DOCSLIB.ORG

Debris Flow: Categories, Characteristics, Hazard Assessment, Mitigation Measures

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Debris Flow: Categories, Characteristics, Hazard Assessment, Mitigation Measures Debris flow: categories, characteristics, hazard assessment, mitigation measures By Hariklia D. SKILODIMOU, George D. BATHRELLOS Introduction Events such as landslides, volcanic eruptions, floods, and earthquakes are physical phenomena, active in geological time. These phenomena have affected the natural environment and existing biota, even before the appearance of man on earth. Nowadays, they are considered as natural hazards and an important global problem threatening human life. The aforementioned natural hazards are physical events that occur worldwide. Their cause, occurrence and evolution show notable complexity and wide variation in magnitude, frequency, speed and duration (Burton & Kates, 1963; Tobin, 1997). Natural hazards are events, capable of producing damage to the natural and man-made environment. Moreover, their impact differs from place to place and frequently these natural phenomena appear to have adverse long-term effects due to their associated consequences. When these consequences have a major impact on human system, they become natural disasters (Alcántara-Ayala, 2002). The effects of natural disasters may change the way of human life and require years of restoration efforts with particularly high costs. During the life of a human, at least one natural hazard will certainly affect his life. In 2013, natural disasters killed over 20,000 people (21,610) and the subsequent estimated economic losses were 118.6 billion US$ all over the world. Although the number of people killed by natural disasters was below the annual average 2003- 2012, and the economic damages decreased, they still affect millions of people every year (Guha-Sapir et al., 2014). On a global scale, overpopulation and urban development in areas prone to natural hazards increase the impact of natural disasters both in the developed and developing world. However, their effects are greater in developing countries (Rosenfeld, 1994; Alexander, 1995). Generally, natural disasters occur more frequently in relation to our capability to restore the effects of past events (Guzzetti et al., 1999). Therefore, in order to minimize the loss of human life and reduce the economic consequences, proper planning, and management of natural disasters are essential (Bathrelos et al., 2012). Usually a natural disaster is an uncontrollable event that humans do not expect (Fritz, 1961). Apart from the obvious effects of natural disasters (for example when a flood or a fire destroys a house), usually there are indirect effects. Although these effects may be less obvious, they are usually more harmful and can add years to the restoration period from a catastrophe. Since, complete restoration is very difficult, natural disasters are capable to change our lives forever. Greater understanding of when, where, why and how natural disasters occur, is the first step to reduce their impacts in human activities. Consequently it is very important to create awareness in natural hazards because human activities often increase their frequency, size and severity. Natural hazard prevention is a very difficult task, but the understanding of natural hazard process can be dominant tool to reduce natural disasters. So, scientific research can supply pure and applied methods to the prevention of natural disasters in terms of origin and dynamism of the physical processes (Alcántara-Ayala, 2002). Many natural hazards can be caused by the same physical event and the cumulative effect is catastrophic. In this context scientists try to understand the interactions of these natural phenomena and find ways to minimize the effects of combined hazard. Natural hazards are characterized by magnitude, frequency and aerial extent. There are various categories of hazards such as atmospheric, hydrologic, geologic, biologic and technologic. Many hazards are the result of sudden changes of the Earth’s surface and strongly related to geomorphology. In this context, geomorphic hazards can be categorized as endogenous (caused by volcanic and tectonic processes), exogenous (caused by subaerial processes), and those induced by climate and land-use change (Slaymaker, 1997). Table 1 shows the categories and the main types of geomorphic hazards. Table 1. Categories and the main types of geomorphic hazards (modified from Slaymaker, 1997). Geomorphic Hazard Endogenous volcanism neotectonics Exogenous floods karst collapse snow avalanche channel erosion sedimentation