Natural Hazards

, Volume 83, Issue 1, pp 149–176 | Cite as

Minimizing economic impacts from post-fire debris flows in the western United States

  • Kevin McCoyEmail author
  • Vitaliy Krasko
  • Paul Santi
  • Daniel Kaffine
  • Steffen Rebennack
Original Paper


For individual burned drainage basins, existing hazard models and readily available data can be combined in a geographic information system to rapidly estimate debris-flow-related damages following a wildfire. The results can then be integrated into an optimization model, whose output guides allocation of emergency management funds and selection of cost-optimized debris-flow management strategies for burned areas consisting of multiple drainage basins. This paper describes methods to identify and value elements-at-risk from a range of possible post-fire debris-flow scenarios, methods to integrate these results with common debris-flow mitigation techniques and best management practices, and methods to apply this information to optimize the mitigation decisions for burned areas. Despite the potential to transform the way hazard managers approach debris-flow mitigation decisions following wildfires, natural hazard and social science management models have not previously been linked in the literature. Results from Santa Barbara (California), Great Sand Dunes National Park (Colorado), and Colfax/Las Animas Counties (Colorado, New Mexico) study sites indicate that optimization modeling can be used to select natural hazard management methods whose benefit for mitigation of post-fire debris flows can easily outweigh the cost of implementation.


Debris flow Natural hazard mitigation Hazard management optimization Economic risk Optimal risk management Wildfire 



Funding for work described in this paper was provided by the Joint Fire Science Program, National Interagency Fire Center Project 12-2-01-35, and National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Grant DGE-1057607. The authors would like to thank Joe Gartner, Dennis Staley, Sue Cannon, and John Michael of the United States Geological Survey for valuable input and guidance in the use of the debris-flow probability, volume, and runout models. The authors would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments, which improved this paper.


