  Summary of attributes based on land characteristics ................................................................... 38 Table 9:  Summary of attributes for the potential causes of the landslide .............................................. 38 Table 10:  Summary of attributes for the morphometric characteristics of the landslide .................. 39 Table 11:  Summary of attributes for the geologic and structural characteristics of the landslide . 40 Table 12:  Summary of attributes for the reference information of the landslide .................................. 41 Table 13:  Summary of attributes for the editing information of the landslide data ............................. 41 Table 14:  Summary of attributes for the Inspection History of the landslide carried out by BC Hydro ................................................................................................................................................................. 42 Table 15:  Summary of landslides in Seton reservoir slopes ........................................................................... 54 Table 16:  Summary of landslides in Carpenter reservoir slopes .................................................................. 56 Table 17:  Summary of landslides in Downton reservoir slopes .................................................................... 58 Table 18:  Summary of rock types present within the study area and its percentage relative to the study area ........................................................................................................................................................ 70 Table 19:  Bedrock slope categories ........................................................................................................................... 76 Table 20:  Overburden slopes categories ................................................................................................................. 78  x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Overview map of the Bridge River study area and its regional geology ................................ 16 Figure 2:  Flow diagram showing the phases and stages of the landslide geodatabase development .............................................................................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 3:  Geodatabase structure for feature datasets in ArcGIS .................................................................. 27 Figure 4:  Overview map of the landslide inventory at the study area ....................................................... 53 Figure 5: Landslide inventory map of Seton reservoir ..................................................................................... 55 Figure 6:  Landslide inventory map of Carpenter reservoir ............................................................................ 57 Figure 7:  Landslide inventory map of Downton reservoir ............................................................................. 59 Figure 8:  Different views of Santa Claus Mountain: (a) eastern extent, (b) western extent, (c) close-up view of the crest showing prominent linear, (d) close-up view of the North Bench (red box in previous figure shows approximate location) ............................................ 66 Figure 9:  Views of Wedge Drop Mountain: (a) backside view and (b) frontal view ............................ 67 Figure 10:  Map of overburden and bedrock slopes with geologic mapping incorporated .................. 71 Figure 11:  Slope map of the study area ..................................................................................................................... 74 Figure 12:  Aspect map of the study area ................................................................................................................... 75 Figure 13: Overview map of the hazard sectors ....................................................................................................... 82 Figure 14:  Hazard sectors for Seton reservoir ....................................................................................................... 83 Figure 15: Hazard sectors for Carpenter reservoir .............................................................................................. 84 Figure 16:  Hazard sectors for Downton reservoir ................................................................................................ 85 Figure 17:  Sector 1 - (a) northern slopes (red box shows overhanging rock block), (b) southern slopes. Photos by Oldrich Hungr (Sept. 2012) .................................................................................. 88 Figure 18:  Sector 2 - (a) Repeater Station Mountain, (b) Nosebag ridge. Photos by Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012) ..................................................................................................................................................... 91 Figure 19:  Sector 3 - (a) southern slope, (b) northern slopes. Photos by Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 94 Figure 20:  Sector 4 - (a) northern slope, (b) side view. Photos by Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012) ...... 96 xi Figure 21:  Sector 5 - (a) southern slope, (b) northern slopes. Photos by Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 99 Figure 22:  Sector 6 - (a) eastern extent, (b) western extent. Photos by Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 101 Figure 23:  Sector 7 at Santa Claus Mountain - (a) northern slope, (b) western slope. Photos by Oldrich Hungr and Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012) ............................................................................ 104 Figure 24:  Sector 8 at Mission ridge - (a) western extent, (b) eastern extent. Photos by Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012) ................................................................................................................................ 106 Figure 25:  Sector 9 - (a) looking east, (b) looking west. Photos by Geidy Baldeon and Oldrich Hungr (Sept. 2012) ................................................................................................................................... 109 Figure 26:  Sector 10 - (a) eastern extent of southern slopes below Nosebag ridge; (b) western extent – red arrows show recent logging activities. Photos by Oldrich Hungr (Sept. 2012) ............................................................................................................................................................... 112 Figure 27:  Sector 11 - (a) western extent, (b) eastern extent. Photos by Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 114 Figure 28:  Sector 12 - profile view. Photo by Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012) .............................................. 116 Figure 29:  Sector 13 - (a) western extent, (b) eastern extent. Photos by Oldrich Hungr and Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012) ................................................................................................................................ 118 Figure 30:  Sector 14 - southern slope. Photo by Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012) ........................................ 119 Figure 31:  Sector 15 at Wedge Drop Mountain (a) eastern view, (b) western side close-up. Photos by Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012) ............................................................................................................. 121 Figure 32: Sector 16 - (a) eastern extent, (b) western extent. Photos by Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 123 Figure 33:  Sector 17 - (a) eastern extent, (b) western extent close-up. Photos by Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012) and BC Hydro (Sept. 2009) ......................................................................................... 125 Figure 34:  Sector 18 - (a) side view looking west (b) western extent close-up (yellow box in previous figure shows approximate location). Photos by Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012) and BC Hydro (Sept. 2009) .................................................................................................................... 127  xii GLOSSARY ArcGIS Geographical information system software developed by Esri. (Esri, 2013)  Geodatabase “A database or file structure used primarily to store, query, and manipulate spatial data. Geodatabases store geometry, a spatial reference system, attributes, and behavioral rules for data“ (Esri, 2014)  Feature dataset Element of a geodatabase that allows the collection of spatially related feature classes. (Esri, 2014)  Feature class “A collection of geographic features with the same geometry type (such as point, line, or polygon), the same attributes, and the same spatial reference”. A feature class can be stored within a feature dataset (Esri, 2014).  Attribute “Non-spatial information about a geographic feature in a GIS, usually stored in a table and linked to the feature by a unique identifier”.  It contains relevant information specified by the user (Esri, 2014).  Metadata Description of the data associated with different elements of ArcGIS such as geodatabases, feature classes, feature datasets, etc. (Esri, 2014).  Coded Domain A valid set of values for an attribute, thus, constrains the values allowed and enforces data integrity in a geodatabase (Esri, 2014).  xiii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people whom I would like to thank that have crossed my life at some point inspiring me to seek for knowledge, helping me to pursue a higher education and rise above obstacles. To all of you, thank you! I would like offer my sincerest and deepest gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Oldrich Hungr for his continuous guidance and financial support. But most importantly, for sharing his knowledge and experience, providing valuable feedback and encouragement during the making of this thesis. I would also like to thank Dr. Erik Eberhardt for being part of the committee and providing his guidance. Moreover, for allowing me to be his teaching assistant for EOSC 433, which has become, by far, one of the most rewarding experiences I’ve had at UBC. I would like to offer my gratitude and appreciation for providing valuable assistance, interest and time at some point during this thesis to: Dr. Doug Stead for being part of the committee; Dr. Roger Beckie for acting as the external reviewer; Monica Jaramillo who initially provided the interest and need for this type of work, made all the necessary arrangements to allow data collection at BC Hydro including the aerial reconnaissance of the study area, and also being part of the committee; Tom Stewart for showing interest and allowing me to share the developed work with other members at BC Hydro; the numerous BC Hydro personnel that facilitated the data collection for the study area. Perhaps I do not say it enough but thank you to all the recent and past graduates in the Geological Engineering group at UBC: Neda, Josh, Graham, Wes, Leo, Masoud, Jordan, Steve, Carrie, Giona, Valentin, Christina, John, Andrew, Montserrat, Andy and Leslie. I have shared many memorable moments with all of you! I know for certain that my experience here would not have been the same without you. A special shout out goes to those that started the program with me: my dear friends xiv Josh and Graham for withstanding this whiny Peruvian complain about the Vancouver weather all the time and Wes for sharing his contagious upbeat attitude. Last but not least, I would like to thank all my family members (too many to mention), housemates and friends in Peru, U.S. and Vancouver for their constant love, support, encouragement and motivation. Finally, I would not be here if it wasn’t for my mother. I owe everything who I am today to my mother.  xv DEDICATION     To la Pachamama & el Ayllu1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND Reservoir slope instability leading to catastrophic failures is a major concern to dam safety, as it could potentially damage existing hydroelectric infrastructure and even overtop or breach the dam. This concern gained major recognition after the devastating effects of the Vajont slide in 1963, which created a landslide-generated wave that overtopped the dam and caused about 2000 deaths upstream and downstream (Barla and Paronuzzi, 2013). The importance of assessing landslide hazards on reservoir slopes is a priority for many dam owners. For example, over the last few decades in British Columbia, the Dam Safety Slopes Surveillance program at BC Hydro has identified landslides and landslide features based on reservoir slope inspections. Several of these are monitored/surveyed where they pose a hazard to dam safety. BC Hydro developed state-of-the-art monitoring for specific slopes and guidelines for landslide hazard evaluations (Enegren, 1990). The various investigations lead to vast amount of information related to reservoir slopes. In an effort to update the current state of practice and take advantage of current technologies, the need of a geo-referenced landslide information system that provides a consolidated source of historical and current information about reservoir slopes is evident. The advantages of a landslide information system are numerous, such that it:  Organizes and maintains a standard system for all the landslide related features across different areas of interest.  Contains relevant spatial and non-spatial data that contribute to the landslide interpretation and assessment. Geo-referencing facilitates easy retrieval and processing of the data.  Keeps a landslide inventory, which is the basis for any susceptibility, hazard and vulnerability assessments at a regional/reservoir level and slope stability assessments at 2 the local (slope) level. These assessments are critical for developing risk assessments and mitigation measures necessary for dam safety.   Improves communication between executives, team members and consultants as the data is easily retrieved.  Maintains information/data continuity without loss of knowledge in the future since the knowledge of specific data does not reside within a specific person or report. Furthermore, maintaining a landslide information system provides the initial tools for landslide hazard assessments whether site-specific or region-specific. In terms of region-specific landslide hazard characterization at the reservoir scale (i.e. an isolated reservoir or group of reservoirs), the benefits are numerous, such that it:  Allocates the focus to remain on landslide hazards that could potentially damage any hydroelectric infrastructure or cause any harm to communities near reservoirs.   Allows a tailored scope for future assessments/remediation that have to be carried out in order to ensure dam safety, particularly when dealing with various reservoirs state or province-wide where the landslide hazards might vary across different regions and environments.  Provides the Dam Safety engineer/geologist undertaking the scheduled reservoir slope inspections with a concise landslide hazard overview specific to the region, thus, emphasising potential areas of concern during scheduled helicopter inspections, which in turn improves time and financial efficiency. 3 1.2 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE & OBJECTIVES The purpose of this thesis is to provide a tool that consolidates the necessary information meant to aid in landslide hazard assessments at the reservoir level, and therefore, support the potential user (i.e. engineer/geologist) with tailored information in order to undertake the reservoir slope inspections and assessments. This is applied for the reservoir slopes of the Bridge River region in southwestern British Columbia. The objectives for this thesis are two-fold:  1. Establish and develop a preliminary standardized landslide information system by:  Designing a geodatabase structure that allows the management and storage of geospatial information relevant to landslide hazards, such that it is well organized and easily accessible.   Compiling and consolidating landslide information for the reservoir slopes at the study area and gathering other referential data useful for landslide assessments.  Developing a landslide inventory, which incorporates a landslide classification along with relevant landslide and geotechnical attributes. This allows the information gathered to be homogenous and comparable across different reservoir slopes. 2. Utilize the developed landslide geodatabase to create a characterization of landslide hazards at the reservoir level tailored to the study area and thus establish landslide hazard sectors. This is carried out by:  Assessing the landslide inventory, terrain mapping, geological and structural information  Distinguishing the dominant landslide factors for bedrock and overburden slopes 4  Providing a homogeneous and custom landslide hazard classification relevant to reservoir slopes such that it is concise enough to serve as a guide or quick reference during the reservoir slopes inspections. 1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THESIS Chapter 2 gives a brief literature review focused on landslides in rock and slope deformations, both of which are common in the study area. Furthermore, it describes cases of slope deformations near the study area. Chapter 3 presents background information for the study area. Chapter 4 explains the development of the landslide information system, which details the geodatabase design and its implementation process to the study area. Chapter 5 provides detailed information and results from the data assessment, out of which the landslide inventory is one of the main components. All the collected landslide information residing in the geodatabase serves to characterize the landslide hazards for the study area and develop the hazard sectors for the reservoir slopes, process which is further explained in Chapter 6. Moreover, this chapter also provides a description for each hazard sector in the study area.  Lastly, Chapter 7 presents main points for discussion and conclusions, as well as opportunities for future work.  5 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW There are several landslide classifications (Hutchinson, 1988; Varnes, 1978; Varnes and Cruden, 1996); however, Varnes (1978) is one of the classifications most widely used. This chapter gives a brief overview of the landslide classification of the rock-type and describes in greater detail slope deformations, as these are the most common types in the study area. The following classification follows the recent review of the Varnes classification by Hungr et al. (2013) 2.1 LANDSLIDES IN ROCK 2.1.1 Falls and Topples Rock falls involve the detachment of single rock blocks, followed by falling, rolling and bouncing (Hungr et al., 2013).  Rock fall occurs on many steep rock slopes in the study area. As opposed to the topples presented in Varnes (1978), the topples presented by Hungr (2012) involve a subdivision between rock block topple and rock flexural topples, which involve the forward rotation of steep discontinuities in the rock mass dipping opposite to the slope. In a block topple, the failure tends to be extremely rapid, whereas as in a flexural topple the failure tends to self-stabilize. Both types might not have a well-developed basal failure surface (Hungr et al., 2013). Widespread toppling has not been recognized on slopes in the study area, although some of the deformed slopes described below give evidence of a toppling mechanism. 2.1.2 Slides A slide in rock involves the sliding of a rock mass on a rupture surface. Depending on the structural control or absence of it, there are different types such as rock rotational slides, rock translational slides, rock wedge slides, rock compound slides and irregular rock slides (Hungr et al., 2013). 6 Particularly important among these are structurally-controlled translational and wedge slides occurring on dip slopes, which often produce catastrophic slope failures.  A few instances of dip slopes have been noted in the study area where potential for these failures exists, but there are no major past failures of this type. 2.1.3 Flows Hungr et al. (2013) describes flows in rock as rock avalanches, which arise from a large rock slide or rock fall and where the fragmented rock attains an extremely rapid, massive, flow like motion. Rock avalanches could occur, if a major sliding failure in rock was experienced.  But no example of a recognized occurrence has so far been found in the study area. Worth noting are the flows in soils since these occur at the study area. Some flow-like landslide types include liquefaction flowslides of loose, saturated granular deposits or extra-sensitive clays, debris flows, debris avalanches, and earth flows (Hungr et al., 2013).  Of these landslide types, only debris flows, occurring in steep first-order drainage channels and gullies are common in this study area.  Debris avalanches are possible on steep slopes, although there are very few examples in the study area.  According to the present knowledge, lacustrine or deltaic deposits prone to flowslides, or weak weathered rocks producing earth flows have not been found in the study area.       2.1.4 Spreading The revised classification of Hungr et al. (2013) recognizes rapid spreading failures of loose saturated granular deposits or sensitive clays similar to flowslides and slow lateral spreading of steep slopes formed of weak rocks called rock slope spread.  Neither condition has been recognized in the study area.  7 2.2 SLOPE DEFORMATIONS Slope deformations are ubiquitous in many mountainous regions, including the Bridge River area. They typically occur in glaciated areas of high reliefs. There are many examples of slope deformations throughout the world, including the Carpathian Mountains and Austrian Alps in Europe, Japanese Alps, New Zealand mountains and the North American Cordillera (Moser, 1996; Bovis 1982; Hutchinson, 1988).  Even though they have been recognized for decades, slope deformations have been named differently by different authors. It is most often known as Sackung, which is the German word for sagging slopes and introduced in the literature by Zischinsky (Hutchinson, 1988), or deep-seated gravitational slope deformation (Agliardi et al., 2012). It has also been referred to as rock flow by Varnes (1978), gravitational spreading and rock/slope creep by Chigira (1992). Therefore, in order to be consistent with the name and have a common understanding and definition, the latest JTC Landslide Classification (Hungr et al. 2013), considers two main types of slope deformation based on scale.  The key points arising from both definitions are the lack of a well-defined rupture surface, extremely slow movement rates and features caused by gravity.   “Mountain slope deformation: Large-scale gravitational deformation of steep, high mountain slopes, manifested by scarps, benches, cracks and bulges, but lacking a fully defined rupture surface. Extremely slow, or unmeasurable movement rates.” (Hungr et al., 2013)  “Rock slope deformation: Deep-seated slow to extremely slow deformation of valley or hill slopes. Sagging of slope crests and development of cracks or faults, without a well-defined rupture surface. Extremely slow movement rates.” (Hungr et al., 2013)  As mentioned before, a slope deformation has many features formed by gravity. These gravitational features are best developed in the upper and middle sections of the slope and formed parallel to the ridge axis. The gravitational features are (Agliardi et al., 2012; Moser, 2003; Bovis, 1982): scarps (also known as downhill-facing or normal scarps), uphill-facing scarps (also known as 8 counterscarps, antislope scarps, antiscarps, reverse scarps), tension cracks, grabens & half-grabens (or ridge-top depressions if formed at the crest), double ridges (or twin ridges). Bulging is usually expressed at the lower parts of the slope, near the valley bottom (Moser, 2003). Many of these features could be in laterally confined slopes, bounded by valleys or tributaries, or crossing multiple catchments (Agliardi et al., 2012). All of the gravitational features are strongly dependent on the lithology and rock mass structure (Bovis, 1982). In massive strong crystalline and metamorphic rocks, the gravitational features are dependent on the joint plane orientation or strong foliation. While in weaker sedimentary rocks, the gravitational features might be dependent of the downslope bending of strata (Bovis, 1982).  Only a few authors have attempted to classify slope deformations. Some of the main types of slope deformation are summarized by Agliardi (2012).  Hutchinson (1988) offers a classification of slope deformation based on the morphological features and mechanism. This classification relies on the expression of the features as a manifestation of the general style it will eventually take. Hutchinson (1988) has three main categories of slope deformation: single-sided, double-sided and toppling. Within each category (except toppling), the slope deformation could be rotational if there are only normal scarps or compound (listric or bi-planar) depending on the amount of normal and uphill-facing scarps. However, this is an idealized version as slope deformations are ubiquitous, have many features associated with them and not all features occur in a similar manner. Some features might be well developed or underdeveloped due to the lithology or topographic conditions. Therefore, classifying the slope deformations based on surficial features might be an early assumption of a failure mechanism and the existence of a rupture surface. It could be problematic to assume a rupture surface at the early stage of slope deformation.  On the other hand, Nemcok (1982) classified slope deformations based on different stages and depending on the rock type. The initial stage is the manifestation of gravitational features. At the 9 mature stage, the slope starts developing a rupture surface and the gravitational features might be well defined. The final stage is the actual failure event, in which part of the slope failed. This stage is followed by surficial movements in order for the slope to reach equilibrium. This classification is more appropriate as a slope deformation can behave in different ways. As a result, many authors consider that slope deformations are pre-failure manifestations while others consider them stable and that failure might not occur within our timeframe.  Initially, the slope deformation might just develop some gravitational features and have slow movements. However the movements might self-stabilize over time, therefore the slope deformation might stay at the initial stage and achieve equilibrium without developing a failure surface. On the other hand, the slow movements might continue over time and thus accumulating large displacements, which could impact nearby infrastructure, such as tunnels, reservoirs, etc. The slope deformation might take years to reach the mature stage and develop a rupture surface. If the slope deformation reaches a mature stage, the progressive development of a rupture surface will transform into a fully developed landslide that could lead to a catastrophic failure. As mentioned earlier, the majority of slope deformations have extremely slow movement rates. Moser (1996) carried out a study to determine the movement rates of 42 mountain slope deformation in Austria and Eastern Switzerland. The study found that the average velocities range from 5 to 100 cm/yr, and a minimum velocity of 0.3 cm/yr. Moser (1996) determined that the rates are dependent on the internal (structure, geology) and external (precipitation, earthquakes, toe undercutting) factors, as well as the time period of monitoring, as some sites were monitored for a few years, while other for longer periods of time.  Slope deformations are caused by gravitational processes. However, there are some authors that argue that slope deformations are caused by tectonic processes, probably because many times scarps have been interpreted as fault scarps. Even though seismic disturbance might contribute to 10 slope deformation in some cases, it is not the main factor. Other factors that may contribute to slope deformations include weathering, accumulation of rock damage and groundwater fluctuation.  These factors could mainly provide short-term variations in movement rate of slope deformation (Moser, 1996).  The main factor in the development of slope deformation is the stress changes and the associated rock mass response. Therefore, many authors have linked the formation or initiation of slope deformation to glaciation as a long-term factor (Bovis, 1982; Bovis and Evans, 1996; Agliardi, 2012). During glacial advance, the valley walls are eroded and steepened. However, the glacier acts as a buttress by providing lateral support. Later during glacier retreat, the slope is debutrressed, which removes the lateral support and provides a kinematic release for unfavourable structures (Bovis, 1990). In these previously glaciated areas, isostatic rebound could also affect the slope behaviour. 2.2.1 Cases of Slope Deformation in Southwest B.C There are many cases of slope deformation at and close to the Bridge River study area, specifically near the Lillooet River valley. Several authors (Bovis, 1982, 1990; Bovis and Evans, 1996; Hensold, 2011) have mapped the structural features, obtained field data, carried out kinematic analyses and even some numerical modelling and monitoring. Many of the slope deformations in the Lillooet River Valley occur in intrusive rocks and have been attributed to slope debutressing due to glacial retreat. An extensive study by Holm et al. (2004) shows that the Post-Little Ice Age glacial retreat had many influences on surficial landslides and slope deformations, which could be a precursor for a catastrophic event. The following paragraphs briefly summarize most of the cases of slope deformation studied and mapped along the Lillooet River Valley, primarily by Dr. M. Bovis and S. Evans. 11 2.2.1.1 Affliction Creek Even though Affliction Creek is a rock slope deformation, it is relevant as it is one of the few cases where there is actually monitoring data (for a 7-yr period).  The site is located at the west flank of Affliction Creek, previously occupied by Affliction Glacier. The basement rock at the site is comprised of quartz monzonite overlain by quaternary basalt flows and debris fans. This rock slope deformation is constrained within a small area, where the features extend for about 1.2 km long, 400 m wide and the local relief is about 240 m (Bovis, 1990). Nonetheless it exhibits several different slope deformation features such as downhill and uphill facing scarps, tension cracks, grabens and collapse pits. Bovis (1982) suggests that the uphill facing scarps originated partly from toppling combined with partial erosion. Besides characterizing the slope deformation, Bovis (1990) monitored the slope displacements during a 7-yr period. The monitored records show that the slope is moving downslope and extending eastward. Also, there are larger displacements across southern scarps than northern scarps, as the glacier retreated from north to south. Even though the slope has a slight deceleration over the years, Bovis (1990) considers this short-term variation due to change in the snowmelt recharge. There were no strong seismic events during that period of time and therefore not considered as a factor. The monitoring data, along with stratigraphic and morphological evidence presented by Bovis (1982, 1990) suggests that slope debutressing as the Affliction Glacier retreated is one of the main factors for the slope instability. 2.2.1.2 Handcar Creek Handcar Creek is probably one of the most extensive slope deformations in southwest B.C. as most features cross several drainages extending over 7 km (Bovis and Evans, 1996). Most  linears, which consist of uphill facing scarps and tensions cracks, occur sub-parallel to the contour lines (parallel to the valley) and near the contact of metavolcanic rocks of the Cadwallader Group and quartz-12 diorite intrusions of the Coast Plutonic Complex. Bovis and Evans (1996) noted that the scarps along the lower slopes tend to be higher (greater than 5m) than those closer to the peak (3m). Hensold (2011) also carried out a structural mapping at the site by spot mapping and photogrammetry but mainly to obtain the input structural data for numerical modelling. The numerical modelling suggests that deformation takes place where the surficial features occur and deformation does not extend to the toe of the valley (depth could range from 200-500m). He suggests that the bulge at the lower slopes could be a ridge due to deglaciation rather than a gravitational origin since there are no surficial features at the bulge. Also, field observations due to freshness of features suggest that movement has retrogressed to the upper parts of the slope. Hensold (2011) suggests that the episode of movement was triggered by undercutting and later by debuttressing of slope the during deglaciation. Field observation and modelling suggest that Handcar Peak is at equilibrium (stable) and that there is a passive-active block mechanism, where there is extension by normal slip on discontinuities in active block and compression on the passive toe (Hensold 2011). 2.2.1.3 Mount Currie The site is located at the east ridge of Mount Currie, about 6 km south of Pemberton. This part of the ridge has strongly foliated quartz dioritic bedrock with strong joint control. The main uphill facing scarp and tension crack extend for up to 1.6 km parallel to the contour and oblique to the ridge. According to Bovis and Evans (1995), the Mount Currie scarp, whose height ranges from 2 m to 20 m, and increases in height to the northeast, was originally interpreted as a fault scarp by Eisbacher in 1983. However, later studies by Evans in 1987 interpreted this scarp as a gravitational feature. At this site, Bovis and Evans (1995) carried out a kinematic analysis and a 4-yr monitoring of the northeastern extreme of the ridge. Overall the monitoring data suggest that the rock mass to the 13 west of the scarp is generally moving to the northeast and slightly subsiding (Bovis and Evans, 1995). The average vertical movements range from 15mm (southwestern parts) to 60 mm (northeastern section), which suggests a rate of about 4-15 mm/yr. They suggest that these progressive movements are evidence of a gravitational feature as opposed to a neotectonic fault since there were no seismic events during that period of time (Bovis and Evans, 1995).  2.2.1.4 Upper Ryan River The site has been recognized by Bovis and Evans (1995) and it is located on the northern flank of the upper Ryan River, which is a tributary of the Lillooet River. The bedrock consists of quartz diorite. The slope of interest has a local relief of 860 m with a mean slope of 33°.  Most features consist of antislope scarps non-continuously extending for 3.6 km in length and 1.6 km in width. There is also a major headscarp, grabens, cracks, ponds and slight evidence of bulging at the toe. Structural mapping by Bovis and Evans (1995, 1996) showed that there are three main discontinuity sets. Based on the structural mapping, Bovis and Evans (1995, 1996) suggest that the primary mechanism is sliding on one of the discontinuities, which is confirmed by kinematic analysis. Morphological evidence suggests that the scarps at the lower slopes are stable; however the gaping cracks near the upper slopes suggest recent movement (Bovis and Evans, 1995, 1996). 2.2.1.5 Devastation Creek The slope of interest is located at the western flank of Devastation Creek, a tributary to Meager Creek. The slope has a local relief of approximately 900 m, with an average slope angle of 32° (Bovis and Evans, 1996). Devastation Creek is mostly known for large debris flows and debris avalanches from the Meager Creek Volcanic Complex, such as the 5 million m3 debris flow in 1931 or the 14 million m3 debris avalanche in 1975 (Holm et al., 2004). The slope at the west flank of Devastation Creek is actively receding due to rockslides, debris flows and toe undercutting from debris 14 avalanches. Uphill facing scarps are prominent features somewhat parallel to the contours, which discontinuously extend for 2.6km in length and 1.1km in width. The area exhibits quartz diorite intrusions overlain by dacitic lavas and glacial till in the upper slopes (Bovis and Evans, 1996). There are two main discontinuity sets, both striking parallel to the slope. Bovis and Evans (1996) suggest that the formation of the uphill facing scarps could be related to the flexural toppling at the steeper slopes near the ridge top, combined with a lower friction angle (less than 30°). Bovis and Evans (1996) suggest that most of the scarps were developed during glacier retreat. 2.2.1.6 Pika Ridge Pika Ridge is located approximately 12 km east of Devastation Creek (Section 2.2.1.5) on the eastern slopes of Meager Creek, a tributary to the Lillooet River. This slope is also in quartz dioritic bedrock. The features at this site have the largest relief of 1740 m over all the cases presented here. The 32° overall slope has a characteristic convex (bulging) lower slope and concave mid-slope (Bovis and Evans, 1996). Bovis and Evans (1996) mapped the features at the site, which are downhill and uphill facing scarps, cracks and a main Backscarp. These features extend discontinuously for up to 4 km in length, run parallel to the contours (parallel to the valley) and vary in elevation.  Downhill-facing scarps are prominent at this site, along with a main scarp along the ridge. The structural mapping carried out by Bovis and Evans (1996) shows that sliding and toppling are not kinematically feasible. Nonetheless, Bovis and Evans (1996) suggest a deep-seated progressive movement based on the morphological evidence at the site.  15 CHAPTER 3: STUDY AREA The Bridge River study area is located near the town of Lillooet, approximately 180 kilometers northeast from Vancouver. The study area is limited to the reservoir slopes surrounding the Seton, Carpenter and Downton Lakes, which covers approximately 900 km2. These reservoirs are associated with the Seton, Terzaghi and La Joie Dams, which are operated by BC Hydro (Figure 1). 3.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY The study area is within the southeastern Coast Mountains of the Pacific Ranges and part of the Bridge-Seton watershed in the Fraser Basin. It is bounded to the east by the Fraser River. Downton and Carpenter Lakes are artificial lakes impounded by the dams and part of the Bridge River valley, while Seton Lake existed as a natural lake previous to the dam construction and is part of the Seton valley. Both valleys trend east-west and its rivers are western tributaries of the Fraser River. These valleys are divided by Mission Ridge near Mission Pass.  Seton Lake extends for approximately 22 kilometers at an elevation of 236 m. The highest summits rise above 2400 m near the northeastern end. The topography in this area is generally steep and gullied, with predominant rectangular drainages. On the other hand, Carpenter Lake extends for 51 kilometers at an elevation of 641 m. The slopes surrounding the reservoir are generally shallow and incised by numerous well-developed dendritic streams, with the highest summits rising close to 2700 m near the southwestern end. Downton Lake extends approximately for 25 kilometers at an elevation of 749 m. The topography in this area is generally steep and gullied, with predominant rectangular drainages and characteristic glacial landforms. The highest summits near the northeastern end rise above 2600 m.  +++++++++ ++++++++++++ ++++++++++++ +++++++++++++ ++++++++++++ ++ + + + ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ÛÛÛ"/"/"/"/"""""BR2BR1SETONGSSETONDAMLA JOIE DAM TERZAGHIDAMCARPENTERLAKESETONLAKEDOWNTONLAKEANDERSONLAKEGUNLAKEBrextonShalalth LillooetGold BridgeSetonPortageMmJBsvLKqdLKgdEgdMmJBsvMmJBgsJKCsfMmJBsvMmJBsvEvdEgduTrCHLlKJsLKTguTrCHscMmJBsv?gbmJKscMmJBgsPShusPBEusmJKscMmJBsvPBEusMmJBgsJKCsPBEusuTrCgsJKCsEgdEfpuTrJNMPShusJKCsMmJBbsuTrCHsclKTDcgLKTfpuTrCHscPBEusLKgdLKTgduTrCHscPBEusMmJBsvJKCsRESARFRESARFREVIREGDIRBIRRESARFREVIRYELRUHREVIRYELRUHREIRYELUHREIREGDIRBREVIREGDIRBREVIRMOkeerCeeLkeerCkolSkeerCrarrakeerCyaKcMkeerCyllekeerCleoNkeerCredallawdaCkeerClennoCkeerCyarvilliGcMkeerCyellaVtskeerCredipS keerCreppoCkeernomanniCkeerChsooyakeerCtaoGenoLkkeerClraCkeerCredallawdaCkeerCkeerCpacetihW keerCpacetihWkeerCxaurTkeerCllahsraMkeerC gnirpselppAkeerCmilSeLkeerCnosraePkeerCnuGkeerCnothgukeerCspaluhSkeerCerO49000049000050000050000051000051000052000052000053000053000054000054000055000055000056000056000057000057000056100005610000562000056200005630000563000056400005640000$0 5 10 15KilometerBridge River area, S.W. British Columbia - CanadaOVERVIEW MAP OF THE BRIDGE RIVERSTUDY AREA AND ITS REGIONAL GEOLOGYNAD 83 - UTM Zone 10N Modified on April 29, 20141:250,000Map ScaleBridge River Area LithologyUnknown?gb Unnamedgabbroic to dioritic intrusive rocksCenozoicEgd Unnamedgranodioritic intrusive rocksEfp Unnamedfeldspar porphyritic  intrusive rocksEvd Unnameddacitic volcanic rocksMesozoic to CenozoicLKTg Unnamedintrusive rocks, undividedLKTgd Unnamedgranodioritic intrusive rocksLKTfp Unnamedfeldspar porphyritic intrusive rocksMesozoicLKqd Unnamedquartz dioritic intrusive rocksLKgd Unnamedgranodioritic intrusive rockslKJs Jackass Mountain Groupundivided sedimentary rockslKTDcg Taylor Creek Group - Dash Formationconglomerate, coarse clastic sedimentary rockslKTLsc Taylor Creek Group - Lizard Formationcoarse clastic sedimentary rocksJKCs Cayoosh Assemblageundivided sedimentary rocksJKCsf Cayoosh Assemblage(?) mudstone, siltstone,shale fine clastic sedimentary rocksmJKsc Unnamedcoarse clastic sedimentary rocksuTrCHL Cadwallader Group - Hurley, Last Creek and GrouseCreek Siltstone Units mudstone, siltstone, shale fineclastic sedimentary rocksuTrJNM Noel Mountain East Succession mudstone,siltstone, shale fine clastic sedimentary rocksuTrCHsc Cadwallader Group - Hurley Formationcoarse clastic sedimentary rocksuTrCgs Cadwallader Group - Volcanic Unitgreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocksPaleozoic to MesozoicMmJBsv Bridge River Complexmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocksMmJBgs Bridge River Complexgreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocksMmJBbs Bridge River Complexblueschist metamorphic rocksPaleozoicPBEus Bralorne-East Liza Complexserpentinite ultramafic rockPShus Shulaps Ultramafic Complex - Serpentinite MelangeUnit serpentinite ultramafic rocks!! Lillooet VancouverBRITISHCOLUMBIALEGEND" TownÛ Dam"/ Generating StationRiverLakeStudy AreaSOURCES:  [1] Geological mapping taken from the Digital Map of BritishColumbia: Tile NM10 Southwest B.C. (Scale 1:250,000), B.C. Ministryof Energy and Mines, GeoFile 2005-3 by Massey, N.W.D., MacIntyre,D.G., Desjardins, P.J. and Cooney, R.T. (2005). [2] Topographic basemap and DEM data acquired from the B.C. TRIMProgram (Scale 1:20,000).Marshall Creek FaultMission Ridge FaultRegional Fault+ + + + + Regional ThrustInset Scale 1:5,000,00016MISSION RIDGE17 Most of the slopes in the study area are heavily forested, with the exception of the alpine areas, deforested areas where previous logging and forest fires occurred, and bedrock outcrops.  3.2 BEDROCK GEOLOGY Based on the geological mapping carried out by the Geological Survey of British Columbia (2005), the bedrock in the study area mainly comprises marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks along with metamorphic rocks of the Bridge River Complex (Figure 1). The Middle Triassic to Middle Jurassic Bridge River Group (190-225 Ma) has metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks consisting of greenstone (metamorphosed andesite or basalt), thin-bedded chert, cherty argillite, minor limestone, and altered basaltic flow (BC Hydro, 1987, 2011; Coleman & Parrish, 1991). These are predominant throughout Carpenter Lake and the western end of Seton Lake. The Bridge River metamorphic rocks, such as biotite schist, phyllite, serpentine (BC Hydro, 1987, 2011), are less extensive along the eastern side of Seton Lake and certain northern slopes at Carpenter Lake. Other Triassic rocks are found on the eastern side of Downton Lake from the Noel Formation (argillite, chert, conglomerate, greenstone), Hurley Formation (argillite, phyllite, limestone, andesite) and Bralorne intrusions (augite diorite, gabbro, greenstone)(BC Hydro, 1988). Late Cretaceous intrusions of quartz dioritic and granodioritic rocks occupy most of the western side of Downton Lake (BC Hydro, 1988). There are also granodioritic intrusions related to the Mission Ridge Pluton present along Terzaghi Dam and parts of Mission Ridge. According to U-Pb dating carried out by Coleman and Parrish (1991), the  Mission Ridge Pluton is Middle Eocene in age (approximately 47 Ma).  