mass movement tsunamis coastal erosion Climate or land desertification use change permafrost degradation soil erosion salinization floods Definition and Origin of Debris Flow Mass movement or wasting is a movement in which bedrock, debris or soil transports downslope in a mass or block due to force of gravity. According to Varnes (1978) the types of movements are: fall, topple, slide, spread and flow. Falls take place when rocks break off and material free-falls or bounds down to the base of a cliff. Topple is a movement that is performed by the rotating of a unit or units around a point. In slides cohesive blocks or material remain relatively intact, moving along a well- defined surface of sliding. Spread is lateral extension together with shear or tensile fractures. Flows are a fluid movement of loose earth material. Even though, each of these movements could function alone, in fact many events of mass wasting can be explained by some combination of the primary types of movement (Ritter et al., 1995; Plummer et al., 2005). Particularly, flows move entirely by differential shearing within the transported mass and no clear plane can be defined at the base of the moving debris (Fig 1). In this case, the movement of loose earth material closely looks like that of a viscous fluid. The velocity in flows is greatest at the surface and decreases downward. In some cases flows are the result of a movement that begun as slide and the division between the two movements is unclear. The presence of abundant water is a basic component for the manifestation of most types of flow. Flows permits great distance of transported materials (Ritter et al., 1995). According to Varnes (1978) rock fragment flows are dry flows that can occur when rockslides or falls increase drastically in velocity and they are not a unitized mass. Fig. 1: Diagram of a flow on a slope. The direction of the movement is shown by dark arrows (modified from Plummer et al., 2005). The term debris flow is used for mass wasting in which the movement is occurring throughout the flow. According to Johnson (1970) debris flow is a gravity-induced mass wasting intermediate between landslides and water flooding. Varnes (1978) identifies as debris flows rapid mass movements of a body of granular materials, water and air. According to Hungr (2001) debris flow is a very rapid to extremely rapid flow of saturated non-plastic debris in a steep channel. Debris flows combine loose soil, rock and sometimes organic matter (variety of grain sizes -from boulders to clay) and variable amounts of water to form a slurry that flows downslope. Debris flows may originate when poorly sorted rock and soil debris became mobilized from slopes and channels by the addition of moisture. The essential conditions for debris flow are: abundant source of coarse-grained or fine-grained sediments, steep slopes, and plentiful supply of moisture along with space vegetation. The moisture is supplied by rainfall, snowmelt, and rarely by snow and ice during volcanic eruptions (Fig. 2). These conditions can be found in mountainous areas in arid, semiarid, arctic and humid areas. Small and steep drainage basins, where runoff can be concentrated and sediment source may be high, have the potential to transport large amounts of eroded material by debris flows (Costa, 1984). Fig. 2: Schematic diagram of a debris flow (modified from Highland & Bobrowsky, 2008). The speed and volume of debris flows make them very dangerous. In general, they shape rapid surge fronts and achieve peak speeds greater than 10 m/sec. Therefore, they can bare slopes, drastically change stream channels, endanger human life and cause damages in structures. Even smaller debris flows can cause damages in a mountainous area. Still their deposits can cause damages such as damming rivers or sudden river supply to a river system (Iverson, 2004). In fact, every year debris flows kill many people and cause million dollars of property damages all over the world. In Japan only, about 90 lives per year are lost from debris flows (Takahashi, 1981). Noteworthy debris-flow disasters are those in Yungan - Peru, 1970, Armero - Colombia, 1985 and Caraballeda - Venezuela, 1999 (Fig. 3), each of which resulted in more than 20,000 victims. Fig. 3: Damages from debris flow to the city of Caraballeda, Venezuela in 1999, killing about 30,000 people. (photograph by L.M. Smith, Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Categories of Debris Flows Since debris flows are rapid mass movements and a dangerous natural hazard, their categorization is an objective of many researchers worldwide. Historically, Sharpe (1938) made a differentiation between