  1. Bernard DR (2007) Estimation of inundation areas of post-wildfire debris flows. Colorado School of MinesGoogle Scholar
  2. BLS (2013) Consumer price index. Accessed 13 June 2013
  3. Bowker JM, Bergstrom JC, Gill J (2007) Estimating the economic value and impacts of recreational trails: a case study of the Virginia Creeper Rail Trail. Tour Econ 13:241–260. doi: 10.5367/000000007780823203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brock RJ (2007) Controlling factors for the onset of deposition of wildfire-related debris flows. Colorado School of MinesGoogle Scholar
  5. Calkin DE, Hyde KD, Robichaud PR, Jones JG, Ashmun LE, Loeffler D (2007) Assessing post-fire values-at-risk with a new calculation tool. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-205. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, COGoogle Scholar
  6. Cannon SH, DeGraff J (2009) The increasing wildfire and post-fire debris-flow threat in Western USA, and implications for consequences of climate change. In: Sassa K, Canuti P (eds) Landslides—disaster risk reduction. Springer, Berlin, pp 177–190. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-69970-5_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cannon SH, Gartner JE (2005) Wildfire-related debris flow from a hazards perspective. In: Jakob M, Hungr O (eds) Debris-flow hazards and related phenomena. Springer Praxis Books. Springer, Berlin, pp 363–385. doi: 10.1007/3-540-27129-5_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cannon SH, Gartner JE, Wilson RC, Bowers JC, Laber JL (2008) Storm rainfall conditions for floods and debris flows from recently burned areas in southwestern Colorado and southern California. Geomorphology 96:250–269. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.03.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cannon SH, Gartner JE, Rupert MG, Michael JA (2010a) Emergency assessments of postfire debris-flow hazards for the 2009 la brea, jesusita, guiberson, morris, sheep, oak glen, pendleton, and cottonwood fires in Southern California. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  10. Cannon SH, Gartner JE, Rupert MG, Michael JA, Rea AH, Parrett C (2010b) Predicting the probability and volume of postwildfire debris flows in the intermountain western United States. Geol Soc Am Bull 122:127–144. doi: 10.1130/b26459.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Census (2012) Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER®). Accessed 18 Feb 2013
  12. Crowder BM (1987) Economic costs of reservoir sedimentation: a regional approach to estimating cropland erosion and damages. J Soil Water Conserv 42:194–197Google Scholar
  13. DeGraff JV (2014) Improvement in quantifying debris flow risk for post-wildfire emergency response. Geoenviron Disasters. doi: 10.1186/s40677-014-0005-2 Google Scholar
  14. DeGraff JV, Cannon SH, Gartner JE (2015) The timing of susceptibility to post-fire debris flows in the Western United States. Environ Eng Geosci XXI:277–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deisenroth D, Loomis J, Bond C (2009) Non-market valuation of off-highway vehicle recreation in Larimer County, Colorado: implications for trail closures. J Environ Manag 90:3490–3497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. deWolfe V (2006) An evaluation of the effectiveness of erosion control treatments after wildfire in debris-flow prone areas. Colorado School of MinesGoogle Scholar
  17. deWolfe V, Santi P (2009) Debris-flow erosion control treatments after wildfire: an evaluation of erosion control effectiveness. VDM Verlag Dr. Müller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG, Saarbrücken, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  18. deWolfe VG, Santi PM, Ey J, Gartner JE (2008) Effective mitigation of debris flows at Lemon Dam, La Plata County, Colorado. Geomorphology 96:366–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ESRI (2010) ArcGIS, 10.0 edn. ESRI, Redlands, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  20. Forest Service (2013) BAER imagery support data download. USDA Forest service: burned area emergency response. Accessed 6 June 2013
  21. Friedman EQ, Santi PM (2014) Debris-flow hazard assessment and validation following the Medano Fire, Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve, Colorado. Landslides 11:1093–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gartner JE, Cannon SH, Santi PM, Dewolfe VG (2008) Empirical models to predict the volumes of debris flows generated by recently burned basins in the western U.S. Geomorphology 96:339–354. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.02.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Geobrugg (2013) Flexible ring net barriers for debris flow protection: the economic solution.
  24. Gesch D, Oimoen M, Greenlee S, Nelson C, Steuck M, Tyler D (2002) The national elevation dataset. Photogram Eng Remote Sens 68:5–11Google Scholar
  25. Griswold JP, Iverson RM (2008) Mobility statistics and automated hazard mapping for debris flows and rock avalanches. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, RestonGoogle Scholar
