Post-fire debris flow modeling analyses: case study of the post-Thomas Fire event in California

  • Priscilla AddisonEmail author
  • Thomas Oommen
Original Paper


There is an increased risk in post-fire debris flow (DF) occurrences in the western USA with recent increase in wildfire frequencies. DFs are destructive, causing high loss to lives and infrastructure. A lot of effort is going into possible preventive and/or mitigation measures. Recent research efforts in this niche focus on developing statistical models that assist emergency responders in isolating high-hazard locations after fires. There are two general approaches to this statistical modeling: linear and nonlinear. This study has looked into applying a linear-based logistic regression model and a nonlinear-based C5.0 decision tree model to assess the strength of each in predicting the locations within the Thomas Fire boundary that produced DFs. To do this, DF scars were delineated by running a change detection protocol known as delta normalized difference vegetation index (dNDVI), using high spatial resolution data from Planet Labs. These scars were further validated with data gathered by Santa Barbara County officials on affected areas. Results from the two statistical models were then overlain on the delineated DF scars and compared against each other to determine predictive strengths. The results revealed both models to perform well in predicting high probabilities for locations that were shown to produce DFs. The logistic regression model predicted an overall ~ 44,800 ha (49%) more high-hazard coverage compared to the C5.0 tree and therefore showed greater urgency. However, a closer look at the basin predictions with the delineated DF scars showed that most of these high-hazard basins identified by the logistic regression did not to have any discernible scars. It was projected that most of these locations were likely false positives and further fine-tuning of the model was recommended. Further recommendation was made concerning the development of additional models to predict potential DF inundation paths. Combining origination and inundation models will be most beneficial since the greatest associated danger with DFs is not necessarily where they start, but rather further downstream where most communities and infrastructure are situated.


Debris flow prediction Probability modeling Logistic regression Decision tree Hazard assessment dNDVI 



We thank researchers at USGS for providing data together with model outputs for the analyses. We will also like to thank Santa Barbara County for providing ground truthing data; as well as the Planet Labs team for the high-resolution data for debris flow delineation. Finally, we will like to thank Dr. McGuire from the University of Arizona for his assistance in obtaining rainfall data.


  1. Addison P, Oommen T, Sha Q (2019) Assessment of post-wildfire debris flow occurrence using classifier tree. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk 10(1):505–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berman M (2017) California firefighter killed during response to historic Thomas Fire. Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved December 14, 2017Google Scholar
  3. Bond-Lamberty B, Peckham SD, Ahl DE, Gower ST (2007) Fire as the dominant driver of central Canadian boreal forest carbon balance. Nature 450(7166):89–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cannon SH, Gartner JE (2005) Wildfire-related debris flow from a hazards perspective. In: Debris-flow hazards and related phenomena. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp 363–385Google Scholar
  5. Cannon SH, Gartner JE, Rupert MG, Michael JA, Rea AH, Parrett C (2010) Predicting the probability and volume of postwildfire debris flows in the intermountain western United States. Geol Soc Am Bull 122(1–2):127–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cui Y, Cheng D, Chan D (2019) Investigation of post-fire debris flows in Montecito. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf 8(1):5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeGraff JV, Cannon SH, Gartner JE (2015) The timing of susceptibility to post-fire debris flows in the Western United States. Environ Eng Geosci 21(4):277–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ding A (2018) Charting the financial damage of the Thomas Fire. The Bottom Line. Retrieved May 26, 2018Google Scholar
  9. Dolan J (2018) Search teams find 21st victim of Montecito mudslide. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 21, 2018Google Scholar
  10. Flannigan MD, Krawchuk MA, de Groot WJ, Wotton BM, Gowman LM (2009) Implications of changing climate for global wildland fire. Int J Wildl Fire 18(5):483–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hersko T (2018) Ventura County agriculture suffers over $170 million in damages from Thomas Fire. VC Star. Retrieved January 25, 2018Google Scholar
  12. Kern AN, Addison P, Oommen T, Salazar SE, Coffman RA (2017) Machine learning based predictive modeling of debris flow probability following wildfire in the intermountain Western United States. Math Geosci 49(6):717–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Key CH, Benson NC (2005) Landscape assessment: remote sensing of severity, the normalized burn ratio and ground measure of severity, the composite burn index. FIREMON: fire effects monitoring and inventory system Ogden. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Res. Station, UtahGoogle Scholar
  14. Kuhn M, Johnson K (2013) Applied predictive modeling. Springer, New York, p 2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Magnoli G (2018) County estimates $46 million cost for Thomas Fire, Montecito debris flow response, repairs. Noozhawk. Retrieved May 26, 2018Google Scholar
  16. Miller JD, Safford HD, Crimmins M, Thode AE (2009) Quantitative evidence for increasing forest fire severity in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Mountains, California and Nevada, USA. Ecosystems 12(1):16–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) (2018) 2018 National Large Incident Year-to-Date Report. Retrieved August 30, 2018Google Scholar
  18. Oakley N, Ralph M (2018) Meteorological conditions associated with the Deadly 9 January 2018 debris flow on the Thomas fire burn area impacting Montecito, CA: A Preliminary Analysis. Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Accessed 19 May 2019Google Scholar
  19. Orozco L (2017) Authorities release details of fatality in Thomas Fire; 70 year old woman dies during evacuations. KCLU-FM. Retrieved December 9, 2017Google Scholar
  20. Phillips K, Kaplan S, McMillan K (2018) A record ‘you don’t want to see’: Mendocino Complex fire has become California’s largest ever. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 22, 2018Google Scholar
  21. Planet Team (2018) Planet application program interface: in space for life on Earth, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from Accessed 1 Aug 2018
  22. Robert D. Niehaus, Inc. (RDN) (2018) The economic impacts of the Montecito mudslides: a preliminary assessment. March 2018. Retrieved May 26, 2018Google Scholar
  23. Rouse JW, Haas RH, Schell JA, Deering DW, Harlan JC (1974) Monitoring the vernal advancements and retrogradation of natural vegetation. In: NASA/GSFC, Final Report. Greenbelt, MD, USA, pp 1–137Google Scholar
  24. 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 (Open-File Report No. 2008-1370). US Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
  25. Santa Barbara County (2018) Finalized damage inspections. Retrieved from Retrieved on June 01, 2018
  26. Santa Barbara County Public Works (2018) Rainfall measurements for Thomas Fire Boundary. Retrieved on June 01, 2018
  27. Santa Cruz N (2018) Trump approves disaster funds for Thomas fire victims. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 25, 2018Google Scholar
  28. Staley DM, Negri JA, Kean JW, Laber JL, Tillery AC, Youberg AM (2016) Updated logistic regression equations for the calculation of post-fire debris-flow likelihood in the western United States (No. 2016-1106). US Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
  29. Staley DM, Negri JA, Kean JW, Laber JL, Tillery AC, Youberg AM (2017) Prediction of spatially explicit rainfall intensity–duration thresholds for post-fire debris-flow generation in the western United States. Geomorphology 278:149–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tarboton DG (2005) Terrain analysis using digital elevation models (TauDEM). Utah State University, LoganGoogle Scholar
  31. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Natural Resources Conservation Service (1995) Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Data Base: Data Use Information. National Cartography and GIS CenterGoogle Scholar
  32. Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR, Swetnam TW (2006) Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science 313(5789):940–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geological and Mining Engineering and SciencesMichigan Technological UniversityHoughtonUSA

Personalised recommendations