npj | natural hazards Article

https://doi.org/10.1038/s44304-024-00017-8

Rainfall intensification amplifies exposure

of American Southwest to conditions that
trigger postfire debris flows
Check for updates
1 2,3 3,4 1 2
Matthew A. Thomas , Allison C. Michaelis , Nina S. Oakley , Jason W. Kean , Victor A. Gensini &
Walker S. Ashley2

Short-duration, high-intensity rainfall can initiate deadly and destructive debris flows after wildfire.
Methods to estimate the conditions that can trigger debris flows exist and guidance to determine how
1234567890():,;
1234567890():,;

often those thresholds will be exceeded under the present climate are available. However, the limited
spatiotemporal resolution of climate models has hampered efforts to characterize how rainfall
intensification driven by global warming may affect debris-flow hazards. We use novel, dynamically
downscaled (3.75-km), convection-permitting simulations of short-duration (15-min) rainfall to
evaluate threshold exceedance for late 21st-century climate scenarios in the American Southwest. We
observe significant increases in the frequency and magnitude of exceedances for regions dominated
by cool- and warm-season rainfall. We also observe an increased frequency of exceedance in regions
where postfire debris flows have not been documented, and communities are unaccustomed to the
hazard. Our findings can inform planning efforts to increase resiliency to debris flows under a changing
climate.

The immediate effects of wildfire—loss of life, destruction of property,
interruption of critical services, and poor air quality1–3—can be devastating.
Wildfire is also known to enhance susceptibility to flash floods and debris
flows triggered by short-duration, high-intensity rainfall in steep and
severely burned terrain4,5. Postfire debris flows, which are fueled by the
entrainment of sediment on hillslopes and in channels, exhibit notably more
destructive power than flash floods owing to amplification of flow depth,
discharge, and shear stress6 that is imparted by the most dangerous con-
stituents (mud, boulders, and downed trees) of these gravity- and fluid-
driven mass movements (Fig. 1b). They can be triggered by 15-min rainfall
intensities7 with recurrence intervals as low as one year8 in the first two years
after fire9. Major postfire debris flows, which have caused substantial
damage or loss of life, have been initiated by relatively low rainfall intensities
and by rainfall intensities greatly exceeding the baseline triggering
thresholds10,11. Studies have projected that extreme precipitation at sub-daily
periods will scale at or above the Clausius-Clapeyron (CC) relationship12–15,
which states that the moisture-holding capacity in the atmosphere increases
at a rate of approximately 7% per degree Celsius. Some observational and
climate projection studies note substantial “super-CC” scaling at up to
double the expected rate of intensification following the CC relation12,15–17.
Although projections of rainfall intensification vary across different dura-
tions, spatial extents, regional climates, and storm characteristics12,18–21, there
is substantial evidence that the short-duration (<1 h) rainfall conducive to
postfire debris flows will continue to intensify, and perhaps at a higher rate
than long-duration (≥1 h) rainfall14,15.
Postfire debris flows have been documented throughout the American
Southwest, including areas dominated by warm-season (June–September)
and cool-season (October–May) rainfall22. Most of the postfire debris flows
that have been observed in coastal areas of the Southwest (e.g., southern
California) have occurred during the cool season. During this time, cool-
season precipitation in the western United States is primarily dominated by
extratropical cyclone/frontal systems, which may host mesoscale convective
features, such as narrow cold frontal rainbands that are capable of producing
intense rainfall that meets or exceeds postfire debris-flow triggering
thresholds23–25. These storms may also feature atmospheric rivers, although
the presence, absence, or strength of an atmospheric river is not a reliable
predictor of whether short-duration, high-intensity rainfall conducive to
postfire debris flows will occur23,26. Most of the postfire debris flows that have

1
U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Hazards Science Center, Landslide Hazards Program, Golden, CO, USA. 2Department of Earth, Atmosphere and Environment,
Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA. 3University of California, San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Center for Western Weather and Water
Extremes, La Jolla, CA, USA. 4California Geological Survey, Burned Watershed Geohazards Program, Sacramento, CA, USA.
e-mail: matthewthomas@usgs.gov

npj Natural Hazards | (2024)1:14 1

https://doi.org/10.1038/s44304-024-00017-8
Fig. 1 | Annual frequency of rainfall threshold exceedances for burned areas
across the American Southwest where postfire debris flows have been a concern in
the last decade, including the 2018 Montecito debris-flow event. a State-specific
bar plots reflect the mean annual frequency of simulated 15-min rainfall intensity
threshold exceedances associated with 175 burned areas across the American
Southwest (Supplementary Fig. 1). Vertical black lines indicate standard error of the
mean. We calculated these exceedance statistics for burned areas where, between
been documented in the interior Southwest (i.e., Arizona, Colorado, New
Mexico) have been associated with warm season (June–September) con-
vection during the North American Monsoon27–29. Decaying tropical sys-
tems, which typically arrive in the Southwest during the transition between
the warm and cool seasons, have also triggered postfire debris flows30.
As wildfire activity increases throughout the western United States31, so
too has the demand for the emergency assessment of postfire debris-flow
hazards32, including areas where our understanding of postfire debris-flow
initiation is limited, such as in the Cascade ranges spanning northern
California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia33. This demand,
coupled with recent observations of postfire debris flows in regions where
they were previously undocumented26,34, highlights a need to understand
npj Natural Hazards | (2024)1:14
Article
2014 and 2022, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) issued rainfall thresholds as part
of emergency assessments of postfire debris-flow hazards. Shaded relief map pro-
vided by Environmental Systems Research Institute83. State boundaries provided by
U.S. Census Bureau84. b Photograph shows the effects of postfire debris-flow
inundation associated with the 9 January 2018 Montecito debris-flow event, which
occurred in southern California. Photograph taken by Jeffrey A. Coe, USGS.
how rainfall intensification driven by climate change may heighten our
exposure to this hazard. Despite progress in recognizing the potential effect
of rainfall intensification on postfire debris flows35,36, we have not yet
developed an approach to quantify how the frequency, magnitude, and
seasonality of rainfall capable of triggering postfire debris flows could evolve.