debris flow and debris avalanches. This separation was retained by Varnes (1978), who classified the flow type mass movements, based on the involved material, the water saturation and the mass velocity. At the same time the term mudflow was referred by researches for fine- grained debris flows (Grandel, 1957; Bull, 1964). Costa (1984) proposed the names lahars for volcanic mudflows and tillflows for debris flows that their materials derived in sediments on the surface of glaciers. Additionally, Pierson and Costa, (1987), proposed debris flow classification based on the sediment concentration and the average flow velocity. Hutchinson (1988) divided debris flows into hillslope and channelized varieties, which correspond to debris flow and debris avalanches of Varnes’s classification. Slaymaker (1988) mentions the term debris torrent for debris flows that originate in forested steep relief and carry as much as 60% volume of organic matter. Hungr et al., (2001) proposed the name debris flood for a very rapid, surging flow of water with debris in a steep channel.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Overview of Landslide Hydrology
    water Editorial Overview of Landslide Hydrology Roy C. Sidle 1,2,* , Roberto Greco 3 and Thom Bogaard 4 1 Mountain Societies Research Institute, University of Central Asia, Khorog GBAO 736000, Tajikistan 2 Sustainability Research Centre, University of the Sunshine Coast, 90 Sippy Downs Dr., Sippy Downs 4556, Queensland, Australia 3 Dipartimento di Ingegneria, Università degli Studi della Campania ‘L. Vanvitelli’, via Roma 9, 81031 Aversa (CE), Italy; [email protected] 4 Department of Water Management, Delft University of Technology, PO Box 5048, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +996-770-822-144 Received: 11 January 2019; Accepted: 15 January 2019; Published: 16 January 2019 Most landslides and debris flows worldwide occur during or following periods of rainfall, and many of these have been associated with major disasters causing extensive property damage and loss of life [1–9]. Given concerns about the effects of climate change on precipitation regime, in the future, some mountainous areas may likely experience more landslides with a faster response to rainfall; however, most such projections are weakly based and remain untested [10,11]. Subsurface hydrology is usually the main triggering mechanism of these landslides and associated debris flows. While the effects of hillslope hydrology on runoff generation have been thoroughly studied, much less attention has been paid to these effects on landslide and debris flow initiation. Recent syntheses demonstrate that it is no longer appropriate to view the subsurface as a static media which facilitates the transit of subsurface water, rather a variety of factors affecting the dynamics of subsurface hydrology need to be considered [12,13].
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Sediment Pulses on Channel Morphology in a Gravel-Bed River
    Effects of sediment pulses on channel morphology in a gravel-bed river Daniel F. Hoffman† Emmanuel J. Gabet‡ Department of Geosciences, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59802, USA ABSTRACT available to it. The delivery of sediment to riv- channel widening, braiding, and fi ning of bed ers and streams in mountain drainage basins material, followed by coarsening, construction Sediment delivery to stream channels in often comes in large, infrequent pulses from of coarse grained terraces, and formation of mountainous basins is strongly episodic, landslides and debris fl ows (Benda and Dunne, new side channels. After the sediment wave had with large pulses of sediment typically 1997; Gabet and Dunne, 2003). This sediment passed, they observed channel incision down to delivered by infrequent landslides and debris supply regime differs from that of channels an immobile bed and bedrock. Cui et al. (2003) fl ows. Identifying the role of large but rare in lowland environments with a more regular conducted fl ume experiments to investigate sed- sediment delivery events in the evolution of sediment supply and is refl ected in the form iment pulses and found that in a channel with channel morphology and fl uvial sediment and textural composition of the channel and alternate bars, the bed relief decreased with the transport is crucial to an understanding of fl oodplain. Processing large pulses of sediment arrival of the downstream edge of the sediment the development of mountain basins. In July can be slow and leave a lasting legacy on the wave, and increased as the upstream edge of the 2001, intense rainfall triggered numerous valley fl oor.