As seen in Figure 1, there are many northwest trending faults within the study area and north of it as well. These faults are associated with the Yalakom fault system and considered to be inactive and incapable of generating earthquakes (BC Hydro, 1987). This also includes the northwest trending 18 Marshall Creek Fault, which crosses the slopes of the Seton and Carpenter Lakes and extends for about 40 kilometers in the study area (Little & Moore, 1986). The steep (50°-75°) west-dipping Marshall Creek Fault has dextral strike-slip displacement to the northwest of Terzaghi Dam and normal dip-slip displacement to the southeast (Coleman & Parrish, 1991). Deformation of the granodiorite plutons, along with other evidence, suggests that this fault was active during the Middle Eocene (BC Hydro, 2011; Coleman & Parrish, 1991). Another major fault in the study area is the normal Mission Ridge fault, which extends for approximately 20 kilometers across the study area. This moderately (30°- 40°) northeasterly dipping fault is exposed at the site along the Mission Ridge and northern slopes of Seton Lake (Coleman & Parrish, 1991).  More recently recognized, the 6km long Hell Creek Fault, just two kilometers north of the Terzaghi dam, shows some evidence of movement as Holocene sediments have been displaced (Little & Moore, 1986). There are two different interpretations for this fault. First, it was interpreted as a neotectonic fault by Slemmons and workers in 1978 and later as a gravitational scarp by Clague and Evans in 1994 (as cited in Bovis & Evans, 1995). 3.3 QUATERNARY HISTORY The latest continental glaciation that this area experienced was the Fraser glaciation, which started at about 30,000 years ago (BC Hydro, 1987; Ryder, 1995). During this initial phase of glaciation, which lasted until 22,000 years ago, valley glaciers advanced down the Bridge River valley and filled the Seton valley (Ryder, 1995). In this area, the ice was flowing into the Fraser valley (BC Hydro, 1987). Glaciation reached its peak at about 17,000 years ago during the Vashon Stade, which started approximately at 20,000 years ago and culminated at about 14,500 years ago (Ryder, 1995). It is suggested that during this period the rate of glacier expansion increased. As a result, ice covered areas below 2400 m, such that only the highest summits in the Bridge River protruded and ice spilled into the Fraser valley (Ryder, 1995). This period was followed by rapid deglaciation 19 between 14,000 and 11,000 years ago and completed at 10,000 years ago (Ryder, 1995; Ryder & Thomson, 1986). Two types of deglacation have been noted in the study area. The first was up-valley frontal recession as indicated by the glaciofluvial outwash gravels near Gold Bridge and Moha. The second involved downwasting/ice stagnation suggested by the deposition of kame terraces in the Fraser valley near Lillooet and the northern slopes of Seton valley (BC Hydro, 2011: Ryder, 1995).  3.4 QUATERNARY DEPOSITS Among quaternary deposits, there are many glacial and fluvial deposits, along with historic landslide deposits. This recent epoch is known as the “paraglacial period”, in which high rates of geomorphic activity occurred following deglaciation (Ryder, 1995). According to Ryder (1995), during this time, glacial drift and weak bedrock were redistributed by landsliding and stream erosion, therefore, removing them from steep slopes. Alluvial fan deposits formed by several episodes of debris flows and fluvial erosion are present throughout the study area. Glaciofluvial terraces and outwash plains formed by glacial meltwater are present in the eastern flank of the Fraser River and the eastern end of Seton Lake (BC Hydro, 1987). Lacustrine deposits are extensive in the Fraser Valley near Lillooet, where Church and Ryder (1972) suggest about 170 m of lacustrine silt have been deposited. More recently, the Bridge River tephra deposition occurred about 2,400 years ago (Enegren & McKenzie, 1989) and is predominant as a thin veneer along the slopes around Downton Lake and the eastern end of Carpenter Lake (BC Hydro, 1988). A thick deposit of the Bridge River tephra has been noted in the informally known Wedge Drop Mountain (BC Hydro, 1988). 20 CHAPTER 4: LANDSLIDE GEODATABASE DEVELOPMENT As stated in Chapter 1, one of the objectives of the thesis is to establish and develop a standardized landslide information system by creating a geospatial landslide database that has information related to the reservoir slopes. This will allow all the primary and referential data necessary for landslide assessments to be stored in a consistent manner. Moreover, the incorporation of landslide attributes will allow the standardization of landslide information across the study area. The following sections in this chapter outline the geodatabase design and its implementation specific to the study area in Bridge River. Chapter 5 will explain in further detail the data assessment, including the main results for the landslide inventory in the study area.   The landslide information system utilizes ArcGIS, a Geographical Information Systems software developed by Esri. ArcGIS supports data management, mapping and visualization and contains many tools to carry out spatial analysis (Esri, 2013). These software capabilities among many others satisfy the objectives of this thesis and therefore were chosen as the primary tool. The developed system utilizes the various tools available in the ArcGIS 10.1 suite (Advanced License) including ArcMap 10.1, ArcCatalog 10.1, and the 3D Analyst extension.  The development of the landslide information system or geodatabase consists of two main phases, involving an iterative process to refine the design or attributes based on new knowledge gained or lessons learned. The first phase relates to the geodatabase design, while the second phase relates to the implementation of the landslide geodatabase.  Figure 2 shows a flow diagram of the phases and stages involved in the project. The development of the landslide geodatabase is as follows:   21 PHASE 1 – Geodatabase Design  Stage 1 - Geodatabase Structure: This first stage involves the definition of the overall geodatabase structure meant to organize the data needed for landslide or reservoir slope assessments.  The details of this stage are further explained in Section 4.1.   Stage 2 - Landslide Attributes: One of the most important features of the landslide information system is the landslide inventory itself. Therefore, phase two entails defining the attributes of the landslide inventory (Section 4.2).  PHASE 2 – Implementation  Stage 3 – Spatial & Non-spatial Data Collection: In order to implement this geodatabase design, data collection was carried out for the Bridge River area, based on internal sources of information at BC Hydro, and other external spatial data (Section 4.3).   Stage 4 – Spatial Data Processing & Validation: Before loading the spatial data to the geodatabase, all the available spatial data passes through data conversion (i.e. scanning and geo-referencing) and further processing (i.e. digitizing), if needed.  The creation of the landslide inventory includes similar data processing but utilizes the referential datasets and aerial photo interpretation in order to map and digitize the landslide boundaries and other features.  The landslide geospatial data is further validated before input to the geodatabase.  This process is explained in Section 4.4 and further details of the data assessment are explained in Chapter 5:.  Stage 5 – Spatial & Non-spatial Data Input: Once the spatial data is processed and validated, it is loaded to the geodatabase and given a specific name based on the nomenclature established in Section 4.5.  In regards to the landslide inventory, the landslide information 22 (i.e. non-spatial data) gathered from internal documentation at BC Hydro and other external sources is introduced as part of the attributes defined in Stage 2.  It should be noted that before developing the geodatabase, an initial review of the data available at BC Hydro (concurrent with Stage 3) was undertaken. This was important in order to gain insight on the types of data available and how the potential users employ this data. As a result, an initial design was developed and later modified/improved based on new data collected or as lessons were learned as part of the implementation process.  23  Figure 2:  Flow diagram showing the phases and stages of the landslide geodatabase development 24 4.1 GEODATABASE STRUCTURE A geodatabase stores all the geospatial and non-spatial data within datasets, feature classes and attribute tables. As an analogy, a geodatabase can be considered as a directory system, a dataset as a folder within the directory, a feature class as a document within the folder and attributes as headings within the document. The landslide geodatabase, presented in the following sections, allows the management and storage of geospatial and non-spatial information needed for landslide and reservoir slope assessments. Its structure provides and considers the following:   Organization of datasets into logical themes or groupings, which allow the user to easily search, view and retrieve data  Applicability to other reservoir slopes (i.e. not just the Bridge River area)  Scalability by incorporating both site specific and regional data  Addition of subsequent data, either as new feature classes or attributes. For instance, if in the future a susceptibility or hazard assessment is carried out for the study area, the geospatial data (i.e. feature class) could be added under the “Landslide Hazard” feature dataset (See Section 4.1.1). In a similar manner, new attributes in the landslide inventory could be added for subsequent reservoir slope inspections.  The possibility of transferring the data to other GIS software, if necessary. Feature classes in a geodatabase are easily converted to shapefile format and thus readily usable by most GIS software. Taking into account all of the points stated above, a file geodatabase was created in ArcGIS 10.1 and named after the study area of interest, in this case, Bridge River. 25 4.1.1 Datasets One of the main purposes of this geodatabase is to store the landslide inventory, as well as other reference data that contributes in the assessment of landslides, both in the form of vectors and rasters. Therefore, it is necessary to first distinguish between primary and reference data. The primary data provides an essential aspect in landslide and reservoir slope assessments. This data holds the primary content and is meant to be internally created or updated. The reference data is compiled mainly from external sources and used as reference only as they may contribute in the assessment of landslides. This data is considered to be of minimal maintenance, where only periodic updates might be needed depending on their original source.  As a result, the geodatabase design is organized into datasets corresponding to logical themes distinguishing the different types of primary and reference data.  Table 1 shows the different data themes used in the development of the landslide information system, in which the primary and reference datasets are separated as:  Primary datasets: Landslide Hazards, Geotechnical & Surface (raster)  Reference datasets: Boundary, Geology, Infrastructure, Site Investigation & Monitoring, Remote Sensing, Topography, Other and various types of imagery.     26 Table 1:  Geodatabase structure for feature and raster datasets As seen from Table 1, the landslide information system consists of feature datasets, as well as raster datasets. For organization purposes, the feature datasets only store vector-based data. Imagery and other raster data cannot be stored in a feature dataset in ArcGIS. In order to maintain simplicity and easy retrieval, rasters are not stored in raster catalogs or mosaics. Instead raster data is stored in folders. Figure 3 shows the different feature datasets meant to organize the landslide geodatabase. Additionally, Appendix I shows the complete structure as portrayed in ArcGIS. It is important to note that this thesis mostly focuses on the primary datasets, which contain the landslide inventory, linear/structural data, overburden data and surface rasters. Specifically, “Landslide Hazards” is the most relevant dataset as it contains the landslide inventory itself. The THEMES DESCRIPTION /EXAMPLES FEATURE DATASET  Boundary Administrative boundaries, study areas, etc. Geology Regional geology (lithology, faults, etc.)  Geotechnical Bedrock/overburden boundary, exposed local bedrock (lithology, structures, attitudes), overburden (terrain units), etc. Infrastructure Hydroelectrical infrastructure, roads, railways, towns, etc. Site Investigation and Monitoring Drill holes, movement vectors, monitoring/survey stations, inspection pictures location Landslide Hazards Landslide inventory, linear features Remote Sensing Vector data derived from remote sensors, LiDAR mass points, TRIM mass points/breaklines Topography Contour lines, toponomy, rivers, streams, lakes, watershed boundaries, etc. Other Other relevant datasets such as soils, vegetation coverage, forest fire coverage, groundwater RASTER FOLDER  Surface Surface raster datasets based on LiDAR or TRIM data such as DEM, hillshade, slope, aspect, combined slope/aspect Satellite Satellite imagery from different sensors Air photos Aerial photos and orthophotos  Pictures Inspection pictures Maps Digital/scanned maps from reports 27 reference datasets are gathered from various external sources and further explained in Section 4.3.3.   Figure 3:  Geodatabase structure for feature datasets in ArcGIS  4.1.2 Feature Classes & Attributes As previously mentioned, feature classes (either as points, lines, or polygons) are stored within a specific feature dataset. For the landslide geodatabase, each feature class gathered from the data collection is stored within the “theme” dataset previously specified in Table 1. The description column in Table 1 shows the sample feature classes corresponding to its theme dataset. Furthermore, each feature class is given metadata information having a brief description and credits of the data.  Even though there are many feature classes stored in the geodatabase, attributes can be defined for the primary data. In this case, it is important to note that attributes are defined for the landslide inventory only. The landslide attributes contain the landslide classification and other numerous landslide characteristics. The definition of the attributes for the landslide inventory is explained in the following section. All the other reference feature classes have the same attributes defined by their original source. For example, the bedrock lithology feature class (within the “Geology” feature dataset) has the same attributes as defined by the BC Geological Survey or the contour lines feature 28 class (within the Topography feature dataset) has the same attributes defined by the TRIM program. 4.2 LANDSLIDE ATTRIBUTES Attributes provide detailed information about a specific feature. For the landslide inventory, the attributes are the most essential aspect as they serve to describe the characteristics of the landslide in greater detail. These attributes have been created and/or modified to meet the needs of the potential users and allow the consolidation and standardization of key landslide information necessary for landslide assessments and decision making. It also provides the basis for homogeneous landslide inventories across different study areas, by specifying certain criteria for recording the landslide information.  As a result, a total of 90 attributes have been defined for the landslide inventory (Tables 2, 3, 6 - 14) and divided into ten themes that best represent the landslide characteristics (Sections 4.2.1- 4.2.10). In addition, a total of 22 coded domains have been used to maintain the data integrity of the attributes. All the landslide attributes and coded domains are summarized in the GIS schema (Appendix I). The definition for each attribute is based on established and recognized standards by the landslide community. The attributes defined for the landslide inventory are mainly based on the Multinational Andean Project (2009), Hungr et al. (2013) and the Italian Landslide Inventory (Trigila et al., 2010; IFFI, 2001). The field descriptions used in the Multinational Andean Project (2009) have been recognized as part of the Canadian Technical Guidelines and Best Practices related to Landslides (Jackson et al., 2012). Other nomenclature used in the definition of the landslide attributes include those established by the UNESCO Working Party on World Landslide Inventory (WP/WLI, 1990, 1993a & b, 1994). 29 The themes presented below allow the organization of the landslide information data. To maintain simplicity, all of the attributes defined in the different themes are compiled and stored within the “Landslide Inventory” feature class. If necessary, these different themes could also be separated into different relationship classes or tables and linked through primary and foreign keys. However, this process would add another level of complexity to the data. Nonetheless, it could be implemented if there is integration of other data systems. 4.2.1 General Landslide Information This theme is based on key attributes providing information unique to the user. A unique landslide ID is established for each landslide in the inventory. This unique ID is intended to be created by the user. For the purposes of this thesis, a unique ID is provided as an example (See Appendix II for further details). The frequency of monitoring is established based on specifications for reservoir slopes inspections. For the study area, these are derived from the Operation, Maintenance and Surveillance Manuals for Dam Safety (Oswell T., 2008a, 2008b, 2008c). New landslides added to the inventory (i.e. not inspected previously) are not assigned a frequency of monitoring category until an inspection is carried out. Table 2 shows the summary of attributes containing general landslide information. In addition, the Data Dictionary (Appendix II) contains further details related to each attribute. Table 2:  Summary of attributes for the general landslide information GENERAL LANDSLIDE INFORMATION ATTRIBUTE  DESCRIPTION CODED DOMAIN (CD)/EXAMPLES (EX) LS_ID Unique ID code generated by the user to identify the landslide   LS_NAME Commonly used or referred name at BCH   FREQ_MONT Frequency of landslide monitoring/inspection by the user CD: Continuously, Semi-annually, Annually, Every 5-years, Every 10-years KEY_DESCR Brief and key landslide description based on the inspection report   30 4.2.2 Location Characteristics This theme provides geographic information such as coordinates and elevation, as well as other data specific to the user such as the region, associated dams and reservoirs. All of the attributes in this theme are required for the inventory. Even though location characteristics are an intrinsic component of a GIS, these attributes were created in order to make simple and fact queries of the inventory. Table 3 shows the summary of attributes containing specific location characteristics. In addition, the Data Dictionary (Appendix II) contains further details related to each attribute and coded domain. Table 3:  Summary of attributes based on location characteristics ATTRIBUTE  DESCRIPTION CODED DOMAIN (CD)/EXAMPLES (EX) REGION Established  region by the user, which may incorporate a group of reservoirs Ex: Bridge River ASSC_DAM Name of the dam within the region CD: Seton, Terzaghi, La Joie, None ASSC_RES Name of the reservoir (lake) within the region Ex: Seton Lake, Carpenter Lake, Downton Lake, None NRBY_TOWN Nearest town with respect to the landslide Ex: Lillooet GRID Name of Datum & Projection Ex: NAD83_ZONE10N NORTH UTM northing coordinate of the landslide centroid (m)   EAST UTM easting coordinate of the landslide centroid (m)   ELEVATION Elevation of the landslide centroid (m)   APPX_KM Approximate location in kilometers upstream from the dam   SHORE Reservoir shore (looking downstream) CD: Right shore, Left shore 4.2.3 Landslide Classification The landslide classification presented herein follows the update to the Varnes (1978) classification proposed by the Joint Technical Committee (Hungr et al., 2013). One of the main considerations for using this updated classification (Hungr et al., 2013) is its flexibility in assigning landslide names. Classification schemes for large inventories such as the BC Vegetation Resources Inventory (RIC, LOCATION CHARACTERISTICS 31 2002) tend to use a level system. Therefore, in order to appropriately assign a landslide name in the GIS, the following level system is used:   Level 1: Material property  Level 2: Movement type  Level 3: Subtype (if known)  Level 4: Landslide name based on the classification Level 1 uses the geotechnical terminology to describe the material property. This terminology becomes useful as it describes in more depth the physical behaviour of the landslide mass and, in the case of soils, gives an indication of the plastic and non-plastic behaviour instead of relying on broader terms such as earth or debris (Hungr et al., 2013). Table 4 provides a summary of the proposed material types along with other field and laboratory characteristics (after Hungr et al., 2013).  It is important to note that certain soil types might be difficult to recognize or perhaps are ambiguous from mere photo interpretation. In such case, the word “soil” is used as one of the attributes until field or laboratory investigations are carried out to determine the type of soil. To maintain the integrity in the database, these different material types have been assigned one lower case letter code (Table 5).    32 Table 4:  Material types after Hungr et al. (2013) Level 2 describes the different landslide movement types according to Hungr et al. (2013). These are: fall, topple, spread, flow, slide, and slope deformation. If a certain area shows some evidence of landslide movement but perhaps obscured by the vegetation coverage and/or difficult to determine a specific type of movement based on aerial photo interpretation, the area is identified as “Unclassified” until further investigations are carried out. In order to maintain the integrity of the database, these types of landslide movements have been assigned an upper case letter code, which is representative of its name (Table 5). If only levels 1 and 2 are used, then the classification name is most similar to Varnes (1978). These two levels are required in the inventory and could be based solely on photo/aerial interpretation.  Level 3 is a subtype qualifier for the landslide movement. These possible subtypes have been assigned one lower case letter code as part of the attributes (Table 5). This level breaks down the landslide name proposed by Hungr et al. (2013). This level was added to the attributes since it was noticed that the lack of higher resolutions imagery limited the degree of differentiation and assignment of a specific landslide name based solely on aerial photo interpretation (for example, MATERIAL NAME CHARACTER DESCRIPTORS (IF IMPORTANT) SIMPLIFIED FIELD DESCRIPTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLASSIFICATION CORRESPONDING UCS CLASSES LABORATORY INDICES (IF AVAILABLE) Rock  - Strong  - Weak  Broken with a hammer  Peeled with a knife  - UCS>25MPa  - 2<UCS<25MPa  Clay  - Stiff  - Soft  - Sensitive  Plastic, can be molded into standard thread when moist,  has dry strength  - GC,SC,CL,MH,CH OL and OH  Ip.>0.05  Mud  - Liquid  Plastic, unsorted remoulded and close to Liquid Limit  - CL,CH,CM  Ip>0.05  Il >0.5  Earth  - Plastic  Plastic, unsorted remoulded and close to Plastic Limit  - CL,CH,CM  Ip>0.05  Il <0.5  Silt  Sand  Gravel  Boulders  - Dry  - Saturated  - Partly saturated  Non-plastic (or very low plasticity), granular, sorted.  Silt particles cannot be seen by eye.  - ML  - SW,SP,SM  - GW,GP,GM  Ip<0.05  Debris  - Dry  - Saturated  Non-plastic, unsorted, mixed  - SW-GW  - SM-GM  Ip<0.05  Peat   Organic    33 distinguishing between a rock compound slide vs. rock irregular slide) Therefore, given the available information, this level is optional in the inventory since a detailed field investigation might be needed in order to establish the mechanism of the landslide and/or any other characteristics needed to assign a proper landslide name as proposed by Hungr et al. (2013).   As a result, Levels 1-3 are used in order to assign the final landslide name at Level 4 in the classification (Table 5). If Level 3 is unknown, then the landslide name is a temporary one until further investigations are carried out. Following the example stated above, if it is difficult to distinguish between a rock compound slide and a rock irregular slide from aerial photo interpretation, then Level 3 is left as blank and the temporary landslide name is given as “rock slide”.  If all the Levels 1-3 are known, then the final landslide name can be determined (i.e. rock rotational slide). Also, to further add to this classification, the Hutchinson (1988) classification is used for slope deformations only. The slope deformation name from the Hutchinson (1988) classification is given in parenthesis at Level 4.   For mapping purposes, a landslide symbol is also assigned to a specific landslide. Since each term from Levels 1-3 is given a specific code, then the symbol of the landslide name is a concatenation of the different codes (Table 5). The landslide symbol presented here follows a similar symbol convention as the BC Terrain Classification, which is a concatenation of upper and lower case letters given to material texture, surficial material, surface expression, geomorphological processes and additional qualifiers to assign a specific terrain name (Howes and Kenk, 1997).   34 All the different attributes for landslide classification are summarized in Table 6. In addition, the Data Dictionary (Appendix II) contains further details related to each attribute.    LANDSLIDE SYMBOL (Example: Rock rotational slide)  MATERIAL TYPE (one lower case letter) describes the type of material in terms of geotechnical properties  rSr SUBTYPE QUALIFIER (one lower case letter) is used where a mechanism or other characteristic is known (i.e. optional)  MOVEMENT TYPE (one upper case letter) describes the landslide movement   35 Table 5:  Classification Scheme for rock and soil type landslides (Modified after Hungr et al., 2013) r = Rock F = Fall - Rock fall rF T = Topple b = block Rock block topple rTb x = flexural Rock flexural topple rTx S = Slide r = rotational Rock rotational slide rSr p = planar Rock planar slide rSp w = wedge Wedge slide rSw c = compound Rock compound slide rSc i = irregular Rock irregular slide rSi P = Spread - Rock slope spread rP W = Flow a = avalanche Rock avalanche rWa D = Slope Deformation m = mountain Mountain slope deformation rDm - Rock slope deformation rD  SOILS c = clay, m = mud, e = earth, z = silt, s = sand, g =  gravel, b = boulder, d = debris, p = peat, o = unidentified soil F = Fall - Boulder, debris, silt fall bF, dF, zF T = Topple - Gravel, sand, silt topple gT, sT, zT S = Slide r = rotational Clay, silt rotational slide cSr, zSr p = planar Clay, silt planar slide cSp, zSp - Gravel, sand, debris slide gS, sS, dS c = compound Clay, silt compound slide cSc, zSc P = Spread q = liquefaction Sand, silt, liquefaction spread sPq, zPq - Sensitive clay spread cP W = Flow d = dry Sand, silt, debris dry flow sWd, zWd, dWd s = flow slide Sand, silt, debris flow slide sWs, zWs, dWs Sensitive clay flow slide cWs - Debris flow dW - Mud flow mW o = flood Debris flood dWo a = avalanche Debris avalanche dWa - Earth flow eW - Peat flow pW D = Slope Deformation - Soil slope deformation oD e = creep Soil creep oDe f = solifluction Solifluction oDf LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LANDSLIDE SYMBOL MATERIAL TYPE MOVEMENT TYPE SUB-TYPE (IF KNOWN) LANDSLIDE NAME 36 Table 6:  Summary of attributes for the landslide classification 4.2.4 Movement Information This theme describes the approximate timing of movement relative to the dam construction and specific dates of movement if the landslides are recent. Preliminary information about the activity of the landslide is also described in terms of state, style and distribution of activity. Such terminology has been already established by the UNESCO Working Party on World Landslide Inventory (1993a). Table 7 shows the summary of attributes for the landslide movement characteristics. In addition, the Data Dictionary (Appendix II) contains further details related to each attribute. LANDSLIDE CLASSIFICATION ATTRIBUTE  DESCRIPTION CODED DOMAIN (CD)/EXAMPLES (EX) LS_ZONE Landslide zone, most applicable for rock falls and debris flows Source, path, deposit LS_MAT1 LEVEL 1: Dominant type of landslide material  CD: Rock, Soil (Clay, mud, earth, silt, sand, gravel, boulders, debris, peat) LS_MAT2 LEVEL 1: Secondary type of landslide material CD: Rock, Soil (Clay, mud, earth, silt, sand, gravel, boulders, debris, peat) SOIL_CHAR Characteristics of soil (if known), such as: moisture, plasticity or origin   MOV_TYPE1 LEVEL 2: Primary type of landslide movement CD: Fall, Topple, Slide, Spread, Flow, Slope Deformation, Unclassified MOV_TYPE2 LEVEL 2: Secondary type of landslide movement CD: Fall, Topple, Slide, Spread, Flow, Slope Deformation, Unclassified SUB_TYPE1 LEVEL 3: Subtype descriptor based on primary movement type, if known. CD: block, flexural, rotational, planar, wedge, compound, irregular, liquefaction, avalanche, dry, flow slide, mountain, creep, solifluction, flood OTHER_CHAR Other characteristics of interest related to the landslide   VELOCITY Estimated rate of movement CD: Extremely rapid, very rapid, rapid, moderate, slow, very slow, extremely slow LS_CLASS LEVEL 4: Name of landslide based on the JTC Classification    LS_LABEL Label/Symbol of landslide feature (for mapping purposes)   37 Table 7:  Summary of attributes for the landslide movement characteristics 4.2.5 Land Characteristics This theme provides brief and basic land characteristics of the landslide area, thus avoiding the need to use other layers of complex information. The definition for land cover was based after the Level 4 of BC Land Cover Classification (RIC, 2002). On the other hand, the designations for land use were based after the Lillooet Land and Resource Management Plan (2004). The land cover and land use designations are specific to the study area in order to make it compatible with local (Lillooet) and regional (B.C) terminology. However, those attributes could change into a broader or general terminology in order to consider other areas of interest. Table 8 shows the summary of attributes for the land characteristics. In addition, the Data Dictionary (Appendix II) contains further details related to each attribute.  MOVEMENT CHARACTERISTICS ATTRIBUTE  DESCRIPTION CODED DOMAIN (CD)/EXAMPLES (EX) APPX_TIME Approximate timing of initial movement, relative to pre or post dam construction.  CD: Ancient, Old, Recent, New, Unknown LS_DATE1 Initial date of landslide movement (if new or recent)   LS_DATE2 Subsequent date of landslide movement (if any)   DISP_AVE Estimated average displacement (m)   DISP_MAX Estimated maximum displacement (m)   STATE Relative state of activity or inactivity (timing of movements) of the landslide CD: Active, Inactive, Dormant, Stabilized, Suspended, Reactivated, Relict, Abandoned STYLE Style of activity describing how different movements contribute to the landslide CD: Complex, Composite, Multiple, Successive, Single, Swarm DISTRIB Distribution of activity describing how a landslide affects or expands into the surrounding terrain CD: Retrogressing, Advancing, Widening, Confined, Enlarging, Diminishing, Moving 38 Table 8:  Summary of attributes based on land characteristics 4.2.6 Potential causes The potential landslide causes are divided into pre-existing conditions and triggering events. The list of potential causes is based on Multinational Andean Project (2009), which follows WP/WLI (1994). Table 9 shows the summary of attributes for the potential causes of the landslide. In addition, the Data Dictionary (Appendix II) contains further details related to each attribute. Table 9:  Summary of attributes for the potential causes of the landslide 4.2.7 Morphometric Characteristics This theme is based on attributes that have been established by previous standards. Many of these attributes can be determined or calculated based on spatial relationships. Attributes involving elevation data or those derived from elevation data (i.e. slope) can be obtained from the governmental sources, such as TRIM (1997) data, or LiDAR if available. Table 10 shows the summary of attributes for the morphometric characteristics of the landslide. In addition, the Data Dictionary (Appendix II) contains further details related to each attribute. LAND CHARACTERISTICS ATTRIBUTE  DESCRIPTION CODED DOMAIN (CD)/EXAMPLES (EX) LAND_COVER Land cover type based on the Level 4 of the BC Land Cover Classification CD: Tree, Non-Treed, Snow/Ice, Rock/Rubble, Exposed Land LAND_USE Land use designations based the Lillooet Land and Resource Management Plan.  CD: Multiple Use Area, Designated Mining Area, Protected Areas, Private  Land & Indian Reserves POTENTIAL CAUSES ATTRIBUTE  DESCRIPTION CODED DOMAIN (CD)/EXAMPLES (EX) CAUSE_PRE Possible cause based on dominant pre-existing condition   CAUSE_TRIG Possible cause based on the dominant triggering event   39 Table 10:  Summary of attributes for the morphometric characteristics of the landslide 4.2.8 Geology & Structure Characteristics The geologic descriptions such as rock types and rock units are based on regional geological mapping. In this case, it is after the BC Geological Survey (2005) mapping. Other attributes such as rock mass structure, weathering, joint spacing and discontinuity data are dependent on information available from field investigations. Table 11 shows the summary of attributes for the geology and structure characteristics of the landslide. In addition, the Data Dictionary (Appendix II) contains further details related to each attribute. MORPHOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS ATTRIBUTE  DESCRIPTION CODED DOMAIN (CD)/EXAMPLES (EX) CONFIDENCE Confidence on the landslide feature CD: Defined, Assumed/Estimated, Possible, Needs Revision BOUNDARY Percent of the landslide boundary that has been defined and/or estimated.   LENGTH Total length of landslide (m)   WIDTH Width of landslide (m)   DEPTH_CONF Descriptor indicating the confidence on the depth value Determined, Estimated DEPTH Depth of rupture surface (m)   AREA Total surface area of landslide (m2) based on polygon boundary.   VOLUME Volume of landslide (m3)   CROWN_ELEV Elevation at crown of the landslide (m)   TOE_ELEV Elevation at toe of the landslide (m)   DIFF_HGHT Difference in elevation between crown and toe (m)   TR_DIST Travel distance (m), if known.   FAHR Fahrboschung angle (degrees), if known    SL_ANGLE Average slope angle (degrees)   SL_AZIMUTH Average slope azimuth (degrees)   LS_AZIMUTH Azimuth of landslide movement (degrees)   LS_CROWN Landslide crown position relative to the slope CD: Ridge, Upper, Middle, Lower, Flood Plain LS_TOE Landslide toe position relative to the slope CD: Ridge, Upper, Middle, Lower, Flood Plain 40 Table 11:  Summary of attributes for the geologic and structural characteristics of the landslide 4.2.9 Reference & Editing Information This theme describes the reference information to each landslide feature. However, these attributes could be subject to change depending on the requirements of the user. Also, the attributes in this theme could be created in a separate table that relates to the landslide inventory. Attributes for editing information keep track of the GIS personnel who adds or edits the inventory data. Table 12 and Table 13 show the summary of attributes for the reference and editing information of the landslide. In addition, the Data Dictionary (Appendix II) contains further details related to each attribute. GEOLOGY & STRUCTURE CHARACTERISTICS ATTRIBUTE  DESCRIPTION CODED DOMAIN (CD)/EXAMPLES (EX) LITHO1 Dominant type of rock where feature is present (based on BCGS mapping)   LITHO2 Secondary type of rock where feature is present (based on BCGS mapping)   UNIT Geologic unit (Group name) based on the BCGS mapping   GEO_DESC Detailed geologic description based on field observation (if any).   RM_STRUCT Rock mass Structure, if known. CD: Massive, Stratified, Fractured, Fissile, Moderately Jointed, Schistose, Vacuolar, Chaotic WEATHERING Weathering of the rock mass, if known CD: Fresh, Slightly weathered, Moderately Weathered, Highly weathered, Completely weathered JT_SPACING Approximate joint spacing, if known CD: Very Wide, Wide, Moderate, Close, Very Close DS1 Dominant discontinuity set (degrees), if known    DS2 Secondary discontinuity set (degrees), if known   DS3 Tertiary discontinuity set (degrees), if known   BD_ATTITUDE Bedding attitude, if known CD: Horizontal, Parallel to Slope, Dipping into the slope, Dipping out of Slope, Obliquely relative to slope NRBY_FAULT  Distance to the nearby regional fault (m)   41 Table 12:  Summary of attributes for the reference information of the landslide ATTRIBUTE  DESCRIPTION CODED DOMAIN (CD)/EXAMPLES (EX) SOURCE Name of Source, either Internal or External   METHOD Method of input to geodatabase CD: Digitized (if hard-copy), Transferred/Copied (if already digital), Visual Interpretation REF_TYPE Reference type CD: [Hard-copy options: Map, Report, Memo] [Digital format options: SHP, CAD, Other] [Visual inspection options: Aerial, LiDAR, Photogrammetry, Google Earth, Other Remote Sensing] REF_CODE Reference code (i.e.: map code)   REF_TITLE Reference title (i.e.: map title)   REF_AUTHOR Reference author (i.e.: map author)   REF_DATE Reference date   REF_DOC Report/Document title   REF_DOCN Report/Document number or code   REF_LOC Primary reference location CD: [List of internal locations], Other (External) REF_NOTES Notes about internal reference might include additional informational such as file folder name and box number. Notes about external reference might include hyperlink or detailed name of reference    Table 13:  Summary of attributes for the editing information of the landslide data 4.2.10 Inspection History Information This theme describes key information based on the inspections carried out for the reservoir slopes. It contains a summary of the annual or periodic inspection memorandums. The attributes described under this theme could be added for subsequent inspections as well. This helps maintain a quick REFERENCE INFORMATION EDITING INFORMATION ATTRIBUTE  DESCRIPTION CODED DOMAIN (CD)/EXAMPLES (EX) ADD_BY Name of the person who added the feature to the inventory   ADD_DATE Date when the feature was added to the inventory   EDIT_BY Name of the person who last edited the feature   EDIT_DATE Date when the feature was last edited    42 record of the inspections for a specific landslide. Table 14 shows the summary of attributes for the inspection history of the landslide. In addition, the Data Dictionary (Appendix II) contains further details related to each attribute. Table 14:  Summary of attributes for the Inspection History of the landslide carried out by BC Hydro 4.3 DATA COLLECTION  The first stage in the implementation phase involves data collection. The internal data used in the study area (maps, reports, imagery) was kindly provided by BC Hydro.  4.3.1 Internal Maps and Reports Data for the study area was gathered from different BC Hydro documents, reports, and paper maps associated with reservoir slope stability studies and landslides. A total of 94 documents/reports and 31 maps were found for the study area. Some of the most relevant documents included the Comprehensive Inspection Review for each dam, the Annual and 5-year Inspection memorandums for reservoir slopes, individual slope assessments, as well as other archived documents.  INSPECTION HISTORY INFORMATION ATTRIBUTE  DESCRIPTION CODED DOMAIN (CD)/EXAMPLES (EX) INSP1_BY Name of personnel who carried out the inspection   INSP1_DATE Date of inspection    INSP1_NOTE Notes during inspection or changes noted from last inspection    INSP1_MEMO Reference for memo inspection    COMMENTS Other general comments regarding the landslide   PICTURE Representative picture of the landslide   43 4.3.2 Internal Imagery BC Hydro has historic aerial photographs at different scales available for the study area both in hard copy and digital format. Over 200 aerial photographs (mainly from the mid-1970s) in hard-copy format and approximately 80 aerial photographs (mainly from early 2000s) in digital format were used for the study area.  Multi-year historical inspection photos allow another way to depict changes in slopes and provide a greater perspective and view for certain slopes where the aerial or satellite imagery is not distinct. For the Bridge River area, over 400 oblique photos taken during the 2001, 2005 and 2009 reservoir slope inspections were available in digital format. In addition, pictures taken during the 2012 reservoir inspection by Geidy Baldeon and Oldrich Hungr were also used.  Bare-earth LiDAR coverage is important to identify certain features at greater detail. However, this is limited to certain areas of the study area. At the time of data collection, bare-earth LiDAR data was available at BC Hydro for Santa Claus Mountain and the penstock slopes at Seton.  4.3.3 Governmental Datasets The government of British Columbia has geospatial data (already available in ArcGIS format) that is useful for landslide assessments. These include:  Detailed base mapping data such topography, hydrology, infrastructure, etc., at a scale of 1:20,000 by the TRIM Program (TRIM, 1997). This data was provided by BC Hydro.  Geological mapping of the entire province at a scale of 1:250,000 by the Geological Survey of British Columbia (BCGS, 2005). This data is accessible and freely downloadable by the public. 44  Terrain stability mapping of certain areas in BC at a scale of 1:20,000 by the BC Ministry of Environment (MoE, 2010). This data is accessible and freely downloadable by the public.  Other geospatial data such as vegetation cover, land use, forest fire coverage, etc. is also available by the BC government (MoF, 2013; DataBC, 2013).  Web mapping services that include satellite imagery and orthophotos. This data is not downloadable but can be viewed in ArcGIS and Google Earth (DataBC, 2013) 4.4 DATA PROCESSING Most of the data available for the study area is non-digital. Therefore, these important sources of data were scanned at the highest resolution whenever possible. All of the spatial landslide data contained in BC Hydro paper maps (Section 4.3.1) was geo-referenced and digitized in ArcMap (Esri, 2013). A few more recent maps were already available in digital format (GIS and CAD drawings).  Both paper and digital maps had a projection or datum conversion, if needed (Section 4.4.1).  The BC Hydro documents (Section 4.3.1) were used to extract relevant information, description or other characteristics about the landslides. Some of these documents stated the approximate location, such as coordinates or the distance in kilometers upstream from the dam. This information was used to locate the landslide or a landslide-related feature and digitized in ArcMap (Esri, 2013). Other landslide information was reviewed and introduced as attribute information for the identified landslide (Section 4.5.3). In terms of the non-digital BC Hydro imagery, approximately 200 historical aerial photographs were scanned at the highest resolution and about 400 historical inspection pictures were geo-45 tagged with an approximate location to allow easier search capabilities for analysis (Section 4.3.2). These sources were used for aerial photo interpretation and landslide mapping.  Elevation data was processed in ArcGIS 10.1 using the different tools available (Esri, 2013). The available LiDAR data (mass points) was converted to an elevation raster of 1m resolution using the 3D Analyst “Conversion” tools.  In a similar manner, digital elevation models of 25m resolution were derived from the TRIM elevation mass points and breaklines using the 3D Analyst “Conversion” tools. Terrain (hillshades), aspect and slope rasters were later derived from the LiDAR and TRIM elevation rasters using the 3D Analyst “Raster Surface” tools.  The data assessment as well as the validation process for the primary data such as the landslide inventory, structural features and terrain mapping is explained in greater detail in Chapter 5. 