Here, we provide this information by tracking rainfall threshold exceedance
metrics across dynamically downscaled (3.75-km horizontal grid spacing),
convection-permitting simulations of short-duration (15-min) rainfall37 for
historical (1990–2005) versus late 21st-century (2085–2100) climate sce-
narios. Our approach enables a physics-based representation of the
meteorological phenomena often associated with postfire debris flows
(convective rainfall), honors the timescale of postfire debris-flow triggering
2
https://doi.org/10.1038/s44304-024-00017-8
rainfall (low recurrence interval, sub-hourly duration), and resolves these
characteristics at a spatial scale that is suitable for long-term hazard
planning.
Results
We refer to our climate simulation output as WRF-BCC (Weather Research
and Forecasting Model-Bias Corrected Community Earth System Model),
the simulation epochs as HIST (historical; 1990–2005) and FUT (future;
2085–2100), and the future emissions scenarios as RCP (Representative
Concentration Pathway) 4.5 and 8.5. We characterize trends in 15-min
rainfall intensity (I15 [mm per hour]) threshold exceedance for 175 burned
areas across the American Southwest (Fig. 1a), as well as for mountainous
terrain throughout California and Colorado (Figs. 2 and 3), for three WRF-
BCC simulation scenarios: (1) HIST, (2) FUT4.5, and (3) FUT8.5. We
provide more detailed descriptions of the climate simulations and thresh-
olds in the “Methods” section, which follows the ”Discussion” section.
Frequency of rainfall threshold exceedance
The WRF-BCC simulations project a rise in the frequency of above-
threshold rainfall across the American Southwest. Specifically, we
observe a significant (p < 0.05) increase in the mean annual frequency
of I15 threshold exceedance for FUT4.5 and FUT8.5 across 175
burned areas in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico,
and Utah (Fig. 1a) where the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) issued
rainfall thresholds as part of emergency assessments of postfire
debris-flow hazards32. These 15-min rainfall thresholds were calcu-
lated with an empirical debris-flow likelihood model22,38 that is rou-
tinely applied to areas of concern in the western United States where
the control of short-duration rainfall on the hazard has been mea-
sured directly26,39,40. Across these burned areas, FUT4.5 projects a
mean exceedance two times that of HIST (1.4 versus 0.7 exceedances
per year), while the mean exceedance rate for FUT8.5 is more than
four times that of HIST (3.1 versus 0.7 exceedances per year). USGS-
assessed burned areas in California show the greatest increases in
threshold exceedance (2.3 and 6.5 times higher than HIST for
FUT4.5 and FUT8.5, respectively), while increases in threshold
exceedance in neighboring Nevada (1.3 and 1.8 times higher than
HIST for FUT4.5 and FUT8.5, respectively) and Arizona (1.5 times
higher than HIST for both FUT4.5 and FUT8.5) are the lowest.
Increases in exceedance rates for New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah
fall in-between, with mean exceedance rates 1.6–2.2 times greater
than HIST for FUT4.5 and 2.2–2.4 times greater than HIST for
FUT8.5 (Fig. 1a).
Our statewide analyses of I15 threshold exceedance in mountainous
terrain, for which we evaluate spatially variable thresholds equivalent to a
one-year recurrence interval41, indicate that the future frequency of I15
threshold exceedance will not be spatially uniform (Figs. 2, 3). For example,
FUT8.5 projects substantial increases (>6 exceedances per year versus ≤1.5
in HIST) in California throughout the Sierra Nevada, Northern Coast
Ranges, and Klamath Mountains, with notable increases (>1.5–6 excee-
dances per year versus ≤1.5 in HIST) in the Peninsular, Transverse, and
Southern Coast Ranges (Fig. 2). Rainfall intensification is less apparent
(many cases < 1.5 exceedances per year) for the mountainous terrain of the
Mojave and Colorado Deserts in southeastern California. This finding is
consistent with others who have also projected greater changes in rainfall
intensification for northern California than in southern California18,42,43.
Increases in the frequency of threshold exceedance are not as apparent in
Colorado (Fig. 3) compared to California (Fig. 2). For example, FUT8.5
projects that limited areas in the San Juan Mountains of southwestern
Colorado will experience substantial (>6 exceedances per year) increases in
the frequency of threshold exceedance; however, there are notable (>1.5–6
exceedances per year) increases in the frequency of threshold exceedance in
the Front Range, Sangre de Cristo Mountains, and Sawatch Range of central
and southern Colorado. Rises in above-threshold exceedance projected by
FUT4.5 and FUT8.5 are similar in their spatial distribution across California
npj Natural Hazards | (2024)1:14
Article
and Colorado, but the FUT4.5 exceedance rates are generally lower than
FUT8.5 (Figs. 2, 3).
Magnitude and seasonality of rainfall threshold exceedance
Similar to the marked rise in the mean annual frequency of threshold
exceedance, we also observe a significant (p < 0.05) increase in the mean I15
threshold exceedance ratio for FUT4.5 and FUT8.5 across burned areas in
the Southwest as compared to HIST (Fig. 4a). The exceedance ratio is
calculated by dividing the simulated I15 by the I15 threshold. The exceedance
ratio is equal to one when the simulated I15 is equal to the I15 threshold and it
is more than one when the simulated I15 is greater than the I15 threshold.
Given that the volume of debris flows scales with rainfall intensity44, this
result indicates that larger and potentially more destructive debris flows may
become more common. Specifically, FUT8.5 projects higher percent
increases in mean exceedance ratios than FUT4.5 for our burned area
analyses (FUT4.5 = +4% and FUT8.5 = +12%) and our statewide moun-
tainous terrain analyses (California FUT4.5 = +2% and FUT8.5 = +5%;
Colorado FUT4.5 = +4% and FUT8.5 = +9%). Our results also indicate
that trends in the magnitude of threshold exceedance will not necessarily
follow those associated with the frequency of threshold exceedance. For
example, Colorado may experience increases in the mean annual frequency
of threshold exceedance that are less severe than California (Figs. 2, 3), but
Colorado is projected to experience greater increases in mean threshold
exceedance ratios than California (Fig. 4a).