    [Show full text]
  • Bedload Transport and Large Organic Debris in Steep Mountain Streams in Forested Watersheds on the Olympic Penisula, Washington
    77 TFW-SH7-94-001 Bedload Transport and Large Organic Debris in Steep Mountain Streams in Forested Watersheds on the Olympic Penisula, Washington Final Report By Matthew O’Connor and R. Dennis Harr October 1994 BEDLOAD TRANSPORT AND LARGE ORGANIC DEBRIS IN STEEP MOUNTAIN STREAMS IN FORESTED WATERSHEDS ON THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA, WASHINGTON FINAL REPORT Submitted by Matthew O’Connor College of Forest Resources, AR-10 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195 and R. Dennis Harr Research Hydrologist USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station and Professor, College of Forest Resources University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195 to Timber/Fish/Wildlife Sediment, Hydrology and Mass Wasting Steering Committee and State of Washington Department of Natural Resources October 31, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES iv LIST OF TABLES vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii OVERVIEW 1 INTRODUCTION 2 BACKGROUND 3 Sediment Routing in Low-Order Channels 3 Timber/Fish/Wildlife Literature Review of Sediment Dynamics in Low-order Streams 5 Conceptual Model of Bedload Routing 6 Effects of Timber Harvest on LOD Accumulation Rates 8 MONITORING SEDIMENT TRANSPORT IN LOW-ORDER CHANNELS 11 Monitoring Objectives 11 Field Sites for Monitoring Program 12 BEDLOAD TRANSPORT MODEL 16 Model Overview 16 Stochastic Model Outputs from Predictive Relationships 17 24-Hour Precipitation 17 Synthesis of Frequency of Threshold 24-Hour Precipitation 18 Peak Discharge as a Function of 24-Hour Precipitation 21 Excess Unit Stream Power as a Function of Peak Discharge 28 Mean Scour
    [Show full text]
  • Landslides, and Affected the Eruption Patterns of Some Geysers
    Earthquake Annex I Colorado State Emergency Operations Plan LEAD AGENCY: Dept. of Local Affairs, Office of Emergency Management SUPPORTING AGENCIES: Governor's Office, Personnel & Administration, Corrections, Labor & Employment, Military Affairs, Natural Resources, Public Safety, Transportation, Education, Human Services, Red Cross, Salvation Army, COVOAD I. PURPOSE This annex has been prepared to ensure a coordinated response by state agencies to requests from local jurisdictions to reduce potential loss of life and to ensure we maintain or quickly restore essential services following an earthquake. It is designed to supplement the operational strategy outlined in the Basic Plan. II. SITUATION The Southern and Middle Rocky Mountains extend from the mountainous parts of central and western Wyoming and northeastern Utah, through the rugged mountains of central Colorado, southward into extreme north-central New Mexico. Large, damaging earthquakes in this region are uncommon, but significant historical earthquakes have caused damage. The largest earthquake in the Southern and Middle Rocky Mountains occurred on November 8, 1882, and, although poorly located, probably was in north-central Colorado, west of Fort Collins and northwest of Denver. The earthquake occurred before the development of seismometers, but it had an estimated magnitude of 6.6 and was felt throughout most of Colorado and in adjacent parts of Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, and Nebraska. The most seismically active part of the Southern and Middle Rocky Mountains is in northwestern Wyoming near Yellowstone National Park, where ongoing volcanic activity is responsible for the spectacular geysers and other unique geologic features in the park. On June 30, 1975, a magnitude 6.4 earthquake shook the park, caused rockfalls and landslides, and affected the eruption patterns of some geysers.