4.4.1 Datum & Projections In the case of the Bridge River geodatabase, all of the geospatial data is projected in UTM coordinates using the NAD83 datum and the z-coordinates using the Canadian geodetic vertical datum of 1928 in order to make the data consistent and compatible with other GIS data from BC Hydro. For ArcGIS purposes, the name is NAD83_UTM_Zone_10N.  All of the digitized data has been geo-referenced to this datum and projection as well.  Some spatial data with a different datum or no projection/datum was converted to NAD83 UTM Zone 10. Some digital data (i.e. CAD files) used the NAD 1927 datum. To convert from NAD27 to NAD83, the Nat2V.gsb file was downloaded from Esri Canada.  This gsb file does not come integrated as part of the Esri software. Some paper maps, especially older maps, lack a projection and datum. In this case, through trial and error, it was determined that such maps used a NAD 1927 datum. Theses maps were geo-referenced by adding various control points based on cultural or 46 topographic features in the source map and matching them to a basemap of the study area.  These maps were digitized using this projection and later converted to NAD 83.  4.5 DATA INPUT After all the collected spatial and non-spatial data for the Bridge River area was processed and validated, it was loaded into the geodatabase and given a specific name (for further details on the data assessment, see Chapter 5). Furthermore, all of the data associated with the geodatabase contains metadata specifying a brief description of the data and credits. Appendix I shows a summary of all the data used to make the Bridge River geodatabase as well as the GIS schema. The following sections describe the naming conventions used for data input to the geodatabase. The user may opt to change or retain the naming conventions used.  4.5.1 Datasets Datasets have been established in Section 4.1.1 as part of the geodatabase design. The naming of each feature dataset is based on its theme name. For names consisting of more than one word, an underscore is used since ArcGIS does not allow spaces. For example: Landslide_Hazards 4.5.2 Feature Classes & Rasters Appendix I shows a summary of the feature classes and rasters loaded into the Bridge River geodatabase. The feature classes were based upon previous data collection (Section 4.3), processing and validation (Section 4.4) before loading into the geodatabase. All the compiled primary and reference features classes were clipped to the general Bridge River region (AOI) or limited to the study area (i.e. reservoir slopes) and stored under a specific feature dataset, previously established in Section 4.1.1. Furthermore, each feature class was given a unique name (as specified below) and in addition its metadata information.  47 4.5.2.1 Naming Convention  A feature class name should be unique within the geodatabase and constrained to 30 characters. Since ArcGIS does not allow spaces, if the name contains two or more words, the name uses mixed case and underscores. Given these restrictions within the software, the assigned name is succinct but still contains relevant words or abbreviations that identify the feature class. Appendix I shows the names used for the different feature classes and rasters. The names of feature classes are written as follows: Where_WhatWho.   It is important to note that there is no date component associated with the feature class name. If the date is related to an updated version, this is noted in the metadata and not in the file name. Therefore, the name of a feature class does not change as result of update and thus preserves the links with other ArcGIS files. Also, if the data is represented by two or more types of feature classes, the following nomenclature is added at the end of the name: p (points), a (polygons), l (lines) 4.5.3 Attributes As previously stated, attributes have not been defined for feature classes, except for the landslide inventory. Therefore, the attribute information remains the same as its original source. In regards FEATURE CLASS NAMING CONVENTION (Example: BRR_GeologyBCGS250k) WHERE Three letter code assigned to the study area.  For example, the Bridge River area uses BRR. If the data relates to a specific area within the study area, the name is abbreviated. For example: St. Claus  Where_WhatWho WHO Abbreviation of the institution or company that generated or created the data, followed by the scale, if available. Therefore, the same type of data from an entity can be differentiated at a different resolution or scale. For example, BCGS25k or BCGS100k.  WHAT Concise file content description (abbreviated if possible). For example: Struct, Geol, Litho, etc.  48 to the landslide inventory, the landslide attributes were already established in Section 4.2. The field names of these attributes are constrained to 10 characters (in order to transfer to shapefile format if necessary). Therefore, most of the names have been abbreviated and capitalized for this purpose (See tables in Section 4.2). For example: “LS_ID” is used for the Landslide Identification code or “KEY_DESCR” for key landslide description. The landslide information (i.e. non-spatial data) was reviewed and gathered from BC Hydro documents and other external sources (Section 4.3). This data was loaded as attribute information for each identified landslide. Certain landslide attributes were estimated or calculated based on the available data and tools. It is important to note that not all of the attribute information has been completed due to the lack of certain data. Appendix II shows the completeness levels, whether fully complete or partially complete, for the different attributes specified at the Bridge River area.  A complete list of the landslide inventory with the attribute information for the study area is given in Appendix III. 49 CHAPTER 5: DATA ASSESSMENT 5.1 LANDSLIDE INVENTORY 5.1.1 Previous Work BC Hydro has been undertaking comprehensive inspections of reservoir slopes since the mid-1980s in the study area. During the initial assessments, they carried out aerial photo interpretations to identify landslides or potential landslides, aerial inspections of the reservoir slopes by helicopter, and field reconnaissance and mapping for certain areas (BC Hydro, 1987a, b, 1988). It is during this time that most landslides and potential areas of instability in the study area were recognized. Since then, reservoir slopes inspections are carried out as per the inspection frequency stated in the Operation, Maintenance and Surveillance Manuals for Dam Safety (Oswell T., 2008a, 2008b, 2008c), which is every five years for the reservoir slopes in the study area. In addition, there are two slopes that are inspected on a yearly basis, which have undergone detailed geological and structural mapping (See Section 5.4 for more information).  Besides BC Hydro, other government agencies have carried out landslide mapping in the study area. The TRIM program has identified a few landslides within the study area. However, the majority of identified landslides by the TRIM program lie outside the study area. The terrain mapping carried out for the Ministry of Environment (MoE, 2010), has also identified some landslides within the study area. The slow-moving landslides, among some fast-moving landslides, have been of most interest. All of these sources containing identified landslides have been compiled in the landslide inventory for the study area. 50 5.1.2 Validation/Visual Inspection Certain landslide features can be recognized through aerial photo interpretation, as it allows the user to have a better perspective of the terrain that could otherwise be difficult to perceive from ground inspections. Aerial photo interpretation has been used in order to recognize new landslides, define the boundaries of previously recognized landslides and identify linear features. Aerial photo interpretation was used in conjunction with other sources of information (Sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3), such as terrain mapping, geological mapping, various surface rasters (terrain hillshades, aspect, slope) and different imagery. Google Earth (Google, 2013) was also used in this process as a tool to provide a 3D perspective of the area, validate the digitized data and map new landslide features as well. Satellite imagery of the study area in Google Earth is for the most part from 2004-2005 with good enough resolution to allow visualization of the terrain.   As previously specified, most landslide features have been compiled from various BC Hydro documentation (reports, maps, etc.), and supplemented with already mapped landslides features from the BC terrain mapping (MoE, 2010), TRIM (1997) data and aerial/satellite imagery interpretation. In terms of landslide mapping, spatial data containing landslide features were digitized from BC Hydro maps. However, some landslide features were identified with only approximate locations and lacked spatial definition. In such cases, the boundaries were delineated through aerial/satellite imagery interpretation and other resources as specified in the previous paragraph. In the case of slope deformations, the boundaries were mapped so as to contain most surface expressions. Since slope deformations might not have a basal rupture, the downslope extent of the boundary was drawn up to the lower extent of the linear surface expressions.  Some geospatial data (previously digitized from paper maps) had a spatial misalignment due to the original data being mapped at smaller scales, having different projections or lacking projections. 51 Therefore, the clean-up process involved validating the digitized data to match the topography of the area. This was carried out by overlying topographic contours, terrain hillshades, orthophotos and other satellite imagery available from the BC government (Section 4.3.3). The digitized features were also validated in Google Earth (Google, 2013) by converting the GIS data to KML files (ArcGIS’ Conversion Tool). Aerial photos and inspection pictures were also used as a way to validate the existing data, where the resolution of the satellite and Google Earth imagery is not distinct for mapping purposes.  Field checking of landslide features is an important component of the data validation process. In this case, the author had the opportunity to participate in a helicopter reconnaissance of the study area.  However, this was not sufficient to carry out a detailed inspection of all the landslide areas.  Therefore, the database relies primarily upon previous field inspections carried out by BC Hydro. New landslide features (i.e. not inspected previously by BC Hydro) or new landslide boundaries should be field checked in the future and updated in the inventory.  5.1.3 Results The landslide inventory shows the location of previously recognized landslides by BC Hydro and other known landslides. The inventory also includes incipient landslides; as these are considered relevant for inspections in case of any potential instability that could damage any infrastructure.  The Bridge River landslide inventory consists of 106 features, which represents about 6% (53 Km2) of the study area (Figure 4). Also as seen in Figure 4 , there are 36 landslides mapped outside the surroundings of the study area. However, these landslides were not described in as much detail as the landslides within the study area and most are not classified. A list of all the identified landslides in the study area with their corresponding descriptions based on the established landslide attributes is shown in Appendix III. The landslide mapping at a scale of 1:20,000 is shown in 52 Appendix IV, where each landslide has a plan view, profile view, photo of the area and a unique landslide ID (Note: the same Landslide ID is used in Appendix III and the actual geodatabase).   +++++++++ ++++++++++++ ++++++++++++ +++++++++++++ ++++++++++++ ++ + + + ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXÛÛÛ"/"/"/"/"""""BR2BR1SETONGSSETONDAMLA JOIE DAM TERZAGHIDAMCARPENTERLAKESETONLAKEDOWNTONLAKEANDERSONLAKEGUNLAKEBrextonShalalth LillooetGold BridgeSetonPortageRESARFRESARFREVIREGDIRBIRRESARFREVIRYELRUHREVIRYELRUHREIRYELUHREIREGDIRBREVIREGDIRBREVIRMOkeerCeeLkeerCkolSkeerCrarrakeerCyaKcMkeerCyllekeerCleoNkeerCredallawdaCkeerClennoCkeerCyarvilliGcMkeerCyellaVtskeerCredipS keerCreppoCkeernomanniCkeerChsooyakeerCtaoGenoLkkeerClraCkeerCredallawdaCkeerCkeerCpacetihW keerCpacetihWkeerCxaurTkeerCllahsraMkeerC gnirpselppAkeerCmilSeLkeerCnosraePkeerCnuGkeerCnothgukeerCspaluhSkeerCerO49000049000050000050000051000051000052000052000053000053000054000054000055000055000056000056000057000057000056100005610000562000056200005630000563000056400005640000$0 5 10 15KilometerBridge River area, S.W. British Columbia - CanadaOVERVIEW MAP OF THE LANDSLIDE INVENTORY AT THE STUDY AREAModified on April 29, 2014NAD 83 - UTM Zone 10N1:250,000Map Scale!! Lillooet VancouverBRITISHCOLUMBIALEGEND" TownÛ Dam"/ Generating StationRiverLakeStudy AreaFaults by B.C.G.SRegional Fault+ + + + Regional ThrustLinear FeaturesLocal FaultLinearLinear with apparent downdropScarpX X X X X X X Tension CrackLandslide InventoryLevel 2 - Movement TypeFallToppleFlowSlideSpreadSlope DeformationUnclassifiedSOURCES:  [1] Landslide data based from various BC Hydro maps and reports, BC Terrain mapping (Ministry of Environment, 2010) and aerial photo interpretation. See attributes for specific landslide reference. Landslide classification after Hungr et al. (2013).[2] Geological mapping taken from the Digital Map of British Columbia: Tile NM10 Southwest B.C. (Scale 1:250,000), B.C. Ministry of Energy and Mines, GeoFile 2005-3 by Massey, N.W.D., MacIntyre, D.G., Desjardins, P.J. and Cooney, R.T. (2005). [3] Topographic basemap and DEM data acquired from the B.C. TRIM Program (Scale 1:20,000).Marshall Creek FaultMission Ridge FaultInset Scale 1:5,000,00053MISSION RIDGE54 The landslide inventory map of the Seton reservoir slopes is shown in Figure 5. Seton has the majority of landslides in the study area, with a total of 50 landslides. The most common landslides are rock falls and shallow rock slides. Although there are only a few slope deformations, these are the ones that cover the most area. The two mountain slope deformations in this area are Santa Claus Mountain (See Section Santa Claus Mountain5.4.1 for further details) and the unofficially named repeater station mountain (Figure 5). Table 15 shows a summary of the landslides in the slopes of Seton reservoir. For further details, the complete characteristics for each landslide are shown in Appendix III and the landslide mapping at a scale of 1:20,000 is shown in Appendix IV. Table 15:  Summary of landslides in Seton reservoir slopes     LANDSLIDE TYPE # AREA (m2) Fall 19 6.1E+06 Rock fall (source) 13 3.8E+06 Rock fall (deposit) 6 2.4E+06 Slide  17 3.2E+06 Rock rotational slide 6 6.8E+05 Rock slide 10 2.5E+06 Wedge slide 1 9.2E+04 Slope Deformation 6 1.2E+07 Mountain slope deformation 2 1.1E+07 Rock slope deformation 4 8.3E+05 Flow  4 1.5E+06 Debris flow (path/deposit) 4 1.8E+06 Topple 2 1.1E+06 Rock block topple 2 1.1E+06 Unclassified 2 7.5E+05 TOTAL OF SETON LANDSLIDES 50 2.5E+07 Geology by the Geological Survey of British ColumbiaRegional Fault+ + Regional ThrustSeton LithologyCenozoicEgd Unnamedgranodioritic intrusive rocksEfp Unnamedfeldspar porphyritic  intrusive rocksMesozoiclKJs Jackass Mountain Groupundivided sedimentary rocksJKCs Cayoosh Assemblageundivided sedimentary rocksmJKsc Unnamedcoarse clastic sedimentary rocksuTrCHL Cadwallader Group - Hurley, Last Creek and GrouseCreek Siltstone Units mudstone, siltstone, shale fineclastic sedimentary rocksPaleozoic to MesozoicMmJBsv Bridge River Complexmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocksMmJBgs Bridge River Complexgreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocksPaleozoicPShus Shulaps Ultramafic Complex - Serpentinite MelangeUnit serpentinite ultramafic rocksMarshall Creek FaultMission Ridge FaultBR2BR1SETONGSSETONDAMSETONLAKEShalalth LillooetSetonPortageMmJBsvMmJBgsMmJBsv uTrCHLlKJsmJKscEgdPShusMcLEANM TRESARFRESARFk eerCrekeekeernwTerhsooyakeerCyekciDerCamkeerCnwoTkeerCetuhcaMkoorBnimOeerCeesTkeerCkcunooMkeerCa llitPkeerCeniledakeernih keerCdiguDkeerCnilkeerCyekciDkeerCyerduANIATNUOFER I D GNOISSIMekaL nooMrDmrDmrSrTrDmdW rFrFrFrDmoXrSrFrSrrDrSrF rFrSr rDrSrDrFrSrrSrrSrrSrrSrrSrFrFrFrF rFrSrFrFrSwdXrSrFrSrrDrFrSECokeCCkeAkPMCOuO5500005500005550005550005600005600005650005650005700005700005750005750005615000561500056200005620000$!! Lillooet VancouverBRITISHCOLUMBIALEGEND" TownÛ Dam"/ Generating StationSpillwayDam Top & BaseReservoir KilometerIndex Contour (100 m)River/StreamLakeStudy AreaMoraineScreeIcefield & Glacier! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Debris fanTalus cone/fanLinear FeaturesLocal FaultLinearLinear withapparent downdropScarpX X X X X X X Tension CrackLandslide InventoryLevel 2 - Movement TypeFallToppleFlowSlideSpreadSlope DeformationUnclassified0 2 4 6KilometerBridge River area, S.W. British Columbia - CanadaLANDSLIDE INVENTORY MAP OF SETON RESERVOIRInset Scale 1:5,000,000 Modified on April 29, 2014NAD 83 - UTM Zone 10N1:80,000Map ScaleSOURCES:   [1]  Hazard categories primarily based on the assessments of the landslideinventory, geological and terrain mapping. [2]Topographic basemap and DEM data acquiredfrom the B.C. TRIM Program (Scale 1:20,000).55Repeater Station Mtn.Santa Claus Mtn.Marshall Creek FaultFaultMission Ridge56 The landslide inventory map of the Carpenter reservoir slopes is shown in Figure 6 and a summary of the landslides mapped is shown in Table 16. Carpenter has a total of 43 identified landslides. The most common landslides are rock slides, varying from shallow to deep. One of the most notorious rock rotational slides is the unofficially named Marshall Lake Slide, consisting of hummocky topography with sag ponds and linear ridges transecting the main body. Slope deformations are also relevant in this area. The two main mountain slope deformations are along the ridge of Nosebag Mountain. These could be considered as just one mountain slope deformation; however, they were distinguished because the surface expressions (counterscarps) are more prominent and well-developed in the western side than the eastern side. For further details, the complete characteristics (i.e. attributes) for each landslide are shown in Appendix III and the landslide mapping at a scale of 1:20,000 is shown in Appendix IV. Table 16:  Summary of landslides in Carpenter reservoir slopes   LANDSLIDE TYPE # AREA (m2) Fall 1 6.3E+04 Rock fall (deposit) 1 6.3E+04 Slide 28 1.3E+07 Rock rotational slide 11 1.1E+07 Rock slide 12 2.5E+06 Debris slide 5 3.0E+04 Slope Deformation 8 1.1E+07 Mountain slope deformation 3 9.5E+06 Rock slope deformation 4 1.2E+06 Soil creep 1 4.3E+04 Flow 2 5.2E+05 Debris flow (deposit) 1 1.7E+05 Earthflow 1 3.5E+05 Unclassified 4 1.2E+06 TOTAL OF CARPENTER LANDSLIDES 43 2.6E+07 Geology by the Geological Survey of British ColumbiaRegional Fault+ + Regional ThrustCarpenter LithologyCenozoicEgd Unnamedgranodioritic intrusive rocksEfp Unnamedfeldspar porphyritic  intrusive rocksEvd Unnameddacitic volcanic rocksMesozoic to CenozoicLKTgd Unnamedgranodioritic intrusive rocksLKTfp Unnamedfeldspar porphyritic intrusive rocksMesozoiclKTDcg Taylor Creek Group - Dash Formationconglomerate, coarse clastic sedimentary rockslKTLsc Taylor Creek Group - Lizard Formationcoarse clastic sedimentary rocksJKCs Cayoosh Assemblageundivided sedimentary rocksuTrCHsc Cadwallader Group - Hurley Formationcoarse clastic sedimentary rocksuTrCgs Cadwallader Group - Volcanic Unitgreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocksPaleozoic to MesozoicMmJBsv Bridge River Complexmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocksMmJBgs Bridge River Complexgreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocksMmJBbs Bridge River Complexblueschist metamorphic rocksPaleozoicPBEus Bralorne-East Liza Complexserpentinite ultramafic rockPShus Shulaps Ultramafic Complex - Serpentinite MelangeUnit serpentinite ultramafic rocksBR2BR1LA JOIE DAMTERZAGHIDAMCARPENTERLAKEGUNLAKEBrextonShalalthGold BridgeMmJBsvEgdMmJBsvMmJBsvEvdEgduTrCHscMmJBsvMmJBgsPShusPBEusMmJBsvPBEusMmJBgsJKCsuTrCgsJKCsEfpJKCsMmJBbsuTrCHsclKTDcgLKTfpuTrCHscPBEusLKTgduTrCHscPBEusMmJBsvJKCsNOSSUGREF TMNOSEBAGMTN.ALOZ TMXAURT TMBBOB TMSMAILLIW TMKAEP XERAHOMPOHSB TMREVREVIRYELRUHREVIREGDIRBGDIRBRkeerClra redallawdaCkeerChWkeerCxaurTkeerCllahsraMkkekee eerCspaluhSrOkeerCnosaMkeerredllada keerCdribkalkeerdokeerbbokeernkt keerCnrtiwkeekeerCkerCyraeKn imkeerCeesTkeerCareikeerkCa llikn kerCknkeerCn ossu gr eFkeerCeokeerCnossugreFkyesdnikeerCbboBkeerClriGkeerCsmailliWkeerCpeetSkeerCsenoJkeerbbokshkergokeerCyraeKkeerCymmoTkeerCelavradeCkeerClleHkeerspaluhSkeerClla FkeerCeoDknkeergnirbeSkeerkoorblokeerCnoomlehciMkeerCkcuBkeerderAkeerC keerCkeerCklkeerCgo kstterBIMEGDIRLLAHSRAMEKALYRAEKekaLllahsraMekaL daeMekaL modgniKsdnoPuaetalPekaL dlanoDcMekaL rekcuSekaLbboBekaLmodgniKekaL leoNsdnoP uaetalPdnoPdnoPnosraePekaLenitnepreSM o w s o nrSrrDm rDmrTrXrSrSrrDrSrrSrrDmrSrSrrDrSrSrrSrDrSrSreWrSrrXrSrSrDrDrTrSrSroXrSoXrSdSrSrSrdWoDerSrSdSdS dSik eCawCcBCamNCBCossugreFeerCnediserPunTeOVCeereerCihO eeerCwHeerCLCBeerCenoJtroNeCHCeerCrohgiBCCHCFneerClahsraMH eerCpaluhSC51000051000051500051500052000052000052500052500053000053000053500053500054000054000054500054500055000055000055500055500056000056000056250005625000563000056300005635000563500056400005640000$!! Lillooet VancouverBRITISHCOLUMBIALEGEND" TownÛ Dam"/ Generating StationSpillwayDam Top & BaseReservoir KilometerIndex Contour (100 m)River/StreamLakeStudy AreaMoraineScreeIcefield & Glacier!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Debris fanTalus cone/fanLinear FeaturesLocal FaultLinearLinear withapparent downdropScarpX X X X X X X Tension CrackLandslide InventoryLevel 2 - Movement TypeFallToppleFlowSlideSpreadSlope DeformationUnclassified0 3 6 9KilometerBridge River area, S.W. British Columbia - CanadaLANDSLIDE INVENTORY MAP OF CARPENTER RESERVOIRModified on April 29, 2014NAD 83 - UTM Zone 10N1:140,000Map ScaleSOURCES:   [1]  Hazard categories primarily based on the assessments of the landslideinventory, geological and terrain mapping. [2]Topographic basemap and DEM data acquiredfrom the B.C. TRIM Program (Scale 1:20,000).Inset Scale 1:5,000,00057Marshall Lake SlideMarshall Creek FaultHell Creek Fault58 Figure 7 shows the landslide inventory map of the Downton reservoir slopes and a summary of the landslides mapped are provided in Table 17. As seen from the map, Downton exhibits the least amount of landslides with a total of 13 identified landslides. In this area, rock falls are the most dominant but their sources are limited to smaller area when compared to those in Seton. One of the most relevant features is Wedge Drop Mountain, which is considered to be a mountain slope deformation (Section 5.4.2; Figure 7). For further details, the complete characteristics (i.e. attributes) for each landslide are shown in Appendix III and the landslide mapping at a scale of 1:20,000 is shown in Appendix IV. Table 17:  Summary of landslides in Downton reservoir slopes   LANDSLIDE TYPE # AREA (m2) Fall 6 5.5E+05 Rock fall (source/deposit) 6 5.5E+05 Slide 3 1.5E+05 Rock slide 3 1.5E+05 Slope Deformation 1 1.2E+06 Mountain slope deformation 1 1.2E+06 Flow 3 7.7E+04 Debris avalanche 3 7.7E+04 TOTAL OF DOWNTON LANDSLIDES 13 1.9E+06 Geology by the Geological Survey of British ColumbiaRegional Fault+ + Regional ThrustDownton LithologyUnknown?gb Unnamedgabbroic to dioritic intrusive rocksMesozoic to CenozoicLKTg Unnamedintrusive rocks, undividedLKTgd Unnamedgranodioritic intrusive rocksMesozoicLKqd Unnamedquartz dioritic intrusive rocksLKgd Unnamedgranodioritic intrusive rocksJKCs Cayoosh Assemblageundivided sedimentary rocksJKCsf Cayoosh Assemblage(?) mudstone, siltstone,shale fine clastic sedimentary rocksuTrJNM Noel Mountain East Succession mudstone,siltstone, shale fine clastic sedimentary rocksuTrCHsc Cadwallader Group - Hurley Formationcoarse clastic sedimentary rocksuTrCgs Cadwallader Group - Volcanic Unitgreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocksPaleozoic to MesozoicMmJBsv Bridge River Complexmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocksPaleozoicPBEus Bralorne-East Liza Complexserpentinite ultramafic rockMarshall Creek FaultMission Ridge FaultLA JOIE DAMDOWNTONLAKEGUNLAKEBrextonGold BridgeLKqdLKgdJKCsfLKTguTrCHscMmJBsv?gbPBEusPBEusuTrCgsuTrJNM JKCsuTrCHscPBEusLKgdLKTgdTMNTM NEERGNAOLS TMNTMHTROWLLITNTM SUSRUNTM REHSIFKAEP ELREHCSNTM ENIPUCROPESORNEP TMALOZ TMREVIRYELRUHkeerCeimaJkeerC allawdaCkeerCribkcakeerCkeerCeimaJkeerCn ossu gr eFyexoR kerkeerCesornePkeerCtlkeerCreklaWgreFsdniLtSekaL daeMekaL modgniKekaL dlanoDcMekaL eiojaLekaL rekcuSekaLmodgniKekaL leoNrDm rSrFrFrSrSrFdWarSdWarFd dlnCerCuAue4900004900004950004950005000005000005050005050005100005100005150005150005630000563000056350005635000$!! Lillooet VancouverBRITISHCOLUMBIALEGEND" TownÛ Dam"/ Generating StationSpillwayDam Top & BaseReservoir KilometerIndex Contour (100 m)River/StreamLakeStudy AreaMoraineScreeIcefield & Glacier! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!Debris fanTalus cone/fanLinear FeaturesLocal FaultLinearLinear withapparent downdropScarpX X X X X X X Tension CrackLandslide InventoryLevel 2 - Movement TypeFallToppleFlowSlideSpreadSlope DeformationUnclassified0 2 4 6KilometerBridge River area, S.W. British Columbia - CanadaLANDSLIDE INVENTORY MAP OF DOWNTOWN RESERVOIRModified on April 29, 2014NAD 83 - UTM Zone 10N1:80,000Map ScaleSOURCES:   [1]  Hazard categories primarily based on the assessments of the landslideinventory, geological and terrain mapping. [2] Geological mapping taken from the Digital Map of British Columbia: Tile NM10 Southwest B.C. (Scale 1:250,000), B.C. Ministry of Energy and Mines, GeoFile 2005-3 by Massey, N.W.D., MacIntyre, D.G., Desjardins, P.J. and Cooney, R.T. (2005).[3] Topographic basemap and DEM data acquired from the B.C. TRIM Program (Scale 1:20,000). Inset Scale 1:5,000,00059WedgeDropMtn.60 One of the most important assets of this landslide inventory is the implementation of landslide attributes, which consolidates important landslide characteristics and other relevant information needed for reservoir slope inspections. Moreover, the definition of landslide attributes allows specific landslide information to be queried with GIS tools in a prompt manner. Overall, the established landslide geodatabase, more specifically the landslide attributes, allowed the compilation of the different landslide characteristics for the landslide inventory to be consistent among the different reservoirs.  The use of the landslide classification by Hungr et al. (2013) was flexible enough to classify landslides where, for certain cases, aerial interpretation only allowed the identification of the movement type. Subsequent assessments or field reconnaissance could allow the determination of the movement type subdivision.  Other important results/highlights include:  Landslide inventory and attributes viewing: The final landslide inventory for the study area can be concisely seen in the form of maps (Figure 4 - Figure 7) and in more detail in Appendix IV.  The landslide attributes gathered for this inventory are summarized in Appendix III. The geospatial landslide inventory and attribute information can be accessed both in Google Earth and ArcGIS.  Landslide mapping consistency: All the landslides mapped in Figure 4 - Figure 7 have been categorized according to Level 2 (Movement type) and given a landslide symbol.  Landslide activity: Most landslides in the study area are inactive and only two areas of slope deformation are of potential concern, which are Santa Claus Mountain and Wedge Drop Mountain (Figure 5 and Figure 7).  Landslide material type: Most landslides in the study area are of the rock-type. 61  Detailed mapping: There is detailed mapping of linear features at Santa Claus Mountain since LiDAR data was available for this area (Appendix IV).  5.1.4 Limitations The landslides mapped at the study are large to medium scale landslides. Small landslides have not been mapped as they might not pose an immediate threat to the dam or other infrastructure. Also the base data available did not have enough resolution to map such landslides. However, there are certain small landslides that were mapped if they were relevant and mentioned in a report or there was some type of record available. There are several landslides occurring along the roads or the rims of the reservoirs. However these have not been considered in this study. These landslides could be mapped if LiDAR data is available, in which case they could be inserted into the inventory as point features and assigned similar attributes as the ones presented in this study.  One main limitation of the landslide mapping is the limited fieldwork. Most of the landslides mapped have been based on BC Hydro inspections carried out over several years. However it is recommended to verify the extent of the landslides. Especially some attribute information is lacking for landslides that have been added to the inventory and not previously inspected by BC Hydro.   62 5.2 STRUCTURAL FEATURES 5.2.1 Faults and Lineaments Regional faults have been previously mapped by the Geological Survey of British Columbia (BCGS, 2005). Most of these faults trend northwest-southeast and are related to the Yalakom fault system (See Section 2.2 for more information). The Marshall Creek Fault is a right lateral strike-slip fault extending over the northern slopes of Carpenter Lake and changes to a steep southwesterly dipping normal fault which extends over the northern slopes of Seton Lake (Figure 4). The Mission Ridge Fault is also present along the northern slopes of Seton Lake (Figure 5). This normal fault is moderately dipping to the northeast. Thrust faults are also present in the study area but are concentrated in the shallow western slopes of Carpenter Lake (Figure 6). Most lineaments in the study area also follow a northwest-southeast trend.  5.2.2 Landslide Features Mapped by BCH Many structural features have been mapped previously by BC Hydro (Figure 5 - Figure 7). These structural features include linears, linears scarps showing normal displacement with downdip direction, undifferentiated scarps, and local faults. The same validation and visual inspection process as the landslides identified (5.1.2) has been undertaken for these features, mainly due to spatial misalignment.  Two local faults have been recognized during field mapping investigations at Santa Claus Mountain and Wedge Drop Mountain (Enegren & McKenzie, 1989; Enegren & Moore, 1987) The local fault at Santa Claus Mountain trends northwest-southeast and moderately dips to the southwest (similar attitude as the Marshall Creek Fault to the north). The local fault located in the valley east of  Wedge Drop Mountain trends to the north, which has a similar trend to the faults near La Joie Dam.  63 5.2.3 Structural Analysis of Imagery Structural analysis has been aided with the use of aerial photos, satellite images and oblique photos, as well as surface rasters such as slope, aspect and hillshades (previously derived from DEM rasters). All of these sources have been used to recognize new linear features in the study area. Attitude information has also been gathered from various BC Hydro reports of previous field investigation mapping programs.  5.3 TERRAIN MAPPING 5.3.1 Previous Work Terrain Stability Mapping (TSM) was completed by the B.C Ministry of Environment for the Lillooet region, which involved several detailed mapping projects at a scale of 1:20,000. There are also other terrain stability mapping initiatives across British Columbia. TSM projects are maintained by the Terrestrial Ecosystem Information Branch from the Ministry of Environment (MoE, 2010). This spatial data is freely accessible through GeoBC. Eighteen TSM projects have been used exclusively for this study area, which were mapped by Ainsworth Lumber Co. Ltd. Some of the projects were surveyed as early as 1996 and completed by 2001. In the study area, there were over 4000 terrain polygons. These polygons were mapped by Ainsworth Lumber Co. Ltd. and given attributes according to Terrain Classification System for British Columbia (Howes and Kenk, 1997).  Among the most important information contained in the attributes are the terrain symbol, the surface and subsurface material and the geomorphological process 5.3.2 Validation/Visual Inspection (Terrain Reassessment) The terrain mapping data available for the study area was further simplified in order to manage the large amount of data and to highlight information that is relevant to the stability of reservoir slopes. 64 In order to systematically simplify the terrain data for the purposes of this study, terrain polygons with surface information considered as a veneer were modified to use the first subsurface material. For instance, all the terrain polygons portraying the dominant surface material as discontinuous material (shown by a slash preceding the material name), volcanic material and eolian material were modified to show only its first subsurface material as the dominant surface material. After the initial modification to the data, the simplification process involved merging polygons of the same dominant surface and similar geomorphological process. This data was further validated and inspected through aerial photos and satellite imagery (Google Earth, 2013). This process allowed the data to be reduced to approximately 2000 terrain polygons. 5.3.3 Limitations One of the main limitations is the assumption that the veneer coverage was only a few meters in thickness or less. The volcanic material was assumed to be volcanic ash with only a few meters in thickness. The eolian material was also assumed to be a few meters in thickness. The modification of such terrain data to be treated as veneers followed the assumption that only small surficial landslides could occur in these areas. At a reservoir scale, these areas might not pose a hazard to the infrastructure.  5.4 SITE INVESTIGATION AND MONITORING SITES At the study area, BC Hydro currently carries annual inspections at two sites: Santa Claus Mountain and Wedge Drop Mountain (Figure 5 and Figure 7). These two sites are mountain slope deformations posing a potential hazard to the dams. 65 5.4.1 Santa Claus Mountain Santa Claus Mountain is located in the southern flank of Seton Lake, approximately 16 km west of Seton Dam (Figure 5 and Figure 8). This mountain slope deformation was originally recognized by Dr. S.G. Evans in the mid-80s, followed by initial field investigations by BC Hydro, which resulted in continuous surveillance of the slope since 1987 (Enegren & Moore, 1987). The overall slope has an average angle of 32° with a relief of 1900 m (BC Hydro, 1987), although the slope near the crest is steeper. The Bridge River group bedrock at Santa Claus Mountain consists of metasedimentary rocks (argillite and chert) to the east overlain by metavolcanic rocks (greenstone) to the west and limestone outcrops at the crest. There are many slope deformation features such as uphill and downhill facing scarps, tension cracks, and collapse pits. Tension cracks of approximately 1m wide and 5m deep are dominant behind the crest (BC Hydro, 1986). Most linear features are discontinuous and prominent at the crest of the slope underlain by metavolcanic rocks, where these extend for about 3km long and 1.5 km wide in the upper region. There is a continuous, well developed backscarp extending for about 2.5 km with a height ranging from 10m to 20m (BC Hydro, 1986, 1987). The dominant linear features and uphill-facing scarps trend northwest to west, while a second set of north trending linears transects the dominant linears at the ridge.  Joint data obtained during the 1986 mapping (Enegren & Moore, 1987) also suggest similar trends, where the principal joint set strikes northwest to southeast (130°-170°) and steeply dips (70°-80°) to the southwest and northeast. The orthogonal set is also steeply dipping and the strike varies northeast to east (30°-80°). Bedding dips to the southwest, although it is indistinct in most areas (Enegren & Moore, 1987).  At the middle part of the slope, linear features are not as prominent although uphill-facing scarps are found. At the lower part of the slope, bulging could be suggested due to the steep slopes at the toe. However, field reconnaissance indicates that the bedrock at the toe is very competent with limited jointing (Enegren & Moore, 1987). Field investigations during the 1986 mapping indicate that there is no evidence to suggest a basal rupture surface (Enegren & Moore, 66 1987), and that the prominent features seen at the crest might just be a manifestation of the initial stage of slope deformation.   Figure 8:  Different views of Santa Claus Mountain: (a) eastern extent, (b) western extent, (c) close-up view of the crest showing prominent linear, (d) close-up view of the North Bench (red box in previous figure shows approximate location) 5.4.2 Wedge Drop Mountain Wedge Drop Mountain is another slope deformation located in the southern slopes of Downton Lake, approximately 10 km west of La Joie Dam (Figure 7 and Figure 9). The slope has a relief of 1400m and a 34° angle (BC Hydro, 1988). Surveillance of the slope started in 1988 due to the possibility of a landslide generated-wave overtopping the dam (Enegren & McKenzie, 1989). Wedge Drop Mountain has a quartz dioritic bedrock overlain by a volcanic ash veneer from the Bridge N N N N (a) (b) (c) (d) 67 River tephra, approximately 2400 years ago (Enegren & McKenzie, 1989).  Wedge Drop Mountain is characterized by prominent linear features intersecting at the ridge. Most linear features are downhill-facing scarps trending to the northwest, similarly to the regional trends in the rest of the study area. There are also uphill-facing scarps predominately trending to the northwest. Collapse pits have also been found along the crest. The linear features extend for about 1.5km along the crest and 1km wide. Detailed geological mapping during 1988 noted that the top of Wedge Drop Mountain is extremely fractured and heavily jointed, while the middle and lower sections are less fractured, slightly weathered and more competent in appearance (Enegren & McKenzie, 1989).     Figure 9:  Views of Wedge Drop Mountain: (a) backside view and (b) frontal view  N N (a) (b) 68 CHAPTER 6: HAZARD SECTORS As mentioned in Chapter 1, the objective of this chapter is to characterize landslide hazards at the reservoir level and thus create a tailored landslide hazard classification for the study area. This is undertaken by utilizing the data available in the landslide geodatabase (detailed in Chapter 4) and the assessments carried out in Chapter 5. The developed landslide hazards descriptions distinguish between those in bedrock-controlled and overburden-controlled slopes. However, the focus is on hazards in bedrock slopes as these could potentially lead to catastrophic failures. Lastly, hazard sectors are also established for the study area by grouping similar hazard characteristics within a particular area in order to provide a concise summary of hazards that could be useful during reservoir slope inspections and other similar assessments.  It is important to keep in mind the different types of uncertainties: geological, geotechnical, human. However the limited data should not be an impediment to undertake assessments. This research serves as an initial assessment for the sectorization of slope hazards in order to build an initial understanding of the study area. This will have an added value after more data becomes available and new knowledge and understanding develops. Also as more data becomes available, the sectors can be further refined or further discretized into subsectors. The developed landslide hazards do not consider the frequency of occurrence nor evaluations for risk of failure.  6.1 DOMINANT LANDSLIDE FACTORS (BEDROCK SLOPES) Failures in bedrock slopes are considered to be the most relevant at the reservoir scale, as these might involve larger landslide magnitudes and intensities than overburden failures, and therefore pose a hazard to the dam or its infrastructure. The most dominant factors considered in bedrock failures are the lithology and the structural relationships. Many bedrock failures are structurally controlled, but some may simply involve weak rock masses.  69 6.1.1 Lithology Lithology plays an important factor in bedrock failures. As seen from Table 18, the majority of the study area has rocks of the Bridge River group and granitic intrusions. However, knowledge of the geology through geologic maps only gives a preliminary understanding of the area. Caution must be taken when using geological maps, as there is geological uncertainty. For example, an area could be mapped as granite but if the degree of weathering or alteration is not noted, uncertainty allows the contrasting possibilities of a highly weathered granite or fresh strong granite.  An initial assessment based on landslide inventory for the study area (Figure 4 - Figure 7) and the lithology of bedrock slopes (Figure 10) found some “geological trends” in the study area. Most of the landslides, specifically deep-seated rock rotational slides, occur in marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks of the Bridge River Complex. These are predominant along Mission Ridge and the unofficially named Nosebag ridge (facing Carpenter Lake). Most landslides having a structural control such as rock (translational) slides and rock falls occur in greenstone and greenschist metamorphic rocks of the Bridge River Complex. These are predominant especially at the eastern extent (in both northern and southern slopes) and northern slopes of Seton valley. Rock block toppling and rock (translational) slides occur in the granodioritic rocks of the Mission Ridge Pluton along the northwestern extent of Mission Ridge and the “nose” of Carpenter valley. These last two cases with a moderately fractured rock mass suggest a structural control. Mountain slope deformations such as those at Santa Claus Mountain, “Repeater station mountain”, “Nosebag ridge”, and deep-seated rock rotational slides such the “Marshall Lake Slide” occur in marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks of the Bridge River Complex. Other smaller slope deformations also occur in these rock types along the southern slopes of Carpenter Lake. These landslides could suggest that the rock mass could be closely fractured or encompass weak rock.  70  Table 18:  Summary of rock types present within the study area and its percentage relative to the study area lKTLsc  Taylor Creek Group (Lizard Formation)  coarse clastic sedimentary rocks 2.5E+05 0.0% LKTfp  Unnamed  feldspar porphyritic  intrusive rocks 5.9E+05 0.1% LKTgd  Unnamed  granodioritic intrusive rocks 6.0E+05 0.1% lKTDcg  Taylor Creek Group (Dash Formation)  conglomerate, coarse clastic sedimentary rocks 7.7E+05 0.1% Efp  Unnamed  feldspar porphyritic  intrusive rocks 8.5E+05 0.1% uTrJNM  Noel Mountain East Succession  mudstone, siltstone, shale fine clastic sedimentary rocks 1.5E+06 0.2% uTrCgs  Cadwallader Group (Volcanic Unit)  greenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocks 2.2E+06 0.3% MmJBbs  Bridge River Complex  blueschist metamorphic rocks 2.9E+06 0.3% ?gb  Unnamed  gabbroic to dioritic intrusive rocks 3.4E+06 0.4% PShus  Shulaps Ultramafic Complex (Serpentinite Melange Unit)  serpentinite ultramafic rocks 5.7E+06 0.6% mJKsc  Unnamed  coarse clastic sedimentary rocks 7.5E+06 0.9% JKCs  Cayoosh Assemblage  undivided sedimentary rocks 7.8E+06 0.9% lKJs  Jackass Mountain Group  undivided sedimentary rocks 8.9E+06 1.0% LKTg  Unnamed  intrusive rocks, undivided 1.0E+07 1.2% Evd  Unnamed  dacitic volcanic rocks 1.0E+07 1.2% PBEus  Bralorne East Liza Complex  serpentinite ultramafic rocks 1.4E+07 1.6% uTrCHsc  Cadwallader Group (Hurley Formation)  coarse clastic sedimentary rocks 1.7E+07 1.9% uTrCHL  Cadwallader Group (Hurley, Last Creek and Grouse Creek Siltstone Units)  mudstone, siltstone, shale fine clastic sedimentary rocks 1.7E+07 1.9% JKCsf  Cayoosh Assemblage(?)  