PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE FIRE-RELATED DEBRIS FLOWS ON STORM KING MOUNTAIN, GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO


GENERAL NATURE OF FIRE-RELATED SEDIMENTATION EVENTS

Large fire-related sedimentation events are generally initiated by storm precipitation. The connection between forest fires and major sedimentation events has been recognized for some time, particularly in Southern California where the concept of "fire-flood sequences" was first defined (e.g. Kotok and Kraebel, 1935; Rowe et al., 1949, 1954).

The Sediment-Water Flow Continuum
Fire-related sedimentation events may feature a wide variety of sediment concentrations and particle-size distributions, both spatially and temporally. Sediment from a number of different sources may be incorporated into the flow as it progresses down a hillside or channel, or the flow may be diluted with the addition of more water from side channels. In addition, as a storm develops, and the amount of runoff changes, the amount of sediment entrained in the flow may also change. The particle-size distribution and concentration of sediment in a slurry have large effects on flow behavior because of particle frictional interactions, collisions, and interlocking (Rodine and Johnson, 1976; Major and Pierson, 1992). The mineralogy and dispersion of clays in flows is also significant, because electrostatic attractions between clay particles may add strength to the slurry. Hampton (1972), described concentrations of smectitic clays as low as 3% as having a measurable effect on flow properties of slurries. Pierson and Costa (1987) distinguished four types of flow based on sediment concentration and rheology, each of which are described below, and represent segments of the sediment-water flow continuum (i.e., a continuous range of properties).

Dilute Streamflow. Flows in which the sediment load has no effect on flow behavior, or imparts no yield strength to the flow, are considered as normal streamflow (Pierson and Costa, 1987). Turbulence is the primary mechanism for sediment support in such flows (Smith, 1986). The conditions of sediment transport and deposition are controlled by a complex set of variables, including flow velocity and depth, and channel configuration. Streamflow results in deposits generally associated with flooding and water transport.

Hyperconcentrated flow. Sediment-water flows in which the concentration, size distribution, and/or composition of the entrained sediment lead to a measurable yield strength have been defined as hyperconcentrated flow (Pierson and Costa, 1987). Intermediate ranges of sediment concentration and low to moderate clay contents result in generally low yield strengths. Smith and Lowe (1991) recommend that hyperconcentrated flow be used to refer to non-Newtonian flows with little or no strength that produce deposits that are intermediate in nature between streamflow and debris-flow deposits. Deposition occurs by particles dropping out of the flow as individual grains, and the remaining fluid continues to move; hyperconcentrated flow thus results in deposits with the particles in contact with each other (i.e. clast supported). Hyperconcentrated-flow deposits also show some sorting and gradation, depending on the velocity and depth of flow at the time of deposition.

Slurry or debris flow. Slurry flow is characterized by a substantial yield strength and plastic behavior, yet the fluid retains at least partially liquid properties (i.e. it will spontaneously assume the shape of its container) (Meyer, 1993). The onset of slurry flow in sediment-water mixtures is defined by Pierson and Costa (1987) to occur at the point where yield strength increases rapidly with increasing sediment concentration, probably due to internal friction that arises from interlocking of grains. In hyperconcentrated flows, particles are deposited as individual grains from suspension, and the remaining fluid continues to move; in debris flow, the sediment-water mixture flows as a single phase, and only the very largest particles may fall out of suspension. Deposition occurs essentially as a freezing in place of this single-phase mixture, and results in sharp, well-defined flow boundaries with significant relief. Levees lining the flow path and lobes of material at the path terminus are characteristic of this flow process. Deposits may contain gravel-sized, or larger, particles which are supported in a fine-grained matrix. A large number of terms have been used for the processes and deposits of slurry flow, including debris flow, mudflow, and debris torrent. In this paper, we'll refer to the results of such a process as debris flow.

Granular flow. Granular flow occurs at high ranges of sediment concentration, where the mass loses it ability to liquify, and frictional and collisional particle interactions dominate the flow behavior (Pierson and Costa, 1987). At the lower end of this range, granular flows may have similar field characteristics to high-strength slurry flows; the upper end of the range extends to flows with no water, requiring steep slopes or high inertia for movement. In the upper end of the range, dry ravel, the particle-by-particle transport of material downslope due to gravity, can occur. This process has been described on steep slopes following a fire, where loose, noncohesive material was formerly anchored by vegetation. Dry ravel has been described as an important post-fire process in southern California, where the channels are loaded with sediment, increasing available sediment for large events (e.g. Florsheim, et al., 1991; Scott and Williams, 1978; Wells, 1981, 1987). Debris avalanches are very rapid or extremely rapid inertial granular flows, most often generated by the en masse failure of sizeable masses of material (Pierson and Costa, 1987). This type of mass movement has been linked to fires in the humid conifer forests of the Cascade Range, where failures commonly involve all or part of a thick, commonly water-saturated colluvial and soil mantle overlying bedrock (Swanson and Dyrness, 1975). These failures probably occur due to decay of tree roots and resulting loss of anchoring effects (Meyer, 1993).