    [Show full text]
  • Potential for Debris Flow and Debris Flood Along the Wasatch Front Between Salt Lake City and Willard, Utah, and Measures for Their Mitigation
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Potential for debris flow and debris flood along the Wasatch Front between Salt Lake City and Willard, Utah, and measures for their mitigation by Gerald F. Wieczorek, Stephen Ellen, Elliott W. Lips, and Susan H. Cannon U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park, California and Dan N. Short Los Angeles County Flood Control District Los Angeles, California with assistance from personnel of the U.S. Forest Service Open-File Report 83-635 1983 This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature, Contents Introduction Purpose, scope, and level of confidence Historical setting Conditions and events of this spring The processes of debris flow and debris flood Potential for debris flow and debris flood Method used for evaluation Short-term potential Ground-water levels Partly-detached landslides Evaluation of travel distance Contributions from channels Contributions from landslides Recurrent long-term potential Methods recommended for more accurate evaluation Mitigation measures for debris flows and debris floods Approach Existing measures Methods used for evaluation Hydrologic data available Debris production anticipated Slopes of deposition General mitigation methods Debris basins Transport of debris along channels Recommendations for further studies Canyon-by-canyon evaluation of relative potential for debris flows and debris floods to reach canyon mouths, and mitigation measures Acknowledgments and responsibility References cited Illustrations Plate 1 - Map showing relative potential for both debris flows and debris floods to reach canyon mouths; scale 1:100,000, 2 sheets Figure 1 - Map showing variation in level of confidence in evaluation of potential for debris flows and debris floods; scale 1:500,000.
    [Show full text]
  • The Challenge of Explaining Meander Bends in the Eberswalde Delta
    Lunar and Planetary Science XXXIX (2008) 1897.pdf THE CHALLENGE OF EXPLAINING MEANDER BENDS IN THE EBERSWALDE DELTA. E. R. Kraal1 and G. Postma2, 1Department of Geoscience, Virginia Tech, 4044 Derring Hall, Blacksburg, VA 2406 ([email protected]), 2Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, PO Box 80115, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands ([email protected]). Introduction: Curved, semi- concentric loops, hypothesis and have conducted research in alternative interpreted as meander bends (point bars) have been formation mechanisms (Kraal and Postma, in prep). recognized in the delta plain of the Eberswalde Delta, Methodology: An alternative for bed-load Holden NE crater (Wood, 2005, Jerolmack et al., transport is ‘en-masse’ sediment transport triggered 2004, Malin & Edgett 2003, Moore et al. 2003). The by catastrophic events of water discharge. This structures have led to important and already deep- would require significantly less water, both within rooted paleo-climate interpretations of a long-lived, the flowing deposit and not require deposition in a Noachian-aged crater lake with persistent liquid standing body of water. To verify if similar bends as water on the Martian surface (Malin and Edgett, in Fig. 1A can be produced by ‘en-masse’ sediment 2003; Moore et al., 2003; Pondrelli et al., 2005) or as transport, we conducted a series of experiments that formation of meander bends with alluvial fans focused on morphological development of debris (Jerolmack et al., 2004). flows of variable water content. Since the ratio sediment/water exerts a primary control on viscosity Background: Meanders, while common in and strength of the flow, we thus obtained a range of some places on the earth, are non-trival features to morphologies that expresses the relative amount form.
    [Show full text]
  • Geysers Valley Hydrothermal System (Kamchatka): Recent Changes Related to Landslide of June 3, 2007
    Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2010 Bali, Indonesia, 25-29 April 2010 Geysers Valley Hydrothermal System (Kamchatka): Recent Changes Related to Landslide of June 3, 2007 A.V. Kiryukhin, T.V. Rychkova, V.A. Droznin, E.V. Chernykh, M.Y. Puzankov, L.P. Vergasova Institute of Volcanology and Seismology FEB RAS, Piip-9, P-Kamchatsky, Russia 683006 [email protected] Keywords: Geysers, landslide, Kamchatka. landslide – the Vodopadny Creek Basin, which does not have the steep slopes and hydrothermal activity exhibited by ABSTRACT the rest of the Geysers Valley. This raises a key question – why did this landslide, which shifted 20 mln m3 of rocks 2 On June 3, 2007 catastrophic landslide took place in Geysers km downstream of the Geysernaya river, bury eight