This debris torrent started in the fill slope of a logging road built under the Forest Practices Code. The debris torrent ran for a distance of approximately 300 metres, dropping 135 metres in elevation. It was a mudflow 40 metres wide where it crossed the Lardeau highway. It ended in the riparian zone of Meadow Creek several kilometers downstream of the spawning channel. The road went through a rock cut that had to be blasted. It was roughly a 1/3 bench and 2/3 fill, and the entire fill blew out in the debris torrent. The road fill at the slide scarp is on a 75% slope and it's perched on a flatter slope of 30%. The slide scarp is at a low point (dip) in the road. A culvert is in place, however not at the low point of the road but to the south some 10 metres, and upslope. The road entered the scarp from the north. 75 metres north of the scarp there was a landing and the road dropped from the landing to the scarp. There was no evidence of culverts, waterbars, or cross ditches being installed prior to the debris torrent. Two cross ditches were in place that appeared to have been constructed after the debris torrent, the first one was actively moving water while the second was dry but had signs of water flowing through it. It appears that the water from spring runoff was intercepted by the landing and road and flowed down the road to the dip where it saturated the fill until it failed. There was evidence of heavy water flow on the bed surface that came from a northerly direction. The road climbs at approximately a 10% grade in a southerly direction from the scarp. The first cross ditch encountered was 81m from the scarp. This appeared to be recently installed (after the debris torrent), and had evidence of heavy water flow although no water was present at the time of the inspection. This road climbed to the south for 600 metres before the first culvert was found. There was lots of evidence of heavy water flow down the road towards the scarp, ditches were eroded 30 cm. deep into the road surface, and the inner ditch lines were water scoured. This debris torrent is being investigated by the Ministry of Forests for Forest Practices Code infractions.

"SFP was required to prepare and obtain approval of a road layout and design as per section 60 (1) of the Act.

Bryan E. Woods', P.Eng., of R.T. Banting Engineering Ltd., field review and report of July 19, 1996, recommended that cross drain culverts should be placed with the minimum spacing of 150m for road gradients of 8-15 %.

SFP was exempted from the requirement of section 6(1)(d) of the Regulation based partly on the expectation that SFP would follow the drainage recommendations outlined by Bryan E. Woods, P.Eng."

1. "Based on the evidence provided regarding actual culvert spacing on the section of road south of the landslide, and the agreement from SFP that the culvert spacing requirements of the Road Permit Schedule A were not adhered to, I conclude that Section 62(1) of the Act was contravened. In consideration of the fact that water from the section of the road south of the landslide did not appear to have contributed to the cause of the landslide, I have levied an administrative penalty of $500.00 for this contravention for which the maximum penalty allowed by the Administrative Remedies Regulation is $50,000.00

2. I find that Section 13(1) of the Regulation has been contravened. Based on the evidence provided, the drainage system did not adequately intercept surface or subsurface drainage from the cutslope, and ponding of water occurred where road stability was compromised. In view of the fact that failure of the drainage system to function properly in this instance resulted in a landslide, I have levied an administrative penalty of $1000.00. Note that the maximum penalty allowed by the Administrative Remedies Regulation for contravention of this section is $10,000.00.

3. I acknowledge that the magnitude of this landslide was relatively small. However, the slide has likely resulted in some lost site productivity in the immediate area, and it did travel 330 m down slope to deposit soil and debris on Highway #31 which was later cleared by highway maintenance crews. In view of the proximity of the slide to the public highway, the gravity of the contraventions could have been more severe."

"Regardless of a Hazard class II rating of terrain stability in the vicinity of the road location all of the identified elements point to a need for careful consideration of the requirements of a drainage system on this road. Consideration of all of the risk factors should have dictated that judicious attention to ensure proper application of adequate and properly functioning drainage structures was appropriate. The situation was that there was only one properly functioning drainage structure servicing the south side of the slide area when as many as four were required and, no properly functioning drainage structures were servicing the north side when at least one was required. Due to a significant lack of attention to adequate water drainage management in this location, some form of degrading event was inevitable. Significantly, 532 meters of cumulative water flow was channeled into one drainage structure while an additional 100 meters was not managed at all. The combined effects not only triggered two slide events but also contributed to a significant magnitude of debris flow as was made evident by the observed and photographed trim lines on trees along the debris flow."