mudstone, siltstone, shale fine clastic sedimentary rocks 2.0E+07 2.3% Egd  Unnamed  granodioritic intrusive rocks 4.3E+07 4.9% LKgd  Unnamed  granodioritic intrusive rocks 4.7E+07 5.4% LKqd  Unnamed  quartz dioritic intrusive rocks 5.7E+07 6.5% MmJBgs  Bridge River Complex  greenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocks 8.7E+07 9.9% MmJBsv  Bridge River Complex  marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks 5.1E+08 58.2%   Total Intrusive & Volcanic  19.8%   Total Metamorphic  12.8%   Total Sedimentary  67.4%   UNIT GROUP (FORMATION) ROCK TYPE AREA (m2) % +++++++++ ++++++++++++ ++++++++++++ +++++++++++++ ++++++++++++ ++ + + + ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXÛÛÛ"/"/"/"/"""""BR2BR1SETONGSSETONDAMLA JOIE DAM TERZAGHIDAMCARPENTERLAKESETONLAKEDOWNTONLAKEANDERSONLAKEGUNLAKEBrextonShalalth LillooetGold BridgeSetonPortageEgdMmJBsvEgdLKgdMmJBsvlKJsLKqd?gbMmJBgsMmJBsvEvdPShusEfpJKCsfPBEusLKTguTrCHscPShusuTrCHLmJKscJKCsMmJBsvuTrCHscEgdLKTgdPBEusmJKscMmJBgsJKCsPBEus MmJBsvLKgdMmJBbsMmJBgsPBEusuTrCHscEfpMmJBsvRESARFRESARFREVIREGDIRBIRRESARFREVIRYELRUHREVIRYELRUHREERREIREGDIRBREVIREGDIRBREVIRMOkeerCeeLkeerCkolSkeerCrarrakeerCyaKcMkeerCyllekeerCleoNkeerCredallawdaCkeerClennoCkeerCyarvilliGcMkeerCyellaVtske erCredipS keerCreppoCkeernomanniCkeerChsooyakeerCtaoGenoLkkeerClraCkeerCredallawdaCkeerCkeerCpacetihW keerCpacetihWkeerCxaurTkeerCllahsraMkeerC gnirpselppAkeerCmilSeLkeerCnosraePkeerCnuGkeernothgukeerCspaluhSkeerCerO49000049000050000050000051000051000052000052000053000053000054000054000055000055000056000056000057000057000056100005610000562000056200005630000563000056400005640000$0 5 10 15KilometerBridge River area, S.W. British Columbia - CanadaOVERBURDEN AND BEDROCK SLOPES(GEOLOGIC MAPPING INCORPORATED)Modified on April 29, 2014NAD 83 - UTM Zone 10N1:250,000Map ScaleBridge River Area LithologyUnknown?gb Unnamedgabbroic to dioritic intrusive rocksCenozoicEgd Unnamedgranodioritic intrusive rocksEfp Unnamedfeldspar porphyritic  intrusive rocksEvd Unnameddacitic volcanic rocksMesozoic to CenozoicLKTg Unnamedintrusive rocks, undividedLKTgd Unnamedgranodioritic intrusive rocksMesozoicLKqd Unnamedquartz dioritic intrusive rocksLKgd Unnamedgranodioritic intrusive rockslKJs Jackass Mountain Groupundivided sedimentary rockslKTDcg Taylor Creek Group - Dash Formationconglomerate, coarse clastic sedimentary rocksJKCs Cayoosh Assemblageundivided sedimentary rocksJKCsf Cayoosh Assemblage(?) mudstone, siltstone,shale fine clastic sedimentary rocksmJKsc Unnamedcoarse clastic sedimentary rocksuTrCHL Cadwallader Group - Hurley, Last Creek andGrouse Creek Siltstone Units mudstone, siltstone, shale fine clastic sedimentary rocksuTrJNM Noel Mountain East Succession mudstone, siltstone, shale fine clastic sedimentary rocksuTrCHsc Cadwallader Group - Hurley Formationcoarse clastic sedimentary rocksPaleozoic to MesozoicMmJBsv Bridge River Complexmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocksMmJBgs Bridge River Complexgreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocksMmJBbs Bridge River Complexblueschist metamorphic rocksPaleozoicPBEus Bralorne-East Liza Complexserpentinite ultramafic rockPShus Shulaps Ultramafic Complex - Serpentinite MelangeUnit serpentinite ultramafic rocks!! Lillooet VancouverBRITISHCOLUMBIALEGEND" TownÛ Dam"/ Generating StationRiverLakeStudy AreaSlopeBedrockOverburdenFaults by B.C.G.SRegional Fault+ + + + Regional ThrustLinear FeaturesLocal FaultLinearLinear with apparent downdropScarpX X X X X X X Tension CrackSOURCES:  [1] Landslide data based from various BC Hydro maps and reports, BC Terrain mapping (Ministry of Environment, 2010) and aerial photo interpretation. See attributes for specific landslide reference. Landslide classification after Hungr et al. (2013). [2] Geological mapping takenfrom the Digital Map of British Columbia: Tile NM10 Southwest B.C. (Scale 1:250,000), B.C. Ministry of Energy and Mines, GeoFile 2005-3 by Massey, N.W.D., MacIntyre, D.G., Desjardins, P.J. and Cooney, R.T. (2005). [3] Topographic basemap and DEM data acquired from theB.C. TRIM Program (Scale 1:20,000).Marshall Creek FaultMission Ridge FaultInset Scale 1:5,000,00071MISSION RIDGENOSEBAGRIDGESantaClausMtn.RepeaterStationMtn.MarshallLakeSlideWedgeDropMtn.72 6.1.2 Dominant Structures Regional faults are the most dominant structures (Figure 10). The hazard sectors for the bedrock slopes are divided first by regional faults, which also distinguish geological boundaries in the majority of the study area. The main hazard sectors are defined by the northwest trending Mission Ridge Fault and the Marshall Creek Fault. There are many closely spaced normal and thrust faults grouped around kilometer 25 of Carpenter Lake associated with the Shulaps Complex. Even though there are many normal and trust faults around the western extent of Carpenter Lake and near La Joie Dam, these have been grouped into one hazard sector. This area is tectonically complex and has experienced a large amount of deformation. Most of this area consists of rock block slivers that are bounded by faults of the Yalakom and Cadwallader fault systems (Church et al, 1995).  6.1.3 Structural Relationships 6.1.3.1 Slope and Aspect Landslide susceptibility has a close relationship to slope angle and less to aspect. Therefore, these were considered as part of the assessment. Slope and Aspect rasters have been derived from DEM data using ArcGIS tools. The slope angle has been categorized according to the B.C. Terrain mapping specifications and an additional category for very steep slopes has been implemented. Figure 11 shows the slope map for the study area, where the slope angle categories are:  Plain: slope between 0° and 3°  Gentle slope between 4° and 15°   Moderate slope between 16° and 26°  Moderately steep slope between 27° and 35°  Steep slope between 36° and 45° 73  Very steep slope greater than 45° Figure 12 shows the aspect map for the study area, where aspect is categorized in 45° increments as follows:  North (337.5°-360°;0°-22.5°)  Northeast (22.5°-67.5°)  East (67.5°-112.5°)  Southeast (112.5°-157.5°)  South (157.5-202.5°)  Southwest (202.5°-247.5°)  West (247.5°-292.5°)  Northwest (292.5°-337.5°)   +++++++++ ++++++++++++ ++++++++++++ +++++++++++++ ++++++++++++ ++ + + + ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXÛÛÛ"/"/"/"/"""""BR2BR1SETONGSSETONDAMLA JOIE DAM TERZAGHIDAMCARPENTERLAKESETONLAKEDOWNTONLAKEANDERSONLAKEGUNLAKEBrextonShalalth LillooetGold BridgeSetonPortageRESARFRESARFREVIREGDIRBIRRESARFREVIRYELRUHREVIRYELRUHREIRYELUHREIREGDIRBREVIREGDIRBREVIRMOkeerCeeLkeerCkolSkeerCrarrakeerCyaKcMkeerCyllekeerCleoNkeerCredallawdaCkeerClennoCkeerCyarvilliGcMkeerCyellaVtskeerCredipS keerCreppoCkeernomanniCkeerChsooyakeerCtaoGenoLkkeerClraCkeerCredallawdaCkeerCkeerCpacetihW keerCpacetihWkeerCxaurTkeerCllahsraMkeerC gnirpselppAkeerCmilSeLkeerCnosraePkeerCnuGkeerCnothgukeerCspaluhSkeerCerO49000049000050000050000051000051000052000052000053000053000054000054000055000055000056000056000057000057000056100005610000562000056200005630000563000056400005640000$0 5 10 15KilometerBridge River area, S.W. British Columbia - CanadaSLOPE MAPModified on April 29, 2014NAD 83 - UTM Zone 10N1:250,000Map Scale!! Lillooet VancouverBRITISHCOLUMBIALEGEND" TownÛ Dam"/ Generating StationRiverLakeStudy AreaFaults by B.C.G.SRegional Fault+ + + + Regional ThrustLinear FeaturesLocal FaultLinearLinear with apparent downdropScarpX X X X X X X Tension CrackSlope Angle (Degrees)Plain (0-3)Gentle (4-15)Moderate (16-26)Moderately Steep (27-35)Steep (36-45)Very Steep (45+) SOURCES:   [1] Slope raster derived from DEM using ArcGIS tools [2] Geological mapping takenfrom the Digital Map of British Columbia: Tile NM10 Southwest B.C. (Scale 1:250,000), B.C. Ministry of Energy and Mines, GeoFile 2005-3 by Massey, N.W.D., MacIntyre, D.G., Desjardins,P.J. and Cooney, R.T. (2005). [3] Topographic basemap and DEM data acquired from theB.C. TRIM Program (Scale 1:20,000).Marshall Creek FaultMission Ridge FaultInset Scale 1:5,000,00074+++++++++ ++++++++++++ ++++++++++++ +++++++++++++ ++++++++++++ ++ + + + ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ÛÛÛ"/"/"/"/"""""BR2BR1SETONGSSETONDAMLA JOIE DAM TERZAGHIDAMCARPENTERLAKESETONLAKEDOWNTONLAKEANDERSONLAKEGUNLAKEBrextonShalalth LillooetGold BridgeSetonPortageRESARFRESARFREVIREGDIRBIRRESARFREVIRYELRUHREVIRYELRUHREIRYELUHREIREGDIRBREVIREGDIRBREVIRMOkeerCeeLkeerCkolSkeerCrarrakeerCyaKcMkeerCyllekeerCleoNkeerCredallawdaCkeerClennoCkeerCyarvilliGcMkeerCyellaVtskeerCredipS keerCreppoCkeernomanniCkeerChsooyakeerCtaoGenoLkkeerClraCkeerCredallawdaCkeerCkeerCpacetihW keerCpacetihWkeerCxaurTkeerCllahsraMkeerC gnirpselppAkeerCmilSeLkeerCnosraePkeerCnuGkeerCnothgukeerCspaluhSkeerCerO49000049000050000050000051000051000052000052000053000053000054000054000055000055000056000056000057000057000056100005610000562000056200005630000563000056400005640000$0 5 10 15KilometerBridge River area, S.W. British Columbia - CanadaASPECT MAPModified on April 29, 2014NAD 83 - UTM Zone 10N1:250,000Map Scale!! Lillooet VancouverBRITISHCOLUMBIALEGEND" TownÛ Dam"/ Generating StationRiverLakeStudy AreaFaults by B.C.G.SRegional Fault+ + + + Regional ThrustAspect  (Degrees)Flat (-1)North (0-22.5)Northeast (22.5-67.5)East (67.5-112.5)Southeast (112.5-157.5)South (157.5-202.5)Southwest (202.5-247.5)West (247.5-292.5)Northwest (292.5-337.5)North (337.5-360)SOURCES:   [1] Aspect raster derived from DEM using ArcGIS tools [2] Geological mapping takenfrom the Digital Map of British Columbia: Tile NM10 Southwest B.C. (Scale 1:250,000), B.C. Ministry of Energy and Mines, GeoFile 2005-3 by Massey, N.W.D., MacIntyre, D.G., Desjardins,P.J. and Cooney, R.T. (2005). [3] Topographic basemap and DEM data acquired from theB.C. TRIM Program (Scale 1:20,000).Marshall Creek FaultMission Ridge FaultInset Scale 1:5,000,0007576 6.1.4 Bedrock slope categories After the recognition of bedrock slopes (Figure 10) and assessment of the landslide inventory, these were categorized and tailored to the study area. Table 19 shows a summary of the bedrock slope categories for the study area, and further subdivisions and state of activity where appropriate. The mapping of these categories is shown in Section 6.3. Table 19:  Bedrock slope categories Bedrock RF: Rock fall producing slopes  A: Active I: Inactive DS: Dip slopes   RS: Identified deep-seated rockslide   DE: Deformed slope   EB: Other exposed bedrock W: Weathered S: Stable   Rock fall producing slopes are steep to very steep bedrock slopes (greater than 35 degrees) where rock falls initiate. There are many of these slopes throughout the study area. Some slopes are distinguished between active and inactive areas. An active rock fall slope is defined as one that has bare or no vegetation coverage and contains active talus chutes. An inactive rock fall slope has retained vegetation coverage, however the area is still steep and might have vegetated talus deposits. Minor talus chutes might still be present.   Dip slopes are defined as bedrock slopes where a main discontinuity set is dipping out of the slope, thus creating the potential for planar and wedge failures.  Deep-seated rockslides have been previously identified in the landslide inventory (Section 5.1) and integrated into this category.  SLOPE TYPE SUB-TYPE ACTIVITY 77 Deformed slopes are areas of slope deformations (previously identified in the inventory) and areas where there are some signs of bedrock deformation.  Other areas are recognised as exposed bedrock. Some of these areas involve massive rock masses with no apparent discontinuities, which appear stable. However other areas of exposed bedrock are weathered and might show signs of surficial sliding.     78 6.2 DOMINANT LANDSLIDE FACTORS (OVERBURDEN SLOPES) After the initial terrain reassessment undertaken in Section 5.3, the overburden slopes were categorized and tailored to the study area. Table 20 shows a summary of the overburden slope categories, further sub-divisions and state of activity. The mapping of these categories is shown in Section 6.3. Table 20:  Overburden slopes categories Overburden OV: Identified overburden C: Colluvial M: Morainal U: Undifferentiated F: Fluvial FG: Glaciofluvial A: Anthropogenic I: Ice  TA: Talus slope C: Chute D: Deposition A: Active I: Inactive DF: Debris flow C: Channel D: Deposition A: Active I: Inactive DA: Debris avalanche (potential steep slope covered by overburden veneer or blanket)   6.2.1 Materials 6.2.1.1 Identified Overburden The identified overburden materials have been tailored for the purposes of this study, with a focus on the dominant surficial materials at the reservoir scale. These follow the B.C. Terrain classification (Howes and Kenk, 1997), and maintain the same symbol names. Surface materials such as fluvial, glaciofluvial and undifferentiated have been extracted from the Terrain Stability Mapping (MoE, 2010), and further modified to follow the breaks in slope and other topographic features. Colluvial and morainal deposits have been mapped by the author and adapted to the SLOPE TYPE SUB-TYPE ACTIVITY 79 reservoir scale.  According to the B.C. Terrain Classification (Howes and Kenk, 1997, p.102), the surficial materials are defined as:   (A) Anthropogenic: Man-made or man-modified material  (C) Colluvial: Products of mass wastage  (F) Fluvial: River deposits  (FG) Glaciofluvial: Fluvial materials deposited by meltwater streams  (M) Morainal: Material deposited directly by glaciers  (U) Undifferentiated: Layered sequence; three materials or more Even though the presence of surficial materials such as eolian, volcanic, organic and lacustrine have been recognized in the study area, they are assumed to be minimal (deposits either relatively thin or minor spatial extent) at the reservoir scale and therefore not considered for the purposes of this study. 6.2.1.2 Talus  Even though talus deposits are considered as colluvium in the B.C. Terrain mapping, a differentiation was considered necessary as there are many rock fall producing slopes in the study area. A talus slope is defined as a rock-fall accumulation zone. Talus deposits are present at the base of steep bedrock cliffs. An active talus deposit shows signs of recent activity and has sparse vegetation. An inactive talus deposit might have regained vegetation coverage at the base of a steep bedrock cliff. Depending on the mapping scale, some talus deposits have not been mapped. If a rock fall producing slope has a minimal talus deposit, then it is integrated within the rock fall slope mapping. Generally, a steep bedrock cliff (rock fall producing slope) is paired with a talus deposit. Individual talus chutes have not been mapped throughout the study area as there are many. 80 Therefore talus chutes are either included within a rock fall slope or talus deposit. Talus chutes were only mapped where the scale allowed. For example, the talus chutes at Santa Claus Mountain.  Outlying boulders were not mapped as part of this study.  6.2.2 Debris Flow and Avalanches  Debris flow channels are defined as major channels (second order or higher) with the potential of producing debris flows. Some of these channels show signs of previous debris flow activity. As a result, there are debris flow deposits (fans/cones) at the end of the channels. In terms of activity, some channels show evidence of recent debris flow activity through sparse or bare vegetation. An inactive channel has regained vegetation coverage. Nonetheless, there is still a distinguished debris flow deposit at the mouth of the channel. Some channels might show both active and inactive areas. In such cases, the active area stops at some point within the channel, perhaps not reaching the mouth of the channel. Therefore, the channel is distinguished between active and inactive areas. Even though debris flow deposits are an indication of previous debris flow activity, some channels might not have a well-developed debris flow deposit at the mouth of the channel. However the channel itself does show signs of debris flow activity.  Steep slopes capable of producing debris avalanches have also been mapped. These areas are covered by overburden deposits and have steep to very steep slopes (based on the derived slope raster). Some slopes might show signs of previous debris avalanches.  81 6.3 SECTOR CLASSIFICATION The hazard sector classification involves the following interpretations: 1.  Recognition of bedrock-controlled and overburden controlled slopes. 2. Custom (region-specific) subdivision of bedrock-controlled slopes. For the Bridge River area, these categories are: rock fall producing slopes, bedrock dip slopes, identified deep-seated rockslides, deformed slopes and other exposed bedrock slopes. These categories are described in Section 6.1 and mapped for Seton, Carpenter and Downton reservoir slopes in Figure 14 - Figure 16. 3. Custom (region-specific) subdivision of overburden slopes. For the Bridge River area, these categories are: debris flow (channels and deposition areas), debris avalanche potential slopes, talus slopes and identified overburden. These categories are described in Section 6.2 and mapped for Seton, Carpenter and Downton reservoir slopes in Figure 14 - Figure 16. 4. Sector recognition and grouping based on: a. Structural regimes for bedrock controlled slopes based on lithology and regional faults (Figure 10) b. Slope and aspect (Figure 11 and Figure 12) c. Slopes with similar geomorphic categories and movement types The points stated above allowed the creation and mapping of 18 hazard sectors for the Bridge River study area ( Figure 13). A more detailed view of the hazard categories and sectors for the Seton, Carpenter and Downton reservoirs are seen in Figures 14-16, respectively. Furthermore, the hazard sectors are described in the following Sections 6.3.1 - 6.3.18.  ÛÛÛ"/"/"/"/"""""BR2BR1SETONGSSETONDAMLA JOIE DAM TERZAGHIDAMCARPENTERLAKESETONLAKEDOWNTONLAKEANDERSONLAKEGUNLAKEBrextonShalalth LillooetGold BridgeSetonPortage")10")13")5")11")10")6")17 ")12")1")18")16")7")9")2")15")4")5")8")14")2")3")3DADARSDEDADEDARFaDADADADARFaDA DARFaDEDSDARFaDADARFiRFaDADADEDADFiDERSiRSRFiRFaDACCCCCCCMCMCCCCCCCMFMCCFFGCMICCCCFGCCMCCCMCUFGMCCCMCCCCCCCUFGCFCCMCCCCCFFCEBwEBwEBwEBwEBEBwEBEBwEBwEBEBwEBEBwEBEBEBEBwEBwEBwEBEBwEBEBRESARFRESARFREVIREGDIRBIRRESARFREVIRYELRUHREVIRYELRUHREIRYELUHREIREGDIRBREVIREGDIRBREVIRMOkeerCeeLkeerCkolSkeerCrarrakeerCyaKcMkeerCyllekeerCleoNkeerCredallawdaCkeerClennoCkeerCyarvilliGcMkeerCyellaVtskeerCredipS keerCreppoCkeernomanniCkeerChsooyakeerCtaoGenoLkkeerClraCkeerCredallawdaCkeerCkeerCpacetihW keerCpacetihWkeerCxaurTkeerCllahsraMkeerC gnirpselppAkeerCmilSeLkeerCnosraePkeerCnuGkeerCnothgukeerCspaluhSkeerCerO49000049000050000050000051000051000052000052000053000053000054000054000055000055000056000056000057000057000056100005610000562000056200005630000563000056400005640000$0 5 10 15KilometerBridge River area, S.W. British Columbia - CanadaOVERVIEW MAP OF THE HAZARD SECTORSModified on April 29, 2014NAD 83 - UTM Zone 10N1:250,000Map Scale!! Lillooet VancouverBRITISHCOLUMBIALEGEND" TownÛ Dam"/ Generating StationRiverLakeHazard SectorBedrock SlopeRFa: Rock fall slope (Active)RFi: Rock fall slope (Inactive)RS: Rock SlideDS: Dip SlopeDE: Deformed SlopeEB: Exposed BedrockEBw: Exposed Bedrock (Weathered)Overburden SlopeA: AnthropogenicF: FluvialFG: GlaciofluvialU: UndiferentiatedC: ColluviumM: MorainalDFa: Debris flow channel (Active)! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! DFa: Debris flow deposit (Active)DFi: Debris flow channel (Inactive)! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! DFi: Debris flow deposit (Inactive)B B BB B BB B B DA: Debris Avalanches# # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # TA: Talus Chute (Active)# # # ## # # ## # # # TAa: Talus slope (Active)# # # ## # # ## # # ## # # # TAi: Talus slope (Inactive) SOURCES:   [1]  Hazard categories primarily based on the assessments of the landslideinventory, geological and terrain mapping. [2]Topographic basemap and DEM data acquiredfrom the B.C. TRIM Program (Scale 1:20,000).Inset Scale 1:5,000,00082BR2BR1SETONGSSETONDAMSETONLAKEShalalth LillooetSetonPortage")5")6")1")7")10")4")2")5")8 ")3")2")3DADEDERFaRFaDEDSDATAaDARFaDERFaRFaDARFa RFaDFiRSiTAaRFiRFiRSTAaRFiTAiRFaTAiTAaRFiDADERFaRFiRFaRFi RFaTAa TAaRFiRFaTAaTAaRFiRFaDFaTAaDFaTAiTAaRSRFaRFiRFiRFiRFaRFa DERFiRSTAiDFaRSRFiTAaRFiRFaRFaRFiTAiRFaRFaRFiDFiTAiDFaRFaDFiDERFaDFaTAiRFiRFaRSRFaTAaRFiRSDFaRSRSTAaTAiCCCCCCFFFGCCCFGCUFGCCMCCCUFCCCMFGCCCFFGUCCCAFCUFG F FFGFFGFFUFGCFCEBwEBwEBEBEBEBwEBEBEBEBwEBEBEBEBEBwEBwEBwPEAKFOUNTAINRRESRFRESARFREVIkeerCk eerCredi reppoC keerChkeerCetnEkeernwhsoyakeerCyekciDkeerCakeCnwoTkeekeerCetuhcMkoorBn imOkeerCeesTkerCkerCnooMkerCa llitPkekeerCeniledakeerni keerCdigukeernilkeerCyekciDkeerCyerdEGDIRNIATNUOFSAFNITUFMISSION  RIDGEekaL nooMp rCoTkeerCoCmAerrCaecuPeMChOuDCOuA5500005500005550005550005600005600005650005650005700005700005750005750005800005800005615000561500056200005620000$!! Lillooet VancouverBRITISHCOLUMBIALEGEND" TownÛ Dam"/ Generating StationSpillwayDam Top & BaseReservoir KilometerIndex Contour (100 m)River/StreamLakeMoraineScreeIsland & BarSwampMarshIcefield & GlacierHazard SectorBedrock SlopeRFa: Rock fall slope (Active)RFi: Rock fall slope (Inactive)RS: Rock SlideDS: Dip SlopeDE: Deformed SlopeEB: Exposed BedrockEBw: Exposed Bedrock (Weathered)Overburden SlopeA: AnthropogenicF: FluvialFG: GlaciofluvialU: UndiferentiatedC: ColluviumM: MorainalDFa: Debris flow channel (Active)! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! DFa: Debris flow deposit (Active)DFi: Debris flow channel (Inactive)! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! DFi: Debris flow deposit (Inactive)B B BB B B DA: Debris Avalanches# # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # TA: Talus Chute (Active)# # # ## # # ## # # ## # # # TAa: Talus slope (Active)# # # ## # # ## # # # TAi: Talus slope (Inactive)0 2 4 6KilometerBridge River area, S.W. British Columbia - CanadaHAZARD SECTORS FOR SETON RESERVOIRInset Scale 1:5,000,000 Modified on April 29, 2014NAD 83 - UTM Zone 10N1:91,768Map ScaleSOURCES:   [1]  Hazard categories primarily based on the assessments of the landslideinventory, geological and terrain mapping. [2]Topographic basemap and DEM data acquiredfrom the B.C. TRIM Program (Scale 1:20,000).83REPEATERSTATIONMTN.MT.McLEANSANTA CLAUS MTN.NOSEBAG  RIDGEANDERSON LAKEMICROWAVE STATION \MTN.BR2BR1LA JOIE DAMTERZAGHIDAMCARPENTERLAKEGUNLAKEBrextonShalalthGold Bridge")10")13")10")11")12")9")5")2")8RSDEDADADADADEDARFaDARFaRFiDARFiDADADERFaRFaDADERSTAiRFiRFaRSDERSRFaTAiTAiTAiRFaRFaDSTAiRFaDARFaDARFi DERFaTAaRFiRFaRFiRFaRFaRSRFaTAaRFiRFaRFaDARFiRFiTAaRFaRSRFaRFiDFaRFaRFaTAiRFaRFaTAaDERFiDFa RSRFaRFaTAaRSRFaTAaTAaRFiRFaRFaRFaRFaTAiTAaRFiRFaRSTAiTAiTAaTAaDFiDFaTAiRFaDFaRFaRFaRFiDFiDFaTAiDETAiRFiRSRFaDFiDFaDFiDFiTAaCCCCCMMCCMMCCCCMCCCMCCM CUCFGCCFGCCFGCMCUUCFCFCCCFCFFFFGFGCCFCAFUFGFFFGFFGFUFFGFGFFGEBwEBwEBwEBEBwEBEBw EBEBwEBEBEBEBEBwEBwEBEBEBwEBEBEBwEBEBEBwEBwEBwEBwEBEBEBEBEBEBwEBEBwEBwEBEBwNOSSUGREF TMNOSEBAG MTN.ALOZ TMXAURT TMBBOB TMSMAILLIW TMKAEP XERAHOMPOHSB TMREVREVIRYELRUHREVIREGDIRBGDIRBRkeerClra redallawdaCkeerChWkeerCxaurTkeerllahsraMkkekee eerCspaluhSrOkeerCnosaMkeerredllada keerCdribkalkeerdokeerbbokeernkt keerCnrtiwkeekeerCkerCyraeKn imkeerCeesTkeerCareikerkCa llikkerCknkeerCn ossu gr eFkeerCeokeerCnossugreFkyesdnikeerCbboBkeerClriGkeerCsmailliWeerCpeetSkeerCsenoJkeerbbokskergokeerCyraeKkeerCymmoTkeerCelavradeCkeerClleHkeerspaluhSkeerClla FkeerCeoDknkeergnirbeSkeerkoorblokeerCnoomlehciMkeerCkcuBkeerderAkeerC keerCkeerCklkeerCgo kstterBIMEGDIRLLAHSRAMEKALYRAEKekaLllahsraMekaL daeMekaL modgniKsoPuaetalPekaL dlanoDcMekaL rekcuSekaLbboBekaLmodgniKekaL leoNsdnoP uaetalPdnoPdnoPnosraePekaLenitnepreSM o w s o niCk eCawCcBCamNCBCossugreFeerCnediserPunTeOVeCeereerCnihO eeerCwHeerCLk CBeerCenoJhtroNeCHCeerCrohgiBCCHCFneerClahsraMH eerCpaluhSC51000051000051500051500052000052000052500052500053000053000053500053500054000054000054500054500055000055000055500055500056000056000056250005625000563000056300005635000563500056400005640000$!! Lillooet VancouverBRITISHCOLUMBIALEGEND" TownÛ Dam"/ Generating StationSpillwayDam Top & BaseReservoir KilometerIndex Contour (100 m)River/StreamLakeMoraineScreeIsland & BarSwampMarshIcefield & GlacierHazard SectorBedrock SlopeRFa: Rock fall slope (Active)RFi: Rock fall slope (Inactive)RS: Rock SlideDS: Dip SlopeDE: Deformed SlopeEB: Exposed BedrockEBw: Exposed Bedrock (Weathered)Overburden SlopeA: AnthropogenicF: FluvialFG: GlaciofluvialU: UndiferentiatedC: ColluviumM: MorainalDFa: Debris flow channel (Active)! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! DFa: Debris flow deposit (Active)DFi: Debris flow channel (Inactive)! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! DFi: Debris flow deposit (Inactive)B B BB B B DA: Debris Avalanches# # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # TA: Talus Chute (Active)# # # ## # # ## # # ## # # # TAa: Talus slope (Active)# # # ## # # ## # # # TAi: Talus slope (Inactive)0 3 6 9KilometerBridge River area, S.W. British Columbia - CanadaHAZARD SECTORS FOR CARPENTER RESERVOIRModified on April 29, 2014NAD 83 - UTM Zone 10N1:140,000Map ScaleSOURCES:   [1]  Hazard categories primarily based on the assessments of the landslideinventory, geological and terrain mapping. [2]Topographic basemap and DEM data acquiredfrom the B.C. TRIM Program (Scale 1:20,000).Inset Scale 1:5,000,00084"Straight Creek"MICROWAVE STATION  MTN.NOSEBAG RIDGEMarshall Lake SlidePEARSON RIDGETRUAX  RIDGEMarshall Creek FaultMission Ridge FaultLA JOIE DAMDOWNTONLAKEGUNLAKEBrextonGold Bridge")13")17")18")16")15")12")14DADARFaDADADA DARFaRFiRFaRFa DEDARFaTAiRFiTAiTAaTAaRFaRFaRFiRFaRFaRFaRFiTAaTAiTAaRFiRFaRFaDFaRFaRSTAaRFaRFiRFiDFaRFaDFaTAaTAaTAaRFaRFaTAaRFaDFaCMCCMCIMCCMCMCCFGCMC CMFGFCF UFGCIIMFFGMFFAFFGFFFGIFMUFMFEBwEBwEBwEBwEBwEBwEBwEBwTM MT. SLOANNTMHTROWLLITNTM SUSRUNTM REHSIFKAEP ELREHCSNT ENIPUCROPESORNEP TMALOZ TMREVIRkeerCeimaJkeerC allawdaCkeerCribkcakeerCkeerCeimaJkeerCn ossu gr eFyexoR kerkeerCesornePkeerCtlkeerCreklaWgreFsdniLtSekaL daeMekaL modgniKekaL dlanoDcMekaL eiojaLekaL rekcuSekaLmodgniKekaL leoNd dlnCerCuAue4900004900004950004950005000005000005050005050005100005100005150005150005630000563000056350005635000$!! Lillooet VancouverBRITISHCOLUMBIALEGEND" TownÛ Dam"/ Generating StationSpillwayDam Top & BaseReservoir KilometerIndex Contour (100 m)River/StreamLakeMoraineScreeIsland & BarSwampMarshIcefield & GlacierHazard SectorBedrock SlopeRFa: Rock fall slope (Active)RFi: Rock fall slope (Inactive)RS: Rock SlideDS: Dip SlopeDE: Deformed SlopeEB: Exposed BedrockEBw: Exposed Bedrock (Weathered)Overburden SlopeA: AnthropogenicF: FluvialFG: GlaciofluvialU: UndiferentiatedC: ColluviumM: MorainalDFa: Debris flow channel (Active)! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! DFa: Debris flow deposit (Active)DFi: Debris flow channel (Inactive)! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! DFi: Debris flow deposit (Inactive)B B BB B B DA: Debris Avalanches# # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # TA: Talus Chute (Active)# # # ## # # ## # # # TAa: Talus slope (Active)# # # ## # # ## # # # TAi: Talus slope (Inactive)0 2 4 6KilometerBridge River area, S.W. British Columbia - CanadaHAZARD SECTORS FOR DOWNTON RESERVOIRInset Scale 1:5,000,000 Modified on April 29, 2014NAD 83 - UTM Zone 10N1:80,000Map ScaleSOURCES:   [1]  Hazard categories primarily based on the assessments of the landslideinventory, geological and terrain mapping. [2]Topographic basemap and DEM data acquiredfrom the B.C. TRIM Program (Scale 1:20,000). 85HURLEYWEDGE DROP MTN.GREEN MTN.86 6.3.1 Seton Reservoir, Sector 1 Sector 1 involves the northern and southern slopes of Seton reservoir, approximately 7 kilometers upstream and 2 kilometers downstream of Seton dam (Figure 14). Unlike any other sector in the study area, this sector is characterized by its rugged topography, rectangular drainages and steep bedrock cliffs accompanied with major talus deposits (Figure 17 a,b). The maximum relief is about 1750 m with steep slopes in most areas and very steep when forming cliffs. The bedrock comprises metamorphic rocks of the Bridge River Complex, such as biotite schist intruded by small bodies of granodiorite and orthogneiss, where the main granodioritic intrusion body lies just south of the sector (BCGS, 2005; Figure 5). It is bounded to northeast by the Mission Ridge Fault and to the southwest by the Marshall Creek Fault, thus becoming the footwall block.  Overall, the bedrock appears to be massive with limited jointing especially in the southern slopes. The linear features present are trending northeast to southwest (similar in orientation to the bedrock cliffs). Bedrock slopes are dominant in the sector, however overburden slopes are also present as colluvium (including talus cones at the base of steep bedrock cliffs), fluvial and glaciofluvial deposits surrounding the Seton River and Cayoosh Creek (Figure 14). There are a few debris flows in the area as well. The area is mainly covered by coniferous trees except in areas where bedrock is steep. Sector 1 has the potential for bedrock failures such as rock falls and rock slides. Both in the northern and southern slopes, there are widespread steep to very steep bedrock slopes with the potential for rock falls. Most of these are active slopes due to the presence of active talus chutes. Some talus cones are regaining vegetation but there are still active talus chutes (Figure 17). The northern slope in particular has a major dip slope (Figure 17a), also described as SON_04_01A in the inventory. This dip slope has a large overhanging rock block located near the upper slope. The rectangular drainages in this area suggest structural controlled topography. Therefore, this area also has the potential for large rock planar or wedge failures. The potential magnitudes of rock falls 87 and rock slides could range from small magnitude (boulder size or smaller) to large magnitudes (rock blocks). As a result, this sector could be considered the most active hazard sector due to the various active rock fall producing slopes and the dip slope that could potentially endanger not only the nearby dam infrastructure but also the railways and main access roads.  88   Figure 17:  Sector 1 - (a) northern slopes (red box shows overhanging rock block), (b) southern slopes. Photos by Oldrich Hungr (Sept. 2012)   89 6.3.2 Seton Reservoir, Sector 2 Sector 2 encompasses two areas: one approximately 5 kilometers upstream of Seton dam (informally named as Repeater Station Mountain) and the other along Nosebag ridge between Seton and Carpenter reservoirs (Figure 14). This sector does not reach the reservoir level since it is located along the ridge crest and upper extents of the slope. The elevations along the ridges range between 1400 to 2400 m. The slopes at Nosebag ridge are moderate facing north (towards Carpenter reservoir) and steep facing south (towards Seton reservoir), while at Repeater Station Mountain they are moderately steep. The bedrock in both areas consists of marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks of the Bridge River Complex, such as chert, argillite, phyllite and greenstone (BCGS, 2005). Both, Nosebag ridge and Repeater Station Mountain lie on the hanging block of the Marshall Creek Fault and the Mission Ridge Fault, respectively. The sector is dominated by bedrock slopes at the ridge crest, where there is a lack of vegetation. However there are overburden deposits downslope, such as colluvial and morainal, where coniferous trees are abundant and debris flows initiate. Even though sector 2 consists of deformed slopes at different locations, it is considered to be one sector due to its similar lithology, structural characteristics and deformation characteristics. As seen in Figure 18, this sector contains slope deformations, where the manifestation of scarps and counterscarps is predominant. However the many linear features in these areas are only exhibited or well developed along the upper part of the slope, in which the counterscarps range in the order of 10s of meters (especially along the western extent of Nosebag ridge, as seen in Figure 18b). There is no evidence to suggest deformation in the lower slopes that might indicate an advance stage of slope deformation. However the vegetation coverage at the lower slopes might be covering such features. The linear features near the crest were probably formed at the initial stage of slope deformation but it seems that the slope deformations have reached equilibrium. The slope 90 deformation at Repeater station mountain could be classified as a listric double-sided sagging (slope deformation) as per Hutchinson (1988) classification.  On the other hand, the slope deformations along Nosebag ridge could be classified as a compound listric single sided sagging as per Hutchinson’s (1987) classification. Previous field inspections carried out by BC Hydro suggest that there is no evidence of recent movement at either site (BC Hydro, 1988).   91    Figure 18:  Sector 2 - (a) Repeater Station Mountain, (b) Nosebag ridge. Photos by Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012) 92 6.3.3 Seton Reservoir, Sector 3 Sector 3 also encompasses two areas along the slopes of Seton reservoir: one on the southern slope approximately 5 kilometers upstream and the other in the upper slopes of Mission ridge approximately 10 kilometers upstream of Seton dam (Figure 14). Along the upper slopes of Mission ridge the elevation ranges from 1700 to 2400 m, while at the southern slope the elevation ranges from 1400 to 1700 m. The slopes closer to the ridge in both areas are moderately steep to steep. The bedrock in both areas consists of marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks of the Bridge River Complex, such as chert, argillite, phyllite and greenstone (BCGS, 2005). Both slopes lie on the hanging block and within 500 m of the regional faults. The area in the southern slope is bounded partly by an unnamed normal fault along the ridge crest by the Marshall Creek Fault downslope. Similarly, the upper slopes of Mission ridge are bounded by the ridge crest in the upper extent and the Mission Ridge Fault downslope.   Even though this sector consists of two areas, it is considered as one sector due to its similar lithology, proximity to regional faults, location relative to the ridge crest and past landsliding activity (Figure 19). The sector in the north is dominated by weathered bedrock acting as a weak rock mass along the upper extent. Overburden such as colluvial deposits are present downslope, where they are sparsely vegetated with shrubs (due to recent forest fires). The areas covered by overburden also give rise to debris flows, which appear to be active. The northern sector contains a few small magnitude deep-seated rock slides. The weak rock mass near the ridge crest creates the potential of other small magnitude deep-seated failures. If any small magnitude bedrock failures occur, most likely only debris will enter the reservoir since there is about a four kilometer travel distance to the reservoir. The behaviour in the southern slope is slightly different. The steep bedrock along the ridge seems to be a slight structural control. The upper slopes have the potential for rock falls and other bedrock failure due to the presence of past small translational rock slides. If 93 any small-magnitude bedrock failures occur in this area, most likely they will not reach the reservoir since there is a moderate bench. Overall, this sector has the potential of small-magnitude bedrock failures but only debris is likely to reach the reservoir.  94    Figure 19:  Sector 3 - (a) southern slope, (b) northern slopes. Photos by Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012) 95 6.3.4 Seton Reservoir, Sector 4 Sector 4 is located in the northern slope of Seton reservoir, approximately 8 kilometers upstream of Seton dam (Figure 14). The sector extends from the reservoir level up to an elevation of 2180 m. The slopes are moderately steep to steep, except in the middle where the slopes are very steep. The bedrock in this sector comprises metamorphic rocks of the Bridge River Complex, such as biotite schist. Similarly to Sector 1, this sector is the footwall block of the Mission Ridge Fault to the northeast and the Marshall Creek Fault to the southwest. Even though Sector 4 and Sector 1 share the same geology, the landslide hazards are different. There is no active rock fall producing slopes or large talus deposits. Even the topography is different in both sectors.  Sector 4 contains widespread overburden slopes and minor bedrock slopes (Figure 20).  The overburden slopes are mostly covered by coniferous trees. However, in most recent years, most of the vegetation has been affected by previous forest fires. The sector has the potential of debris avalanches and debris flows where the overburden is present. There are two main drainages that show signs of recent debris flow activity near the upper slopes. In the easternmost drainage, the recent debris flows do not seem to reach the reservoir. The western drainage shows active deposition of sediments into the reservoir.  The very steep bedrock slopes show signs of minor rock fall activity, however most of the area has regained vegetation. There are other areas of exposed bedrock but appear to be stable. An ancient rock slide was noticed by BC Hydro due to a forest fire in 2009 that exposed some sag ponds and linear ridges along the body of the landslide. This rock slide is in close proximity to the Marshall Creek Fault and the landslide behavior is similar to Sector 3 to the north. Overall, this sector contains few identified landslide hazards that would pose a threat to the reservoir, other than active debris deposition into the reservoir.  96    Figure 20:  Sector 4 - (a) northern slope, (b) side view. Photos by Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012)   97 6.3.5 Seton Reservoir, Sector 5 Sector 5 covers a wide area within the northern and southern slopes of Seton reservoir, starting approximately from 8 kilometers upstream of Seton dam and extending up to Anderson Lake to the west (Figure 14).  The sector extends from the reservoir level up to an elevation of approximately 1700 m. The slopes are moderately steep. However, the slopes are steep where the bedrock is exposed, and gentle to moderate along the lower slopes near the reservoir where the presence of overburden deposits is evident. Even though there is widespread overburden present in this sector, the underlying bedrock geology consists of marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks of the Bridge River Complex, such as chert, argillite, phyllite and greenstone (BCGS, 2005). This sector is the hanging block of the Marshall Creek Fault to the northeast.  Sector 5 contains widespread overburden slopes with a range of surficial deposits, which are covered mainly by coniferous trees (Figure 21). Along the lower extents of the northern slopes, there are glaciofluvial deposits extending from Seton Portage to as far as Shalalth and undifferentiated deposits forming several north to northeast trending, parallel ridges.  Minor fluvial deposits are also present around Seton Portage. The sector has debris flow deposits from the northeast trending drainages. Some debris flow channels show signs of recent activity near the upper extents (which initiate in Sector 8) but the debris does not reach the reservoir.  Puck Creek is the only drainage showing active deposition of sediments into the reservoir. Most of the bedrock slopes along the middle slopes of Sector 5 seems to be stable. However, some steep bedrock slopes show signs of minor rock fall activity.  The identified rock fall producing slopes near kilometer 12 and 21 upstream of the dam could potentially become a threat to the nearby railway. As far as the author is aware, this sector does not contain any previous small-magnitude bedrock failures besides the rock falls stated above. Due to the widespread overburden and the identified hazards, this sector has the potential of overburden failures such as debris flows and avalanches, along with 98 potential rock falls. Overall, this sector has few identified landslide hazards perhaps not posing a direct threat to the hydroelectric infrastructure but to other infrastructure such as the nearby railway.  99    Figure 21:  Sector 5 - (a) southern slope, (b) northern slopes. Photos by Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012) 100 6.3.6 Seton Reservoir, Sector 6 Sector 6 is located along the southern slopes of Seton reservoir, starting at about 11 kilometers upstream of the dam and extending to the Seton Portage area (Figure 14). This sector is formed by the northeast and northwest trending valleys of Machute Creek and Spider Creek, respectively. The elevation ranges from the reservoir level up to approximately 2400 m. The slopes are steep to very steep in most areas where bedrock is exposed and shallower where overburden is present (for instance, upper Machute Creek). There are numerous rectangular drainages along the northeast facing slopes east of Machute Creek (Figure 22a). However, Machute Creek itself is characterized by a dendritic drainage pattern. Similar to Sector 5, the bedrock consists of marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks of the Bridge River Complex, such as chert, argillite, phyllite and greenstone (BCGS, 2005). Sector 6 has about the same distribution of bedrock and overburden slopes. Most of this sector is heavily forested by coniferous trees, except along the ridges where there is minimal vegetation. Tributaries of the Machute Creek are active debris flow channels. However the recent debris flow activity along the tributaries does not seem to reach Machute Creek. The very steep bedrock slopes are capable of generating rock falls. These slopes do not have well-developed talus slopes but there are active talus chutes along these slopes. The very steep bedrock slopes west of Spider Creek are active rock fall producing slopes. There are various active talus chutes and deposits in this area. This slope also has a well-developed debris fan separating Anderson Lake and Seton Lake. The debris fan seems to be the deposition of previous debris flows and erosion. Overall, this sector contains few landslide hazards along Machute Creek, including debris flows and rock falls. Due to the very steep slopes west of Spider Creek, the active talus chutes and potential debris flows could add more debris position near the town of Seton Portage (Figure 22a).  101   Figure 22:  Sector 6 - (a) eastern extent, (b) western extent. Photos by Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012) 102 6.3.7 Seton Reservoir, Sector 7 Sector 7 is located in the southern slope of Seton reservoir, approximately 16 kilometers upstream of Seton dam (Figure 14). This sector is known as Santa Claus Mountain and has been explained in greater detail in Section 5.4.1. The base of the slope (from reservoir level at 240 m to elevation 500 m) is characterized by small bedrock cliffs; the lower slope (from elevation 500 m to 800 m) is moderate and the middle/upper slopes (from elevation 800 m up to approximately 2180 m) are moderately steep to steep. The upper slopes are dominated by bedrock exposures, where the vegetation is sparse. On the other hand, the middle and lower slopes are dominated by colluvium, where the vegetation is starting to regrow after recent forest fires (2002 and 2009).  As previously explained in Section 5.4.1, the bedrock in this area consists of metasedimentary rocks overlain by metavolcanic rocks of the Bridge River Complex, where bedding dips to the southwest.  The extent of the many linear features such as the well-defined backscarp and many counterscarps along the middle and upper slopes, suggest that this slope deformation is within the initial stage but lacking a failure surface (Figure 23a). Unlike the slope deformations encounter in sector 2, this slope deformation shows signs of recent activity along the crest. Surveillance data indicates that the slope is moving at slow rates. Slightly larger movement rates are encountered in the slope facing slightly towards the northwest (i.e. the North face bench in Figure 8d) than the slope facing towards the northeast (Psutka, 2010). Due to the steepness of the upper slopes, it is expected that small rock falls and ravelling will continue to occur. Large, well-developed and active talus chutes are seen on this slope. The western slope of Santa Claus Mountain has a large rock slide and subsequent slides due to the bedding dipping out of the slope (Figure 23b). If subsequent landslides continue in this area, debris could potentially reach Seton Portage via Spider Creek. The large-scale mountain slope deformation and the identified landslide hazards encountered in this sector make it one of the most significant in Seton reservoir as any potential instability could endanger the powerhouses and the 103 communities of Shalalth and Seton Portage. The monitoring in this area should continue in order to determine whether movement rates are increasing over time or reaching an equilibrium state. 