The overall distribution of cool- versus warm-season threshold
exceedance appears largely unaffected across mountainous terrain in Cali-
fornia and Colorado under a changing climate (Fig. 4b, c). WRF-BCC
projects that California will continue to be dominated by cool-season
(October–May) exceedances (HIST = 85%, FUT 4.5 = 93%, and FUT8.5 =
96%) and that Colorado will continue to be dominated by warm-season
(June–September) exceedances (HIST = 87%, FUT 4.5 = 78%, and
FUT8.5 = 76%). However, there are some shifts at the meteorological season
scale. In California, for example, the December–January–February (DJF)
season experiences an increase (+24%) in the mean proportion of excee-
dances in FUT8.5 compared to HIST. The March–April–May (MAM) and
September–October–November (SON) seasons, on the other hand,
experience decreases in the mean proportion of exceedance (−8%) in
FUT8.5 compared to HIST. This pattern is consistent with other studies that
have noted a “sharpening” of the precipitation season in California to the
core winter months45, as well as the intensification of atmospheric river
storms and sub-daily intensities within them17. The Klamath Mountains
and Sierra Nevada are areas of California that are projected to experience
some of the greatest increases in the frequency of exceedances (Fig. 2) and
typically experience snowfall in the DJF season. The increase in the mean
proportion of exceedances during the DJF season may be associated with the
projected transition to more precipitation falling as rain under a warming
climate46. The snow-to-rain transition could also be reflected in the slight
increase in the mean proportion of exceedances in Colorado during DJF and
SON (+1%) in FUT8.5 compared to HIST. We observe negligible change in
Colorado for the MAM season (−0.2%) in FUT8.5 compared to HIST.
California and Colorado are projected to experience decreases in the mean
proportion of exceedances during the June–July–August (JJA) season (−8%
and −2%, respectively) in FUT8.5 compared to HIST. These shifts in
threshold exceedance frequency during the JJA season and the early SON
season are likely associated with projected changes in the frequency and
intensity of the North American Monsoon and decaying tropical systems
impacting the Southwest47–49.
Discussion
We find that rainfall intensification driven by climate change is projected to
amplify known triggering conditions for postfire debris flows in the
American Southwest. This amplification is reflected by significant increases
in the frequency (Fig. 1a) and magnitude (Fig. 4a) of short-duration rainfall
intensity threshold exceedances for burned areas in the Southwest where
postfire debris flows have been a concern in the past, as well as across
3
https://doi.org/10.1038/s44304-024-00017-8
Fig. 2 | Annual frequency of rainfall threshold exceedances for mountainous
terrain throughout the State of California. State of California with an overlay of
scatter plots that reflect 15-min rainfall intensity threshold (equivalent to a one-year
recurrence interval under the present climate) exceedances in mountainous terrain
for the WRF-BCC HIST, FUT4.5, and FUT8.5 simulation scenarios. Several areas
Fig. 3 | Annual frequency of rainfall threshold exceedances for mountainous
terrain throughout the State of Colorado. State of Colorado with an overlay of
scatter plots that reflect 15-min rainfall intensity threshold (equivalent to a one-year
recurrence interval under the present climate) exceedances in mountainous terrain
mountainous terrain in California and Colorado that are potentially sus-
ceptible to the hazard (Figs. 2, 3). An increased frequency of exceedance
indicates that we may expect more opportunities for sufficiently intense
rainfall to initiate debris flows before postfire soil-hydraulic recovery and/or
vegetation regrowth can reduce susceptibility to flash floods and runoff-
generated debris flows39,50–53. Temporal changes in sediment sourcing (e.g.,
gradual entrainment from hillslopes, mass failure of the channel bed, and
shallow landsliding) have been observed to fuel multiple postfire debris
flows over the course of a rainy season in the first year after fire40,54.
Therefore, rainfall intensification could result in more postfire debris flows
for settings that are not sediment supply limited. An increased magnitude of
exceedance means that we may also expect enhanced mobilization of
sediment and other dangerous debris, which would result in greater inun-
dation depths and runout distances along developed valley bottoms,
floodplains, and fan surfaces44,55. Therefore, rainfall intensification may
result in more damaging postfire debris flows such as those associated with
the 2018 Montecito debris-flow event in Santa Barbara County, California11
npj Natural Hazards | (2024)1:14
Article
are labeled for reference, including “KLM” (Klamath Mountains), “NCR” (Northern
Coast Ranges), “Sierra Nevada” (SNV), “SCR” (Southern Coast Ranges), “TRV”
(Transverse Ranges), and “PNR” (Peninsular Ranges). State boundaries provided by
U.S. Census Bureau84.
for the HIST, FUT4.5, and FUT8.5 simulation scenarios. Several areas are labeled for
reference, including “FRG” (Front Range), “SWA” (Swatch Range), “SJM” (San Juan
Mountains), and “SDC” (Sangre de Cristo Mountains). State boundaries provided by
U.S. Census Bureau84.
(Fig. 1b). Although our focus is on debris flows generated by excessive
surface-water runoff soon after the fire, the trends in rainfall intensification
that we report in this study may also be problematic for steep, unburned
areas in the American Southwest that generally lack vegetation and are also
prone to runoff-generated debris flows56. However, our results are not
applicable to debris flows generated by landslides, for which the simulated
triggering conditions have been shown to be sensitive to the antecedent soil
saturation51.
Climate-enhanced postfire debris-flow likelihood and magnitude have
been recognized for southern California35. Our analyses, which expand on
this work, have implications for hazard planning across the American
Southwest. For example, the ratio of rainfall threshold exceedance for
FUT4.5 or FUT8.5 to HIST (Fig. 1a) could be used as a scaling factor for each
state to broadly assess to what extent rainfall intensification could affect the
frequency of threshold exceedance in areas where postfire debris flows have
been a concern in the past (e.g., RCP4.5/HIST = 2.3 for California versus 1.6
for Colorado). The relatively high spatial resolution of our results (Figs. 2, 3)
4
https://doi.org/10.1038/s44304-024-00017-8
Fig. 4 | Summary of rainfall threshold exceedance ratios and seasonality of
rainfall threshold exceedances for California, Colorado, and the American
Southwest. a Box and whisker plots that track changes in the exceedance ratio of 15-
minute rainfall intensity thresholds for the HIST, FUT4.5, and FUT8.5 simulation
scenarios for mountainous terrain throughout California and Colorado (Figs. 2, 3,
Supplementary Fig. 1), as well as for 175 burned areas across the American South-
west (i.e., Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah) where the
could also facilitate more localized planning. For example, we show that the
intensification of short-duration rainfall could be more severe in moun-
tainous areas, such as northern California (Fig. 2). This includes areas where
communities, emergency managers, and weather forecasters may be less
accustomed to contending with postfire debris, flows (relative to those in
southern California), in part because the hazard has only recently been
systematically documented26,34. Therefore, this study highlights increased
hazard potential and the benefits of prefire planning, education, and out-
reach for postfire hazards36.
