EMERGENCY ASSESSMENT OF DEBRIS-FLOW HAZARDS FROM BASINS BURNED BY THE 2007 HARRIS FIRE, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

By

Susan H. Cannon,1 Joseph E. Gartner, John A. Michael, Mark A. Bauer, Susan C. Stitt, Donna L. Knifong, Bernard J. McNamara, and Yvonne M. Roque

1

U.S. Geological Survey, Box 25046, DFC, MS 966, Denver CO 80225, (303) 273-8604, cannon@usgs.gov

2007

"

"

"

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

8 Alvarado Canyon

5

5

125

BrownFieldMuni

Bancroft

Point

Lemon

Grove Homelands Jamacha

Junction

Spring

Valley

Casa

de Oro

Calavo

Gardens

La Presa

Jamacha

Jamul

Indian

Springs

North

Jamul Phelps

Corner

Doghouse

Junction

Engineer

Springs

Dulzura

Barrett

Junction

Cockatoo

Grove

Bonita

Sunnyside

Tecate

Potrero

Canyon

City

Encanto

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

32°45'

32°40'

32°35'

117° 116°55' 116°50' 116°45' 116°40' 116°35'

0 1 2 0.5 MILES

0 1 2 0.5 KILOMETERS

U U

U

U

U

U

U U

U

U

U

U

Harris

Fire

CALIFORNIA

U

94 94

188

905

54

54

94

125

125

94 94

54

§ ̈¦8

§ ̈¦805

§ ̈¦5

Introduction

The objective of this report is to present a preliminary emergency assessment of the potential for debris-flow generation from basins burned by the Harris Fire in San Diego County, 

southern California in 2007. Debris flows are among the most hazardous geologic phenomena (Turner and Schuster, 1996); debris flows that followed wildfires in southern California in 

2003 killed 16 people and caused tens of millions of dollars of property damage (NOAA-USGS Debris Flow Task Force, 2005). A short period of even moderate rainfall on a burned 

watershed can lead to debris flows (Cannon and others, 2008). Rainfall that is normally absorbed into hillslope soils can run off almost instantly after vegetation has been removed by 

wildfire. This causes much greater and more rapid runoff than is normal from creeks and drainage areas. Highly erodible soils in a burn scar allow flood waters to entrain large amounts of 

ash, mud, boulders, and unburned vegetation. Within the burned area and downstream, the force of rushing water, soil, and rock can destroy culverts, bridges, roadways, and buildings, 

potentially causing injury or death.

This emergency debris-flow hazard assessment is presented as a relative ranking of the predicted volume of debris flows that can issue from basin outlets in response to 1.75 inches 

(44.45 mm) of rainfall over a 3-hour period. Such a storm has a 10-year return period (Hershfield, 1961). The calculation of debris-flow volume is based on a multiple-regression statistical 

model that describes the median volume of material that can be expected from a recently burned basin as a combined function of the area burned at high and moderate severity, the basin 

area with slopes greater than or equal to 30 percent, and triggering storm rainfall (Gartner and others, 2008). Cannon and others (2007) describe the methods used to generate the hazard 

maps. Identification of potential debris-flow hazards from burned drainage basins is necessary to issue warnings for specific basins, to make effective mitigation decisions, and to help plan 

evacuation timing and routes. 

Results

Of the 287 basins evaluated in this assessment, 54 were identified as having the potential to produce debris flows with volumes less than 1,000 m3 in response to the 10-yearrecurrence, 3-hour rainstorm. These are primarily the small (0.04 to 0.5km2) basins that drain into Jamul Creek, into a stretch of Dulzura Creek east of Hollenbeck Canyon, and into the 

unnamed canyon between Hollenbeck Canyon and Pringle Canyon. Two hundred ten of the basins showed the potential to produce debris flows with volumes between 1,001 and 10,000 

m3. These are basins with areas between 0.09 to 8.3 km2 that drain into the Sweetwater Reservoir and the Sweetwater River, Proctor Valley, Hollenbeck Canyon, Cedar Canyon, Pringle 

Canyon, Jamul Creek, Dulzura Creek, Cottonwood Creek and Potrero Creek. Twenty-three of the basins evaluated showed volume estimates between 10,001 and 100,000 m3. From west 

to east, these include two unnamed basins that drain into the Sweetwater River (above and below Sweetwater Reservoir), and one that drains into Otay Lake; Little Cedar Canyon and an 

unnamed basin that drain’s into Jamul Creek; an unnamed basin that drains into Hollenbeck Canyon; Sycamore and Dutchman Canyons, and an unmanned basin that drain into Dulzura 

Creek; three unnamed basins that drain into Pringle Canyon; Mine Canyon and two unnamed basins that drain into the Tijuana River; Rattlesnake and McAlmond Canyons and five 

unnamed basins that drain into Cottonwood Creek; and Grapevine Creek and an unnamed basin that drain into Potrero Creek. Debris flows issuing from these basins can impact highways 

and roads in the area. In addition, neighborhoods, buildings, roadways, and people within, or immediately below, any of the burned basins can be impacted by debris flows.