104    Figure 23:  Sector 7 at Santa Claus Mountain - (a) northern slope, (b) western slope. Photos by Oldrich Hungr and Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012) 105 6.3.8 Seton Reservoir, Sector 8 Sector 8 is located in the northern slope of Seton reservoir, approximately 16 kilometers upstream of Seton dam (Figure 14). It is characterized by rectangular drainages and steep slopes. This sector ranges in elevation between 1100 m to 2250 m and has an approximate 2 kilometer travel distance to the reservoir level. The bedrock mainly consists of granodioritic intrusion by the Mission Ridge Pluton along the upper slopes and metamorphic rocks of the Bridge River Complex, such as biotite schist, along parts of the lower extents (BCGS, 2005). It is bounded downslope by the Marshall Creek Fault and partly upslope by the Mission Ridge Fault. This sector lies on the footwall block of both faults. Moreover, this sector is dominated by bedrock slopes, where the vegetation is sparse. There is also overburden in the downslope area, such as colluvium, where coniferous tree coverage is abundant. The numerous rectangular drainages along the upper slopes suggest a structural control, which correlate with the granodioritic intrusion (Figure 24). This sector contains widespread bedrock slopes with the potential for rock falls and rock block toppling, especially along the crest of Mission Ridge. There are active talus chutes but these remain largely among the upper slopes. There is no evidence to suggest large magnitude rock falls or toppling. If that is the case, most likely the rock block will disintegrate upon reaching the reservoir since it would have to travel almost 2 kilometers to reach the reservoir level. The only area of potential concern could be at the peak informally referred as Microwave Station Mountain, where there is evidence of large tension cracks. There are also major northeast trending drainages along this sector that have the potential for debris flows. In fact, some drainages show indication of recent debris flow activity. However the debris flows do not seem to reach the reservoir.   106   Figure 24:  Sector 8 at Mission ridge - (a) western extent, (b) eastern extent. Photos by Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012) 107 6.3.9 Carpenter Reservoir, Sector 9 Sector 9 is located in the northern and southern slopes of Carpenter reservoir, approximately 2 kilometers upstream and downstream of Terzaghi dam (Figure 15). It is characterized by its rugged topography, rectangular drainages and steep bedrock cliffs. It has a maximum relief of about 1350 m and the slopes are very steep in the southern section and steep to very steep in the northern section. The bedrock mainly consists of granodioritic intrusions of the Mission Ridge Pluton and lesser amounts of the metamorphic rocks of the Bridge River Complex. It is bounded to the southwest by the Marshall Creek Fault and to the northwest by the extent of the intrusion. The area is dominated by steep bedrock slopes and minor overburden such as colluvium and fluvial deposits along the Bridge River. Both sections are heavily forested with coniferous trees, except where the bedrock is very steep.  The widespread steep bedrock slopes in this sector have the potential for rock falls and rock slides (Figure 25). Several rock fall producing slopes have active talus chutes and talus deposits. The distinct rectangular drainages in this area suggest structural control. Moreover, the northern slope had a dip slope approximately 1 kilometer upstream of the dam. The dip slope has a shear zone dipping out of the northern slope, which could be a potential rupture surface for translational rock slides. There are also overburden deposits, such as colluvium, with the potential for debris flows and debris avalanches. There have been recent (post-dam construction) debris flows generated along the unofficially name “Straight Creek” about 2 kilometers downstream of the dam. Those debris flows reached the Bridge River causing partial damming of the river. Therefore, special attention should be paid to potential areas upstream and downstream of the dam. Any medium sized rock slide, or even debris flow deposits, occurring downstream of the dam could potentially dam the Bridge River as it is a steep and narrow valley. An area of potential concern could be the 108 unofficially named “Straight Creek”, as this area has a history of rock slides and debris flow deposits. This sector is considered the most active and most relevant among Carpenter reservoir.  109   Figure 25:  Sector 9 - (a) looking east, (b) looking west. Photos by Geidy Baldeon and Oldrich Hungr (Sept. 2012) 110 6.3.10 Carpenter Reservoir, Sector 10 Sector 10 covers a wide area within the northern and southern slopes of Carpenter reservoir and by far represents the largest sector in the study area (Figure 15). It is characterized by shallow and dendritic valleys, where the slopes are moderate to moderately steep. However, areas closer to the reservoir rim (within a one kilometer buffer or less) have steep slopes. The sector has an average relief of about 1000 m. The bedrock consists of marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks of the Bridge River Complex, such as chert, argillite, phyllite and greenstone (BCGS, 2005). It is bounded to the northeast by the Marshall Creek Fault.  This sector is dominated by overburden slopes such as colluvium and morainal deposits, especially among the upper slopes (Figure 15 and Figure 26). In this area, coniferous trees are abundant. Nonetheless, certain slopes lack vegetation due to recent logging activities, while certain drainages are stripped off vegetation due to debris flows. Bedrock slopes prevail among the lower slopes closer to the reservoir, where they are moderately steep to steep. Most of these slopes have the potential for rock falls and have active and inactive talus chutes and deposits. An area of potential landslide hazards is located in the southern slope just underneath Nosebag ridge, which extends from 3 kilometers to 12 kilometers upstream of Terzaghi dam. This southern slope contains ancient rock rotational slides. The rock slides present in this area are both shallow and deep. One reactivated slide, informally known as the Carpenter Lake Slide (described as TRZ_05_02 in the inventory) has shown signs of recent activity. The reactivation could be caused by previous logging activities in the slope. Other slopes to the west also show recent logging activities. It still needs to be investigated if logging activities could cause potential instabilities in the nearby slopes (Figure 26a). This sector also contains several major drainages with the potential for debris flows. Various recent debris flows occur along channels along the southern slopes in the upstream area of Carpenter reservoir (starting at about 20 kilometers to 34 kilometers upstream of the dam). Many slopes 111 throughout the sector and especially along the lower slopes also have the potential for debris avalanches.  It is important to note that the area northeast of Sector 10 is undifferentiated (Figure 15). This area has widespread bedrock exposures along the ridge crest and upper parts of the slope. The bedrock seems to be weathered and shows signs of surficial sliding. This area also exhibits debris flow activity initiating along the upper slopes. However the debris flows seems to die out along the channel and do not reach the reservoir. This area does not have any major landslide hazards and due to its long travel distance to reach the reservoir (an average of 3 kilometers), this area is undifferentiated.  112    Figure 26:  Sector 10 - (a) eastern extent of southern slopes below Nosebag ridge; (b) western extent – red arrows show recent logging activities. Photos by Oldrich Hungr (Sept. 2012) 113 6.3.11 Carpenter Reservoir, Sector 11 Sector 11 is located along Marshall Ridge on the northern slope of Carpenter reservoir, approximately 20 kilometers upstream of Terzaghi dam (Figure 15). It has a relief of about 1000 m. The slopes are moderate to moderately steep, however the slopes closer to the reservoir rim or Tyaughyon Creek are steep. Similar to Sector 10, the bedrock consists of marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks of the Bridge River Complex, such as chert, argillite, phyllite and greenstone (BCGS, 2005) and bounded by an unknown normal fault to the south.  The slopes are dominated by bedrock with colluvial veneers and blankets. Other bedrock slopes are confined to steep slopes and are not vegetated. There are also overburden deposits, such as colluvial and morainal deposits, which are heavily vegetated with a mixture of coniferous trees and low shrubs.  Fluvial, glaciofluvial and lacustrine deposits are also present along Marshall Creek in the southeastern extent.  Unlike the other sectors in the study area, this sector shows the presence of large-magnitude deep-seated rock slides. For instance, the largest deep-seated rock slide in the study area lies in this sector and it is informally known as the Marshall Lake Slide (Figure 15 and Figure 27a). This landslide has a distinct hummocky topography with linear ridges transecting the landslide body. Yet, another deep-seated rock slide lies just to the southeast of this landslide (Figure 27b). The southeastern most extent of Pearson ridge is also included in this sector. This area has a slope deformation where the upper bound has a distinct scarp but the lower bound could not be determined. It has to be noted that this area of Pearson Ridge is heavily faulted by thrust and normal faults.  Even though this sector has the same lithology as sector 10, the difference relies on the presence of deep-seated failures at a relative low relief. The sector also contains minor active slopes producing rock falls and some minor channels producing debris flows.  114    Figure 27:  Sector 11 - (a) western extent, (b) eastern extent. Photos by Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012) 115 6.3.12 Carpenter Reservoir, Sector 12 Sector 12 is located along Truax ridge on the southern slope of Carpenter reservoir, approximately 46 kilometers upstream of Terzaghi dam (Figure 15). The maximum relief in the sector is about 1970 m. The slope varies within the sector, but generally the lower and middle slopes are moderately steep, while the upper slopes are moderate. The bedrock in this sector consists of marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks of the Bridge River Complex, such as chert, argillite, phyllite and greenstone, along with northwest trending slivers of serpentinite ultramafic rocks (BCGS, 2005). There are a few normal faults transecting the sector and trending northwest.  The sector is dominated by overburden slopes, such as colluvium, within the lower and middle slopes, where they are heavily vegetated with coniferous trees and minor low shrubs (primarily along the lower slopes). Such shrub areas seem to be remnants of previous logging activities.  The upper slopes are above the snowline, lack vegetation and expose weathered bedrock (Figure 28). Other minor slopes along the upper extents have active rock falls. The widespread weathered bedrock along the upper slopes and near the ridge are potential deformed slopes. The deformed slope upstream of Howe Creek (approximately 42 kilometers upstream of Terzaghi dam) is of interest due to potential deformation characteristics.  116  Figure 28:  Sector 12 - profile view. Photo by Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012)   117 6.3.13 Carpenter-Downton Reservoir, Sector 13 Sector 13 extends along the upper Carpenter reservoir (starting at about 34 kilometers upstream of Terzaghi dam) to lower Downton reservoir (up to approximately 9 kilometers upstream of La Joie dam) and shown in Figure 15 - Figure 16. This sector is characterized by its shallow and rolling topography. The main relief is about 400 m and the slopes are mainly gentle. However, there are also moderately steep slopes within a 500 m buffer of the reservoir rim and along Hurley River. The bedrock in this sector is more complex than any other sector. It is dominated by marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks of the Bridge River Complex, such as chert, argillite, phyllite and greenstone. There are also slivers of serpentinite ultramafic rock of the Bralorne-East Liza Complex and coarse clastic sedimentary rocks of the Cadwallader Group – Hurley Formation (BCGS, 2005). These north and northwest trending slivers are bounded by normal and thrust faults. The majority of the sector is heavily vegetated by coniferous, broadleaf and mixed trees (Figure 29). However, low shrubs are present in the northern slopes within the eastern extent. This sector is extensively dominated by overburden, primarily morainal deposits followed by colluvium, glaciofluvial deposits around the reservoirs rim and minor fluvial, lacustrine and organic deposits (not shown in the mapping).  The slope along the northern rim has the potential for rock fall. 118    Figure 29:  Sector 13 - (a) western extent, (b) eastern extent. Photos by Oldrich Hungr and Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012) 119 6.3.14 Downton Reservoir, Sector 14 Sector 14 is located along the southern section of Downton reservoir, approximately 8 kilometers upstream of La Joie dam (Figure 16). The bedrock consists of mudstone, siltstone and shale rocks of the Cayoosh Assemblage. The elevation in this sector ranges from reservoir level up to 1990 m. The slopes at the lower bounds are steep to very steep and there is a peculiar moderate bench along the middle slope.  The slopes are dominated by overburden such as colluvial and morainal deposits (Figure 30). Along the lower slopes, there is the potential for rock fall and debris avalanches.  Overall, this sector does not pose major landslide hazards besides the previously mentioned.   Figure 30:  Sector 14 - southern slope. Photo by Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012)   120 6.3.15 Downton Reservoir, Sector 15 Sector 15 is located in the southern slope of Downton reservoir, approximately 10 kilometers upstream of La Joie dam (Figure 16). This sector encloses the mountain informally known as Wedge Drop Mountain, which has been explained in greater detail in Section 5.4.2. The sector has a maximum relief of 1450 m. The lower and upper slope is steep, while the middle slope is moderately steep. The mountain is covered by overburden deposits, such as colluvial deposits, and it is heavily forested with coniferous trees. The upper slopes are dominated by massive bedrock. The area of deformation along Wedge Drop Mountain is concentrated in the easternmost part of the ridge, where there are cross-cutting faults (Figure 31a). The westernmost side shows indication of rock fall activity (Figure 31b). The slopes covered by overburden also have the potential for debris avalanches. There are a few active debris flows and talus channels along the slope.  This sector also encompasses the upper extents of Mount Sloan to the southeast. This area consists of active rock fall producing slopes and talus deposits. Overall, the exposed jointed bedrock along the ridge of Wedge Drop Mountain is considered a potential hazard and perhaps the most important sector in Downton reservoir. The recognized debris flows and potential debris avalanches might not pose an immediate hazard and could just add more debris to the reservoir.  121    Figure 31:  Sector 15 at Wedge Drop Mountain (a) eastern view, (b) western side close-up. Photos by Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012) 122 6.3.16 Downton Reservoir, Sector 16 Sector 16 is located in the northern slope of Downton reservoir, extending from 10 to 15 kilometers upstream of the dam (Figure 16). The elevation extends from the reservoir to about 2200 m. The slopes are steep along the upper and lower bounds and moderately steep along the middle section of the slope. The slope is dominated by overburden along the middle and lower slopes but the upper slopes are dominated by bedrock. The bedrock in this sector is comprised of gabbro intrusions along the eastern extent (Figure 32a) and granodiorite along the western extent (Figure 32b). Even though the bedrock in this area is the same as Wedge Drop Mountain, the behaviour is different. The bedrock along the western extent seems to be weathered and weak (without any structural control). The overburden slopes have a few debris flow channels. Some of these channels are active and reach the reservoir. However, the bedrock to the east seems to have a structural control as suggested by the rectangular drainages and extensive gullying. The main channels are significantly incised into the bedrock.  123    Figure 32: Sector 16 - (a) eastern extent, (b) western extent. Photos by Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012)   124 6.3.17 Downton Reservoir, Sector 17 Sector 17 is located in the northern slopes of Downton reservoir, approximately starting 16 kilometers upstream of the dam (Figure 16). This sector ranges in elevation from the reservoir level to about 2640 m. The slopes are moderate to moderately steep along the upper extents and steep along the middle slopes. The bedrock in this sector is comprised of quartz diorite and granite intrusions. The slopes are dominated by overburden and heavily vegetated by coniferous trees. However, the upper slopes are dominated by weathered bedrock (Figure 33a). There is also ice present and a well-developed moraine along the upper extents. Some parts of the slope have protruding areas where there is rock fall activity (Figure 33b).  125    Figure 33:  Sector 17 - (a) eastern extent, (b) western extent close-up. Photos by Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012) and BC Hydro (Sept. 2009)   126 6.3.18 Downton Reservoir, Sector 18 Sector 18 is located in the southern slope of Downton reservoir, approximately starting at 18 kilometers upstream of the dam (Figure 16). This area is characterized by rugged topography. The upper slopes still have ice coverage and well developed morainal deposits. The north trending ridges are active rock fall producing slopes and talus deposits (Figure 34a). The slopes along the middle and upper slopes have the potential for debris avalanches. Some rock fall producing slopes are located along the lower extents as shown in Figure 34b.  127    Figure 34:  Sector 18 - (a) side view looking west (b) western extent close-up (yellow box in previous figure shows approximate location). Photos by Geidy Baldeon (Sept. 2012) and BC Hydro (Sept. 2009) 128 CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 7.1 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS There are three major outcomes produced from this thesis investigation: a) A preliminary landslide information system for reservoir slopes, which could be applicable anywhere; the creation of a b) landslide inventory and c) hazard sectors at the reservoir scale applicable to the study area. One of the objectives of the thesis was to establish and develop a preliminary standardized landslide information system by creating a geospatial landslide database that has information related to the reservoir slopes in the Bridge River area. This thesis outlined the geodatabase design, and its implementation specific to the Bridge River area. One major result is the compilation of a geo-referenced landslide inventory for the study area. The development of the landslide geodatabase allowed all the primary and reference data necessary for landslide assessments to be stored in a consistent manner by the division of the geodatabase structure into logical thematic groupings.  Moreover, ninety landslide attributes were created based on landslide characteristics and nomenclature used in the landslide community. These attributes have been divided into 10 landslide themes representing specific landslide information. As a result, all data relevant to landslides could be easily searched and retrieved, allowing the user to analyse or make potential decisions in a timely manner. This part of the database structure is intended to be universally applicable to other study areas within the BC Hydro system or elsewhere. The resulting landslide inventory for the Bridge River area consists of 106 features showing the location of previously recognized landslides by BC Hydro and other known landslides, all of which are relevant at the reservoir scale. Small-scale landslides or instabilities were not mapped, with the 129 exception of those mentioned in Section 5.1.4. Out of the cases identified in the inventory, only a small number of landslides are defined. The landslide inventory also included incipient landslides as these could cause potential concern in the future and need to be inspected. All of the defined and incipient landslides in the inventory were described based on the established landslide attributes, as shown in Appendix III, and mapped at a scale of 1:20,000. These detailed maps are collected in Appendix IV where each landslide has a plan view, profile view, and photo of the area. As a result, the landslide information has been consolidated and standardized for the three reservoirs in the Bridge River area. The second objective was to characterize the landslide hazards at the reservoir level by utilizing the developed landslide geodatabase and assessing specific data such as the landslide inventory, terrain, geological and structural mapping. This provided a homogeneous and region-specific source of landslide hazard descriptors and other related data, relevant at the reservoir scale for bedrock and overburden controlled slopes. Furthermore, the Bridge River study area was discretized into 18 landslide hazard sectors, where some are:  Dominated by rock fall producing slopes and other potential translational failures such as those in Sectors 1, 6, 8, 9 and 18. Out of which sectors 1, 6 and 9 are of potential concern due to possible damage to certain dam infrastructure and proximity to a nearby community. More specifically, slope stability assessments with a detailed structural characterization should be undertaken for the dip slopes in sectors 1 and 9.  Dominated by deformed slopes such as those in Sectors 2, 7, 12 and 15. Out of which sectors 7 and 15 are of potential concern (Santa Claus Mountain and Wedge Drop Mountain, respectively), where monitoring is already in place through annual ground/aerial inspections and annual surveys carried by BC Hydro. A reassessment of both slopes using modern techniques including geomechanical characterization and numerical modelling 130 could further increase the knowledge and understanding of the potential behaviour of the slopes.  Dominated by deep-seated rock slides in a weak rock mass such as those in Sectors 3, 11 and the southeastern area of Sector 10, where the concern lies in the reactivation of previous rock slides or new failures occurring in such sectors. Special attention should be paid to the slopes in the southeastern area of Sector 10, where logging activities have taken place, potentially creating unstable slope conditions.  Dominated by overburden slopes such as those in Sector 3 and 5, where it is unknown if potential large-scale overburden failures are possible proximal to dam infrastructure and nearby communities  Of minor concern such as those in Sectors 4, 10, 14, 16 and 17, where there are rock fall producing slopes, potential debris avalanches slopes and debris flow channels. Overall, the development of the landslide geodatabase and the incorporation of landslide attributes allow the standardization of landslide information across the study area. The database structure is sufficiently general, to allow its use in other regions as well. This will be beneficial if a similar design is applied to other regions. However as with every design, it is important to refine or optimize the design by potential users in order to determine if it meets all of their needs. The creation of the landslide geodatabase facilitated the characterization of landslide hazards at the reservoir scale through a tailored hazard classification for the study area. The results of this work provide landslide hazard information to be readily available at first hand and useful for reservoir slope inspections.  131 7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK Finally, some recommendations for future use or development of landslide geodatabases for other reservoir slopes include:   Refining the landslide attributes: As with every design, it is important to optimize the design based on the user experience. A review of the attributes by potential users might be necessary to determine if any other attributes need to be added or refined based on the user experience. For instance, attributes  for damages, investigations undertaken or remedial measures could be added if necessary.   Converting the landslide themes to external tables: The landslide themes could be converted into relationship classes or external tables and linked through primary and foreign keys. For instance, this could be useful in order to link the Reference Information attributes to internal databases already maintained by the user.  Creating attributes for other datasets: For example, those in the geotechnical or site investigation & monitoring datasets (like inspection pictures)  Refining mapping: Bare-earth LiDAR or photogrammetry could be used in areas susceptible to landslides and thus refine mapping and find structural relations.  This could be beneficial especially at Wedge Drop Mountain, other potential rock slides near Terzaghi Dam, and Seton Dam. Bare-earth LiDAR could also be used to identify existing landslides hidden by trees.  Field checking: Due to time constrains, field checks of certain landslides added to the inventory were not carried out. This could be an added process during the implementation of landslide inventories for other regions.   Adding extra functionality:  132 o Tagging digital reports or maps based on the Landslide ID or reservoir. For example, this will allow the search of historical reports and maps for a specific landslide or reservoir slopes. This could also allow linking landslides to specific reports or maps. o Linking survey and instrument stations with survey/instrument data.  Maximizing user experience: A protected web mapping service could be implemented to allow the user to view this information online, without the need of a GIS software license to be installed on the user’s computer.  More specific to the Bridge River study area:  Carrying out slope stability assessments with a detailed structural characterization for the dip slopes in sectors 1 and 9.  Reassessing Santa Claus and Wedge Drop Mountains using modern technologies including a geomechanical characterization and numerical modelling to further increase knowledge and understanding of the potential behaviour of the slopes.  Attention should also be paid to areas of past and current logging activities and forest fires,  as these could potentially create slope instabilities in overburden slopes and weak rock masses.    133 REFERENCES Agliardi, F., Giovanni, C., Frattini, P. (2012) Slow rock-slope deformation. In Clague, J. and Stead, D. (Editors) Landslides: Types Mechanisms and Modeling. Cambridge University Press: 207-221.  Barla, G., & Paronuzzi, P. (2013). The 1963 Vajont Landslide: 50th Anniversary. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 46, 1267-1270.  BCGS: British Columbia Geological Survey. (2005). Digital Geology Map of British Columbia: Tile NM10 Southwest, B.C. [GIS]. 1:250,000. B.C. Ministry of Energy and Mines, Geofile 2005-3. Retrieved from http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/Geoscience/PublicationsCatalogue/DigitalGeologyMaps/  BC Hydro (1986a) Notes on Reservoir Shoreline Investigations of Carpenter and Downton Lake - Bridge River System.   BC Hydro (1986b) Terzaghi Dam - Comprehensive Inspection and Review (Report No.  H1897).  BC Hydro. (1987). Seton Dam - Comprehensive Inspection and Review (Report No.H1968).  BC Hydro. (1988). La Joie Dam - Comprehensive Inspection and Review (Report No.H1969).   BC Hydro. (2011). Bridge River Generating Station No.1 Penstock Hillslope Site Characterization (Report No. E970).  Bovis, M. (1982) Uphill-facing (antislope) scarps in the Coast Mountains, southwest British Columbia. Geological Society of America Bulletin 93: 804-812  Bovis, M. (1990) Rock-slope deformation at Affliction Creek, southern Coast Mountains, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 27: 243-254  Bovis, M., & Evans, S. G. (1995a). Large-scale mountain slope deformation, Upper Lillooet Valley, British Columbia. In Proceedings of the 48th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, 901–908. Vancouver, B.C.  Bovis, M., & Evans, S. G. (1995b) Rock slope movements along the Mount Currie "fault scarp," southern Coast Mountains, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 32: 2015-2020  Bovis, M., Evans, S. (1996) Extensive deformations of rock slopes in southern Coast Mountains, southwest British Columbia, Canada. Engineering Geology 44: 163 – 182 134 Chigira, M. (1992) Long-term gravitational deformation of rocks by mass rock creep. Engineering Geology 32: 157-184  Church, B.N., Dostal, J., Owen, J.V., Pettipas, A.R. (1995) Late Paleozoic gabbroic rocks of the Bridge River accretionary complex, southwestern British  Columbia: geology and geochemistry. Geol Rundsh, 84, 710-719   Coleman, M., & Parrish, R. (1991). Eocene dextral strike-slip and extensional faulting in the Bridge River Terrane, Southwest British Columbia. Tectonics, 10(6), 1222–1238.  DataBC. (2013). Web Map Services. British Columbia Geographic Warehouse. Retrieved from http://www.data.gov.bc.ca/dbc/geographic/connect/  Enegren E., McKenzie, K. (1989) Geological Reconnaissance and Installation of Survey Monuments on Wedge Drop Mountain. BC Hydro Inter-office Memo File 620-1204  Enegren, E., Moore, D. (1987) Geological Mapping and Instrumentation – Santa Claus Mountain potential slide. Bridge River Development – Seton Lake. BC Hydro Engineering Division – Geotechnical Department. Report No. GEO 20/86  Enegren, E., Moore, D. (1990). Guidelines for Landslide Hazard Evaluation on Reservoirs.  In Proceedings of the Canadian Dam Safety Conference, Toronto, Ontario, 133-145.  Esri: Environmental Systems Research Institute. (2013). ArcGIS for Desktop Advanced (Version 10.1) [Computer software]. Redlands, CA.  Esri: Environmental Systems Research Institute. (2014). GIS Dictionary. Retrieved from http://support.esri.com/en/knowledgebase/Gisdictionary/browse  Google. (2013). Google Earth (Version 7.1.2) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/earth/  Hensold, G. (2011). An integrated study of deep-seated gravitational slope deformations at Handcar Peak, southwestern British Columbia (Master’s thesis). Simon Fraser University.  Holm, K., Bovis, M., Jakob, M. (2004) The landslide response of alpine basins to post-Little Ice Age glacial thinning and retreat in southwestern British Columbia. Geomorphology 57(3): 201–216   Howes, D., Kenk E. (1997). Terrain Classification System for British Columbia – Version 2. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks – Resource Inventory Branch. Victoria, B.C. Retrieved from http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/terrain/terrain_files/standards.html 135  Hungr, O., Leroueil, S., Picarelli, L. (2013). Varnes classification of landslides types, an update. Unpublished. 48 p.  Hutchinson, J.N. (1988). General report: morphological and geotechnical parameters of landslides in relation to geology and hydrogeology. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Landslides, 1, 3–35. Lausanne, Switzerland.  IFFI: Inventario Fenomeni Franosi in Italia. (2001).  Allegato 1 – Guida alla compilazione de lla scheda frane IFFI. Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri – Dipartimento per I Servizi Tecnici Nazionali, Servizio Geologico. Retrieved from http://www.progettoiffi.isprambiente.it/cartanetiffi/documenti.asp  Jackson, L., Bobrowsky, P., and Bichler, A. (2012). Identification, Maps and Mapping – Canadian Technical Guidelines and Best Practices related to Landslides: A National Initiative for Loss Reduction. Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 7059, 33 p. doi: 10.4095/292122. Retrieved from http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/hazards/landslides  Little, & Moore, D. (1986). Seismic Review of the Bridge River Area (Report  No. GEO2/86) BC Hydro.  LLRMP: Lillooet Land and Resource Management Plan. (2004) Lillooet Land Use Designations [Map]. B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Retrieved from http://www.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/kamloops/lillooet/index.html  MoE: B.C. Ministry of Environment - Terrestrial Ecosystems Branch. (2010). Terrain Stability Mapping (TSM): Detailed Polygons with Short Attribute Table Spatial View. [GIS]. 1:20,000. Retrieved from http://www.data.gov.bc.ca/dbc/geographic/discover/  MoF: B.C. Ministry of Forest - Forest Analysis and Inventory Branch. (2013). Vegetation Resources Inventory – Forest Vegetation Composite Polygons and Rank 1 Layer [GIS]. 1:20,000. Retrieved from http://www.data.gov.bc.ca/dbc/geographic/discover/  Moser, M. (1996) The Time-Dependent Behaviour of Sagging of Mountain Slopes. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Landslides 2: 809-814  Moser, M. (2003) Phenomenology and geotechnical aspects of large-scales and deep-seated mass movements in mountainous regions. Seminar & Workshop on Geoenvironmental engineering: Georisk & Mass Movements. Bangkok, Thailand.  Multinational Andean Project: Geoscience for Andean Communities. (2009). Field description of a landslide and its impact. Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 5991, 31 p. doi: 10.4095/226498. Retrieved from http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/hazards/landslides 136  Nemcock (1982) Landslide in the Slovak Carpathians. Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava  Oswell, M. (2008a). La Joie Dam - Operation, Maintenance and Surveillance Manual for Dam Safety (Report No. OMSLAJ). BC Hydro.   Oswell, M. (2008b). Seton Dam - Operation, Maintenance and Surveillance Manual for Dam Safety (Report No. OMSSON). BC Hydro.  Oswell, M. (2008c). Terzaghi Dam - Operation, Maintenance and Surveillance Manual for Dam Safety (Report No. OMSTRZ). BC  Hydro.  Pstuka, J. (2010). Seton Dam – Reservoir Slopes, Santa Claus Mountain Potential Slide 2010 Annual Inspection (Inter-office memo). BC Hydro.  RIC: Resources Inventory Committee. (2002). Vegetation Resources Inventory: BC Land Cover Classification Scheme – version 1.3. B.C. Ministry of Forests, Resources Inventory Branch. Retrieved from http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/vri/  Ryder, J. (1995). Bridge River Paleoseismic Study – Geomorphology [Report]. BC Hydro.   Ryder, J., & Thomson, B. (1986). Neoglaciation in the southern Coast Mountains of British Columbia: chronology prior to the late Neoglacial maximum. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 23, 273–287.  Trigila, A., Iadanza, C., Spizzichino, D. (2010). Quality assessment of the Italian Landslide Inventory using GIS processing. Landslides, 7, 455-470.  TRIM: Terrain Resource Information Management Program. (1997). Provincial Baseline Digital Atlas. [GIS] 1:20,000.  B.C. Ministry of Environment, Land and Parks – Geographic Data BC.   Varnes, D. (1978). Slope movement types and processes. In:  R. Schuster and R. Krizek (Eds.) Landslides, Analysis and Control. Special Report 176, 11-33. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences.  WP/WLI: UNESCO Working Party on World Landslide Inventory. (1990). A suggested method for reporting a landslide. Bulletin of the International Association of Engineering Geology, 41, 5-12.  WP/WLI: UNESCO Working Party on World Landslide Inventory. (1993a). A suggested method for describing the activity of a landslide. Bulletin of the International Association of Engineering Geology, 47, 53-57.  137 WP/WLI: UNESCO Working Party on World Landslide Inventory. (1993b). Multilingual landslide glossary. Bitech Publishers, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 59p.  WP/WLI: UNESCO Working Party on World Landslide Inventory. (1994). A suggested method for reporting landslide causes. Bulletin of the International Association of Engineering Geology, 50, 71-74.     138      APPENDIX I GIS LANDSLIDE SCHEMA & FEATURE CLASS DESCRIPTION   FEATURE CLASS DESCRIPTION FEATURE CLASS ABBREVIATED NAME DESCRIPTION TYPE LANDSLIDE HAZARDS        Landslide Inventory BRR_LandslideInventory Inventory of all types of landslides in the Bridge River area. Landslide boundaries might be defined, possible & inferred. Polygon Linear Features BRR_LinearFeatures Various linear features such as scarps, tension cracks, linears, etc. Might be associated with landslides/slope deformation Line Unclassified slides BRR_SlideTRIM20k Slides identified by the TRIM program. All features are unclassified and reside mostly outside of the study area. Polygon GEOTECHNICAL       Attitudes BRR_Attitudes Bedding/foliation attitudes based on investigation reports Point Exposed Bedrock BRR_ExposedBedrckGeo Geology only where bedrock is exposed Polygon Land Surface Features BRR_LandSurfTRIM20ka Land surface features: Moraines, screes, rock outcrops Polygon BRR_LandSurfTRIM20kl Land surface features: Moraines, eskers, screes, rock outcrops, slides Line BRR_TerrainLinearsTRIM20k Terrain linears: cliffs/terrain dropoffs, ridges, rock bluffs Line Overburden BRR_OverburdenBCH Overburden features mapped by BCH from historical maps. Polygon BRR_QtOverburdenBCGS250k Quaternary overburden as mapped by BCGS [Scale 1:250,000] Polygon Terrain Mapping BRR_TerrainUnitsSimpl Simplified geomorphic terrain units based on BC Terrain Classification Polygon BRR_TerrainSurf Terrain mapping by dominant surface. Also showing overburden-dominated slopes and bedrock-dominated slopes Polygon BRR_TerrainStabMoE20k Original terrain stability mapping [Scale 1:20,000] Polygon Gullies and Channels BRR_GullyChannel Active erosion areas in gullies and channels Polygon BOUNDARY       Area of Interest (AOI) BRR_AOI General area of interest in the region Polygon Study Area (SA) BRR_StudyArea Study area limited to all reservoir slopes in the region Polygon Study Area by reservoir BRR_StudyAreaRes Study area limited to slopes by each reservoir Polygon GEOLOGY       Bedrock Geology BRR_GeologyBCGS250k Regional bedrock geological mapping [Scale 1:250,000] Polygon 139FEATURE CLASS DESCRIPTION BRR_GeologyClipBCGS250k Regional bedrock geological mapping limited to the study area [Scale 1:250,000] Polygon BRR_GeologyBCH Local bedrock geological mapping (digitized from historical BCH maps) Polygon Faults BRR_FaultsBCGS250k Regional faults [Scale 1:250,000] Line BRR_FautsClipBCGS250k Regional Faults limited to the study area [Scale 1:250,000] Line BRR_FaultsBCH Local faults (digitized from historical BCH maps) Line INFRASTRUCTURE       Communities BRR_CommunityBCGS250k Major communities (small towns, districts, cities) [Scale 1:250,000] Point Generation Sites BRR_GenerationSitesBCH Location of generating stations and dams Point Helicopter Landing Sites BRR_HelicopterLandingBCH Location of helicopter landing sites (based BCH maps) Point Cultural Features BRR_CulturalPtsTRIM20k Location of cultural features: buildings, docks, extraction sites, etc. Point General Infrastructure BRR_InfrastructureTRIM20k General infrastructure (buildings, docks, etc.) [Scale 1:20,000] Line Railway BRR_RailwayBCGS250k Major railways [Scale 1:250,000] Line BRR_RailwayTRIM20k Detailed railways [Scale 1:20,000] Line Roads BRR_RoadBCGS250k  Major roads [Scale 1:250,000] Line BRR_RoadBCH Major and some minor roads based on BCH data Line BRR_RoadTRIM20k All types of roads (paved, gravel, etc.) [Scale 1:20,000] Line Transmission Lines BRR_TransmissionLinesBCH Transmission Lines Line Transmission Towers BRR_TransmissionTowersTRIM20k Location of transmission towers [Scale 1:20,000] Point SITE INVESTIGATION AND MONITORING     Landslide Dimensions BRR_LSDimensions Dimensions of landslide features Dimen. Landslide Profile BRR_LSProfile Profile lines of landslide features Line Inspection Pictures BRR_ResInspectionPics Location of reservoir inspection pictures Point Reservoir Kilometer BRR_ResKm Reservoir kilometer based on upstream location from dam Line Surveyed Slopes BRR_SurveyedSlopesBCH Location of surveyed slopes by BCH Point Survey Stations BRR_SurveyStationsBCH Location of survey stations by BCH Point Survey Tie lines BRR_SurveyTieLinesBCH EDM survey tie lines Line 140FEATURE CLASS DESCRIPTION REMOTE SENSING       Breaklines BRR_BreaklinesTRIM20k Different types of breaklines [Scale 1:20,000] Line Mass Points BRR_MassPointsTRIM20k Mass elevation points [Scale 1:20,000] Point Photo Centre BRR_PhotoCentreTRIM20k Location of photo centres, cadastral and control points [Scale 1:20,000] Point TRIM extent BRR_TRIMExtent Extent of TRIM data for the Bridge River region Polygon Terrain BRR_TerrainTRIM20k Terrain model derived from TRIM mass points and breaklines [Scale 1:20,000] Terrain St. Claus mass points StClaus_MassPointsLiDAR LiDAR elevation mass points for Santa Claus Mountain Point St. Claus LiDAR Point Info StClaus_PointInfoLiDAR Point Information for St. Claus LiDAR elevation mass points Polygon St. Claus Terrain StClaus_TerrainLiDAR Terrain model derived from LiDAR mass points for St. Claus Mountain Terrain TOPOGRAPHY       Contour lines  BRR_ContoursTRIM20k Contour lines at 20-m intervals [Scale 1:20,000] Line StClaus_ContoursLiDAR Contour lines at 2-m intervals derived from LiDAR data for St Claus Mt. Line Spot Elevation BRR_SpotElevationTRIM20k Spot elevation [Scale 1:20,000] Point Ice Fields BRR_IceBCGS250k Areas of permanent ice cover [Scale 1:250,000] Polygon Lakes BRR_LakeBCGS250k Major lakes [Scale 1:250,000] Polygon BRR_LakeClipTRIM20k Lakes and other water bodies limited to the study area [Scale 1:20,000] Polygon BRR_LakeTRIM20ka All types of lakes and other water bodies [Scale 1:20,000] Polygon BRR_LakeTRIM20kl All types of lakes and other water bodies - boundaries [Scale 1:20,000] Line Rivers BRR_RiverBCGS250k Major rivers [Scale 1:250,000] Line BRR_RiverTRIM20k Detailed rivers, streams and other channels [Scale 1:20,000] Line Water Features BRR_WaterFeaturesTRIM20k Other water features, including ice fields, glaciers, spillways, etc. [Scale 1:20,000] Line Toponomy BRR_ToponomyTRIM20k Toponomy information [Scale 1:20,000] Point BRR_ToponomyGeoBC Toponomy information – official and unofficial names Point OTHER       Land Cover BRR_LandCoverTRIM20k Land cover, including: burn, cut block and selected logging [Scale Line 141FEATURE CLASS DESCRIPTION 1:20,000] Historical Fires BRR_HistoricalFiresMoF Historical perimeters of forest fires  Polygon Vegetation Cover BRR_VegCoverMoF20k Inventory of vegetation cover limited to the study area [Scale 1:20,000] Polygon RASTER  ABBREVIATED NAME DESCRIPTION TYPE SURFACE        DEM (AOI) BRR_DEMTRIM Digital Elevation Model for Bridge River derived from TRIM data Raster Hillshade (AOI) BRR_Hillshade045TRIM Hillshade (shaded relief) at 45° azimuth derived from TRIM data  Raster Hillshade (AOI) BRR_Hillshade135TRIM Hillshade (shaded relief) at 135° azimuth derived from TRIM data  Raster Hillshade (AOI) BRR_Hillshade225TRIM Hillshade (shaded relief) at 225° azimuth derived from TRIM data  Raster Hillshade (AOI) BRR_Hillshade315TRIM Hillshade (shaded relief) at 315° azimuth derived from TRIM data  Raster Slope (AOI) BRR_SlopeTRIM Slope derived from TRIM data Raster Aspect (AOI) BRR_AspectTRIM Aspect derived from TRIM data Raster Aspect/Slope (AOI)*  BRR_AspectSlopeTRIM Combined aspect & slope for Bridge River derived from TRIM data Raster DEM (St.Claus) StClaus_DEMLiDAR Digital Elevation Model for Santa Claus Mountain derived from LiDAR data Raster Hillshade (St.Claus) StClaus_Hillshade045LiDAR Hillshade (shaded relief) at 45° azimuth derived from LiDAR data Raster Hillshade (St.Claus) StClaus_Hillshade135LiDAR Hillshade (shaded relief) at 135° azimuth derived from LiDAR data Raster Hillshade (St.Claus) StClaus_Hillshade225LiDAR Hillshade (shaded relief) at 225° azimuth derived from LiDAR data Raster Hillshade (St.Claus) StClaus_Hillshade315LiDAR Hillshade (shaded relief) at 315° azimuth derived from LiDAR data Raster Slope (St.Claus) StClaus_SlopeLiDAR Slope for Santa Claus Mountain derived from LiDAR data Raster Aspect (St.Claus) StClaus_AspectLiDAR Aspect for Santa Claus Mountain derived from LiDAR data Raster Aspect/Slope (St.Claus)*  StClaus_AspectSlopeLiDAR Combined aspect & slope for Santa Claus Mountain derived from LiDAR data Raster  142Gen. InfoLocation CharacteristicsLandslide ClassificationMovement InformationMorphometric CharacteristicsGeology & Structure CharacteristicsReference InformationInspectionHistoryABCTHE ARCGIS LANDSLIDE INFORMATION SYSTEMAPPENDIX I: GIS SCHEMABy Geidy Baldeon on Feb. 26th, 2014Simple feature classBRR_LSInventory Contains Z valuesContains M valuesGeometry PolygonNoNoData typeField namePrec-ision Scale LengthDomainDefault valueAllow nullsOBJECTID Object ID       Shape Geometry Yes      LS_ID String Yes   10 Landslide IDLS_NAME String Yes   30 Landslide nameFREQ_MONT String Yes FREQ_MONT   5 Frequency of monitoringKEY_DESCR String Yes   250 Key descriptionREGION String Yes Bridge River   20 BCH RegionASSC_DAM String Yes   5 Associated DamASSC_RES String Yes   20 Associated ReservoirNRBY_TOWN String Yes   30 Nearby townGRID String Yes NAD83_ZONE10N   15 Grid (Projection & Datum)NORTH