We use the first available projections of 15-min rainfall for 15-year
periods at 3.75-km grid spacing in the American Southwest. We observe
npj Natural Hazards | (2024)1:14
Article
U.S. Geological Survey issued rainfall thresholds as part of emergency assessments of
postfire debris-flow hazards between 2014 and 2022 (Fig. 1a, Supplementary Fig. 1).
The boxes in a are bound by the first and third quartile, with the median indicated by
a line, and the whiskers extend from the boxes to the farthest data point within 1.5
times the inter-quartile range. The bar plots illustrate differences in the seasonality of
rainfall threshold exceedance for mountainous terrain throughout b California and
c Colorado.
rainfall intensification at the sub-hourly timescale, consistent with studies
of hourly precipitation intensification that include the Southwest14,17,18,57.
However, we recognize that representing convective processes associated
with short-duration, high-intensity rainfall in climate models is
challenging58–60. Due to the computational constraints associated with
producing simulations at such fine spatiotemporal scales, our results are
limited to downscaling a single general circulation model (GCM) reali-
zation with a single WRF configuration. Additional studies could corro-
borate our findings as outputs at similarly high spatial and temporal
resolutions become available from various modeling efforts with other
GCM inputs, downscaling model cores, and physics parameterizations.
5
https://doi.org/10.1038/s44304-024-00017-8
Future research could also assess changes in the meteorological char-
acteristics (e.g., storm types) driving over-threshold rainfall events
(including extreme mesoscale and synoptic atmospheric features) within
the context of projected changes to fire behavior. Such analyses would
provide a more in-depth explanation of the intra-seasonal changes we
observe and provide insight for forecasting high-intensity rainfall and
postfire debris flows where rainfall intensification and increased fire
activity may geographically overlap under a changing climate.
We assess the short-duration rainfall characteristics that most com-
monly trigger debris flows in the first two years after wildfire in the western
United States. Short-duration, high-intensity rainfall produces excessive
surface-water runoff that can rapidly amplify stream power and mobilize
debris, particularly in low-order catchments where the time-to-
concentration is short7. Our analyses of burned areas rely on short-
duration rainfall thresholds calculated for recent wildfires using an empirical
model that was trained on debris-flow observations from southern Cali-
fornia and has been tested against hundreds of debris-flow observations
across Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, and Utah22,38. Our
statewide analyses rely on the known recurrence interval of the short-
duration rainfall intensities associated with these same debris-flow
observations8; therefore, our analyses could be extended beyond California
and Colorado as part of a future study. The control of short-duration rainfall
on debris-flow triggering soon after fire has also proven valid for the highly
destructive debris flows that followed recent megafires (>100,000 acres) in
central and northern California26,34. However, we refrain from expanding
our analyses to the Pacific Northwest, where the effect of short-duration
rainfall on debris-flow generation after wildfire is considerably more
uncertain61 and short-duration precipitation frequency data for the present
climate41 is unavailable (Supplementary Fig. 1). The recent wave of very large,
high-severity wildfires in the Pacific Northwest62 underscores the value of
field-verified inventories of debris-flow occurrence to support the refine-
ment of conceptual models for the conditions that trigger postfire debris
flows in this area and short-duration precipitation frequency data that can be
used to support climate analyses like those we present here.
Topographic steepness, soil burn severity, and soil erodibility are
important factors that influence susceptibility to postfire debris flows22,38.
We implicitly account for these factors in our analyses of burned areas where
postfire debris flows have been a concern in the recent past; however, our
statewide analyses of mountainous terrain do not consider future fire
behavior or changes in sediment availability. Increased wildfire activity is
projected across our study area in the mid-to-late 21st century and is gen-
erally expected to enhance soil erosion across many watersheds in the
western United States63, although there is spatial variability in these wildfire
projections64–66. Furthermore, changes to ecological succession/transition
that are expected to accompany climate change67 may affect regional burn
severity and recovery characteristics. We prioritize a focus on changes in
rainfall because previous work has indicated that future debris-flow activity
will be more sensitive to rainfall intensification than increases in fire fre-
quency and severity, at least for areas dominated by shrubland vegetation35.
We also recognize that regional variability in soil and rock properties and
their connection to sediment availability is an important susceptibility
factor. Loose, unconsolidated materials lining channels and mantling hill-
slopes are thought to contribute to postfire debris-flow susceptibility across a
wide range of geologic conditions68, but these kinds of deposits have not yet
been systematically identified at the spatial scales that we explore for this
study. Therefore, while our statewide rainfall threshold exceedance maps
(Figs. 2, 3) identify where we may expect an amplification of rainfall con-
ditions that are conducive to triggering postfire debris flows, more work
would be helpful to identify regional factors that could affect debris-flow
susceptibility.
Methods
Climate data
We analyzed a set of convection-permitting (3.75-km horizontal grid spa-
cing) climate simulations that were dynamically downscaled using the
npj Natural Hazards | (2024)1:14
Article
Weather Research and Forecasting-Advanced Research WRF model
(WRF-ARW) Version 4.1.269. Initial and lateral boundary conditions for
WRF-ARW were taken from the bias-corrected70 output from Phase 5 of the
Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5)71 version of the National
Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Community Earth System
Model (CESM)72,73. Bias correction prior to dynamic downscaling improves
regional simulation performance, particularly for temperature and
precipitation74,75.
For climate comparisons, we examined three, 15-year epochs: (1) a
historical period (HIST) spanning 1 October 1990–30 September 2005 and
(2,3) a late-21st century period (FUT) spanning 1 October 2085–30 Sep-
tember 2100 under Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5
(FUT4.5) and 8.5 (FUT8.5). RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 characterize intermediate
and pessimistic future emissions scenarios, respectively. The simulations
used spectral nudging every six hours, an approach where regional climate
models are driven by select spatial scales associated with the general cir-
culation model76, to maintain consistency of synoptic-scale features between
the general circulation model (GCM) and the higher-resolution WRF-ARW
domain at the boundaries77,78. Mesoscale phenomena are not nudged and
are, therefore, allowed to dynamically evolve within the model domain. This
simulation dataset, which we refer to as WRF-BCC, is one of the only
available with archived 15-min rainfall over multiple climate epochs, thus
permitting our novel analysis of short-duration rainfall in a climate change
framework.
