John R. Banta | Search USGS

USGS2025

Forecast, monitor, adapt: A multi-agency strategy to protect people from postfire debris flows

In 2020, a wildfire burned across Glenwood Canyon in Colorado, USA. A history of postfire debris flows in the region and a hazard assessment for the burn area indicated that potentially life-threatening debris flows could be triggered by rainfall within months of a wildfire. As a result, four government agencies evaluated strategies to help mitigate hazards, including the loss of human life, that may be associated with debris-flow events. After the fire, 26 large debris flows occurred in the summer of 2021 and three sediment-laden flows occurred in the summer of 2023, but there were no major injuries or fatalities reported. We found that integrating hazard assessment/ forecasting, monitoring, and adaptation scenarios was a successful strategy for reducing postfire debris-flow risks to human life (including injuries and fatalities). Weather forecasts and estimates of debris-flow triggering rainfall thresholds, likelihood, and volume were used to anticipate the timing, location, and magnitude of debris-flow events. Rainfall monitoring and detailed recordkeeping of storms that triggered debris flows were used to validate and update debris-flow warning thresholds that varied with time following the wildfire. Although the governmental agencies working in this burn area had distinct and differing agency mandates, they were able to integrate information to reduce the risk of debris-flow events to human life.

Colorado↗

USGS2023

A call for strategic water-quality monitoring to advance assessment and prediction of wildfire impacts on water supplies

Wildfires pose a risk to water supplies in the western U.S. and many other parts of the world, due to the potential for degradation of water quality. However, a lack of adequate data hinders prediction and assessment of post-wildfire impacts and recovery. The dearth of such data is related to lack of funding for monitoring extreme events and the challenge of measuring the outsized hydrologic and erosive response after wildfire. Assessment and prediction of post-wildfire surface water quality would be strengthened by the strategic monitoring of key parameters, and the selection of sampling locations based on the following criteria: (1) streamgage with pre-wildfire data; (2) ability to install equipment that can measure water quality at high temporal resolution, with a focus on storm sampling; (3) minimum of 10% drainage area burned at moderate to high severity; (4) lack of major water management; (5) high-frequency precipitation; and (6) availability of pre-wildfire water-quality data and (or) water-quality data from a comparable unburned basin. Water-quality data focused on parameters that are critical to human and (or) ecosystem health, relevant to water-treatment processes and drinking-water quality, and (or) inform the role of precipitation and discharge on flow paths and water quality are most useful. We discuss strategic post-wildfire water-quality monitoring and identify opportunities for advancing assessment and prediction. Improved estimates of the magnitude, timing, and duration of post-wildfire effects on water quality would aid the water resources community prepare for and mitigate against impacts to water supplies.

Frontiers in Water↗

USGS2020

Effects of huisache removal on rangeland evapotranspiration in Victoria County, south-central Texas, 2015–18

The U.S. Geological Survey and Desert Research Institute, in cooperation with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board, Victoria County Groundwater Conservation District, Victoria Soil and Water Conservation District, and the San Antonio River Authority, evaluated the hydrologic effects of Vachellia farnesiana var. farnesiana (huisache) removal on rangeland evapotranspiration in Victoria County, Texas. Measurements of evapotranspiration, rainfall, and related properties were made at two sites during March 2015 through August 2018. One site was predominantly grassland. The other site was dominated by dense huisache vegetation that was removed about halfway through the study period. The resulting evapotranspiration data were examined for differences between the locations and differences between the pre-removal (2015–16) and post-removal (2017–18) periods to assess the effects of huisache removal on evapotranspiration. Evapotranspiration measurements were made using the eddy-covariance technique and were supplemented by remote-sensing estimates of evapotranspiration derived from thermal and optical satellite images. A map of remotely sensed evapotranspiration was generated for the area surrounding the study sites for 2015 and demonstrates the capability of remote sensing to evaluate land-management effects on evapotranspiration for larger scale areas, such as a county or stream-basin area. During the pre-removal period (March 2015–December 2016), evapotranspiration was greater at the huisache site than at the grassland site. Evapotranspiration at the grassland site (average of the eddy-covariance evapotranspiration and average remotely sensed evapotranspiration) was 87.6 millimeters per month (mm/mo) and at the huisache site was 100.8 mm/mo, with the differences in evapotranspiration rates being attributed to the difference in site vegetation. After huisache was removed in January 2017, evapotranspiration at the huisache site was substantially lower than at the grassland site, the changes in evapotranspiration rates being attributed not only to removal of huisache vegetation but also to possible disruption of soil runoff and infiltration characteristics. During the post-removal period (February 2017–August 2018), evapotranspiration was 88.5 mm/mo at the grassland site and 72.9 mm/mo at the huisache site (average of the eddy-covariance and average remotely sensed evapotranspiration). The monthly differences in evapotranspiration between the grassland and huisache sites, determined by eddy-covariance and remote-sensing methods, were statistically significant between the pre-removal and post-removal periods. Also, the pre-removal period provided the best conditions to evaluate the differences between huisache site and grassland site evapotranspiration. During the pre-removal period, evapotranspiration from the huisache site as measured by the eddy-covariance method was, on average, 10.7 mm/mo greater than evapotranspiration measured at the grassland site. As determined by the average of the remotely sensed methods, huisache site evapotranspiration was 15.8 mm/mo greater than grassland site evapotranspiration. These average differences in evapotranspiration rates by the two methods indicate that evapotranspiration at the grassland site was, on average, 13.2 mm/mo less than that at the huisache site during the pre-removal period. This average difference in evapotranspiration rates also indicates potential increased groundwater recharge and (or) surface-water runoff at the grassland site.

Texas↗