  26. Holmes TP, Bergstrom JC, Huszar E, Kask SB, Orr Iii F (2004) Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale of riparian ecosystem restoration. Ecol Econ 49:19–30. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.10.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Iverson RM, Schilling SP, Vallance JW (1998) Objective delineation of lahar-inundation hazard zones. Geol Soc Am Bull 110:972–984. doi: 10.1130/0016-7606(1998)110<0972:odolih>;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jakob M, Stein D, Ulmi M (2012) Vulnerability of buildings to debris flow impact. Nat Hazards 60:241–261. doi: 10.1007/s11069-011-0007-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kallrath J, Rebennack S (2014) Computing area-tight piecewise linear overestimators, underestimators and tubes for univariate functions. In: Butenko S, Floudas CA, Russians TM (eds) Optimization in science and engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 273–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee EM, Jones DKC (2014) Landslide risk assessment, 2nd edn. ICE Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Mackie B (2014) Warning fatigue is not a myth. Brushfire CRC Fire Notes Issue 122:1–4Google Scholar
  32. McCoy K, Santi P, Kaffine D, Krasko V (2014) GIS modeling to assess economic risk from post-fire debris-flows. In: Strickland JA, Wiltshire RL, Goss CM (eds) Rocky mountain geo-conference 2014, Lakewood, Colorado, 7 Nov 2014. ASCE Publications Geotechnical Practice Publication No. 9, pp 9–30Google Scholar
  33. Means RS (1999a) Heavy construction cost data, 13th Annual edn. R.S. Means Company, Inc, KingstonGoogle Scholar
  34. Means RS (1999b) Site work & landscape cost data, 18th Annual edn. R.S. Means Company, Inc, KingstonGoogle Scholar
  35. Napper C (2006) Burned area emergency response treatments catalog (BAERCAT) vol 625. USDA Forest Service, National Technology and Development Program, Watershed, Soil, Air Management, San Dimas Technology & Development Center, San Dimas, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  36. National Park Service (1995) Economic impacts of protecting rivers, trails, and greenway corridors. A resource book, 4 edn. National Park Service.
  37. NOAA (2013) Precipitation frequency data server. Accessed 4 June 2013
  38. Rebennack S, Kallrath J (2015) Continuous piecewise linear delta-approximations for univariate functions: computing minimal breakpoint systems. J Optim Theory Appl 167:617–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Robichaud PR, Pierson FB, Brown RE, Wagenbrenner JW (2008a) Measuring effectiveness of three postfire hillslope erosion barrier treatments, western Montana, USA. Hydrol Process 22:159–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Robichaud PR, Wagenbrenner JW, Brown RE (2008b) Evaluating the effectiveness of contour-felled log erosion barriers as a post-fire runoff and erosion mitigation treatment in the western United States. Int J Wildland Fire 17:255–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robichaud PR, Ashmin LE, Simms BD (2010) Post-fire treatment effectiveness for hillslope stabilization. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-240. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, COGoogle Scholar
  42. Robichaud PR, Lewis SA, Wagenbrenner JW, Ashmun LE, Brown RE (2013a) Post-fire mulching for runoff and erosion mitigation part I: effectiveness at reducing hillslope erosion rates. Catena 105:75–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Robichaud PR, Wagenbrenner JW, Lewis SA, Ashmun LE, Brown RE, Wohlgemuth PM (2013b) Post-fire mulching for runoff and erosion mitigation part II: effectiveness in reducing runoff and sediment yields from small catchments. Catena 105:93–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rupert MG, Cannon SH, Gartner JE, Michael JA, Helsel DR (2008) Using logistic regression to predict the probability of debris flows in areas burned by wildfires, Southern California, 2003–2006. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  45. Santi PM, Morandi L (2013) Comparison of debris-flow volumes from burned and unburned areas. Landslides 10:757–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Santi PM, deWolfe VG, Higgins JD, Cannon SH, Gartner JE (2008) Sources of debris flow material in burned areas. Geomorphology 96:310–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Santi PM, Hewitt K, VanDine DF, Cruz EB (2011) Debris-flow impact, vulnerability, and response. Nat Hazards 56:371–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schilling SP (1998) LAHARZ: GIS programs for automated mapping of lahar-inundation hazard zones. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Vancouver, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  49. Soil Survey Staff (2014) Soil data viewer. Accessed 30 April 2014
  50. Staley DM, Kean JW, Cannon SH, Schmidt KM, Laber JL (2013) Objective definition of rainfall intensity-duration thresholds for the initiation of post-fire debris flows in southern California. Landslides 10:547–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Standard-Examiner (2011) Debris basin will safeguard homes. Standard-Examiner, Ogden, UTGoogle Scholar
  52. Tillery AC, Darr MJ, Cannon SH, Michael JA (2011) Postwildfire debris flow hazard assessment for the area burned by the 2011 track fire, northeastern New Mexico and southeastern Colorado vol Open-File Report 2011-1257. United States Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
  53. Times LA (2009) Storm to test Southern California debris basins. Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  54. USGS (2014) Scientific background. Accessed 30 April 2014
  55. VanDine DF (1996) Debris flow control structures for forest engineering. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geology and Geological EngineeringColorado School of MinesGoldenUSA
  2. 2.Division of Economics and BusinessColorado School of MinesGoldenUSA
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsUniversity of Colorado at BoulderBoulderUSA
  4. 4.Colorado Geological SurveyColorado School of MinesGoldenUSA

Personalised recommendations