A comparison of WRF-BCC HIST precipitation data was performed37
against the Parameter-elevation Regressions on the Independent Slopes
Model (PRISM)79 and a gridded precipitation observation ensemble
dataset80 (originates from over 12,000 unique surface stations) that accounts
for observational uncertainty resulting from issues like gage undercatch,
complex terrain, and low station density. WRF-BCC HIST and PRISM
showed 0.91 Pearson’s r correlation for average annual and monthly pre-
cipitation, with a bias smaller than at least one ensemble member of
observations. A broad dry bias was noted in the southeast, east, and
northeast United States, whereas WRF-BCC HIST simulations were found
to have a wet bias in most of the Northern Plains and Intermountain West
during DJF when compared to observations. Overall, the biases are not
statistically significant at the 90% significance level using a Mann–Whitney
U test for the medians, and it is plausible that some of the wet bias in the high
elevations of the Intermountain West is due to a lack of reliable observations.
Rainfall thresholds
Our analyses focus on two spatial subsets of the WRF-BCC simulation
output: (1) 175 burned areas across the Southwest (i.e., Arizona, California,
Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah) where the USGS conducted
emergency assessments of postfire debris-flow hazards32 between 2014 and
2022, and (2) mountainous terrain81 throughout California and Colorado
(Fig. 5a, Supplementary Fig. 1). Each USGS hazard assessment includes an
estimate of the 15-min rainfall intensity (I15) needed to generate postfire
debris flows. These rainfall thresholds are based on a logistic regression22,38
that predicts the statistical likelihood (i.e., a value ranging from 0 to 1) of
postfire debris flows based on the topographic slope, soil burn severity, and
soil erodibility along stream segments and at drainage basin outlets. The
rainfall thresholds that we used were calculated for a likelihood of 0.5, a value
that has been widely applied to estimate debris-flow triggering conditions in
the western United States32. This likelihood-based rainfall threshold
approach has been shown to generally perform as well, and in some cases
better than, preexisting regional rainfall thresholds in Arizona, Colorado,
Montana, and New Mexico38, and has also performed similarly well in areas
with no preexisting regional thresholds34.
To ensure consistency between our two types of threshold analyses, we
conducted a rainfall intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) analysis for each
WRF-BCC HIST grid cell-of-interest (e.g., Fig. 5a) using a partial-duration
series approach82. For our statewide analyses, we assumed spatially variable
I15 thresholds that are equivalent to the one-year rainfall recurrence interval8
for HIST. For our burned area analyses, we used the median of the
6
https://doi.org/10.1038/s44304-024-00017-8 Article

Fig. 5 | Conceptual overview of the methodology

for tracking rainfall threshold exceedances. a For
our analyses of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)-asses-
sed fires, we selected the Weather Research and
Forecasting Model-Bias Corrected Community Earth
System Model (WRF-BCC) cells in the American
Southwest (i.e., Arizona, California, Colorado,
Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah) within burn peri-
meters where, between 2014 and 2022, the USGS
issued rainfall thresholds as part of an emergency
assessment of postfire debris-flow hazards (Supple-
mentary Fig. 1). For our statewide analyses, we selected
the WRF-BCC cells that intersected mountainous
terrain throughout the State of California and Color-
ado and applied a 10-km buffer. Mountainous terrain
map provided by USGS81. State boundaries provided
by U.S. Census Bureau84. b For each WRF-BCC cell
that we selected for our assessment-based analyses, we
developed log-linear fits to predict the recurrence
intervals (RIs) of local 15-minute rainfall rates. We
used these expressions to convert USGS rainfall
thresholds (e.g., dashed blue arrow) to rainfall RI
thresholds (e.g., dashed orange arrow). We assume 15-
min rainfall RI thresholds equal to one year (under the
present climate) for our statewide analyses. c We then
conducted a rainfall intensity-duration-frequency
analysis for each WRF-BCC cell and used power fits to
convert rainfall RI thresholds to WRF-BCC rainfall
thresholds (dashed gray arrow). d Finally, we tracked
WRF-BCC rainfall threshold exceedances (e.g., orange
bar) for the historical (HIST, 1990–2005) and late
21st-century RCP 4.5/8.5 (FUT, 2085–2100) scenarios.

USGS-based I15 thresholds32 that were calculated among drainage basin
outlets (a metric commonly distributed for hazard guidance) for each fire
and converted the I15 thresholds into rainfall recurrence intervals using
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 14
precipitation frequency data41 (Fig. 5b). We used NOAA Atlas 14 pre-
cipitation data to calculate the recurrence interval of the USGS-based I15
thresholds because we found that WRF-BCC HIST could underestimate the
frequency of short-duration, high-intensity rainfall relative to estimates
from NOAA. The median recurrence interval associated with the USGS-
based I15 thresholds (1.6 years) is similar to the return period that we used
for our statewide threshold analyses (1 year) and consistent with previous
research8. We then used the IDF analyses to convert the recurrence intervals
into equivalent WRF-BCC I15 thresholds (Fig. 5c). We only retained WRF-
BCC I15 thresholds for our analyses if the log-linear and power fit that we
used to calculate rainfall recurrence intervals (Fig. 5b) and rainfall thresholds
(Fig. 5c) resulted in a coefficient of determination (R2) ≥ 0.9.
We identified three straightforward metrics to characterize future
trends in the frequency, magnitude, and seasonality of postfire debris-flow
triggering conditions with the WRF-BCC simulation output: (1) the mean
annual I15 threshold exceedance rate, (2) the mean I15 threshold exceedance
ratio, and (3) the mean seasonality of I15 threshold exceedance. To calculate
these metrics for a given WRF-BCC grid cell with the associated HIST,
FUT4.5, and FUT8.5 simulation timeseries, we tallied each I15 exceedance
(Fig. 5d), computed the ratio of the simulated I15 to the I15 threshold for each
exceedance, and organized the exceedances into monthly bins and seasonal
breaks (i.e., October–May, cool season; June–September, warm season).
Data availability
The WRF-BCC HIST, FUT4.5, and FUT8.5 simulation output that we used
to conduct our analyses are available via a public-facing digital repository at
https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.n2z34tn3c, https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.