The Role of Vegetation in Slope Stability and Erosion
In a watershed, vegetation provides five major physical functions that help control soil erosion during rainfall events (Spittler, in press):

On unburned slopes, live vegetation and vegetative litter intercept and slowly transmit precipitation to the soil. During normal rainfall events, the volume of rainfall that infiltrates into the soil is generally high, so that little surface flow occurs. Water from the surface soil percolates to the ground water table and migrates down gradient in slope-forming materials. Rainfall may ultimately emerge as surface flow from streams and stream channels. Water flows slowly through the soil, often traveling a few meters or less per day. This reduces the size of flood peaks and allows streams to continue to run significantly beyond individual storms. When a watershed is burned a number of possible hydrologic and geomorphic changes occur, including (modified from Swanson, 1981):

All of these processes result in destabilization and accelerated erosion of slopes. Enhanced wind erosion and increased rates of dry ravel of loose material occurred on Storm King Mountain in the time following the fire and up to the September rain storm. In the days following the fire, residents of Glenwood Springs reported seeing huge clouds of dust flying above the mountain; presumably the loose, friable and virtually unprotected burned mineral soil and ash were being transported by wind and dry ravel and deposited on the hillsides and in the side drainages. Further, decreased rainfall interception and infiltration and increased rainsplash, rill, and sheetwash erosion occurred during the September storm. Following a fire, instead of the volume of rain water being routed through the hydrologic system over a period of days to months as soil water and ground water, it may force its way through the system over a period of several hours as surface flow or runoff. Greatly increased surface runoff is expected from intensely burned slopes primarily due to the lack of rainfall interception by vegetation (Spittler, in press). This causes the infiltration rate of the soil to be rapidly exceeded in brief, intense storms. In addition, the volume and velocity of the surface runoff can increase rapidly due to the lack of impedance by vegetation and litter (Wells, 1981, 1987); such high-discharge flows will result in the formation of gullies or rills on hillsides. The erodibility of a soil can be considered to be a function of the dispersivity of the clays present. Dispersivity is defined as the degree to which clay particles repel each other, and results in the disintegration of the clay structure, and thus erosion. The presence of ash in a soil, in some cases, may increase its dispersivity (Durgin, 1985). Wells (1987) describes a process where the excess water that cannot penetrate into the soil saturates only the most surficial material which may then fail as very small-scale debris flows or grain flows. This then leads to the formation of gullies and rills on a hillside. In addition, the gullies and rills provide an efficient means for transporting surface runoff and sediment to the stream channels. Peak flows in the channel may occur with less of a lag time than those observed in unburned watersheds, and flood peaks are often much higher and more capable of eroding sediment stored in the channel. Any loose, permeable material in the channel can easily be entrained by the increased surface flow, and channel incision can also occur. Finally, the size of storms necessary to surpass the critical stream power required to mobilize sediment stored in the channel is reduced. This is a consequence of the increased peak flow of streams in burned watersheds caused by rapid runoff (Spittler, in press).


