Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2063
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2063
19 Sep 2023
 | 19 Sep 2023

Evaluating Post-Wildfire Debris Flow Rainfall Thresholds and Volume Models at the 2020 Grizzly Creek Fire in Glenwood Canyon, Colorado, USA

Francis K. Rengers, Samuel Bower, Andrew Knapp, Jason W. Kean, Danielle W. vonLembke, Matthew A. Thomas, Jaime Kostelnik, Katherine R. Barnhart, Matthew Bethel, Joseph E. Gartner, Madeline Hille, Dennis M. Staley, Justin Anderson, Elizabeth K. Roberts, Stephen B. DeLong, Belize Lane, Paxton Ridgway, and Brendan P. Murphy

Abstract. As wildfire increases in the western United States, so do postfire debris-flow hazards. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has developed two separate models to estimate (1) rainfall intensity thresholds for postfire debris flow initiation and (2) debris-flow volumes. However, the information necessary to test the accuracy of these models is seldom available. Here, we studied how well these models performed over a two-year period in the 2020 Grizzly Creek Fire burn perimeter in Glenwood Canyon, Colorado, USA, through the development of a debris flow response inventory. The study area had the advantage of a network of 11 rain gauges for rainfall intensity measurements and repeat lidar data for volume estimates. Our observations showed that 89 % of observed debris flows in the first year postfire were triggered by rainfall rates higher than the fire-wide rainfall threshold produced by the current USGS operational model (M1). No debris flows were observed in the second year postfire, despite eight rainstorms with intensities higher than the modeled rainfall threshold. We found that the operational model for debris flow initiation rainfall thresholds works well in this region during the first year but may be too conservative in year 2 due to vegetation recovery and sediment exhaustion. However, rainfall thresholds in the second year can be improved by using updated remote sensing imagery to recalculate the debris-flow initiation probability with the M1 model. The current volume model overpredicts for this region by a median value of 4.4 times. However, the offset between the predictions and observations is linear, and the volumes from the Grizzly Creek debris flows had a similar magnitude to historic postfire debris flows in the region. Consequently, the current volume model could be adjusted with a regional correction factor.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
Francis K. Rengers, Samuel Bower, Andrew Knapp, Jason W. Kean, Danielle W. vonLembke, Matthew A. Thomas, Jaime Kostelnik, Katherine R. Barnhart, Matthew Bethel, Joseph E. Gartner, Madeline Hille, Dennis M. Staley, Justin Anderson, Elizabeth K. Roberts, Stephen B. DeLong, Belize Lane, Paxton Ridgway, and Brendan P. Murphy

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2063', Paul Santi, 14 Nov 2023
    • AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Francis Rengers, 16 Mar 2024
  • RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2063', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Jan 2024
    • AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Francis Rengers, 16 Mar 2024
  • RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2063', Anonymous Referee #3, 26 Jan 2024
    • AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Francis Rengers, 16 Mar 2024

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2063', Paul Santi, 14 Nov 2023
    • AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Francis Rengers, 16 Mar 2024
  • RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2063', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Jan 2024
    • AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Francis Rengers, 16 Mar 2024
  • RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2063', Anonymous Referee #3, 26 Jan 2024
    • AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Francis Rengers, 16 Mar 2024
Francis K. Rengers, Samuel Bower, Andrew Knapp, Jason W. Kean, Danielle W. vonLembke, Matthew A. Thomas, Jaime Kostelnik, Katherine R. Barnhart, Matthew Bethel, Joseph E. Gartner, Madeline Hille, Dennis M. Staley, Justin Anderson, Elizabeth K. Roberts, Stephen B. DeLong, Belize Lane, Paxton Ridgway, and Brendan P. Murphy
Francis K. Rengers, Samuel Bower, Andrew Knapp, Jason W. Kean, Danielle W. vonLembke, Matthew A. Thomas, Jaime Kostelnik, Katherine R. Barnhart, Matthew Bethel, Joseph E. Gartner, Madeline Hille, Dennis M. Staley, Justin Anderson, Elizabeth K. Roberts, Stephen B. DeLong, Belize Lane, Paxton Ridgway, and Brendan P. Murphy

Viewed

Total article views: 747 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
538 178 31 747 28 27 21
  • HTML: 538
  • PDF: 178
  • XML: 31
  • Total: 747
  • Supplement: 28
  • BibTeX: 27
  • EndNote: 21
Views and downloads (calculated since 19 Sep 2023)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 19 Sep 2023)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 745 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 745 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Latest update: 11 Jun 2024
Download
Short summary
Every year the U.S. Geological Survey produces 50–100 postfire debris flow hazard assessments using models for debris flow likelihood and volume. To refine these models they must be tested with datasets that clearly document rainfall, debris flow response, and debris flow volume. These datasets are difficult to obtain, but this study developed and analyzed a postfire dataset with more than 100 postfire storm responses over a two year period. We also proposed ways to improve these models.