Double Yes 0 0  Coordinate (Northing)EAST Double Yes 0 0  Coordinate (Easting)ELEVATION Double Yes 0 0  ElevationAPPX_KM Short integer Yes 0   Approximate kilometer upstreamSHORE String Yes SHORE   5 Reservoir shoreLS_ZONE String Yes   10 Landslide zoneLS_MAT1 String Yes MATERIAL   5 Type of material (dominant)LS_MAT2 String Yes MATERIAL   5 Type of material (secondary)SOIL_CHAR String Yes   250 Soil characteristicsMOV_TYPE1 String Yes MOV_TYPE   5 Type of movement (primary)MOV_TYPE2 String Yes MOV_TYPE   5 Type of movement (secondarySUB_TYPE1 String Yes SUB_TYPE   5 Movement subtypeOTHER_CHAR String Yes   150 Other landslide characteristicsVELOCITY Short integer Yes VELOCITY 0   Estimated rate of movement LS_CLASS String Yes   50 Landslide name based on ClassificationLS_LABEL String Yes   15 Landslide label (symbol)APPX_TIME String Yes APPXTIME   5 Approximate time of movementLS_DATE1 String Yes   10 Date of occurrence (initial)LS_DATE2 String Yes   10 Date of occurrence (subsequent)DISP_AVE Short integer Yes 0   Estimated displacement (average)DISP_MAX Short integer Yes 0   Estimated displacement (max.)STATE String Yes STATE   5 State of activitySTYLE String Yes STYLE   5 Style of activityDISTRIB String Yes DISTRIB   5 Distribution of activityCAUSE_PRE String Yes   100 Pre-existing conditionsCAUSE_TRIG String Yes   100 Triggering eventLAND_COVER String Yes LAND_COVER   5 Land coverLAND_USE String Yes LAND_USE   5 Land useCONFIDENCE String Yes CONFIDENCE   5 Confidence on featureBOUNDARY String Yes   10 Defined/Estimated boundary percentLENGTH Short integer Yes 0   Total lengthWIDTH Short integer Yes 0   WidthDEPTH_CONF String Yes   10 Depth confidenceDEPTH Short integer Yes 0   Depth of rupture surface AREA Float Yes 0 0  Total surface area VOLUME Float Yes 0 0  VolumeCROWN_ELEV Short integer Yes 0   Elevation at crownTOE_ELEV Short integer Yes 0   Elevation at toeDIFF_HGHT Short integer Yes 0   Elevation differenceTR_DIST Short integer Yes 0   Travel distanceFAHR Double Yes 0 0  Fahrboschung angleSL_ANGLE Double Yes 0 0  Slope angle SL_AZIMUTH Short integer Yes 0   Slope azimuthLS_AZIMUTH Short integer Yes 0   Landslide azimuthLS_CROWN String Yes LS_POSTN   5 Crown position within slopeLS_TOE String Yes LS_POSTN   5 Toe position within slopeLITHO1 String Yes   50 Primary rock typeLITHO2 String Yes   50 Secondary rock typeUNIT String Yes   50 Geologic unitGEO_DESC String Yes   250 Detailed geologic descriptionRM_STRUCT String Yes RM_STRUCT   5 Rock mass structureWEATHERING String Yes WEATHERING   5 WeatheringJT_SPACING String Yes JT_SPACING   5 Joint spacingDS1 String Yes   6 Primary discontinuity setDS2 String Yes   6 Secondary discontinuity setDS3 String Yes   6 Tertiary discontinuity setBD_ATTITUDE String Yes ATTITUDE   5 Bedding attitudeNRBY_FAULT Short integer Yes 0   Distance to nearby regional faultSOURCE String Yes   20 Name of Source (Internal or External)METHOD String Yes METHOD   5 Method of inputREF_TYPE String Yes REF_TYPE   5 Reference typeREF_CODE String Yes   15 Reference codeREF_TITLE String Yes   50 Reference titleREF_AUTHOR String Yes   20 Reference authorREF_DATE String Yes   10 Reference dateREF_DOC String Yes   50 Reference report titleREF_DOCN String Yes   10 Reference report codeREF_LOC String Yes REF_LOC1   5 Reference locationREF_NOTES String Yes   200 Additional  reference notesADD_BY String Yes Geidy Baldeon   20 Data added byADD_DATE String Yes   10 Data added  on (date)EDIT_BY String Yes   20 Last edited byEDIT_DATE String Yes   10 Last edited on (date)INSP1_BY String Yes   20 Inspection by (BCH Personnel)INSP1_DATE String Yes   10 Inspection dateINSP1_NOTE String Yes   250 Inspection notesINSP1_MEMO String Yes   200 Inspection memoINSP2_BY String Yes   20 Subsequent Inspection by (BCH Personnel)INSP2_DATE String Yes   10 Subsequent Inspection dateINSP2_NOTE String Yes   250 Subsequent Inspection notesINSP2_MEMO String Yes   200 Subsequent Inspection memoCOMMENTS String Yes   300 Other general commentsPICTURE String Yes   100 Landslide pictureShape_Length Double Yes 0 0  Shape_Area Double Yes 0 0  Coded value domainRM_STRUCTDescriptionField typeSplit policyMerge policyRockmass structureStringDuplicateDefault valueDescriptionCodeMS MassiveST StratifiedFR FracturedFI FissileMJ Moderately jointedSC SchistoseVA VacoularCH ChaoticCoded value domainWEATHERINGDescriptionField typeSplit policyMerge policyWeatheringStringDuplicateDefault valueDescriptionCodeFR FreshSW Slightly weatheredMW Moderately weatheredHW Highly weatheredCW Completely weatheredCoded value domainJT_SPACINGDescriptionField typeSplit policyMerge policyJoint spacingStringDuplicateDefault valueDescriptionCodeVW Very wideW WideM ModerateC CloseVC Very closeCoded value domainATTITUDEDescriptionField typeSplit policyMerge policyAttitude of featureStringDuplicateDefault valueDescriptionCodeHZ HorizontalPS Parallel to slopeDI Dipping into the slopeDO Dipping out of slopeOS Obliquely relative to slopeCoded value domainFREQ_MONTDescriptionField typeSplit policyMerge policyFrequency of MonitoringStringDuplicateDefault valueDescriptionCodeCT Continuosly monitored through ADASSA Semi-annually inspected by BCH personnelAN Annually inspected by BCH personnelEF Every 5-years during reservoir slopes inspectionET Every 10-years during reservoir slopes inspectionCoded value domainMETHODDescriptionField typeSplit policyMerge policyMethod of input to geodatabaseStringDuplicateDefault valueDescriptionCodeD DigitizedT Transferred/CopiedVI Visual InterpretationCoded value domainREF_TYPEDescriptionField typeSplit policyMerge policyType of referenceStringDuplicateDefault valueDescriptionCodeMAP MapREP ReportMEM MemoSHP GISCAD CADOTH OtherAER AerialLID LiDARPGR PhotogrammetryGEA Google EarthORS Other remote sensingCoded value domainLAND_COVERDescriptionField typeSplit policyMerge policyLand coverStringDuplicateDefault valueDescriptionCodeVT Vegetated (Treed)VN Vegetated (Non-Treed)SI Snow/IceRO Rock/RubbleEL Exposed LandCoded value domainMATERIALDescriptionField typeSplit policyMerge policyType of materialStringDuplicateDefault valueDescriptionCoder Rocko Soilc Claym Mude Earthz Silts Sandg Gravelb Boulderd Debrisp PeatCoded value domainVELOCITYDescriptionField typeSplit policyMerge policyEstimated rate of movementShort integerDuplicateDefault valueDescriptionCode1 Extremely slow2 Very slow3 Slow4 Moderate5 Rapid6 Very rapid7 Extremely rapidCoded value domainSHOREDescriptionField typeSplit policyMerge policySide of the shore (looking downstream)StringDuplicateDefault valueDescriptionCodeR RightL LeftCoded value domainSUB_TYPEDescriptionField typeSplit policyMerge policySubtype descriptor for movementStringDuplicateDefault valueDescriptionCodeb Blockx Flexuralr Rotationalp Planarw Wedgec Compoundi Irregularq Liquefactiond Drys Slide (Flow slide)m Mountainf Solifluctiono FloodCoded value domainLS_POSTNDescriptionField typeSplit policyMerge policyLandslide position within slopeStringDuplicateDefault valueDescriptionCodeR RidgeU UpperM MiddleL LowerF Flood PlainCoded value domainREF_LOC1DescriptionField typeSplit policyMerge policyLocation of referenceStringDuplicateDefault valueDescriptionCodeAER AERSCOR Corporate LibraryDSL Dam Safety LibraryPGS Photogrammetry ServicesDWV Drawing VaultOTH OtherCoded value domainCONFIDENCEDescriptionField typeSplit policyMerge policyConfidence on featureStringDuplicateDefault valueDescriptionCodeD DefinedA AssumedP PossibleNR Needs RevisionCoded value domainSTYLEDescriptionField typeSplit policyMerge policySyle of activityStringDuplicateDefault valueDescriptionCodeSG SingleMP MultipleCX ComplexCP CompositeSC SuccessiveSW SwarmCoded value domainDISTRIBDescriptionField typeSplit policyMerge policyDistribution of activityStringDuplicateDefault valueDescriptionCodeAD AdvancingRT RetrogressingEL EnlargingDM DiminishingWD WideningCF ConfinedMV MovingCoded value domainLAND_USEDescriptionField typeSplit policyMerge policyLand useStringDuplicateDefault valueDescriptionCodeMU Multiple Use AreaMG Designated MiningPA Protected AreaPL Private Land & Indian ReservesCoded value domainSTATEDescriptionField typeSplit policyMerge policyState of activityStringDuplicateDefault valueDescriptionCodeA ActiveS SuspendedI InactiveR ReactivatedD DormantB AbandonedZ StabilizedC RelictCoded value domainAPPXTIMEDescriptionField typeSplit policyMerge policyApproximate timing of initial movementStringDuplicateDefault valueDescriptionCodeA AncientO OldR RecentN NewU UnknownCoded value domainMOV_TYPEDescriptionField typeSplit policyMerge policyType of movementStringDuplicateDefault valueDescriptionCodeF FallW FlowS SlideP SpreadT ToppleD Slope DeformationX UnclassifiedCoded DomainsFile GeodatabaseBridge RiverAdditional attribute themes:A = Potential causesB = Land characteristicsC = Editing informationLandslide AttributesPolygon feature class BRR_AOIPolygon feature class Study Area (SA)BRR_StudyAreaPolygon feature class Study Area by reservoirBRR_StudyAreaResLine feature class Faults by BCGSBRR_FaultsBCGS250kPolygon feature class Bedrock Geology by BCGSBRR_GeologyBCGS250kPolygon feature class Bedrock Geology by BCHBRR_GeologyBCHLine feature class Fautls by BCHBRR_FaultsBCHPolygon feature class Bedrock Geology (SA) by BCGSBRR_GeologyClipBCGS250kLine feature class Faults (SA) by BCGSBRR_FaultsClipBCGS250kPoint feature class CommunitiesBRR_CommunityBCGS250kLine feature class General InfrastructureBRR_InfrastructureTRIM20kLine feature class Railway by BCGSBRR_RailwayBCGS250kLine feature class Railway by TRIMBRR_RailwayTRIM20kLine feature class Roads by BCGSBRR_RoadBCGS250kLine feature class Roads by TRIMBRR_RoadTRIM20kPoint feature class Generation SitesBRR_GenerationSitesBCHLine feature class Transmission LinesBRR_TransmissionLinesBCHLine feature class Roads by BCHBRR_RoadBCHPoint feature class Helicopter Landing SitesBRR_HelicopterLandingBCHPoint feature class Cultural FeaturesBRR_CulturalPtsTRIM20kPoint feature class Transmission TowersBRR_TransmissionTowerTRIM20kPoint feature class Surveyed SlopesBRR_SurveyedSlopesBCHLine feature class Survey Tie linesBRR_SurveyTieLinesBCHPoint feature class Survey StationsBRR_SurveyStationsBCHDimension feature class Landslide DimensionsBRR_LSDimensionsLine feature class Reservoir KilometerBRR_ResKmLine feature class Landslide ProfileBRR_LSProfilePoint feature class Reservoir Inspection PicturesBRR_ResInspectionPicsLine feature class Land CoverBRR_LandCoverTRIM20kPolygon feature class Vegetation CoverBRR_VegCoverMoF20kPolygon feature class Historical FiresBRR_HistoricalFiresMoFPoint feature class St. Claus mass pointsStClaus_MassPointsLiDARPolygon feature class St. Claus LiDAR Point InfoStClaus_PointInfoLiDARPolygon feature class TRIM extentBRR_TRIMExtentLine feature class TRIM BreaklinesBRR_BreaklinesTRIM20kPoint feature class TRIM Mass PointsBRR_MassPointsTRIM20kPoint feature class Photo CentreBRR_PhotoCentreTRIM20kLine feature class Contour linesBRR_ContoursTRIM20kPolygon feature class Ice FieldsBRR_IceBCGS250kPolygon feature class Lakes by BCGSBRR_LakeBCGS250kPolygon feature class Lakes by TRIM BRR_LakeTRIM20kaLine feature class Lakes by TRIM BRR_LakeTRIM20klLine feature class Rivers by BCGS BRR_RiverBCGS250kLine feature class Rivers by TRIM BRR_RiverTRIM20kLine feature class Water FeaturesBRR_WaterFeaturesTRIM20kLine feature class Contour lines (St. Claus)StClaus_ContoursLiDARPolygon feature class Lakes (SA) by TRIMBRR_LakeClipTRIM20kPoint feature class Spot ElevationBRR_SpotElevationTRIM20kPoint feature class Toponomy by TRIMBRR_ToponomyTRIM20kPoint feature class Toponomy by GeoBCBRR_ToponomyGeoBCFeature DatasetGeologyFeature DatasetInfrastructureFeature DatasetInvestigation_MonitoringFeature DatasetOtherFeature DatasetRemote_SensingFeature DatasetTopographyFeature DatasetBoundaryFeature DatasetLandslide_HazardsFeature DatasetGeotechnicalPolygon feature class Landslide inventory of the Bridge River areaBRR_LandslideInventoryGeodatabase Structureae CreepAvalancheCoded value domainASSC_DAMDescriptionField typeSplit policyMerge policyAssociated DamStringDuplicateDefault valueDescriptionCodeSON Seton DamTRZ Terzaghi DamLAJ La Joie DamX NonePolygon feature class BRR_SlideTRIM20kPolygon feature class BRR_ExposedBedrkGeoPolygon feature class BRR_QtOverburdenBCGS250kPolygon feature class BRR_OverburdenBCHPolygon feature class BRR_LandSurfTRIM20kaLine feature class BRR_LinearFeaturesPoint feature class BRR_AttitudesLine feature class BRR_LandSurfTRIM20klLine feature class BRR_TerrainLinearsTRIM20kPolygon feature class BRR_TerrainStabMoE20kPolygon feature class BRR_TerrainSurfPolygon feature class BRR_TerrainUnitsSimpArea of Interest (AOI)Linear FeaturesUnclassified slides by TRIMAttitudesOverburden by BCHQuaternary Overburden by BCGSTerrain linears by TRIMTerrain Stability MappingTerrain Units SimplifiedLand Surface FeaturesTerrain Dominant SurfaceLand Surface FeaturesExposed Bedrock143144       APPENDIX II LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY   LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY GENERAL LANDSLIDE INFORMATION OBJECTID Term Object ID Description Unique ID number of feature (Auto-generated by ArcGIS). LS_ID  Term Landslide ID Description Unique ID code generated by BCH to identify the landslide Standard/Criteria A temporary code has been assigned to each landslide as follows:  3 letter code based on the reservoir (as determined by BCH)  2 digit number for the location based on the kilometer upstream from the dam  2 digit number for the landslide based on priority The landslide is identified by a number within a specific kilometer location. Therefore, the landslides in a reservoir can be sorted based on its proximity to the dam. Permitted Values  Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 10 Input Format XXX_##_##  Input Example SON_12_01 Reference BCH LS_NAME  Term Landslide name Description Commonly used or referred name at BCH Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values  Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Note: Not all landslides within the study area have a commonly used or referred name. Data Type Text Data Length 30 Input Format  Input Example Santa Claus Mountain Reference BCH 145LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY FREQ_MONT  Term Frequency of monitoring Description Frequency of landslide monitoring/inspection by BCH Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Coded Domain  CT = Continuously monitored through ADAS  SA = Semi-annually inspected by BCH personnel  AN = Annually inspected by BCH personnel  EF = Every 5-years during reservoir slopes inspection  ET = Every 10-years during reservoir slopes inspection Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Note: All landslides within the study and previously inspected by BCH have been assigned a frequency of monitoring. New landslides added to be database still need to be assigned a frequency. Data Type Text Data Length 5 Input Format XX Input Example EF Reference BCH KEY_DESCR  Term Key description Description Brief and key description of landslide based on BCH inspection report Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values  Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 250 Input Format  Input Example  Reference BCH   146LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY LOCATION CHARACTERISTICS REGION Term BCH Region Description Established BCH region, which may incorporate a group of reservoirs Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values  Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☒ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 20 Input Format  Input Example Bridge River Reference BCH ASSC_DAM  Term Associated Dam Description Name of the dam within the region Standard/Criteria Code is based on BCH dam code (3 letter code) Permitted Values Coded Domain  SON = Seton Dam  TRZ = Terzaghi Dam  LAJ = La Joie Dam  X = None (if outside of study area) Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☒ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 5 Input Format XXX Input Example SON Reference BCH   147LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY ASSC_RES  Term Associated Reservoir Description Name of the reservoir (lake) within the region Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values  Seton Lake  Carpenter Lake  Downton Lake  None (if outside the study area) Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☒ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 20 Input Format [Name] Lake Input Example Seton Lake Reference BCH NRBY_TOWN  Term Nearby town Description Nearest town with respect to the landslide Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values If there is no town nearby, then specify “None” Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 30 Input Format [Name] Input Example Lillooet Reference  TRIM, 1997   148LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY GRID Term Grid (Projection & Datum) Description Name of Datum & Projection Standard/Criteria For the purposes of this project, the datum and projection are set to NAD 83 using UTM coordinates in order to be consistent with the GIS used at BCH Permitted Values  Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☒ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 15 Input Format [Datum]_[Projection Zone] Input Example NAD83_ZONE10N Reference  NORTH Term Northing Description UTM northing coordinate of the landslide centroid (m) Standard/Criteria Calculated using the “Calculate Geometry” tool in ArcGIS: Y-coordinate of the centroid. Permitted Values  Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☒ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Numeric (Double) Data Length  Input Format  Input Example  Reference    149LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY EAST Term Easting Description UTM easting coordinate of the landslide centroid (m) Standard/Criteria Calculated using the “Calculate Geometry” tool in ArcGIS: -coordinate of the centroid Permitted Values  Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☒ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Numeric (Double) Data Length  Input Format  Input Example  Reference  ELEVATION Term Elevation Description Elevation of the landslide centroid (m) Standard/Criteria Estimated based on the TRIM DEM (elevation raster) Permitted Values  Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☒ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Numeric (Double) Data Length  Input Format  Input Example  Reference TRIM, 1997   150LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY APPX_KM  Term Approximate kilometer upstream Description Approximate location in kilometers upstream from the dam Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Only integer values are allowed (i.e. no decimals). If landslide is located downstream from the dam, indicate a negative value. Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Numeric (Short Integer) Data Length  Input Format #  Input Example 2 Reference  SHORE Term Reservoir shore Description Reservoir shore (looking downstream) Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Coded Domain  R = Right shore  L = Left shore Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 5 Input Format X Input Example R Reference     151LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY LANDSLIDE CLASSIFICATION LS_ZONE  Term Landslide zone Description Landslide zone  Standard/Criteria This descriptor is most applicable for rockfalls and debris flows Permitted Values  Source  Path  Deposit Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 10 Input Format  Input Example Source Reference  LS_MAT 1 Term Landslide material (dominant) Description LEVEL 1: Dominant type of landslide material  Standard/Criteria Material type determined based on Hungr et al. 2013. Permitted Values Coded Domain  r = Rock  o = Soil  c = Clay  m = Mud  e = Earth  z = Silt  s = Sand  g = Gravel  b = Boulder  d = Debris  p = Peat Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 5 Input Format x Input Example r 152LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY Reference Hungr et al., 2013 LS_MAT2  Term Landslide material (secondary) Description LEVEL 1: Secondary type of landslide material Standard/Criteria Material type determined based on Hungr et al. 2013. Permitted Values Coded Domain  r = Rock  o = Soil  c = Clay  m = Mud  e = Earth  z = Silt  s = Sand  g = Gravel  b = Boulder  d = Debris  p = Peat Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 5 Input Format x Input Example r Reference Hungr et al., 2013 SOIL_CHAR  Term Soil characteristics Description Characteristics of soil (if known), such as: moisture, plasticity or origin Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Moisture descriptors: Dry, Slightly moist, moist, very moist, muddy Plasticity descriptors: High, Medium, Low, Non-plastic Origin descriptors: Residual, Colluvial, Alluvial, Lacustrine, Marine, Aeolian, Glacial, Volcanic, Organic, Human-made fills/waste Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 250 Input Format [Moisture]/[Plasticity]/[Origin] 153LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY Input Example Dry / Non-plastic / Colluvial Reference Multinational Andean Project, 2009; Hungr et al., 2013 MOV_ TYPE1 Term Movement type (primary) Description LEVEL 2: Primary type of landslide movement Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Coded Domain  F = Fall  T = Topple  S =  Slide  P = Spread  W =  Flow  D = Slope Deformation  X = Unclassified Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Numeric (Short Integer) Data Length  Input Format #  Input Example 2 Reference Hungr et al., 2013 MOV_ TYPE2 Term Movement type (secondary) Description LEVEL 2: Secondary type of landslide movement Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Coded Domain  F = Fall  T = Topple  S =  Slide  P = Spread  W =  Flow  D = Slope Deformation  X = Unclassified Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Numeric (Short Integer) Data Length  154LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY Input Format #  Input Example 2 Reference Hungr et al., 2013 SUB_TYPE1  Term Movement subtype Description LEVEL 3: Subtype descriptor based on primary movement type, if known. Standard/Criteria Optional, depending on data available Permitted Values Coded Domain  b = block  x = flexural  r = rotational  p = planar  w = wedge  c = compound  I = irregular  q = liquefaction  a = avalanche  d = dry  s = slide (flow slide)  m = mountain  e =  creep  f = solifluction  o = flood Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 5 Input Format x (lower case) Input Example r Reference Hungr et al., 2013 OTHER_CHAR  Term Other characteristics Description Other characteristics of interest related to the landslide Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Channelized/unchannelized movement, liquefaction, etc. Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text 155LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY Data Length 150 Input Format  Input Example  Reference Hungr et al., 2013 VELOCITY Term Velocity Description Estimated rate of movement  Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Coded Domain  7 = Extremely rapid (>5x103mm/s or 5 m/s)  6 = Very rapid (>5x101mm/s or 3m/min)  5 = Rapid (>5x10-1mm/s or 1.8 m/hr)  4 = Moderate (>5x10-3mm/s or 13 m/mth)  3 = Slow (>5x10-5mm/s or 1.6 m/yr)  2 = Very slow (>5x10-7mm/s or 16 mm/yr)  1 = Extremely slow (<5x10-7mm/s or 16 mm/yr) Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Numeric (Short Integer) Data Length  Input Format #  Input Example 1 Reference Hungr et al., 2013 (after Cruden and Varnes, 1996) LS_CLASS  Term Landslide classification Description LEVEL 4: Name of landslide based on the JTC Classification (Hungr et al., 2013) Standard/Criteria Levels 1-3 are used in order to assign the final landslide name at Level 4 in the classification. If Level 3 is unknown, then the landslide name is based on Levels 1 and 2 until further investigations are carried out (i.e. rock slide). If all the Level 1-3 are known, then the final landslide name can be determined (i.e. rock rotational slide) Permitted Values  Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 50 Input Format  156LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY Input Example Rock rotational slide Reference Hungr et al., 2013 LS_LABEL  Term Landslide label (symbol) Description Label of landslide feature (for mapping purposes) Standard/Criteria The landslide symbol is a concatenation of the codes used in LEVELS 1-3. It is a two or three letter symbol represented by a one lower case letter for MATERIAL TYPE, one upper case letter for MOVEMENT TYPE, and one lower case letter for the SUBTYPE QUALIFIER (if known). It is best to use the “Field Calculator” in ArcGIS in order to concatenate this field.  Permitted Values  Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 15 Input Format [Material code][Movement code][Subtype descriptor code] Input Example rSr Reference    157LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY MOVEMENT CHARACTERISTICS APPXTIME Term Approximate time Description Approximate timing of initial movement, relative to pre or post dam construction.  Standard/Criteria Based on aerial photo inspection and/or any other data available Permitted Values Coded Domain  A = Ancient: Pleistocene or older  O = Old: Pre-dam construction  R = Recent: Post-dam construction  N = New: After 2010  U = Unknown Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 5 Input Format X Input Example A Reference  LS_DATE1  Term Landslide date (initial) Description Initial date of landslide movement (if new or recent) Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values  Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 10 Input Format YYYY/MM/DD Input Example 2014/01/25 Reference Multinational Andean Project, 2009    158LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY LS_DATE2  Term Landslide date (subsequent) Description Subsequent date of landslide movement (if any) Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values  Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 10 Input Format YYYY/MM/DD Input Example 2014/01/25 Reference Multinational Andean Project, 2009 DISP_AVE  Term Average displacement Description Estimated average displacement (m) Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values  Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Numeric (Short Integer) Data Length  Input Format #  Input Example 2 Reference  DISP_MAX  Term Maximum displacement Description Estimated maximum displacement (m) Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values  Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area 159LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY Data Type Numeric (Short Integer) Data Length  Input Format #  Input Example 2 Reference  STATE Term State Description Relative state of activity or inactivity (timing of movements) of the landslide Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Coded Domain  A = Active Landslide is currently moving  S = Suspended Landslide moved during the last 12 months but is not moving at present. Local cracking in the crown might be present.  I = Inactive Landslide last moved over 12 months ago  D = Dormant Landslide is inactive but the apparent causes for its movement are still present in the environment. The displaced mass begins to regain its tree cover and scarps are modified by weathering.  B = Abandoned Landslide is inactive and the apparent causes for its movement are no longer present in the environment. For example, a river that formerly destabilized the landslide by eroding its toe has changed course permanently.  C = Relict Landslide is very old (thousands or millions of years) and occurred under environmental conditions different than those that presently prevail. Uniform tree cover has been established.  R = Reactivated Landslide has resumed movement after being inactive. The period of inactivity could be tens, hundreds, or thousands of years  Z = Stabilized A condition of stability has been created by artificial remedial measures  Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 5 Input Format X Input Example A Reference Multinational Andean Project, 2009 (after WP/WLI, 1993) STYLE 160LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY Term Style Description Style of activity describing how different movements contribute to the landslide Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Coded Domain  SG = Single Movement confined to a single block or element within the slope  MP = Multiple The same type of failure is repeated within a landslide  CX = Complex A landslide that involves more than one type of failure mode at different points within it  CP = Composite A landslide movement combines more than one type of movement simultaneously  SC = Successive A landslide that succeeds another of the same type on the same slope but it does not involve the material displaced by the proceeding landslide nor its rupture surface  SW = Swarm A landslide is one of many relatively closely spaced failures of the same type in a given area. Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 5 Input Format XX Input Example SG Reference Multinational Andean Project, 2009 (after WP/WLI, 1993)    161LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY DISTRIB Term Distribution Description Distribution of activity describing how a landslide affects or expands into the surrounding terrain Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Coded Domain  AD = Advancing The rupture surface is extending in the same direction as the movement of displaced material  RT = Retrogressing The rupture surface is extending in a direction opposite to the movement of displaced material  EL = Enlarging The rupture surface is extending in two or more directions  DM = Diminishing The volume of the displaced material is decreasing with time  WD = Widening The rupture surface is expanding at one or both lateral margins of the landslide  CF = Confined The displacement in the head of the landslide is taken up by bulging in its lower parts without a rupture surface at the toe  MV = Moving The landslide continues to move but its rupture surface(s) shows no obvious indications of movement Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 5 Input Format XX Input Example AD Reference Multinational Andean Project, 2009 (after WP/WLI, 1993)   162LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY LAND CHARACTERISTICS LAND_COVER  Term Land cover Description Land cover type based on the Level 4 of the BC Land Cover Classification Standard/Criteria Land cover designations follow the Level 4 of the Vegetation Resources Inventory. Non-vegetated codes area the same codes as the VRI. A code is assigned where at least 50% of the landslide area falls within the land cover type. Landslide areas where there are sparse vegetated areas (level 5) have been assigned a rock/rubble code. Permitted Values Coded Domain  VT = Vegetated (Treed): Coniferous/Broadleaf/Mixed  VN = Vegetated (Non-Treed): Shrub/Herb/Bryoid  SI = Snow/Ice  RO = Rock/Rubble  EL = Exposed Land Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 5 Input Format XX Input Example VT Reference Resources Inventory Committee (2002) LAND_USE  Term Land use Description Land use designations based the Lillooet Land and Resource Management Plan.  Standard/Criteria To properly assign a land use code, the Parcels (Tantalis) Land Ownership and Status WMS was used. Even if part of the landslide area overlaps a Private Land and Indian reserve area, such category is assigned. Permitted Values Coded Domain  MU = Multiple Use Area  MG = Designated Mining Area  PA = Protected Areas  PL = Private Land & Indian Reserves Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 5 Input Format XX 163LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY Input Example PV Reference Lillooet Land and Resource Management Plan (2004) POTENTIAL CAUSES CAUSE_PRE  Term Pre-existing condition Description Possible cause based on dominant pre-existing condition Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Ground Conditions:  Plastic weak material  Sensitive material  Collapsible material  Weathered material (physical/chemical)  Sheared material  Jointed or fissured material  Adversely orientated discontinuities  Contrast in permeability  Contrast in stiffness  Geomorphological processes:  Tectonic movement  Volcanic uplift  Glacial rebound  Fluvial erosion of the slope toe  Wave (Ocean/Lake) erosion of the slope toe  Glacial erosion of the slope toe  Subterranean erosion, karst  Removal of vegetation Physical processes:  Intense, short period, rainfall  Prolonged high precipitation  Rapid melt of deep snow  Flooding of a reservoir  Breakout of a crater lake  Wind  Earthquake  Volcanic eruption  Thaw of frozen slope  Continuous or discontinuous permafrost  Expansion and contraction of slope material Man-made processes:  Excavation of slope or at its toe  Loading of slope or at its crest  Rapid draw-down of a reservoir  Irrigation  Poor maintenance of surface drainage  Leakage of water from underground pipes  Deforestation  Mining  Improper disposal of debris/waste  Artificial vibration (blasting, pile driving, traffic) 164LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 100 Input Format  Input Example Jointed or fissured material Reference Multinational Andean Project, 2009 CAUSE_TRIG  Term Triggering event Description Possible cause based on the dominant triggering event Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values See list from attribute “CAUSE_RE” Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 100 Input Format  Input Example Jointed or fissured material Reference Multinational Andean Project, 2009   165LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY MORPHOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS CONFIDENCE Term Confidence Description Confidence on the landslide feature Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Coded Domain  D = Defined  A = Assumed/Estimated  P = Possible  NR = Needs Revision Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 5 Input Format X Input Example D Reference  BOUNDARY Term Boundary Description Percent of the landslide boundary that has been defined and/or estimated. Standard/Criteria Sometimes part of the landslide boundary is difficult to determine. This attribute intends to describe that certain part of the landslide boundary might be estimated/assumed.  Permitted Values  Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 10 Input Format ##D -##E  Input Example 20D-80E Reference    166LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY LENGTH Term Total Length Description Total length of landslide (m) Standard/Criteria The length was determined using the dimension tools in ArcGIS parallel to the direction of movement. Permitted Values  Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Numeric (Short Integer) Data Length  Input Format  Input Example 1000 Reference Multinational Andean Project, 2009 WIDTH Term Width Description Width of landslide (m) Standard/Criteria The width was determined using the dimension tools in ArcGIS perpendicular to the direction of movement. Permitted Values  Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Numeric (Short Integer) Data Length  Input Format  Input Example 1000 Reference Multinational Andean Project, 2009 DEPTH_CONF  Term Depth confidence Description Descriptor indicating the confidence on the depth value Standard/Criteria For the Bridge River area, all depth measurements have been estimated. There are no depth values for debris paths Permitted Values  Determined – depth of rupture surface has been determined from field investigations  Estimated – depth of rupture surface has been estimated or approximated 167LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 10 Input Format  Input Example Estimated Reference  DEPTH Term Depth Description Depth of rupture surface (m) Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values  Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Numeric (Short Integer) Data Length  Input Format XX Input Example 50 Reference Italian Landslide Inventory (IFFI), 2001 AREA Term Area Description Total surface area of landslide (m2) based on polygon boundary. Standard/Criteria Areas are calculated using the “Calculate Geometry” tool in ArcGIS and based on the actual polygon boundary. Permitted Values  Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☒ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Numeric (Float) Data Length  Input Format  Input Example  Reference Italian Landslide Inventory (IFFI), 2001 168LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY VOLUME Term Volume Description Volume of landslide (m3) Standard/Criteria olume is based on the “Area” and “Depth” attributes. Since all depth measurements have been estimated for the Bridge River area, volume calculations are meant to provide rough estimates.  Permitted Values  Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Numeric (Float) Data Length  Input Format  Input Example  Reference Multinational Andean Project, 2009; Italian Landslide Inventory (IFFI), 2001 CROWN_ELEV  Term Crown elevation Description Elevation at crown of the landslide (m) Standard/Criteria Estimated based on the TRIM DEM (elevation raster) Permitted Values  Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Numeric (Short Integer) Data Length  Input Format  Input Example  Reference Italian Landslide Inventory (IFFI), 2001; TRIM, 1997 TOE_ELEV  Term Toe elevation Description Elevation at toe of the landslide (m) Standard/Criteria Estimated based on the TRIM DEM (elevation raster) Permitted Values  169LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Numeric (Short Integer) Data Length  Input Format  Input Example  Reference Italian Landslide Inventory (IFFI), 2001; TRIM, 1997 DIFF_HGHT  Term Height difference Description Difference in elevation between crown and toe (m) Standard/Criteria Difference calculated using Field Calculator tool in ArcGIS based on the “Crown_Elev” and “Toe_Elev” attributes Permitted Values  Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Numeric (Short Integer) Data Length  Input Format  Input Example  Reference Multinational Andean Project, 2009; Italian Landslide Inventory (IFFI), 2001 TR_DIST  Term Travel distance Description Travel distance (m), if known. Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values  Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Numeric (Short Integer) Data Length  Input Format ###  Input Example 300 Reference Multinational Andean Project, 2009 170LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY FAHR Term Fahrboschung Description Fahrboschung angle(degrees), if known  Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values  Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Numeric (Double Integer) Data Length  Input Format ##  Input Example 45 Reference Multinational Andean Project, 2009 SL_ANGLE  SL_AZIMUTH  Term Slope azimuth Description Average slope azimuth (degrees) Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values  Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Term Slope angle Description Average slope angle (degrees) Standard/Criteria Estimated based on the slope raster (derived from TRIM DEM) Permitted Values  Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Numeric (Double Integer) Data Length  Input Format ##  Input Example 25 Reference Italian Landslide Inventory (IFFI), 2001 171LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY Data Type Numeric (Short Integer) Data Length  Input Format ###  Input Example 320 Reference Multinational Andean Project, 2009 LS_AZIMUTH  Term Landslide azimuth Description Azimuth of landslide movement (degrees) Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values  Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Numeric (Short Integer) Data Length  Input Format ###  Input Example 320 Reference Multinational Andean Project, 2009 LS_CROWN  Term Crown position Description Landslide crown position relative to the slope Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Coded Domain  R = Ridge  U = Upper  M = Middle  L = Lower  F = Flood Plain Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 5 Input Format X Input Example U Reference Italian Landslide Inventory (IFFI), 2001 172LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY LS_TOE  Term Toe position Description Landslide toe position relative to the slope Standard/Criteria Landslides reaching the reservoir level have been assigned as flood plain. Permitted Values Coded Domain  R = Ridge  U = Upper  M = Middle  L = Lower  F = Flood Plain Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 5 Input Format X Input Example U Reference Italian Landslide Inventory (IFFI), 2001   173LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY GEOLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS LITHO1 Term Rock type (dominant) Description Dominant type of rock where feature is present (based on BCGS mapping) Standard/Criteria Based on the spatial overlap of landslides and the geological mapping of the study area. Permitted Values Same as the BCGS Geological mapping Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 50 Input Format  Input Example marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks Reference B.C. Geological Survey (2005) LITHO2 Term Rock type (secondary) Description Secondary type of rock where feature is present (based on BCGS mapping) Standard/Criteria Based on the spatial overlap of landslides and the geological mapping of the study area. Permitted Values Same as the BCGS Geological mapping Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 50 Input Format  Input Example marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks Reference B.C. Geological Survey (2005) UNIT Term Geologic Unit Description Geologic unit (Group name) based on the BCGS mapping Standard/Criteria Based on the spatial overlap of landslides and the geological mapping of the study area. Permitted Values Same as the BCGS Geological mapping 174LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 50 Input Format  Input Example Bridge River Complex Reference B.C. Geological Survey (2005) GEO_DESC  Term Geologic description Description Detailed geologic description based on field observation (if any). Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values  Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 250 Input Format  Input Example  Reference BCH RM_STRUCT  Term Rock mass structure Description Rock mass Structure, if known. Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Coded Domain  MS = Massive Rock with virtually no discontinuity  ST = Stratified Rock in which the dominant discontinuity system is formed by the strata  FR = Fractured Rock crossed by joints  FI = Fissile Rock that has the tendency to split into thin layers  MJ = Moderately Jointed Rock intersected by minor and less persistent joints  SC = Schistose  Characteristic of metamorphic rock defined by mineral orientation of laminar or tabular shape  VA = Vacuolar 175LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY Coherent rock within the cavities often not interconnected  CH = Chaotic Block of rock disrupted by a clay or argillic matrix Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 5 Input Format XX Input Example MS Reference Italian Landslide Inventory (IFFI), 2001 WEATHERING Term Weathering Description Weathering of the rock mass, if known Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Coded Domain  FR = Fresh  SW = Slightly weathered  MW = Moderately Weathered  HW = Highly weathered  CW = Completely weathered Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 5 Input Format XX Input Example FR Reference Italian Landslide Inventory (IFFI), 2001 JT_SPACING  Term Joint spacing Description Approximate joint spacing, if known Standard/Criteria  176LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY Permitted Values Coded Domain  VW = Very Wide (> 2m)  W = Wide (60cm to 2m)  M = Moderate (20cm to 60cm)  C = Close (6cm to 20cm)  VC = Very Close (<6cm) Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 5 Input Format XX Input Example VW Reference Italian Landslide Inventory (IFFI), 2001 DS1 Term Discontinuity set (primary) Description Primary discontinuity set (degrees), if known  Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Dip/Dip Direction Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 6 Input Format ##/###  Input Example 60/320 Reference Multinational Andean Project, 2009 DS2 Term Discontinuity set (secondary) Description Secondary discontinuity set (degrees), if known Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Dip/Dip Direction Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text 177LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY Data Length 6 Input Format ##/###  Input Example 60/320 Reference Multinational Andean Project, 2009 DS3 Term Discontinuity set (tertiary) Description Tertiary discontinuity set (degrees), if known Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Dip/Dip Direction Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 6 Input Format ##/###  Input Example 60/320 Reference Multinational Andean Project, 2009 BD_ATTITUDE  Term Bedding attitude Description Bedding attitude, if known Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Coded Domain  HZ = Horizontal  PS = Parallel to Slope  DI = Dipping into the slope  DO = Dipping out of Slope  OS = Obliquely relative to slope Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 5 Input Format XX Input Example HZ Reference Italian Landslide Inventory (IFFI), 2001 NRBY_FAULT  178LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY Term Nearby fault Description Distance to the nearby regional fault (m) Standard/Criteria Regional fault mapping based on BCGS data. Distance derived using ArcGIS “Near” tool. Permitted Values  Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Numeric (Short Integer) Data Length  Input Format  Input Example 1000 Reference B.C. Geological Survey (2005)   179LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY REFERENCE INFORMATION SOURCE Term Source Description Name of Source, either Internal or External Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values BCH, BCGS, Consultant Name, etc. Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☒ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 20 Input Format  Input Example BCH Reference  METHOD Term Method Description Method of input in geodatabase Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Coded Domain  D = Digitized (if hard-copy)  T= Transferred/Copied (if already digital)  VI = Visual Interpretation Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☒ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 5 Input Format XX Input Example VI Reference     180LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY REF_TYPE  Term Reference type Description Reference type Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Coded Domain Hard-copy options:  MAP = Map  REP = Report  MEM = Memo Digital format options:  SHP = Shapefile  CAD = CAD drawing  OTH = Other digital form  Visual inspection options:  AER = Aerial  LID = LiDAR  PGR = Photogrammetry  GEA = Google Earth  ORS = Other Remote Sensing Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☒ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 5 Input Format XXX Input Example LID Reference  REF_CODE  Term Reference code Description Reference code (i.e.: map code) Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Same code as established by BCH Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☒ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 15 Input Format  Input Example 620-C14-D537 181LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY Reference BCH REF_TITLE  Term Reference title Description Reference title (i.e: map title) Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Same title as determined by BCH Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 50 Input Format  Input Example Geology and Reservoir Shoreline Assessment Reference BCH REF_AUTHOR  Term Reference author Description Reference author (i.e: map author) Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Last Name and First name initial Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☒ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 20 Input Format [Last Name] [First Name initial]. Input Example Psutka J. Reference BCH REF_DATE  Term Reference date Description Reference date Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Year and month 182LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☒ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 10 Input Format YYYY/MM Input Example 1999/01 Reference BCH REF_DOC  Term Document Title Description Report/Document title Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Same as report/document title Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☒ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 50 Input Format  Input Example La Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Reference BCH REF_DOCN  Term Document Number Description Report/Document number or code Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values  Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☒ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 10 Input Format  Input Example H1968 Reference BCH 183LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY REF_LOC  Term Primary reference location Description Primary reference location Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Coded Domain  AER = AERS  COR = Corporate Library  DSL = Dam Safety Library  PGS = Photogrammetry Services  DWV = Drawing Vault  OTH = Other (Outside of BCH) Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☒ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 5 Input Format XXX Input Example AER Reference BCH REF_NOTES  Term Reference notes Description Notes about internal reference might include additional informational if in AERS Database such as file folder name and box number. Notes about external reference might include hyperlink or detailed name of reference Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values  Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 250 Input Format  Input Example  Reference BCH  EDITING INFORMATION ADD_BY  184LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY Term Added by Description Name of the person who added the feature to the inventory Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Last Name and First name initial Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☒ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 20 Input Format [Last Name] [First Name initial]. Input Example Baldeon G. Reference  ADD_DATE  Term Added date  Description Date when the feature was added to the inventory Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Year/Month/Day Completeness ☐ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☒ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☒ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 10 Input Format YYYY/MM/DD Input Example 2012/08/26 Reference  EDIT_BY  Term Edited by Description Name of the person who last edited the feature Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Last Name and First name initial Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text 185LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY Data Length 20 Input Format [Last Name] [First Name initial]. Input Example Baldeon G. Reference  EDIT_DATE  Term Edited date Description Date when the feature was last edited  Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Year/Month/Day Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 10 Input Format YYYY/MM/DD Input Example 2012/08/26 Reference     186LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY INSPECTION HISTORY INSP1_BY  Term Inspected by Description Name of BCH personnel who carried out the inspection Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Last Name and First name initial Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 20 Input Format [Last Name] [First Name initial]. Input Example Psutka J. Reference  INSP1_DATE  Term Inspection date Description Date of inspection by BCH personnel Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Year/Month/Day Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 10 Input Format YYYY/MM/DD Input Example 2012/08/26 Reference BCH INSP1_NOTE  Term Inspection notes Description Notes during inspection or changes noted from last inspection by BCH Personnel Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values  187LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 250 Input Format  Input Example  Reference BCH INSP1_ MEMO Term Inspection reference Description Reference for memo inspection  Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values  Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 200 Input Format  Input Example  Reference BCH COMMENTS Term Comments Description Other general comments regarding the landslide Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values  Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 300 Input Format  Input Example  Reference  188LANDSLIDE INVENTORY DATA DICTIONARY PICTURE Term Picture Description Representative picture of the landslide Standard/Criteria  Permitted Values Picture directory path Completeness ☒ Some landslides within the Bridge River study area depending on available data  ☐ All landslides within the Bridge River study area ☐ All landslides outside the Bridge River study area Data Type Text Data Length 100 Input Format  Input Example  Reference BCH  189190       APPENDIX III BRIDGE RIVER LANDSLIDE INVENTORY WITH ATTRIBUTE INFORMATION       BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (DONWTON RESERVOIR)OBJECTIDLS_IDLS_NAMEFREQ_MONTKEY_DESCRREGIONASSC_DAMASSC_RESNRBY_TOWNGRIDNORTHEASTELEVATIONAPPX_KMSHORELS_ZONELS_MAT1LS_MAT2SOIL_CHARMOV_TYPE1MOV_TYPE2SUB_TYPE1OTHER_CHARVELOCITYLS_CLASSLS_LABELAPPX_TIMELS_DATE1LS_DATE2DOWNTON RESERVOIR (LA JOIE DAM)1 LAJ_05_01Green Mountain slide EFRecent debris flows occurred during 1986-1994.Bridge River LAJDownton LakeGold Bridge  NAD83_ZONE10N 5628694 506942 981 5 R Path d W a 6 Debris avalanche dWa R 25/04/19862 LAJ_05_02Green Mountain slide EFRecent debris flows occurred during 1986-1994.Bridge River LAJDownton LakeGold Bridge  NAD83_ZONE10N 5628441 506566 1168 5 R Path d W a 6 Debris avalanche dWa R 25/04/19863 LAJ_05_03Green Mountain slide EFRecent debris flows occurred during 1986-1994.Bridge River LAJDownton LakeGold Bridge  NAD83_ZONE10N 5628571 506418 1092 5 R Path d W a 6 Debris avalanche dWa R 31/12/19944 LAJ_10_01Wedge Drop Mountain ANIntersection of near-orthogonal, weak geological structure has caused wedge type movement at ridge crestBridge River LAJDownton LakeGold Bridge  NAD83_ZONE10N 5629110 501074 1827 10 R r D m 1Mountain slope deformation rDm A5 LAJ_13_01 EF Recent minor rockslide at about El. 1900mBridge River LAJDownton Lake None  NAD83_ZONE10N 5635605 499037 1886 13 L r S 6 Rock slide rS O6 LAJ_18_01 EFArea with two minor, upslope-facing linear scarpsBridge River LAJDownton Lake None  NAD83_ZONE10N 5628519 495082 1994 18 R Source r S Not failed yet. 0 Rock slide rS7 LAJ_20_01 EF Two minor rockfalls at about El. 1700mBridge River LAJDownton Lake None  NAD83_ZONE10N 5632899 492466 1674 20 L Source r F SSource of rock falls and minor rock slides 7 Rock fall rF O8 LAJ_22_01 EFArea where steep planar bedrock structure crosses ridge crest.Bridge River LAJDownton Lake None  NAD83_ZONE10N 5628161 491669 1917 22 R Source r S Not failed yet. 0 Rock slide rS9 LAJ_24_01A EF Area of steep bedrock cliffs.Bridge River LAJDownton Lake None  NAD83_ZONE10N 5628854 489415 1349 24 R Source r F SSource of rock falls and minor rock slides 7 Rock fall rF A10 LAJ_24_01B EFMinor ancient rockfall rock debris at the toe of the bedrock cliffs. The potential exists for similar rockfalls in the future.Bridge River LAJDownton Lake None  NAD83_ZONE10N 5629277 489521 964 24 R Deposit d F 0 Rock fall O11 LAJ_24_02 EFHigh competent bedrock with minor rockfallsBridge River LAJDownton Lake None  NAD83_ZONE10N 5632282 489601 1822 24 L Source r F SSource of rock falls and minor rock slides 7 Rock fall rF A12 LAJ_25_01A EF Area of steep bedrock cliffs.Bridge River LAJDownton Lake None  NAD83_ZONE10N 5629180 488874 1065 25 R Source r F SSource of rock falls and minor rock slides 7 Rock fall rF A13 LAJ_25_01B EFMinor ancient rockfall rock debris at the toe of the bedrock cliffs. The potential exists for similar rockfalls in the future.Bridge River LAJDownton Lake None  NAD83_ZONE10N 5629539 488786 816 25 R Deposit d F 0 Rock fall O191BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (DONWTON RESERVOIR)OBJECTID12345678910111213DISP_AVEDISP_MAXSTATESTYLEDISTRIBCAUSE_PRECAUSE_TRIGLAND_COVERLAND_USECONFIDENCEBOUNDARYLENGTHWIDTHDEPTH_CONFDEPTHAREAVOLUMECROWN_ELEVTOE_ELEVDIFF_HGHTTR_DISTFAHRSL_ANGLESL_AZIMUTHLS_AZIMUTHLS_CROWNLS_TOELITHO1LITHO2UNIT0 0 D SC RO MU D 80D-20E 750 90 Estimated 2 7.3E+04 1.5E+05 1234 745 489 0 0 33 4 4 U Lmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 D SC RO MU D 80D-20E 280 20 Estimated 2 4.9E+03 9.9E+03 1244 1081 163 0 0 31 10 10 U Umarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 D SC RO MU D 80D-20E 540 30 Estimated 2 1.8E+04 3.5E+04 1266 893 373 0 0 35 14 14 U Mmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 A SG CF RO MU D 60D-40E 900 1700 Estimated 100 1.5E+06 1.5E+08 2121 1693 428 0 0 32 58 58 R U granodioritic intrusive rocks None Unnamed0 0 D SG RO MU D 80D-20E 170 90 Estimated 10 1.3E+04 1.3E+05 1945 1831 114 0 0 34 128 128 U U granodioritic intrusive rocks None Unnamed0 0 D SG CF RO MU P 50D-50E 180 370 Estimated 20 8.4E+04 1.7E+06 2080 1931 149 0 0 40 348 348 R R quartz dioritic intrusive rocks None Unnamed0 0 D SG RO MU A 50D-50E 150 40 Estimated 5 7.6E+03 3.8E+04 1722 1622 100 0 0 39 198 198 L L quartz dioritic intrusive rocks None Unnamed0 0 D SG CF RO MU P 60D-40E 280 310 Estimated 50 1.1E+05 5.6E+06 2025 1863 162 0 0 38 11 11 R R quartz dioritic intrusive rocks None Unnamed0 0 A CX RT RO MU D 70D-30E 250 670 Estimated 15 2.6E+05 4.0E+06 1441 1137 304 0 0 56 4 4 M M quartz dioritic intrusive rocks None Unnamed0 0 D CX RO MU D 70D-30E 320 300 Estimated 10 8.6E+04 8.6E+05 1137 832 305 0 0 36 3 3 L L quartz dioritic intrusive rocks None Unnamed0 0 A CX RT RO MU D 70D-30E 280 800 Estimated 15 3.2E+05 4.9E+06 1946 1685 261 0 0 45 195 195 M M quartz dioritic intrusive rocks None Unnamed0 0 A CX RT RO MU D 70D-30E 100 660 Estimated 10 1.1E+05 1.1E+06 1055 938 117 0 0 62 342 342 L L quartz dioritic intrusive rocks None Unnamed0 0 D CX RO MU D 70D-30E 410 240 Estimated 10 8.0E+04 8.0E+05 891 748 143 0 0 19 338 338 L F quartz dioritic intrusive rocks None Unnamed192BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (DONWTON RESERVOIR)OBJECTID12345678910111213GEO_DESCRM_STRUCTWEATHERINGJT_SPACINGDS1DS2DS3BD_ATTITUDENRBY_FAULTSOURCEMETHODREF_TYPEREF_CODEREF_TITLEREF_AUTHORREF_DATEREF_DOCREF_DOCNREF_LOC290 BCH D MAP 620-C14-D537Geology and Reservoir Shoreline Assessment BC Hydro 2000/10 La Joie Dam - OMS OMSLAJ DSL852 BCH D MAP 620-C14-D537Geology and Reservoir Shoreline Assessment BC Hydro 2000/10 La Joie Dam - OMS OMSLAJ DSL668 BCH D MAP 620-C14-D537Geology and Reservoir Shoreline Assessment BC Hydro 2000/10 La Joie Dam - OMS OMSLAJ DSLMassive, medium-coarse grained quartz diorite intruded by 2m thick, medium grey acidic dike. Local granodiorite & low grade metamorphic (Hurley Formation) along lower slopes. Mantled by Bridge River ash. Close to wide spaced joints at crest. FR SW C 65/180 65/045 75/270 2797 BCH D MAP 620-C14-B256 Outline of Potential Slides BC Hydro 1993/02Geological Assessment of Wedge Drop Mountain H2468 DSL3025 BCH VI MEM Photo 11Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Psutka J. 2010/02La Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Memo DSL8524 BCH VI MEM Photo 3Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Psutka J. 2010/02La Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Memo DSL9749 BCH VI MEM Photo 9Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Psutka J. 2010/02La Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Memo DSLStructure dips at about 70deg. toward reservoir. FR SW 11776 BCH VI MEM Photo 5Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Psutka J. 2010/02La Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Memo DSL13414 BCH D MAP UnknownReservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Psutka J. 2010/02La Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Memo DSL13196 BCH D MAP UnknownReservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Psutka J. 2010/02La Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Memo DSL12357 BCH VI MEM Photo 7Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Psutka J. 2010/02La Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Memo DSL13769 BCH D MAP UnknownReservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Psutka J. 2010/02La Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Memo DSL13982 BCH D MAP UnknownReservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Psutka J. 2010/02La Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Memo DSL193BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (DONWTON RESERVOIR)OBJECTID12345678910111213REF_NOTESADD_BYADD_DATEEDIT_BYEDIT_DATEINSP1_BYINSP1_DATEINSP1_NOTEINSP1_MEMOINSP2_BYINSP2_DATEINSP2_NOTEBoundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 24/08/2012 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013 Psutka J. 14/10/2004 No instabilities noted.La Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2004 InspectionPsutka & Jaramillo 16/09/2009 No instabilities noted.Boundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 24/08/2012 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013 Psutka J. 14/10/2004 No instabilities noted.La Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2004 InspectionPsutka & Jaramillo 16/09/2009 No instabilities noted.Boundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 24/08/2012 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013 Psutka J. 14/10/2004 No instabilities noted.La Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2004 InspectionPsutka & Jaramillo 16/09/2009 No instabilities noted.Additional Info. in: Reference document has more detailed information about Wedge Drop; Boundary same as originalBaldeon G. 24/08/2012 Baldeon G. 24/09/2013 Psutka J. 01/09/2009No consistent movement trends are developing across the monitored linears. Ongoing ravelling and minor rockfalls continue; no large changes in the slope deformations were observed since last inspection.Wedge Drop Mountain 2009 Annual Inspection Psutka J. 15/09/2010No consistent movement trends are developing across the monitored linears. Ongoing ravelling and minor rockfalls continue; no large changes in the slope deformations were observed since last inspection.Boundary extent based from aerial interpretation (originally some features/boundary are drawn on inspection photo; location based on map)Baldeon G. 24/08/2012 Baldeon G. 24/09/2013 Psutka J. 14/10/2004 Satisfactory conditionLa Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2004 InspectionPsutka & Jaramillo 16/09/2009 Satisfactory conditionBoundary extent based from aerial interpretation (originally some features/boundary are drawn on inspection photo; location based on map)Baldeon G. 24/09/2013 Baldeon G. 26/09/2013Psutka & Jaramillo 16/09/2009 No signs of recent activity observed.La Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 InspectionBoundary extent based from aerial interpretation (originally some features/boundary are drawn on inspection photo; location based on map)Baldeon G. 01/08/2013 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013 Psutka J. 14/10/2004 Satisfactory conditionLa Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2004 InspectionPsutka & Jaramillo 16/09/2009 Satisfactory conditionBoundary extent based from aerial interpretation (originally some features/boundary are drawn on inspection photo; location based on map)Baldeon G. 24/09/2013 Baldeon G. 26/09/2013Psutka & Jaramillo 16/09/2009 Satisfactory conditionLa Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 InspectionBoundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 01/08/2013 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013 Psutka J. 14/10/2004 Satisfactory conditionLa Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2004 InspectionPsutka & Jaramillo 16/09/2009 Satisfactory conditionBoundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 01/08/2013 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013 Psutka J. 14/10/2004 Satisfactory conditionLa Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2004 InspectionPsutka & Jaramillo 16/09/2009 Satisfactory conditionBoundary extent based from aerial interpretation (originally some features/boundary are drawn on inspection photo; location based on map)Baldeon G. 01/08/2013 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013Psutka & Jaramillo 16/09/2009 No signs of instability.La Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 InspectionBoundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 01/08/2013 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013 Psutka J. 14/10/2004 Satisfactory conditionLa Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2004 InspectionPsutka & Jaramillo 16/09/2009 Satisfactory conditionBoundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 01/08/2013 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013 Psutka J. 14/10/2004 Satisfactory conditionLa Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2004 InspectionPsutka & Jaramillo 16/09/2009 Satisfactory condition194BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (DONWTON RESERVOIR)OBJECTID12345678910111213INSP2_MEMOCOMMENTSPICTUREShape_LengthShape_AreaLa Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection1986 Field Invest: Orig. estimated V=50000 m3 of saturated overburden. Occurred during the night of 24/25 May 1986. Caused by rising temperatures and higher than average rainfall ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2009\P9154731.JPG1642 58 72La Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection1986 Field Invest: Occurred during the night of 24/25 May 1986. Did not reach the reservoir. Caused by rising temperatures and higher than average rainfall ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2012\SAM_0293.JPG577 3994La Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 InspectionProbably occured between 1990-1994. It stopped approximately 100m short of the reservoir. Caused by logging. ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2012\SAM_0293.JPG1131 14083Wedge Drop Mountain 2010 Annual Inspection1986 Field Invest: Slumped 30-50m towards reservoir. Shear surfaces have similar orientation to joint structure; slope movement is structurally controlled. 1993 Report: No basal surface; estimated V=120 Mm3, development of linears during postglacial ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2012\SAM_0308.JPG4292 1176698La Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Present in the 1975 aerial photos ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2009\P9164873.JPG422 1 6482009 Inspection: Upslope facing linear scarp features ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2009\P9164839.JPG1264 65334La Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Present in the 1975 aerial photos ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2009\P9164862.JPG495 58242009 Inspection: Structure dips at about 70deg. toward the reservoir. ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2009\P9164846.JPG994 73214La Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2009\P9164853.JPG1733 131423La Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Present in the 1975 aerial photos (BC7788-27) 2215 72368..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2009\P9164859.JPG2113 5027La Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2009\P9164855.JPG1731 58583La Joie Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Present in the 1975 aerial photos (BC7788-27) 1612 73412195BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (SETON RESERVOIR)OBJECTIDLS_IDLS_NAMEFREQ_MONTKEY_DESCRREGIONASSC_DAMASSC_RESNRBY_TOWNGRIDNORTHEASTELEVATIONAPPX_KMSHORELS_ZONELS_MAT1LS_MAT2SOIL_CHARMOV_TYPE1MOV_TYPE2SUB_TYPE1OTHER_CHARVELOCITYLS_CLASSLS_LABELAPPX_TIMELS_DATE1LS_DATE2SETON RESERVOIR (SETON DAM)14 SON_00_01A EFSteep, rugged bedrock cliffs with talus aprons at their base. Bedrock intruded by nearly horizontal felsic dikes, some with columnar jointingBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5614422 572322 845 0 L Source r F SSource of rock falls and minor rock slides 7 Rock fall rF A15 SON_00_01B EF Talus aprons below a steep rugged slopeBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5613863 572280 421 0 L Deposit d F 0 Rock fall  A16 SON_00_02ASeton Rock Bluffs EFSteep bedrock cliffs with talus aprons at their base. Local areas with apparent open cracksBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5613074 574063 622 -2 R Source r F SSource of rock falls and minor rock slides 7 Rock fall rF A 1997 200417 SON_00_02B EF Talus apronBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5613345 574072 403 -2 R Deposit d F 0 Rock fall  A18 SON_00_03ASeton Rock Bluffs EFSteep bedrock cliffs with talus aprons at their base. Local areas with apparent open cracksBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5613017 573068 586 -1 R Source r F SSource of rock falls and minor rock slides 7 Rock fall rF A19 SON_00_03B EF Talus apronBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5613192 573201 445 -1 R Deposit d F 0 Rock fall  A20 SON_00_03C EFPossible talus bench or slump block at toe of the rock cliffsBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5613364 572889 294 -1 R d X 0 Unclassified dX A21 SON_00_04Seton Rock Bluffs EFSteep bedrock cliffs with talus aprons at their base. Local areas with apparent open cracksBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5612435 573474 1079 -1 R Source r F SSource of rock falls and minor rock slides 7 Rock fall rF A22 SON_00_05A EF Rockfall sourceBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5612374 572684 832 0 R Source r F SSource of rock falls and minor rock slides 7 Rock fall rF A23 SON_00_05B EF Debris/Talus fanBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5612211 572221 420 0 R Deposit d F 0 Rock fall  A24 SON_02_01 Ravelling slopeBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5616145 571339 1634 2 L r D 1Rock slope deformation rD A25 SON_03_01A EFSteep bedrock bluffs, but with very little talus at their baseBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5615371 569521 955 3 L Source r F SSource of rock falls and minor rock slides 7 Rock fall rF A196BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (SETON RESERVOIR)OBJECTID141516171819202122232425DISP_AVEDISP_MAXSTATESTYLEDISTRIBCAUSE_PRECAUSE_TRIGLAND_COVERLAND_USECONFIDENCEBOUNDARYLENGTHWIDTHDEPTH_CONFDEPTHAREAVOLUMECROWN_ELEVTOE_ELEVDIFF_HGHTTR_DISTFAHRSL_ANGLESL_AZIMUTHLS_AZIMUTHLS_CROWNLS_TOELITHO1LITHO2UNIT0 0 A CX RTJointed material RO PL D 70D-30E 970 1300 Estimated 20 1.5E+06 2.9E+07 1452 531 921 0 0 50 164 164 R Lgreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 I CX RO PL D 70D-30E 730 1500 Estimated 15 7.4E+05 1.1E+07 672 243 429 0 0 33 161 161 M Fgreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 A CX RTJointed material RO PL D 100D-0E 60 970 Estimated 10 1.9E+05 1.9E+06 672 559 113 0 0 73 304 304 R Ugreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 I CX VT PL D 100D-0E 420 970 Estimated 15 3.2E+05 4.8E+06 559 248 311 0 0 46 342 342 M Fgreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 A CX RTJointed material RO MU D 100D-0E 110 970 Estimated 10 2.1E+05 2.1E+06 624 400 224 0 0 70 340 340 R Ugreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 I CX RO PL D 80D-20E 250 1500 Estimated 15 5.4E+05 8.0E+06 400 250 150 0 0 33 356 356 M Fgreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 VT PL A 50D-50E 180 420 Estimated 15 6.8E+04 1.0E+06 352 253 99 0 0 29 3 3 L Fgreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 A CX RTJointed material RO MU D 100D-0E 140 1100 Estimated 10 4.1E+05 4.1E+06 1282 973 309 0 0 68 288 288 R Ugreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 A CX RT RO MU D 70D-30E 480 1450 Estimated 15 1.4E+06 2.0E+07 1057 411 646 0 0 63 261 261 R Mgreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 I CX VT MU D 80D-20E 400 1000 Estimated 15 5.0E+05 7.5E+06 411 262 149 0 0 24 261 261 M Fgreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 B SG CF RO MU A 40D-60E 350 1200 Estimated 20 4.2E+05 8.4E+06 1712 1555 157 0 0 29 203 203 R Ugreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 A CX RT RO MU D 80D-20E 910 820 Estimated 15 1.0E+06 1.5E+07 1577 429 1148 0 0 65 184 184 M Lgreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocks NoneBridge River Complex197BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (SETON RESERVOIR)OBJECTID141516171819202122232425GEO_DESCRM_STRUCTWEATHERINGJT_SPACINGDS1DS2DS3BD_ATTITUDENRBY_FAULTSOURCEMETHODREF_TYPEREF_CODEREF_TITLEREF_AUTHORREF_DATEREF_DOCREF_DOCNREF_LOCSolid-looking, hard, well-foliated high grade metamorphic rock, mainly biotite schist, intruded by numerous sills and dykes. Very little jointing. FR MW 1885 BCH T SHP 623-T07-D0004Seton Dam - Reservoir Slope Surveillance Jaramillo M.2009/12Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Memo PGS2072 BCH D MAP 623-C14-D136 Reservoir Slopes BC Hydro 1988/05Seton Dam - Comprehensive Inspection & Review H1968 DSLMeta-seds (mod. strong, laminated- thickly bedded, greywacke, meta-cherty mudstone &shale) interbedded w/ foliated phyllite (DS1-bedding). Intruded & crosscut by dacitic sills & dykes (1.5-5m thick). Joint sets rough & planar (DS2,DS3) FR SW W 10/045 85/120 89/210 DO 1165 BCH D MAP 623-C14-D290 Rock Bluff Terrain Mapping BC Hydro 2004/09Seton Dam - Deficiency Investigation E187 DSL1013 BCH D MAP 623-C14-D290 Rock Bluff Terrain Mapping BC Hydro 2004/09Seton Dam - Deficiency Investigation E187 DSLSolid-looking, hard, well-foliated high grade metamorphic rock, mainly biotite schist, intruded by numerous sills and dykes. Very little jointing. MJ SW 1970 BCH T SHP 623-T07-D0004Seton Dam - Reservoir Slope Surveillance Jaramillo M.2009/12Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Memo PGS1858 BCH D MAP 623-C14-D136 Reservoir Slopes BC Hydro 1988/05Seton Dam - Comprehensive Inspection & Review H1968 DSL2316 BCH VI MEM Photo 2Seton Dam - Reservoir Slope Surveillance Psutka J. 2010/07Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Memo DSLSolid-looking, hard, well-foliated high grade metamorphic rock, mainly biotite schist, intruded by numerous sills and dykes. Very little jointing. MJ SW 1538 BCH T SHP 623-T07-D0004Seton Dam - Reservoir Slope Surveillance Jaramillo M.2009/12Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Memo PGSSolid-looking, hard, well-foliated high grade metamorphic rock, mainly biotite schist, intruded by numerous sills and dykes. Very little jointing. MJ MW 767 BCH T SHP 623-T07-D0004Seton Dam - Reservoir Slope Surveillance Jaramillo M.2009/12Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Memo PGS616 BCH D MAP 623-C14-D136 Reservoir Slopes BC Hydro 1988/05Seton Dam - Comprehensive Inspection & Review H1968 DSL626 BCH VI AER None None Psutka J. 1990 Unknown Unknown OTH200 BCH T SHP 623-T07-D0004Seton Dam - Reservoir Slope Surveillance Jaramillo M.2009/12Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Memo PGS198BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (SETON RESERVOIR)OBJECTID141516171819202122232425REF_NOTESADD_BYADD_DATEEDIT_BYEDIT_DATEINSP1_BYINSP1_DATEINSP1_NOTEINSP1_MEMOINSP2_BYINSP2_DATEINSP2_NOTEBoundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 19/08/2013 Baldeon G. 18/12/2013 Psutka J. 22/07/2005 No signs of recent activity.Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2005 InspectionPsutka & Jaramillo 14/09/2009No signs of recent activity. Rock bluffs with rockfall potential to impact the dam.Boundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 16/08/2012 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013 Psutka J. 22/07/2005 No signs of recent activity.Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2005 InspectionnPsutka & Jaramillo 14/09/2009There are some 2 to 5 m3 rock blocks in the vicinity of the damAppendix H: Power Canal - Potential Rockfall/Slide Assesment (Sept. 29, 2004/ Memo SON00DI-B204); Boundary same as original Baldeon G. 01/07/2013 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013 Psutka J. 22/07/2005No signs of major instabilities on these slopes. Three fine debris chutes contain rock blocks (1-4m diameter). It could not be determined whether the material surrounding the rock blocks was eroding or being deposited.Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2005 InspectionPsutka & Jaramillo 14/09/2009No signs of major instabilities were observed. Three debris chutes contain rock blocks (1-5m diameter). It could not be determined whether the material surrounding the rock blocks was eroding or being deposited.Appendix H: Power Canal - Potential Rockfall/Slide Assesment (Sept. 29, 2004/ Memo SON00DI-B204); Boundary same as original Baldeon G. 01/07/2013 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013Lawrence & Watson 15/02/2002Approx. block sizes: 0.1m in diameter (at apex of talus), 0.5-1.0m (along access road/south side of canal), 2.5-5.0m (north side of canal); At station 2+920m: 3 angular blocks, each approx. 500m3, possibly occurred as a single event Power Canal - Potential Rockfall/Slide Assesment    Aerial photo (high resolution): SRS6464-65/66 (2001); Boundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 19/08/2013 Baldeon G. 18/12/2013 Psutka J. 22/07/2005No signs of major instabilities on these slopes. Three fine debris chutes contain rock blocks (1-4m diameter). It could not be determined whether the material surrounding the rock blocks was eroding or being deposited.Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2005 InspectionPsutka & Jaramillo 14/09/2009No signs of major instabilities were observed. Three debris chutes contain rock blocks (1-5m diameter). It could not be determined whether the material surrounding the rock blocks was eroding or being deposited.Aerial photo (high resolution): SRS6464-65/66 (2001); Boundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 16/08/2012 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013Psutka & Jaramillo 14/09/2009 No signs of major instabilities were observedSeton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection    Boundary extent based from aerial interpretation (originally some features/boundary are drawn on inspection photo); Aerial photo (high resolution): SRS6464-65/66 (2001)Baldeon G. 01/08/2013 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013Psutka & Jaramillo 14/09/2009Prevents individual rock falls from reaching the canalSeton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection    Aerial photo (high resolution): SRS6464-65/66 (2001); Boundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 19/08/2013 Baldeon G. 18/12/2013 Psutka J. 22/07/2005No signs of major instabilities on these slopes. Three fine debris chutes contain rock blocks (1-4m diameter). It could not be determined whether the material surrounding the rock blocks was eroding or being deposited.Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2005 InspectionPsutka & Jaramillo 14/09/2009No signs of major instabilities were observed. Three debris chutes contain rock blocks (1-5m diameter). It could not be determined whether the material surrounding the rock blocks was eroding or being deposited.Boundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 19/08/2013 Baldeon G. 24/09/2013Boundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 16/08/2012 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013Boundary same as originalBaldeon G. 22/01/2013   Boundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 19/08/2013 Baldeon G. 24/09/2013Psutka & Jaramillo 14/09/2009 Satisfactory conditionSeton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection    199BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (SETON RESERVOIR)OBJECTID141516171819202122232425INSP2_MEMOCOMMENTSPICTUREShape_LengthShape_AreaSeton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection2009 Inspection: DS Issue (SON10-6): Investigate the potential for a rockfall to impact and damage the spillway gate or other dam structures ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2012\SAM_0014.JPG12361 72 743Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection1988 CIR: Well-vegetated, sparsely treeed; composed mainly of weathered debris; supported by only a few active narrow talus chutes above; appears fresh & resonably active. Current: DS Issue (SON10-6) Investigate the potential for rockfall to impact & damage the spillway gate or other dam structures ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2012\P1120106.JPG5356 6 8493Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection2004 Field Invest: No feasible med-large scale planar or wedge failures, potential toppling failures. Small scale rockfall events are expected to continue. Maximum credible rockfall event estimated at 450m3 could inundate the canal but would not breach the canal. Could cause 1m high overtopping wave ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2005\172_7239.jpg3029 63790 1988 CIR: Well-vegetated, sparsely treeed; composed mainly of weathered debris; supported by only a few active narrow talus chutes above. ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2005\172_7238.JPG3053 38285Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2009\P9144390.JPG2800 9 801 1988 CIR: Well-vegetated, sparsely treeed; composed mainly of weathered debris; supported by only a few active narrow talus chutes above. ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2005\172_7230.JPG5624 413 3 2009 Inspection:  Possible slide (""slump block"") or talus bench ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2009\P9144390.JPG1045 58 93Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2005\IMG_1182.JPG2700 177352..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2005\172_7223.jpg4181 682484..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2005\172_7223.jpg3472 43 492..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2012\SAM_0565.JPG3106 328154 ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2009\P9154646.JPG3664 4 1106200BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (SETON RESERVOIR)OBJECTIDLS_IDLS_NAMEFREQ_MONTKEY_DESCRREGIONASSC_DAMASSC_RESNRBY_TOWNGRIDNORTHEASTELEVATIONAPPX_KMSHORELS_ZONELS_MAT1LS_MAT2SOIL_CHARMOV_TYPE1MOV_TYPE2SUB_TYPE1OTHER_CHARVELOCITYLS_CLASSLS_LABELAPPX_TIMELS_DATE1LS_DATE226 SON_03_01B EFVery little talus at the base of steep bedrock bluffsBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5614933 569447 353 3 L Deposit d F 0 Rock fall  A27 SON_03_02 EFSteep bedrock bluffs, but with very little talus at their baseBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5614899 569839 441 3 L Source r F SSource of rock falls and minor rock slides 7 Rock fall rF A28 SON_04_01A EFActive ravelling slope intruded by a sub-horizontal felsic dike with columnar cooling jointing.Bridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5615970 569095 1272 4 L Source r F SSource of rock falls and minor rock slides 7 Rock fall rF A29 SON_04_01B EF Prominent, well developed debris fanBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5614890 568825 424 4 L Deposit d F 0 Rock fall  A30 SON_04_02 EFActive talus slopes. Ridge is actively ravelling and spallingBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5612273 568198 1663 4 R Deposit d S 0 Rock slide rS A31 SON_04_03 EFActive talus slopes. Ridge is actively ravelling and spallingBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5612205 567844 1622 4 R Deposit d S 0 Rock slide rS A32 SON_04_04 EFBedrock failure involving about 1 to 1.5 Mm3 of material. The failure mass has apparently slumped downslope along a set of steeply digging fractures.Bridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5612033 567774 1687 4 R r S 1 Rock slide rS A33 SON_04_05 EFActive talus slopes. Ridge is actively ravelling and spallingBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5612663 568301 1321 4 R Path r F 7 Rock fall rF A34 SON_04_06 EF Active talus slopesBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5612988 568468 1082 4 R Path r F 7 Rock fall rF A35 SON_05_01Repeater Station mountain peak EFMountain peak graben with typical inward dipping structures on peak. Other lineaments cross the drainage downslope from the peakBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5618316 567903 2049 5 L r D m 1Mountain slope deformation (Double-sided) rDm A36 SON_05_02 EFBedrock failure involving about 1 to 1.5 Mm3 of material. The failure mass has apparently slumped downslope along a set of steeply dipping fractures.Bridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5612865 567453 1231 5 R r S 1 Rock slide rS A37 SON_05_03 EF Active, narrow talus chutesBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5615832 567583 697 5 L Path r F 7 Rock fall rF A38 SON_06_01 EF Rockfall sourceBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5614428 565931 402 6 R Source r F SSource of rock falls and minor rock slides 7 Rock fall rF A39 SON_08_01 EFTranslational slide near the ridge crest. Well developed linears are present in the headscarp area.Bridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5619691 566341 2006 8 L r S 3 Rock slide rS A40 SON_08_02 EFAncient slump with numerous lineaments in unnamed drainageBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5618540 565667 1569 8 L r S 3 Rock slide rS A201BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (SETON RESERVOIR)OBJECTID262728293031323334353637383940DISP_AVEDISP_MAXSTATESTYLEDISTRIBCAUSE_PRECAUSE_TRIGLAND_COVERLAND_USECONFIDENCEBOUNDARYLENGTHWIDTHDEPTH_CONFDEPTHAREAVOLUMECROWN_ELEVTOE_ELEVDIFF_HGHTTR_DISTFAHRSL_ANGLESL_AZIMUTHLS_AZIMUTHLS_CROWNLS_TOELITHO1LITHO2UNIT0 0 I CX RO PL D 80D-20E 260 500 Estimated 10 1.4E+05 1.4E+06 429 260 169 0 0 34 182 182 L Fgreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 A MP RO MU D 60D-40E 270 580 Estimated 10 2.4E+05 2.4E+06 601 253 348 0 0 53 205 205 L Fgreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 A CX RTJointed material RO MU D 100D-0E 950 400 Estimated 30 5.0E+05 1.5E+07 1786 711 1075 0 0 58 196 196 M Lgreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocksmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocksBridge River Complex0 0 I CX VT MU D 100D-0E 900 1400 Estimated 50 6.3E+05 3.1E+07 711 243 468 0 0 29 197 197 M Fgreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 A MP RT RO MU D 80D-20E 170 110 Estimated 15 1.9E+04 2.9E+05 1713 1609 104 0 0 34 356 356 R Umarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 A MP RT RO MU D 60D-40E 270 190 Estimated 15 5.3E+04 7.9E+05 1705 1566 139 0 0 29 340 340 R Umarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 B SG CF RO MU D 60D-40E 200 200 Estimated 30 3.5E+04 1.1E+06 1759 1632 127 0 0 44 357 357 R Rmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 A CX RO MU D 70D-30E 800 110 Estimated 5 7.9E+04 3.9E+05 1601 892 709 0 0 43 2 2 R Mmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 A CX RO MU D 80D-20E 600 50 Estimated 2 3.5E+04 7.1E+04 1294 800 494 0 0 43 347 347 U Mgreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 C CX CF RO MU A 80D-20E 1900 1500 Estimated 50 2.2E+06 1.1E+08 2426 1955 471 0 0 34 246 246 R Umarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 B SG DM VT MU NR 40D-60E 600 340 Estimated 50 2.0E+05 1.0E+07 1332 1112 220 0 0 21 328 328 U Mmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 A SC RO MU D 80D-20E 900 20 Estimated 2 1.7E+05 3.4E+05 1068 435 633 0 0 35 196 196 M Lgreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 A MP RT RO MU D 80D-20E 160 1200 Estimated 10 3.4E+05 3.4E+06 559 243 316 0 0 64 24 24 L Fgreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 D MP AD RO MU A 50D-50E 950 550 Estimated 30 3.7E+05 1.1E+07 2201 1705 496 0 0 29 198 198 R Umarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 D SG DM EL MU A 50D-50E 1200 400 Estimated 50 5.2E+05 2.6E+07 1925 1310 615 0 0 29 158 158 U Lgreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocks NoneBridge River Complex202BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (SETON RESERVOIR)OBJECTID262728293031323334353637383940GEO_DESCRM_STRUCTWEATHERINGJT_SPACINGDS1DS2DS3BD_ATTITUDENRBY_FAULTSOURCEMETHODREF_TYPEREF_CODEREF_TITLEREF_AUTHORREF_DATEREF_DOCREF_DOCNREF_LOC1097 BCH D MAP 623-C14-D136 Reservoir Slopes BC Hydro 1988/05Seton Dam - Comprehensive Inspection & Review H1968 DSL1141 BCH D MAP 623-C14-D136 Reservoir Slopes BC Hydro 1988/05Seton Dam - Comprehensive Inspection & Review H1968 DSLSub-horizontal felsic dike with columnar cooling jointing, intruded into massive, well jointed metamorphosed Bridge River rocks FR MW 0 BCH D MAP 623-C14-D136 Reservoir Slopes BC Hydro 1988/05Seton Dam - Comprehensive Inspection & Review H1968 DSL816 BCH D MAP 623-C14-D136 Reservoir Slopes BC Hydro 1988/05Seton Dam - Comprehensive Inspection & Review H1968 DSL71 BCH D MAP 623-C14-D136 Reservoir Slopes BC Hydro 1988/05Seton Dam - Comprehensive Inspection & Review H1968 DSL244 BCH D MAP 623-C14-D136 Reservoir Slopes BC Hydro 1988/05Seton Dam - Comprehensive Inspection & Review H1968 DSLHas a set of steeply dipping fractures FR MW 246 BCH D MAP 623-C14-D136 Reservoir Slopes BC Hydro 1988/05Seton Dam - Comprehensive Inspection & Review H1968 DSL0 BCH D MAP 623-C14-D136 Reservoir Slopes BC Hydro 1988/05Seton Dam - Comprehensive Inspection & Review H1968 DSL0 BCH D MAP 623-C14-D136 Reservoir Slopes BC Hydro 1988/05Seton Dam - Comprehensive Inspection & Review H1968 DSL167 BCH D MAP 623-C14-D136 Reservoir Slopes BC Hydro 1988/05Seton Dam - Comprehensive Inspection & Review H1968 DSL187 BCH VI MEM Photo 21Seton Dam - Reservoir Slope Surveillance Psutka J. 2010/07Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Memo DSL802 BCH D MAP 623-C14-D136 Reservoir Slopes BC Hydro 1988/05Seton Dam - Comprehensive Inspection & Review H1968 DSL0 BCH T SHP 623-T07-D0004Seton Dam - Reservoir Slope Surveillance Jaramillo M.2009/12Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Memo PGS0 BCH D MAP 623-C14-D136 Reservoir Slopes BC Hydro 1988/05Seton Dam - Comprehensive Inspection & Review H1968 DSL0 BCH VI MEM Photo 8Seton Dam - Reservoir Slope Surveillance Psutka J. 2010/07Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Memo DSL203BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (SETON RESERVOIR)OBJECTID262728293031323334353637383940REF_NOTESADD_BYADD_DATEEDIT_BYEDIT_DATEINSP1_BYINSP1_DATEINSP1_NOTEINSP1_MEMOINSP2_BYINSP2_DATEINSP2_NOTEBoundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 16/08/2012 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013Psutka & Jaramillo 14/09/2009 Satisfactory conditionSeton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 InspectionBoundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 22/01/2013 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013Psutka & Jaramillo 14/09/2009 Satisfactory conditionSeton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 InspectionBoundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 16/08/2012 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013 Psutka J. 22/07/2005 Satisfactory conditionSeton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2005 InspectionPsutka & Jaramillo 14/09/2009 Satisfactory conditionBoundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 16/08/2012 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013 Psutka J. 22/07/2005 Satisfactory conditionSeton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2005 InspectionPsutka & Jaramillo 14/09/2009 Satisfactory conditionBoundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 16/08/2012 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013 Psutka J. 22/07/2005 Active talus slopesSeton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2005 InspectionBoundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 16/08/2012 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013 Psutka J. 22/07/2005 Active talus slopesSeton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2005 InspectionBoundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 19/08/2013 Baldeon G. 24/09/2013 BC Hydro 01/09/1987Distinct, rounded linear trough runs along backscarp; fresh talus accumulated along backscarp; more fractured than surrounding rock; many large blocks are releasing downslope along steeply dipping fractures; failure mass has slumped downslopeSeton Dam - 1988 Comprehensive Inspection & ReviewBoundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 16/08/2012 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013 Psutka J. 22/07/2005 Active talus slopesSeton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2005 InspectionBoundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 22/01/2013 Baldeon G. 18/12/2013 Psutka J. 22/07/2005 Active talus slopesSeton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2005 InspectionBoundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 16/08/2012 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013 Psutka J. 22/07/2005 No signs of instability observedSeton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2005 InspectionPsutka & Jaramillo 14/09/2009No signs of recent activity. However, loose rubble in trough of prominent linear may obscure any signs of recent activity.Boundary extent based from aerial interpretation (originally some features/boundary are drawn on inspection photo). Revise boundary extent: mapped near the ridge in the 1988 Seton CIRBaldeon G. 01/08/2013 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013 Psutka J. 22/07/2005No signs of instability observed. New logging road provides access into this slump areaSeton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2005 InspectionPsutka & Jaramillo 14/09/2009 No signs of instability observedBoundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 16/08/2012 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013Boundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 19/08/2013 Baldeon G. 24/09/2013Boundary edited from original; Revise boundary extent: In 1988 CIR smaller boundary, in 2009 map greater extentBaldeon G. 16/08/2012 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013Psutka & Jaramillo 14/09/2009 Satisfactory conditionSeton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection    Boundary extent based from aerial interpretation (originally some features/boundary are drawn on inspection photo; location based on map)Baldeon G. 01/08/2013 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013Psutka & Jaramillo 14/09/2009The 2009 forest fire removed much of the vegetation and revealed numerous lineaments. Several sag ponds are located in the linear depressions. Fresh, green vegetation has begun to flourish in damp areas of the slope.Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection    204BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (SETON RESERVOIR)OBJECTID262728293031323334353637383940INSP2_MEMOCOMMENTSPICTUREShape_LengthShape_Area..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2009\P9154645.JPG2268 115048..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2009\P9154646.JPG1508 141795Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection1988 CIR: Known as "Area 4". Entire exposure is intensely scoured and is very actively spalling and ravelling. Only aerial inspection, no previous field investigation ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2012\SAM_0562.JPG2438 4 124Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection 1988 CIR: Known as ""Area 4"" ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2009\P9154645.JPG3584 557542..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2005\172_7243.JPG521 15470..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2005\172_7243.JPG942 449891988 CIR: Known as "Area 1". Originally estimated V = 1-1.5 Mm3 (200x300x15-25m). Only aerial inspection, no previous field investigation ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2005\172_7243.JPG594 24689..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2009\P9154650.JPG2086 54 2..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2009\P9154650.JPG1383 24207Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2005\172_7218.jpg5501 1754 85Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Revise boundary extent (mapped at the ridge crest in 1988 CIR) ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2009\P9154652.JPG1674 183651..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2009\P9154571.JPG9233 114412..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2005\172_7209.JPG2651 1489 8 ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2009\P9154446.JPG2590 3 6385 ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2009\P9154472.JPG3158 441425205BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (SETON RESERVOIR)OBJECTIDLS_IDLS_NAMEFREQ_MONTKEY_DESCRREGIONASSC_DAMASSC_RESNRBY_TOWNGRIDNORTHEASTELEVATIONAPPX_KMSHORELS_ZONELS_MAT1LS_MAT2SOIL_CHARMOV_TYPE1MOV_TYPE2SUB_TYPE1OTHER_CHARVELOCITYLS_CLASSLS_LABELAPPX_TIMELS_DATE1LS_DATE241 SON_09_01 EF Minor rotational rockslideBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5620427 563539 2074 9 L r S r 2 Rock rotational slide rSr A42 SON_09_02 EF Minor rotational rockslideBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5620889 563606 2136 9 L r S r 2 Rock rotational slide rSr A43 SON_09_03 EF Minor rotational rockslideBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5619515 563510 1915 9 L r S r 2 Rock rotational slide rSr A44 SON_10_01 EFLinear structure in heavily forested slope near crest of ridgeBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5611580 561263 1875 10 R r S 1 Rock slide rS A45 SON_10_02 EFSeveral discontinous open cracks at ridge crest, above a slumped slopeBridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5619831 563121 2124 10 L r D 1Rock slope deformation rD A46 SON_12_01 EF Wedge type failure on ridge crest.Bridge River SON Seton Lake Lillooet  NAD83_ZONE10N 5612226 559630 2082 12 R r S w 1 Wedge slide rSw A47 SON_13_01 EFHighly weathered and dissected slope which is actively ravelling.Bridge River SON Seton Lake Shalalth  NAD83_ZONE10N 5619583 562328 1709 13 L Source r F SSource of rock falls and minor rock slides 7 Rock fall rF A48 SON_14_01Madeline Creek slide EFAncient, vegetated rotational rockslide in the headwaters of Madeline Creek (east)Bridge River SON Seton Lake Shalalth  NAD83_ZONE10N 5621086 562955 2118 14 L r S r 2 Rock rotational slide rSr A49 SON_14_02Madeline Creek slide EFRotational rockslide in the headwaters of Madeline Creek (west)Bridge River SON Seton Lake Shalalth  NAD83_ZONE10N 5621423 562395 2105 14 L r S r 2 Rock rotational slide rSr A50 SON_16_01Santa Claus Mountain ANThe prominent scarp, along with the array of well-developed, uphill facing linear scarps could define a 500 Mm3 of potentially unstable material.Bridge River SON Seton Lake Shalalth  NAD83_ZONE10N 5616337 556691 1346 16 R r D m 2Mountain slope deformation (Single-sided) rDm A51 SON_17_01Microwave Domes EFBedrock failure involving extremely fractured and jointed rock transected by open (but inactive) extension cracks, located in the vicinity of two abandoned communication domes on the ridge crest.Bridge River SON Seton Lake Shalalth  NAD83_ZONE10N 5623733 558535 2060 17 L r T 1 Rock topple rT A52 SON_17_02 Mission Ridge EFBedrock toppling failures of the ridge crest in massive granodiorite of the Mission Ridge Pluton.Bridge River SON Seton Lake Shalalth  NAD83_ZONE10N 5622725 559291 1965 17 L r T 2 Rock topple rT A53 SON_18_01Bridge River SON Seton Lake Shalalth  NAD83_ZONE10N 5623154 556628 1639 18 L r D 1Rock slope deformation rD A54 SON_18_02Bridge River SON Seton Lake Shalalth  NAD83_ZONE10N 5623749 556381 1788 18 L r S 1 Rock slide rS A206BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (SETON RESERVOIR)OBJECTID4142434445464748495051525354DISP_AVEDISP_MAXSTATESTYLEDISTRIBCAUSE_PRECAUSE_TRIGLAND_COVERLAND_USECONFIDENCEBOUNDARYLENGTHWIDTHDEPTH_CONFDEPTHAREAVOLUMECROWN_ELEVTOE_ELEVDIFF_HGHTTR_DISTFAHRSL_ANGLESL_AZIMUTHLS_AZIMUTHLS_CROWNLS_TOELITHO1LITHO2UNIT0 0 D SC DM RO MU NR 60D-40E 380 320 Estimated 30 1.2E+05 1.9E+06 2159 1997 162 0 0 24 119 119 U Ugreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocksmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocksBridge River Complex0 0 D SC DM RO MU NR 50D-50E 350 150 Estimated 15 6.2E+04 4.9E+05 2241 2027 214 0 0 32 140 140 U Ugreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocksmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocksBridge River Complex0 0 C SG CF VT MU NR 50D-50E 470 610 Estimated 50 2.2E+05 5.8E+06 2015 1839 176 0 0 23 136 136 U Mgreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 B SG CF VT MU A 50D-50E 150 460 Estimated 25 7.7E+04 1.9E+06 1858 1828 30 0 0 39 24 24 R Umarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 B CX CF RO MU NR 50D-50E 630 250 Estimated 30 1.8E+05 5.5E+06 2202 2024 178 0 0 17 138 138 R Ugreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 D SG CF RO MU A 50D-50E 300 480 Estimated 50 1.1E+05 5.3E+06 2146 2019 127 0 0 26 280 280 R Umarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 A MP RT RO MU D 80D-20E 1150 680 Estimated 20 8.9E+05 1.8E+07 2165 1293 872 0 0 40 232 232 R Ugreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 D MP AD RO MU D 80D-20E 600 320 Estimated 30 1.3E+05 2.1E+06 2246 1970 276 0 0 26 281 281 U Umarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 D MP WD RO MU D 80D-20E 410 450 Estimated 30 1.6E+05 2.5E+06 2184 1985 199 0 0 27 178 178 U Umarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 A CX CF EL MU D 60D-40E 2500 5000 Estimated 200 1.2E+07 1.3E+09 2156 930 1226 0 0 34 18 18 R Lmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 A CX CF RO MU D 80D-20E 420 320 Estimated 60 1.2E+05 3.9E+06 2175 1925 250 0 0 42 185 185 R R granodioritic intrusive rocks None Unnamed0 0 A CX RT RO MU D 80D-20E 760 2400 Estimated 20 1.4E+06 2.9E+07 2183 1639 544 0 0 41 218 218 R Ugreenstone, greenschist metamorphic rocksgranodioritic intrusive rocksBridge River Complex0 0 C SG CF VT MU P 60D-40E 890 500 Estimated 30 3.3E+05 9.8E+06 1743 1522 221 0 0 17 198 198 R Rmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 C SG CF VT MU P 60D-40E 600 300 Estimated 30 1.6E+05 4.9E+06 1829 1755 74 0 0 18 227 227 U Umarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex207BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (SETON RESERVOIR)OBJECTID4142434445464748495051525354GEO_DESCRM_STRUCTWEATHERINGJT_SPACINGDS1DS2DS3BD_ATTITUDENRBY_FAULTSOURCEMETHODREF_TYPEREF_CODEREF_TITLEREF_AUTHORREF_DATEREF_DOCREF_DOCNREF_LOC0 BCH VI MEM NoneSeton Dam - Reservoir Slope Surveillance Psutka J. 2010/07Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Memo DSL451 BCH VI MEM NoneSeton Dam - Reservoir Slope Surveillance Psutka J. 2010/07Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Memo DSL474 BCH VI MEM NoneSeton Dam - Reservoir Slope Surveillance Psutka J. 2010/07Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Memo DSL708 BCH VI MAP 623-T07-D0004Seton Dam - Reservoir Slope Surveillance Psutka J. 2010/07Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Memo DSL190 BCH VI MAP 623-C14-D136 Reservoir Slopes BC Hydro 1988/05Seton Dam - Comprehensive Inspection & Review H1968 DSL1723 BCH VI MEM Photo 18-19Seton Dam - Reservoir Slope Surveillance Psutka J. 2010/07Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Memo DSL345 BCH D MAP 623-C14-D136 Reservoir Slopes BC Hydro 1988/05Seton Dam - Comprehensive Inspection & Review H1968 DSL0 BCH VI MEM Photo 10Seton Dam - Reservoir Slope Surveillance Psutka J. 2010/07Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Memo DSL0 BCH T MAP 623-T07-D0004Seton Dam - Reservoir Slope Surveillance Psutka J. 2010/07Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Memo DSLMetasedimentary (solid, well-bedded [DS1] argillite, ribbon/nodular chert) overlain by metavolcanic (massive to phyllitic greenstone & volcanic flows/breccia - tightly fractured) with scattered heavily fractured limestone. Orthogonal Jts (DS2-3) FR SW W 40/220 75/240 75/60 DI 3644 BCH VI MAP 623-C14-U139Santa Claus Mountain - Site Geological Plan BC Hydro 1988/08St. Claus Mt. 1987 Geological Mapping & Monitoring H2013 DSLExtremely fractured and jointed granitic rock. Closely spaced joint system (DS1-average) that parallels the slope and dips downslope at about 40deg. FR MW C 40/220 929 BCH D MAP 623-C14-D136 Reservoir Slopes BC Hydro 1988/05Seton Dam - Comprehensive Inspection & Review H1968 DSLExtremely fractured, broken and shattered, highly weathered granitic rock with a scoured looking appearance FR HW C 174 BCH D MAP 623-C14-D136 Reservoir Slopes BC Hydro 1988/05Seton Dam - Comprehensive Inspection & Review H1968 DSL0 BC TSM T SHP STTRSTBLTPTerrain Stability Mapping (TSM) Detailed Polygons MoE 2010/03Terrain Stability Mapping (TSM) Detailed Polygons None OTH0 BC TSM T SHP STTRSTBLTPTerrain Stability Mapping (TSM) Detailed Polygons MoE 2010/03Terrain Stability Mapping (TSM) Detailed Polygons None OTH208BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (SETON RESERVOIR)OBJECTID4142434445464748495051525354REF_NOTESADD_BYADD_DATEEDIT_BYEDIT_DATEINSP1_BYINSP1_DATEINSP1_NOTEINSP1_MEMOINSP2_BYINSP2_DATEINSP2_NOTEBoundary extent based from aerial interpretation (originally mentioned in document; exact location TBD); Revise boundary extentBaldeon G. 22/01/2013 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013 Psutka J. 22/07/2005 No signs of recent instability observed.Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2005 InspectionPsutka & Jaramillo 14/09/2009 No signs of recent activityBoundary extent based from aerial interpretation (originally mentioned in document; exact location obtained from Monica's registry); Revise boundary extentBaldeon G. 22/01/2013 Baldeon G. 24/09/2013 Psutka J. 22/07/2005 No signs of recent instability observed.Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2005 InspectionPsutka & Jaramillo 14/09/2009 No signs of recent activityBoundary extent based from aerial interpretation (originally mentioned in document; exact location TBD); Revise boundary extentBaldeon G. 01/08/2013 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013 Psutka J. 22/07/2005 No signs of recent instability observed. Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2005 InspectionPsutka & Jaramillo 14/09/2009 No signs of recent activityBoundary extent based from aerial interpretation (originally some features or point location appear on map)Baldeon G. 19/08/2013 Baldeon G. 24/09/2013 Psutka J. 22/07/2005No signs of instability observed. Slide blocks observed through the trees on the slope.Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2005 InspectionPsutka & Jaramillo 14/09/2009 No signs of recent activityBoundary extent based from aerial interpretation (originally some features or point location appear on 2001 map); Revise boundary extentBaldeon G. 16/08/2012 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013 Psutka J. 29/08/2001 Satisfactory conditionSeton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2001 Inspection Psutka J. 22/07/2005 No signs of recent instability observedBoundary extent based from aerial interpretation (originally some features/boundary are drawn on inspection photo; location based on map)Baldeon G. 01/08/2013 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013Psutka & Jaramillo 14/09/2009No signs of recent activity. Estimated V=8 Mm3 (400m x 400m x 100m/2)Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection    Boundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 16/08/2012 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013Boundary extent based from aerial interpretation (originally some features/boundary are drawn on inspection photo; 2009 map shows greater extent)Baldeon G. 22/01/2013 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013 Psutka J. 22/07/2005 No signs of instability observed.Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2005 InspectionPsutka & Jaramillo 14/09/2009 Satisfactory conditionBoundary same as original Baldeon G. 22/01/2013 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013Psutka & Jaramillo 14/09/2009 Satisfactory conditionSeton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection    Boundary extent based from aerial interpretation (originally some features or point location appear on map)Baldeon G. 29/08/2013 Baldeon G. 08/12/2013 Psutka J. 01/09/2009Downslope movement across Prominent Linear: 2.5-5mm/yr (vertical). No large scale changes in slope morphology since last inspection.St. Claus Mt. 2009 Annual Inspection Psutka J. 15/09/2010Downslope movement across Prominent Linear: 2.5-5mm/yr (vertical). No large scale changes in slope morphology since last inspection. Boundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 16/08/2012 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013 Psutka J. 22/07/2005No signs of recent instability observed. No change from previous inspectionSeton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2005 InspectionPsutka & Jaramillo 14/09/2009The area east of the communication domes appears to be more active than the area of open extension cracks. Boundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 16/08/2012 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013Psutka & Jaramillo 14/09/2009The area along the ridge shows signs of active toppling and appears to be more active than the area of open extension cracksSeton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection    https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=58937&recordSet=ISO19115; Boundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 19/08/2013 Baldeon G. 24/09/2013https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=58937&recordSet=ISO19115; Boundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 19/08/2013 Baldeon G. 24/09/2013209BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (SETON RESERVOIR)OBJECTID4142434445464748495051525354INSP2_MEMOCOMMENTSPICTUREShape_LengthShape_AreaSeton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 InspectionRevise boundary extent: location discrepancy between 2001/2005/2009 Inspections (2009 Inspection mentions ""two minor rotational slides"" yet map shows greater landslide extent) ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2005\172_7210.JPG1229 11 106Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 InspectionRevise boundary extent: location discrepancy between 2001/2005/2009 Inspections (location based on Monica's registry; 2009 map shows different location) ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2005\172_7211.jpg922 5 294Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 InspectionRevise boundary extent: location discrepancy between 2001/2005/2009 Inspections (shown in 2001 Inspection as slump slope in Photo 7) ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2005\172_7210.JPG1644 187460Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2009\P9154658.JPG1147 61317Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2005 Inspection Revise boundary extent ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2001\18.jpg2263 168096 ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2009\P9154680.JPG1234 924771988 CIR: Highly weathered and dissected slope which is actively ravelling. ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2009\P9154503.JPG3113 631505Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2009\P9154495.JPG1461 117707 ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2009\P9154482.JPG1420 138632St. Claus Mt. 2010 Annual Inspection1987 Field Invest: Orig. estimated V=500 Mm3; existence of basal sliding surface inconclusive; little evidence of instability in lower flanks. Current: Reassess the stability of St. Claus Mt. (DS Issue: SON10-07) to define limits of potential/active slide & determine the nature of the active area ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2005\171_7194.JPG12990 9366480Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection1988 CIR: Known as ""Area 3"". Orig. estimated V=3-4.5 Mm3 (300x200x50-75m). Failure mass likely sagged/relaxed downslope along DS1. Several open cracks 5m W x 5-7m D. Circular depression along boundaries suggest some shear displacement occurred downslope (probable development of basal failure plane ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2009\P9154522.JPG1138 94010 1988 CIR: Extremely fractured, broken and shattered, highly weathered granitic rock with a scoured looking appearance. Although no large scale instabilities were observed, the slope is very actively spalling and ravelling with many loose, toppling rock blocks. ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2012\SAM_0540.JPG6913 997109Mapped in Terrain Classification as F2F""m (Initiation zone for a bedrock slump - slow mass movement); Located below inactive linear (shown in 2005/2009 Inspections) ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2012\SAM_0539.JPG2537 97970Mapped in Terrain Classification as F2 (some type of slow mass movement). ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2012\SAM_0539.JPG1596 147440210BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (SETON RESERVOIR)OBJECTIDLS_IDLS_NAMEFREQ_MONTKEY_DESCRREGIONASSC_DAMASSC_RESNRBY_TOWNGRIDNORTHEASTELEVATIONAPPX_KMSHORELS_ZONELS_MAT1LS_MAT2SOIL_CHARMOV_TYPE1MOV_TYPE2SUB_TYPE1OTHER_CHARVELOCITYLS_CLASSLS_LABELAPPX_TIMELS_DATE1LS_DATE255 SON_18_03Bridge River SON Seton Lake Shalalth  NAD83_ZONE10N 5623962 556072 1875 18 L r S 1 Rock slide rS A56 SON_20_01St. Claus Mt-North Face Bench ANArea of recent instability, where tension cracks have developed and appear to be active. Volume of material involved is relatively small (10's to 100's of m3) but that could change.Bridge River SON Seton Lake Shalalth  NAD83_ZONE10N 5615762 555550 2132 20 R r D 2Rock slope deformation rD A57 SON_20_02St. Claus Mt-upper alpine area ANArea of steep rugged outcropping, which is actively ravellingBridge River SON Seton Lake Shalalth  NAD83_ZONE10N 5615955 555562 1970 20 R Source r F SSource of rock falls and minor rock slides 7 Rock fall rF A58 SON_20_03St. Claus Mt-lower slope ANRelatively flat-lying, hummocky, swampy-looking terrainBridge River SON Seton Lake Shalalth  NAD83_ZONE10N 5617972 554398 582 20 R o X 0 Unclassified oX A59 SON_21_01 ETPersistent, minor rock falls have occurred in rock slopes immediately above BCR mainlineBridge River SON Seton Lake Shalalth  NAD83_ZONE10N 5618945 552664 327 21 L Source r F SSource of rock falls and minor rock slides 7 Rock fall rF A60 SON_23_01St. Claus Mt-west facing slope EF Loose, blocky, ravelling bedrock outcropBridge River SON Seton LakeSeton Portage  NAD83_ZONE10N 5614740 554990 1974 23 R Source r F SSource of rock falls and minor rock slides 7 Rock fall rF A61 SON_23_02St. Claus Mt-west facing slope EFLarge slumped bedrock block involving about 100k m3 of materialBridge River SON Seton LakeSeton Portage  NAD83_ZONE10N 5615323 555018 1971 23 R r S r 2 Rock rotational slide rS A62 SON_23_03St. Claus Mt-west facing slope EFAncient slide that probably failed along downslope bedding planes. Present instabilites at crestBridge River SON Seton LakeSeton Portage  NAD83_ZONE10N 5614977 554366 1604 23 R r S 3 Rock slide rS A63 SON_24_01Seton Portage fan EF Deposition of multiple small debris flowsBridge River SON Seton LakeSeton Portage  NAD83_ZONE10N 5616796 549942 332 24 R Deposit d W 7 Debris flow dW A211BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (SETON RESERVOIR)OBJECTID555657585960616263DISP_AVEDISP_MAXSTATESTYLEDISTRIBCAUSE_PRECAUSE_TRIGLAND_COVERLAND_USECONFIDENCEBOUNDARYLENGTHWIDTHDEPTH_CONFDEPTHAREAVOLUMECROWN_ELEVTOE_ELEVDIFF_HGHTTR_DISTFAHRSL_ANGLESL_AZIMUTHLS_AZIMUTHLS_CROWNLS_TOELITHO1LITHO2UNIT0 0 C SG CF VT MU P 60D-40E 550 210 Estimated 15 1.0E+05 1.5E+06 1929 1802 127 0 0 15 155 155 R Umarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 A CX CF RO MU D 80D-20E 100 450 Estimated 10 3.6E+04 3.6E+05 2161 2141 20 0 0 23 340 340 R Umarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 A CX CF RO MU D 60D-40E 300 850 Estimated 20 3.5E+05 7.0E+06 2126 1834 292 0 0 41 336 336 U Umarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 EL MU D 60D-40E 900 1400 Estimated 15 7.6E+05 1.1E+07 781 342 439 0 0 26 342 342 M Lmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 A MP RT RO PL D 70D-30E 170 1200 Estimated 10 2.7E+05 2.7E+06 402 243 159 0 0 45 169 169 L Fmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 A CX RT RO MU D 80D-20E 80 500 Estimated 10 8.0E+04 8.0E+05 2089 1993 96 0 0 54 330 330 R Mmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 B MP DM RO MU D 80D-20E 360 240 Estimated 20 8.8E+04 9.2E+05 2063 1854 209 0 0 30 242 242 U Umarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 B MP DM VT MU A 50D-50E 1600 900 Estimated 100 1.4E+06 1.4E+08 2063 1231 832 0 0 29 242 242 U Lmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 D CX VT PL D 100D-0E 1100 1800 Estimated 15 1.4E+06 2.0E+07 459 263 196 0 0 11 332 332 F Fmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex212BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (SETON RESERVOIR)OBJECTID555657585960616263GEO_DESCRM_STRUCTWEATHERINGJT_SPACINGDS1DS2DS3BD_ATTITUDENRBY_FAULTSOURCEMETHODREF_TYPEREF_CODEREF_TITLEREF_AUTHORREF_DATEREF_DOCREF_DOCNREF_LOC0 BC TSM T SHP STTRSTBLTPTerrain Stability Mapping (TSM) Detailed Polygons MoE 2010/03Terrain Stability Mapping (TSM) Detailed Polygons None OTHMetavolcanic rocks: brownish-green to grey-green and marroon, massive to phyllitic greenstone and volcanic flows or breccia with minor pillow lavas and tuff FR MW 6164 BCH D MAP 621-C14-B1131Santa Claus Mountain - Geological Plan BC Hydro 1987/01Geological mapping & Instrumentation: St. Claus Mt GEO 20/86DSLMetasedimentary (solid, well-bedded [DS1] argillite, ribbon/nodular chert) overlain by metavolcanic (massive to phyllitic greenstone & volcanic flows/breccia - tightly fractured) with scattered heavily fractured limestone FR MW 40/220 DI 5797 BCH D MAP 621-C14-B1131Santa Claus Mountain - Geological Plan BC Hydro 1987/01Geological mapping & Instrumentation: St. Claus Mt GEO 20/86DSL4970 BCH D MAP 623-C14-U139Santa Claus Mountain - Site Geological Plan BC Hydro 1988/08St. Claus Mt: 1987 Geological Mapping & Monitoring H2013 DSLStructurally controlled; Very intensely fractured and faulted bedrock FR MW C 5658 BCH D MAP 623-C14-D136 Reservoir Slopes BC Hydro 1988/05Seton Dam - Comprehensive Inspection & Review H1968 DSLContinuous bedding plane partings (upper slope) FR MW DO 5385 BCH D MAP 621-C14-B1131Santa Claus Mountain - Geological Plan BC Hydro 1987/01Geological mapping & Instrumentation: St. Claus Mt GEO 20/86DSLContinuous bedding plane partings (upper slope) FR HW DO 5919 BCH D MAP 621-C14-B1131Santa Claus Mountain - Geological Plan BC Hydro 1987/01Geological Mapping & Instrumentation: St. Claus Mt GEO 20/86DSLContinuous bedding plane partings (upper slope) FR MW DO 4626 BCH VI MAP 621-C14-B1131Santa Claus Mountain - Geological Plan BC Hydro 1987/01Geological Mapping & Instrumentation: St. Claus Mt GEO 20/86DSL3547 BCH D MAP 623-C14-D136 Reservoir Slopes BC Hydro 1988/05Seton Dam - Comprehensive Inspection & Review H1968 DSL213BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (SETON RESERVOIR)OBJECTID555657585960616263REF_NOTESADD_BYADD_DATEEDIT_BYEDIT_DATEINSP1_BYINSP1_DATEINSP1_NOTEINSP1_MEMOINSP2_BYINSP2_DATEINSP2_NOTEhttps://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/geometadata/metadataDetail.do?recordUID=58937&recordSet=ISO19115; Boundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 19/08/2013 Baldeon G. 24/09/2013Boundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 25/08/2012 Baldeon G. 08/12/2013 Psutka J. 01/09/2009Continues to creep downslope at 7-10mm/yr (increased to about 20mm/yr in '09). Minor cracking continues.St. Claus Mt. 2009 Annual Inspection Psutka J. 15/09/2010Creep rate increased to about 40mm/yr (however, no visible sings of activity)Boundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 25/08/2012 Baldeon G. 08/12/2013Enegren & others 14/09/1987Extensively ravelling rock exposures and an array of open tension cracks; two prominant, fresh-looking talus or debris chutes originate and trend downslope from the active areas.St. Claus Mt: 1987 Geological Mapping & MonitoringBoundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 25/08/2012 Baldeon G. 18/12/2013Enegren & others 14/09/1987Relatively flat-lying terrain with hummocky-looking appearance; western spring flow about 100-150 L/min (apparent groundwater discharge); swamp may exist during wetter periods of the yearSt. Claus Mt: 1987 Geological Mapping & MonitoringBoundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 18/12/2013 Baldeon G. 20/12/2013 BC Hydro 01/09/1987Persistent, minor rock falls have created several problems for BCR, but poses no hazard to Bridge River G.S. or to the dam. Relief is shallow (30m above lake), large scale potential slides appear unlikelySeton Dam - 1988 Comprehensive Inspection & ReviewBoundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 25/08/2012 Baldeon G. 24/09/2013Enegren & Moore 07/10/1986 Loose, blocky, ravelling bedrock outcropGeologicial Mapping and Instrumentation Santa Claus MountainBoundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 25/08/2012 Baldeon G. 24/09/2013Enegren & Moore 07/10/1986Large slumped bedrock block involving about 100k m3 of material (believed to have occurred after the major slide)Geologicial Mapping and Instrumentation Santa Claus MountainBoundary extent based from aerial interpretation (originally some features or point location appear on map)Baldeon G. 18/12/2013 Baldeon G. 20/12/2013Enegren & Moore 07/10/1986Estimated V = 50-100 Mm3, very loose blocky terrain along the upper extent, linear depressions along & behind the crest, continuous bedding plane partings (upper slope)Geologicial Mapping and Instrumentation Santa Claus MountainBoundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 16/08/2012 Baldeon G. 18/12/2013Enegren & Moore 07/10/1986No indication of large scale past or present instability in upper slope; no bouldery debris in bottle neck area; no blocky debris in lower fanGeologicial Mapping and Instrumentation Santa Claus MountainPsutka & Jaramillo 14/09/2009 Possible slide debris at base of slope214BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (SETON RESERVOIR)OBJECTID555657585960616263INSP2_MEMOCOMMENTSPICTUREShape_LengthShape_AreaMapped in Terrain Classification as F""m (bedrock slump). ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2012\SAM_0539.JPG1308 95 25St. Claus Mt. 2010 Annual Inspection 1987 Field Invest: Disrupted and loosened bedrock with major vertical slumping. Current: Recomended to reassess the stability of St. Claus Mt. (DS Issue: SON10-07) and install laser distance sensors to monitor displacements ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2012\SAM_0505.JPG1291 32383..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2012\SAM_0505.JPG2656 491411987 Field Invest: The springs and the apparent swamp may be a reflection of abnormal water resulting from a large sliding mass ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2012\P1120078.JPG4495 692 56..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2012\SAM_0027.JPG2595 183540..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2012\SAM_0491.JPG1287 5 824..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2012\SAM_0491.JPG1040 726811986 Field Invest: Sliding along downslope bedding planes (probable mechanism of failure); Present instabilities at the crest; Area does not pose a threat to Bridge River powerplants or Shalath ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2012\P1120079.JPG4446 1145839Seton Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection1986 Field Invest: Suggests that fan was formed as a result of natural fluvial erosion and accumulation, and possibly a multiple of small debris flows. No indication of a large rockslide deposit. ..\..\..\BridgeRiver\5_IMG\Fieldwork\2012\SAM_0482.JPG4919 1312096215BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (CARPENTER RESERVOIR)OBJECTIDLS_IDLS_NAMEFREQ_MONTKEY_DESCRREGIONASSC_DAMASSC_RESNRBY_TOWNGRIDNORTHEASTELEVATIONAPPX_KMSHORELS_ZONELS_MAT1LS_MAT2SOIL_CHARMOV_TYPE1MOV_TYPE2SUB_TYPE1OTHER_CHARVELOCITYLS_CLASSLS_LABELAPPX_TIMELS_DATE1LS_DATE2CARPENTER RESERVOIR (TERZAGHI DAM)64 TRZ_00_01 EFProminent ridge with strong, steep north trending, weathered joint set. Forms 3 or 4 eroded gullies.Bridge River TRZCarpenter Lake None  NAD83_ZONE10N 5626090 554919 857 0 R Source r S Not failed yet. 0 Rock slide rS65 TRZ_00_02 EFProminent granite rock block resting on shear zoneBridge River TRZCarpenter Lake None  NAD83_ZONE10N 5626603 555641 740 -1 L Source r SNot failed yet. Potential failure surface on shear zone. 0 Rock slide rS66 TRZ_00_03Straight Creek rockslide ETAncient rock slide deposit that caused damming of the Bridge River. Silt and clay deposition to the west possibly caused by damming.Bridge River TRZCarpenter Lake None  NAD83_ZONE10N 5626743 556536 626 -2 R Deposit d S 0 Rock slide rS A67 TRZ_00_04Straight Creek debris flow ETDebris flow deposit post-dam construction. Blocked access road and Bridge River and caused water ponding for a few days.Bridge River TRZCarpenter Lake None  NAD83_ZONE10N 5626641 556451 622 -2 R Deposit d W 7 Debris flow dW R 196368 TRZ_01_01 EFLarge mass of rock resting on downslope dipping shear zone.Bridge River TRZCarpenter Lake None  NAD83_ZONE10N 5626834 553698 1069 1 L Source r SNot failed yet. Potential sliding surface on shear zone 0 Rock slide rS69 TRZ_04_01 EF Ancient slideBridge River TRZCarpenter Lake None  NAD83_ZONE10N 5623312 552061 1188 4 R r S r 2 Rock rotational slide rSr A70 TRZ_04_02 EF Ancient slideBridge River TRZCarpenter Lake None  NAD83_ZONE10N 5623214 551213 1062 4 R r S r 2 Rock rotational slide rSr A71 TRZ_05_01Carpenter Lake Slump EFCLS has undergone mininal displacement (1-1.5m) in the initial season of activity. There is no toe development (estimated volume 3Mm3)Bridge River TRZCarpenter Lake None  NAD83_ZONE10N 5623147 549994 1105 5 R r S r 3 Rock rotational slide rSr R72 TRZ_05_02Carpenter Lake Ancient Slide EFAncient slide defined by a steep bedrock headscarp (aged in appearance) with bounding lateral marginsBridge River TRZCarpenter Lake None  NAD83_ZONE10N 5623143 550013 1115 5 R r S r 2 Rock rotational slide rSr A73 TRZ_05_03 EFPossible rock slump. Earlier descriptions indicated possible deformation based on leaning trees.Bridge River TRZCarpenter Lake None  NAD83_ZONE10N 5624419 550543 779 5 L Source r S Not failed yet. 0 Rock slide rS74 TRZ_05_04Nosebag Mountain Ridge EFArea consists of subtle open cracks and uphill facing scarps (gravitational structures)Bridge River TRZCarpenter LakeSeton Portage  NAD83_ZONE10N 5621879 550748 1539 5 R r D m 1Mountain slope deformation rDm A75 TRZ_06_01 Minor slideBridge River TRZCarpenter Lake None  NAD83_ZONE10N 5624174 549368 681 6 R d S 6 Debris slide dS O76 TRZ_07_01 Minor slideBridge River TRZCarpenter Lake None  NAD83_ZONE10N 5624438 548516 690 7 R d S 6 Debris slide dS O77 TRZ_07_02 Minor slideBridge River TRZCarpenter Lake None  NAD83_ZONE10N 5624504 548359 681 7 R d S 6 Debris slide dS O216BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (CARPENTER RESERVOIR)OBJECTID6465666768697071727374757677DISP_AVEDISP_MAXSTATESTYLEDISTRIBCAUSE_PRECAUSE_TRIGLAND_COVERLAND_USECONFIDENCEBOUNDARYLENGTHWIDTHDEPTH_CONFDEPTHAREAVOLUMECROWN_ELEVTOE_ELEVDIFF_HGHTTR_DISTFAHRSL_ANGLESL_AZIMUTHLS_AZIMUTHLS_CROWNLS_TOELITHO1LITHO2UNIT0 0 D CF RO PL D 70D-30E 670 760 Estimated 10 6.9E+05 6.9E+06 1141 644 497 0 0 46 4 4 M F granodioritic intrusive rocks None Unnamed0 0 D CX CF RO MU D 70D-30E 420 430 Estimated 20 2.2E+05 4.4E+06 872 639 233 0 0 32 196 196 L F granodioritic intrusive rocks None Unnamed0 0 D CX DM RO MU D 60D-40E 420 810 Estimated 15 2.8E+05 4.2E+06 694 601 93 0 0 14 333 333 L F granodioritic intrusive rocks None Unnamed0 0 I SG DM RO MU D 60D-40E 240 390 Estimated 10 7.1E+04 7.1E+05 694 592 102 0 0 14 316 316 L F granodioritic intrusive rocks None Unnamed0 0 D CX CF RO MU D 60D-40E 220 820 Estimated 25 1.9E+05 4.7E+06 1383 780 603 0 0 40 104 104 R L granodioritic intrusive rocks None Unnamed0 0 B SG CF VN MU A 50D-50E 840 1100 Estimated 100 9.1E+05 4.8E+07 1452 1000 452 0 0 30 342 342 R Mmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 B SG CF VT MU A 50D-50E 520 280 Estimated 30 1.5E+05 2.3E+06 1228 899 329 0 0 33 11 11 M Mmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex1 0 A MP CF VN MU D 70D-30E 240 500 Estimated 30 1.4E+05 2.2E+06 1199 1031 168 0 0 36 15 15 M Mmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 D MP CF VN MU D 70D-30E 650 630 Estimated 50 4.2E+05 1.1E+07 1352 916 436 0 0 36 16 16 U Mmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 D SG CF RO MU A 50D-50E 440 1100 Estimated 30 4.0E+05 1.2E+07 929 655 274 0 0 34 174 174 R Mmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 C CX CF VT MU A 50D-50E 900 3600 Estimated 150 3.2E+06 2.5E+08 1863 1584 279 0 0 31 337 337 R Umarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 D SC RO MU D 70D-30E 80 70 Estimated 2 6.5E+03 1.3E+04 712 654 58 0 0 39 35 35 L Fmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 D SC RO MU D 70D-30E 120 110 Estimated 2 9.1E+03 1.8E+04 732 655 77 0 0 35 35 35 L Fmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex0 0 D SC RO MU D 70D-30E 70 120 Estimated 2 7.3E+03 1.5E+04 713 655 58 0 0 41 17 17 L Fmarine sedimentary and volcanic rocks NoneBridge River Complex217BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (CARPENTER RESERVOIR)OBJECTID6465666768697071727374757677GEO_DESCRM_STRUCTWEATHERINGJT_SPACINGDS1DS2DS3BD_ATTITUDENRBY_FAULTSOURCEMETHODREF_TYPEREF_CODEREF_TITLEREF_AUTHORREF_DATEREF_DOCREF_DOCNREF_LOCStrong, steep north trending, weathered joint set FR SW 982 BCH VI MEM Figure 1 None Psutka J. 2005/03Terzaghi Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2004 Inspection Memo DSLResting on fault zone (DS1): Smooth surface, associated parallel fracturing. Crushed zones 2-4cm thick, calcite cemented. Chlorite-coated joints. Down dip slickensides (TRZ1992) FR SW 60/195 1864 BCH VI MEM Figures 5-7 None Psutka J. 1992/08Geological Mapping of BR Valley Downstream of TRZ GEO 2547 AER2257 BCH D MAP Figure 1Surficial Geology Plan - Bridge River Valley Psutka J. 1992/08Geological Mapping of BR Valley Downstream of TRZ GEO 2547 AER2265 BCH VI MEM Unknown None Psutka J. 1992/08Geological Mapping of BR Valley Downstream of TRZ GEO 2547 AERFault zone shear (DS1): .3-1m, dry calcite healed gouge at base, overlain by closely fractured rock. Prominent jt set (DS2): thin chlorite coating,closely spaced jts weather out to form distinct crack. Slickenside (DS3) FR MW C 47/090 47/125 44/100 1342 BCH D MAP 621-C14-C1207Reservoir Shoreline Investigations BC Hydro 1987/03Terzaghi Dam - Comprehensive Inspection & Review H1897 DSL1714 Ripley Rock Eng.VI REP Figure 3 None Ripley B. 1999/04 Slopes Data Review Unknown AER2354 Ripley Rock Eng.VI REP Figure 3 None Ripley B. 1999/04 Slopes Data Review Unknown AERDark grey to black thinly banded chert with limestone lenses and closely jointed, massive to thinly bedded, black argillite. MS SW C 2994 BCH VI MEM Figure 5 None Psutka J. 2007/11Inspection of Carpenter Lake Slump Memo DSLDark grey to black thinly banded chert with limestone lenses and closely jointed, massive to thinly bedded, black argillite. MS SW C 2924 BCH VI MEM Figure 5 None Psutka J. 2007/11Inspection of Carpenter Lake Slump Memo DSL1281 BCH VI MAP UnknownReservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Psutka J. 2010/05Terzaghi Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2009 Inspection Memo DSL2775 BCH D MAP UnknownMission and Carpenter Lake Mapping Yan L. 1991/10 Unknown Unknown AER2661 BCH D MAP UnknownBridge River Intake Slopes Mapping Unknown 1991/10 Unknown Unknown AER2895 BCH D MAP UnknownBridge River Intake Slopes Mapping Unknown 1991/10 Unknown Unknown AER2961 BCH D MAP UnknownBridge River Intake Slopes Mapping Unknown 1991/10 Unknown Unknown AER218BRIDGE RIVER: LANDSLIDE INVENTORY (CARPENTER RESERVOIR)OBJECTID6465666768697071727374757677REF_NOTESADD_BYADD_DATEEDIT_BYEDIT_DATEINSP1_BYINSP1_DATEINSP1_NOTEINSP1_MEMOINSP2_BYINSP2_DATEINSP2_NOTEBoundary extent based from aerial interpretation (originally some features/boundary are drawn on inspection photo) Baldeon G. 01/08/2013 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013 Psutka J. 14/10/2004 Satisfactory conditionTerzaghi Dam - Reservoir Slopes 2004 InspectionPsutka & Jaramillo 16/09/2009 Satisfactory conditionAdditional Ref. Loc: Box # SC1700; Boundary extent based from aerial interpretation (originally some features/boundary are drawn on inspection photo)Baldeon G. 01/08/2013 Baldeon G. 19/08/2013 Psutka J. 26/06/1991Calcite cemented shear zone (DS1) at the base of cliff. Shear projects upstream, subparallel to existing rock slope. Lateral scarp = cliff faceGeological Mapping of BR Valley Downstream of TRZ damPsutka & Jaramillo 16/09/2009 Satisfactory conditionAdditional Ref. Loc: Box # SC1700; Boundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 18/12/2013 Baldeon G. 20/12/2013 Psutka J. 24/06/1991Debris is poorly sorted, angular granodiorite in silty and sandy matrix. Max. block size: 1.5-3m. May have blocked the river causing deposition of silt and clay to the west.Geological Mapping of BR Valley Downstream of TRZAdditional Ref. Loc: Box # SC1700; Boundary extent based from aerial interpretation (originally only mentioned in document)Baldeon G. 18/12/2013 Baldeon G. 20/12/2013 Psutka J. 24/06/1991Occurred about 2-4 years after dam construction (1963-1965), flowed over access road and blocked the Bridge River channel. Water ponded back to the dam toe for a few days until debris were cleared.Geological Mapping of BR Valley Downstream of TRZAdditional Info. in: field notes (Psutka 1987/09/23). Also, Indian rock painting at rock overhang; Boundary edited from originalBaldeon G. 24/08/2012 Baldeon G. 19/08/201