GEOLOGIC SETTING
The boundary of the area burned in the South Canyon fire, visible in the 1:8000-scale aerial photographs, is shown on Plate 1, a topographic map of Storm King Mountain. The area is underlain by Permian- and Pennsylvanian-aged Maroon Formation (Fairer et al. 1993). This formation is principally bright reddish orange and reddish brown conglomerate, conglomeratic sandstone, arkosic sandstone with interbeds of siltstone, mudstone, claystone and shale, and minor thin beds of limestone. From the highway to approximately 2000 feet to the north, the beds dip steeply to the southwest at between 35 to 50 degrees. Continuing to the north, the beds then flatten to nearly horizontal due to either to faulting or folding, depending on the location. The bedding steepens again on the upper flanks of Storm King Mountain. The Maroon Formation weathers rapidly to a silty-sand matrix colluvium, and this material has a history of producing debris flows in the Glenwood Springs area (e.g. Mears, 1977; Morris, et al., 1982). These debris flows differ from those that occurred in September on Storm King mountain in that they were more viscous, had a lower water content, were slower moving, and contained more large material. Evidence that more viscous flows occurred in the past can be observed in the canyons of Storm King Mountain. Two extensive, deep-seated landslides are also mapped by Fairer, et al. (1993) and Soule and Stover (1985) on the flanks of Storm King Mountain. Our own photographic analysis indicates that these two landslides could be considered as one large landslide that covers the mid-slope flank of the mountain (Plate 1). This large landslide comprises an area of approximately 580 acres. Fairer, et al. (1993) assigned a Holocene to late-Pleistocene age to the deposits, described them as chiefly unsorted and unstratified rock debris characterized by hummocky topography, and suggested a maximum thickness of possibly 150 feet. The maps by Fairer, et al. (1993) and Soule and Stover (1985) also show wedges of unsorted, clast-supported colluvium that may be as much as 15-ft thick located adjacent to the stream channel in drainage B. Field examination of the watershed and our own photographic analysis indicates the extent of these unconsolidated materials is significantly greater than previously mapped; a thick wedge of deeply dissected alluvium and colluvium fill the valley associated with drainage B, while nearly all of the side slopes of the other drainages are mantled with a thick deposit of colluvium. Thus a preliminary examination of the pre-fire setting suggests that even without the fire, three geologic hazards are evident on Storm King Mountain; debris flow, mobilization of the colluvial and alluvial material by downcutting, and destabilization of the deep-seated landslide deposits, also by erosion. Debris flow is an ongoing process on Storm King Mountain, as evidenced by remnants of recent debris-flow deposits observed in the channels and reports of their periodic occurrence. However, without the exacerbating effects of the fire, the probability of the mobilization of the colluvial and alluvial materials and destabilization of the deep-seated landslide deposits is minimal.

Watershed Configuration
The Storm King Mountain watershed is characterized by an average gradient of 30%, with some hillsides, particularly in the lower portion, having gradients greater than 70%. The terrain mapped as landslide deposit has an average gradient of 30%. Soils in the lower third to half of the burn are described in a Bureau of Land Management memo from M. McGuire, Soil, Water and Air Lead, to M. Mottice, Area Manager, as very shallow, recent, poorly developed, with a high percentage of rock, and supporting a sparse pinyon-juniper vegetative community. These soils are classified under the Unified Soil Classification System (Craig, 1987) as either a silty sand or an inorganic silt, silty or clayey fine sand, with slight plasticity (Table 1). The grain-size distribution of this material is shown in Figure 3A. The Bureau of Land Management memo further describes the upper watershed soil as a stony loam which supports a mountain shrub vegetative community.

Table 1. Physical properties and classification of materials.

Sample

Description

LL

PL

Unified Soil
Classification

ST-3 in place, unburned soil 32.0% 26.1%

ML

11-A in place, unburned soil ----- -----

SM

10A,B in place, burned soil ----- -----

SM*

P-2 dry ravel ----- -----

SM*

ST-1 dry ravel 20.0% nonplastic

SM

ST-2 slurry 29.0% 27.0%

SM

USGS-12 slurry 32.1% 31.7%

SM

GS-17 slurry 28.1% nonplastic

SM

ST-4 slurry 27.2% 26.9%

GM

GS-19A slurry ----- -----

GM

**assume PI<4%

The watershed can be divided into seven major drainages, labeled as A through G on Plate 1, all of which are direct tributaries of the Colorado River. These drainages typically have short, steep stream channels and precipitous side slopes. This topographic configuration is conducive to a rapid concentration of runoff and, when combined with intense rains, is a primary cause of high peak discharge and erosion rates (Rowe et al, 1954). In addition, two watershed front areas (H and I) are delineated on Plate 1. The areas of each drainage and watershed front, and the percentage of the drainage or front burned, are tabulated in Table 2.

Table 2. Areas of major drainages, burned area, and percentage of drainage burned, within the Storm King Mountain Watershed.

Drainage

Area

Burned Area

Percent Burned

A

496 acres

23 acres

5%

B

555 acres

513 acres

92%

C

568 acres

562 acres

99%

D

186 acres

177 acres

95%

E

127 acres

73 acres

57%

F

562 acres

328 acres

58%

G

99 acres

79 acres

80%

H

153 acres

126 acres

82%

I

174 acres

0 acres

0%


TOP

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NEXT

USA.gov logo