4qrfj6qgn, and https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.nvx0k6dzm. We request
that anyone interested in using the WRF-BCC model output contact VG
(vgensini@niu.edu) for additional information, including any collaboration.
The USGS emergency assessment of postfire debris-flow hazard data is
available at https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/c09fa874362
e48a9afe79432f2efe6fe. The NOAA precipitation frequency data are avail-
able at https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/pfds/.
Received: 27 October 2023; Accepted: 24 April 2024;
References
1. Rooney, B. et al. Air quality impact of the Northern California Camp
Fire of November 2018. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 20, 14597–14616
(2020).
2. Schulze, S. S., Fischer, E. C., Hamideh, S. & Mahmoud, H. Wildfire
impacts on schools and hospitals following the 2018 California Camp
Fire. Nat. Hazards 104, 901–925 (2020).
3. Collar, N. M. & Earles, T. A. Unique challenges posed by fire
disturbance to water supply management and transfer agreements in
a headwaters region. J. Environ. Manag. 339, 117956 (2023).
4. Wells, W. G. The effects of fire on the generation of debris flows in
Southern California. In Debris Flows/Avalanches (eds. Costa J. E. &
Wieczorek G. F.) 105–114 (Geological Society of America, 1987).
5. Cannon, S. H. Debris-flow generation from recently burned
watersheds. Environ. Eng. Geosci. 7, 321–341 (2001).
6. Kean, J. W., McGuire, L. A., Rengers, F. K., Smith, J. B. & Staley, D. M.
Amplification of post wildfire peak flow by debris. Geophys. Res. Lett.
43, 8545–8553 (2016).
7. Kean, J. W., Staley, D. M. & Cannon, S. H. In situ measurements of
post-fire debris flows in southern California: comparisons of the timing
and magnitude of 24 debris-flow events with rainfall and soil moisture
conditions. J. Geophys. Res. 116, F04019 (2011).

npj Natural Hazards | (2024)1:14 7

https://doi.org/10.1038/s44304-024-00017-8
8. Staley, D. M., Kean, J. W. & Rengers, F. K. The recurrence interval of
post-fire debris-flow generating rainfall in the southwestern United
States. Geomorphology 370, 107392 (2020).
9. DeGraff, J. V., Cannon, S. H. & Gartner, J. E. Timing of susceptibility to
post-fire debris flows in the western USA. Environ. Eng. Geosci. 21,
277–292 (2015).
10. Cannon, S. H., Gartner, J. E., Wilson, R. C., Bowers, J. C. & Laber, J. L.
Storm rainfall conditions for floods and debris flows from recently
burned areas in southwestern Colorado and Southern California.
Geomorphology 96, 250–269 (2008).
11. Lancaster, J. T. et al. Observations and analyses of the 9 January 2018
debris-flow disaster, Santa Barbara County, California. Environ. Eng.
Geosci. 27, 3–27 (2021).
12. Westra, S. et al. Future changes to the intensity and frequency of
short-duration extreme rainfall. Rev. Geophys. 52, 522–555 (2014).
13. Ali, H., Fowler, H. J. & Mishra, V. Global observational evidence of
strong linkage between dew point temperature and precipitation
extremes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 12320–12330 (2018).
14. Cannon, A. J. & Innocenti, S. Projected intensification of sub-daily and
daily rainfall extremes in convection-permitting climate model
simulations over North America: implications for future
intensity–duration–frequency curves. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 19,
421–440 (2019).
15. Fowler, H. J. et al. Anthropogenic intensification of short-duration
rainfall extremes. Nat. Rev. Earth. Environ. 2, 107–122 (2021).
16. Berg, P. & Haerter, J. O. Unexpected increases in precipitation
intensity with temperature—a result of mixing precipitation types?
Atmos. Res. 119, 56–61 (2013).
17. Huang, X., Swain, D. L. & Hall, A. D. Future precipitation increase from
very high resolution ensemble downscaling of extreme atmospheric
river storms in California. Sci. Adv. 6, eaba1323 (2020).
18. Prein, A. F. et al. The future intensification of hourly precipitation
extremes. Nat. Clim. Chang. 7, 48–52 (2017).
19. Ali, H., Fowler, H. J., Lenderink, G., Lewis, E. & Pritchard, D.
Consistent large-scale response of hourly extreme rainfall to
temperature variation over land. Geophys. Res. Lett. 48,
e2020GL090317 (2021).
20. Haberlie, A. M., Ashley, W. S., Gensini, V. A. & Michaelis, A. C. The ratio
of mesoscale convective system precipitation to total precipitation
increase in future climate change scenarios. npj Clim. Atmos. Sci. 6,
150 (2023).
21. Touma, D. et al. Climate change increases risk of extreme rainfall
following wildfire in the western United States. Sci. Adv. 8,
eabm0320 (2022).
22. Staley, D. M. et al. Updated Logistic Regression Equations for the
Calculation of Post-fire Debris-flow Likelihood in the Western United
States. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016-1106, 1–13
(U.S. Geological Survey, 2016).
23. Oakley, N. S., Lancaster, J. T., Kaplan, M. L. & Ralph, F. M. Synoptic
conditions associated with cool season post-fire debris flows in the
Transverse Ranges of Southern California. Nat. Hazards 88,
327–354 (2017).
24. Oakley, N. S. et al. Meteorological and climatological conditions
associated with the 9 January 2018 post-fire debris flows in Montecito
and Carpinteria, California, USA. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 18,
3037–3043 (2018).
25. de Orla-Barile, M., Cannon, F., Oakley, N. S. & Ralph, F. M. A
climatology of narrow cold-frontal rainbands in southern California.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 49, e2021GL095362 (2021).
26. Thomas, M. A. et al. The rainfall intensity-duration control of debris
flows after wildfire. Geophys. Res. Lett. 50, e2023GL103645 (2023).
27. Gorr, A. N., McGuire, L. A., Beers, R. & Hoch, O. J. Triggering
conditions, runout, and downstream impacts of debris flows following
the 2021 Flag Fire, Arizona, USA. Nat. Hazards 117,
2473–2504 (2023).
npj Natural Hazards | (2024)1:14
Article
28. McGuire, L. A. et al. Characteristics of debris flow prone watersheds
and triggering rainstorms following the Tadpole Fire, New Mexico
USA. Nat. Hazards Earth Sys. 24, 1357–1379 (2024).