In response to a storm similar to that used in this assessment, Otay Lakes and Sweetwater Reservoir can expect significant accumulations of sediment and associated water quality 

issues.

Use and Limitations of the Map

This map shows potential hazards posed by debris flows as estimates of the median volumes of material that may issue from the outlets of basins burned by the Harris Fire of 2007 in 

southern California in response to a 10-year-recurrence, 3-hour-duration rainstorm. The map identifies the range of potential debris-flow volumes that can issue from individual basin 

outlets. This information can be used to issue warning for specific locations, to prioritize mitigation efforts, to aid in the design of mitigation structures, and to guide decisions for evacuation, shelter, and escape routes in the event that storms of similar magnitude to that evaluated here are forecast for the area. 

In addition to the potential dangers within the basins, areas downstream from the basin outlets are also at risk. The danger is particularly high in canyon bottoms (shown as shaded 

areas on the map). In some of these areas homes were destroyed by the fire, and workers and residents may be busy cleaning and rebuilding sites. The potential for debris flows during 

rainfall events places these people at high risk. In addition, if culverts are plugged or overwhelmed by flows, or if roads wash out, motorists may be stranded for long periods of time. In 

some cases, channels cross roads on blind curves where motorists could abruptly encounter debris-flow deposits on the road. 

In addition to the colored drainage basins, small debris flows can be generated from non-colored areas within the burn perimeter. These areas were not included in the analysis 

because they are occupied by either planar hillslopes or basins that are smaller than those used in the model development (Cannon and others, 2007).

We expect that the map presented here may be applicable for approximately three years after the fires for the storm conditions considered. The potential for debris-flow activity 

decreases with time following fire and the concurrent revegetation and stabilization of hillslopes. A compilation of information on post-fire runoff events from throughout the western U.S. 

indicates that under normal rainfall conditions most debris-flow activity occurs within about two years following a fire. If dry conditions slow re-growth of vegetation, this recovery period 

will be longer. Our assessment is specific to post-fire debris flows; significant hazards from flash flooding can remain for many years after a fire.

This assessment is based on the assumption that all basins are equally prone to debris flows (Cannon and others, 2007). Recent work has indicated that, in addition to the volume, the 

probability of debris flow will vary with burn severity, basin gradient, material properties, and storm rainfall. Unfortunately, a determination of debris-flow probability cannot yet be 

incorporated into this hazard assessment.

Suggested Actions

People occupying businesses, homes, and recreational facilities downstream of the basins identified as the most hazardous must be informed of the potential dangers from debris flows 

and flooding. Warning must be given even for those basins with engineered-mitigation structures at their mouths in the event that the structures are not adequate to contain potential debris 

flows. Site-specific debris-flow hazard assessments ought to be performed upslope from structures and facilities in areas identified as being at risk. 

Because this assessment is specific to post-fire debris flows, further assessment of potential hazards posed by flash floods is needed. Continued operation of the early-warning system 

for both flash floods and debris flows established by NOAA’s National Weather Service and the U.S. Geological Survey (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/sgx/hydro/debris_flow.php; NOAAUSGS Debris Flow Task Force, 2005) would help local officials make decisions about evacuations and inform the public about potential dangers of debris flows in advance of rainfall 

events. The system consists of an extensive reporting rain-gage and stream-gage network coupled with National Weather Service weather forecasts and radar rainfall measurements. Any 

early-warning system should be coordinated with existing county and flood district facilities. 

An evaluation of the effectiveness of hillslope and channel mitigation approaches focused on the ability of different treatment methods to decrease the potential volume of debris flows 

(deWolfe, 2006; deWolfe and others, 2008). This work found that extensive applications of treatments that promote rainfall infiltration into hillslopes combined with engineered works that 

control incision in low-gradient channel reaches can effectively mitigate debris-flow impacts in basins less than about two km2 in area that are expected to produce debris-flow volumes of 

less than 10,000 m3. Large engineered check dams or collection basins are necessary to effectively mitigate hazards posed by events from basins larger than about two km2 that are 

expected to produce debris-flow volumes greater than about 10,000 m3 (Hungr and others, 1987; Fiebiger, 1997; Okubo and others, 1997; Heumader, 2000; deWolfe, 2006). 

References Cited

Cannon, S.H., Gartner, J.E., and Michael, J.A., 2007, Methods for the emergency assessment of debris-flow hazards from basins burned by the fires of 2007, southern California: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007–1384, 10 p. 

