Rocky Mountain Section - 73rd Annual Meeting - 2023

Paper No. 23-4
Presentation Time: 9:05 AM

POST-FIRE DEBRIS FLOW MODEL TESTING IN THE GRIZZLY CREEK FIRE, GLENWOOD CANYON, COLORADO, USA


RENGERS, Francis1, BOWER, Sam2, KNAPP, Andrew3, KEAN, Jason4, VONLEMBKE, Danielle5, THOMAS, Matthew6, KOSTELNIK, Jaime7, VESSELY, Mark8, BARNHART, Katherine4, BETHEL, Matthew9, ANDERSON, Justin K.10, ROBERTS, Elizabeth11, LANE, Belize12, RIDGEWAY, Paxton12, MURPHY, Brendan P.13 and STALEY, Dennis14, (1)Université Paris Cité, Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, 1, rue Jussieu, 75238 Paris cedex 05, Paris, France, (2)Department of Geology and Geography, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26505, (3)Engineering Pitkin County, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601, (4)U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Hazards Science Center, P.O. Box 25046, MS 966, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225, (5)U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Hazards Science Center, Box 25046, MSS 966, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225, (6)U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Hazards Science Center, Golden, CO 80401; U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Hazards Science Center, P.O. Box 25046, MS 966, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225, (7)U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Hazards Science Center, Box 25046, MS 966, Denver, CO 80225, (8)BGC Consulting, Suite 300 – 600 12th Street, Golden, CO 80401, (9)Merrick and Company, Greenwood Village, CO 80111, (10)USFS, Tongass National Grassland, Petersburg, AK 99833, (11)USFS, White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601, (12)Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84321, (13)Department of Watershed Sciences, Utah State University, 5210 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322, (14)U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Volcano Observatory, 4230 University Drive, Suite 100, Anchorage, AK 99508

The hazards associated with post-fire debris flows are increasing in the western U.S. as wildfire activity increases. The U.S. Geological Survey has developed a suite of tools used to assess post-fire debris flow hazards; however, we rarely have sufficient data available to test these models. In this study, we present a rare case where we did have detailed data for model testing, and it was possible to examine the debris flow prediction/response within the Grizzly Creek burn perimeter (13,000 ha) in Glenwood Canyon, Colorado, USA. This fire triggered a large number of debris flows, and the study area had a high density of new and existing rain gauges (11) and before/after lidar. These factors gave us a unique opportunity to examine the success of two operational debris-flow hazard models that predict debris flow likelihood and volumes. Rainfall data were used to determine the applicability of USGS-produced rainfall-intensity thresholds. Our observations showed strong agreement between the rain rates that triggered debris flows and the USGS rainfall thresholds in the first-year post-fire. No debris flows were observed in the second year after the fire. In addition, a map of elevation change derived from lidar was used to calculate debris flow volumes, and these were compared with the operational USGS debris flow volume model. The model-predicted debris flow volumes were 2-3 times larger than observed volumes in the first-year post-fire in most cases, suggesting opportunities for refining our volume modeling methods.