29. Rengers, F. K. et al. Evaluating post-wildfire debris flow rainfall
thresholds and volume models at the 2020 Grizzly Creek Fire in
Glenwood Canyon, Colorado, USA. EGUsphere https://doi.org/10.
5194/egusphere-2023-2063 (2023).
30. Blake, E. The 2022 eastern Pacific hurricane season an above average
season with five landfalls. Weatherwise 76, 27–35 (2023).
31. Abatzoglou, J. T. & Williams, A. P. Impact of anthropogenic climate
change on wildfire across western US forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA 113, 11770–11775 (2016).
32. United States Geological Survey (USGS). Emergency Assessment of
Post-Fire Debris-Flow Hazards. Landslide Hazards Program https://
usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/c09fa874362e48a9afe
79432f2efe6fe (2023).
33. Wall, S. A., Roering, J. J. & Rengers, F. K. Runoff-initiated post-fire
debris flow Western Cascades, Oregon. Landslides 17,
1649–1661 (2020).
34. Thomas, M. A. et al. Postfire hydrologic response along the Central
California (USA) coast: insights for the emergency assessment of
postfire debris-flow hazards. Landslides 20, 2421–2436 (2023).
35. Kean, J. W. & Staley, D. M. Forecasting the frequency and magnitude
of postfire debris flows across Southern California. Earths Future 9,
e2020EF001735 (2021).
36. Oakley, N. S. A warming climate adds complexity to post‐fire
hydrologic hazard planning. Earths Future 9, e2021EF002149 (2021).
37. Gensini, V. A., Haberlie, A. M. & Ashley, W. S. Convection-permitting
simulations of historical and possible future climate over the
contiguous United States. Clim. Dyn. 60, 109–126 (2023).
38. Staley, D. M. et al. Prediction of spatially explicit rainfall
intensity–duration thresholds for post-fire debris-flow generation in
the Western United States. Geomorphology 278, 149–162 (2017).
39. Hoch, O. J., McGuire, L. A., Youberg, A. M. & Rengers, F. K.
Hydrogeomorphic recovery and temporal changes in rainfall
thresholds for debris flows following wildfire. J. Geophys. Res. Earth.
Surf. 126, e2021JF006374 (2021).
40. Tang, H. et al. Evolution of debris‐flow initiation mechanisms and
sediment sources during a sequence of postwildfire rainstorms. J.
Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 124, 1572–1595 (2019).
41. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Precipitation Frequency Data Server. Hydrometeorological Design
Studies Center (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), 2023).
42. AghaKouchak, A., Ragno, E., Love, C. & Moftakhari, H. Projected
Changes in California’s Precipitation Intensity-Duration-Frequency
Curves. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment CCCA4-
CEC-2018-005, 1–32 (California Energy Commission, 2018).
43. Gershunov, A. et al. Precipitation regime change in western North
America: the role of atmospheric rivers. Sci. Rep. 9, 9944 (2019).
44. Gartner, J. E., Cannon, S. H. & Santi, P. M. Empirical models for
predicting volumes of sediment deposited by debris flows and
sediment-laden floods in the transverse ranges of southern California.
Eng. Geol. 176, 45–56 (2014).
45. Swain, D. L., Langenbrunner, B., Neelin, J. D. & Hall, A. Increasing
precipitation volatility in twenty-first century California. Nat. Clim.
Change. 8, 427–433 (2018).
46. Rhoades, A. M. et al. Asymmetric emergency of low-to-no snow in the
midlatitudes of the American Cordillera. Nat. Clim. Change. 12,
1151–1159 (2022).
47. Douville, H. K. et al. Water cycle changes. In Climate Change 2021:
The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (eds. Masson-Delmotte, V. P. et al.) 1055–1210 (Cambridge
University Press, 2021).
8
https://doi.org/10.1038/s44304-024-00017-8
48. Chand, S. S., Tory, K. J., Ye, H. & Walsh, K. J. Projected increase in El
Niño-driven tropical cyclone frequency in the Pacific. Nat. Clim.
Change 7, 123–127 (2017).
49. Knutson, T. et al. Tropical cyclones and climate change assessment:
part II: projected response to anthropogenic warming. Bull. Am.
Meteorol. Soc. 101, 303–322 (2020).
50. Ebel, B. A. Temporal evolution of measured and simulated infiltration
following wildfire in the Colorado Front Range, USA: shifting
thresholds of runoff generation and hydrologic hazards. J. Hydrol.
585, 124765 (2020).
51. Thomas, M. A. et al. Postwildfire soil‐hydraulic recovery and the
persistence of debris flow hazards. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 126,
e2021JF006091 (2021).
52. Perkins, J. P. et al. Multi‐stage soil‐hydraulic recovery and limited
ravel accumulations following the 2017 Nuns and Tubbs wildfires in
Northern California. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 127,
e2022JF006591 (2022).
53. Graber, A. P., Thomas, M. A. & Kean, J. W. How long do runoff-
generated debris-flow hazards persist after wildfire? Geophys. Res.
Lett. 50, e2023GL105101 (2023).
54. Guilinger, J. J. et al. Predicting postfire sediment yields of small steep
catchments using airborne lidar differencing. Geophys. Res. Lett. 50,
e2023GL104626 (2023).
55. Barnhart et al. Multi-model comparison of computed debris-flow
runout for the 9 January 2018 Montecito, California post-wildfire
event. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 126, e2021JF006245 (2021).
56. Coe, J. A., Kinner, D. A. & Godt, J. W. Initiation conditions for debris
flows generated by runoff at Chalk Cliffs, central Colorado.
Geomorphology 96, 270–297 (2008).
57. Kendon, E. J. et al. Do convection-permitting regional climate models
improve projections of future precipitation change? Bull. Am.
Meteorol. Soc. 98, 79–93 (2017).
58. Prein, A. F. et al. A review on regional convection-permitting climate
modeling: demonstrations, prospects, and challenges. Rev.
Geophys. 53, 323–361 (2015).
59. Haarsma, R. J. High resolution model Intercomparison Project
(HighResMIP v1.0) for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 53,
323–361 (2016).
60. Roberts, M. J. et al. The benefits of global high resolution for climate
simulation: process understanding and enabling of stakeholder
decisions at the regional scale. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 99,
2341–2359 (2018).
61. Wondzell, S. M. & King, J. G. Postfire erosional processes in the
Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain Regions. For. Ecol. Manag.