major Valley, Kamchatka. It started with steam explosion and was geysers at lower elevations under 20 - 40 m of mud debris then was transformed into debris mudflow. Within 2 minutes and flood eleven geysers located 20 m beneath Podprudnoe (D. Shpilenok, pers.com. 2007), 20 mln m3 of mud, debris, Lake? and blocks of rock were shifted away. As a result of this, eight major geysers located at lower elevations were sealed The caprock of the hydrothermal reservoir is composed of under 20-40 m of thick mud debris flow, and eleven geysers 4 Geysernya Unit (Q3 grn) lake caldera deposits (pumice sank beneath the 20 m deep Podprudnoe Lake created by tuffs, tuff gravels, tuff sandstones and lenses of breccias), rock dam across the Geysernaya river. Analysis of the dipping at an angle of 8 - 25о to North-West (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Homeowner's Guide for Flood, Debris and Erosion
    Homeowner’s Guide for Flood, Debris, and Erosion Control after Fires The assistance of the following agencies and publications in preparing this guide is gratefully acknowledged: Homeowner’s Guide for Flood, Debris, and Erosion Control published by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Homeowners Guide for Flood Prevention and Response published by Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook for Construction Activities California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), January 2003 Table of Contents After the Fire .................................................................... 1 Getting Prepared ............................................................. 3 Methods for Protecting Your Property .......................... 6 Flood Insurance ............................................................. 11 Glossary of Terms ......................................................... 12 *This information is provided to assist residents with erosion control, but not all circumstances are alike. Home owners should consult an erosion control professional for assistance with more difficult circumstances. After the Fire The effects of fire can be felt long after the flames are extinguished. Rates of erosion and runoff can increase to unsafe levels when trees, shrubs, grasses and other groundcover are no longer present. Under normal circumstances, roots help to stabilize soil, while stems and leaves slow water down, giving it time to absorb or soak into the soil. These protective functions can be severely compromised or even eliminated by fires. In the aftermath of a fire, the potential for flooding, debris flows, and erosion is greatly increased. Fortunately there are many things you can do to protect your home or business from the damaging effects of a fire: Flooding - Flooding may occur even during moderate storms as rain falls on areas where vegetation has been destroyed by fire.
    [Show full text]
  • USGS Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 2329, Pamphlet
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCOMPANY MAP MF-2329 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAP SHOWING INVENTORY AND REGIONAL SUSCEPTIBILITY FOR HOLOCENE DEBRIS FLOWS AND RELATED FAST-MOVING LANDSLIDES IN THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES By Earl E. Brabb, Joseph P. Colgan, and Timothy C. Best INTRODUCTION Debris flows, debris avalanches, mud flows, and lahars are fast-moving landslides that occur in a wide variety of environments throughout the world. They are particularly dangerous to life and property because they move quickly, destroy objects in their paths, and can strike with little warning. U.S. Geological Survey scientists are assessing debris-flow hazards and developing real-time techniques for monitoring hazardous areas so that road closures, evacuations, or corrective actions can be taken (Highland and others, 1997). According to the classifications of Varnes (1978) and Cruden and Varnes (1996), a debris flow is a type of slope movement that contains a significant proportion of particles larger than 2 mm and that resembles a viscous fluid. Debris avalanches are extremely rapid, tend to be large, and often occur on open slopes rather than down channels. A lahar is a debris flow from a volcano. A mudflow is a flowing mass of predominantly fine-grained material that possesses a high degree of fluidity (Jackson, 1997). In the interest of brevity, the term "debris flow" will be used in this report for all of the rapid slope movements described above. WHAT CAUSES DEBRIS FLOWS? Debris flows in the Appalachian Mountains are often triggered by hurricanes, which dump large amounts of rain on the ground in a short period of time, such as the November 1977 storm in North Carolina (Neary and Swift, 1987) and Hurricane Camille in Virginia (Williams and Guy, 1973).