Cannon, S.H., Gartner, J.E., Wilson, R.C., and Laber, J.L., 2008, Storm rainfall conditions for floods and debris flows from recently burned areas in southwestern Colorado and southern 

California: Geomorphology, doi:10.1019/j.geomorph.2008.03.019.

deWolfe, V.G., 2006, An evaluation of erosion control methods after wildfire in debris-flow prone areas after wildfire: Golden, Colorado School of Mines, Department of Geology and 

Engineering Geology, M.S. thesis, 186 p.

deWolfe, V.G., Santi, P.M., Ey, John, and Gartner, J.E., 2008, Effective mitigation of debris flows at Lemon dam, La Plata County, Colorado: Geomorphology, 

doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.04.008.

Fiebiger, G., 1997, Structures of debris-flow countermeasures, in Chen, C.I., ed., Debris Flow Hazards Mitigation—Mechanics, Prediction, and Assessment, Proceedings of First International Conference: New York, N.Y., American Society of Civil Engineers, p. 596–606.

Gartner, J.E., Cannon, S.H., Santi, P.M., and deWolf, V.G., 2008, Empirical models to predict debris flow volumes generated from recently burned basins in the western U.S.: Geomorphology, doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.02.033.

Hershfield, D.M., 1961, Rainfall frequency atlas of the United States for durations from 30 minutes to 24 hours and return periods from 1 to 100 years: Technical Paper No. 40, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, 61 p.

Heumader, J., 2000, Technical debris flow countermeasures in Austria—A review, in Wieczorek, G.F., and Naeser, N.D., eds., Debris flow Hazards Mitigation—Mechanics, Prediction, 

and Assessment, Proceedings of Second International Conference on Debris Flow Hazards Mitigation: Taipei, Taiwan August 16–18, 2000, A.A. Balkema, Brookfield, Vt., p. 553–564.

Hungr, Oldrich, Morgan, G.C., VanDine, D.F., and Lister, D.R., 1987, Debris flow defenses in British Columbia, in Costa, J.E., and Wieczorek, G.F., eds., Debris Flows/Avalanches— 

Process, Recognition, and Mitigation: Reviews in Engineering Geology vol. VII, The Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colo., p. 201–222.

NOAA-USGS Debris Flow Task Force, 2005, NOAA-USGS debris-flow warning system–Final report: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1283, 47 p.

Okubo, S., Ikeya, H., Ishikawa, Y., and Yamada, T., 1997, Development of new methods for countermeasures against debris flows, in Armani, A., and Michiue, M., eds., Recent Developments on Debris Flows, Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences, vol., 64, Springer-Verlag, New York, N.Y., p. 166–185.

Turner, A.K., and Schuster, R.L., eds, 1996, Landslides, investigation and mitigation, Transportation Research Board Special Report 247: Washington D.C., National Research Council, 

673 p.

EXPLANATION

Fire perimeter

Intermittent streams

Perennial streams

Minimum length of main channel that

 can be impacted by debris flows

 generated from delineated basins

Highway

Major Roads

Streets

Towns

Volume of debris flow (m3)

(in response to 1.75 inches (44.45 mm) of rainfall in 3 hours)

1–1,000

1,001–10,000

10,001–100,000

>100,000

These maps are not to be used for flood insurance rating purposes under the National Flood Insurance Program. For insurance rating purposes, please refer to 

the currently effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). To obtain a copy of the FIRM, 

contact the FEMA Map Service Center at (800) 358-9616, or at http://msc.fema.gov

This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic 

code.

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.

For sale by U.S. Geological Survey Information Services

Box 25286, Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225

1-888-ASK-USGS

A PDF of this report is available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1421

Paradise Valley

Sweetwater River

Telegraph Canyon

Poggi Canyon

Otay River

Spring Canyon

Moody Canyon

Johnson Canyon

O’Neal Canyon

Little Cedar Canyon

Cedar Canyon

Jamul Creek

Dennery Canyon

Wolf Canyon

Rice Canyon

Salt Creek

Coon Canyon

Steele Canyon Mexican Canyon

Proctor Valley

Dulzura Creek

Dulzura Creek

Potrero Creek

McAlmond Canyon

Rattlesnake Canyon

Bob Owens Canyon

Cottonwood

Creek

Salazar Canyon

Pine Valley

Creek

Morena Creek

Long Valley

Espinosa Creek

Wilson Creek

Lyons Valley

Beaver Hollow

Sweetwater River

Sweetwater River

Wood Valley

Lawson Creek

Secret Canyon

Horsethief Canyon

Taylor Creek

Cottonwood Creek

Campo Creek

Little Potrero Creek

Grapevine Creek

Potrero Creek

Hauser Creek

Hollenbeck Canyon

Pringle Canyon

Dutchman Canyon

Sycamore Canyon

Cottonwood Creek

Mine Canyon

Tijuana River

Jamul Creek

Sweetwater

Reservoir

Upper

Otay

Lake

Lower

Otay

Lake

Mount Helix

Reservoir

Morena

Barrett Reservoir

Lake

La Mesa

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

OPEN-FILE REPORT 2007–1421

Version 1.0