178, 75–87 (2003).
62. Abatzoglou, J. T., Rupp, D. E., O’Neill, L. W. & Sadegh, M. Compound
extremes drive the western Oregon wildfires of September 2020.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 48, e2021GL092520 (2021).
63. Sankey, J. B. et al. Climate, wildfire, and erosion ensemble foretells
more sediment in western USA watersheds. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44,
8884–8892 (2017).
64. Stavros, E. N., Abatzoglou, J. T., McKenzie, D. & Larkin, N. Regional
projections of the likelihood of very large wildland fires under a
changing climate in the contiguous Western United States. Clim.
Change 126, 455–468 (2014).
65. Westerling, A. L. Wildfire Simulations for California’s Fourth Climate
Change Assessment: Projecting Changes in Extreme Wildfire Events
with a Warming Climate. CCCA4-CEC-2018-014, 1–57 (California
Energy Commission, 2018).
66. Abatzoglou, J. T. et al. Projected increases in western US forest fire
despite growing fuel constraints. Commun. Earth Environ. 2,
227 (2021).
67. Hill, A. P. & Field, C. B. Forest fires and climate-induced tree range
shifts in the western US. Nat. Commun. 12, 6583 (2021).
npj Natural Hazards | (2024)1:14
Article
68. Cannon, S. H. & Gartner, J. E. Wildfire-related debris flow from a
hazards perspective. In Debris-Flow Hazards and Related Phenomena
(eds. Jakob M. & Hungr O.) 363–385 (Springer, 2005).
69. Skamarock, W. C. et al. A Description of the Advanced Research WRF
Model Version 4.3. NCAR/TN-556+STR, 1–148 (National Center for
Atmospheric Research, 2021).
70. Bruyère, C. L., Done, J. M., Holland, G. J. & Fredrick, S. Bias
corrections of global models for regional climate simulations of high-
impact weather. Clim. Dyn. 43, 1847–1856 (2014).
71. Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J. & Meehl, G. A. An overview of CMIP5
and the experiment design. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93,
485–498 (2012).
72. Hurrell, J. W. et al. The Community Earth System Model: a framework
for collaborative research. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 94,
1339–1360 (2013).
73. Monaghan, A. J., Steinhoff, D. F., Bruyère, C. L. & Yates, D. NCAR
CESM Global Bias-Corrected CMIP5 Output to Support WRF/MPAS
Research https://doi.org/10.5065/D6DJ5CN4 (2014).
74. Ines, A. V. M. & Hansen, J. W. Bias correction of daily GCM rainfall for
crop simulation studies. Agric. For. Meteorol. 138, 44–53 (2006).
75. Christensen, J. H., Boberg, F., Christensen, O. B. & Lucas-Picher, P.
On the need for bias correction of regional climate change projections
of temperature and precipitation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35,
L20709 (2008).
76. Omrani, H., Drobinski, P. & Dubos, T. Spectral nudging in regional
climate modelling: how strongly should we nudge? Q. J. R. Meteorol.
Soc. 138, 1808–1813 (2012).
77. von Storch, H., Langenberg, H. & Feser, F. A spectral nudging
technique for dynamical downscaling purposes. Mon. Weather Rev.
128, 3664–3673 (2000).
78. Feser, F., Rockel, B., von Storch, H., Winterfeldt, J. & Zahn, M.
Regional climate models add value to global model data: a review
and selected examples. Bull. Am. Meteor. Soc. 92,
1181–1192 (2011).
79. Daly, C., Neilson, R. P. & Phillips, D. L. A statistical-topographic model
for mapping climatological precipitation over mountainous terrain. J.
Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 33, 140–158 (1994).
80. Newman, A. J. et al. Gridded ensemble precipitation and temperature
estimates for the contiguous U.S. J. Hydrometeorol. 16,
2481–2500 (2015).
81. United States Geological Survey (USGS). Global Mountain Explorer
2.0. K3. https://rmgsc.cr.usgs.gov/gme/ (2023).
82. Dunne, T. & Leopold, L. B. Water in Environmental Planning
(Freeman, 1978).
83. Environmental Systems Research Institute. World Shaded Relief
https://hub.arcgis.com/maps/9c5370d0b54f4de1b48a3792d737
7ff2/about (2019).
84. United States Census Bureau. State Boundaries (Generalized for
Mapping) https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/
52c78623e4b060b9ebca5be5 (2011).
Acknowledgements
We conducted our rainfall analyses using the Comet supercomputer,
which is hosted by the San Diego Supercomputer Center at the
University of California, San Diego. This computational resource was
made available by the Atmospheric River Program (Phases 2 and 3),
which is supported by the California Department of Water Resources
(awards 4600013361 and 4600014294, respectively) and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center (award
USACE W912HZ-15-2-0019). We extend a special thanks to Patrick
Mulrooney at the Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes for his
technical support with Comet. We also acknowledge the high-
performance computing resources provided by the Cheyenne super-
computer, which is hosted by the National Center for Atmospheric
9
https://doi.org/10.1038/s44304-024-00017-8
Research (NCAR) Computational and Information Systems Laboratory
and sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF). M.A.T. and
J.W.K. were supported by the USGS Landslide Hazards Program. A.C.M.
was supported by NSF grant AGS-2203516, the California Department of
Water Resources (DWR) AR Program, and the U.S. Bureau of Recla-
mation project R15AC00003. V.A.G. and W.S.A. were supported by NSF
grants 1637225 and 1800582. We appreciate the constructive feedback
provided by Joel B. Sankey, Joseph E. Gartner, and three anonymous
reviewers, which improved our manuscript. Any use of trade, firm, or
product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply
endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Author contributions
M.A.T. conducted the analyses and compiled the manuscript with input from
all authors. A.C.M. processed the climate model data. A.C.M., N.S.O., and
J.W.K. contributed to concept development. V.A.G. and W.S.A. provided the
climate model data and expertise.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Supplementary information The online version contains
supplementary material available at
https://doi.org/10.1038/s44304-024-00017-8.
npj Natural Hazards | (2024)1:14
Article
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to
Matthew A. Thomas.
Reprints and permissions information is available at
http://www.nature.com/reprints
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the
article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted
by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to
obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
© The Author(s). Parts of this work were authored by US Federal Government
authors and are not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright
protection may apply 2024
10