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring of Coarse Sediment Inputs to the Colorado River in Grand Canyon
    Prepared in cooperation with the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Monitoring of Coarse Sediment Inputs to the Colorado River in Grand Canyon Introduction Debris flows can have an immediate rapids, potentially altering the eddy pat- and dramatic effect on the river corri- tern and increasing the length of the rapid. Coarse sediment (particles with an dor. Even a single small debris flow As a result, debris fans and rapids may be intermediate diameter > 64 mm) affects may significantly alter the topography aggrading over the long term. the primary components of the Colorado and hydraulics of a debris fan and rapid River ecosystem. The deposition of in a matter of minutes. However, the Monitoring Debris Fans coarse sediment at tributary junctures Colorado River redistributes the coarse builds large debris fans that constrict the sediment introduced by debris flows The effective monitoring of coarse river and form rapids (fig. 1). Debris fans, almost immediately after deposition sediment requires both the short-term and the debris bars that develop below and during subsequent high flows. documentation of inputs by debris flow rapids, provide stable substrate for aquatic Before closure of Glen Canyon Dam, and the long-term evaluation of the redis- organisms, notably the alga Cladophora large floods on the river routinely tribution of that sediment by the Colorado glomerata. The pool above and recirculat- removed all fine sediment and some River. Both efforts involve measuring the ing eddy below the debris fan effectively coarse sediment from aggraded debris volume and particle-size distribution of trap fine sediment for storage on the bed fans (a process called reworking), trans- sediment delivered, as well as the effects or in sand bars.
    [Show full text]
  • Cornet Creek Watershed and Alluvial Fan Debris Flow Analysis
    Cornet Creek Watershed and Alluvial Fan Debris Flow Analysis Submitted to: Town of Telluride P.O. Box 397 Telluride, Colorado 81435 Submitted by: 1730 S. College Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 MEI Project 07-14.4 May 15, 2009 Table of Contents Page 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................1.1 1.1. Scope of Work............................................................................................................1.3 1.2. Authorization and Study Team...................................................................................1.4 2. HISTORICAL EVENTS AND MODELING ..........................................................................2.1 2.1. Existing Studies and Background Material.................................................................2.1 2.2. Mudflow Characterization and Processes..................................................................2.1 2.3. FLO-2D Model............................................................................................................2.4 2.4. Previous Mudflow Modeling .......................................................................................2.5 2.5. Historic Mudflows on the Cornet Creek Alluvial Fan ..................................................2.5 3. FLO-2D Modeling ...............................................................................................................3.1 3.1. FLO-2D Model Development......................................................................................3.1
    [Show full text]
  • Roosevelt Burn Area—Flash Flood/Debris Flow Information
    Roosevelt Burn Area—Flash Flood/Debris Flow Information *** This includes locations in and around Hoback Ranches *** More info at: https://www.weather.gov/riw/roosevelt_scar Basin Debris Flow Hazard A complete overview of burn scar hazards related to the Roosevelt Fire is found at: https://landslides.usgs.gov/hazards/postfire_debrisflow/detail.php?objectid=235 Greatest Risk Area: What should people who live near burn areas do to protect themselves All low-lying areas, flood plains, channels where gravity will move from potential Flash Flooding and Debris Flows? water and debris Have an evacuation/escape route planned that is least likely to be Water and debris can be transported into areas that don’t normally impacted by Flash Flooding or Debris Flows see water flow Have an Emergency Supply Kit available All areas in and downslope of burned areas should be aware of the increased probability of Flash Flood and Debris Flows Stay informed before and during any potential event; knowing where to Streams Impacted, including but not limited to: obtain National Weather Service (NWS) Outlooks, Watches and Upper Hoback River (above Jamb Ck. Confluence), South Fork Hoback Warnings via the NWS website, Facebook, Twitter or NOAA Weather River, Kilgore Ck., Sled Runner Ck., Fisherman Ck., South Fork Fisher- Radio www.weather.gov/riverton man Ck., Stub Ck., Muddy Ck. Be alert if any precipitation develops.Do not wait for a warning to Other Impacted Areas, include but are not not limited to: evacuate should heavy precipitation develop. Hoback Ranches, Upper Hoback Road (Road 23174), Fisherman Creek Road, Riggan Lane, Rim Road, Deer Haven Road Do not drive through any amount of moving water.
    [Show full text]